Firstly, it’s hard to argue which ecosystem is more important that the other. They are both ridiculously gorgeous tropical biomes, which are very structurally complex, highly diverse and therefore, are home to more species than we can count. Both are important to the carbon cycle: producing, storing and processing carbon in it’s various forms for all living things to use and consume (especially as oxygen).
But to answer the question, if I could save either one, I would save the rainforests and here’s why.
Coral reefs support over 500 million people who rely on them for food, jobs and recreation, with an estimated economic impact of $375 billion a year (Kirkpatrick, 2018). Losing coral reefs completely would mean, poverty, hunger and instability as most of our staple seafood rely on coral reefs. The ocean fishing industry which employs 38 million people worldwide would collapse. The human race would take a massive hit without coral reefs, but we would survive. Can’t say the same for marine life though.
Rainforests, on the other hand, are essential for us to live and breathe. Trees provide oxygen and maintain the Earth’s climate, with rainforests providing 20% of the Earth’s oxygen supply. Rainforests house half of the world’s plants and animals, with over 80% of the world’s fruits, vegetables and spices being sourced from rainforests across the globe. That’s a MAJOR source of food for most living beings, especially humans. And we have yet to touch on the cascading effects of removing rainforests on all other ecosystems.
It’s not really a choice anyone would like to make, although losing both these wonderful ecosystems might actually become an unfortunate reality some day, if we don’t protect them.
The ice in the polar regions of the Earth is melting and a very well-known consequence of this is the rise of global sea level. Although this may seem like a distant concern for most of us, the melting poles have a very real and direct impact on everyone, wherever we are on this planet.
It Started With The Ice Age
Around 20 000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, most of the continents globally were covered in glaciers and ice sheets. When we entered the Interglacial period¹ (the “Warm Age” if you like), the ice sheets retreated and are now confined to the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic.
Human activities for centuries have been altering the natural composition of the Earth but things only really started picking up after the Industrial Revolution. Our planet is inarguably warming and will continue to warm for decades to come, even if drastic changes are made. This warming has resulted in the melting of polar ice, consequently raising the sea level (because melted ice water has to go somewhere).
Although ice is melting in all three regions (Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic), melting ice in the Arctic does not really contribute towards sea level rise. This is because most of the ice is already afloat, displacing its weight. The ice in Greenland and Antarctic (which holds almost 99% of the world’s fresh water), would increase the sea level by 220 feet should they both melt (that’s the Statue of Liberty up to her chest in the sea – major yikes!).
What Do The Poles Do?
It might come as a surprise but the polar regions play a vital role in making Earth a habitable planet. The Arctic is the Earth’s air-conditioner, controlling global weather. The seasonal changes in the Arctic temperature creates a jet stream that moves weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. A warmer Arctic lessens this seasonal difference, affecting the jet stream movement, creating erratic and unusual weather. For instance, the insanely warm summers and freezing winters in parts of Europe over the last few years are the result of changes to the jet stream movement.
We rely on stable and predictable weather patterns for food production. Shifts in weather patterns might lead to decreased food production, which is already a major concern given our growing human population. Unpredictable weather also affects major industries (e.g. agriculture and fisheries), which would have cascading effects on global economies.
So What If The Poles Melt?
Well, the ocean is a very complex system. It has very specific chemical compositions (i.e. salt, calcium carbonate), which affects the ocean’s salinity (how salty it is), which in turn controls the complex circulation of oceanic currents. It’s these combined factors that make the ocean unique in different parts of the world and creates habitats for a vast range of marine life. A change to one factor affects all others, resulting in cascading chain reactions that affect the whole system.
The main concern of rising sea levels is the drowning of seaboards (land by the coast). Coastal areas are often very highly populated by humans as the sea is a source of food and income throughout the world. Numerous cities are expected to be underwater in the years to come, whilst some are already suffering severe floods from the increased sea level. For more info: Top 15 Countries Vulnerable To Sea Level Rise. However, it’s not just melting ice, but the warming of the ocean itself (due to rise in Earth’s surface temperature from global warming) would cause sea level to rise (Science says warm things expand!).
Image from Anthropocene Magazine (2017)
Remember how the ice is really old (like Ice Age old)? Old ice that has been frozen for centuries holds massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane (greenhouse gases that contribute towards global warming). As the ice melts, these gases are released into the atmosphere further worsening our current global warming dilemma. This endless cycle of more greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere due to the existing greenhouse gas, is what we call a ‘positive feedback loop’. This loop is what makes global warming so difficult to tackle and solve because our action or lack of it, automatically worsens the situation.
The positive feedback loop of melting poles and global warming
The soil beneath the frozen ice, known as permafrost², also contains very old and sometimes unwanted things, like diseases. In August 2016, an outbreak of the Anthrax virus in Siberia, infected 2000 reindeer and dozens of people after a 75-year old reindeer corpse emerged from the melted permafrost (sounds like an apocalyptic movie, I know). Scientists believe that other diseases like smallpox and the bubonic plague remain trapped in the Siberian permafrost.
Melting ice also means massive influx of freshwater into the sea (–freshwater because salt gets pushed down back into the sea when sea water freezes). Adding non-salted freshwater into salty sea water obviously would change the composition of salt in the ocean. This would have consequences of its own to the ocean’s circulation, the organisms living in the sea and overall climate.
The poles are unique habitats to wildlife and people (yes, people live in the freezing Arctic and Antarctic). Indigenous tribes like the Inuit rely heavily on sea ice for food and transportation. It’s not just polar bears and walruses that will be stranded, but the 9 million people that live in the Arctic struggle to survive as their home melts away.
The Solution?
The only way around this convoluted problem is for all governments around the world to strictly follow climate change and environmental regulations set in place. It’s a big ask, a challenging feat that requires global team effort. As global citizens and occupants of this planet, it’s within our control to ensure decision- and policy-makers adhere to regulations that protect our home.
¹ The Earth undergoes alternating cycles of Glacial (Ice Age) and Interglacial periods. We are currently experiencing an extended Interglacial period (known as the Holocene), which is predicted to only get warmer due to the effects of global warming. For more information, visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age
² Permafrost is defined as rock, soil or sediment that is permanently frozen (maintained at 0°C or under) for more than 2 consecutive years. Usually, permafrost is found under thick glaciers and ice sheets, although it can be found beneath a layer of rock, soil or sediment.
I’m treading on very thin ice here, but hey, hear me out.
Before I start, I know some of you are wondering:
WHAT DOES MEAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PLANET?
It’s not so much what meat as ‘food to be eaten’ does, but how it’s produced that affects the planet. Here’s a simplified version:
Forests are cut down to make space for farms. Fewer trees are bad for the planet because carbon dioxide is less absorbed by fewer trees. So, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it helps global warming), so that’s bad for the planet.
Cows produce a lot of methane (they fart a lot). Cattle farming is bad for the planet because methane is a greenhouse gas. Not forgetting that the process of farming and meat production pollutes the air, water and soil. That’s bad for the environment too.
More forests are cleared to make space for agricultural crops, not for human food but animal food. So more cows, means more forests cut down to make more food for cows. Of course, it’s not just cows, animals like sheep, chicken, turkey are all somehow involved.
SO DOES EATING MEAT HURT THE PLANET?
YES and NO.
YES, because of all the above reasons. Even if you don’t realize it, the meat you buy probably comes from large scale commercial farms. It’s not wrong that you eat meat but the fact is that so much damage is being done to the planet in the process of producing your meat. The more meat you eat (which also means you buy more meat), the more you support this mass-production industry that’s going to clear more forests to grow more cows for you to eat.
NO, because technically eating meat doesn’t hurt the planet. It’s the way it’s produced that hurts it. So if you buy meat from sustainable sources (e.g. free range, local farms, any source that is environmentally responsible), you are doing your part in being a responsible, eco-friendly consumer. If you try to reduce your meat consumption, that is also helping the planet.
This is a controversial topic as you can imagine. Not many people in this world want to give up meat. “Who cares if it hurts the planet, I love my fried chicken and steak!” On the opposite end, you have vegetarians and vegans who are very much against meat consumption (although not all of them do it for environmental reasons). I haven’t even started on the ethical aspects of eating meat. Either way, it’s not fair or practical to expect the whole world to stop eating meat to save the planet.
My take on this would be to find a better method of meat production, that is less damaging to this planet, instead of saying, “Quit eating meat forever!”. Of course this is easier said than done. Not because it’s impossible, but because all these multi-billion dollar corporations mass-producing meat don’t care about the environment. They could make a change if they wanted to, but they only care about profit. Yes, environmentalism is very political.
The key with any environmental issue is finding a sustainable solution. By sustainable I mean, a solution that will last generations. Not a solution that will last 2 weeks or 2 years, then become forgotten or too difficult to carry out. A solution that can be carried out by everyone and not just a handful of people.
There’s a lot we can do as individuals, in terms of choosing where our meat comes from. Why not start there? Buy sustainably produced meat, or maybe eat meat 6 days a week instead of 7. That’s only one day of no meat in a week but a total of 52 days in year! Support efforts for sustainable farming. Every small effort, is the start of something bigger. So start small, you never know how big of a change you might make.
Comment below and let me know what you think!
Image from Pixabay.
This is a personal opinion piece although I’m mostly stating facts. Just saying.
Tree Blogs 