Conservation With Kate

My last post gave three examples of positive environmental outcomes of the COVID-19 global pandemic (available here). Social media has been crawling with shares over declining emissions and seeing lockdown as a rest bite for the planet. But is it all good news? Is a lockdown good for the planet?
I'm trying to balance my stance from the previous post. Yes, there are environmental wins due to Lockdown. But there are also losses, and potential for even greater losses in the future. I'm going to focus on three.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I think it is fair to say that the data will reflect that yes, lockdown is good for the planet regarding greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is potentially only going to be true in the short term. Following the end of lockdown, it is possible that things will either go back to normal, or get worse. Governments are likely to want to jump-start their economies again, and so we can expect an industrial boom. Following the 2008-9 financial crisis, emissions increased by 5% for the same reason.
More theoretically, I worry about what lockdown will do to people's attitudes regarding tackling climate change. The idea that this (lockdown, social distancing, isolation) is what it looks like to lower emissions does not sit well. State-mandated lockdown is not fun for anyone: it's affects people social lives, freedoms, and incomes. If this is what tackling climate change looks like, do we want it?

Of course this isn't what tackling climate change should look like or needs to look like, but I worry that the more we shout about how good this is for the planet, the greater negative association we build between our actions and benefitting the planet. Resentment thrives in such settings: why do we have to suffer for the environment to win?

Poaching
Many countries are currently in lockdown. Poachers, are not. The number of poaching incidents is expected to spike during this time. Some reserves may have less staff, as staff may have chosen to isolate with their families. Income for reserves will be dramatically lowered. A lot of reserves rely on visitors and tourism to make money, all of which will have ceased during lockdown. Therefore, they may not be able to afford to continue the same level of anti-poaching work and protection as they would normally. In general, lockdown is a silver platter presented to poachers to take full advantage of.
Meat poaching is bound to increase as people also have limited access to food during a lockdown. Stocks in stores globally are down, and shopping is limited. Poaching may be the only way, or the easiest way, for people to feed their families.
Poaching of endangered species, such as rhino of elephant, is also bound to spike with less security. This could have catastrophic impacts for these species, many of which do not have the numbers to survive a sudden decrease in their numbers.

Chinese Wet Markets
In my last post I said that China has banned wildlife trade due to the links found between Chinese wet markets and COVID-19. Many believe such markets in Wuhan are the origin of the virus. At these markets, thousands of animals are kept in cages, sold, and some are slaughtered there on site. Animals are sold for traditional medicine, for example lion bones, and for food. This is linked heavily to the poaching of endangered species discussed above. These animals are kept in close proximity to one another, and passed from human to human. Viruses thrive in such an environment, and can pass from species to species and cross the barrier to humans. It is likely this is what happened with the coronavirus, and that is why these markets were closed.
Just a month after closing these markets China has begun to re-open these markets, ignoring international pressure and pleas not to. Medical and conservation professionals worldwide are urging them not to stay closed. Reopening these markets is incredibly dangerous, and reflects a apathetic attitude by the Chinese government for the countries currently fighting with everything they have to beat this virus.
Conservation wise, closing these markets was a big win. This win lasted a month. If these markers cannot stay closed when human lives are in danger, how can we ever expect to keep them closed to protect wildlife?

My blog tends to look at things through an environmental lens because that's how I look at things. But it is impossible to look at anything these days purely from the perspective of the environment, because everything is intertwined to an irreversible extent. The impact, positive and negative, this virus is having on the environment shows us that: lions and rhinos in the most remote regions of Africa are being heavily impacted. Our shrinking and connected world means that everything we do trickles down to every corner of the earth and every creature in it. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as separated from nature.
Continuing the winners/losers metaphor, we shouldn't have to lose for the environment to win. In fact, I think effective policy and change to beat global warming and protect endangered species, is a win for us both. A lot of major changes necessary (e.g. switching to renewable energy, minimising global waste) will be positive steps for people too. Cleaner air, job creation, financial incentives: all these things help keep the environment thriving and keep us thriving too.
Coronavirus has demonstrated to the world a harsh reality: business as usual was not okay. The disregard we have for wildlife and the environment has come back to bite us on the arse. But we only care to do anything about this when we are in the firing line.
This cannot go on.
We cannot win while the environment continues to lose.

We either both win, or we both lose. Our choice.

No comments

The COVID-19 crisis has been plaguing the world for a few months now and the light at the end of the tunnel to most is being released from isolation and to be allowed in the same room as people not in your household. Going back to work seems like a luxury, let alone going out with your friends or hugging another human being.

But for the planet, the light at the end of a long tunnel of exploitation, pollution, degradation and destruction, is now. Albeit this is likely a fleeting light in the history of the earth, and one that will be diminished as soon as we find a way to deal with the virus. Even if it takes a year of semi-to-full lockdown, in the history of the planet, this is a very short time period. For our lives and our economies, it seems like forever, but for the planet this is barely a weekend.

COVID-19 is not a blessing for anyone. It could end up doing more harm than good to the planet, as I will discuss in another post. However in these uncertain and distressing times, it's hard not to notice that the environment is winning where we are all losing - possibly for the first time since the industrial revolution.

This does not mean COVID-19 is something to be celebrated. Celebrating COVID-19 is not only insensitive, but it's also illogical. However, that does not mean we cannot notice positive changes in the world as a direct or indirect result of the pandemic. And there are many. I'm going to focus on three.

1. Greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are down.

International air travel is a majorly guilty party contributing to global GHG emissions. Any situation in which air travel is limited will result in less GHG emissions, which can only be seen as a positive step when looking at the world through a purely environmental lens. Seeing so many cancelled flights, locked down borders, and travel bans means the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere during this period will be significantly lower. Anthropogenic (human-induced) GHG emissions cause climate change. Slowing the rate and reducing the quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere is essential for tackling climate change.

Reducing air travel globally will be necessary to keep global temperature from rising above 1.5°C, which has been accepted by scientists as the threshold before which we will have done irreversible damage to the planet. This pandemic has shown us we are capable of limiting our air travel, if we see how it can directly impact our lives. I hope we see how climate change will directly impact our lives before it's too late.
Air travel is not the only way emissions are down. Due to lockdown in China, which included factories and power plants, and meant less cars on the road, nitrogen dioxide emissions were down 40% in some cities, and were significantly reduced in Italy as well. Global energy and carbon emissions were down 25% and coal consumption by power plants fell 36% (data from the Centre for Research and Clean Air).

2. Bans on Wildlife Trade

Due to speculations over the origins of the coronavirus being from a range of wildlife meat products, China banned all wildlife trade. Whether the virus came from these products is unclear, but the trade in wildlife certainly enabled the early spread of the disease. Of course, this ban only relates to legal wildlife trade. The black markets are likely to continue. But, a ban does send a clear message. The government would not do this if they did not feel the wildlife trade posed a significant threat to human safety. Would you buy something if you thought it might give you coronavirus?

Obviously, the answer is a simple no. But unfortunately, the question is not that simple. Trade in certain wildlife products is not just food, it's traditional medicine. While we can sit here in the west and judge traditional medicines from the comfort of our living rooms, deciding it's nonsense, doesn't work, and is far inferior to our better, newer, shinier branch of medicine, that doesn't mean that people won't buy it. If you truly believe something works, you will continue to believe that. These beliefs are old, some older than Christianity, and deeply rooted in many communities. And, the placebo effect is a thing that does happen - when a patient is cured due to their belief in the treatment, rather than the treatment itself (usually due to inactive treatment).

So, if you have cancer and you truly believe a product will cure you, would you buy it even if it meant risking coronavirus? It's suddenly not so black and white.

However, China's ban on wildlife trade is a huge leap in the right direction. Reducing wildlife trade helps minimise risk for endangered species. Again, we only took this necessary action when we were at risk.

3. Lethal shark nets removed in SA

This smaller, localised example is close to my heart as my masters thesis centred around the use of lethal shark nets for bather protection. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, and many other countries including Australia, lethal shark nets are used at popular beaches under the pretence of keeping water users safe. Most people think these nets are a non-lethal barrier: they are not. They are a fishing device designed to catch and kill large sharks, but do not discriminate and such kill whales, turtles, dolphins, and a plethora of other marine wildlife.

South Africa announced a 21-day lockdown of the country this week, in which people must stay home except to shop for food and for medical emergencies. As part of this lockdown, the nets have been removed for 21 days. This is because no one is allowed out to maintain or remove them.

The nets are supposed to go back up at the end of the lockdown. I hope they don't.

For the record, there is no evidence they keep people safer than non-lethal alternatives, they are incredibly damaging to marine ecosystems, and people do not support their use.

Overall, environmentally speaking, it's not all bad. However, it's not all good either (as I will discuss in a subsequent post). I understand it's annoying for some to hear conservationists discussing this virus in a positive way. I hope it is clear that's not the intention. These potential "wins" for the environment do not detract from the literal losses to everyone else.
I personally, wish this virus wasn't happening. I wish we were all carrying on our normal lives. I wish the healthcare service was not being pushed to its' limits, and I wish people weren't dying.
I also wish we could and would start to tackle climate change with effective policy, real lifestyle change, and a better understanding of what we are doing to the future of this planet and our own species by not. I wish we would do this because we know it's necessary, and not because we are scared we will get a virus if we don't.

No comments

Horn trimming has become a well practised and documented phenomenon across South African private game reserves. Horn trimming is the process of cutting a rhinos horn, like we cut our hair. The first time a rhino has their horn trimmed, the majority of the external horn is removed, and then subsequent procedures trim the remaining horn as it continues to grow. Most reserves do this on an annual or biannual basis.

The most important thing to remember when discussing horn trimming is that rhino horn grows. Just like our hair, rhino horn continues to grow and so trimming does not leave rhinos without a horn permanently, and to keep the horn short will involve continuously trimming every year or so. This is a key argument in favour of legalising the rhino horn trade: you can sustainably harvest horn and continue to harvest horn from one rhino throughout its' entire life. Rhinos can live to be ~45 and horns can be trimmed every year, and so by horn trimming, you generate more product than if you left the horn alone.

The second most important fact to bare in mind is that horn trimming is incredibly expensive. To horn trim a rhino you need a helicopter + fuel, at least one vet, tranquilliser and other drugs, vehicles + fuel, and a whole team of people to move and monitor the rhino, including a scientist on site to record and take measurements (necessary for permits but is also provides important data into growth rates etc.). Vets alone incur fees for their time and their drugs. Most reserves don't own their own helicopter, and so have to hire one, pay for fuel, and pay for the pilot.

The main motivator for horn trimming rhinos is to act as a deterrent to poaching. Rhinos are poached specifically for their horns. Thus, a rhino with a trimmed horn is a much less valuable target than a rhino with a full horn. Is breaking onto a reserve, risking your life, and risking a life-sentence for rhino poaching worth it, for a horn maybe 1/4 of its original size? Ideally, we want the answer to be no to this question. The rhino poaching crisis in undeniably more complicated than that, but horn trimming does make rhinos a less desirable target.

If you're wondering why poachers kill rhinos when you can remove horns on a live animal, there are two primary reasons. Firstly, poachers often aren't qualified veterinarians with access to tranquillisers or dart guns (although corrupt vets have been implicated in rhino poaching in the past). Therefore, they shoot the animals and sometimes slash their spines to immobilise them. If they did not do this, the rhinos would either run away or charge at the poachers and potentially kill them. Secondly, poachers want to get as much horn as possible so they take the entire thing. The cut it out of the rhinos face to ensure they have every morsel of horn. This often happens while the rhino is still alive, and demonstrates the cruelty of this epidemic. This is why the rhino crisis sparks such emotion from people who work closely with these animals. It's human brutality in its ugliest form.

There has been no evidence to imply that horn trimming has a negative impact on rhinos. Darting animals, especially wild animals, is stressful for them, but this day of stress has not been shown to evoke any long-term suffering or negative effects on the animals. Furthermore, their social interactions have not been negatively affected by the process. Rhinos do not need their horns to survive. Horns are used in fighting, but reserves that do horn trimming do so on all their rhinos, and so the playing field is levelled and the rhinos fight anyway. Horn trimming has not been shown to negatively impact rhinos in the wild.

National parks in South Africa do not horn trim their rhinos. There are a couple reasons for this. Firstly, the cost is immense. Most private reserves, while owning 45% of all white rhinos between them, individually have smaller populations. National parks have many more rhinos, and so the costs are exponentially higher. Secondly, national parks rely on tourism for their income. It is generally believed that tourists want to see rhinos with big horns. The bigger the horn the better. Many think tourists would be disappointed to see rhinos with trimmed horns.

Personally, I think people would understand. If the guides and rangers could explain clearly why the rhinos have been de-horned, that it does not harm them or their social interactions, and use rhino sightings as an educational moment to enlighten tourists in the severity of the rhino crisis, then I think they would understand. It very much may be that your choice is a rhino with a trimmed horn, or no rhino at all. What would you choose?

No comments

Veganism. The marmite of dieting. Some people have a very negative perception of veganism in principles and practise. Some think veganism is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Although perhaps seen by some purely as a millennial fad diet, the vegan movement is growing in popularity; not because people think its cool and edgy to eat avo bagels everyday, but because scientists have called for diet change to tackle climate change.

The IPCC special report 15 (click here for summary) stated that people should cut back on meat and dairy consumption in an effort to combat global warming. These industries are highly polluting and contribute significantly to global GHG emissions.

The fact is, the science is there that shows that a plant based diet is an effective way for individuals to minimise their carbon footprint. In fact, a plant-based diet can reduce your carbon footprint by as much as half compared to a meat-heavy diet. Red meat in particular is responsible for the most GHG emissions.

I have been vegan for a little over a year, after being flexitarian and then veggie for a few years. But I am in no way the perfect vegan. I eat cheese at Christmas, and have the occasional dairy milk (maybe more than occasional...). There is a stigma of perfectionism surrounding veganism. It does come in-part from other vegans. Some vegans would never ever "cheat" or divert from being 100% plant-based, and so sometimes they come down hard on vegans who sometimes digress. However, in my experience non-vegans are more judgemental. On the whole, people are lovely and don't care, but there is definitely pressure once you declare yourself as vegan to never even look at a steak or egg again.

This is utter nonsense and does far more damage than good.

Every little helps. Something is better than nothing. Do your bit.

These statements are so commonly thrown around when discussing sustainable living and they are so important. No one is perfect and so you should never try to be. The same goes for lifestyle: you can't always be a perfect vegan or live a completely zero waste life and that's fine. Meat-free-Mondays is better than eating meat 7 days a week. Vegetarian Mon-fri and then dining out for steak at the weekend is better than eating meat 7 days a week. The occasional slice of brie or piece of chocolate (entire bar) is a massive improvement on my previous diet. The only issue I have with slogans such as "every little helps" is that people become complacent. "I could be worse so therefore I am fine" is the capitalist mantra to making people feel better. But, something is better than nothing.

Turning vegan overnight is unrealistic. It's possible, and I applaud anyone who has done this. For me, it was a slow process over years. I initially stopped eating meat in my 2 year of university. I only ate meat if other people were cooking for me or if I went out for meals. I therefore was not buying any meat from the supermarket. My rationale was, I don't want to be rude if someone is making me a free meal, and I don't want to pay for something in a restaurant if it's not what I really want. I eventually turned completely vegetarian. This was made miles easier by the fact my friends are left-leaning environmentalists who are either veggie themselves, or would happily eat a veggie meal (and that I was a poor student who cooked 99% of my meals myself and rarely ate out). I turned vegan after reading the IPCC SR15 and have lived in Cape Town for most of that time, a very vegan-friendly city with lots of vegan restaurants.

I recommend taking it slow. Learn some recipes, talk to other vegans (feel free comment here and talk to me), phase meat out. Try meat alternatives and see which you like (the beyond-burger is beyond-amazing). Look at your go-to meals and see how to make them veggie/vegan. Get some staples in: oat milk, nutritional yeast, beans, coconut milk, peanut butter, fruit, nuts, seeds, avocado, oreos.

I think I can say with some confidence that is has never been easier to be a vegan. Veganuary is a craze that took the world by storm last year with immense success. Try it for one month and see how you feel. It might not work for you. If you have a nut or soy allergy for example, it will be incredibly difficult and may have adverse health impacts. Some people who suffer from IBS struggle, but some people experience massive improvements. Try it, and see. You might not stay vegan forever, but you might learn some amazing new restaurant or recipes to come back to in the future, thus reducing your meat/dairy consumption. If you plan to do veganuary, I strongly recommend signing up to: this mailing list. They send you tips and recipes EVERY DAY in January and it makes things so much easier, especially if you are completely new to this. Let me know if you try veganuary out and how it goes for you!!

I am NOT trying to induct you into a weird vegan cult. I am not even telling you to be a vegan or vegetarian. I am expressing my opinion and I am presenting you with science.

No comments

For my U.K. based friends (& non SA-based), an explanation:

A UCT student, Uyinene Mrwetyana, was missing for a few weeks and in the last couple days it has been announced that she was raped and murdered by a man who worked at a local post office.

She went into the post office; he lured her into an office, hit her over the head with a scale, raped and murdered her. He has confessed.

This happened during women’s month. This happened locally. This happened during the day. This happened in a post office.

This is my community now and it’s hurting. This event has touched everyone I know here. My heart and the heart of the city breaks for the family and friends of Nene; and all other women who have suffered the same fate because of a culture that doesn’t keep women safe, and a government that seems to think it’s our responsibility to keep ourselves safe.

People are angry: angry at the fact that no justice system can reverse this. Angry that nothing can change what happened now. Angry that so many more women are speaking out and taking action than men are. Angry that men stay silent, or say the right things but do nothing. Men don’t experience this issue to the extent women do, but they should care just as much.

People are angry that no where is safe.

A post office. A f*cking post office. A “normal” guy: not a typical guy you’d cross the street for. How are we supposed to know who and where is safe?

Men: don’t be offended that people are angry. We know that he is not what all men are. But if you don’t want to be painted as “trash” then I’m sorry but you have to prove you’re not. It is not women’s fault if we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys: that’s on YOU.

I love this city with all my heart. It’s become my home, and it’s the greatest place I’ve ever known.

I wrote this because firstly, I’m hurting and I’m angry. Secondly, this isn’t international news and I know that’s normal. But I’ve been sharing things about it and I want people who know me back in the U.K. to know about what life is like for women in places like Cape Town. Yes, we don’t walk home alone at night in England, we always tell people when we are home safe, we get shouted at by strangers. Awful things happen anywhere in the world, I know that.

But things are different in the U.K. We can get the train/city bus alone at any time of day. We can walk through a subway alone at any time of day. We are safe in university run student accommodation. We are safe at the post office. We are privileged.

Thanks for reading.

#JustNo #BreakTheSilence

No comments

Pages

Blog Archive

Follow Me

Popular Posts

Instagram