Around The Web

Wenlock Edge Elder is a ‘culture follower’, a plant that travelled with people, who scattered its seeds and encouraged it around their settlements

Elderberries glisten like the eyes of mice. Small and glossy black, the drupes on their purple-stemmed umbels hang for the plucking, each with a glint of autumn sunlight and filled with summer’s juice, waiting to be snaffled. I taste one or two, but they always remind me that I once ate so many elderberries I was sick. Rabbits don’t like them either.

According to weather lore English summers begin with elder flowers and end with elder berries. The elder has been venerated, in an off-hand informal way, as one of the most popular trees or shrubs in European magic and folklore.

Continue reading...

The Clean Energy Council has congratulated the winners of the 2016 Solar Design and Installation Awards, which were announced tonight at the ATRAA Dinner.

Japan's decision to abandon the Monju fast reactor is another nail in the coffin for Generation IV nuclear technology.

The UK’s solar panels generated more electricity than coal across the past six months combined.

Australia to be excluded from key climate decision-making as Paris treaty comes into force, while fellow "climate villain" Canada changes tune with $C50 carbon price.

Clean Energy Regulator says 2020 RET achievable, but warns retailers to meet their obligations, or be "named and shamed".

The electric mobility sector is buzzing with Tesla announcing better-than-expected sales numbers and rival suppliers showing off new models.

Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg have emphasised the importance of energy security following SA blackout. But do these politicians really know what energy security means in a modern energy landscape?

Preliminary report into SA blackout appears designed to help the Coalition to beat state ministers around the head about renewables. But the AEMO report fails to answer key question, including how it handled events in the lead up to the storms.

Crunchy, and sustainable Entomophagy image from www.shutterstock.com

Bugs are on the menu in Canadian filmmaker Ian Toews’ documentary screening at the Environmental Film Festival Australia this month. The film promotes that the view that bugs can provide a more sustainable way of food (particularly protein) production for an expanding human population.

“Entomophagy”, or the human consumption of insects and insect-derived products, has been practised by cultures around the world for centuries, but the film highlights how mainly western eating habits now eat many fewer insects.

The figures presented in the film to support eating more insects are hard to argue with. Bugs are a nutritious food source that can consist of more than 40% protein by dry weight as well as being high in vitamins, iron and calcium.

Crickets and other edible insects are much more efficient at converting grains into protein and fat than some other meat sources; the film claims they are more than twice as efficient as chickens and seven times as efficient as cattle. Although research comparing chickens and insects shows it depends on how the insects are farmed.

They also require minimal water, unlike livestock. The film claims that five- to seven-times more people could be fed on an insect diet when compared to a current western diet, although this comparison presumably depends on a western diet including inefficient energy converters like cattle and sheep, rather than chickens.

The documentary also makes a strong case for insect production being compatible with urbanisation, given that cricket farms can be established in many large buildings.

However, comparisons in the film are limited to other forms of meat production, and not to plant-based human diets that are also far more sustainable than current western consumption patterns.

Shifting tastes

Presenters in the film are individuals who avidly support eating more bugs in North America. These include a celebratory chef, entrepreneurs, an administrator and insect farmers. The author of “The Eat-A-Bug” cook book, David George Gordon, declares on screen that “we are weirdos for not eating them (bugs)”.

The film does reference international efforts to evaluate the potential for entomophagy including a detailed UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report but the film is mainly a promotion piece for eating insects in North America.

Western attitudes to insect consumption are seen as a key stumbling block, although entrepreneurs in the film are upbeat and argue that there has been a remarkable shift in (US) attitudes in the last four years around entomophagy. Although a survey carried out in the Netherlands paints a bleaker picture.

The film highlights approaches that might be used to increase acceptance in western societies. Small start-ups are creating insect-derived food bars, chips (“Chirps”) and other packaged food for consumption in the US.

Some of these are being funded through kick starter projects and have catchy insect related names like Six (legged) Foods. Cricket flour seems to be key ingredient, perhaps because it looks least like an insect-derived product.

For a more traditional approach to entomophagy, the film covers grasshopper collecting in South Africa and ant harvesting in Mexico. But some traditional practices appear to be dying particularly among young people pursuing western lifestyles.

Presenters argue that large scale and innovative production facilities are needed to increase entomophagy, but there are challenges in cultivating insects mentioned briefly in the film.

It appears only a few insect species can currently be grown on a large scale. Established insect growers tell of issues with viruses destroying colonies but the start-ups appear undaunted. Other challenges mentioned in the film include a lack of regulation around safety.

Still, it appears that insects have been part of human diets for much of our evolutionary history. A presenter points out that we have a key enzyme, chitanase, required to break down the exoskeleton of insects, although this enzyme also has other functions.

Overall, while the film is a promotion piece, filled with (too) many shots of pristine streams and forests (presumably to highlight sustainability), it does make a strong case for considering entomophagy as a serious alternative to meat consumption in all cultures.

How to eat insects

In Australia, you can buy edible bugs online and they are occasionally served up as a novelty item in some restaurants. Our Indigenous population has been eating a diversity of bugs for thousands of years including witchetty grubs, honey ants and Bogong moths.

Most Australians are only likely to have encountered crickets, mealworms, larvae and other delicacies in Asian markets and not locally.

As in the US there are major challenges if insect consumption is to increase in Australia, including regulation and production methods that are less labour intensive than currently available.

Insects that eat plants can be highly toxic, accumulating toxins, perhaps to protect against predators. It is therefore critical that appropriate species are produced and consumed. This requires ongoing research into insect biodiversity and production systems.

Still, we live in a country with an increasingly variable climate where agricultural production is becoming more difficult. Perhaps factory-farmed bugs can increase our food security into the future.

The next time a locust plague threatens our environment they should perhaps be seen as an opportunity for developing a new local food source rather than a threat to farming.

Bugs on the Menu will be screening at the Environmental Film Festival Australia in Brisbane (October 14), Canberra (October 15), and Sydney (October 21).

Ary Hoffmann receives funding from the Australian Research Council and from the National Health and Medical Research Council as well as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network.

The man behind attempts to develop synthetic rhino horn has told the BBC that he hopes to have a "bio-identical" product on the market in two years.

A new study aims to assess whether the seas around Britain have now got so noisy that fish species like cod and haddock have difficulty communicating with each other.

Astronomer Annie Maunder achieved many firsts in her lifetime, but her story has slipped from history.

DIETARY CHOICES: People who carry a particular genetic mutation linked to obesity are more likely to crave high-fat food but bypass sugary foods, a new study indicates.

'We need to pay for betterment. To build things back bigger, higher, stronger, so that they're not washed away next time', the ANU's Dr Jamie Pittock says.

Bad for you, bad for the environment. Junk food image from www.shutterstock.com

Looking for a new reason to cut down on “junk” food? Besides the obvious health-related benefits, I showed in a recent study that discretionary or junk foods make up a significant proportion of food-related environmental impacts.

For an average Australian household, my research found that discretionary food contribute 33-39% of diet-related water use, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and land use.

Why is this a problem? In a warming world with a growing population and dwindling resources, we can no longer afford discretionary consumption that harms both our own and the planet’s health.

Although the topic of sustainable diets is becoming more popular, the debate and proposed policies have not sufficiently questioned the proliferation of junk food products that use scarce resources to produce empty calories.

Sustainable and healthy

The global food system accounts for around 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, 70% of water use and 38% of land use. We urgently need to meet climate targets and ensure food security. But it is increasingly recognised that making agriculture more efficient (to produce more food while using less resources) will not be enough. More sustainable diets are therefore essential.

National dietary guidelines are designed to help us eat more healthily. Recent iterations in Brazil, Sweden and the Netherlands also stress the importance of health and sustainability.

Animal-derived foods generally have bigger total environmental footprints than plant foods. This is because of the significant amounts of land, water and feed required by livestock and the methane released by ruminants.

Many recommendations to achieve healthy and sustainable diets have therefore justifiably focused on the need to reduce meat and animal-derived product consumption.

Diets such as the Mediterranean, rich in vegetables, fruit, legumes and wholegrains, seem to achieve the right balance between health and sustainability. A key characteristic of the traditional Mediterranean diet is the limited amount of discretionary food.

Enter junk foods

The Australian Dietary Guidelines describe discretionary foods as: “foods and drinks not necessary to provide the nutrients the body needs, but that may add variety. Many of these are high in saturated fats, sugars, salt and/or alcohol.”

By contrast, non-discretionary foods are those belonging to the core food groups: fruit, vegetables, cereals, legumes, nuts and seeds, dairy and unprocessed meat.

We all know that discretionary foods are unhealthy, but how do different products compare in terms of environmental impact?

There is a serious absence of research quantifying the environmental impacts of these foods. We would expect that the more processing our food goes through, the greater its overall impact due to cumulative energy and other input requirements.

However, my research shows that it depends on a number of factors – an issue highlighted in other studies on the general environmental impacts of diets. Junk foods almost always use more energy, but land and water use vary between products. Work in this area is still evolving.

However, this variability should not get junk foods off the hook, especially given their contribution to obesity. The question becomes whether these foods are consumed in excess, or whether they have displaced core foods – as can be the case for poorer socioeconomic groups.

The average energy intake of most Australians is above that recommended for their age and activity levels. That means we have to eliminate excess energy consumption, and we could consider eating junk food as a form of food waste.

If less discretionary food is produced, this means either that more unprocessed ingredients are available in their more nutritious forms, or that less agricultural production is necessary. Both could reduce environmental impacts.

What can we do about it?

Well, it’s complicated. The solution should ultimately tackle the heart of the problem, which is why we overconsume these foods in the first place.

Encouraging dietary shifts away from junk foods is challenging because of their cheapness, taste and convenience. Discretionary foods are also aggressively promoted to consumers due to their high profitability.

This last point epitomises what is fundamentally wrong with our food system, and why it’s not supporting health and sustainability in the way it should. While carefully selected food taxes and subsidies, in addition to better labelling and restrictions on junk food advertising, can help reduce their consumption, these consumer-oriented measures are only part of the solution.

Food producers should ultimately be held responsible for the proliferation of cheap discretionary food. We need to encourage divestment away from unhealthy, unsustainable products through regulation and public pressure, following the example of measures to address climate change.

As the developing world continues to transition towards more “Westernised” diets, food consumption patterns are likely to become even more environmentally intensive.

To feed more people sustainably we need to trim off the excess by not only reducing the consumption of animal products, but also by fighting overconsumption of discretionary foods and the associated waste.

Michalis Hadjikakou receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science through their WH Gladstones Population and Environment Fund.

Last week’s storm and subsequent state-wide blackout in South Australia reminds us how important the electricity grid – and other infrastructure – is for our communities.

Immediate analysis suggests the blackout was caused by the collapse of transmission infrastructure in South Australia. Australian electricity networks, like most transmission networks worldwide, rely on above-ground conducting wires held aloft by large towers. Some of these towers were blown over in the South Australian event.

While the storm hasn’t yet been specifically linked to climate change, it also serves as a reminder of the increasing challenges of delivering essential services in a more variable climate and slowing economy.

Power, water, transport, health, defence and communications infrastructure can be exposed to climate variability and change simply because of their long lifetimes. Therefore, many if not most owners and operators of essential infrastructure have commissioned climate vulnerability and adaptation studies.

There are many good examples of adaptation. For instance, Queensland Urban Utilities, the major water distributor and retailer in south-east Queensland, is implementing a large program to make the water and wastewater delivery network more resilient to flooding.

But there is increasing recognition among climate adaptation researchers that many of the recommendations from climate adaptation studies aren’t being adopted. This is sometimes referred to as the “plan and forget” approach to climate adaptation and it leaves critical infrastructure vulnerable to weather extremes.

Speaking different languages

One of the less obvious reasons for lack of uptake is the difference in language used in the climate science and adaptation community and in the infrastructure community.

All technical disciplines develop their own specialised language and climate science is no exception. But planning for climate change means that infrastructure professionals have to apply climate science to engineering planning and design.

Both disciplines use risk management as a common framework for assessing and managing risks. But the “bible” of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) process, has invented new definitions of risk.

These differ from the long-standing definitions of risk enshrined by the International Organisation for Standardization and widely used by the engineering and infrastructure community.

Many engineers find they cannot use the IPCC reports and projections because this information cannot be directly integrated into planning and design processes that are often heavily regulated and prescribed.

By necessity, climate projections are based on probabilities that specified environmental conditions may occur.

By contrast, engineering design is often based on a specified extreme number, whether it be a maximum wind strength or flood height, rather than a set of probabilities.

Over time it is expected that engineering design methodologies will be able to assimilate climate projections, but updating these highly prescriptive standards can be a drawn-out process.

Harder, better, faster, stronger

Often the most common recommendations in infrastructure climate adaption studies are to make infrastructure stronger, higher and, by implication, heavier and more expensive. A common example is a recommendation that bridges be elevated and made stronger to account for expected higher flood levels and water flows.

While this is understandable, it is in stark contrast with the way almost all other products are being developed – lighter, faster, cheaper, smarter.

Australia is also consistently either at the top, or near the top, of the infrastructure cost league table. It’s one of the most expensive places to design and construct infrastructure worldwide.

Therefore, climate adaptation recommendations to make infrastructure more resilient through brute strength can be difficult to fund – although, in some cases, this may be the only viable option.

Getting creative

We need to think a little more creatively. A good starting point is to take the approach advocated in the relatively new international asset management standard called the ISO 55000 standard.

A key part of this standard is not to think about infrastructure assets in isolation, but to consider how each asset contributes to an essential service, such as providing electricity to our homes. After all, infrastructure assets are only constructed to deliver a service. It is the service that is key, not just the individual asset.

Importantly, the demand for services, levels of service and the way essential services will be delivered in future decades is all largely unknown. Technology will change how essential services are defined and delivered.

Distributed energy – such as rooftop solar – may reduce the need for extensive transmission networks. Smarter combinations of light rail and autonomous vehicles may change demand for major road infrastructure.

New water-treatment technology, such as within-pipe treatment, may do away with the need for large treatment plants that are often located in low-lying regions exposed to sea-level rise.

Climate adaptation needs to stop recommending that existing infrastructure just be built stronger and higher, and take a broader and smarter perspective of what infrastructure may be required as climate change increasingly makes its presence felt.

Mark Gibbs does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Professor Duncane Haldane is one of three British-born scientists to win the Nobel Prize for Physics.

The British authorities in Cyprus are doubling the number of officers targeting illegal songbird trapping on British military territory on the island.

The UK authorities in Cyprus are doubling the number of officers targeting illegal songbird trapping on British military territory.