Impact of Human Activities on Carbon Dioxide (CO<Subscript>2</Subscript>) Emissions: A Statistical Analysis

Summary The balance of evidence suggests a perceptible human influence on global ecosystems. Human activities are affecting the global ecosystem, some directly and some indirectly. If researchers could clarify the extent to which specific human activities affect global ecosystems, they would be in a much better position to suggest strategies for mitigating against the worst disturbances. Sophisticated statistical analysis can help in interpreting the influence of specific human activities on global ecosystems more carefully. This study aims at identifying significant or influential human activities (i.e. factors) on CO₂ emissions using statistical analyses. The study was conducted for two cases: (i) developed countries and (ii) developing countries. In developed countries, this study identified three influential human activities for CO₂ emissions: (i) combustion of fossil fuels, (ii) population pressure on natural and terrestrial ecosystems, and (iii) land use change. In developing countries, the significant human activities causing an upsurge of CO₂ emissions are: (i) combustion of fossil fuels, (ii) terrestrial ecosystem strength and (iii) land use change. Among these factors, combustion of fossil fuels is the most influential human activity for CO₂ emissions both in developed and developing countries. Regression analysis based on the factor scores indicated that combustion of fossil fuels has significant positive influence on CO₂ emissions in both developed and developing countries. Terrestrial ecosystem strength has a significant negative influence on CO₂ emissions. Land use change and CO₂ emissions are positively related, although regression analysis showed that the influence of land use change on CO₂ emissions was still insignificant. It is anticipated, from the findings of this study, that CO₂ emissions can be reduced by reducing fossil-fuel consumption and switching to alternative energy sources, preserving exiting forests, planting trees on abandoned and degraded forest lands, or by planting trees by social/agroforestry on agricultural lands.     

Ethological farm programs and the “market” for animal welfare

Ethological farm programs as they exist in Switzerland are compared with environmental farm programs in respect of demand and supply. Because animal welfare is not a public good but rather a relation that causes psychological externalities, the demand for animal welfare has a different standing in economic theory than the demand for a clean environment. The supply of animal welfare by farmers, however, largely follows the patterns known from the delivery of environmental goods. Farm size, age and education, and also family size and capital intensity are influencing variables. The paper concludes that the design of ethological farm programs should be based on broad public discussions as described by deliberation theorists rather than willingness-to-pay studies.     

The Ethics of Constrained Choice: How the Industrialization of Agriculture Impacts Farming and Farmer Behavior

The industrialization of agriculture not only alters the ways in which agricultural production occurs, but it also impacts the decisions farmers make in important ways. First, constraints created by the economic environment of farming limit what options a farmer has available to him. Second, because of the industrialization of agriculture and the resulting economic pressures it creates for farmers, the fact that decisions are constrained creates new ethical challenges for farmers. Having fewer options when faced with severe economic pressures is a very different situation for farmers than having many options available. We discuss the implications of constrained choice and show that it increases the likelihood that farmers will consider unethical behavior.     

Respecting The Autonomy of European and American Consumers: Defending Positive Labels on Gm Foods

In her recent article, “Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food?,” Kirsten Hansen argues that in Europe, voluntary negative labeling of non-GM foods respects consumer autonomy just as well as mandatory positive labeling of foods with GM content. She also argues that because negative labeling places labeling costs upon those consumers that want to know whether food is GM, negative labeling is better policy than positive labeling. In this paper, we argue that Hansen’s arguments are mistaken in several respects. Most importantly, she underestimates the demands of respecting autonomy and overestimates the cost of positive labeling. Moreover, she mistakenly implies that only a small minority of people desire information about GM content. We also explore the extent to which her arguments would apply to the US context, and argue that any discussion of the relationship between autonomy and labeling should include not just considerations of consumer autonomy but also considerations of what we call citizen autonomy.     

Human Diets and Animal Welfare: the Illogic of the Larder

Few moral arguments have been made against vegetarian diets. One exception is the “Logic of the Larder:” We do animals a favor by purchasing their meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products, fewer animals would exist. This argument fails because many farm animals have lives that are probably not worth living, while others prevent a significant number of wild animals from existing. Even if this were not so, the purchase of animal products uses resources that could otherwise be used to bring a much greater number of animals into existence.     

Understanding and encouraging greater nature engagement in Australia: results from a national survey

Interaction with nature has a range of significant health, ecological and economic benefits and a number of governments are implementing policies to increase humans’ engagement with nature. Using a large nationally representative survey sample in Australia, this study provides a detailed comment on the feasibility of such a policy, as well as contributing to an understanding of the characteristics of individuals who engaged in one or more of five dimensions of nature interaction, namely: nature engagement; conservation participation; nature advocacy; environmentally friendly purchasing and future engagement with nature conservation. The results indicate that age, income, education, marital status and household structure are all important influences on various types of nature engagement. It is suggested that increasing opportunities for young people to interact with nature is important, as well as supporting older people's involvement in conservation, plus focusing on the need to target and direct various policies.     

Rural household vulnerability to climate risk in Uganda

Regional Environmental Change - Vulnerability assessment is fundamental for informing adaptation to climate change policy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the vulnerability of rural...     

Assessment of semi-natural habitats and landscape features on Irish farmland: New insights to inform EU Common Agricultural Policy implementation

Concerns over the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in farmland have prompted the development of agri-environment policy measures aimed at reducing farming pressure and maintaining semi-natural habitats in farmed landscapes. However, further knowledge is needed to guarantee successful agri-environment measures implementation. The current study assessed the quantity and the quality of semi-natural habitats in farms across a gradient of farming intensities in two contrasting regions in Ireland. Policy protection seemed fundamental for semi-natural habitats preservation. Habitats not protected by agricultural policy relied on extensive farming and are in danger of disappearing if they are intensified or abandoned. Due to the lack of policy incentives for habitat quality, no correlations were found between farming intensity and share of semi-natural habitats with habitat quality. Therefore, extensive farming and retention of habitats alone may not reverse the decline of farmland quality and biodiverisity and, thus, measures incentivising the environmental quality may be more successful.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-020-01344-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.