Published Work

From Little Things

Published in Renew: Technology for a Sustainable Future

“It’s about eco before ego,” says Arabella Douglas, referring to core Indigenous values. She is a proud Minyunbal woman, and founder of Currie Country—named after James and Ellen Currie, traditional land owners and Douglas’ great-great-grandparents. Currie Country operates like a cousins consortium, encapsulating many small Indigenous owned businesses and foundations that share ancestral ties. She started it fourteen years ago after seeing gaps in cultural knowledge across different groups. One of Currie Country’s largest missions, as Douglas explains, is to make sure Indigenous people feel “culturally confident in their own systems”, along with providing a space for people outside the community to learn about Indigenous practices too. Currie Country focuses on areas like connection to spirit, country, community and environment, with an important subsection of this being native foods. But as Douglas points out, it’s more than just tasting new flavours. “People see [indigenous food] on a plate and think, ‘That’s great,’ but the foundation is dedicated to sustaining [First Nation’s] own cultural education.”

A Blue Solution

Published in Sowing Seeds Magazine

Capturing excess carbon in the atmosphere is seen as an imperative step in slowing climate change. Everything from burying greenhouse gases underground to injecting light-reflective sulphates into the stratosphere has been put forward as a method of achieving this goal, but what if a natural solution could be found in one of Earth’s oldest and largest animals?

The protection of whales has always been a key issue for environmentalists due to their intelligence, beauty and the cruelty of the culling practices that have been commercialised for centuries. Whale populations have been brought to the brink of extinction on numerous occasions for their oil, meat and certain medicinal practices. In 1974, there were only 360 blue whales left, sparking international intervention that saw a global moratorium imposed—which, to this day, is still regarded as one of the greatest conservation achievements ever made. Today, the population of humpback whales is estimated to have reached 93% of their pre-whaling numbers, highlighting that with the right systems it is possible for fauna to recover. The same cannot be said for all species though, as around 300,000 whales and dolphins are still killed yearly.

Recently, scientists have discovered yet another crucial reason we should be doing everything we can to protect the still-endangered species. Whales naturally perform carbon sequestration by taking carbon dioxide and storing it in their bodily fats and proteins. Put plainly by Angela Martin of Blue Climate Solutions: “Whales eat carbon, not fish.” On average, a whale ‘eats’ 33 tonnes of carbon in their lifetime. To give some context to this number, a tree sequesters around one tonne of carbon dioxide in the same span of time. When whales die, their carcasses sink to the seafloor, where the carbon they’ve accumulated over the course of their lifetime remains for hundreds of years. 30,000 tonnes of carbon is carried to the bottom of the ocean each year by eight different types of baleen whales, such as the minke, humpback and blue. Should the marine creatures return to their pre-whaling population numbers, it’s estimated that this figure could rise by another 100,000 tonnes.

In addition to whales’ direct consumption of carbon, they also play a vital role in marine ecosystems. The ocean already absorbs a third of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and has therefore seen a 0.13℃ rise in its surface temperature every decade for the last 100 years. In the coming years, this rate is set to increase by 24% at minimum, but whales can help to regulate this concerning figure. Due to their swimming patterns, they stimulate water flow—driving iron and nitrogen-rich nutrients from the bottom of the ocean towards the surface. These nutrients then boost marine flora which, through the process of photosynthesis, further remove carbon from the atmosphere. One important variety of marine life that benefits from this natural process is phytoplankton.

Phytoplankton are seen as the foundation of the aquatic food chain—and, like whales, are a natural solution in society’s fight against climate change. Amazingly, the microscopic organisms are thought to account for 50-80% of the Earth’s oxygen, meaning the lungs of the world are actually underwater. Whales feed into this cycle, as their faeces fertilise the phytoplankton, stimulating growth and contributing to a nutrient-rich environment for marine life to thrive. This cooperation between marinelife highlights the ecological systems that exist organically within nature, from which humanity can learn.

While working to increase whale populations around the globe should certainly be a factor when solving the climate emergency, it won’t solve all of our problems. The amount of carbon produced globally is currently around 40 billion tonnes each year—so, even if whale populations were to return to what they were before commercial hunting, and the amount of phytoplankton were to simultaneously increase, they would still only just manage to offset our current carbon output.

With that said, the findings gathered on whales’ carbon consumption highlight that natural solutions to mitigating emissions do exist, and have subsequently sparked research into other species that could potentially offset carbon dioxide levels. One such example are endangered elephants in Africa, which help to increase the amount of carbon stored in forests. The grazing patterns of these elephants living in rainforests in Central Africa promote the growth of larger hardwood trees, which absorb a higher amount of carbon than their softwood counterparts. By knocking over smaller shrubs and trees, they give larger varieties more room and light to grow. Should these forest elephants go extinct, 3 billion tonnes of carbon would be added back into the atmosphere from their lack of ecosystem services. This just goes to show that every living being plays an important role within its ecosystem. A single species going extinct can have a greater effect on that system and the planet as a whole, than could ever be imagined. Animal conservation will always be important, whether the animals we’re conserving play a part in addressing climate change or not, but with this new information on the carbon-consuming work done by marine life, now more than ever, efforts need to be made to keep our oceans clean. Pollution, fishing nets and other human activities have all impacted the health of whales, as well as the rising ocean temperature. In 2015, over 300 Sei whales washed up on Chilean shores due to a toxic algae bloom caused by warming waters. Devastating events like this one are set to become the new normal if we don’t work with nature, rather than against it. The next 30 years will be critical for our oceans—with scientists hopeful that if we start serious conservation action now, we can substantially rebuild marine life by 2050. The window of opportunity for preserving this natural wonder is narrow, expensive and requires a huge change in human behaviour—but seeing as we have the knowledge and tools to make those changes, don’t we owe it to future generations to try?

How Clean is the Cloud?

Published in Sowing Seeds Magazine

When we think about waste our minds immediately drift to landfill, the plastics floating along our local beach, or perhaps the single use coffee cups in our car. All physical reminders of the way our choices impact the natural world around us, but what about the waste we can’t see? Every year 50 million metric tons of electronic waste is produced globally, and it’s a number that’s rapidly growing.

With nearly 60% of the world connected online, cloud computing is on the rise. Services like Netflix, Facebook and Gmail all make use of off-site networks to store data, rather than it being held within your phone or laptop. It’s easy to feel like these services, and even this article, don’t have a physical presence thanks to the cloud. Even the name itself encourages us to visualise our data floating above us before it disappears into thin air, but our internet activity is actually stored in processing centres across the globe and significantly contributing to the rate in which it’s warming.

Every click, scroll, and double tap produces a little piece of energy. On an individual level a swipe on Tinder feels small, but amplify it by over one million swipes per minute and that energy begins to accumulate. In fact, an industry like Bitcoin could alone produce enough CO2 to cause the atmosphere to warm by two degrees Celsius by 2050. In 2012, there were half a million data centres needed to process our online activities, and in just nine years that number has grown to eight million. The reliance the Global North has on technology is increasing at an unprecedented rate, and without change the internet could be responsible for 20% of the world energy in the next 15 years. A large portion of these greenhouse gas emissions are due to the amount of heat data centres produce. The need for 24/7 online connection means centres can never ‘go dark’, and the heat generated from servers, back up generators and storage equipment requires constant cooling day and night. Along with the fact that the runoff chemicals used to keep servers in these centres cool are often ecologically detrimental. A simple Google search can activate servers in up to eight different locations, producing a carbon footprint that rivals that of the aviation industry. And while it’s become a common thread among the environmentally conscious to go on a ‘flight diet’, should we be focusing on going on a ‘tech diet’ too?

According to University teacher Philippa Gaut, ‘anything we can do to reduce carbon emissions is important, no matter how small, and that includes how we behave on the internet’. There are slight changes each of us can make when it comes to our internet activity to lower the amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the environment. One of the biggest carbon savers is to extend the life of the technology you already own. A study by the university of Edinburgh discovered that by keeping your computer for six years rather than four could prevent 190kg of emissions from being released into the atmosphere. Another aspect in reducing our digital footprint is changing the ways in which we communicate online. Swapping email attachments for links to documents, unsubscribing from unwanted mailing lists, and talking via text rather than messaging apps like Facebook and WhatsApp are all greener ways of interacting in online spaces. Changing internet etiquette when it comes to emailing will also save carbon emissions—for example in the UK, if everyone sent one less ‘thank you’ email a year the carbon saved would be the same as removing 3334 diesel cars from the roads. Even with these small actions however, the global tech industry is responsible for a range of environmental impacts out of our control, which is why joining a bigger movement for climate action is important.

Some of the major cloud computing providers have already taken steps towards making their business models more sustainable. Both Google and Microsoft are carbon neutral, with Microsoft committing to become carbon negative in the next ten years. While these are steps in the right direction, both companies are still connected to grids powered by fossil fuels, despite their 100% renewable claims. Amazon Web Services are the largest supplier of cloud infrastructure, and also the furthest behind when it comes to environmental action. The company is yet to reach net zero carbon emissions, pledging to do so by 2040. However, the same year this plan was implemented their footprint grew by 15%, leaving many sceptical about Amazon’s green future, with Greenpeace finding only 12% of power used for their data centres are renewables. All these providers have invested significantly in wind farms and solar energy, but it is still crucial that us as consumers hold them accountable. Gary Cook, who works for Greenpeace as a senior corporate campaigner, has looked into the environmental impacts of data centres extensively. Cook encourages users to ‘push the internet platforms and applications you use to power their data centres with renewable energy, and if they fail to take action, switch to those who are’. The technology sector has already made significant changes as a result of consumers’ concerns, and with campaigning more changes can be achieved.

The Internet of Things has unarguably brought benefits to society when it comes to accessing information, healthcare and global communication. According to the United Nations, advances in technology can accelerate the achievement of their Sustainable Development Goals, which include suitable farming, universal literacy and ending poverty. Even protest movements are now grounded in digital exchanges. The cloud is a core feature in so many people’s daily life, and is only going to grow in the coming years. But while this technology has come with its benefits, it’s time to ensure it doesn’t come at a cost for the environment into the future.

The Humanitarian Side of Climate Change

Published in Sowing Seeds Magazine

Discussions about climate change are often framed by an environmental perspective, and rightly so. The ice caps are melting, unparalleled numbers of species risk extinction and natural ecosystems are being lost. But alongside all of these issues, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding too: since 2008, there have been an average of 26.4 million people displaced per year due to extreme weather events. Floods, windstorms, earthquakes, fires and droughts are all forcing people from their homes every second of the day, and as these natural disasters increase, so too does the number of climate migrants seeking refuge.

The escalating severity of the climate crisis has already sparked a new wave of migration, with the Red Cross estimating that there are now more environmental refugees than political ones. These people are likely to migrate firstly within their own country before crossing borders, which makes it difficult for them to seek protection under international law. This internal forced migration has already occurred in countries like Senegal in West Africa. The combination of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and warmer water temperatures has meant that 97% of people in Senegal who depend on fishing for their livelihood have had to relocate. This is an issue for coastal areas everywhere—if sea levels continue to rise at the current rate, by 2050, some 150 million people will be without a place to call home.

The term ‘climate refugee’ isn’t classified under law, which raises challenges for those seeking protection or assistance. According to the United Nations (UN), a refugee is “a person who has crossed an international border owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Forced migration from environmental factors doesn’t fall under this definition independently, despite the work the UN High Commissioner for Refugees does to protect those most vulnerable. Therefore, rather than referring to those affected by environmental factors as climate refugees, the UN has opted to use the term ‘persons displaced in the context of disasters and climate change’, or climate migrants.

Being forced to leave a country is almost always multi-causal, with a combination of social, political, economic and environmental factors all contributing to migration. For those living in a country with an already scarce water supply or oppressive political regimes, climate change only adds pressure to the systems in place. An example of this is the humanitarian crisis occurring in Syria. Water scarcity and control has been a key factor in escalating the country’s conflict. From 2006 to 2011, Syria was in a multi-seasonal drought, with not enough rainfall to sustain un-irrigated farms, resulting in lower levels of food production and economic security. This meant that rural agriculture workers were forced to migrate to urban areas in search of jobs. In total, more than 1.5 million people made this move, and with not enough opportunities for them all, socioeconomic tensions arose. Water alone wasn’t the cause of the civil war, but rather heightened the stresses felt by residents and became a weaponised resource over the years—a factor that to this day contributes to the 12 million displaced people from Syria in need of assistance.

Earlier this year, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) set a precedent for how governments around the world should support climate migrants. Pacific Island resident Ioana Teitiota was forced to apply for asylum in New Zealand as a result of the rising sea levels, no longer habitable land and a lack of drinking water in his home country of Kiribati. Further, five uninhabited islands that are part of the Solomon Islands have already been submerged due to climate change, and nations like Kiribati and Tuvalu only sit one or two metres above the water. When New Zealand denied Teitiota’s claim, he brought the case to the UN, who made history by ruling that New Zealand violated his right to life by forcing him to return home. The UNHRC found that governments who send people back to countries where they will be exposed to life-threatening risks or inhumane treatment as a result of climate change are acting unlawfully, similarly to sending a migrant back to a conflict zone. Teitota’s case marks the first time the committee has outwardly expressed this view, and while it is not legally binding, it encourages leaders to take environmental displacement seriously. Those at risk shouldn’t have to wait until their lives are in drastic danger before there’s intervention, with one committee member stating that it would be “counter intuitive to the protection of life to wait for deaths to be very frequent and considerable.” All countries have a duty to protect others from the extreme threats of climate change, and Teitota’s case shows that said protection needs to be implemented now.

Bangladesh is facing a similar crisis to the Pacific Islands with regard to climate action not being able to meet the pace at which displacement is occurring. Rising sea levels, coastal flooding, salinisation and the increased frequency of tropical storms are all forcing hundreds of thousands of people to relocate to the capital city, Dhaka. Out of the five million people living in the city’s slums, 70% are there as a result of environmental disasters. Golam Mostafa is one of the many who have been forced to relocate from their homes by the coast. He told National Geographic that he doesn’t know about global warming but knows that “if the river didn’t take our land, I wouldn’t need to be here.” ‘Here’ being the shed he shares with 15 others on the outskirts of Dhaka. Mostafa’s family home was destroyed by a severe storm when he was a child; the family rebuilt, only for their house to be taken by flood waters a second time. They then rebuilt again, but the cycle continued. The last storm that hit was Cyclone Aila, which submerged not only their house, but the land it was built on, leaving the family with nothing. In order to support his family, Mostafa and his brother migrated to the city to work in a brick factory. It’s a move that many from his village have been forced to make. The city comes with a new set of risks, though, especially for women—trafficking between Bangladesh and Mumbai is continuing to increase. Yet, internal migration is often the only option left for many, but with cities not equipped for rising populations, it’s estimated that many will live in slum conditions by 2030.

Last year, both Australia and the United States were ravaged by fires that destroyed homes and burnt millions of hectares of forest and wildlife habitat, as well as leaving the air quality hazardous for over 30 days. While the socioeconomic status of these places means that many are able to rebuild the homes lost, not all will. It’s not just fires affecting these places though—in California, 85% of the population live and work by the coastline, but with flooding, erosion and rising sea levels, this may not be possible for much longer. Extreme events like fires becoming more frequent paired with other environmental concerns means that communities will be forced to migrate. As it currently stands, Australia risks becoming uninhabitable, with high temperatures potentially causing the land to become so hot and dry that life there is no longer sustainable.

Displacement from climate change is one of the key issues facing us today and an important aspect of the fight to save the environment. Everyone deserves the chance to thrive on the land they call home and establish roots for those who come after them. Nowhere is exempt from the extremities of climate change and if we don’t take strong action now, forced mass migration is awaiting us in the future.

Suppression

Published in Sowing Seeds Magazine

From Greek mythology naming Gaia as the personification of the earth, to Pachamama being revered as the mother of the world, nature has always been considered divinely feminine. Indigenous cultures have long held festivals in her honour, giving thanks for the richness of her soil and purity of her rain. But how does a womxn’s place within society affect her relationship with her original Mother?

Throughout history, the innate nurturing qualities associated with femininity have seen womxn act as healers, herbalists and midwives. These practices meant womxn established meaningful connections to nature and played an important role in the community. Further, motherhood and the societal expectation of womxn caring for their families and neighbours, evolved their relationship to the landscapes around them even further. They learnt which plants had the power to cure illness, aid fertility and ease pain. These ‘wise womxn,’ as they were then referred to, developed a sacred ecological relationship with the land, remnants of which can still be felt today. However, the connection that womxn forged with nature has always been under threat.