Animal consciousness refers to the experiences or conscious sensation during states of wakeful processing of sensory perception, imagery or dreaming in non-human subjects. The concept is often raised and discussed in relation to animal welfare in bio-industrial farming, animal experimentation for biomedical purposes, and animal rights. 

—

In recent years, there have been debates about whether animals, other than humans, have consciousness like we do. To look into the matter, we must first take a step back and understand what consciousness actually means.

A conscious being can be defined to be having subjective experiences of the world and its own body. If you are having a mental experience, you are conscious. We take “experience” to denote the conscious sensation during states of wakeful processing of sensory perception, imagery or dreaming. A motion sensor might be able to sense the environment, but it is probably not aware that it could do so. In clinical practice, states of consciousness are mainly probed by prompting patients to report events with accuracy, usually by verbal expression. A physician would ask patients whether they feel a touch to the skin, hear a particular tone or see a stimulus presented on a screen for example. 

Obviously, since non-human subjects cannot verbally report their experiences, there are very limited neurological methods that can fully study how their mental processes work. Scientists can only describe what they’re able to do, but not explicitly anything of their minds. If we conclude however, that animals do not have consciousness just because of the absence of their verbal report, would we say the same about preverbal infants and patients in a minimally conscious state?

By observing animal behaviour, we can see that they react to the environment too: fight, flight, or curiosity. If we watch mammals or even birds, we will see how they respond to the world. They play. They act frightened when they are in danger. They relax when the environment is calm. In their behaviour, birds appear to offer neurophysiology and neuroanatomy a striking case of parallel evolution of consciousness. There is evidence of near-human-like levels of consciousness observed in African grey parrots. With their incredible intricacies of behaviour, vast ranges of personalities, and the display of play, sleep, fear, and love, it is logical to say that animals possess consciousness the way humans do. 

You might also like: World Animal Day: Re-evaluating Our Relationship with Animals

Professor Cartmil made a compelling case about consciousness with a concept as simple as “sleeping” in his article Do Horses Gallop in Their Sleep?. Consciousness depletes something in the waking brain, and we cannot keep it up indefinitely. If we stay up and force ourselves to be conscious, we soon start manifesting pathological symptoms, starting with irritability and proceeding through fainting and hallucinations to metabolic collapse and death. The need to sleep is thus not imposed upon us by our environment, but by the needs of the brain itself. If sleeping serves to restore what is depleted by our consciousness, it is reasonable to think that animals that have to sleep are conscious when they are awake. The natural inference is that the waking state in animals is also something like ours.

Not only that, animals also possess a special emotion that many people think only humans show – empathy. In one of the many documented stories of elephants accompanying people, an old woman got lost because she could not see well. She was found the next day with elephants guarding her, encasing her in a cage of branches to protect her from hyenas. One ecologist even witnessed a humpback whale sweeping a seal out of the water and onto its fin to keep it away from nearby killer whales. Though incidents like these seem extraordinary to us because we have only recently documented them, animals have probably been doing these things for millions of years.

The study of animal consciousness has tremendous implications on animal sentience in relation to animal welfare in bio-industrial farming, in procedures for ritual slaughter for example; animal experimentation for biomedical purposes, and also in domestic pet keeping.

It also gives rise to the interesting question of whether machines have a level of sentience or consciousness, and ipso facto may be entitled to certain rights and moral status, given that Artificial Intelligence is developing at such a rapid speed that supra-human performance can be claimed in many areas through self-play. 

Must different species be treated differently depending on their display of moral traits, their history of altruistic deeds, their ability to experience and show emotion, and their specific level of consciousness? Must we have a bill of animal rights in place that can guide us in what is proper and lawful conduct in relation to specific species? How will this impact our diets and dependence on certain animals for food security? And at what level can ethics come into play? These are just some of the many questions researchers and policymakers, with further research, will be able to address in time. 

Featured image by: Pxfuel

This article was originally published on October 6, 2021

The post Explainer: What Is Animal Consciousness? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Cities generate 80% of gross domestic product, they are the engines of economic growth and have lifted millions out of poverty. As rural to urban migration is accelerating, sustainable cities are emerging to achieve idyllic urban settings. Here are the top five most sustainable cities in the world right now. 

—

Technology is growing at a rapid pace every day. As each new technology brings with it an immense pool of possibilities, governments around the world are continuously investing in smart city technologies and incorporating them into their policy-making decisions and the developments of the cities they govern. 

By leveraging connected technology, most sustainable cities are able to improve their operations and people’s lives in many different ways such as by enabling data-driven decision-making powered by “big data”, increasing civic engagement through enhanced transparency, reducing environmental footprint as a result of the development of energy-efficient buildings and investment in renewable energies, and improving the transport network. 

UK-based company Uswitch recently came up with a list of the most sustainable cities in the world, ranking them with a score based on energy, transport infrastructure, affordability, pollution, air quality, CO2 emissions, and percentage of green space. The scores are out of 600 (600 being the best). To fully understand how technology can be beneficial, we can examine how the top smart cities in the world are making use of the latest technologies in the most practical ways to support their sustainability goals. 

1. Wellington, New Zealand

Pollution from our everyday lifestyle is one of the most common contributors to climate change. In Wellington, however, that does not seem to be the case. The city scores a pollution index of 13.66, meaning for every 100 air particles, only 13.66 are polluted. Wellington’s air is clean for several reasons. For starters, the population of just 213,000 living there are relatively sparse compared to other regions. Unlike countries filled with large factories, Wellington’s main industries are horticulture, agriculture, fishing, and tourism. 

It is home to organisations advancing in circular economic agendas such as Kaibosh, Powershop, Flick, and Whare Hauora, with the city regularly funding startups to assist finding new solutions to address social issues.

Wellington has adopted circular economy principles in its design of smart city infrastructure, allowing countless components to be reused, remanufactured, and replaced in ways that support continued improvement. These infrastructures are also complementing projects that help conserve the environment, such as Predator Free Wellington, which is a strategy eradicating pests from the city in order for bird life to thrive. The number of birds is counted by sensors with TensorFlow capabilities. 

2. Zurich, Switzerland

Although Zurich is known for its financial powers, it is also one of the leading smart cities when it comes to sustainability. The city’s smart initiatives mainly focus on education, efficient public transport, waste-reduction goals, and the use of renewable energies. 

In a place where sustainable mobility and public transport are all heavily promoted, Zurich is also known as “a biker’s haven”. Similar to Copenhagen, there are bikes offered all over the city free of charge. Zurich has been building dedicated cycling tracks and car-free roads, some of which already cover almost 20,000 km of Swiss soil and are perfectly coordinated with public transportation to ensure seamless transport. 

The construction of new housing and public buildings needs to comply with strict sustainable-building principles, with businesses and industries being held accountable for their energy consumption and waste-reduction goals. As of today, 70% of hotels in the city are sustainable certified. 

Zurich is able to produce 80% of its electricity with renewable energy sources. Over 40% of its waste gets recycled. 94% of old glass and 81% of polyethylene terephthalate containers arrive at special collection points instead of ending up in household bins. 

You might also like: 4 Commonly-Used Smart City Technologies

Skiing in Copenhill. Photo by: Wikimedia Commons

3. Copenhagen, Denmark

Copenhagen has multiple sustainability initiatives in place to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2025. Buses are making the transition from diesel to electric, while more roads are devoted to cycling. People are getting more accustomed to cycling than driving to get around, with only 29% of households owning a car. 

Over two-thirds of the city’s hotels are eco-certified and provide bicycles for rentals. Each hotel has an environmental manager to ensure industry-leading sustainability standards. 

A quarter of the city’s total food sale is made up of organic produce. Even fast food options such pizzas, hot dogs, burgers, and craft beers are produced with organic ingredients here. 

One of Copenhagen’s significant landmarks, Copenhill, is an incredibly efficient energy plant that turns waste into energy that helps power houses and buildings. The facility is also covered by a year-round artificial snow slope – one of the longest in the world – for skiing and snowboarding, 

4. Madrid, Spain

Madrid’s well-publicised move to ban polluting vehicles in the urban centre is considered one of the most significant actions taken by a European city to improve air quality.

In addressing the impending threats of climate change, the city’s municipal government introduced the “Strategic Plan of Green Areas, Trees and Biodiversity of the City of Madrid”. It believes that green infrastructure investments bring benefits by expanding and restoring gardens and parks, improving diversity, and minimising air pollution through improved traffic management. Madrid is currently building a green wall around the city, as well as a 75-kilometre forest with nearly half a million new trees. 

To meet the city’s nitrogen reduction goals this year, diesel cars have been completely banned from the city centre. This would also make the city significantly more pedestrian-friendly. While some plans to turn car lanes into pedestrian walkways and cycling lanes are in motion, the city is also introducing more green transport options and installing more docking stations for bicycles, all so that people are encouraged to leave their cars at home. If residents do not fancy riding a bike, they can still hop on Madrid’s 78 electric-powered buses.

You might also like: Top 7 Smart Cities in the World and How They Do It

5. Canberra, Australia

Whether it is about renewable energies, pollution levels, traffic management, affordability of property, percentage of green space, or CO2 emissions, Canberra takes the top spot among the most sustainable cities around the world.  According to Uswitch, Canberra is the most sustainable city in the world due to its reliance on renewable energy and large amounts of green space. What’s more,  87% of Canberra’s transport infrastructure is green. The country’s capital relies heavily on the use of solar power and nearby wind farms, while having ensured that 94% of its residents have access to the internet to make it a connected city. 

Through the 2020-21 budget, the government offered a number of initiatives to support Canberra residents through the transitions. For example, zero-interest loans will be available for eligible households to finance a range of products that would reduce household emissions such as installing solar panels on rooftops, household battery storage, and efficient electric appliances. To further encourage green transport, zero-emission vehicles acquired between 24 May 2021 and 30 June 2024 will receive two years of free registration.

Canberra is the first city outside of Europe to be powered by 100% renewable energy. The territory government also aims to have a net-zero carbon emission by 2045.  

The post Top 5 Most Sustainable Cities in the World appeared first on Earth.Org.

Hawaii might be a tropical paradise for tourists, but the same can’t be said for its local residents. The sacred islands have a lot to offer, but with the onslaught of visitors, the environment and its residents are the ones paying the price. Here, we examine the causes and impacts of water shortage in Hawaii, and solution recommendations. 

—

Hawaii has long been known for its  tropical paradise sceneries and beautiful beaches – some of which even boast unusual colours. It is the world’s largest island chain and the only state in the US completely made up of islands. The region’s rich soil is considered one of the most important natural resources – sugarcane, pineapples, coffee, macadamia nuts, and flowers are vital sources of income for the state’s economy. Its vast recreational opportunities including snorkelling, scuba diving, biking, kayaking, surfing, or just sitting on the beach with a drink in your hand makes Hawaii one of the most visited places in the world,  attracting over 10 million tourists each year. As a result, tourism is the state’s leading source of income. In fact, some of the most famous people on the planet such as Bruno Mars, Jason Momoa, and former US president Barack Obama were born there. Yet unfortunately, it is not all sunshine and rainbows in Hawaii. 

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, and overtourism, the region experienced a water shortage crisis in July 2021. Although the islands enjoy generally wet and rainy weather conditions, climate change is having a negative impact on how often rainfall occurs, triggering rare drought conditions. Over the last 30 years, rainfall in Hawaii has decreased by 18%. At the same time, the population in the region has doubled since 1959, with visitors reaching record levels. Hot and sunny days are great at the beach, but too much sunshine and not enough rain for prolonged periods of time can cause significant problems, especially for farmers and ranchers as pastures are drying up. As water is becoming severely scarce, the county announced a Stage 1 water shortage declaration to prohibit residents from using water for nonessential activities such as irrigating plants, watering lawns, and washing vehicles. 

On top of the water shortage in Hawaii, the islands were also faced with a water contamination crisis at the Naval Station Pearl Harbour, a nearby naval base adjacent to Honolulu, the capital of Hawaii. The Red Hill fuel facility was an underground stockpile during the Second World War with around 110 million gallons of petroleum remaining. Home to submarines, ships, and commander of US forces in the Indo-Pacific region, the base might be one of the most important installations to the military, but the fiasco is also endangering Honolulu’s most important water sources. A water sample taken from the Red Hill drinking water shaft on December 5 confirmed the contamination of the water with ‘high levels’ of petroleum and gasoline. The total petroleum hydrocarbon diesel range organics detected ranges 350 times above the recommended level for drinking water, while the gasoline range organics more than 66 times. Not only did more than 1,000 Pearl Harbour base residents complain of fuel-like smells emanating from their tap water, but the residents living nearby also reported a number of health issues including headaches and stomach pains. A woman reportedly had to put down her dog after it developed ‘mysterious symptoms’. 

You might also like: What are the Causes of Water Pollution?

Much of Hawaii’s food was grown in Maui, where water flowed naturally. To alleviate the impacts of the water shortage in Hawaii, water system companies held back water reserves to save water, which caused Maui’s food security to further decline. As a result, prices of vegetables there are expected to jump, and consumers will be affected. Locals will have to rely on imports for now. Water will surely be an issue as Hawaii moves into summer months. 

If the crisis persists, not only will locals be the ones hugely affected, but also tourists planning on visiting the region and doing all sorts of activities. If Hawaii is not able to start satisfying water demands especially when more tourists arrive as soon as the pandemic ends, the tourism industry will suffer. 

If we wish to enjoy the culture of the beloved island and keep visiting it in the future, there are a few things we must start doing. As individuals and tourists visiting Hawaii, we must think twice before we use water to make sure no water is wasted. For locals, some experts suggest that people who rely on water catchment systems to start saving water now. 

The government could temporarily cut back flights from other countries so as to limit the number of tourists while redirecting more federal money from the American Rescue Act to rebuild inefficient reservoirs and restore native ecosystems and watersheds. By encouraging companies to upgrade reservoirs and increasing their efficiency, more water can be stored, monitored, and managed, and sources of water can be steadier with minimal seasonal fluctuations. As a result, there would be more water available to meet demands in the long run. Without the conservation it needs, not only will Hawaii be further from being the paradise it once was, it might even become a dreadful wasteland that lacks the one thing essential for survival. 

You might also like: Plastic Pollution in Hawaii

The post Water Shortage in Hawaii: Causes and Effects appeared first on Earth.Org.

Famous beaches, celebrities, and Hollywood movies are what spring to mind when we talk about Los Angeles. Despite improvements in recent decades, the region has recently become equally well-known for its poor air quality. The worsening air pollution in Los Angeles has caused nothing but serious issues to the climate and the health of the people living there.

—

Los Angeles, or more commonly known as LA, is the largest city in the US state of California. It is internationally known for being the home of major entertainment businesses such as Hollywood and the heart of the American film industry. The area has become world-famous for producing countless blockbuster movies, as well as million-dollar mansions and ocean views, making it one of the world’s most expensive cities to live in. LA is also one of the top vacation destinations in the US, partly because of the city’s Mediterranean climate and famous beaches such as Malibu, Venice Beach, and Santa Monica. Yet all these selling points are being threatened as the city is being plagued by worsening air pollution and smog. 

In one of its air quality reports, the American Lung Association revealed that 40% of Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of pollution. In a separate report, it gave LA and other counties in Southern California an ‘F’ grade for poor particle and ozone pollution, with LA currently having the worst air pollution in the US. The city is often covered by a yellow shroud in the sky.  

Interestingly, air quality in the region has made substantial improvements in recent decades due to local and state rules that have helped reduce toxic air contaminants. The average concentrations of particulate matter (PM2.5) – fine particles that can damage lungs and trigger heart attacks – have dropped dramatically and no longer routinely violate federal health standards. The number of potential cancers tied to toxic air pollutants also declined by 87% between 1998 to 2018 in LA. However, Nitrogen oxides, which are a key ingredient of smog and fine particles, began to rise in the fall of 2020. If LA has been doing so well in the past 10 years or so, what caused the recent spike in pollution?

Image btearth ory: Pixabay

As with any major metropolitan city, emissions from vehicles and manufacturers contribute to poor air quality. The large population of 4 million in LA, with another 6 million in the surrounding county, significantly contributes to its ‘non-attainment’ air quality status because of heavy vehicular emissions and traffic congestion. LA is the third most economically powerful city in the world (behind Tokyo and New York), with its shipping industry playing a huge part of its economic structure; the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach are the two busiest container ports in the United States. Nearly 40% of the country’s imports come through the LA area, transported, of course, by fossil-fuelled vehicles that release toxic particles in the atmosphere. The operation of these ports relies on fossil fuel or diesel to run ships, trucks, and other transportations, becoming huge contributors to poor air quality especially in recent years as trade with Asia has expanded. Container trade increased by 18% compared to 2019 at the two ports. The increase in cargo imports and pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions have led to more anchored vessels running on polluting auxiliary engines. 

Severe heat waves and extreme wildfire events can also contribute to worsening air pollution in Los Angeles. Many parts of the US have experienced record-breaking temperatures in 2021, and according to the Environmental Protection Agency, heat waves have disproportionately impacted Southern California, with especially hot temperatures and the region warming more than the rest of the state over the past century. Los Angeles is predicted to experience an average of 22 extreme heat days annually by 2050 – up from six days in the period from 1980 to 2000. The burning of fossil fuels traps more heat energy, which in turn pushes up average temperatures. 

Hotter and drier weather conditions subsequently fuel wildfires, as seen with the case in California. Wildfires are often driven by dry winds, low humidity and high temperatures, and the climate crisis is creating the perfect conditions for them to burn hotter, faster and more frequently. As a result, wildfires are increasing in size and intensity in the Western US, and wildfire seasons are growing longer. In California, more than twice as many acres of land have been burned by wildfires compared with the five-year average, with more than 5.5 million acres burned on state and federal lands since the start of 2020. That amounts to more than the previous six years combined. Together, this impacts the air quality in the region, adding more toxic smoke and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 

You might also like: 15 Most Polluted Cities in the US

To make things worse, LA’s basin – a dip in the Earth’s surface shaped like a bowl – traps the ozone pollution and keeps it there. The ‘good’ ozone is the layer high in the atmosphere protecting the Earth from receiving too much UV radiation. It is the ‘bad’ ozone, manmade and low on the ground, that is extremely harmful to us – it causes serious health problems ranging from minor irritations, coughing, and wheezing, to asthma attacks. Breathing in particle pollution can also contribute to heart attacks, strokes, and even premature death. 

Much like many cities across the globe, the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a remarkable boost in air quality because of the dramatic drop in transportation and lockdowns worldwide. In one of her studies in 2020, Yifang Zhu, a professor at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) found that traffic reductions in LA were directly responsible for a 30% decrease in nitrogen oxides. After a few months, when restrictions loosened and traffic rebounded, the short-term decline in driving only made a short-term dent in pollution. The brief gains in air quality could not combat the return of driving, wildfires, and heat waves caused by climate change.

Climate change and severe health problems will continue to persist as long as no further actions are taken to improve the status quo. In the long run, there are practical ways to reduce the air pollution in Los Angeles. With the overwhelming number of motor vehicles in Los Angeles County, expanding and improving public transportation systems, while making them accessible to all residents, is one solution that will aid in cleaner air quality. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority can continue using more fuel-efficient vehicles as well as utilising renewable energy and facilities. The government should work hard to clean up all the sources, improve the roadways, and have better urban planning so people would not have to drive everywhere. If we can find a sustainable, equitable way for people to drive less and telework more, there are significant air quality benefits from it. The pandemic did offer a reminder that less driving does make a difference and a glimpse of what LA with a far cleaner air would look like, but we shouldn’t need a pandemic to clear the air.

Instead of making amazing action movies and world-class horror films, perhaps Hollywood’s next blockbusters could start inspiring people to combat climate change.

The post Air Pollution In Los Angeles appeared first on Earth.Org.

Technology has given rise to fast fashion. As new trends are bringing in huge profits for fast fashion giants, they are also having a detrimental impact on the environment, factory workers, and consumers. Here’s how to break up with fast fashion and work towards a more sustainable business model. 

—

Fast fashion is the rapidly-growing trend of designing, producing, and marketing cheap and stylish clothing at breakneck speeds and high volumes to meet consumer demand. Although mass production has been able to satisfy the growing demand for consumption, fast fashion has played into the idea that in order for people to stay relevant, they must have the latest looks. This has led to the establishment of a toxic system of overproduction, enormous wastes, and unnecessary consumption, making the fashion industry one of the largest polluters in the world. The underlying impacts have been incredibly harmful to the environment, garment factory workers, and ultimately, the consumers themselves. 

The Fast Fashion Business Model

To fully understand how we can break up with fast fashion, we must first learn how fast fashion came into existence and go back to the 1800s, a time when fashion was slow. Before becoming accessible to the masses, fashion was prescribed to high society, and there were rules to be followed. Ordinary people at the time had to source and prepare materials like wool and leather, weave them, and make them into clothes. As the Industrial Revolution introduced new technologies such as the sewing machine, clothes became easier, quicker, and cheaper to make. Trend cycles sped up, and shopping became a hobby. A well-timed marketing campaign for paper clothes in the 1960s also helped prove consumers were ready for an emerging fast fashion trend. By the 1970s, clothing became a form of personal expression.

In the late 1990s and 2000s, low-cost fashion reached a peak. Online shopping took off, and fast-fashion retailers like H&M, Zara, and Topshop took over the high street. These brands modelled the looks and design elements from top fashion houses and reproduced them quickly and cheaply.

Nowadays, fast fashion brands don’t design and manufacture according to the four seasons in a year anymore. Instead, they produce about 52 “micro-seasons” a year – or one new “collection” a week. Suddenly, everyone could afford to dress like their favourite celebrity or wear the latest trends fresh from the catwalk.

Zara and H&M are two giants among the fast fashion brands. Others include UNIQLO, GAP, Forever 21, Esprit, Fashion Nova, and Topshop. Zara designers can sketch and have the finished piece appear on store shelves in as little as four weeks. They can also modify existing items in two weeks. The secret to this rapid turnover is its ownership of a relatively short supply chain. Over half of its factories are closely located to its headquarters. Also, Zara pioneered the idea of limiting the quantity of a particular garment. Retailers do not replenish their stock. Instead, they replace items that sell out with new ones. This way, consumers know to purchase an item they like when they see it because it is not likely to be available for long. All of these allow the brand to produce 10,000 pieces annually, compared to an industry average of 2,000 to 4,000.

But then in 2013, the world had a reality check when the Rana Plaza clothing manufacturing complex in Bangladesh collapsed, killing over 1,000 garment workers. The incident demonstrated the impact of the fast fashion industry. When the focus is on rapid production, garment workers are forced to produce high quantities for Western brands paying low rates for clothes they will sell for cheap prices. 

Surely, the constant introduction of new products gives us more choices and encourages us to visit stores more frequently, which means we end up making more purchases. Fast fashion is also responsible for providing employment opportunities and bringing in huge profits, especially if a manufacturer is able to jump on a trend before the competition. Clothes have undoubtedly been more affordable. 

To learn more about how to break up with fast fashion:  How to Recognise Fast Fashion Brands and Which Ones to Avoid

Despite the benefits fast fashion brings, it has also been criticised because it uses cheap, toxic textile dyes, making the fashion industry the second largest polluter of clean water globally after agriculture. Polyester, the most popular fabric that is derived from fossil fuels, contributes to global warming and can shed microfibres that add to the increasing levels of plastic in our oceans when washed. The speed at which garments are produced means that more and more clothes are being disposed of by consumers, creating massive textile waste. The toxic dyes and microfibres released into waterways are extremely harmful when ingested by land and marine life.

In order to offer clothes at ultra low prices, fast fashion brands need their costs to be low. One of the main ways to achieve this is by driving down wages of garment workers in supply chains. For years, fashion brands have been going around the world seeking countries with the lowest labour standards so that garment workers can be easily exploited. That is why most of these companies outsource their production of goods to manufacturers based in developing countries. As a result, a great number of workers are working long hours earning low wages. These workers also lack fundamental human rights. Workers who work further down the supply chain are working in extremely dangerous environments such as working with toxic chemicals. Brutal practices in the workplace also have devastating impacts on their physical and mental health. Their personal safety is always at risk.

Finally, those who normally consume and are seemingly enjoying the fruits of fast fashion are not unaffected. Fast fashion makes us believe that we need to shop more and more to stay on top of trends, when in fact it actually encourages a “throw-away” attitude. Many fast fashionistas in their twenties (the age group the industry mainly targets), admit that their purchases have only been worn once or twice. Because of the cheap materials and manufacturing methods used, poorly garments do not age well. What is worse, is that they cannot be recycled entirely, as they are mostly made of synthetics. So when they are discarded, they moulder in landfills for years. What is ironic is that multiple purchases of fast fashion garments, cheap as they are, end up eventually costing us more than buying a few pricier ones that actually last longer. 

How to Break Up with Fast Fashion

Considering the fact that most of the fast fashion industry is built on horrible working conditions, poor pay, and other abusive and exploitative practices, it’s time that we break up with fast fashion. What are the things we can do to not only avoid fast fashion, but also make the world a better place? As suggested from a quote by Vivienne Westwood, a British designer, we can start by “buying less, choosing well, and making it last.”.

The average person only wears 20% of their clothes 80% of the time. We can start buying less by setting a hard limit on how many clothes we have. This is a good way to prevent ourselves from over-shopping. We can also try falling back in love with the clothes we already have in our closet by styling them differently with our creativity and discovering new combinations. Creating a capsule wardrobe is also worth considering, as the goal of having one is to have a collection of around 10 to 50 practical pieces of clothing put together that would build countless outfits overall.

Another way to break up with fast fashion is choosing better by opting for eco-friendly fabrics. It could also mean committing to shopping from sustainable brands. Not only should we take good care and look after our clothes, but also wear them until they are worn out, mend them wherever possible, and recycle them responsibly in the end. If you do not like the feeling of parting with your clothes permanently, you can always swap clothes with your friends or lend them out.

As for large fashion brands and clothes manufacturing firms, all aspects of the value chain must be considered in order to be more sustainable. Before releasing new products, brands should plan and research extensively to make sure their practices are achievable and maintainable. Resource demand and allocation should be well calculated beforehand to avoid using fabrics that are highly water, land, and energy-intensive. 

Rather than dividing sales into micro-seasons and producing at a fast pace, fashion brands should invest in sustainable materials such as recycled cotton and organic linen, abstain from toxic detergents and dyes, and seek to create quality and lasting goods. 

Outsourced manufacturing firms, when building new factories and infrastructure in the future, should choose areas free of critical species. Such firms could also restore and develop on damaged land when possible. During the process of operating, facilities should be held to the highest possible environmental and social standards. If geographically available, renewable energies should be used to power.

One of the biggest victims of fast fashion has always been workers, especially those who suffer from working in manufacturing firms under poor conditions. Manufacturers and factories, therefore, must step up their standards when it comes to managing these workers and protecting their safety and well-being. To start with, companies should pay workers liveable wages with reasonable working hours and adequate break times. Factories should ensure there is adequate lighting and ventilation. To make things even better, firms should also incorporate building up the local community and economy, as well as contributing to greater rights into their own company mission. They could also provide more opportunities for workers to receive trade-specific training and development so they could move to management positions. 

Having sustainable practices is the only option to break up with fast fashion and for giving the planet a healthy future with adequate resources and equal human rights. By focusing less on profits and more on respecting people, animals, and the environment, fashion brands and manufacturers who have always been indulged in the fast fashion industry can start shifting towards “slow fashion”. 

You might also like: The 9 Essential Fast Fashion Statistics

The post How to Break Up with Fast Fashion appeared first on Earth.Org.

Carbon tax has always been viewed by many countries as a useful and necessary tool to combat climate change through making emissions costlier for large emitters. Cap and trade, another similar tool, has also proven to be effective by putting a cap on the quantity of emissions. Ultimately, it will take the cooperation of the both in order to stop the Earth from warming, forcing polluters to think twice before they plan on sending harmful particles into the atmosphere. But first, let’s take a look at cap-and trade vs carbon tax, and explore and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two carbon pricing tools. 

—

Scientists are constantly observing drastic changes across the Earth’s climate system; in the atmosphere, oceans, ice floes, and on land. Most of these changes remain to be human-induced, creating climate extremes in every region across the globe. 

A number of extreme weather events around the planet can be witnessed in 2020. There were hot and dry weather conditions that led to record-setting wildfires in vast areas of Australia, Brazil, and Canada. The hurricane season within the year also featured 30 devastating storms in the North Atlantic alone. NASA’s temperature analysis shows that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Satellite images found oceans to be warming at unprecedented rates, making 2021 the hottest year along with highest levels for oceans. Historic floods driven by such record-breaking rainfall levels poured into Asia and Europe. While some of the unprecedented changes are still in motion, others such as the continued rise in sea levels, are sadly ‘‘irreversible’’. 

On the bright side, as of this moment, experts believe there is still time to limit climate change. With strong and sustained reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG), air quality in the coming 20 to 30 years can in fact stabilise. Many economists have argued that carbon taxes are the most efficient and cost-effective way to curb climate change and global warming. 

A carbon tax is an instrument of environmental cost internalisation. It is an excise tax imposed on producers of raw fossil fuels based on the relative carbon content of those fuels. A government sets a price that emitters must pay for each ton of greenhouse gas emissions they emit. By placing higher taxes on carbon-based fuels, households and industries are pushed to reduce the level of pollution and look to alternatives like solar power and hydrogen engines, which have lower impacts on the environment. The implementation of a carbon tax system, therefore, provides an incentive for businesses and industries to develop more environmentally-friendly production processes. It also encourages investment in renewable energies, leading to further technological developments. This is why many countries such as Argentina, Canada, the UK, the EU, Sweden, and Japan have adopted carbon taxes as it is an essential policy tool to limit carbon emissions. However, there is another economic instrument to do so, which is the-cap-and trade system. 

While a carbon tax sets the price of CO2 emissions and allows the market to determine the amount of reduced emissions, a cap-and-trade system sets the quantity of emissions allowed, which can then be used to estimate the decline in the rise of global temperatures. 

The ‘cap’ aspect is where a government sets an emission cap and issues a quantity of emission allowances distributed to companies, either for free or through an auction. Emitters must then hold allowances for emitting each ton of GHG. The cap on GHG emissions, which only gets stricter over time to ensure that total emissions fall, is a firm limit on pollution. The ‘trade’ aspect is where companies that can reduce their emissions at a lower price could sell their excess allowances to those facing higher costs. In the long run, trading gives companies stronger incentives to save money by cutting emissions in the most cost-efficient way.

Cap-and-trade requires a certain level of bureaucracy to select which companies get covered, and then allocate carbon allowances to each one. The strategy can only cover large polluters, leaving out millions of small ones. In this case, a carbon tax is more effective as the fee is applied at the source. It is the fuel that gets priced, so companies do not have the opportunity to argue over whose emissions gets covered or how big the cap should be. Hence, it can cover all fossil fuels and emitters and limit loopholes as a result. However, it does not have the ability to put a cap on emissions as effectively as the cap-and-trade does.

Regardless of arguments over cap-and trade vs carbon tax, they are still two sides of the same coin. Both aim to slow down global warming and curb the harmful effects of climate change. Ultimately, a stabilised climate is more likely to be achieved through adopting not a single but an interplay of multiple strategies.

You might also like: Carbon Tax Pros and Cons: Is Carbon Pricing the Right Policy to Implement?

The post Explainer: Cap and Trade vs Carbon Tax appeared first on Earth.Org.

In preserving our climate and reducing carbon emissions, countries around the world are devising different strategies and reaching new deals. Not only is the carbon tax in Sweden one of the highest carbon taxes in the world, it is also one of the country’s most efficient policies, making it a leading example in combating climate change.

—

Carbon dioxide is the compound primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect of trapping heat within the Earth’s atmosphere and is therefore one of the primary causes of global warming. To reduce emission levels, more and more countries around the world have started introducing carbon pricing, or a tax designed to mitigate or remove the negative externalities of carbon emissions, known as a carbon tax. As of August 2021, 27 countries have implemented some form of carbon tax, which in total, covers 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This carbon price will encourage consumers and businesses to not only reduce carbon emissions and energy consumptions, but also improve energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy alternatives. Sweden is one of the first countries to implement such carbon taxes.

In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius was the first to calculate how the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, through greenhouse effect, could raise Earth’s surface temperature. Two decades later, Sweden started its long history of levying energy taxes on energy products. Petrol has been taxed since 1924 whereas diesel has been taxed since 1937, and a tax charge has been imposed on coal, oil, and electricity for heating purposes since the 1950s. The levy on all of these products was a single tax known as the “energy tax”. When implemented at the time, it was interestingly not considered an environmental measure, but rather a fiscal tool purely for raising tax revenues. A carbon tax was then instituted in 1991 alongside the already existing energy tax. It has remained a cornerstone in Swedish climate policy. 

Some critics describe carbon tax in Sweden as a relatively narrow one, as only 40% of its greenhouse gases are covered. In fact, large pollution sectors responsible for 70-75% of Sweden’s emissions did not cut their emissions, but contributed even more greenhouse gases. The country’s largest polluters are mainly companies that manufacture construction materials such as steel and concrete. Due to exemptions and carve-outs, big emitters and exempted industries had no reason or incentive to cut down their emissions, leaving the Swedish carbon tax below its emission reduction potential. 

Currently, Sweden levies the highest carbon tax rate in the world at USD$126 per metric tonne of carbon dioxide. The tax is primarily levied on fossil fuels used for heating purposes and motor fuels. The country also has one of the highest levels of energy consumption worldwide while producing one of the lowest levels of carbon emissions in the developed world. Since implementing its carbon tax about 30 years ago, Sweden has not only been able to reduce its national carbon emissions, but also maintained solid Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. 

A study in 2019 by economist Gilbert Metcalf found no adverse impact on the region’s GDP since the adoption of the carbon tax. In fact, the tax may even have had a slightly positive impact on GDP. Sweden’s GDP per capita increased by more than 50% between 1990 and 2019 in real terms (adjusted for inflation). The country was able to strip back its fossil fuels to below 2% of its electricity generation while its GDP has grown at approximately the same rate as Germany’s. Metcalf suggested that this positive effect may be partially due to carbon tax revenues being used to lower other types of taxes.

With the right policies, reducing emissions and growing economically simultaneously can be done. In the case of Sweden, the country’s carbon tax has successfully made companies more competitive by reducing their climate-related risks and expediting the developments of greener alternatives. In pursuit of preserving our global climate, Sweden would be the prime example and a useful case study for other countries to follow suit. Waiting for international agreement is no excuse for inaction.

You might also like: Carbon Tax Pros and Cons: Is Carbon Pricing the Right Policy to Implement?

The post Carbon Pricing and Carbon Tax in Sweden appeared first on Earth.Org.

Cities like Seattle, San Francisco, and New York City have made it to the top 10 smart cities in the US, each dealing with the challenges of urbanisation and embracing technologies in their unique ways.

—

Urbanisation is a never-ending phenomenon. 54% of the world’s population live in cities today, and the number is estimated to reach 66% by 2050. For economies, societies, and the environment to keep pace with the rapid urban expansions, an increasing number of smart cities are emerging around the world.

A smart city is mainly composed of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) to develop, deploy, and promote sustainable development practices to address the growing challenges of urbanisation. Cities collect an array of real-time data, including traffic, air and water quality, and solar radiation to determine practical and sustainable solutions. 

The main goal is to optimise city functions and promote economic growth while also improving the quality of life for citizens through the use of smart technologies and data analysis. The true value lies in how technology is used instead of simply how much of it is available. Many smart cities in the world’s leading economy are constantly making use of technology to promote sustainability. Here are the top 10 smart cities in the US.

Dallas, Texas

Around 1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost in the US every year due to water leaks. As Texas is an arid region without a lot of rainfall, water management is one of Dallas’ primary concerns. The city has adopted smart water monitoring devices for tracking water usage throughout the city. These devices are able to detect leaks so that the water department can fix them immediately, preventing tens of thousands of gallons of water from leaking every year.

Chicago, Illinois 

Chicago launched the Array of Things (AoT) initiative in 2016, which consists of a network of sensors mounted on light posts all over the city collecting real-time data on the city’s environmental surroundings and urban activities. In the coming years, an increasing amount of data collected from AoT will be accessible online, providing valuable information and resources to researchers, urban planners, and the general public. Water sensors are installed in riverbanks to monitor flooding. Security camera footage combined with the use of sophisticated software can also help to determine sources of gunshots in order to help apprehend criminals.

Austin, Texas

Austin is one of the most futuristic and smart cities in the US. It has a rapidly expanding technology centre and an open data directive that has been in place since 2013. This year, more transportation options are being introduced into the neighbourhood. A solar-powered hub will provide access to a neighbourhood bike-share and e-scooter stations, a bus system, and possibly Uber and Lyft parking spaces. WiFi access and other community services such as a mobile health clinic and food pantry will also be available. One of the main smart city initiatives Austin has also been involved with is the upgrading of its electric grid. As the upgraded grid becomes a more efficient digital meter, it makes the incorporation of renewable energy sources and the charging of a growing number of electric cars a lot easier. 

Seattle, Washington

Seattle is well-known for its commitment to reducing its carbon footprint and enhancing the well-being of its citizens. As the city is filled with mountains on one side and water on the other, it has a relatively small geographical area for its population. In resolving issues with growth and congestion, and addressing many inner-city challenges, the city developed an Innovation Advisory Council, which focuses on aspects including predictive analytics for parking, food rescue, homelessness data monitoring, and earthquake early warning and damage assessment.

Charlotte, North Carolina

Charlotte’s devotion to sustainability is a good example of a smart city initiative. The city partnered with Microsoft Corporation to build a digital infrastructure so that more residents can benefit from the internet. There will be greater access to public WiFi, traffic monitoring to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, and training programmes. The city rolled out a project called Envision Charlotte – a champion of circular and sustainability efforts and works on projects throughout the Charlotte area with a variety of partners from both the private and public sectors.

You might also like: Top 7 Smart Cities in the World

San Francisco, California

Given that San Francisco is just a stone’s throw away from the technology epicentre Silicon Valley, it makes sense that the city has smart city initiatives underway. As the second-most densely populated city in the US, the San Francisco smart city plan places great emphasis on reducing energy usage. Currently, there are over 300 LEED-certified buildings in the city and hopes to create a “connected vehicle grid” throughout the city so that autonomous vehicles can communicate with each other and follow traffic guidance systems to avoid congested areas.

Washington DC, District of Columbia

As the population of Washington city is projected to keep growing, there will be significant, continuous pressures to expand the systems necessary to support growth: new roads, water, sewer, schools, churches, parks, trails. Planning ahead would avoid duplication, land-use conflicts, and misallocation of resources that have challenged high-growth communities like Washington. The city’s movement analytics program uses video cameras that can identify people and objects moving through the city, including cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians. The data collected can then be analysed to make decisions about how traffic can be directed and to identify areas that need more resources. The more data a smart city is able to collect, the more city officials can find ways to improve infrastructure. 

Boulder, Colorado

Not only does Boulder focus on renewable energies and sustainability, but also on bolstering its economy through investing in solar and hydroelectricity power. Smart programmes mainly include high-performance buildings, clean mobility, and clean energy sources. The city’s smart grid uses smart metering to transparently share insights on energy costs with its residents. Boulder is going the extra mile by constructing a broadband fibre backbone, developing data infrastructure strategies, and defining a broader community feedback loop. 

San Jose, California

San Jose is solving its long-standing problems with a myriad of strategies. It leverages its technologies to create a safe environment through improving the access to broadband services to all residents, using digital tools to help residents access affordable housing nearby, and supporting economic development in historically struggling business districts. Digital platforms are created to improve transparency, empower residents to participate in the city’s governance, and streamline application and payment processes. San Jose is also promoting sustainability by enabling energy and water management technologies in buildings. Sensors are deployed on the streets to detect whether vehicle bays are empty or not, and to provide information that alert motorists to the locations of available parking spots. This way, motorists will not have to spend so much time looking for one, thus reducing greenhouse gases. The more data collected, the more improvements city officials can make.

New York City, New York

Unsurprisingly, New York City takes the number one spot in smartest cities in the US. Technology has always been essential to the economic growth of NYC, not only because it brings new jobs and attracts investments, but it can also protect its citizens, provide better services, and remain competitive as a globalised city. The New York City Mayor’s Office of Technology and Innovation is constantly carrying out efforts to conserve resources, reduce environmental impacts, and improve the quality of living of its population. The city hosts the Smart City New York global conference every year without fail with initiatives addressing issues such as lighting efficiency, water quality and conservation, waste management, air quality, tourism, navigation, and mobility.

You might also like: The 5 Most Sustainable Cities in the World

The post Top 10 Smart Cities in the US appeared first on Earth.Org.

Doughnut Economics is a theory proposing a change of economic model as a response to humanity’s major challenge of eradicating global poverty within the means of the planet’s limited natural resources.

—

In a typical introductory economics lesson, you will be taught that the definition of economics is to study the allocation of scarce resources. The focus on scarce resources has led many people to see endless growth as a positive, or “more is better”. However, in reality, economic growth is measured only by an increasing GDP, completely ignoring the finite nature of Earth’s resources and the consequences of our actions. What would economics look like when increasing the abundance of resources is no longer the solution to the problem of scarcity but creates intractable problems of its own instead?

In today’s world, millions of people still lack life’s essentials; living daily with hunger, illiteracy, insecurity, and voicelessness. At the same time, humanity’s collective pressure on the planet has already overshot at least four planetary boundaries – climate change, land conversion, fertiliser use, and biodiversity loss. The global economy is also deeply divisive, rife with acute gender and income inequalities. 

To ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials, while safeguarding we collectively do not overshoot our pressure on Earth’s life-supporting systems we fundamentally depend on, English economist Kate Raworth introduced the concept of Doughnut Economics in 2012, an economic model designed to fit in the 21st century. 

Doughnut Economics is a new vision for an economy. By rethinking our systems, the goal of national and global economies can be changed from simply increasing GDP to creating a society that can provide enough materials and services for everyone while utilising resources in a way that does not threaten our future security and prosperity. 

The classic image of the Doughnut; the extent to which boundaries are transgressed and social foundations are met are not visible on this diagram. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

This model consists of a dashboard of indicators that define its boundaries. Imagine looking at a doughnut top down. You would see a healthy green region that is the circular doughnut. The outer region represents the ecological ceiling, while the inner region reflects the social foundation. The hole at the doughnut’s centre reveals how people are falling short on life’s essentials such as food, water, healthcare, and freedom of expression. If we undershoot or use our planetary resources incorrectly, the model would indicate that we are unable to ensure the necessary social foundations are met across citizens. In real terms, this means people living without access to plentiful food, clean water, and essential healthcare. Thus, a huge part of humanity’s challenge is to get everyone out of that hole. At the same time, overshooting on our resource budget would lead to catastrophic consequences such as freshwater withdrawals, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, and ultimately climate change.

You might also like: What Is a Circular Economy?

In our current systems, aspects such as the rise in healthcare costs resulting from increasing air pollution are “externalities” that are not included in the costs of production and consumption, whereas in an embedded economy that allows us to see the economy as embedded within the larger social and ecological fabric, these costs are taken into account.

At its core, Doughnut Economics is based on an economy that is both regenerative and distributive by design. It has huge implications for any group negotiating the balance between economic growth and powerful social change. Nations can start adopting a zero-tolerance approach with strong regulatory oversight that ends activities that damage our planet and undermine the health of society. Embracing tax policy and public spending can help address inequality by incentivising shifts away from wealth and resource extraction, and push it toward job creation and re-distribution of wealth. There could also be more collaboration between the public and private sectors, especially in bringing about industry-scale resource ecosystems required to make a circular and regenerative economy. So far, over 150 nations have used the Doughnut Economics model, according to a study in 2018. In fact, Amsterdam has already implemented Doughnut Economics in early April last year after the Netherlands had one of the world’s highest mortality rates from the coronavirus pandemic. The model was scaled down to provide a “city portrait” that not only revealed areas where basic needs were not being met and planetary boundaries were overshot, but also how these issues were interlinked. Because of the model, issues including carbon dioxide emissions from imports and exploitation of west African labour were directly addressed. By formally embracing the theory, the city’s government hoped to recover from the crisis and avoid future crises.

The model recognises that human behaviour can be nurtured to be cooperative and caring, just as it can be competitive and individualistic. It also recognises that economies, societies, and the rest of the living world, are complex, interdependent systems that are best understood through the lens of systems thinking. It calls for turning today’s degenerative economies into regenerative ones, and divisive economies into far more distributive ones. 

The ultimate goal of this framework is to enable societies to make positive choices and live in balance in order to thrive economically, socially, and environmentally. This new economic vision cannot be achieved by an individual or a single organisation. Rather, it requires intention, planning, collaboration, and contributions from all stakeholders. What the doughnut offers is a metaphor that helps us visualise an economic system that could create a prosperous society today and preserve a liveable planet for all future generations.

The post Explainer: What Is Doughnut Economics? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Assisted migration, also known as managed relocation, involves removing individual plants or animals from an area which has, or will become, unsuitable due to climate change, and moving them to a new site where conditions will be more suitable in order to possibly prevent the extinction of species and help maintain crucial ecosystem functions. But relocation introduces a host of different issues. So, should we move endangered species to protect the them or do so as a last resort? 

—

The Global Extinction Crisis

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges animals face. In fact, the world is facing an extinction crisis. Interestingly, the major problem with climate change is not so much that the climate is changing, but that it is changing faster than species can move or adapt. Dozens of species of reptiles and amphibians in Madagascar, for example, have been spotted moving towards higher altitudes in search of cooler climates. Some of our most species-rich areas of the globe and most valued ecosystems, such as coral reefs and rainforests, may cease to exist in their current form as a result of climate change. According to Extinction Risk from Climate Change, a science journal published in 2004, it is estimated that millions of species worldwide could face extinction as a result of climate changes predicted to occur in the next 50 years. 

The Mountain Pygmy-Possum, an example of a species facing climate extinction, is a tiny mammal that currently resides on three snowy mountain tops in Victoria and New South Wales. As temperatures gradually rise, the length of time in which snow stays on mountain tops decreases rapidly, thus lessening the habitats available for the possums to hibernate – the marsupial hibernates up to seven months under the snow. This means that possums come out of winter hibernation earlier, and yet are unable to find enough food, while seeing an influx of feral predators that previously had found the area inaccessible because of snow covers.

In cases where species are threatened by invasive species or destruction to their habitat, standard conservation actions alone such as creating conservation reserves may offer insufficient protection. Instead, scientists have also resorted to the radical action of managed relocation. 

You might also like: 12 of the Most Endangered Animals in the World

Should We Move Endangered Species? 

Managed relocation is the movement physical movement of plants or animals from an area that will become unsuitable to locations where the climate is predicted or assessed to be suitable but where the animals or plants have never occurred before. The benefits it brings are based on three aspects – the likelihood it will go extinct in its original habitat since the local climate has become hostile, the likelihood that a breeding population can be established at a new site, and the value or importance of the species. 

The concept of relocating endangered species is actually not new in conservation science. In 1994, the US Fish and Wildlife Service transported 150 grey wolves from Canada all the way to Yellowstone National Park to establish a new population. Four years later, the grey wolves were removed from the list of endangered species. In Australia alone, over 200 reintroductions of 42 vertebrate species have been undertaken for conservation purposes. Currently, Australia’s rarest reptile, the Western Swamp Tortoise from Perth in Western Australia, is facing extinction because of declining seasonal rainfall, which is drying up the swamps the tortoise calls home. To stop them from becoming extinct, scientists are considering new potential sites far to the South of its current home range.

Although moving endangered species in the past has shown obvious benefits to endangered species and the environment, there is also the other side of the other side of the relocation story. While Australia might be performing well in many aspects of managed relocation projects, it also has a relatively higher failure rate than other nations around the world, with predation of cats and foxes being the biggest reason for failure. Also, one of the biggest worries in assistant migration is not whether a species will be successful in its new environment, but whether it will be too successful and grow to become an invasive species, such as Kudzu, the Gypsy Moth, or the Giant Nutria, that have overrun parts of Louisiana. This ecological cost depends on the potential of a moved species adversely affecting the ecosystem at its new location. Species are therefore considered for relocation only if the benefit of doing so is greater than the ecological cost. 

So, should we move endangered species? Despite the strategy’s shortcomings, managed relocation emerged as a potential intervention strategy in the toolbox of biodiversity management for a reason. The pace of modern climate change demands decision-making with imperfect information, even though comparing benefit and risk is challenging due to ecological data providing inexact evidence on the degree of anthropogenic threats to biological diversity. The magnitude of projected climate change suggests that humans may be forced to choose between the alternatives of witnessing extinctions and intentionally manipulating species’ distributions in efforts to prevent extinction and maintain biodiversity. Ultimately, the risk of species extinctions from climate change is too large to summarily discount managed relocation without first carefully evaluating its benefits and dangers in a nuanced way. Beginning this process now will better position us to make informed decisions in the years ahead, as threats of climate-mediated species extinctions become more common.

Featured image by: Yellowstone National Park/Flickr

The post Should We Move Endangered Species? appeared first on Earth.Org.