Eastern European diaries: the question of meat

In the Balkans, where my family roots are, we eat a lot of meat. I've always enjoyed eating lots of meat and joked that it's all part of my cultural heritage: I wouldn't be a true Eastern European if I didn't eat it! However, the "Global Warming" course I'm taking at the moment has seriously made me reconsider my meat intake to the point that I have decided I seriously need to reduce it. Here's why...

Firstly, we all know the that cows produce methane when they fart. Why is methane so bad? Well:

1. methane is a greenhouse gas meaning it traps incoming solar radiation. A molecule of methane traps 25x the heat a molecule of CO2 does.
2. methane reacts with OH in the atmosphere which means HCFCs and HFCs (2 greenhouse gases with heat trapping abilities 1000s more times potent than that of CO2 or methane) last longer in the atmosphere because the only way to break down HCFCs and HFCs is through reaction with OH which increased methane depletes the concentrations of.
3. methane reacts with nitrous oxide (using energy from the sun) to produce ozone (another greenhouse gas).
4. some methane makes it into the stratosphere where it is oxidised to become H2O. H2O in the stratosphere is an especially strong heat trapper.

So methane is bad news. In terms of animals, cattle are the worst, with dairy cattle emitting 88kg per animal per year; beef cattle emitting 55kg per animal per year; sheep emitting 8kg, and pigs 1.5 kg, again per animal per year. Even though cows are significantly larger than sheep and pigs, one (beef) cow will still produce more methane than the number of sheep or pigs equivalent to the one cow's mass.

Estimated methane emissions per animal per year.
Picture sources: cow= The Guardian; sheep= Wikipedia; pig= animal-dream.com

Looking at overall greenhouse gas emissions from animal products in the bar graph below also reveals beef as the worst offender, with beef emitting 4 times the greenhouse gases than pork or chicken. Beef production emits lots of greenhouse gases because of the fossil fuels used for example to make the fertilisers to grow animal fodder; the enteric fermentation (cows farting); methane from manure; and nitrous oxide from manure (bear in mind that nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas where one nitrous oxide molecule has 206x the heat trapping ability of one CO2 molecule). So this graph seems to suggest I should cut down on beef and sheep intake and if eating meat at all, should either eat pork or poultry.

Greenhouse gas emissions per MJ of food energy.
Source: Danny Harvey. 

The graph above also shows that, comparatively, eggs and dairy do not have as high greenhouse gas emissions, so it should be fine to keep drinking milk, right? Well, the next graph shows that compared to other drinks, milk production emits significantly more greenhouse gases per litre than any other drink. As such, I would do well to look into milk alternatives such as soy milk.

Greenhouse gas emissions per litre of beverage.
Source: Danny Harvey.

It's also important to consider the land needed to support these animals. There is almost 2.5 times as much pastureland as cropland in the world, and around half of this cropland is devoted to producing food for animals rather than to directly producing food for humans. Overall, the energy flows from crops (often corn) fed to the animals (including the inedible byproducts of the cropland) to the animal and then to the human consumer reveal an incredibly low efficiency of only 4%. Given meat consumption per capita is increasing globally and the human population is also growing, more and more land is being cleared (often deforested) for animal pasture and for producing the crops for the animals to feed on. With global warming expected to reduce agricultural yields, the rising demand for meat is worrying as we would need even more land to keep up with demand: in fact, decreases in agricultural yields due to adverse climatic changes could be fully offset by rather modest reductions in meat consumption. 

Overall, this (British-)Eastern European is going to aim to reduce her intake of meat, especially methane-heavy beef. I will also try to cut down on my dairy intake (even though it will significantly impact my hot chocolate habits) and most simply of all, I will try to reduce my food waste. My Slavic identity has always partly found expression in the food culture that emphasizes meat, but even though I now plan to eat less meat, I'm sure I can express my Slavic side in other ways that won't impact the environment so much.

Leo's got the right idea

A post today about something that upset me. I was rewatching Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar acceptance speech in which he talked about the serious threat from climate change, and in the comment section of the video I came across this comment (sadly with over 100 likes) from a global warming denier (apologies in advance for the comment's poor English):

"Explain climate change if no warming for 18 years? Explain the Chilean volcano injected co2 into the atmosphere in 3 days than the entire human race can in 5 years? Explain how co2 causes climate change by getting into the stratosphere when co2 is 1.5 tinea heavier than air, most stones still don't float on water. What percentage of the air is co2? You need to be able to answer all those questions before you have the right to call people that don't believe in climate change are idiots! Leo certainly can't answer them. Just because he's a celebrity doesn't give him the right to make erroneous claims, some some non celebrities might actually believe..."

I just want to answer each of these questions individually. First of all, "there has been no warming for 18 years". Yes, there has been a supposed global warming "hiatus" since 1998 where rates of surface temperature increase have slowed in comparison to model projections, but, to give the conclusion of one of my assignments for U of T concerning the supposed hiatus, overall longer-term trends of surface temperature increases due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions mean the existence or non-existence of a short global warming hiatus is irrelevant. Recent research is also suggesting that there hasn't been a hiatus in the period 1998- until present, rather there simply appeared to be one due to a switching in the methods for recording surface temperatures that were calibrated slightly differently.

Secondly, the Chilean volcano likely being referred to here is the Calbuco volcano which erupted in April 2015. I couldn't find how much CO2 the volcano actually released, but regardless, as shown in the graph below, when the effects of volcanoes (as well as El Nino/La Nina effects and solar variability) are removed from models, the temperature trend from 1979 to 2011 across several different models is that of a steady increase, showing that it is indeed anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are causing the temperature increase, not natural variability.

Source: Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011. 

Thirdly, CO2 is heavier than O2 (not "air" as stated in the denier's comment, as air includes CO2, O2, N2 and a number of other gases and compounds). In the troposphere, there is enough motion in the air from winds (driven by temperature differences around the globe) to keep gases equally mixed together. Mixing between the troposphere and stratosphere mean CO2 can go up into the stratosphere where there are further circulation systems. Mixing takes a few years up to a decade yet CO2 has a lifespan of up to 100,000 years. The problem is that CO2 in the stratosphere tends to cool the stratosphere even though the troposphere and surface warm up. Given that rapid depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere begins when temperatures drop below -80°C, an increase in cooling stratospheric CO2 could worsen ozone depletion. Depletion of stratospheric ozone would lead to an increase of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface which would increase incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and reduce yields in susceptible crops.

Fourthly, CO2 makes up a tiny percentage of the air, around 0.0314% . Indeed, water vapour is the most important contributor to the natural greenhouse gas effect (which helps keep the global mean temperature around 15°C instead of -18°C as it would be in the absence of an atmosphere). However, the point is that emissions of CO2 have the most important strengthening effect (see the pie chart below) because a) humans are emitting so much (the cumulative human emission of carbon up to 2014 has been around 560 Gt which is the same amount as was in the pre-industrial atmosphere; current CO2 emission rates from human activity are around 11GtC/year), and b) these CO2 molecules can have a lifespan of up to 100,000 years in the atmosphere (meaning each molecule can trap heat for a very long time after it is released).

Source: Danny Harvey, 2016. 

I hope I've "explained global warming" in relation to the above denier's questions and I hope the scientific community continues to try and break through the psychological barriers that stop people from taking action. Credits to Leo for mentioning climate change in his acceptance speech- it is so important that influential celebrities like him bring the issue to the forefront of public thought.

A quick note about my sources: most of the information comes from my study pack put together by Professor Danny Harvey for my Year 3 level course ("Global Warming") at the University of Toronto.

Canadian politics have never looked so good

Back in October last year, Justin Trudeau, son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, was elected Prime Minister, bringing to an end the era of Harper's Conservatives and ushering in new, arguably refreshing, Liberal politics. Upon election success, global social media seemed to quickly focus in on Trudeau's good looks and likability (check out his fall-down-the-stairs party trick). Personally, I remained on guard to see whether he was more than just a pretty face...

One of the first tasks of the job was to announce a new Liberal cabinet. Trudeau won praise for ensuring equal gender representation in his 31-Minister cabinet, with 15 of the ministers being women. Indeed, the cabinet is really rather delightful, with the Ministers often having more than just a passing link to their new position. For example, the Minister of Health is actually a family doctor, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Canadian Coastguard is Inuk (singular of Inuit), the Minister of Sport, and Persons with Disabilities is a former Paralympic medallist, the Minister of Science is a medical geographer (a graduate of geography from the University of Toronto like I will be!) and best of all, the Minster of Transport is a former astronaut (as such I expect his policies to include introduction of high-tech hovercrafts and segways to a Canadian street near you).

Trudeau's next high-profile activity was his pledge to accept 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February 2016. He even personally welcomed the first plane of Syrian refugees, saying " They step off the plane as refugees, but they walk out of this terminal as permanent residents of Canada".

His welcoming of the refugees was praised worldwide and also in Arab media, with Google Trends showing that searches for the word "Canada" in Arabic nations increased and even doubled in Jordan and Lebanon.

Trudeau further pledged to open an investigation into 1200 missing or murdered Aboriginal women and most recently, he will become the first Canadian prime minister to march in Toronto's Pride parade.

So far, Trudeau has presented himself well. I feel he has built a good image and is setting the tone for a new era in Canadian politics. Having said this, I also believe he has gone for the easy points and good PR. He has not really been tested yet, and I guess we have yet to see how he tackles the deficit and economy; integrating refugees in society; and any surprises the world throws at him.

Nevertheless, I like the renewed sense of open-mindedness that Trudeau has brought and I do look forward to seeing how his government progresses. It is also interesting to contextualize Trudeau in light of Donald Trump who is making huge gains in the race for the Republican nomination down in the USA. As always, Canada is very aware of events in America, and I get the feeling that many Canadians are really rather proud of their new liberal government, while critical and perhaps even embarrassed in their southern neighbour for the rising number of followers of Trump's dangerous xenophobic rhetoric.

Now please excuse me while I go place an order for a jumper of a majestic Trudeau on horseback...

Source: Shelfies

Reflections on Semester 1

Having finished my first full semester of studying at U of T, it is time to reflect on my academic experiences so far.

The first major difference between studying in the UK and in Canada is that the UK has a final exam system where everything from the whole year is tested in one exam period in May, whereas Canada uses continuous assessment throughout each term. Continuous assessment means there are a number of assignments, mid-term tests and a final exam all of which carry a small percentage weight of the final grade. For example, for my course "Geography of Canada", I had one assignment worth 20%, a mid-term and assignment worth 25% each, and a final exam worth 30% . By breaking up the potential for earning marks into these smaller chunks, it relieves the pressure of everything resting on one exam. Continuous assessment also forces students into studying, preparing readings and being more on top of things than in the UK system as you have to be able to draw on lecture and reading material for the assignments and mid-terms that come up every 2 or 3 weeks; whereas in the UK what tends to happen is severe cramming in the month leading up to final exams.

While it took me a while to adjust to continuous assessment (as you have to put in a lot more effort each week than in the UK where you can afford to slack off a little each week), I've come to really appreciate continuous assessment. I really feel I have learnt more by having the assessment broken down into smaller chunks as you do need to put in more effort to keep up; you write assignments and expand on lecture ideas when they are fresh in your mind and you are constantly building on that initial knowledge base. In the UK, I feel that no matter your best intentions, if you do not have incentives to do the readings and study (because of an upcoming deadline or exam), you tend to take it easy or procrastinate, leading to more stress and cramming in the long run. Furthermore, when it comes to exams, it's pressure-relieving going into the final exam here in Canada knowing you've got a significant proportion of the marks already in the bag, and I also like that the system of exams and mid-terms tests the whole course syllabus (compared to the UK where most students will strategically revise say 5 out of 9 topics for the final exam) as you end up with broader knowledge. In terms of stress, I'm not sure which system, UK or Canada, is better or healthier. In Canada, I feel there is a constant level of stress that is higher than the baseline stress level in UK since there is continuous assessment, but UK students undoubtedly experience greater spikes in stress level than their Canadian counterparts when it comes to the dreaded final exam season in May.

Certainly there are aspects of the Canadian continuous assessment I'm not as keen on: for example, a number of my courses have had multiple choice sections in the exams which I thought was not rigorous enough an assessment of knowledge. Some of my courses have also had class participation constituting 10% of the final course grade, meaning the more you participate, the higher the mark. This form of assessment forces you to engage (which is good) but also favours louder, more confident speakers, as well as sometimes seemingly forced, less-than-helpful contributions that are given just to try and increase the "participation" grade. I was particularly shy speaking up because I was conscious of my ridiculously English accent, and while I did end up participating to a certain level, this form of assessment was far from my favourite.

The other observation I have is that there does not seem to be as established a geography community as at UCL, even if there is a Geography Society. People in lectures sit far apart from each other and don't seem to know each other, perhaps reflecting the overall larger student population at U of T compared to UCL (85,000 compared to 30,000) but also reflecting the degree system of major and minors here that splits people between different disciplines. I have to admit I miss the relatively close-knit, supportive geography community from back in London.

My favourite course of the semester has definitely been Culture, History, Landscape. This course, while demanding in terms of the long reading lists, has really made me think about capitalism, the inherent social inequalities it produces, and the very different landscapes it has produced over time in different places across the globe since colonial times.

Is Canada Really That Nice?

Internationally, Canada is perceived as a model state that is incredibly welcoming of foreign nationalities and immigrants. Yet researching the plight of foreign temporary agricultural migrant workers in Canada made me realise that Canada still faces issues of prejudice and discrimination against certain groups of people. The exploitative and coercive practices of Canadian migrant worker programs, as well as the racialisation of migrant workers within these programs and local communities leaves a lot to be desired.

What are temporary migrant agricultural workers?

Temporary migrant agricultural workers live in Canada for up to 8 months (depending on their contract), working in agricultural sectors including tobacco, vegetables and fruit (Bridi, 2013; Hennebry, 2008). The migrant workers come mainly from Mexico and the Caribbean states, notably Jamaica, and return to those countries once their contracts are over (Preibisch, 2004). The migrant workers are desired in Canada to help do jobs on farms that Canadian labourers refuse while the migrant workers are willing to come to Canada to earn wages higher than they would receive in their home country (Preibisch and Grez, 2010).

How are migrant agricultural workers exploited?

Mechanisms of control are used by the Canadian capitalist (at governmental, provincial, country and employer level) to  ensure a vulnerable and thus flexible labour supply (Bridi, 2013). Mechanisms of control include the fact that migrant workers are not legally able to unionise; employers threaten repatriation to the home country following poor work performance or creating "trouble" due to challenging the abuse of work and living rights; and employers attempt to limit the socialising and integration of migrant workers within Canadian communities in order to both leave the migrant workers with fewer social connections that could help with exercise of rights and to limit the number of friendly relations with Canadians that may influence migrant workers to stay in Canada after their contract ends (Bridi, 2013; Preibisch and Otero, 2014). 

Why does this exploitation continue?

Exploitation continues because of the racialisation and “othering” of the migrant worker (Preibisch, 2004). Racialization is evident in behaviour directed towards migrant workers by members of rural Canadian societies such as: crossing the street to avoid contact with black Caribbean workers; making racist comments or jokes; and even cases of violence and attack. Negative stereotyping of male Jamaican workers as threatening womanizers, or female Mexican workers as questionable mothers or sexually available, dehumanise the migrant worker and produce them as the “other” (Preibisch, 2004; Preibisch and Grez, 2010). By racializing and producing the migrant worker as the “other”, the migrant workers are excluded from the imagined rural Canadian community, thus legitimising exploitative and coercive labour practices as the migrants are not seen as equal to the Canadian citizens, and thus are not worthy of the rights that Canadian citizens enjoy (Bauder, 2005). Exploitation is not challenged because the migrant worker is the “other”, meaning exploitation continues.

Anything positive?

There have been some attempts to improve migrant worker experiences in Canada and challenge the exploitative conditions they face. In particular, migrant worker-Canadian citizen friendships formed in places such as church, in stores and in places of recreation are crucial links for assisting migrant workers in processes like money transfers, access to healthcare, legal help and emergencies (Preibisch, 2004). Community groups and civil organizations provide socially inclusive spaces for interaction and they also help with organising English lessons, legal workshops and advocating for migrants who do not speak up for fear of repatriation (Bauder, 2005). 

Conclusions

There is no doubt that temporary agricultural migrant workers in Canada are not granted the same worker and living rights afforded to permanent citizens of Canada. In particular, change at the local level would be instrumental. For example, promoting local awareness of the hardships endured by the migrant workers could help activate Canadian citizens to challenge destructive government discourses and legislation; the government would then be pressured into updating legislation and ensuring more worker rights as the civilian population becomes more watchful and critical.

Canada needs to challenge the coercive and exploitative relationships discussed above if it wants to continue along its path of creating successful multiculturalism and forging a role model country identity. Having said this, Canada still has a relatively successful model of  multiculturalism which will be explored in more depth in a future post about the role of multiculturalism in the Canadian identity.

The First Americans

Since being in Canada, I have been learning a lot about the Native people of North America. A common question is “who were the very First Americans?” In other words who inhabited the land first? This question has important implications for modern day land claims in the Americas. In particular, I read an article from the National Geographic called “Tracking the First Americans”. In this article, the author Hodges asks the questions of who were the First Americans and how did they get to the Americas? In answering these two questions however, I feel some important issues arise…

The first issue is that of the western fascination with facial reconstruction of the First Americans. According to Hodges, one of the most exciting aspects about the discovery of the 12,000-13,000 year old skeleton Naia in Yucatan Cave, Mexico, was that the skull was intact enough to be used as a foundation for facial reconstruction. This fascination for facial reconstruction is possibly due to modern Westerners wishing to update geographical imaginations of Native people’s appearances. Yet it is interesting that the article asks why modern Native Americans “don’t look like their ancient ancestors?” Why should they look similar given 15,000 years of selective pressures and physical body changes over that time? Are we saying that our geographical imaginations of the First Americans and the modern Native Americans are the same? In which case, are we saying the modern Native Americans are just as “violent” and “wild-type” a people as their ancestors? 

Facial reconstruction of Naia.
Source: National Geographic

Secondly, the skeleton found at Yucatan Cave was named Naia after the water nymphs of Greek mythology. By using a western name, the scientists are essentially claiming this ancestral skeleton as their own. This feeds into old issues of colonial and Western power over the claims of the Native peoples themselves. Hodges also seems to suggest the First Americans were quite advanced people but he does this by employing western values of “advancement”, namely exploitation of natural resources and settlement in one geographical area, two factors which may differ from indigenous views on what constitutes an advanced society.

Thirdly, it is important to look not only at the scientific theories behind who the First Americans were and how they got to the Americas, but also at the moral issues of who should have the right to the skeletons (the scientists or the descendants of the skeletons) as well as how we are to refer to this skeleton that was once a live human being. Regarding Naia’s discovery, phrases like “her bad luck [in falling to her death in the cave] is science’s good fortune” could be interpreted as the scientists regarding this one-time human as simply a scientific object to study, while for many of the Native people, there is significant interest in giving the skeleton a burial in line with tradition for deceased relatives.  

When thinking about questions of who were the First Americans it’s all good trying to work out when and how they got to the Americas (as discussed in Hodges’ article), but it’s also important to think about why scientists ask the questions they do, and how those questions may reflect both desire for scientific understanding as well as historical oppression of Native Americans. 

Studying in Canada: First Impressions

The first few weeks of the semester at the University of Toronto have flown by as I've started going to classes while continuing to explore the city and make new friends. I've now confirmed all my modules and have chosen two region-specific courses (Geography of Canada; Historical Geography of North America); a course to develop my GIS skills (GIS and Public Health); and two further topics of interest (Geographies of Social Urban Exclusions; and Culture, History, Landscape).

One of the first tasks of organising myself for the semester was ensuring I had all required books for my courses. For 4 out of 5 of my courses, the lecturer will provide online links to the readings which we can easily access. For the course GIS and Public Health however, there are two required text books that my lecturer cannot provide access to. Initially, I didn't think this was a problem as I assumed that there would be plentiful supply of the books in the library, like I'm used to back at UCL. But searching through U of T's library catalogue I found only 1 copy of the book "GIS and Public Health" and no 5th edition of the "GIS Tutorial for Health", with the 4th edition of that book not even being at the central St George campus, but out in the Mississauga campus. So I went down to the U of T bookstore to check out prices, finding myself just one of many students milling around inspecting textbooks. When I found my two books, I was duly horrified by the price and in disbelief asked one of the workers in the bookstore whether it was normal for Canadian students to have to pay hundreds of dollars for their own books. I got a cheery "Yep! Welcome to Canada!" as a reply. After considering changing modules to avoid textbook costs, I ended up forking over just under $200 on two textbooks, which I was not happy about. I am not impressed that on top of tuition fees U of T expects students to buy many of their own textbooks; it's unfair on students who cannot afford pricey textbooks, and you would think that with such a large student population (around 85,000 students) and fees, there would be enough money to adequately stock the libraries with all the books students need. Considering I've never had to buy a single textbook in 2 years at UCL, I realise now just how grateful I should be for the well-stocked UCL libraries. 

On another note, I started doing the readings for my course Culture, History, Landscape. One of the readings for the first week was a chapter by William Cronon "Bounding the Land" which looks at Native American systems of land and user rights, as well as how European colonisers brought a new set of cultural views of using land (based on land commodification and privatisation). The European colonisers didn't consider Native land use systems as legitimate and so justification of colonisation and dispossession of Native lands was based on taking over this "illegitimately" used land and making it legitimate under European values. While the chapter is in itself very interesting, I was amused by my own reading of it. In the chapter, Cronon refers to the Native Americans as "Indians" and it was the very first reading I did for this course so I didn't have much context as to what I was about to read. As I began reading about the "Indians" my geographical imagination was rampant in the country of India, but within 2 pages of increasing confusion, I found my geographical imaginations and understandings of the country India didn't match the landscapes and histories I was reading about on the page. I reread the start of the chapter, and while I had happily glossed over "New England Indians", somehow concluding in my mind that this was some newly colonised part of India, I suddenly realised the whole article was talking about Native American "Indians", not Indians from India. I found it interesting that my mind immediately jumped to the country of India even when it was glaringly obvious ("New England Indians") that the chapter was based in North America.

I feel this could be because the British school curriculum teaches the era of the British Empire in a way that perhaps still evokes national glory and success, with India being mentioned often and being portrayed as the poor country that Britain charitably helped develop. By contrast, the school curriculum does not devote much time, if any, to the Native Americans or what British colonisers did in the New World, perhaps because with limited time to teach history, there is a preference for teaching about the glory days of the British Empire rather than the colony Britain lost (upon the American Revolution). With my greater knowledge of the British Empire in India as opposed to North America (due to growing up in the British education system), it is possible to see how my mind jumped to India first. Regardless, this course is challenging my existing knowledge of the British Empire and it has already been enlightening to learn the extent of injustices in the British Empire, from the various ways in which India was exploited to the dispossession of land from Native Americans.
.