______________________________________________________________________

Negative impacts of climate change on Finland

Ayoub Hameedi

I certainly believe that climate change is our biggest enemy. It has the ability to destabilize our climatic system that has remained stable for last 10,000 years. Whatever social development and economic progress we’ve commenced so far is a direct result of this stable climate and we cannot take this for granted. Climate change is a complex environmental issue that would certainly affect people in countries across the globe. Like any other country, Finland is not immune to the negative consequences of a changing climate. According to Climateguide.fi, an average annual mean temperature in Finland has gone up by 2 degree celsius since 1880. It is important to mention here that an average annual mean temperature in Finland was close to 1 degree celcius in 1880. On the contrary, an average annual mean temperature recording in Finland was close to 3 degree celsius in 2017. A very high percentage of annual mean temperature recording between 1880 – 2017 shows a reading of over 1 degree celsius. The already spoken platform (Climateguide.fi) is developed and maintained by Finnish Meteorological Institute, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) and Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE).

According to the Finland’s National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2022, Finland will experience an increase in average temperature that would (for sure) be greater than an increase in the global average temperature. As per NASA, the global average temperature has increased by 1.1 degree celsius since 1880. On the contrary, Finland has experienced an increase of 2 degree celsius during the same time period. When it comes to precipitation level, the country is expected to receive 8 – 20 percent more rainfall by the end of this century than it does today. An increase in average temperature would cause mild winters where temperature far below zero degree celcius would be less common. A combination of mild winters together with frequent rains would negatively affect the carrying capacity of ground. As a consequence of an extra moisture in soil and less frost in the ground, there is a high probability that strong winds might knock down the trees in Finland.

As per European Environment Agency, Finland has suffered from a financial loss of over 2 billion euros from 1980 to 2020 due to extreme weather and climate related events. This means over half a billion euros of financial loss in each decade from 1980 on-wards. In my personal opinion, it is a very big amount and if Finland would somehow either completely avoid or minimize the financial loss due to extreme weather events in future, it would have ample resources at its disposal to reduce unemployment, decrease poverty, shrink inequality and to offer an even improved quality of life to its citizens. According to Statistics Finland, unfortunately almost 873,000 people (roughly 16 percent of entire households) in the country were very close to the poverty threshold in 2019. By taking the much needed steps in the right direction to reduce the negative impacts of climate change, Finnish Government can reduce existing poverty and prevailing social inequality in the country.

Summing up all, Finland has experienced an increase of 2 degree celsius in its mean temperature since 1880. This increase is roughly 2 times more than an average increase in temperature across the globe. Consequently, Finland can experience mild winters and more frequent rains (in the decades to come) that can affect the soil’s ability to hold the trees. It is important to mention here that a rapid increase in temperature puts a lot of stress on species that might or might not have the ability to adapt quickly. Quite often species require over a few hundred years to adapt to a changing climate. However, in Finland’s case, an increase in average temperature is happening bit too fast (i.e. almost 2 degrees in last 142 years). Consequently, some of the species might be quick enough to adapt to a rapid increase in temperature and a changing climate. However, others might not be able to adapt that quickly and would thus either pushed on the brink of extinction or risk a complete extinction. An important point to understand here is that no country is immune to the negative consequences of a changing climate. However the ability to cope varies from country to country and from region to region. Developed countries have more resources at their disposal and thus have an improved ability to cope with the negative affects of a changing climate. Rapidly developing and under developed countries might not have the same resources at their disposal. This increases a risk where extreme affects of a changing climate would roll back whatever socio-economic development that has taken place during last 50 years in these regions. I am pretty sure that none of us would prefer that undesirable situation.

© Copyright 2022 Ayoub Hameedi. All rights reserved.

Restoration of drained wetlands is a must to mitigate Climate Change in Iceland

Ayoub Hameedi

Iceland is no doubt one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The most remarkable thing about Iceland is that it produces 100% of its electricity from clean sources of power production. Iceland produce a lion’s share of electricity around 75.5% from hydropower whereas, the remaining 24.5% is generated through geothermal sources. It is an excellent step especially in a world with an ever increasing threat from climate change. On the contrary, drained wetlands in Iceland are a very large source of greenhouse gases emission on annual basis. It is a moral responsibility of Iceland to restore these drained wetlands to reduce or completely eliminate the greenhouse gases emission from these point sources. In 1940, the capital city of Reykjavik used coal for heating purposes. Consequently, the city had smoke clouds. Now, Iceland relies on renewable sources for power production and thus enjoys its climate positive benefits. The same can happen in the case of drained wetlands too.

It is quite unfortunate to mention here that an area equivalent to 4195 square kilometers of wetlands in Iceland has been drained since the start of 20th century. The aforementioned figure roughly constitutes around 47% of the total inland wetlands in Iceland. Most of these drained wetlands (i.e. approximately 70%) are found below the elevation of 200 meters. Sadly, around 15% of drained wetlands in Iceland is use to produce hay. It is again quite unfortunate to mention here that the drained wetlands in Iceland emit around 7300 Gg of carbon dioxide on annual basis. The drained wetlands also produce other greenhouse gases like Nitrous oxide (N2O) and Methane (CH4) that adds another 2300 Gg of CO2 equivalent to the aforementioned 7300 Gg of carbon dioxide. Collectively, the annual GHGs emission from drained wetlands in Iceland exceeds the cumulative emissions (i.e. 4,597 Gg CO2 equivalent) from smelters, transportation and every other sector minus land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) based activities. Another way to represent the same data is that GHGs emission from drained wetlands represents around 68% of the cumulative GHGs emission from Iceland. A 100% Restoration of the drained wetlands in Iceland will either completely eliminate the GHGs emission or would reduce it considerably. In a world with an increasing threat from climate change, restoration of wetlands is a must to mitigate climate change. 

According to UNFCC, desertification and soil erosion are two biggest environmental issues of Iceland. Reforestation is a must strategy to implement to fight soil erosion and desertification. Iceland needs to phase out animal herding so that nature in the form of trees and forests would make a come back. A regeneration of forests in Iceland would also foster economic growth in the country. Sweden offers a perfect example for Iceland in this regard. Sweden plants around 400 million seedlings a year and harvest wood from its forests with export value of USD 15 billion on annual basis. So, can be the case for Iceland too. Likewise, an exponential growth in forests would also give a boost to tourism in the country too. The state of New York offers another example for Iceland as it has enhanced its forest cover to around 63% and now earns roughly USD 2 billion on yearly basis through forest based tourism. There is a dire need that Iceland would choose urban and vertical farming methods over conventional farms to produce food for its population. Havana city in Cuba offers a perfect example for Iceland as it produced 63,000 tonnes of vegetables, 20,000 tonnes of fruits and 10,000 tonnes of roots and tubers in 2012. Reykjavik city can also produce food through urban farming and can thus allow nature to take over the drained wetlands to reduce emissions from these point sources.

All in all, urban and vertical farms can really help Iceland to produce food and to allow nature to take over the drained wetlands. In my personal opinion, an end to animal grazing and massive reforestation will help Iceland in mitigating desertification and soil erosion. The offered suggestion is bit difficult yet realistic in implementation. Cuba offers a perfect case study for Iceland. Similarly, Sweden and the state of New York (USA) also offer best examples when it comes to forest regeneration and forest based tourism. Finally, urban farming, reforestation, sustainable harvestation of wood and forest based tourism will certainly generate much more revenue for Iceland than raising animals and an unsustainable use of drained wetlands. Disappearance of Okjökull due to climate change is an alarm bell for Iceland to reduce its GHGs emission from drained wetlands. The sooner the drained wetlands would be fixed in Iceland, the easier it would be for the Government to create a positive example for the rest of the world to follow to mitigate climate change.

© Copyright 2019 Ayoub Hameedi. All rights reserved.