Böll.Feature

If we look at biodiversity loss, time is really running out. Especially the young generation is complaining about this. Why are farmers not adapting quickly enough? And what can be done to mitigate the biodiversity and climate crises that are exacerbated by industrialized agriculture? The agricultural sector in Europe is highly subsidized.

While in summer 2022, the EU Commission presented ambitious plans to reduce pesticide use in Europe, it encounters massive resistance by the pesticide industry and, very recently, the conservative EPP group in Parliament. Even in the (re)approval process of glyphosate, the arguments of the industry seem to impress the authorities.

When the book „Silent Spring“ was published 60 years ago, author Rachel Carson shaped the environmental movement as we now know it. But globally, the use of pesticides is still rising steadily, with devastating impacts on human health and the environment: in Europe biodiversity is declining rapidly.

Everyone who has ever been to one of the Southeast Asian urban centers knows that traffic is a big problem. It is a problem for life quality of the city citizens as the endless traffic jams are health hazards and time consuming. Beyond this, transportation also cause emissions that contribute to climate change.

Where are ecological concerns in the ASEAN development paradigm? They are stuck in the word “sustainable”. Despite the haze agreement and protocols on maritime policies, ASEAN has fallen short of reacting to climate change. Despite international commitments as the Paris Agreement, it does not manage to put words into regional action.

The haze agreement is the first agreement in ASEAN on an explicit environmental issue. It has entered into force 2003 in order to manage forest fires and reduce environmental destruction as well as air pollution with joint regional efforts. However, in 2015 Singaporean citizens saw themselves confronted with a major haze, zero visibility and a thick smoke smell coming over from Indonesia.

The Paris Agreement has set an ambitious goal to prevent global warming from spiraling out of control. But it has also set the stage for what will form the subject of numerous heated debates in the coming years: How do we tackle climate change? What is the framework that helps us decide which solution is viable?

The food that we eat plays a big role in the search for solutions to climate change. Agriculture is one of the major contributors of greenhouse gases. But the way we farm our land can also be a big part of the solution. In fact, certain kinds of soil are huge carbon sinks, which means that they take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this way, healthy soil can regulate the climate.

We start to count as little kids. First our fingers, then our toys, and finally more grown-up things – calories, money, trophies. As a society, we now count our wealth and the CO2 that we emit. If you can quantify something by counting it, you can turn it into a market – right? That’s what countries around the world have tried by setting up emission trading systems.

In Germany, a Peruvian smallholder farmer and mountain guide is suing a big energy company over a melting glacier that threatens his valley. In the Netherlands, citizens have won a lawsuit in the first instance to pressure their government into guaranteeing stronger climate protection. In the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights is investigating the fossil-fuel industry.

Can and should the global climate be regulated by technological means, the so called geoengineering? Our host took off to hear from experts what these approaches mean for the planet’s environment and society. Kann und sollte das Weltklima technisch mit so genanntem Geoengineering gesteuert werden?