Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
Climate change to make outdoor work more dangerous
Today's agriculture workers face 21 days of heat that exceed safety standards. That number will double by 2050.
06 May, 2020
(Photo: Guillermo Arias/AFP via Getty Images)
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>Discussions of the <a href="https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/climate-change-phrases?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">climate crisis</a> tend to view future consequences on a global scale. Hot and more acidic oceans will lead to coral death and species die-offs. <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/too-many-trees" target="_self">Increased growing seasons</a> and less snowpack will stress watersheds. Acts of God (or Mother Nature) such as droughts, hurricanes, and forest fires will become alarmingly frequent parts of our annual routines.</p><p>Even when we turn our attention to <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-climate-crisis-migration-and-refugees/" target="_blank">the human toll</a>, our focus can be statistically stoic. Effects like large-scale human migration, interstate competition for resources, and degradation of habitable land are terrifying, but from our contemporary vantage, they too easily read like local news from several states over. Horrible but distant.</p><p>But a recent study in <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab86f4" target="_blank" style="">Environmental Research Letters</a> has narrowed the focus. It shows that an increase in global temperatures by 2°C will affect everyone, neighbors and friends, whose job takes them outside.</p>
Turning up the heat index
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzIyNDg4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0Nzk2OTk2MX0.1Jq1pARhOK6onw5edPNt4rbGLMwvQmpxQmmXlfi5-f8/img.jpg?width=980" id="19637" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="92d1984e8f22d559095bcbf62f1abf62" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Three maps showing the maximum daily heat index, in Fahrenheit, for the top 5% of the hottest days in the growing season.
Photo: Michelle Tigchelaar et al./Environmental Research Letters
<p>The study's authors spotlighted how the climate crisis will transform agricultural work. They chose agriculture not only because its workers are essential, but because few studies had looked at the men and women who support this economic cornerstone.</p><p>"Studies of climate change and agriculture have traditionally focused on crop yield projections, especially staple crops like corn and wheat," Michelle Tigchelaar, the study's lead author and a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University, said in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/uow-api042820.php" target="_blank">release</a>. "This study asks what global warming means for the health of agricultural workers picking fruits and vegetables."</p><p>The researchers obtained employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=quarterly+census+of+employment+and+wages&oq=Quarterly+Census+of+Employment+and+Wages&aqs=chrome.0.0l8.379j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages</a> program and used it to determine the number of workers in the America's agricultural counties during the growing season (May through September).</p><p>They then compared that data to models of climate change, using "business-as-usual scenarios" in which carbon emissions neither increase nor decrease drastically in the coming years. According to these conservative models, global temperatures are projected to increase by 2°C (~36°F) by 2050 and 4°C (~39°F) by 2100.</p><p>Finally, the researchers used the heat index—a single value that combines temperature with humidity—to determine risky work conditions. According to <a href="https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatillness/heat_index/pdfs/all_in_one.pdf" target="_blank">OSHA guidelines</a>, a heat index of 91–103° represents a moderate risk and requires precautionary measures. Anything higher represents a serious workplace hazard, requiring additional precautionary measures by employers.</p><p>Their use of the heat index is critical as climate change won't only increase the planet's temperature. It will <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/its-not-heat-its-humidity" target="_blank">increase global humidity</a>, too.</p>It's the humidity
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="NfydgBWh" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="e553c36cd3fa32fd345d1e7aa7e8a0fb"> <div id="botr_NfydgBWh_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/NfydgBWh-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/NfydgBWh-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/NfydgBWh-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Typically, our bodies perspire to cool down. On dry summer days, sweat evaporates from our skin to transfer our metabolic heat into the air around us. But when humidity rises, sweat evaporates much slower as the surrounding air is thick with water.</p><p>Because of this, humid days don't just feel hotter. According to our bodies, <a href="https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/why-do-we-sweat-more-in-high-humidity/" target="_blank">humid days are hotter</a>. We experience an 88°F day with 85 percent humidity as though it were a stifling 110°F.</p><p>Exposure to such heat can cause illnesses such as sunburn, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion. If a person's temperature reaches 103°F or higher, they may suffer from heatstroke which can result in headaches, nausea, fatigue, confusion, loss of consciousness, and even death. </p><p><a href="https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/heat_health.html" target="_blank">Chronic overheating</a> has been correlated with stress-related heart, kidney, and liver damage, though studies have not shown conclusive causation.</p><p>This makes a hotter, more humid planet more dangerous for outdoor workers.</p><p>Today, the average U.S. agricultural worker experiences 21 days per growing season when the daily heat index exceeds safety standards. Even then, agricultural workers are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4202759/" target="_blank">four times more likely to suffer heat-related illnesses</a> than non-agricultural workers and suffer <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20665306" target="_blank">four heat-related deaths</a> per one million workers per year, a rate 20 times higher than other U.S. civilian workers.</p><p>When global temperatures rise by two degrees, according to the study, the average agricultural worker will face 39 days of heat that exceed safety standards. At four degrees warming, that number grows to 62 days. Their data also show that heatwaves—defined as a three-or-more-day stretches of extreme heat—will become five times as frequent by 2050.</p><p>"The climate science community has long been pointing to the global south, the developing countries, as places that will be disproportionately affected by climate change," David Battisti, co-author and a UW professor of atmospheric sciences, said in the same release. "This shows that you don't have to go to the global south to find people who will get hurt with even modest amounts of global warming -- you just have to look in our own backyard."</p><p>It's worth noting that those numbers are averages, and agricultural workers in different locations will encounter drastically different conditions. </p><p>For example, the study's data show counties in Washington state remaining on the cooler side of the median. Meanwhile, workers in Imperial, California already contend with 105 days that exceed safety standards. By the year 2100, that number will jump to 136—nearly the entire growing season!</p>The costs will be global
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzIyNDkyNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTcxMzAwMX0.sRkdbHygYdKG9gRY_FGD4c0WLCQYUQvURZq1sSebH3I/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C206&height=700" id="4cb2f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6676d85d764d7bf53cacfcb57cc75007" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />The heat won't just affect agricultural workers; billions of people of people worldwide live without air conditioning and other cooling amenities.
<p>Heat-related illnesses are a concern for all outdoor workers, but agriculture workers are particularly vulnerable as they typically <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/expanding-skimpy-health-plans-is-the-wrong-solution-for-uninsured-farmers-and-farm" target="_blank">lack health insurance</a> and have low incomes.</p><p>The study authors propose strategies to help offset forthcoming heat hazards. They recommend reducing the pace of work; adopting thinner, breathable clothes; and taking longer breaks in cooled and sheltered areas.</p><p>But these recommendations come with trade-offs. Breathable clothing is not an option when personal protective gear is necessary to protect workers from dust, pesticides, and UV radiation, and the slower pace would hurt productivity and, as a consequence, worker's already low pay.</p><p>According to Patrick Behrer, an environmental and developmental economist and Harvard Ph.D. candidate in the Graduate School of Arts and Scienceswho was not involved in the research, the relationship between heat and pay will <a href="https://environment.harvard.edu/news/general/toll-climate-change-workers" target="_blank">take its toll on workers</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Relative to the other damages of climate change, the impact of any given hot day is small, both in absolute and relative terms; some of our other work suggests that just one additional hot day removes a fraction of a percent of your annual take-home pay. When you start talking about going from eight extremely hot days to 50 extremely hot days, then that adds up very quickly. It also adds up very quickly when you're taking a fraction of a percent of pay away from large parts of the United States."</p><p>Of the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf" target="_blank">U.S.'s most fatal occupations</a>, eight of the nine are either performed outdoors or in environments that make heat-regulation difficult to manage, such as iron and steel-working. Without proper preparation, it isn't difficult to imagine how fatigue, confusion, and other heat-related symptoms may exacerbate dangerous conditions for these essential workers.</p><p>And it is not only workers. By one study's estimate, the <a href="https://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article242499451.html" target="_blank">billions of people worldwide</a> who can't afford air conditioning will be at risk—any one of which may be a friend, neighbor, or essential member of society much closer than the next state over. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why factory farms are a "perfect storm" for disease pandemics
We've known this virus was coming. We just didn't do anything about it.
31 March, 2020
Photo: Shutterstock
- As far back as 2007, researchers warned about a novel coronavirus emerging from SARS.
- Long before that, experts knew that factory farms create the conditions for pandemics.
- Pandemics will be part of our lives as long as we continue our current methods of meat production.
<p>In 2007, a team of researchers at The University of Hong Kong <a href="https://cmr.asm.org/content/20/4/660?fbclid=IwAR2veUWlXE0ydoFEzl0PoHPPwcQQkNk1zTncJt4GleZ_whDZi9_xcCCHJyk" target="_blank">published a review</a> warning of potential dangers of SARS-related coronaviruses emerging in the near future. Four years after the SARS outbreak of 2003 the team poured over a sampling of over 4,000 publications that had reported on the crisis. They wanted to understand the conditions that might lead to another outbreak. This paragraph is worth pointing out:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Coronaviruses are well known to undergo genetic recombination, which may lead to new genotypes and outbreaks. The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb. The possibility of the re-emergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories and therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored." </p><p>A common sentiment when disaster strikes: we had no idea it was coming. Often, we have plenty of warning. We just don't pay attention. </p><p>While the spotlight of COVID-19 has been on a live animal market in Wuhan, perhaps we should be paying attention to a much larger issue, one that has been staring us in the face for decades: factory farms. </p><p>Honing in on China defeats the larger point. The influenza pandemic of 1918-19, which has gotten so much press of late, <a href="https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article200880539.html" target="_blank">originated in Kansas</a>, yet we don't hear other nations demanding retribution; the same goes for 2009's Swine Flu outbreak (<a href="https://www.wired.com/2009/05/swineflufarm/" target="_blank">thanks North Carolina!</a>). Pandemics are linked not by geography, but by a singular human desire: our love for cheap meat. </p><p>The word "virus" comes from the Latin for "toxin," coined by Dutch botanist <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Martinus-W-Beijerinck" target="_blank">Martinus Beijernick </a>while studying tobacco plants. He observed an agent even smaller than bacteria decimating the species. Blow up a virus to the size of a tennis ball and a human would have to be 500 miles tall. (A bacterium would be a beach ball.) Decades later, British biologist Peter Medawar called a virus "a piece of bad news wrapped up in a protein." They long predate and will long outlast us.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2883a470713ed81821fb10a777e83ea4"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1-zXh26D1kE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>A virus isn't even alive. It is inert until it enters an animal, such as us. Viruses also aren't particularly picky: if they can affect a species, they will. If that means passing over into other species, great—survival of the fittest and all that. Humans have always been prey to viruses but pandemics are relatively new. They only began when the conditions were right, when tribes began merging into cities and animal domestication commenced. Crowded fields of animals commingling with large human populations is the original recipe for disaster.</p><p>Small farms are bad enough, but factory farms, <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/one-root-cause-of-pandemics-few-people-think-about/" target="_blank">in the words</a> of Michael Greger, author of <em>Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching</em>, are a "perfect storm environment." He continues:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If you actually want to create global pandemics, then build factory farms." </p><p>Greger was cited by Paul Shapiro, author of <em>Clean Meat</em>, who we <a href="https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/lab-grown-clean-meat-is-almost-here-will-you-eat-it">spoke with</a> in 2017. Speculating on a future in which laboratory-grown meat is generated from pluripotent cells from animals, he said, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We don't know what some unintended consequences might be but it's hard to imagine that there will be anything like the tremendous downsides to continuing to raise and slaughter tens of billions of animals for food globally."</p><p>Systems work until they don't. Right now, the very factory farms in question are experiencing an existential crisis. Thanks to COVID-19 their demand has increased, creating even more stressful working conditions than normal. Tragically, some manufacturers <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/what-happens-if-workers-cutting-up-the-nations-meat-get-sick" target="_blank">aren't offering sick pay</a>, and as you might have guessed, employees are showing up to work ill. From New York City to Mississippi to South Dakota, workers are testing positive for the novel coronavirus. What happens to our meat supply when these farms can no longer supply the meat we demand? How do we battle an addiction when the dealers are sick? </p><p>Systems work until they don't, then they collapse. Not with a whimper but a bang. </p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkwNjkxMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTY1NDE3N30.vpeqXyBQ3msKnV_Tc4wzWef4aP4wvD16ydIjHmaTLwg/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C32%2C0%2C67&height=700" id="0f2fa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="83b5de2e1a02d3780067ddcf3bae2897" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cows in a milking parlour" />
Cows in a milking parlour on a large farm. The cows are milked by milking machine twice a day on April 24, 2019 in Verkhniy Ikorets, Russia.
Photo by Ute Grabowsky/Photothek via Getty Images
<p>A few years ago, public health expert Larry Brilliant <a href="https://bigthink.com/videos/larry-brilliant-the-biggest-threats-to-global-health" target="_self">stopped by</a> the Big Think office to discuss the most pressing issues facing humanity if a pandemic were to occur. He offered two: the diseases that ravage our biology, and more importantly, our preparation to combat those diseases. Brilliant was especially concerned in regards to the second. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We have a White House which would almost reflexly discard anything that has the word 'public' in it, and one of those words is 'public health.' And they have not shown a keen interest in pandemics. The whole idea of 'America First,' which might be good for many things, is singularly not good for a global pandemic."</p><p>Brilliant says we've had 30 to 40 diseases, almost all of which are viruses, that jump from animals to humans at a rate of roughly one a year. The number is increasing—not catastrophically, he says, at least not yet. The reason for concern? Humans and animals living in such close proximity due to clear-cutting of forests and factory farms. This proximity is creating a "natural virus experiment." </p><p>How to stop this experiment? We have to curb our enthusiasm for meat. Eating less of it, sure, and being more discerning about where you source meat. Words like "natural" don't mean anything on a package; even "free range" is suspect. Knowing your farmer is important. Or, as Shapiro advocates, the emerging market of "clean meat," which is actual meat cultured in laboratories. A consumer-priced burger isn't there yet, but we're getting closer. </p><p>We can also add vegetarian and flexitarian arguments here. Yet I'm wary of recent vegan arguments that humans were not designed to eat meat. You can't rewrite history—humans are humans thanks in part to our consumption of meat, as thinkers such as <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/206671/the-story-of-the-human-body-by-daniel-e-lieberman/" target="_blank">Daniel Lieberman</a> and <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/richard-wrangham/catching-fire/9780465020416/" target="_blank">Richard Wrangham</a> have pointed out. We can—and should—argue about the future, but let us at least understand where we come from. </p><p>One thing is certain: stopping this virus experiment will require seriously rethinking the system that's creating it. At least the next time someone asks, "how could this have happened?," tell them we already know the answer. We've known it for generations. What we do about it moving forward is the story we've yet to write.</p><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His next book is</em> "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Can these giant dams keep Europe from drowning?
Why a 400-mile enclosure around the North Sea is not as crazy as it sounds
22 February, 2020
Image: Groeskamp & Kjellsson
- The Northern European Enclosure Dam (NEED) would cut off the North and Baltic Seas from the Atlantic Ocean.
- It would save 15 countries, and up to 55 million people, from sea level rise—but at a cost.
- The idea is a warning more than a plan: NEED will be necessary if we don't stop global warming now.
<p><br></p></div>
<p><em>'NEED – The Northern European Enclosure Dam for if climate change mitigation fails' by <a href="https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/" target="_blank">Sjoerd Groeskamp</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/joakimkjellsson?lang=en" target="_blank">Joakim Kjellsson</a>, was published in the <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/bams/current" target="_blank">January 2020 Bulletin</a> of the <a href="https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/" target="_blank">American Meteorological Society</a>. Read it in full <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0145.1" target="_blank">here</a>. Image of Wieringermeer flood found <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Overstroming_van_de_Wieringmeerpolder._Op_17_april_1945_hebben_de_Duitsers_nog_d,_Bestanddeelnr_900-3188.jpg" target="_blank">here</a> on <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a>. Map of Netherlands flooding found <a href="https://www.oogtv.nl/2018/09/zeespiegelstijging-laat-provincie-niet-onberoerd/" target="_blank">here</a> at <a href="https://www.oogtv.nl/" target="_blank">Oog TV</a>.</em></p><p><strong>Strange Maps #1012</strong></p><p><em>Got a strange map? Let me know at</em> <a href="mailto:strangemaps@gmail.com">strangemaps@gmail.com</a>.</p>
Unprecedented scale
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc4NDA4MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTk4ODgwMX0.OIVPa10vLKHoSRNoKxamwi5G6gxdbo16RP1scPHu0mo/img.jpg?width=980" id="fcc7f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f8017c1ceba1cb482445330caa4d8771" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="The top of a 4.5-m (15-ft) statue, some rooftops and a church spire are all that remains above water in Wieringerwerf, near Amsterdam, during the Wieringermeer flood of 1945." />The top of a 4.5-m (15-ft) statue, some rooftops and a church spire are all that remains above water in Wieringerwerf, near Amsterdam, during the Wieringermeer flood of 1945.
Image: Nationaal Archief / Willem van de Poll / Anefo – CC0 1.0
<p>Climate change is real, and it's bad. It's also gradual and impersonal. That's why it's both tempting and easy to stick your head in the sand. Do that long enough, though, and you're likely to drown, as sea level rise (SLR) catches up with you. </p><p><span></span>Here's something that might shock you into action: A plan for a giant dam to protect 15 European countries from those rising seas. The project's scale is unprecedented. Its cost phenomenal. But it's still cheaper than all the alternatives—including doing nothing. All the alternatives except one: Taking action now against climate change.</p><p>Here's how the situation looks today:</p><ul><li>Current global mean temperature is about 1°C (1.8°F) above pre-industrial levels.</li><li>Rising temperatures cause rising sea levels, albeit with a lag. Global mean SLR is 18 cm (7 in) since 1880 and it's accelerating.</li><li>Current policies imply a further global warming of up to 3.1 °C (5.6°F) by 2100, so it's virtually certain SLR will continue well beyond that date.</li><li>The rule of thumb: For every extra °C, expect an SLR of 2.3 m (7.5 ft). Because of the lagging effect, SLR by 2100 would be 'only' 1 to 2 m (3.3 to 6.6 ft). But by 2500, it could be as high as 10 m (32.8 ft). </li></ul>"The magnitude of that threat demands a solution that reflects the scale of the problem," write oceanographers Sjoerd Groeskamp and Joakim Kjellsson. In a paper that has just been published in <em>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society</em>, they propose the construction of a Northern European Enclosure Dam (NEED), that would disconnect the North and Baltic Seas from the Atlantic Ocean, thus protecting 15 countries (and millions of people) from the dangers of SLR.51 billion tons of sand
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc4NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NDY3MDUxOX0.OBTnDcd9Y64t5TdAnFEqB_uZSjsrQh7PqzYYTnwgl0A/img.png?width=980" id="11971" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d88cac55f5ef3e49a37afb6ce49f3a77" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bTotal length: almost 400 miles. Total cost: up to $600 billion. PInk dots: areas with high population density." />Total length: Almost 400 miles. Total cost: Up to $600 billion. PInk dots: Areas with high population density.
Image: Groeskamp & Kjellsson
<p>The logistics of their proposal are dizzying:</p><ul><li>NEED would consist of two major sections: NEED-South, a dam connecting France's Breton coast (near Brest) with England's south-west coast. It would measure 161 km (100 mi) in length, with an average depth of 85 m (279 ft) and a maximum depth of 102 m (335 ft).</li><li>NEED-North would consist of several parts, linking the Scottish mainland to the Orkney and Shetland Islands, and from there to Norway. Its total length would be 476 km (296 mi), with an average depth of 127 m (417 ft) and a maximum depth of 321 m (1,053 ft) in the Norwegian Trench. </li><li>NEED would have a combined length of 637 km (396 mi).</li><li>NEED would have a combined volume of 36.2 km3 (8.7 mi3), which would require 51 billion tons of sand. That is equal to one year's worth of global sand use.</li><li>Total price for NEED: Somewhere between €250-€550 billion ($270-$600 bn).</li><li>NEED would protect coastal communities in 15 countries, keeping the feet dry of 25 million to 55 million people; depending on SLR of between 2 to 15 m (6.6 to 49.2 ft), respectively. </li></ul>Comparing NEED to alternative solutions—managed retreat, country-by-country mitigation—the oceanographers arrived at an alarming conclusion: "A solution as considerable as NEED might be a viable and cost-effective protection measure for even a few meters of SLR."Cheapest option
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc4NDA4OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTcwOTY0OH0.gFrtRKV8NZxgcATlLBEtPxRWaE5-L--OjxVXvbXQXbI/img.jpg?width=980" id="6ef40" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="aa2a02e53b72d1d2acd6bcf3d2e7d403" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="\u200bWhat would happen to the Netherlands if the sea level rose by 1.8 m (6 ft): the blue area would flood." />What would happen to the Netherlands if the sea level rose by 1.8 m (6 ft): The blue area would flood.
Image: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
<p>So, how do those alternatives pan out, exactly? </p><p>Since so much of most countries' population and economies is located at or near the coast, the cost of doing nothing is extreme: Up to 10 times as high as the main alternatives, protection and retreat. Being scientists rather than politicians, Groeskamp and Kjellsson only considered the latter two. </p><ul><li>Managed retreat is a feasible option and is indeed being implemented in the Netherlands, for example, on a small scale. But large-scale retreat for SLR would involve forced migration of large numbers of people, widespread psychological trauma, massive loss of cultural heritage, and political instability at an international level.</li><li>The combined cost of protection on a per-country basis would soon dwarf the cost of NEED. Again, the Dutch example. In a scenario of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) SLR by 2100, the Netherlands would need to spend up to €140 billion ($152 bn) on sea defenses. That alone amounts to about one-third of the total cost of NEED. </li></ul>Indeed, despite its massive scale and massive cost, NEED would be the cheapest way to mitigate SLR.<ul><li>Spread out over 20 years, its cost would amount to at most 0.16% of the combined GDP of the 15 countries involved.</li><li>Even if the cost were borne by the five local countries most likely affected by SLR (the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Germany), it would still only amount to 0.32% of their combined GDP, tops.</li></ul>"For SLR of even a few meters, we expect that the integrated cost of individual protection of all 15 countries together far exceeds the costs of constructing NEED," write the paper's authors.Serious consequences
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc4NDA5MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTQ0MDk1N30.nSH9MGVDTJQ0Mf8t66lYSW2zMzDGo-2q70hPZhyOSqE/img.png?width=980" id="19574" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="78df80a4fb384c04809d40fe7c5ce331" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Some other parts of the world where solutions similar to NEED could help safeguard coastal areas from sea level rise." />Some other parts of the world where solutions similar to NEED could help safeguard coastal areas from sea level rise.
Image: Groeskamp & Kjellsson
<p>They are not presenting NEED as a panacea, however. Blocking off the North and Baltic Seas from the Atlantic Ocean will have far-reaching, and potentially serious consequences for the region's ecosystems, economies and societies. <br></p><ul><li>Rivers will continue to discharge into the enclosed seas, and this alone will lead to an annual SLR of 0.9 m (3 ft). Around 100 major pumping stations would be needed to transfer that volume to the ocean.</li><li>The continued discharge would also lead to a freshening of the basin, with salinity projected to reduce by a factor 10 over the course of a century. This would greatly affect biodiversity and fishing.</li><li>The damming of the North Sea would produce important changes in the tidal amplitudes, on both sides of NEED. Inside, it would be greatly reduced. Outside, it would increase by up to 0.7 m (2.3 ft) along the coasts of Wales and southwest England. This would have a major effect on the circulation of sediment, nutrients and small marine life in the area.</li><li>NEED would lock Europe's four busiest ports—Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bremerhaven, Hamburg—behind a huge dam. New harbors would need to be built on the exterior of the dams, and/or sluices to accommodate the volume of traffic to the interior ports. </li></ul>"Certain consequences will oppose people to the idea of constructing NEED. Alternative solutions, however, will undoubtedly also lead to irreversible environmental changes," write Groeskamp and Kjellsson. Ideally, neither NEED nor its alternatives should be necessary, they say: "We hope that the mere suggestion of NEED as a solution (…) may instigate a thought process that sparks public awareness of the threat that SLR poses, possibly clearing a path for global-scale action to address long-term climate change-related threats." Without such action, "SLR will lead to unavoidable and irreversible loss of physical places, cultural heritage and environmental and ecological systems." Right now, NEED is a warning. But if nothing—or too little—is done, it may still become the least-worst option for saving north-western Europe from drowning.
Keep reading
Show less
20 inspiring nature words you didn't know you needed
Hundreds more are documented in Robert Macfarlane's Landmarks.
20 January, 2020
Photo: Ahmed Saeed / Unsplash
- In Landmarks, Robert Macfarlane revives hundreds of nearly-forgotten words to remind us of our relationship with nature.
- New dictionaries are deleting nature words while adding technology terms, which Macfarlane states further separates us from the environment.
- The words we speak shape the reality we understand, making it essential to aptly describe what is happening on the planet.
<h2>A' Ghnùig (Gaelic)</h2><p>The steep slope of the scowling expression.</p><p><em>Human nature is part of nature too</em>.</p><h2>Adnasjur (Shetland)</h2><p>Large wave or waves, coming after a succession of lesser ones.</p><p><em>Surfers know the danger of being caught in one of these cycles.</em></p><h2>Blinter (Northern Scots)</h2><p>A cold dazzle.</p><h2>Bobbles (North Sea Coast)</h2><p>Choppy, short waves roused by wind.</p><h2>Caitein (Gaelic)</h2><p>First slight ruffling of the water after a calm.</p><h2>Dringey (Lincolnshire)</h2><p>Light rain that still manages to get you soaking wet.</p><p><em>The perfect word to yell out when you leave your umbrella at home</em>.</p><h2>Èit (Gaelic)</h2><p>Practice of placing quartz stones in moorland streams so that they would sparkle in moonlight and thereby attract salmon to them in the late summer and autumn.</p><p><em>While this holds little practical utility for most of us today, it's an example of the complex relationship between humans and nature and our attempt at condensing seemingly disparate realms—vision; nighttime; hunting; seasons—into one word. Also, pay attention to Macfarlane's "user-value framework" explained below. To have a language that describes a world that doesn't include us in its workings is essential.</em></p><h2>Feetings (Suffolk)</h2><p> Footprints of creatures as they appear in the snow.</p><h2>Flinchin (Scots) </h2><p>Deceitful promise of better weather.</p><p><em>Weathermen have gotten better, but not that good...</em></p><h2>Glassel (Britain)</h2><p>A seaside pebble which was shiny and interesting when wet, and which is now a lump of rock.</p><h2>Hot-spong (East Anglia) </h2><p>Sudden power of heat felt when the sun comes from under a wind-shifted cloud.</p><p><em>Nothing like that feeling</em>.</p><h2>Kimmeridge (Britain)</h2><p>The light breeze that blows through your armpit hair when you are stretched out sunbathing.</p><h2>Lunkie (Scots)</h2><p>Hole deliberately left in a wall for an animal to pass through.</p><h2>Skiddle (Galloway)</h2><p>To throw flat stones so that they skim on the surface of water.</p><p><em>I wrote an </em><a href="https://open.spotify.com/track/0QxkAAeeLMFzsc7QrayuxB?si=dFJt138kTqOGiKRId9gaJg" target="_blank"><em>entire song</em></a><em> to describe the feeling I had when doing this as a kid. Little did I know it was already named!</em></p><h2>Slogger (invented by Gerard Manley Hopkins)</h2><p>Sucking sound made by waves against a ship's side.<span></span></p><h2>Squatted (Kent)</h2><p>Splashed with mud by a passing vehicle.</p><h2>Stravaig (Scots)</h2><p>To wander aimlessly, unguided by outcome or destination.</p><p><em>Is this even practiced in a world with GPS?</em></p><h2>Summer Geese (North Yorkshire)</h2><p>Steam that rises from the moor when rain is followed by hot sunshine.</p><h2>Terra nullius (Latin)</h2><p>"Nothing-place," uninhabitable land.</p><h2>Ungive (Northamptonshire)</h2><p>To thaw.</p>
<p>To create what he termed a "psychedelic society," the ethnobotanist Terence McKenna declared that we must completely remake "our fundamental ontological conceptions of reality." In order to accomplish this, he suggested a new language to address the new reality we are embarking upon. "A new reality will generate a new language," he wrote in his essay, "Psychedelic Society." "A new language will make a new reality legitimate and a part of this reality."</p><p>Humans structure reality by how we name things. A language is not only a means for transferring ideas and directives to others; it serves as a guiding philosophy for how you understand reality. McKenna was imagining a new future, yet he also knew that the archaic techniques of ecstasy provided by shamanism was a means for looking back to reconstruct our present reality. In some ways he was suggesting the resurrection of an old language for new purposes. </p><p>Likewise, British writer Robert Macfarlane (<a href="https://bigthink.com/podcast/robert-macfarlane" target="_blank">recently featured</a> on the Think Again podcast) has devoted his career to understanding and, at times, translating the natural world (for us novices, at least). His book, <em>Landmarks</em>, is an attempt to create a dictionary of forgotten languages that describe the world in ways that help us to understand reality differently and, perhaps, more perceptively.</p><p>"We inhabit a post-pastoral terrain, full of modification and compromise," he writes, noting that we now have difficulty imagining reality outside of a "user-value framework." Indeed, environmental decimation would be impossible if we had a better way of discussing what is actually happening to the planet. The problem is the language of technology has displaced discussion of nature. A recent edition of the <em>Oxford Junior Dictionary</em> added words such as broadband, chatroom, and voice-mail while deleting actor, dandelion, and heron—words the gatekeepers decided were no longer relevant to the experience of childhood.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8bef574aa91d2dfe9207c58562cb0d13"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2a7cjq_N3dE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Yet, as Macfarlane writes, "language does not just register experience, it produces it." We educate children by the words we teach them. Australian environmental philosopher, Glenn Albrecht, coined the term <em>solastalgia</em> to describe "the pain or distress caused by the loss or lack of solace and the sense of desolation connected to the present state of one's home and territory." That's a word millions of his countrymen are feeling at this very moment.</p><p>When I <a href="https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/glenn-albrecht-earth-emotions" target="_self">asked Albrecht</a> about <em>Landmarks</em>—Macfarlane offered an overwhelmingly positive blurb on Albrecht's book, <em>Earth Emotions</em>—he replied, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"One of the major things is the recovery of language, which is being lost in a world which is transforming so rapidly that the old words for the way that humans have culturally and bio-physically evolved are being lost. He's reviving them and putting them back into the language."</p><p>We can only see what we name. A culture deficient in terminology is incapable of registering what is being destroyed in terms of environmental as well as personal awareness. The above 20 words from <em>Landmarks</em> remind us of what is possible to imagine—and experience—when we have names for it. </p>
<div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="72XX7C1579444306" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Landmarks-Landscapes-Robert-Macfarlane/dp/0241967872?SubscriptionId=AKIAJGTABWIBL2VADPUA&tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0241967872" target="_blank">
<img src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ry0XEpX%2BL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Landmarks (Landscapes)</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Landmarks-Landscapes-Robert-Macfarlane/dp/0241967872?SubscriptionId=AKIAJGTABWIBL2VADPUA&tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0241967872" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$18.00</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$8.64</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$6.32</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
<p>--<br></p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His next book is </em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Fashion contributes to 10 percent of humanity's carbon emissions
Fast fashion has a devastating impact on the environment. Here's what you need to know before heading to Zara this holiday season.
09 December, 2019
Photo Credit: Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images
- The fashion industry is responsible for an alarming 10 percent of all of humanity's carbon emissions.
- Eighty-five percent of all textiles are trashed each year, ending up in a landfill or incinerated.
- By wearing one item of clothing for 9 months longer a person can actually reduce his or her carbon footprint by 30 percent.
<p>'Tis the season to be shopping. Across the country, Americans are flocking to malls, outlets, department stores, as well as online retail sites to get their loved one's gifts this holiday season.</p>But this ritual of consumption has had a devastating effect on the planet, and particularly when it comes to fashion. <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion" target="_blank">The fashion industry</a> is responsible for an alarming 10 percent of all of humanity's carbon emissions, thanks largely to the business model known as "fast fashion" that has come to dominate this century.
The Fast Fashion Model
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE0NjYyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzYwMDkxM30.6nu97T9Yu1ZMPBHTrokBbDeL6lfF-ob86r1mIfkPZvU/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=148%2C143%2C104%2C190&height=700" id="3de8d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="14b9c627e82e1ed074454e58f1784886" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: live.staticflickr.com
<p>Back in the 1980s, the average American only purchased about 12 new articles of clothing every year. But in 1993 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) <a href="https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/sustainablefashion/" target="_blank">made it much easier</a> to import clothing by abolishing a quota system that had limited the number of items that could enter the U.S. and giving rise to fast fashion. The aim of this model is to make trendy clothes off the runway quick, cheap, and disposable. Think retailers such as H&M and Zara. They make their money by squeezing the time between trends, frequently filling their stores with new collections of cheap clothing that breaks down quickly enough for shoppers to come in for the next collection. In 2016, <em><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/buying-less-by-buying-better/462639/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a></em> reported that the average American buys 64 new articles of clothing per year. </p><p>Of course, fast fashion has democratized fashion by making clothing more affordable and giving rise to greater variety. But this comes at a grave environmental cost.</p>Making Fashion is an Environmental Disaster
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE0NjYzMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzI0MjQ4NX0.zZPIYOPyeb8FOipn8d4Rui2KJKepSldfB1nxyd9vJz4/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C79%2C0%2C145&height=700" id="d5565" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5b2655affc70f1f04d646f89403bf046" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Photo Credit: REUTERS / Mohamed Azakir
<p>In 2015, textile production contributed to <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion" target="_blank">more CO2 emissions</a> than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. For instance, <a href="http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Full-LCA-Results-Deck-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">making one pair</a> of jeans produces as much greenhouse gases as driving a car more than 80 miles.</p><p>This has to do with the materials used in the production process.Take the water-intensive crop cotton for example. It takes 2,700 liters of water to make a single cotton shirt, enough for the average person to live on for two-and-a-half years. Worse yet are synthetic fabrics like polyester, spandex, and nylon, which use nearly 342 million barrels of oil. <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/07/apparel-industrys-environmental-impact-6-graphics" target="_blank">According to World Resources Institute</a>, producing polyester — a kind of plastic found in around 60 percent of garments — emits two to three times more carbon than cotton. Furthermore, washing these clothing items sends as many as 500,000 tons of microplastics into the ocean each year. That's estimated to be about the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles. Overall, microplastics are estimated to compose up to 31 percent of plastic pollution in the ocean. </p><p>Another popular fabric used is viscose, a silky material that comes from fiber derived from wood pulp using extremely <a href="https://www.commonobjective.co/article/viscose-and-its-impact" target="_blank">unsustainable and chemically intensive production methods</a>. As much as <a href="https://canopyplanet.org/campaigns/canopystyle/" target="_blank">70 percent</a> of the wood harvested is wasted while the other 30 percent ends up in the garments that we wear.</p>Furthermore, making and dyeing textiles involves the use of toxic chemicals which often are discarded by being dumped into lakes, streams, rivers, and ditches <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jean-factory-toxic-waste-plagues-lesotho/" target="_blank">poisoning local communities</a>. Garment manufacturing is <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/07/apparel-industrys-environmental-impact-6-graphics" target="_blank">responsible for 20 percent</a> of all industrial water pollution around the globe and ranks in as the world's second-largest polluter of water.Where Fashion Goes
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="74b9333142c40a0567b4445d766365e6"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/elU32XNj8PM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Finally, there's what happens to the clothes when we are done with them. <a href="https://qz.com/359040/the-internet-and-cheap-clothes-have-made-us-sport-shoppers/" target="_blank">Although we are buying</a> more clothes than ever before, we are keeping them for <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula" target="_blank">half as long</a>. Shockingly, <a href="https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/a-new-textiles-economy-redesigning-fashions-future" target="_blank">85 percent</a> of all textiles are trashed each year, ultimately ending up in a landfill or incinerated. The average American throws away 80 pounds of clothes per year. That's about o<a href="https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report_Updated_1-12-17.pdf" target="_blank">ne garbage truck of clothes</a> being burned or sent to landfills <em>every second</em>!</p> Even if you donate your clothes, they still often get dumped. What charities can't sell or give away are sold by the ton to buyers in the developing world and still end up in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elU32XNj8PM" target="_blank">landfills in those countries</a>. Perhaps you've seen in-store recycling bins with retailers like H&M implying that the old clothes you bring in will be recycled to make new clothing. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/clothes-recycling-marketplace-1.4493490" target="_blank">But less than one percent</a> of their clothing is actually recycled to make new clothing. That's because the blend of fibers that make their clothes don't break down easily.What Can Be Done
<p>Maybe the most important thing we can do is to simply buy less stuff by wearing the clothes that we already have for longer. Incredibly, by wearing one item of clothing for 9 months longer a person can actually reduce his or her carbon footprint by 30 percent. Some companies, such as Patagonia, actually ask that you send in a damaged item of clothing for free repair rather than tossing it and buying something new.</p>Another thing you can do is to thrift shop. If everyone bought one used item instead of new this year, the amount of <a href="https://www.thredup.com/resale" target="_blank">CO2 emissions saved</a> would be equivalent to removing half a million cars from the road for a year. Finally, as the holiday season is in full swing and many are still scrambling to buy gifts for loved ones, you might consider gifting experiences or something hand-made rather than store-bought garb.
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
Featured Video
