Counting On … – The Green Tau

Counting on 2026 … day 16

30th January

This last week the radio programme Farming Today has been reporting on the difficulties livestock farmers have been facing with insufficient supplies of winter feed. Last year’s hot dry summer reduced crop yields meaning there has been a shortage of things such as hay, silage, maize, sunflower seeds, rape seed etc. Farmers have had to buy in extra feed including more imported soya beans. The Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) said that “the UK needs a national protein strategy to safeguard feed security because that impacts food security.”

This bemuses me. Would it not be more logical, if we are wanting to increase national protein security, to focus on growing more plant based proteins that can be fed directly to humans rather than feeding us indirectly via livestock? Gaining our protein needs from livestock rather than plants is much more inefficient in the use of land, water, fertiliser etc and generates far more pollution costs too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002q29g

https://www.agindustries.org.uk/resource/aic-on-bbc-farming-today-programme-uk-feed-security.html

Counting on 2026 … day 15

28th January

Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is a global agreement, dating from 2022seeks to halt and reverse biodiversity loss – ie restoring the integrity of biodiversity. Signatories, which includes the UK, have undertaken to restore 30% of the biodiversity by 2030 – both land based and marine. (1)

In December 2025 the government published its policy paper, The Environmental Improvement Plan (2025) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. (2) This is intended as a ‘roadmap’ first restoring nature, improving environmental quality, creating a circular economy, protecting environmental security and improving access to nature. However it is crunched in terms of minimise and enable and encourage with no measurable targets and no details as to the who and the how and the where.

More useful is the report from the Wild Life Trusts. It starts critically: “Despite often being a key player in the international stage …the UK has not backed this up with implementation at home. The UK’s international environmental leadership threatens to be undermined by the fact that the UK Government is on track to meet only four of its forth individual domestic environmental targets and remains one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet.” But it also offers positive advice: “Space in the UK is finite and there are many competing aspirations for how our land and seas should be used. A national strategic spatial approach to planning the use of both is needed to reduce and avoid conflict. This approach needs to be fully cross departmental to ensure policies for,planning, transport, energy, food and nature are all aligned.” This plan needs to show “how and where 30%of the land will be effectively conserved and restored by 2030…”

The report also reveals some shocking analysis: “…analysis shows that on,y 3.1% of land in ZD gland is effectively protected and managed for nature, whilst a maximum of 8% of English seas could be said to be protected for nature.” It goes on to recommend: “Landscape-scale habitat creation is needed, linked by corridors and stepping stones of wild places throughout our cities and countryside. Practices that damage nature must be minimised to enable nature to recover.” (3)

I’m surprised that in all these discussions about route maps to increase biodiversity and the need to allocate more space for nature, that instigating a switch to largely plant based diets doesn’t feature. We cannot maintain existing diets, existing farming practices and restore nature!

https://www.cbd.int/gbf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-environmental-improvement-plan-2025-and-the-kunming-montreal-global-biodiversity-framework
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/UK and Global Biodiversity Framework – The Wildlife Trusts 2024.pdf

Counting on 2026 … day 14

27th January

“Biosphere Integrity refers to the capacity of ecosystems across the planet to support life and maintain the overall health and stability of the Earth system. This depends on the health, diversity, and interactions of the organisms that make up these ecosystems.” (1)

This is a safety boundary that we – because of human activity – have passed. We are living in the danger zone that means crises are inevitable. We experience this through rapidly declining numbers of pollinators (essential for growing crops); increasing soil infertility; declining ability of the environment to absorb carbon dioxide; declining ability of ecosystems to absorb rain so limiting flooding; loss of species removing opportunities to benefit from them for food, medicines, building materials etc; increasing loss of green and blue spaces that maintain our physical and mental wellbeing.

Human activities that are causing the loss of biodiversity integrity include:-

Deforestation
Changing land uses including the expansion of urban structures
Increased intensification of agricultural
Expansion of agricultural land use
Industrialised fishing
Expansion of mining activities including deep sea mining
Expansion of industrial processes increasing pollution
Expansion of activities producing greenhouse gases – eg use of fossil fuels and livestock farming
Increased production of novel entities and the spread of invasive, non-indigenous species

https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/boundary/change-in-biosphere-integrity/

Global risk map of the Change in Biosphere Integrity, based on the functional integrity (HANPP) control variable. Transgression is based on the HANPP control variable. All values shown on the map refer to the year 2010. Based on data from Kastner et al. 2022.

Most boundary transgressions occur in large, continuous regions with high land-use intensity. In contrast, areas in regions without transgressions, such as the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and boreal forests, are primarily natural or semi-natural.

Counting on 2026 … day 13

22nd January

In restoring a sustainable balance vis a vis land use across the globe, whilst most attention is focused on ending deforestation and promoting reforestation, restoring wetlands is also important. Whilst wetlands (including peatlands, marshes, floodplains and mangrove swamps) may only cover 5-8% of the Earth’s surface, they are critical as absorbers of carbon dioxide, as defences against erosion, and as preventers of excess flooding. They are also areas that have been drained and used for other purposes.

“Wetlands are critically important ecosystems that support biodiversity, climate mitigation and adaptation, food production, freshwater availability, recreation, wellbeing, and so much more. Yet we are losing our wetlands three times faster than forests.” (1)

In the UK the Fen Lands have been drained so that the peat rich soils can be used as high grade farm land but with the disadvantage that as the land dries out, so it shrinks, becoming increasingly at risk of flooding, and with the effect of destabilising the foundations of roads and infrastructure across the region.

Elsewhere in the UK peatlands have suffered from the effects of burning and grouse shooting, overstocking with livestock, planting for commercial forestry, extraction for peat compost, and pollution. (2) Overall some 80% of the UK’s peatlands have been degraded.

One way of restoring peatlands and maintaining their agricultural use, is through paludiculture. Here lowland peatland is rewetted and used to grow crops that thrive in wet conditions such as Norfolk Reed used for thatching; bulrushes (typha) used as a building material, as a bioenergy crop and in clothing; sphagnum moss which can be used as a peat substitute as well as for biomecidal and industrial chemical uses; food crops such as celery, bilberries and cranberries, watercress, sweet grass grains, rice etc. (3)

Counting on 2026 … day 12

21st January

One of the issues with the loss of a sustainable balance in land use (as highlighted by transgressing this planetary boundary) is the loss of soil fertility – and in some cases the loss of the soil itself, being washed or blown away. One solution is to restore the fertility and structure of the soil of the soil and to adopt farming methods that healthy soil. Regenerative farming is a widely used term to describe this process. This is a broad term and can mean many things in different situations. Unlike organic farming, it doesn’t come with any form of certification. Nevertheless, any methods that improve soil fertility are to be encouraged.

Generally regenerative farming will encompass some or all of the following principles:-

limiting soil disturbance
maintaining soil cover
fostering agricultural diversity and rotations
keeping living roots in the soil
integrating livestock and arable systems (1)

What regenerative farming does not address is altering the balance of land use to one that is more sustainable – and which as outlined in the previous entry – should include restoring tree cover, as well as restoring peatlands.

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/blog/vicki-hird/what-regenerative-farming

Counting on 2026 … day 9

19th January

Tree planting is key to restoring sustainable human lifestyles within safe Planetary Boundaries. Yet disturbingly the UK is falling g behind with its tree planting targets.

“New analysis from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) found that the UK is falling behind its tree planting targets, warning that the nation could miss the “critical window” for woodland creation needed to meet its climate and nature targets.

“The report found that more than 70 per cent of carbon removal from new trees up to 2050 will come from those that have been planted within the next five years. This is due to the time lag between when a tree is planted and when it has reached its peak carbon removal potential.

“However, if current planting rates are maintained, the total area of missed planting will be an area equivalent to three times the size of Greater London, with a third less carbon sequestered than on the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) Balanced Pathway. This is equivalent to all residual industrial emissions in 2050.

“The CCC Balanced Pathway is the UK’s blueprint for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, which calls for an 87 per cent emissions cut by 2040 as well as boosted efforts in renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon capture.”

https://www.euronews.com/green/2026/01/14/uk-and-eu-tree-planting-pledges-face-reality-check-as-scientists-warn-the-climate-window-i?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=green_newsletter&utm_medium=referral&insEmail=1&insNltCmpId=257&insNltSldt=10080&insPnName=euronewsfr&ins_iid=NThmY2Q3ZTQtNDc3Yi00Y2MxLWJlYzItYWViN2RiZTRjNmNk&isIns=1&isInsNltCmp=1

Counting on 2026 … day 8

16th January

Reversing land system change needs to include both reforestation and the adoption of regenerative farming methods – ie methods that restore the fertility of the soil, restores fresh water cycles, protects the environment from pollutants such as pesticides, fertilisers, slurry etc, that promotes increasing biodiversity and produces healthy food. Somehow nations need to find ways of valuing the role that trees and good agricultural practice play in maintaining the wellbeing of the earth systems on which we rely.

This might be by levying a rate or tax to cover the cost similar to the water rate we used to pay for clean water – and which could be used to pay for planting trees and/or for setting aside land for woodlands. In the UK farmers can be paid by the Government (and thus ultimately paid for by the tax payer) to protect and enhance the natural environment – eg through the Sustainable Farming Incentive – https://www.farmingadviceservice.org.uk/category/funding-support

In a similar vein, consumers can actively chose to support environmentally friendly farming by paying a premium for the products thus produced – eg organic fruit and vegetables, grass fed meat, wild flower honey.

It might be by levying a fee on those whose businesses pollute the environment – eg levied against beef and dairy products, or against industrial chicken farms. Denmark – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20nq8qgep3o

Governments and other institutions- like health bodies, schools etc – might promote a switch to largely plant based diets (as per the Planetary Health Diet). Denmark is developing a concerted switch to a largely plant based diet with support for farmers as well as encouragement for consumers. https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/plant-based-diet-shift-initiative-case-studies-denmarks-plant-based-food-grant/

Governments and farming bodies can encourage a switch to crops better suited to the changing climate in their region – eg switchIng from olives and almonds to pistachios in the dryer Spanish climate, introducing agroforestry, replacing cotton with hemp (as is happening in Turkey – https://egedeniztextile.com/turkish-hemp/) etc. https://inspain.news/spains-green-gold-rush-and-why-pistachios-are-the-future-of-farming/

Governments could mandate that public purchasing should favour sustainably produced products – both food and timber based products. This report urges the use of timber in the construction industry: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/timber-in-construction-roadmap-2025/timber-in-construction-roadmap-2025

Conversely governments can implement legislation to limit or end land use and farming practices that damage planetary boundaries. The UK and the European Union have both introduced legislation that requires companies to ensure through the length of the supply chains that not products are derived from sources where deforestation is involved: https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/02/spotlight-on-deforestation-regulations-in-uk-eu

NB both sets of policies have yet to be fully implemented.

Counting on 2026 … day 6

14th January

Atmospheric aerosol loading is another planetary boundary that we should avoid crossing. The global concentration of aerosol particles has more than doubled since pre-industrial times. The effect that excessive aerosol concentration could have in human health and the climate that established the need for a safe limit.

What are these particles? – salt condensed from ocean waters, fine sand from desert dust storms, ice crystals over the poles and ash from fires as well as volcanic eruptions, carbon and sulphur dioxide from fossil fuel power statist and industrial smoke stacks, hydrocarbons from combustion engines and stratospheric vapour crystals from aircraft. (1)

It is another boundary where we are currently within the safe limits and in fact the concentration of aerosol particles in the atmosphere is declining as we are across the globe tackling and reducing air pollution, providing alternatives to open cookings fires, ending crop the burning of stubble after crop harvesting, reducing pollution levels from road vehicles and from commercial cargo ships. Taking action to stay within planetary boundaries is good for the planet and for our wellbeing! (2(

Counting on 2026 … day 5

13th January

Stratospheric ozone depletion is one planetary boundary* where we did cross into the danger zone and through concerted global action, pulled back from into the safe limits of the boundary. Regulations curbing what chemicals could be used, for example, in fridges and aerosols, had a real effect!

“”In the face of a triple planetary crisis – climate, nature and pollution – the Montreal Protocol is one of the best examples we have that showcases the positive and powerful outcome of multilateralism,”

Meg Seki, Executive Secretary of UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. (1)

(1) https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job Do read this full article and/or watch the YouTube clip.

* NB What are the planetary boundaries? https://greentau.org/2025/10/22/counting-on-170/

Counting on 2026 … day 4

12th January

Data centres – which includes those that provide AI – use large amounts of water, principally in providing cooling., but also (depending on the source of their electricity) from the water needed at fossil fuelled power plants where water is again needed for cooling. It is estimated that the water footprint of AI in 2025 was somewhere between 313 and 765 billion litres which apparently is roughly the same as the amount of bottled water consumed globally. (1)

This consumption of water is going to increase as our use of and development of AI continues to expand. By 2027 experts predict global water use by could reach 4.2–6.6 trillion litres annually – equivalent to about half the UK’s annual water consumption. (2)

In a world where freshwater is already in short supply, this is a serious issue as highlighted in this comment from a UK Government blog:

“AI has potential to address challenges in healthcare, inequality and climate monitoring. However, these benefits must be weighed against the full environmental impact of building and running AI systems. This requires development of a comprehensive and transparent series of metrics that include, carbon emissions, energy consumption, water usage, biodiversity and social impact. Only by looking at AI through these combined lenses can we ensure it delivers net benefit rather than widening inequality or disproportionately impacting communities and regions.” (3)

A UK government report ‘Water use in AI and Data Centre’ highlights the issue of the 2050 projected daily 5 billion litre water deficit versus the expansion of date centres in the UK. It notes with concern that in coming to its projection of a 5 billion litre water shortage, the Environment Agency has not included any figures for the anticipated increased water demands that will be made as data centres expand. This is aggravated by a lack of information as data centres are not required to be transparent about the amount of water and electricity that are and will be using. Mandating transparency would encourage data centre to find ways of minimising the resources they need and would enable the relevant authorities to make better decisions as to where new data centres could or should not be located. (They should not for example be located in areas already prone to water shortages). (4)

Equally if information about the likely consumption of scarce resources were more readily available, it would enable a better discussion as to whether we should be encouraged the unrestricted growth of AI and data centre, and have the ability to weigh up the benefits of AI against its detriments.