Climate change / extreme weather thread

[sweep_shot]

This thread is about anything related to climate change, environmental and green concerns, and/or extreme weather events.

Climate change: China aims for 'carbon neutrality by 2060'

China will aim to hit peak emissions before 2030 and for carbon neutrality by 2060, President Xi Jinping has announced.

Mr Xi outlined the steps when speaking via videolink to the UN General Assembly in New York.

The announcement is being seen as a significant step in the fight against climate change.

China is the world's biggest source of carbon dioxide, responsible for around 28% of global emissions.

With global climate negotiations stalled and this year's conference of the parties (COP26) postponed until 2021, there had been little expectation of progress on the issue at the UN General Assembly.

However China's president surprised the UN gathering by making a bold statement about his country's plans for tackling emissions.

He called on all countries to achieve a green recovery for the world economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

According to the official translation, Mr Xi went on to say:

"We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060."

Until now China has said it would peak its emissions by 2030 at the latest, but it has avoided committing to a long-term goal.

Emissions from China continued to rise in 2018 and 2019 even as much of the world began to shift away from fossil fuels.

While the Covid-19 crisis this spring saw the country's emissions plunge by 25%, by June they had bounced back again as coal-fired plants, cement and other heavy industries went back to work.

Observers believe that in making this statement at this time, the Chinese leader is taking advantage of US reluctance to address the climate question.

"Xi Jinping's climate pledge at the UN, minutes after President Donald Trump's speech, is clearly a bold and well calculated move," said Li Shuo, an expert on Chinese climate policy from Greenpeace Asia.

"It demonstrates Xi's consistent interest in leveraging the climate agenda for geopolitical purposes."

Back in 2014 Mr Xi and then US-President Barack Obama came to a surprise agreement on climate change, which became a key building block of the Paris agreement signed in December 2015.

Mr Xi has again delivered a surprise according to Li Shuo.

"By playing the climate card a little differently, Xi has not only injected much needed momentum to global climate politics, but presented an intriguing geopolitical question in front of the world: on a global common issue, China has moved ahead regardless of the US. Will Washington follow?"

There are many questions about the announcement that remain unanswered, including what is meant exactly by carbon neutrality and what actions the country will take to get there.

"Today's announcement by President Xi Jinping that China intends to reach carbon neutrality before 2060 is big and important news - the closer to 2050 the better," said former US climate envoy Todd Stern.

"His announcement that China will start down this road right away by adopting more vigorous policies is also welcome. Simply peaking emissions 'before 2030' won't be enough to put China on the rapid path needed for carbon neutrality, but overall this is a very encouraging step."

Most observers agreed that the announcement from China was a significant step, not least because of the country's role in financing fossil fuel development around the world.

"China isn't just the world's biggest emitter but the biggest energy financier and biggest market, so its decisions play a major role in shaping how the rest of the world progresses with its transition away from the fossil fuels that cause climate change," said Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), a UK-based think tank.

"The announcement today is also a major fillip for the European Union, whose leaders recently urged President Xi to take exactly this step as part of a joint push on lowering emissions, showing that international moves to curb climate change remain alive despite the best efforts of Donald Trump and [Brazil's president] Jair Bolsonaro in the run-up to next year's COP26 in Glasgow."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54256826.

 

[The Viper]

Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea level by 2.5 metres – even if Paris climate goals are met, study finds

Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet will cause sea level rises of about two and a half metres around the world, even if the goals of the Paris agreement are met, research has shown.

The melting is likely to take place over a long period, beyond the end of this century, but is almost certain to be irreversible, because of the way in which the ice cap is likely to melt, the new model reveals.

Even if temperatures were to fall again after rising by 2C (3.6F), the temperature limit set out in the Paris agreement, the ice would not regrow to its initial state, because of self-reinforcing mechanisms that destabilise the ice, according to the paper published in the journal Nature.

“The more we learn about Antarctica, the direr the predictions become,” said Anders Levermann, co-author of the paper from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We get enormous sea level rise [from Antarctic melting] even if we keep to the Paris agreement, and catastrophic amounts if we don’t.”

The Antarctic ice sheet has existed in roughly its current form for about 34m years, but its future form will be decided in our lifetimes, according to Levermann. “We will be renowned in future as the people who flooded New York City,” he told the Guardian.

Temperatures of more than 20C were recorded for the first time in the Antarctic earlier this year.

Jonathan Bamber, a professor of glaciology at the University of Bristol, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study provides compelling evidence that even moderate climate warming has incredibly serious consequences for humanity, and those consequences grow exponentially as the temperature rises. The committed sea level rise from Antarctica even at 2C represents an existential threat to entire nation states. We’re looking at removing nations from a map of the world because they no longer exist.”

Earlier this week, the earth’s northern ice cap also showed the impacts of the climate crisis. Arctic sea ice reached its annual minimum, at the second lowest extent seen in four decades. On 15 September, the ice was measured at 3.74m sq km, which marked only the second time that the extent has fallen below 4m sq km in the current record, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Scientists said the melting ice was a stark sign of how humans were changing the planet. Twila Moon, a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “It’s devastating to see yet another Arctic summer end with so little sea ice. Not only is there a very small area of sea ice, but it is also younger and more vulnerable overall. The Arctic is a changed place. All hope rests on humans to act on climate and slow this alarming pace of ice loss.”

While the Antarctic ice sheet will take centuries to melt in response to temperature rises, the new Nature paper showed how difficult it would be to reverse.

Antarctica’s vast ice cap, which covers about as much of the earth as North America and is close to three miles (5km) thick, holds more than half of the earth’s fresh water. Some of it is floating sea ice, which does not cause sea level rises in the way of ice melting from land, and is subject to melting from above and below because of the warming sea.

The researchers examined how ice over land in the region can be expected to melt, and found a strong “hysteresis” effect, which makes it harder for ice to re-form than to melt. When the ice melts, its surface sinks lower down and sits in warmer air, so it requires lower temperatures for the ice to reform than it did to keep the existing ice stable.

If temperatures rose by 4C above pre-industrial levels, which some predictions say is possible if the world fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly, then the sea level rise would be 6.5 metres from the Antarctic alone, not counting the contribution from Greenland and other glaciers. That would be enough eventually to inundate all of the world’s coastal cities and cause devastation on a global scale.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...en-if-paris-climate-goals-are-met-study-finds

 

[sweep_shot]

Coronavirus: Climate action cannot be another Covid victim - PM

Boris Johnson is to call on world leaders to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and secure the planet for the next generation.

The prime minister will tell a meeting hosted by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres that climate action "cannot be another victim of coronavirus".

He will urge leaders to "look ahead to how we will rebuild" after the pandemic and how to "build back better".

Mr Johnson is expected to speak to leaders via video link.

His speech at Thursday's UN Climate Action Roundtable is part of the preparations for a global climate conference the UK is hosting in partnership with Italy in Glasgow in November next year.

The UN conference, known as COP26, is the most important round of climate talks since 2015, when the landmark Paris Agreement was secured, committing all countries to work to limit further rises in temperature.

Mr Johnson will also announce that the UK is to co-host an event with the UN on 12 December to mark the five-year anniversary of the Paris agreement.

The aim is that world leaders will use the December event to announce ambitious new targets for carbon reduction as part of the prelude to the Glasgow conference.

As part of the Paris Agreement all countries set their own targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Every five years they are supposed to announce new, more ambitious carbon reductions and set targets for when they will be able to reach what is known as "net zero emissions" - when greenhouse gas emissions are avoided completely or offset by planting trees or sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Getting nations to agree to deeper carbon cuts is essential if the Glasgow conference is to achieve the UN's aim of putting the world on track to keep global temperature rises below 2C.

"Look ahead to how we will rebuild, and how we can seize the opportunity to build back better," the prime minister will say.

"Let us be the leaders who secure the very health of the planet for our children, grandchildren and generations to come."

COP26 was due to have been held in Glasgow in November this year, but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr Johnson wants to kick-start a year of action in the run-up to the climate conference.

He says he hopes the UK will serve as "a launch pad for a global green industrial revolution."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54274644.

 

[sweep_shot]

Coronavirus: Climate action cannot be another Covid victim - PM

Boris Johnson is to call on world leaders to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and secure the planet for the next generation.

The prime minister will tell a meeting hosted by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres that climate action "cannot be another victim of coronavirus".

He will urge leaders to "look ahead to how we will rebuild" after the pandemic and how to "build back better".

Mr Johnson is expected to speak to leaders via video link.

His speech at Thursday's UN Climate Action Roundtable is part of the preparations for a global climate conference the UK is hosting in partnership with Italy in Glasgow in November next year.

The UN conference, known as COP26, is the most important round of climate talks since 2015, when the landmark Paris Agreement was secured, committing all countries to work to limit further rises in temperature.

Mr Johnson will also announce that the UK is to co-host an event with the UN on 12 December to mark the five-year anniversary of the Paris agreement.

The aim is that world leaders will use the December event to announce ambitious new targets for carbon reduction as part of the prelude to the Glasgow conference.

As part of the Paris Agreement all countries set their own targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Every five years they are supposed to announce new, more ambitious carbon reductions and set targets for when they will be able to reach what is known as "net zero emissions" - when greenhouse gas emissions are avoided completely or offset by planting trees or sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Getting nations to agree to deeper carbon cuts is essential if the Glasgow conference is to achieve the UN's aim of putting the world on track to keep global temperature rises below 2C.

"Look ahead to how we will rebuild, and how we can seize the opportunity to build back better," the prime minister will say.

"Let us be the leaders who secure the very health of the planet for our children, grandchildren and generations to come."

COP26 was due to have been held in Glasgow in November this year, but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr Johnson wants to kick-start a year of action in the run-up to the climate conference.

He says he hopes the UK will serve as "a launch pad for a global green industrial revolution."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54274644.

 

[sweep_shot]

California wildfire trend 'driven by climate'

Climate change is driving the scale and impact of recent wildfires that have raged in California, say scientists.

Their analysis finds an "unequivocal and pervasive" role for global heating in boosting the conditions for fire.

California now has greater exposure to fire risks than before humans started altering the climate, the authors say.

Land management issues, touted by President Donald Trump as a key cause, can't by themselves explain the recent infernos.

The worst wildfires in 18 years have raged across California since August.

They have been responsible for more than 30 deaths and driven thousands of people from their homes.

The cause of the fires have become a political football, with California Governor Gavin Newsom blaming climate change for the conflagrations.

President Trump, on the other hand, has dismissed this argument, instead pointing to land management practices as the key driver.

Now, a review of scientific research into the reasons for these fires suggests rising temperatures are playing a major role.

Earlier this year, the same research team published a review of the origins of Australia's dramatic fires that raged in the 2019-2020 season.

That study showed that climate change was behind an increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather - defined as periods of time with a higher risk of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and high winds.

The new review covers more than 100 studies published since 2013, and shows that extreme fires occur when natural variability in the climate is superimposed on increasingly warm and dry background conditions resulting from global warming.

"In terms of the trends we're seeing, in terms of the extent of wildfires, and which have increased eight to ten-fold in the past four decades, that trend is driven by climate change," said Dr Matthew Jones from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who led the review.

"Climate change ultimately means that those forests, whatever state they're in, are becoming warmer and drier more frequently," he told BBC News.

"And that's what's really driving the kind of scale and impact of the fires that we're seeing today."

In the 40 years from 1979 to 2019, fire weather conditions have increased by a total of eight days on average across the world.

However, in California the number of autumn days with extreme wildfire conditions has doubled in that period.

The authors of the review conclude that "climate change is bringing hotter, drier weather to the western US and the region is fundamentally more exposed to fire risks than it was before humans began to alter the global climate".

The researchers acknowledge that fire management practices in the US have also contributed to the build-up of fuel.

Normally, fire authorities carry out controlled burnings in some areas to reduce the amount of fuel available when a wildfire strikes - but these have also suffered as a result of rising temperatures.

"When you do prescribed burns, you can only do it when the conditions aren't too hot and dry, because you need to be able to control the fire," said Prof Richard Betts from the UK Met Office in Exeter, who was part of the review team.

"But once you've passed the point where you've got hot, dry conditions for much of the year, you've lost your opportunity to do lots of prescribed burnings. So that makes matters worse and makes the land management challenge even greater."

Another factor in California has been the encroachment of human settlements into forested areas. This has put many more homes at risk of these blazes.

Between 1940 and 2010, there was around a 100-fold increase in the number of houses built in dangerous fire zones in the western US.

"It's like building on floodplains as well, you know, people are putting themselves in harm's way, based on past statistics, which are no longer true," said Prof Betts.

"The past is no longer a guide to the future, for flooding and for fire and lots of other ways in which climate change is played out."

The researchers say that the conditions for wildfire are likely to continue to grow into the future, and according to Dr Jones, the resulting fires will likely get worse.

"It's pointing towards increases in fire weather that become increasingly intense, widespread and dramatic in the future," he said.

"And the more that we can do to limit the degree to which temperatures rise, is fundamental to how frequently we see dangerous fire weather in the future."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54278988.

 

[sweep_shot]

Boris Johnson promises to protect 30% of UK's land by 2030

An extra 400,000 hectares of English countryside will be protected to support the recovery of nature under plans to be announced by Boris Johnson.

The prime minister will make the commitment at a virtual United Nations event later.

He is joining a global pledge from 65 leaders to reverse losses in the natural world by the same date.

National parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other protected areas make up 26% of land in England.

Mr Johnson will promise that the government will increase the amount of protected land in the UK from 26% at present to 30% by 2030.

The environment is a devolved matter but the government has said it will work with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as landowners, to increase the amount of protected land across the UK.

The prime minister will sign the Leaders' Pledge for Nature, which includes commitments to prioritise a green recovery following the coronavirus pandemic, deliver ambitious biodiversity targets and increase financing for nature.

Mr Johnson will say countries must turn "words into action" and "agree ambitious goals and binding targets".

"We cannot afford dither and delay because biodiversity loss is happening today and it is happening at a frightening rate," he will say.

"Left unchecked, the consequences will be catastrophic for us all.

"Extinction is forever - so our action must be immediate."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54320030.

 

[sweep_shot]

Getting warmer: Trump concedes human role in climate change

President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged that humans bear some blame for climate change, but scientists say the president still isn’t dealing with the reality of our primary role.

Pressed repeatedly in Tuesday night’s debate, Trump gave one of his fullest accountings yet of what scientists say is an escalating climate crisis threatening every aspect of life. Pushed by moderator Chris Wallace, and at one point by rival Joe Biden, Trump also pushed back on scientific findings that his environmental rollbacks would increase climate-damaging pollution.

The climate change exchange represented a rare microburst of policy discussion from Trump in a loud, nerve-abrading debate. And it ever so lightly nailed down the position of the Republican president on climate change.

“It is a sad statement about the President’s history on climate change, but it is a major development to see him clearly acknowledge a role of greenhouse gases from human emissions,” said Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

“It’s still outright denial of the science, in addition to denial of the devastating impacts,” such as the record wildfires once again forcing evacuations in the Western U.S, said Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University climate researcher and a veteran in scientists’ battle to make ordinary people and leaders face facts on global warming.

Trump said Tuesday that humans — their tailpipe exhaust, oil and gas production, and smokestack fumes — are just one of many culprits for the weather-disrupting deterioration of Earth’s atmosphere.

“You believe that human pollution, gas, greenhouse gas emissions contributes to the global warming of this planet?” Wallace asked.

“I think a lot of things do, but I think to an extent, yes,” Trump finally responded after Wallace’s third question pressing on the point.

Trump had evaded a direct answer to Wallace’s previous two questions, instead responding with his administration’s standard lines: It wants clean water and clean air, it supports planting trees and it blames worsening wildfires on Western states’ failure to rake dead leaves, branches and trees on forest floors.

Trump’s eventual answer still dodged the key point, which is that burning oil, gas and coal is damaging the climate.

“Humans more than account for all of the climate change over the last 50 years (when the vast amount of the changes have occurred),” Donald J. Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois, said in an email.

Wuebbles, a lead author in the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment in 2017-18, said because of a change in energy from the sun, Earth had been on a slight cooling trend before human-made heat-trapping gases kicked in.

Trump’s attacks on climate scientists and repeated attempts to undo rules and laws reining in fossil-fuel emissions speak “louder than any reluctant admissions about our changing climate,” said Kim Cobb, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The position Trump took Tuesday is more conservative than that of many lawmakers in his party. Some Republican members of Congress became more outspoken on human-made climate change after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats demanding aggressive action on global warming triumphed in 2018 midterms.

Trump’s response Tuesday came under pressure, but he did take a position and acknowledge a human role. That compares to past statements from 2012 on in which Trump dismissed the science behind global warming as a “concept” invented by China to hurt the United States, a “hoax” and a “money-making industry.”

As recently as mid-September, he told California leaders struggling with the worsening wildfires associated with global warming that the climate would “start getting cooler” again. “You just watch,” he added.

On Tuesday, after Trump nodded at a human role in climate change, Wallace asked him why he then had undone the Clean Power Plan. That was a legacy Obama administration climate change effort intended to move U.S. utilities away from the dirtiest fossil-fuel plants.

“Because it was driving energy prices through the sky,” Trump responded.

That’s an exaggeration. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects electricity prices would have averaged 2% higher through 2030 with Obama’s emissions-cutting power plan, mainly from the initial costs of adding more solar, wind and natural gas production to the electricity mix.

Biden jumped in with his own question, asking Trump why he was axing President Barack Obama’s other major climate effort — much tougher mileage standards that would have boosted electric cars.

The Obama administration said its move would have cut 6 billion metric tons in greenhouse gases. Trump’s answers didn’t address the climate damage, and he claimed to have given “big incentives” for electric cars. In fact, Trump had vowed to eliminate some tax credits boosting electric vehicles, and the White House has said it wants to do away with all incentives supporting renewables as well.

Wallace pressed Biden on his $2 trillion proposal to wean the United States off fossil fuels, citing Trump’s claims that the plan would “tank” the economy and cost jobs. Biden responded by describing massive investments in more efficient buildings, transportation and power plants that he said would produce millions of jobs.

Biden appeared to stumble at one point as he spoke of his plan, and Wallace and Trump pressed him on the left’s more ambitious Green New Deal, with Biden saying the Green New Deal — rather than his plan — would “pay for itself.” Biden specified a couple seconds later, “No, I don’t support the Green New Deal.”

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...mp-concedes-human-role-in-climate-change.html.

 

[sweep_shot]

Yes, climate change is driving wildfires

As wildfires sweep across the western United States, taking lives, destroying homes and blanketing the country in smoke, Niklas Hagelberg has a sobering message: this could be America’s new normal.

The climate change expert with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says a fast-warming planet will likely lead to more record-breaking blazes, like those that have ravaged the states of California, Oregon and Washington in recent months.

We recently sat down with Hagelberg to discuss the relationship between climate change and wildfires, and whether one-day infernos could make California unlivable.

UNEP: Some people think climate change is a problem for future generations. But are we already seeing the early effects of it?

Niklas Hagelberg: Yes. It’s here, right now. The planet is already 1.1°C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times and that is changing the world around us. I’ll give you a personal example. I’m 46 and when I was a teenager in southern Finland, you could go rally driving on ice. Now, you have to worry about walking on ice. You can ask pretty much anyone these days and I bet they’ll have a similar story to tell. Our climate is changing into something we don’t recognize. And it doesn’t match the societies we have built.

UNEP: Is climate change responsible for the blazes that have consumed parts of the western United States of America?

NH: Forest fires are natural. But in recent years, we’ve seen a rise in the average temperature, which has led to an increase in evaporation. We’re also seeing extended droughts. The landscape is so dry from multiple years of gradual change, that suddenly there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of fires. In fact, one report from the University of California, Berkley found the fire season in the western United States is now 75 days longer than it was in the 1970s.

UNEP: This year, 8,100 wildfires have erupted in California, killing 26 people and destroying 7,000-plus buildings. Is this the new normal for the Golden State?

NH: It could be. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change increases the likelihood of droughts, storms and other weather anomalies. Those events that were once every 100 years are suddenly happening once every 10 years. Based on the IPCC, we are moving towards an increasing frequency of fires, whether that’s forest fires or grassland fires – and many other dire consequences as well.

UNEP: Could parts of California become unlivable in the not-too-distant future?

NH: I believe in human ingenuity. I’m sure we could come up with ways to survive. The question is more: isn’t it a beautiful world and isn’t California a beautiful place? I don’t want to lose that. We need to design a better future for ourselves and the planet – not just accept what’s coming and try to scrape by.

UNEP: The 2020 fire season is among the worst on record in the United States. Do you think it will finally prompt serious action on climate change?

NH: I think it will. I think we’ve now come to the stage where people know this is an emergency. Once bad stuff starts hitting close to home, that’s when people react. It’s human nature. You don’t tend to stop smoking until you get bad news from your doctor.

UNEP: And this is bad news?

NH: This is bad news. This is bad for our health, for our wallet and for the fabric of society.

UNEP: The world is heading towards a global average temperature that’s 3°C to 4°C higher than it was before the industrial revolution. For many people, that might not seem like a lot. What do you say to them?

NH: Just think about your own body. When your temperature goes up from 36.7°C (98°F) to 37.7°C (100°F), you’ll probably consider taking the day off. If it goes 1.5°C above normal, you’re staying home for sure. If you add 3°C, people who are older and have preexisting conditions – they may die. The tolerances are just as tight for the planet.

Source: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/yes-climate-change-driving-wildfires.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Kind of depressing that this thread, which is about an existential threat to humanity, is so quiet. Yet post about football, Bollywood, Netflix, Narendra Modi, Nawaz Sharif, some random event in a corner of the world you have nothing to do with etc and you’ll receive a load of replies.

I’m guilty of it too. Why do we not care about climate change as much as we should?

 

[sweep_shot]

McDonald's among food firms urging tougher deforestation rules

Food firms in the UK including McDonald's are urging the government to toughen up rules designed to protect rainforests.

Ministers are planning a new law forbidding big firms to use produce from illegally deforested land.

But the firms say the law should apply to all deforestation, whether it's legal or illegal.

That's because the effect on the climate, and on nature, is the same if trees are felled legally or not.

The firms have written a letter to the government on the closing day of its consultation on forest protection.

It says: "Restricting action to illegal deforestation would not achieve halting the loss of natural ecosystems, especially when governments have discretion to decide what is legal."

The 21 signatories include including Unilever, Tesco, Lidl, Nando's, Nestle, the convenience food maker Greencore and the chicken producer Pilgrim's Pride.

Currently the government's plans refer only to major companies like these, but the signatories say this would allow medium-sized firms to continue importing large amounts of commodities from previously forested land.

They are pressing for a level playing field so smaller operators don't gain a competitive advantage.

The letter represents something of a breakthrough for environmental campaigners.

They've have long argued that it's pointless for the UK to protect its own landscape - as the Prime Minister says he intends - if ingredients in food or fodder such as beef, cocoa, soy, rubber and palm oil have contributed to environmental destruction abroad.

Robin Willoughby, from the green group Mighty Earth said: "The proposed legislation would continue to allow rampant deforestation in hotspots such as Indonesia and Brazil (where much of the deforestation is legal).

"With the Amazon in flames and forests being cut down at an alarming rate, Nature doesn't recognise the difference between legal and illegal deforestation."

A government spokesperson agreed that the expansion of agriculture should not damage other ecosystems and promised ministers would explore ways of avoiding this "displacement" effect.

The spokesperson said tackling illegal forest-felling was the obvious place to start.

She added: "Our proposed approach is designed to tackle illegal deforestation which accounts for nearly 50% of deforestation globally, but nearer 90% in key biomes, including part of the Amazon.

"Were existing forest laws in Brazil to be properly enforced, experts believe that forest cover would increase by 10%."

Chris Brown, Sustainable Sourcing Director at Asda, said: "We welcome efforts the government has made so far to tackle deforestation.

"But current plans won't do enough to protect fragile ecosystems.

"We need comprehensive reporting up and down the supply chain, alongside incentives for suppliers who move towards more environmentally-responsible production."

There has been growing dissatisfaction among consumers about products connected to illegal deforestation, especially in the Amazon.

According to a recent survey from the environment group, WWF, 67% of British consumers say they want the government to do more to tackle the issue.

Some 81% of respondents wanted greater transparency about the origins of products imported into the UK.

Fuelling these concerns are reports showing that deforestation in the Amazon has increased sharply this year.

The felling of trees and the clearing of land, usually for agriculture, is estimated to be responsible for 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Although some environmentalists have supported the letter to government, other say the proposed targets are inadequate.

McDonald's, for instance, has set a deadline of 2030 for removing rainforest products from its supply chain - a date critics say is far too late.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54408544.

 

[Robert]

Kind of depressing that this thread, which is about an existential threat to humanity, is so quiet. Yet post about football, Bollywood, Netflix, Narendra Modi, Nawaz Sharif, some random event in a corner of the world you have nothing to do with etc and you’ll receive a load of replies.

I’m guilty of it too. Why do we not care about climate change as much as we should?

Because it’s a problem so titanic and complex that it seems insoluble.

You can do things - PV panels and a wind turbine for your house roof, electric car, reduce meat from your diet, rain water collection to flush your toilet.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Because it’s a problem so titanic and complex that it seems insoluble.

You can do things - PV panels and a wind turbine for your house roof, electric car, reduce meat from your diet, rain water collection to flush your toilet.

I feel the main responsbility is of governments rather than individuals but you raise an interesting point. Many of us complain about climate change but how many of us are willing to make a change? I cant stop driving cars because I hate public transport but I try to buy organic, from small businesses, never drop litter, keep the seas clean and clean up when I can(even if its not my rubbish). Sadly I feel its too late for the planet as humanity has become more selfish than ever before.

 

[sweep_shot]

The hole in the ozone layer is improving, but that doesn't mean we've learned our lesson

TORONTO -- More than 30 years of united action to address a worrying hole in the ozone layer has made a difference, but the world hasn’t learned a lesson when it comes to climate change, says a prominent environmental lawyer.

Dianne Saxe, who served as environmental commissioner of Ontario from 2015 to 2019, says a hole over Antarctica the size of North America that was discovered in 1985 has improved because the world listened to science.

“All the countries of the world got together and agreed that we had to take urgent action because the scientists told us that otherwise we’d be in severe trouble,” she said Monday on CTV’s Your Morning.

Canada led the way with the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which became the first United Nations treaty to receive universal ratification. It phased out the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, a type of chemical invented in the 1920s that was widely used in refrigerants, solvents and aerosol sprays, but caused serious breakdowns in the upper ozone layer of the atmosphere.

The chemical companies making CFCs “actually behaved fairly well in that circumstance,” said Saxe.

“They agreed that they could replace the CFCs they were making with other products, they could still make a good living and they would do much less damage.”

The playbook on climate change action has been markedly different, she says.

“We haven’t had the same co-operation, by and large, from the fossil fuel companies. Instead, they have funded a multi-decade campaign of obstruction and misleading, lying, attacking science and paying for politicians that oppose climate action. So we’ve had this very well-orchestrated campaign to create this illusion of doubt and the real fact of delay.”

There are two ozone layers. The one high in the atmosphere acts as a giant sunscreen for Earth, blocking out the sun’s most harmful radiation, protecting us from blindness and cancer.

Another layer, ground-level ozone, is caused by pollution, particularly from gas-powered vehicles, and leads to poor air quality. Saxe says we’ll have a “double win” if we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

“We reduce climate damage and we also dramatically reduce air pollution, which is an enormous human health threat and also reduces agricultural productivity.”

A record-breaking hole in the ozone layer that formed over the Arctic in the spring seems to have since closed.

More research is needed, says Saxe, but it’s believed it all has to do with changes in the way the air currents that drive the planet’s weather system are behaving.

What is clear is that “massive changes” are underway in the Arctic, including losses of ice, changes in species that live there, and extraordinary heat and fires, she says.

“The Arctic is changing in ways that is going to unravel and destabilize the climate for the rest of the world and especially for Canada.”

To this point, the effects have mostly been concentrated at the poles of the Earth, but without action, the impacts will become more widespread, says Saxe.

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-...esn-t-mean-we-ve-learned-our-lesson-1.5132973.

 

[Robert]

I feel the main responsbility is of governments rather than individuals but you raise an interesting point. Many of us complain about climate change but how many of us are willing to make a change? I cant stop driving cars because I hate public transport but I try to buy organic, from small businesses, never drop litter, keep the seas clean and clean up when I can(even if its not my rubbish). Sadly I feel its too late for the planet as humanity has become more selfish than ever before.

You may be right on your last point but the planet will just carry on - there have been six extinction events already. 75% of all species went extinct at the big one before the dinosaurs arrived. We might go extinct but the Earth will keep spinning and a new paradigm of life will evolve.

But let’s not get that far.

Much depends on individuals driving change in responsible government. When Sir Ed Davey was Energy Secretary he persuaded the Germans and Poles (who like burning coal) to commit to carbon reduction targets. Then the whole EU agreed to these, and Obama and Japan signed up and the world had the Paris Agreement.

It’s up to government to help companies and individuals be responsible for carbon capture, water use and waste streams. Companies can be encouraged to seek the triple bottom line of profit / planet / people - meaning that they seek to make money but also commit to environmental management and local social good, perhaps setting up a play park for local kids or a community centre.

I met a beef farmer who claims to be sequestering carbon, having planted willow trees for his cows to graze under. He has rain water collector systems to reduce his draw on water courses.

The government can encourage homeowners to put solar panels and other carbon-sequestering devices on their property, for example with the feed-in tariff scheme. There are now 800,000 such generators in Britain, making as much power in total as a small nuclear reactor. I got in late and only make nine pence per exported kW/hr but people who got in early at the 45p rate say their system paid for itself in a few years. My electricity use dropped by 43% since installation. If I can get a little 1 kW wind turbine installed I can reduce that further.

99% of waste produced by my house either goes to the recycling plant or to fuel the incinerator-driven steam turbine up the road. Ash from the incinerator burn becomes hardcore for construction.

 

[sweep_shot]

People generally don't learn until something big happens. Governments and people worldwide have to be responsible.

 

[Tubs]

You may be right on your last point but the planet will just carry on - there have been six extinction events already. 75% of all species went extinct at the big one before the dinosaurs arrived. We might go extinct but the Earth will keep spinning and a new paradigm of life will evolve.

But let’s not get that far.

Much depends on individuals driving change in responsible government. When Sir Ed Davey was Energy Secretary he persuaded the Germans and Poles (who like burning coal) to commit to carbon reduction targets. Then the whole EU agreed to these, and Obama and Japan signed up and the world had the Paris Agreement.

It’s up to government to help companies and individuals be responsible for carbon capture, water use and waste streams. Companies can be encouraged to seek the triple bottom line of profit / planet / people - meaning that they seek to make money but also commit to environmental management and local social good, perhaps setting up a play park for local kids or a community centre.

I met a beef farmer who claims to be sequestering carbon, having planted willow trees for his cows to graze under. He has rain water collector systems to reduce his draw on water courses.

The government can encourage homeowners to put solar panels and other carbon-sequestering devices on their property, for example with the feed-in tariff scheme. There are now 800,000 such generators in Britain, making as much power in total as a small nuclear reactor. I got in late and only make nine pence per exported kW/hr but people who got in early at the 45p rate say their system paid for itself in a few years. My electricity use dropped by 43% since installation. If I can get a little 1 kW wind turbine installed I can reduce that further.

99% of waste produced by my house either goes to the recycling plant or to fuel the incinerator-driven steam turbine up the road. Ash from the incinerator burn becomes hardcore for construction.

There is a distinction between naturally-occurring extinction event, and anthropogenic climate change, though. While agree with world will continue on, it is entirely possible that it'll create a climate which is not conducive to much life at all.

 

[Robert]

There is a distinction between naturally-occurring extinction event, and anthropogenic climate change, though. While agree with world will continue on, it is entirely possible that it'll create a climate which is not conducive to much life at all.

Of course, but the effect will be similar. Temperatures rising, ocean currents changing, desertification, more extreme and frequent storms, food web collapse.

 

[Technics 1210]

Don't believe the hype folks. Climate change is more to do with the Sun than humans.

Cattle is one of the biggest contributors to 'green house' gases, Methane.

These Liberals now want us to turn veggies for the sake of the environment! In otherwords, reverse a a natural process!

 

[sweep_shot]

RELIGION PLAYS AN ‘ENORMOUS’ ROLE IN REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE, SAYS UN

Faith-based organisations can have an “immense” impact on sustainable development, states a new report.

According to research by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), these organisations control 8 per cent of the Earth’s habitable land, as well as 5 per cent of commercial forests and 10 per cent of financial institutions. Experts say this means they play a substantial role in limiting climate change and reversing environmental degradation.

“The potential aggregate impact of faith-based organizations on sustainable development is immense,” Iyad Abumoghli, director of the UNEP Faith for Earth Initiative, tells Euronews Living.

“In addressing the unprecedented environmental challenges of all times, we have tried technology, we have tried policies, but we have forgotten the essential role of religious and spiritual values for caring for our nature.”

Abumoghli adds that the diversity of faiths, all united in one moral responsibility, can “play an enormous role in achieving the behavioral change in our production and consumption patterns".

There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as defined by the UN, including clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities, zero hunger and quality education. The report lists five examples of how faith-based organisations are helping to achieve these goals.

FIVE EXAMPLES OF FAITH GROUPS SAVING THE PLANET
According to the report, 16 congregations of Dominican Sisters across the United States have provided $46 million (€39 million) in seed capital for an investment fund that focuses on providing access to clean energy in India and Sub-Saharan Africa. The project highlights the power and wealth of religions and their contribution to financing sustainable development.

Another example hails from Peru, where A Rocha Peru, a Christian faith organisation, has planted 26,000 Huarango trees over three years. These trees are well adapted to surviving the arid climate of southeastern Peru and are important for traditional agriculture to thrive on the Peruvian coast.

Vardayini Mata Temple in Maharashtra, India, is helping to conserve the endangered mahseer fish population. For Hindus, these fish are sacred - so protecting them against dam construction is not only important to their faith, it helps with conservation efforts in the area.

Various Sikh communities around the world have committed to plant 1 million trees in 1,820 different locations by November 2020. The project is driven by a group called Ecosikh, whose goal is to increase reforestation and encourage people to reconnect with nature.

The last example is a Shiloh Temple in Minneapolis, US, which installed a community solar garden on its rooftop in 2017. This provides energy to the temple, a nearby mosque and almost 30 residences.

The UNEP report, entitled Faith Action on the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Progress and Outlook, is in collaboration with the Parliament of World’s Religions, United Religions Initiative and Bhumi Global. It is being presented at the Faith Action for Nature conference in Iceland, which runs online from 5-8 October.

Source: https://www.euronews.com/living/202...mous-role-in-reversing-climate-change-says-un.

 

[Robert]

Source: https://www.euronews.com/living/202...mous-role-in-reversing-climate-change-says-un.

Good news. Responsible religious groups will seek a positive role in stewardship of their God’s Earth.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Don't believe the hype folks. Climate change is more to do with the Sun than humans.

NASA disagree, and I’m sure they know more about this subject than any of us on this forum.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

 

[Technics 1210]

NASA disagree, and I’m sure they know more about this subject than any of us on this forum.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

Sure they disagree, from NASA on how the Sun effects our climate :

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

Enjoy.

PS: Global Warming is a defunct term.

 

[Arsal_AK]

Don't believe the hype folks. Climate change is more to do with the Sun than humans.

Cattle is one of the biggest contributors to 'green house' gases, Methane.

These Liberals now want us to turn veggies for the sake of the environment! In otherwords, reverse a a natural process!

No, it doesn't. This is flat out wrong.

But still let's clear this out. Why and more importantly how do you think the sun is driving climate change?

Sure they disagree, from NASA on how the Sun effects our climate :

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

Enjoy.

PS: Global Warming is a defunct term.

From the link you yourself posted.

"The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century."



This graph makes it crystal clear that the solar cycles donot correspond to the raising temperatures we are experiencing.

You know what does? The CO2 emissions per year.

The absolute consensus is that Human action is leading to the overall raise in global temperatures i.e Global Warming.

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh dear.

People have not heard of orbital decay. As the Earth gets closer to the sun, ergo it will get hot.

But no, lets listen to these so called resident experts and become vegetarians because we can control the force of gravity through diet.

CO2 literally is a smokescreen, and moreover isn't the gas considered by liberal scientists to cause warming, it's methane.

Liberals. You got to love them.

 

[Technics 1210]

Whoops forgot, climate research unit caught fabricating data in supporting of 'global warming'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Yes sheeple, your messiah was caught fabricating data, yet you continue to believe the hoax.

 

[sweep_shot]

How fertilizer in farming is pushing climate change past ‘worst-case scenarios’

Greenhouse gas emissions are at the crux of the fight against climate change.

By now we’re well aware of the effects of carbon dioxide — produced by cars, trucks and factories — and methane — much of which comes from cows in the beef and dairy industries.

But it’s a third, less talked about gas that’s taking an increasing role: nitrous oxide (N2O). A new study, published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature, sheds light on just how much.

“The big conclusion was that nitrous oxide emissions are increasing at a rate that’s higher than the worst-case scenarios specific to that gas,” said Taylor Maavara, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University’s School of the Environment and co-author on the study.

“It’s pretty devastating.”

Those predictive scenarios were laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which uses detailed socioeconomic scenarios to depict different potential climate outcomes. The worst case: the Earth warms by three degrees by 2100. The Paris Climate Accord, which Canada committed to in 2015, aims to keep the average global temperature increase to below two degrees.

While nitrous oxide’s role in climate warming was previously known, the new research shows the gas is contributing to it more than previously thought.

The alternatives to offsetting man-made N2O are particularly challenging as they’re tangled in food production.

This is why Maavara believes it’s even more important for humans to succeed at reducing the amount of carbon pollution in the atmosphere.
“CO2 is still the big issue,” Maavara said. “We’re showing that these other gases are more important than we thought. So, in a way, the need to reduce CO2 emissions is higher now because it’s potentially more feasible, and we’re going to have a hard time dealing with the other gases.

“So if we can reduce CO2, we’re going to take a step in the right direction either way.”

Agriculture driving emissions
Nitrous oxide is a long-lived greenhouse gas, meaning its emissions made today will be warming the atmosphere for a century.

Despite this, nitrous oxide has been somewhat overlooked in research and policies centred around agriculture and climate, said Maavara. But nitrous oxide, commonly known as “laughing gas,” is nearly 300 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

“It also depletes the ozone layer,” she added.

Though half of the world’s N2O occurs naturally, humans are still the dominant driver. The study found that 70 per cent of man-made N2O emissions are from a single industry — agriculture.

Synthetic fertilizers filled with nitrate and ammonium, used to bolster crop yields, are the problem. Without these fertilizers, crop yields can falter. But with them, the environmental impact can be great.

So what needs to be done?

“It’s tricky,” said Maavara, “because, obviously, we can’t stop growing food.”

Shifts in farming
“We can do a lot of things to lean away from it,” said Darrin Qualman, director of climate policy and action for the National Farmers Union. “But first, we have to decide to do them.”

This starts with the efficient use of fertilizers, he said.

READ MORE: Climate change could open new land for farming in Canada — but comes at a price

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada recommends adjusting fertilizer amounts to coincide with plant needs, placing the fertilizer nearer to plant roots, and using slow-release forms of fertilizer, which can control the nitrogen release and give plants more time to absorb it.

“It’s a suite of best management practices called 4R, which stands for the right fertilizer product, in the right place, at the right time, with the right amount,” said Qualman. “If farmers do that, they could reduce fertilizer use by 20 to 30 per cent and still maintain yield.”

Fertilizer Canada is behind the 4R method and offers a stewardship program for farmers to adopt the framework and make a positive impact on the environment.

It’s not easy to strike a balance between reducing emissions, maintaining crop yields and costs.

READ MORE: Agriculture groups call for carbon tax exemption, minister ‘listening’ to farmers

“Change takes time,” said Clyde Graham, executive vice-president of Fertilizer Canada. “Farmers are doing quite well, generally. So you have to have greater incentives for them to make significant changes in operations.”

There is economic value in using the 4R principles, said Graham. According to Fertilizer Canada’s studies, Canadian farmers who used the 4R practices for nitrogen management saw an 18 to 29 per cent increase in profit per year, and an up to $87 per acre increase in profit.

“Essentially, farmers become more efficient in their fertilizer use, so they’re producing more crop for the same amount of fertilizer applied. At the same time, they’re reducing their N2O emissions.”

Another option is the rotation of crops, particularly with legumes, said Qualman. Legumes, with the proper soil bacteria, can convert nitrogen gas from the air to a plant-available form, meaning it does not need nitrogen fertilization.

“It’s about getting more nitrogen from biological sources rather than industrial sources,” said Qualman.

Ultimately, it’s a win-win, he explained. By effectively reducing the need for fertilizer, farm costs and N2O emissions can shrink.

Maavara, who is originally from Canada, spent years in southwestern Ontario interacting with farmers. She believes there’s a desire among farmers to change.

“We’ve already fertilized fields so extensively over the last 50 to 100 years that there’s already such a buildup of nitrate in the soils and the groundwater. Even if we went cold turkey right now and cut fertilizer use, we wouldn’t really start seeing changes for decades.”

Lessons from Europe
The study suggests lessons can be taken from Europe, where emissions have decreased over the past two years thanks to policies both in agriculture and industrial sectors to limit fertilizer and chemical use.

The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is among multiple directives that helped guide sustainable farming and innovation.

“That was put in place more from a water quality standpoint, but it had the concurrent effect of reducing nitrous oxide emissions,” said Maavara. “A lot of it was incentivizing farmers to put in these best management practices.”

Brazil, China and India are “hotspots” for rising N2O emissions, but North America still ranks high on the scale.

In Canada, agriculture accounts for 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions overall, and N2O plays a big role in that, said Shane Moffatt, the head of Greenpeace Canada’s nature and food campaign.

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent of 2005 emissions by the year 2030, but Moffatt says more needs to be done. Greenpeace has been calling on Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau to offer more supports and incentives to farmers to shift practices to “regenerative agriculture,” which is designed to reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers and increase biodiversity in soil to restore ecosystems.

“If the federal government wants to be serious about fighting climate change, ensuring food security, and supporting a green recovery from COVID-19 while hunger is on a rise, they need to put food and agriculture at the top of the agenda,” Moffatt said.

“Fertilizer use on Canadian farms is responsible for so much nitrous oxide that it accounted for nearly a quarter of total agriculture emissions in 2017 alone… By shifting farming we have enormous potential for both food security and climate mitigation.”

Ultimately, Maavara said their research signals the world is not on track to meet the Paris Agreement.

“I don’t want to say nail in the coffin, that’s a dark metaphor, but it’s definitely an alarming conclusion that indicates we need to be doing more if we want to keep under two degrees.”

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/7378381/nitrous-oxide-climate-change-fertilizer/.

 

[Arsal_AK]

Oh dear.

People have not heard of orbital decay. As the Earth gets closer to the sun, ergo it will get hot.

But no, lets listen to these so called resident experts and become vegetarians because we can control the force of gravity through diet.

CO2 literally is a smokescreen, and moreover isn't the gas considered by liberal scientists to cause warming, it's methane.

Liberals. You got to love them.

Orbital decay? I don't think you understand how orbital mechanics or science in general works. What is causing this decay?

Let's take it step by step. I'll put in the equation of oribital motion so that there is little doubt as to what we are talking about.

Earth is in a practical vacum. It is a very, very good approximation, to the point that we have used similar approximations for all of our space missions (which have included surface landings, gravitational assists, putting things in orbits to name a few). In short, it works and works extremely well.

The there is no drag to slow Earth down. The orbital equation is given by:
r(θ) = p/(1+e cosθ)
where;
p = h/μ
and;
μ = G(m₁ +m₂), a constant (though if you add fusion, this factor will become a function of time, causing earth to move away over time)

h = the angular momentum which is conserved due to the symmetry of the system that is to say that it's a constant.
e is the eccentricity, which does vary, over thousands of years but it's effects is essentially making the orbit circular (e=0), elliptical (0 < e < 1) and so on.

So, there is nothing that is going to cause a change (decay, expansion, collision, ejection from the system) over appreciable time scales say the next few million years.

Let's make it a bit more complicated, though it's needed at all as shown above, and add the effect of interplanetary dust (which will function as drag). The dust desnity is of the order 10⁻²⁰, which is ridiculously low. The drag due to that is roughly about one part in 10¹⁸. Which is as I said negligible.

But if you are adding such miniscule effects let's add other such influences as well. For one the fact the influences of all the other planets especially the outer gas giants on earth, the gravitational perturbations caused by them. Add the fact that sun loses mass by nuclear fusion and hence the gravitational pull is weaker over time. Then there are the tidal effects (see Earth-Moon system and why the moon's orbit is increasing). All of these factors are actually pushing Earth away from the sun. Finally, to counter, Earth also loses energy by gravitational radiation, which again is a very small effects. It will take billions of years for the earth to collapse as a result of this.

So, it may as well be the opposite, the Earth may be going away from the sun. There is good evidence to suggest so, bit we need more accurate measurements to be sure, as the error value encompasses the effect as the moment (again proving how tiny it is). Even if that case it's not appreciable enough to cause changes in temperature.

Lastly let's keep all of that aside. If there was such a thing as orbital decay, there isn't, and it's a constant factor of say even a few centimeters per year. And this has been happening since the formation of earth some 5 billion years ago. You would expect the temperature graph to be linear as well. It isn't. Which means that such an effect couldn't possibly cause the temperature raise we are seeing.

Hopefully this clears it up.

Likewise what you saying about CO₂ is wrong too. And of course gravity has nothing to do with climate change as well.

 

[sweep_shot]

California governor says state will conserve 30% of lands and waters by 2030

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Wednesday called for the conservation of 30% of state lands and waters by 2030 to protect unique species and preserve ecosystems that are key to fighting climate change.

Newsom’s executive order also directs state agencies to craft policies to boost carbon sequestration on state lands so it can be removed from the atmosphere and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The state’s latest move to address the impacts of a warming planet comes as Newsom has declared in recent weeks that the state must step up its already aggressive efforts on climate amid a record wildfire season.

“Climate change is not just about greenhouse gas emissions emanating from tailpipes of vehicles, but it’s the opportunity to sequester in our soils,” Newsom said at a news conference held at a walnut orchard in Winters, California. “This is a critical part of the climate change conversation and it so often is omitted when we talk about climate change.”

California’s conservation goal is aligned with a United Nations push for governments to collectively set aside 30% of the planet’s land and sea areas.

The announcement comes on the heels of last month’s plan by Newsom to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks in the state starting in 2035. (Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by Leslie Adler and Marguerita Choy)

Source: https://financialpost.com/pmn/busin...-will-conserve-30-of-lands-and-waters-by-2030.

 

[Robert]

Orbital decay? I don't think you understand how orbital mechanics or science in general works. What is causing this decay?

Let's take it step by step. I'll put in the equation of oribital motion so that there is little doubt as to what we are talking about.

Earth is in a practical vacum. It is a very, very good approximation, to the point that we have used similar approximations for all of our space missions (which have included surface landings, gravitational assists, putting things in orbits to name a few). In short, it works and works extremely well.

The there is no drag to slow Earth down. The orbital equation is given by:
r(θ) = p/(1+e cosθ)
where;
p = h/μ
and;
μ = G(m₁ +m₂), a constant (though if you add fusion, this factor will become a function of time, causing earth to move away over time)

h = the angular momentum which is conserved due to the symmetry of the system that is to say that it's a constant.
e is the eccentricity, which does vary, over thousands of years but it's effects is essentially making the orbit circular (e=0), elliptical (0 < e < 1) and so on.

So, there is nothing that is going to cause a change (decay, expansion, collision, ejection from the system) over appreciable time scales say the next few million years.

Let's make it a bit more complicated, though it's needed at all as shown above, and add the effect of interplanetary dust (which will function as drag). The dust desnity is of the order 10⁻²⁰, which is ridiculously low. The drag due to that is roughly about one part in 10¹⁸. Which is as I said negligible.

But if you are adding such miniscule effects let's add other such influences as well. For one the fact the influences of all the other planets especially the outer gas giants on earth, the gravitational perturbations caused by them. Add the fact that sun loses mass by nuclear fusion and hence the gravitational pull is weaker over time. Then there are the tidal effects (see Earth-Moon system and why the moon's orbit is increasing). All of these factors are actually pushing Earth away from the sun. Finally, to counter, Earth also loses energy by gravitational radiation, which again is a very small effects. It will take billions of years for the earth to collapse as a result of this.

So, it may as well be the opposite, the Earth may be going away from the sun. There is good evidence to suggest so, bit we need more accurate measurements to be sure, as the error value encompasses the effect as the moment (again proving how tiny it is). Even if that case it's not appreciable enough to cause changes in temperature.

Lastly let's keep all of that aside. If there was such a thing as orbital decay, there isn't, and it's a constant factor of say even a few centimeters per year. And this has been happening since the formation of earth some 5 billion years ago. You would expect the temperature graph to be linear as well. It isn't. Which means that such an effect couldn't possibly cause the temperature raise we are seeing.

Hopefully this clears it up.

Likewise what you saying about CO₂ is wrong too. And of course gravity has nothing to do with climate change as well.

Extremely interesting post.

What I marvel at is how Jupiter is actually older than the Sun. It was there before the Sun ignited. It went on the rampage, spiralling in towards the Sun during the Heavy Bombardment Era and hoovered up a lot of planetoids which might have hit Earth and prevented life evolving here. Jupiter‘A tidal gravity tore the fifth planet to rubble and formed the Asteroid Belt. It would have carried on in, destroying the inner planets and finally being absorbed by the Sun, but Saturn formed and stabilised Jupiter’s orbit. And so our Solar System is in dynamic equilibrium, at least until the Sun expands later in its life.

 

[sweep_shot]

Here’s why 2020 is the worst year so far in terms of Climate Change

If not for COVID-19, this would be the top news this year. 2020 could very well be the worst year in terms of Climate Change. Climate-related extreme weather events have broken all records in 2020. In the United States alone, the first nine months of 2020 tie with the annual record of 16 events that occurred in 2011 and 2017.

Extreme weather events prove expensive for US
According to NOAA, as of October 7, 2020, there have been 16 weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect the US. These included one drought event, eleven severe storms, three tropical cyclones, and one wildfire, resulting in 188 deaths and significant economic effects. While the 1980–2019 CPI-adjusted annual average is 6.6 events, the annual average for the most recent five years (2015–2019) has leaped to 13.8 events.

2020 is the sixth consecutive year in which more than 10 billion-dollar weather disasters impacted the US. Over the last 41 years (1980-2020), the years with 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events include 1998, 2008, 2011-2012, and 2015-2020.

ALSO READ: China’s zero carbon pledge is good news; but how good?

Record wildfires raging in America
There has been an unprecedented outbreak of wildfires across the entire Western United States this summer. In California, fires have consumed over 4 million acres since 2020 beginning, which is twice more than the 2018 record. A Climate Central analysis of 45 years of US Forest Service records from the western parts of the country shows that the number of large fires on Forest Service land is increasing dramatically. The area burned by these fires is also growing at an alarming rate.

Scientists have pointed to the region’s changing weather. Snowpacks are melting earlier as winter and spring temperatures rise, and in most states an increasing percentage of winter precipitation is falling as rain, meaning there is often less snowpack to begin with. This is leading to rise in summer temperatures, particularly in Southwestern states, where forests and grasslands are dried out and ready to burn, creating the perfect ground for wildfires.

Climate Central notes, across the Western US, the average annual number of large fires (larger than 1,000 acres) burning each year has more than tripled between the 1970s and the 2010s. The area burned by these fires has shown an even larger increase: in an average year, more than six times as many acres across the West were burned in the 2010s than in the 1970s. The fire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970, and is approaching the point where the notion of a fire season will be made obsolete by the reality of year-round wildfires across the West.

The conditions are likely to get worse in the coming times. Climate Central’s project States at Risk analyzed historical climate data and downscaled climate projections from 29 different global climate models, and found that in most western states, the climate conditions that can stoke summer wildfires are projected to increase substantially in the relatively short period between now and 2050. Arizona is expected to see more than a month of additional high-risk fire days by 2050.

2020 second warmest year on record
The year 2020 is now the second-warmest year on record, trailing only 2019, with the previous decade producing seven of the hottest 10 years in history. The July 2020 globally averaged land and ocean surface temperature departure from average tied with 2016 as the second highest for the month in 141-year history of NOAA’s global temperature dataset record. Only July 2019 was hotter, that too by a fraction of a degree.

At 1.66 degree F (0.92 degree C), the global land and ocean surface temperature recorded in July 2020 was above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degree F (15.8 degree C). July 2020 marked the 44th consecutive July and the 427th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th-century average.

The previous witnessed nine of the 10 warmest Julys, six of the warmest ones coming in the last six years (2015-2020), according to NOAA. The most notable warm temperature departures of at least +3.6 degree F (+2.0 degree C) were present across the North Pacific Ocean, the southwestern and northeastern contiguous US, eastern Canada and across parts of western Asia and eastern Antarctica.

Alarming state of the Arctic
While some regions in the Arctic saw all-time high temperatures this summer – touching 38 degree C (100 degree F) in Siberian town of Verkhoyansk on June 22, 18 degree C higher than the average maximum daily temperature in June — the Arctic sea ice is currently at its second lowest. On September 15, Arctic sea ice likely reached its annual minimum extent of 3.74 million sq km. The minimum ice extent is the second lowest in the 42-year-old satellite record, according to National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) of the US. “We are headed towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean, and this year is another nail in the coffin,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze.

In July, scientists at the European Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that the unusually warm spell in the Arctic, which has seen record temperatures, continues. During the January-May period, the average temperature in north-central Siberia was consistently 8 degrees Celsius above average. They also reported that average temperatures for June were on par with 2019’s worldwide record, and exceptionally high temperatures in Arctic Siberia. The scientists also reiterated that the Arctic “as a whole has been warming substantially faster than the rest of the world.”

Ocean surface is warming up faster
Already a latest study warns that the upper parts of the oceans are heating up faster, which distinctly increases the chances of intense tropical storms and interferes with the absorption of CO2 by oceans. The phenomenon, called ocean stratification, is happening faster than scientists expected, finds a recently published study by the journal Nature. That means the negative impacts will arrive faster and also be greater than expected. Increased stratification of the ocean could drive a vicious cycle of warming of the seas — the more heat stays near the surface, the warmer will be the atmosphere above.

The research suggests that if the ocean surface warms faster and less carbon is carried to the depths, that could lead atmospheric CO2 to triple and the global average temperature could increase 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Things are so bad that one could think it could only get better from here, right? Wrong. According to United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), a fast-warming planet will likely lead to more record-breaking blazes and more extreme weather events.

Is there a silver lining at all?
Which is why two pieces of news last week come as a silver lining. On October 6, the European Parliament overwhelmingly voted to adopt a new climate law that mandates 60% reduction in GHG emissions by the end of the decade, up from 40% currently.

On October 2, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden vowed to bar from his transition team any “leaders” of fossil fuel companies. Biden’s pledge, however, invited cautious cheer from environmentalists who have urged the former Vice President to go further by banning Big Oil lobbyists from both his transition team and cabinet. Coming closely on the back of China’s pledge to be zero-carbon by 2030, both are much-warranted steps towards ensuring that Paris climate goals are reached.

In its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF makes the case for taking a green recovery route. Countries should opt for a green investment stimulus, which, it reasons, will achieve two goals. While this will boost global GDP and employment in the initial years, the green infrastructure will also increase productivity in low-carbon sectors, thereby incentivizing private sector investments and making it easier to adapt to higher carbon prices. The net effect will approximately halve the expected output loss from Climate Change and provide long-term, real GDP gains well above the current course 2050 onwards.

Source: https://www.geospatialworld.net/blo...worst-year-so-far-in-terms-of-climate-change/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Peatlands are key to stopping climate change

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says in a study that drained peatlands are one of the main causes of climate change. Even worse than aviation.

This is the conclusion of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK, Germany) in a study published today.

The PIK lays some incredible figures out on the table. For example, the institute states that marshlands and peatlands retain twice as much CO2 globally than all forests put together. And all this, even though peatlands only cover 3% of the earth’s surface. But once they are drained, then their effect is reversed. Then all of a sudden they become greenhouse gas centers.

According to the PIK, all of the peatlands that been drained combined are responsible for twice as many greenhouse gas emissions each year as aviation and traffic combined.

Polder-making
According to Florian Humpenöder of the PIK, many peatlands, especially in Europe, have been drained for agricultural purposes over the past centuries. This is happening more recently on a massive scale in Southeast Asia. Humpenöder, therefore, deems it essential that more attention be paid to this. If not, it will be impossible to achieve the target of a maximum global warming level of 2 degrees Celsius.

To begin with, we should better protect the peatland areas that are still intact, according to Humpenöder. In addition, 60% of the peatlands that were drained in the past should be reclaimed.

The Netherlands
This is a message that probably will not go down very well in the Netherlands, since the western part of the Netherlands in particular used to be made up entirely or partially of peatlands that have almost all disappeared as a result of being reclaimed for land. This has created the unique Dutch polder landscape with all its peat meadows and windmills that keeps everyone’s feet dry.

“Most climate scenarios do not take into account the consequences of another type of use for peatlands,” says PIK researcher Alexander Popp. “There is a serious risk that peatlands will be wrongly classified as useless.”

A next step, as the PIK sees it, should be to take a good look at which peat areas might be eligible for restoration. Naturally, there are costs involved. Farmers, for example, would have less arable land and consumers would probably have to deal with higher food prices. Nevertheless, Humpenöder is convinced that this discussion absolutely needs to take place.

Dwindling ecosystems cost thousands of billions
The importance of preventing global warming was once again highlighted today in a report issued by Swiss Re. This Swiss reinsurance company has calculated the global costs of failing ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.

More than half of the world’s income depends on well-functioning ecosystems and biodiversity, which equates to US$41.7 trillion, according to Swiss Re – whose job it is to map out these kinds of costs. At the same time, one-fifth of all countries in the world are at risk of ecosystem failure. Consequently, the costs could run into the thousands of billions.

Source: https://innovationorigins.com/peatlands-are-key-to-stopping-climate-change/.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Very informative, thanks for posting.

Orbital decay? I don't think you understand how orbital mechanics or science in general works. What is causing this decay?

Let's take it step by step. I'll put in the equation of oribital motion so that there is little doubt as to what we are talking about.

Earth is in a practical vacum. It is a very, very good approximation, to the point that we have used similar approximations for all of our space missions (which have included surface landings, gravitational assists, putting things in orbits to name a few). In short, it works and works extremely well.

The there is no drag to slow Earth down. The orbital equation is given by:
r(θ) = p/(1+e cosθ)
where;
p = h/μ
and;
μ = G(m₁ +m₂), a constant (though if you add fusion, this factor will become a function of time, causing earth to move away over time)

h = the angular momentum which is conserved due to the symmetry of the system that is to say that it's a constant.
e is the eccentricity, which does vary, over thousands of years but it's effects is essentially making the orbit circular (e=0), elliptical (0 < e < 1) and so on.

So, there is nothing that is going to cause a change (decay, expansion, collision, ejection from the system) over appreciable time scales say the next few million years.

Let's make it a bit more complicated, though it's needed at all as shown above, and add the effect of interplanetary dust (which will function as drag). The dust desnity is of the order 10⁻²⁰, which is ridiculously low. The drag due to that is roughly about one part in 10¹⁸. Which is as I said negligible.

But if you are adding such miniscule effects let's add other such influences as well. For one the fact the influences of all the other planets especially the outer gas giants on earth, the gravitational perturbations caused by them. Add the fact that sun loses mass by nuclear fusion and hence the gravitational pull is weaker over time. Then there are the tidal effects (see Earth-Moon system and why the moon's orbit is increasing). All of these factors are actually pushing Earth away from the sun. Finally, to counter, Earth also loses energy by gravitational radiation, which again is a very small effects. It will take billions of years for the earth to collapse as a result of this.

So, it may as well be the opposite, the Earth may be going away from the sun. There is good evidence to suggest so, bit we need more accurate measurements to be sure, as the error value encompasses the effect as the moment (again proving how tiny it is). Even if that case it's not appreciable enough to cause changes in temperature.

Lastly let's keep all of that aside. If there was such a thing as orbital decay, there isn't, and it's a constant factor of say even a few centimeters per year. And this has been happening since the formation of earth some 5 billion years ago. You would expect the temperature graph to be linear as well. It isn't. Which means that such an effect couldn't possibly cause the temperature raise we are seeing.

Hopefully this clears it up.

Likewise what you saying about CO₂ is wrong too. And of course gravity has nothing to do with climate change as well.

 

[sweep_shot]

Great Barrier Reef has lost half of its corals since 1995

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half of its corals since 1995 due to warmer seas driven by climate change, a study has found.

Scientists found all types of corals had suffered a decline across the world's largest reef system.

The steepest falls came after mass bleaching events in 2016 and 2017. More mass bleaching occurred this year.

"There is no time to lose - we must sharply decrease greenhouse gas emissions ASAP," the researchers said.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, was conducted by marine scientists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Queensland.

Scientists assessed the health and size of coral colonies across the reef from 1995 to 2017.

They found populations had dropped by more than 50% in all coral sizes and species, but especially in branching and table-shaped corals.

These are the large, structural species which usually provide habitats for fish and other marine life.

Prof Terry Hughes, a study co-author, said these coral types had been "worst affected" by the back-to-back mass bleachings which damaged two-thirds of the reef.

Bleaching occurs when corals under stress drive out the algae - known as zooxanthellae - that give them colour.

Corals can recover if normal conditions return, but it can take decades.

A study in 2019 found that damaged coral colonies had struggled to regenerate because most of the adult corals had died.

"A vibrant coral population has millions of small, baby corals, as well as many large ones," said lead author Dr Andy Dietzel.

"Our results show the ability of the Great Barrier Reef to recover - its resilience - is compromised compared to the past, because there are fewer babies, and fewer large breeding adults."

What is the reef's outlook?
Last year, the Australian government's official agency on the reef confirmed that human-driven warming remained the biggest threat to the reef's long-term survival.

Stretching over 2,300km (1,400 miles), the reef was designated a World Heritage site in 1981 for its "enormous scientific and intrinsic importance".

But in the past decade in particular, it has been vastly damaged by warmer seas which have killed off coral, dispersed other sea life and sped up growth of algae and other contaminants.

"We used to think the Great Barrier Reef is protected by its sheer size - but our results show that even the world's largest and relatively well-protected reef system is increasingly compromised and in decline," said Prof Hughes.

In March, scientists reported the reef had suffered its third mass bleaching event in five years. The full scale of the damage was still being assessed.

Global temperatures have already risen by about 1C since pre-industrial times. The UN has warned that if that rise reaches 1.5C, 90% of the world's corals will be wiped out.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54533971.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Better warning systems needed for extreme weather - UN

A new UN report says the world needs to rapidly raise investment in early warning systems for extreme weather events.

Over the past 50 years, recorded disasters have increased five-fold, thanks in part to climate change.

The study warns that one in three people on Earth are not adequately covered by warning systems.

The numbers of people in need after natural disasters could increase by 50% over the next decade.

The State of Climate Services 2020 has been produced by experts from 16 international agencies and financial institutions, and co-ordinated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Over the past 50 years, it says, some 11,000 disasters involving weather, climate and water-related hazards have occurred claiming two million lives and causing more than $3.5 trillion in economic losses.

In 2018, around 108 million people sought help from international agencies to cope with natural disasters.

The authors of the new report say that by 2030 this number could increase by 50% at a cost of around $20bn a year.

Effective early warning systems are key says the study - And the researchers who have compiled it are calling for a change in emphasis from simply forecasting what the weather will be, to showing the impact of that weather system.

Good quality warning systems are critically needed in the least developed countries and in small island states.

These countries have lost billions to weather and climate related disasters over the past five decades.

Around 70% of the deaths connected to these disasters occurred in the poorest nations.

Yet according to the WMO, just 26% of weather observation networks in Africa meet their standards.

The advent of the coronavirus has made the building of early warning systems more difficult, the report says.

But it shouldn't distract from the need to help poorer people to cope with natural disasters, made worse by climate change.

"Being prepared and able to react at the right time, in the right place, can save many lives and protect the livelihoods of communities everywhere," said WMO secretary-general Prof Petteri Taalas.

"While Covid-19 generated a large international health and economic crisis from which it will take years to recover, it is crucial to remember that climate change will continue to pose an on-going and increasing threat to human lives, ecosystems, economies and societies for centuries to come," he said.

The report outlines six recommendations that the authors say are critical:

Invest to fill the early warning systems capacity gaps, particularly in Africa's least developed countries and in small island states.
Focus investment on turning early warning information into early action.
Ensure sustainable financing of the global observing system that underpins early warnings.
Track finance flows to improve understanding of where these resources are being allocated in relation to early warning system implementation needs and what impact this is having.
Develop more consistency in monitoring and evaluation to better determine early warning systems effectiveness.
Fill the data gaps, particularly in small island developing states.
"Covid-19 has made risk everybody's business," said Mami Mizutori, who is the special representative of the UN secretary-general for disaster risk reduction.

"We need to carry this understanding and momentum into the much bigger fight for our planet against the larger, stronger, more devastating climate emergency."

The report has been released on the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54514008.

 

[sweep_shot]

Nitrous oxide, more harmful to the climate than CO2, increasing in atmosphere, study finds

If emissions aren't curbed, Earth's temperature could rise by 3 C by 2100, researchers say

A new study published in the journal Nature suggests that nitrous oxide — a gas that is 300 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide — is steadily increasing in the atmosphere.

While nitrous oxide is produced in different ways, the study found the largest contributor is agriculture, where it is produced as a by-product of nitrogen, largely used in agriculture as a fertilizer.

The atmosphere's nitrous oxide had 270 parts per billion in 1750, according to the study, and had risen to 331 parts per billion in 2018. The fastest rise was in the last five decades.

The international team of authors say that, on the current trajectory, the additional nitrous oxide could push the global temperature to 3 C above the pre-industrial average by 2100, which is far past the target of 1.5 C or 2 C laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"Currently, the emissions are on the path to cause a global temperature increase above three degrees by the end of this century," said Hanqin Tian, co-lead author of the study and director of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research at Auburn University's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences in Alabama.

"It highlights the urgency … and it's critically important to think about this."

When it comes to climate change, three main greenhouse gases are of particular concern: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O).

While most of the focus has been on CO2, there's been rising concern about methane and N2O.

But nitrous oxide has largely been underestimated, according to another of the study's authors.

"I don't think many people know about nitrous oxide, I would say, in terms of the magnitude of the emissions," said Parvadha Suntharalingam of the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences.

"On a sort of per molecule basis, oxide is more than 300 times as strong as a molecule of CO2 in terms of its global warming potential. So even though the magnitude of the emissions … is less, the potency of the gas is much stronger. A little of it goes a long way."



"What's also been surprising is that we found that the emissions of nitrous oxide have been rising pretty sharply and much more sharply than [what was] predicted really in some of these emission scenarios developed for the IPCC."

The study found that agriculture was responsible for almost 70 per cent of the global human-caused N2O between 2007-16 with most coming from East Asia, Europe, South Asia and North America. But the highest growth rates were found in emerging economies like Brazil, India and China.

The authors suggest that with better farming practices, however, decreases could be significant, thus curbing the climb in N2O emissions.

For example, they note Europe has seen a decline in N2O emissions due to the introduction of emissions trading and because of many countries moving to a more efficient use of fertilizer. The chemical industry also helped by reducing emissions.

Illimar Altosaar, a professor in the department of biochemistry, microbiology and immunology at the University of Ottawa who was not involved in the study, says it's a good study, but more needs to be investigated as to the role oceans play in emissions of N2O.

"The ocean is the key," he said. "We don't know the biochemistry [of the oceans] … and it's the phytoplankton and the blue green algae that are doing a lot of this gas exchange."

Suntharalingam says another consideration that is still not well-known is how climate feedback affects N2O emissions — such as increased precipitation caused by climate change affects moisture content in the soil, which can affect how much N2O is generated.

The authors stress the importance of agriculture and believe that it just needs to change in some countries.

"You need fertilizer. You need the food industry, and you can't get away from the application of fertilizer," Suntharalingam said. "I think a takeaway is that managed fertilizer application can be very successful in reducing emissions and that Europe managed to reduce emissions but not depress food production.

"You just need to make sure that how much you apply when you apply it and how you apply it is carefully managed, and you can maintain crop yields, but you can definitely reduce the emissions from the soils. Managed fertilizer application is a very important mitigation strategy."

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nitrous-oxide-climate-1.5753907.

 

[sweep_shot]

Former Albertan participates in international climate change research project

Benjamin Lange has been pretty much on top of the world, far removed from civilization.

“I was away for four months,” Lange said Friday from Tromsø, Norway, his current home base.

The Grande Prairie born-and-raised man recently returned from the summer leg of an Arctic research mission — the only Canadian that was part of an international crew of scientists, biologists and other experts.

“They’re all working together and connected to study the atmosphere, the ice, the snow and the ocean,” he said.

The MOSAiC Expedition is the largest polar expedition in history; researchers from 20 countries are involved.

The goal is to catalogue the effects of climate change in the north and see what it means for the rest of the planet.

“The science behind it really helps us understand how things are going to change,” Lange explained, “how it’s going to evolve and what we can do about it. If you can better understand it, you can better predict it.”

Upon return, one German researcher described how the “ice is dying,” with a stark warning that ice at the top of the world could melt entirely in the summer if things don’t change.

The north is described as the “epicenter” of climate change.

When asked, Lange acknowledged he’s worried, “but at the same time, I have hope.”

Lange is pleased to see people calling for change; he and his fellow researchers will add to the debate.

The postdoctoral fellow at the Norwegian Polar Institute is now analyzing the research from the expedition with some early papers in the works to submit for publication.

“The trust in science has been going down for a while and that is one thing I was worried about, more so than climate change because they’re connected. But with the COVID-19 situation, I think this just demonstrates how important science is.”

Lange earned his masters at the University of Alberta, studying sea ice geophysics.

He received his PhD from the University of Hamburg in Germany.

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/7402563/alberta-scientist-mosaic-expedition-climate-change-research/.

 

[sweep_shot]

How Should the Media Talk About Climate Change?

It is now October of 2020, the homestretch or—God help us—the halfway point of the Donald Trump years. As we flip through our metaphorical national photo album, reminiscing on some of the all-time darkest moments, there are so many to consider. You’ve got Charlottesville, of course, with the marching Nazis holding tiki torches—Trump’s “very fine people.” The peaceful protesters being tear-gassed in front of St. John’s Church. The maskless superspreader event in the Rose Garden. One event that comes up less often is Trump’s California wildfire briefing, early last month. The West Coast was in flames. The skies above San Francisco were red. Smoke and ash blotted out the sun. And the President was on television assuring the public that “it’ll start to get cooler. You just watch.” He added, “I don’t think science knows” the truth about climate change.

Altogether, an extremely grim tableau. But among some environmental activists there was cause for celebration. For once, climate change had broken into the foreground of our insane news cycle. Within a week of Trump’s California visit, there was a pileup of evening TV news segments on the subject. “NBC Nightly News” did a piece about California climate refugees. CNN anchors interviewed the former California governor Jerry Brown about climate change and discussed Trump’s appointment of David Legates—a known climate-change denier—to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Frankly, it was better than anything I’d even dreamed,” the activist Genevieve Guenther told me recently, from her home in the West Village. “I’d been hoping the news anchors would mention climate change. But they didn’t just do that. They talked about it as the emergency that it is. And they gave their guests space to connect it to the Presidential elections and American politics, and even talk about some of the policy solutions.”

Guenther runs a volunteer group called End Climate Silence, which is focussed on combatting something more subtle than the aggressive climate denial espoused by Trump and his allies in government, or on Fox News: when news anchors or weather forecasters breathlessly cover an extreme-weather event—a hurricane, drought, forest fire, or heat wave—without ever mentioning the C-phrase. Instead, they’ll talk around it, using terms like “historic,” “unprecedented,” and “record-shattering.” According to Guenther, this silence is just as pernicious as denial. “There is a name for the unprecedented intensity and scale and relentlessness of extreme-weather disasters,” she said. “Climate change.” She added, “If you fail to mention that, it gives people the impression that it’s not happening—that these disasters are acts of God.”

Until recently, climate silence was the norm on television. In September, as the wildfires raged, the nonprofit group Media Matters published a study showing that only four per cent of ABC, NBC, and CBS news segments on the wildfires the month before had mentioned climate change. On September 10th, Guenther published an op-ed in the Boston Globe, citing another Media Matters finding that there had been a similar silence around Hurricane Laura. (Out of fifty network news segments on the storm between August 24th and August 27th, none had mentioned climate change.) “For too long, journalists have feared that reporting the links between extreme weather and climate change might expose them to the charge of liberal bias,” she wrote. “But the news media should not be influenced by such tactics.” She included data from a poll that her group had commissioned, showing that the majority of Americans—including the majority of Republicans—want the media to highlight connections between climate change and extreme weather. She promoted the findings on Twitter, where she has about thirty-four thousand followers.“I tweeted at the prime-time news shows’ producers and anchors. And I suspect that they did see it, just because of the dramatic shift in coverage,” Guenther said. Or the turnaround could have been driven entirely by Trump. “Whatever it was, I’ll take it.”

Guenther is relatively new to climate activism. Until recently, she was an English professor. She got her Ph.D. from Berkeley, in 2004, in Renaissance literature. Her first book, “Magical Imaginations,” analyzed texts by Spenser, Marlowe, and Shakespeare. (Renaissance Quarterly called it “sensible” and “brilliant.”) In 2010, she was teaching at the University of Rochester, where she had a tenure-track job. But she and her husband, a software engineer, had a baby that year, and, as she spent her maternity leave at her apartment, something gradually shifted. Studying Renaissance literature began to seem less important. So did commuting between the West Village and Rochester. Her husband worked at Google, so they didn’t need the money. “I just couldn’t do it,” she said.

She quit her job, stayed home, and planned to write a book on Shakespeare. She spent hours nursing her son while scrolling through the Times on her phone. “For the first time in my life, I started really reading the newspaper,” she said. She lingered on the Science section. “The stories about climate change really stuck with me, and started to make me anxious,” she explained. “The articles were saying that all these terrible things are going to happen by the year 2100 if we do not bring our emissions down to zero.” Equatorial cities exposed to furnace-like heat. New York, London, Mumbai, and Shanghai subsumed by the sea. Wars in India and China as three billion people fight over water from the evaporating Himalayan glaciers. Refugees flooding into southern Europe, which will itself be struggling with food shortages and drought. All these events are predicted to happen if the world is allowed to heat up by three degrees Celsius by 2100—which, mind-bogglingly, it will do if countries merely keep to the pledges in the Paris climate accord. (And no major country is on track to do even that.) “My son was born in 2010, and I knew that his life was going to play out across the twenty-first century. That meant he would see these predictions,” Guenther said.

She put aside Shakespeare and started enrolling in online climate-science courses. Then, in 2017, came an event that radicalized her: the Times hired Bret Stephens, a former Wall Street Journal columnist with a history of questioning climate science, as a writer for its Opinion section. Guenther was outraged. “I thought I could trust them to understand the gravity of this, and not imagine that climate denial was a legitimate position in 2017,” she said. She started an online petition calling for Stephens to be fired. It didn’t work, but Guenther came to the attention of a group of climate scientists who are active on Twitter, including Michael Mann, Peter Kalmus, and Gavin Schmidt.

Guenther began to think that she might have something to contribute to the dialogue. “In Renaissance literature, there’s a rhetorical principle called energia—energy or vividness,” she said. “It means that, if you’re trying to persuade your reader, you need to give them vivid images that will capture their imaginations.” She found most “climate communications” to be energia-deficient. “It was too data-driven and abstract. It would talk about ice and the sea and polar bears—none of the things that made it urgent and personal to me.” Instead of the Shakespeare book, she began writing a book about what she calls “the language of climate change.” It analyzes common words and phrases in the field, arguing that many of them are counterproductive, “misrepresenting the problem and biasing us against the solutions.”

Researchers such as Naomi Oreskes have documented the ways that, over the years, fossil-fuel interests have weaponized the notion of “scientific uncertainty” to manipulate public opinion. In one chapter, Guenther focusses on the word “uncertainty” itself. “For normal people, you hear ‘uncertainty’ and it suggests that you don’t know something,” she explained. “But in climate science ‘uncertainty’ basically means a range of possible outcomes. As in, ‘The uncertainty interval is from 1.5 degrees Celsius to three degrees Celsius.’ The synonym for that is confidence.”

She also dislikes the word “consensus”—as in “the scientific consensus on climate change”—because it gives rise to the vaguely conspiratorial image of a group of scientists getting together and coming to an agreement. “In science, consensus doesn’t refer to a discussion,” she said. “It means knowledge that arises from independent research projects which all achieve the same results.” She prefers the term “discovery.” And she takes issue with the ubiquitous “we,” as in, “We could have stopped climate change in the nineteen-eighties.” “You think this little pronoun is so innocent, but it actually obscures the political reality of the whole problem,” she said, bringing up the vast differences in the carbon emissions of rich and poor countries, and the role of the fossil-fuel industry in blocking solutions. She has written that, instead of thinking of climate change as something that “we are doing,” most people should think of it as “something we are being prevented from undoing.”

Guenther was carving out a niche for herself discussing these ideas in panel appearances and on Twitter, when, in the summer of 2018, she spent a morning stuck in traffic, listening to public radio. In the course of three hours, she listened to three stories: a segment about catastrophic flooding in Japan; an interview with a cattle rancher in drought-stricken Oregon; and an interview with a French-Moroccan futurist. “He was praising the idea of covering the planet with rivers of driverless cars—without ever discussing the fact that we need to entirely electrify our transportation system within the next thirty years in order to hold warming at two degrees Celsius!” Guenther said. She went on, “These three stories were clearly about climate change, but the announcers never even mentioned it once. And this was NPR! I felt like I was in some horror movie where I knew something terrible was happening but everyone was going about their lives in this surreal, almost zombified fashion.” She wrote a rant about the experience on Twitter, where it sparked a discussion among journalists. A couple weeks later, the MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes was weighing in on the subject, writing in a tweet, “Almost without exception. every single time we’ve covered [climate change] it’s been a palpable ratings killer. so the incentives are not great.” Guenther suggested that, instead of doing segments focussed on climate change, he should make an effort to mention it in the coverage he was already doing. Hayes replied, “That I agree with and it’s something we do.”

Over the past few years, environmental activists have taken on the news media intermittently. There have been protests in front of the headquarters of Fox News and the New York Times. The climate group 350.org, which was co-founded by the New Yorker writer Bill McKibben, marched into Times Square in 2012, as Hurricane Sandy sped toward New York City, and unfurled a parachute that said “End Climate Silence.” “It’s important, because you see from polling that one of the greatest predictors of people’s belief in global warming is how much they hear about it. There’s not a magic set of words,” Jamie Henn, a 350.org co-founder who now runs a group called Fossil Free Media, said. “We often see that, especially for TV, you get more coverage on climate when people complain about it.”

But, for the most part, these initiatives were pushing news organizations to cover climate change directly. Guenther wanted them to mention it in their existing coverage, “so people understand that this is not just a science or environmental story—this is the increasingly pressing context for stories about extreme weather, energy, business, finance, real estate, politics, food, travel, and even the arts.” To that end, she set up End Climate Silence, which consists of herself and two volunteer researchers. (The group also has a four-person advisory board, which includes the climate scientists Mann and Kalmus.) The volunteers comb through newspaper reports and transcripts of TV news programs, flagging instances of “climate silence.” Then Guenther engages in “direct outreach,” e-mailing journalists, producers, and television anchors, and pressing them to improve. If they ignore her, she engages in “external pressure”—basically, shaming them on Twitter. “It’s really the public square for people who work in media,” she said. The group’s account, @EndClimtSilence, has almost ten thousand followers.

The strategy has worked with print journalists, Guenther said: “They listen to their critics. I think it’s because they really care about their writing.” TV news people have been less responsive. “They don’t care about me,” she said. “And, I realized, they don’t care about being shamed. They’re shameless as it is. . . . They only care about ratings.” That’s why she’s recently shifted her tactics, putting a greater emphasis on public polling, to emphasize viewer interest.

This past week, Guenther said, the sea ice in the Arctic was struggling to refreeze—another scary feedback loop. Hurricane Delta left hundreds of thousands of people without power. There were ongoing wildfires in California, and in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, southern Turkey, and parts of Syria. And we just had the hottest September on record. But Guenther was focussed on the next Presidential debate. She’ll be watching to see which questions about climate change the moderator, NBC’s Kristen Welker, poses to the candidates. She was pleased that climate change had come up during the Vice-Presidential debates, though she wished the moderator hadn’t framed the question as whether Pence “believed” that man-made climate change was making extreme weather worse. “It’s not the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. The question is: Do you ‘understand’ or ‘accept’ climate science?” she said. Anyway. She added, “The work goes on.”

Source: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-should-the-media-talk-about-climate-change.

 

[sweep_shot]

Regina woman advocates for climate change awareness in interesting way

A chilly Saturday afternoon didn’t deter a Regina woman from advocating for climate change awareness in an interesting way.

Amy Snider, a board member for Envirocollective, hurdled over seven signs consecutively for seven minutes with the main goal of getting provincial government candidates to address climate change more thoroughly in their platforms.

“I want every one of the candidates to make climate change action a greater priority,” Snider said. “It might not feel like an urgent issue compared to some immediate problems that we are dealing with in Regina and throughout the province, but it is absolutely the greatest problem of our time.”

The number seven was a common theme in Snider’s approach, saying she chose the number because of the symbolic approach it holds to her message.

“It’s a symbolic gesture, the symbol here is that according to the United Nation’s intergovernmental panel on climate change we have very little time to reduce our greenhouse gas usage,” Snider said. “According to a group of scientists in Berlin that are apart of the Mercator research institute we are on a path to exceed our carbon budget in seven years.

“I’m just trying to attract attention to the severity of this threat.”

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which operates as the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change issues, based on our current rates of emissions we are on the path to burn through our carbon budget — the amount of CO2 that can still be released into the atmosphere while limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

The timeline for staying below 2°C threshold is expected to be exhausted in less than 25 years.

A report issued in 2018 said global warming was likely to reach 1.5°C over preindustrial levels between 2030 and 2052 if it continues at the current rate.

Despite the variance in numbers, Snider’s message remains the same as she attempts to raise awareness for climate change policies provincially and federally.

“I’m trying to stay non-partisan, I’m not interested in talking about who I would vote for, I’m just asking that people ask their candidates in their ridings about what they would do to help limit climate change in the province,” she said.

Maureen Huot, Co-chair of Envirocollective, says the whole point of Snider’s display was to create conversation.

“We need all the parties to agree and unite behind the science. We want to have those tough conversations, we want people to have good-paying jobs but not at the extent of the future generations quality of life if we continue to pollute the planet.

“We just want the different levels of government to have a plan.”

Saskatchewan’s emissions per capita are at the highest rate in Canada at 67.7 tonnes of CO2e – 246% above the national average of 19.6 tonnes per capita according to the Government of Canada.

Source: https://www.cjme.com/2020/10/18/reg...-climate-change-awareness-in-interesting-way/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Why the US election could decide battle against climate change

Who occupies the White House for the next four years could play a critical role in the fight against dangerous climate change, experts say. Matt McGrath weighs the likely environmental consequences of the US election.

Scientists studying climate change say that the re-election of Donald Trump could make it "impossible" to keep global temperatures in check.

They're worried another four years of Trump would "lock in" the use of fossil fuels for decades to come - securing and enhancing the infrastructure for oil and gas production rather than phasing them out as environmentalists want.

Joe Biden's climate plan, the scientists argue, would give the world a fighting chance.

In addition to withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement - the international pact designed to avoid dangerous warming of the Earth - President Trump's team has worked hard to remove what they see as obstacles to efficient energy production.

Over the past three years, researchers at Columbia University in New York have tracked more than 160 significant rollbacks of environmental regulations. These cover everything from car fuel standards, to methane emissions, to light bulbs.

This bonfire of red tape has occurred at the same time that the US is reeling from several years' worth of severe wildfires in western states. Many scientists have linked these fires to climate change.

So where are we after four years of Donald Trump - and where are things likely to go after the election on 3 November?

What is Trump's position on climate change?
"Trump believes that regulations are all cost and no benefit," says Prof Michael Gerrard from Columbia University in New York.

"He denies that there really is such a thing as anthropogenic climate change, or at least that it is bad. He believes that if you cut back on regulations of all kinds, not just environmental, but also occupational and labour and everything else, it'll create more jobs."

Critics say the rollbacks on environmental regulations are part of an agenda to remove any reference to climate change across the federal government.

"The Trump administration has done everything they can to deny the science and denigrate scientists," says Gina McCarthy, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and now the president of the NRDC Action Fund.

"They have really done everything humanly possible to try to convince people that what they see and feel and taste just isn't happening in front of them."

What effect have the rollbacks had?
President Trump's supporters will say that his strong support for fossil fuels has been a success. Thanks to fracking, the US briefly became the world's biggest oil exporter late last year. Fracking is a set of techniques for recovering oil and gas from shale rock.

But when it comes to coal, the story is different. Despite the administration's efforts to undo regulations, mining has continued to decline with around 5,000 fewer coal-related jobs now than when Donald Trump was elected.

For many of those backing Trump, his actions on the climate are consistent with boosting energy production and keeping the economy growing.

Others argue that Trump's war on environmental regulations has nothing to do with economics at all.

"Trump is convinced that climate change is a culture war issue that ignites the resentment of his far right base," says Paul Bledsoe, who served in the Clinton administration and is now an adviser to the Democrat think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.

"So he sees this as a cultural effort to ignite grievance among his base. It has no other function for him. He doesn't care about anything else."

How will leaving the Paris deal affect things?
Pulling out of the Paris agreement was a strong message to the rest of the world that the US no longer shared the international consensus on climate change.

When announcing the pull-out, President Trump spoke of re-negotiating the agreement, but nothing has come of that idea.

Some observers believe that US actions have made it easier for other nations, like Brazil and Saudi Arabia, to stymie progress on cutting carbon emissions.

"Right now, we're a pariah, And this is the most embarrassing and shockingly bad time that I could ever imagine for the United States," says Gina McCarthy.

"And it's all because we have a president who simply doesn't give a damn about people. He just gives a damn about his own base, and how it feeds his own ego."

If Joe Biden wins, it is likely he will reverse the pull-out from Paris as soon as possible. Re-joining the pact requires only a month's notice.

Is Trump in tune with his base on climate change?
The president's decision to pull the US out of the Paris agreement will take effect on 4 November, one day after the election.

However, opinion polls show that growing numbers of young Republicans and conservatives are taking a different position to the President on climate change.

But many still support his decision to leave the Paris pact.

"What I've found is that really big goals and really high targets don't really mean anything if you don't actually have a plan to achieve that goal," says Danielle Butcher who describes herself as a young conservative with the American Conservation Coalition.

"We've got China saying that they're going to reduce their emissions by this year. And they're financing coal plants all around the world."

"Even though the Paris Agreement may sound good, there has to be follow through, right?"

What happens if Trump is re-elected?
As well as confirming America's departure from the Paris deal, a win for Trump will likely see further efforts to step up fossil fuel production. This could have serious consequences for global temperatures.

"The 1.5C temperature target is very difficult to achieve right now, although it is theoretically possible," says Michael Gerrard.

He's referring to one of the goals of the Paris agreement - a global rise in temperature of 1.5C is regarded as a kind of gateway to dangerous levels of warming.

Two years ago, a scientific review of the target concluded that keeping the temperature rise under this threshold would make a huge difference to people and to nature, compared to letting them increase by 2C (which previously regarded as this threshold for many years).

"If Trump is re-elected, I think it goes into the realm of physical impossibility," says Prof Gerrard.

"We'd have to wait another four years for another election to try to rectify that. But by then, a lot more fossil fuel infrastructure will have been locked in and a lot more greenhouse gases will have gone into the atmosphere. So, it would be very bad news for the climate indeed."

How are US cities and regions responding?
In some parts of the US, the lack of action from the White House on climate change has served as a call to action.

For residents in the coastal city of Charleston, South Carolina, questions of climate and sea level rise are high on the list of political issues.

Water levels in Charleston harbour used to rise about 2.5cm every decade - now they're going up by that amount every two years.

With a pressing need for new sea defences, the local authority has decided to sue 24 fossil fuel companies for their role in producing the carbon that is linked to the rising waters.

"Flooding is at this point an issue on 100 days of the year," said local climate activist Belvin Olasov.

"This situation calls for leadership and there is currently a huge vacuum, because of the President that we have."

"So you have a city government taking on a giant conglomeration of oil corporations because nothing is being done on the federal level."

"It is an unusual situation that we've been pushed into."

Many states and regions have pushed ahead with climate action, but this has its limits. For example, road transportation is responsible for around one third of US carbon emissions but car fuel standards are set by the Federal government. While the Obama administration sought to strengthen them significantly, President Trump has watered them down.

How does Biden differ from Trump?
Joe Biden says that his plan for climate change would see the US energy sector go carbon-free by 2035. This would allow the country to become a net zero emitter by 2050.

Achieving net zero means that any carbon emitted by industry, transport or other sources is balanced out by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere, through, for example, planting forests.

Mr Biden has ambitious ideas to revolutionise transport in the US using electric vehicles and trains. He also wants to build 1.5 million sustainable homes and housing units.

His plan would not just benefit the US, say supporters, it would help keep global temperatures down.

"This is the first election ever that really may determine whether we can prevent runaway climate change," says Paul Bledsoe.

"Joe Biden is proposing that the US adopt climate change tariffs on nations who do not reduce their emissions. Biden's international climate plan, if anything, is even more ambitious than his domestic plan. So the contrast could not be starker."

President Trump has accused his opponent of wanting to ban fracking. But Biden says it should continue as the US transitions to a green economy.

The oil and gas boom opened up by fracking - including in battleground states such as Pennsylvania - means thousands of jobs hang in the balance. The candidates are aware of the need to tread carefully - irrespective of their more general positions on climate change.

Where do religious groups stand on the climate?
Evangelical Christians are among the religious groups to have strongly supported President Trump. Polling shows that they will probably turn out for him again in overwhelming numbers.

But younger members of the faith are less enchanted with the president, especially on the topic of climate change.

Emily Robertson is a 21-year-old student at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, and a first time voter in this election.

She says that if she could have voted last time round she would probably have voted for Trump, like her parents did.

But her growing awareness of the climate change issue has persuaded her to vote for Joe Biden this time.

Despite growing recognition of this planetary problem, she believes that most of her fellow young Christians will still back President Trump.

"On social media platforms, I have seen a lot of young evangelicals move toward voting for Biden, but those are in select circles," she says.

"So for some people, perhaps, but honestly, just based on some people I have talked to, even though they care about climate change, I don't believe they care enough to still vote for Biden rather than Trump."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54395534.

 

[sweep_shot]

ANUNA DE WEVER ON FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE AND ‘INCAPABLE’ POLITICIANS

She might only be 19 years old, but Anuna de Wever’s voice is loud and clear on the world’s stage.

Dubbed the ‘Belgian Greta Thunberg’, Anuna is one of the leading activists in the School Strike for Climate movement. Already, her list of accolades is impressive. Anuna mobilised a whole generation in Belgium through mass climate strikes, prompted by her frustration that Belgium was one of only two countries not to sign the COP24 High Ambition Coalition. The coalition, comprising 35 countries back in 2018, committed to advance proposals on climate policy.

“Before we knew it, we were thousands of people on the streets every week, all over the news, claiming the political agenda and forcing our leaders to listen and step up,” she tells me.

As a result, Anuna was given her own weekly column in Belgian magazine HUMO. At just 18, she presented a TEDx talk alongside fellow environmental campaigner Adélaïde Charlier, entitled ‘Respect Existence or Expect Resistance’.

Just a couple of months later, she was invited to set sail on the Regina Maris ship for a low-carbon transatlantic journey to the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Santiago, Chile. She was among the youngest activists on board.

“After that I sailed to Latin-America and visited the Amazon forest to learn from indigenous communities and scientists of the forest,” she says, not wanting to miss out on the rare opportunity while already half-way across the world.

FROM BRUSSELS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD
Anuna began her activism in the Belgian town of Mortsel, where she grew up. But she soon moved her school strike to the capital city and home of the European Union, Brussels, where she felt she could reach more people and have a bigger impact.

“I started my climate activism very locally, trying to change Belgian policy. But very soon, I realised our political system wasn’t shaped to be able to do that.”

She describes politicians in Belgium as “quite incapable and very ignorant when it comes to climate change”. Anuna started to realise it wasn’t enough to just protest in her own country, that’s when she decided to focus more on trying to make changes at an international and EU level.

As the geographical hub of the EU, a political union which has laid out ambitious laws on climate change, you would think Belgium was a country worth its salt when it comes to environmental policy. I ask if there is anything we, the rest of Europe, can learn from the place Anuna started her activism?

“I don’t think EU countries can learn a lot from Belgium,” she says decisively. “I myself, am fighting Belgian policy with everything I can, but it’s irresponsible, childish, ignorant and it’s not at all facing the climate crisis in a serious way.”

In February of this year, after returning from South America, Anuna started an internship with the Greens-European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. She is also studying for a degree in social science at the same time.

“This together with university and activism was definitely a challenge,” she says.

“We’re working on projects like the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, EU climate targets, getting the media to record on carbon budgets… But on all of these factors, Belgium is lacking behind completely.”

HOPE VS. OPTIMISM
Anuna is not one to beat round the bush when we speak, she says it like it is.

“I’m not an optimist,” she admits. We both agree that confronting the reality of the climate crisis doesn't leave much room for a positive outlook.

“Anyone who is aware of the urgency of the situation wouldn’t be able to be optimistic. We’re racing towards heatwaves, droughts, famine, millions of climate refugees, inhabitable countries… and nobody realises.”

That being said, she doesn’t think all is lost just yet. If she did, she wouldn’t be fighting so hard to effect change on a global scale.

“I do have hope. I do believe that we can still turn this around. We just have very little time to do this. And that’s why we need everyone to rebel and step up, to literally fight for our future.”

As we speak, I wonder how she copes with being such a high profile figure in the climate movement, constantly reading, writing and speaking about the ominous fate of our planet. I can’t help thinking that it must be tough. How do you look after your mental wellbeing, as an activist, I ask?

“Self care is definitely not a priority for me. I have all the basic needs like shelter, food, education, medicine, sanitary items...and there’s a lot of people that don’t,” she says, with an unflinching sense of principle.

“People in the Global South are the least responsible, but are already facing the toughest consequences of it. This is why it’s extremely important to focus less on first world problems and keeping my priorities straight. We are maybe fighting for our future, but there’s people fighting for their current lives right now. Those are the people that need to be heard.”

As we near the end of our conversation, we come to the topic of Anuna’s plans for the future. I’m curious where the young powerhouse sees herself in 10 years. Running for government perhaps?

“I don’t know if it’ll be a political position, it might be working in an international NGO or volunteering with climate refugees, but I want to have an impact in the biggest way possible,” she concludes.

“I want to keep questioning the ‘normal’ and think critically of our society. In whatever way, I hope our generation rebels against the current system that’s exploiting animals, people and the earth.”

Source: https://www.euronews.com/living/202...ting-climate-change-and-incapable-politicians.

 

[Firebat]

Polluted air killing half a million babies a year across globe

Air pollution last year caused the premature death of nearly half a million babies in their first month of life, with most of the infants being in the developing world, data shows.

Exposure to airborne pollutants is harmful also for babies in the womb. It can cause a premature birth or low birth weight. Both of these factors are associated with higher infant mortality.

Nearly two-thirds of the 500,000 deaths of infants documented were associated with indoor air pollution, particularly arising from solid fuels such as charcoal, wood, and animal dung for cooking.

The discovery is reported in the State of Global Air 2020 report, which examined data on deaths around the world alongside a growing body of research that links air pollution with health problems.

Medical experts have warned for years of the impacts of dirty air on older people and on those with health conditions, but are only beginning to understand the deadly toll on babies in the womb.

Katherine Walker, principal scientist at the Health Effects Institute, which published the report, said: “We don’t totally understand what the mechanisms are at this stage, but there is something going on that is causing reductions in baby growth and ultimately birth weight. There is an epidemiological link, shown across multiple countries in multiple studies.”

Babies born with a low birth weight are more susceptible to childhood infections and pneumonia. The lungs of pre-term babies can also not be fully developed.

“They are born into a high pollution environment, and are more susceptible than children who went to term,” said Dan Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute in the US.

Beate Ritz, professor of epidemiology at UCLA, (University of California, Los Angeles), who was not involved with the study, said the indoor air pollution in cities across India, south-east Asia and Africa was comparable to that of Victorian London.

“This is not the air pollution we see in modern cities [in the rich world] but that which we had 150 years ago in London and other places, where there were coal fires indoors. Indoor air pollution has not been at the forefront for policymakers, but it should be,” Ritz said.

She pointed out that the harm to children went beyond the deaths; reducing air pollution would also lessen harm to survivors. “There is also damage to the brain and other organs from this pollution, so just surviving is not enough – we need to reduce air pollution because of the impact on all these organs too,” she said.

Some of these effects are likely to have existed, unnoticed, for centuries, as people have long cooked upon fires in enclosed spaces, an activity that causes particulate matter to be breathed in, particularly by women and children, who spend more time in the home.

However, the problem is now compounded by the population density of many developing cities and by outdoor air pollution from vehicles and industry. These factors mean there is now no escape from dirty air, from morning to night, for hundreds of millions of people.

The report concentrates on data from 2019, so does not include the impacts of the lockdown policies around the world in 2020. The authors said the Covid-19 pandemic would have had an impact on air quality and deaths from air pollution, but these effects were not yet clear.

Greenbaum said the likelihood of any long-term beneficial impact to health from the temporary reductions in air pollution because of lockdowns was small, but that the sudden clearing of pollution from traffic and industry had changed many people’s perception of air quality.

“People all of a sudden realised what it is like to have beautiful blue skies on a regular basis. Even if it did not last it showed what was possible,” Greenbaum said.

Some studies have suggested that people exposed to air pollution could have a higher risk of death from Covid-19, but these are early findings. Greenbaum said more work was needed to establish what difference was made by exposure to air pollution.

The scientists said there had been little sign of improvement in air pollution over the past 10 years, despite increased warnings over the risks from dirty air in the past five years.

At least 6.7 million deaths globally in 2019 were from long-term exposure to air pollution, a factor raising the risk of stroke, heart attack, diabetes, lung cancer and other chronic lung diseases. Air pollution is now the fourth highest cause of death globally, just below smoking and poor diet.

The State of Global Air Report 2020 is published by the Health Effects Institute, which is an independent nonprofit research organisation funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ing-half-a-million-babies-a-year-across-globe

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change driving food insecurity in First Nations while government stands by, report says
Social Sharing
Human Rights Watch criticizes ‘inadequate’ government response to issue, calls for stonger climate targets

The federal government is not doing enough to support First Nations communities contending with food insecurity problems made worse by climate change — and is aggravating the situation by failing to adequately reduce greenhouse gas emissions — says a new report by the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch.

The warming climate is depleting traditional food sources in First Nations communities in Canada and making it difficult for Indigenous people to live off the land — forcing many to supplement their diets with expensive or unhealthy food imported from other parts of Canada and worsening pre-existing economic and health issues — says the report.

The report calls on the government to increase financial and technical support to First Nations to help them address the effects of climate change and to strengthen national climate policies with more ambitious targets for reducing emissions.

"The Canadian government has promised to deliver on climate action and also to protect Indigenous peoples' rights," said Katharina Rall, senior environment researcher at Human Rights Watch.

"So far, the response has been disappointing."

The 122-page report — entitled My Fear is Losing Everything — is based on interviews with 120 First Nations community members, chiefs and council members in Yukon, northwestern British Columbia and northern Ontario, as well as medical providers, environment and health experts and other Indigenous leaders.

Food insecurity higher in Indigenous communities
Indigenous people living in Canada experience food insecurity — defined as a lack of regular access to safe, nutritious food — at higher rates than non-Indigenous people.

A 2018 national survey by the First Nations Information Governance Centre found that over half of Indigenous households experience food insecurity. Research from the University of Toronto estimates that just one in eight Canadian households overall suffers from food insecurity.

Human Rights Watch says wildlife habitat changes caused by melting ice and permafrost, more intense wildfires, warming water temperatures and increased precipitation are all reducing the amount of food available to Indigenous people in remote areas.

The report tells the story of Helen Koostachin, 56, and her husband Joseph, 58, who live in the remote community of Peawanuck in northern Ontario. The Koostachins told Human Rights Watch that the caribou, snow geese and fish they used to hunt and harvest were once plentiful.

But since their grown children took over the responsibility of providing food for the family, fewer caribou and geese are migrating to the area. The Koostachins said that when they do, it is harder and more dangerous for the younger members of the family to hunt them because of unstable winter ice and permafrost, and unpredictably low water levels on waterways.

Unable to harvest enough food from the land to ensure an adequate diet, the Koostachins must purchase expensive imported food from grocery store.

Even with government subsidies to reduce the cost of food, healthy food items such as fresh fruit and vegetables remain inaccessible to many Indigenous people in remote communities, the report says.

"The Koostachins' way of life, and livelihood, have become increasingly difficult to maintain, and the realization of their rights to food, health, and culture are at risk," the report says.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the minister of northern affairs acknowledged the negative impact that climate change has on the Indigenous way of life.

"Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) have been making direct investments in a variety of culturally appropriate, community-based programs and services that support food security and climate change resilience and adaptation in Indigenous communities for almost two decades," said Allison St-Jean.

"We will continue to work with Indigenous communities and all Canadians to fight climate change and ensure a sustainable future for our kids and grandkids."

St-Jean touted a range of programs meant to help Indigenous and Inuit communities address the health impacts of climate change, including the Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program.

The Nutrition North program provides subsidized food shipments to 116 isolated communities across the three territories and the northern regions of six provinces, St-Jean said.

Rall said that while there are government programs that provide support, it's a patchwork with many gaps.

"Often the funding for the programs [is] short term [or] the funding isn't enough to cover all First Nations to give them access," said Rall.

"So it's a matter of really stepping up the support for First Nations to then be able to lead solutions on adaptation in their communities."

Canada must strengthen emissions targets: HRW researcher
In the meantime, Rall said, Canada will continue to fuel global climate change unless it adopts more ambitious emissions targets and a more concrete plan to achieve them.

Canada ranks ninth in the world in terms of CO2 emissions, according to the International Energy Agency, and a government report in 2018 found the country is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with Northern Canada heating up at almost three times the global average.

Under the Paris Agreement, the federal government has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Liberals pledged during the last federal election to achieve net-zero emissions future by 2050.

The Human Rights Watch report criticized the federal government for falling behind on its 2030 target and for its lack of a clear plan to achieve the net-zero goal.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/human-rights-watch-report-climate-food-indigenous-1.5771262.

 

[Firebat]

Alarm as Arctic sea ice not yet freezing at latest date on record

For the first time since records began, the main nursery of Arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October.

The delayed annual freeze in the Laptev Sea has been caused by freakishly protracted warmth in northern Russia and the intrusion of Atlantic waters, say climate scientists who warn of possible knock-on effects across the polar region.

Ocean temperatures in the area recently climbed to more than 5C above average, following a record breaking heatwave and the unusually early decline of last winter’s sea ice.

The trapped heat takes a long time to dissipate into the atmosphere, even at this time of the year when the sun creeps above the horizon for little more than an hour or two each day.

Graphs of sea-ice extent in the Laptev Sea, which usually show a healthy seasonal pulse, appear to have flat-lined. As a result, there is a record amount of open sea in the Arctic.

“The lack of freeze-up so far this fall is unprecedented in the Siberian Arctic region,” said Zachary Labe, a postdoctoral researcher at Colorado State University. He says this is in line with the expected impact of human-driven climate change.

“2020 is another year that is consistent with a rapidly changing Arctic. Without a systematic reduction in greenhouse gases, the likelihood of our first ‘ice-free’ summer will continue to increase by the mid-21st century,’ he wrote in an email to the Guardian.

This year’s Siberian heatwave was made at least 600 times more likely by industrial and agricultural emissions, according to an earlier study.

The warmer air temperature is not the only factor slowing the formation of ice. Climate change is also pushing more balmy Atlantic currents into the Arctic and breaking up the usual stratification between warm deep waters and the cool surface. This also makes it difficult for ice to form.

“This continues a streak of very low extents. The last 14 years, 2007 to 2020, are the lowest 14 years in the satellite record starting in 1979,” said Walt Meier, senior research scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. He said much of the old ice in the Arctic is now disappearing, leaving thinner seasonal ice. Overall the average thickness is half what it was in the 1980s.

The downward trend is likely to continue until the Arctic has its first ice-free summer, said Meier. The data and models suggest this will occur between 2030 and 2050. “It’s a matter of when, not if,” he added.

Scientists are concerned the delayed freeze could amplify feedbacks that accelerate the decline of the ice cap. It is already well known that a smaller ice sheet means less of a white area to reflect the sun’s heat back into space. But this is not the only reason the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the global average.

The Laptev Sea is known as the birthplace of ice, which forms along the coast there in early winter, then drifts westward carrying nutrients across the Arctic, before breaking up in the spring in the Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard. If ice forms late in the Laptev, it will be thinner and thus more likely to melt before it reaches the Fram Strait. This could mean fewer nutrients for Arctic plankton, which will then have a reduced capacity to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

More open sea also means more turbulence in the upper layer of the Arctic ocean, which draws up more warm water from the depths.

Dr Stefan Hendricks, a sea ice physics specialist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the sea ice trends are grim but not surprising. “It is more frustrating than shocking. This has been forecast for a long time, but there has been little substantial response by decision-makers.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ice-not-yet-freezing-at-latest-date-on-record

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Technology no silver bullet, experts tell PM

Can we fix climate change with the "silver bullet" of technology?

The prime minister seems to think so.

Clean technologies like offshore wind, carbon capture and solar power are clearly a huge part of any solution: witness the plummeting costs of offshore wind and solar.

But the prime minister stands accused of techno-optimism, because he appears to ignore other key factors in reducing emissions.

In a “green” speech due soon he’ll pledge his faith in offshore wind power, solar, carbon capture, hydrogen, clean cars and zero emission planes.

Experts say tackling climate change needs action right across society and the economy - with a host of new incentives, laws, rules, bans, appliance standards, taxes and institutional innovations.

They also warn that citizens’ behaviour must shift, with people probably driving and flying less, and eating less meat and dairy produce.

In other words, when it comes to cutting carbon emissions, there’s no silver bullet – it’s more like silver buckshot.

But Boris Johnson still seems to have a bandolero stuffed with technologies resembling silver bullets. Let’s see whether they’ll go with a bang.

Clean cars
Take cars. The prime minister is due to accelerate the transition towards battery- and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

But Professor Jillian Anable from Leeds University warns that even electric cars pose "their own problems that politicians seem reluctant to acknowledge."

“Producing electricity and hydrogen requires huge numbers of wind farms or the like, and the cars themselves need resource-hungry tyres, and batteries.

"They also need roads and parking spaces that could otherwise be used for gardens and trees that soak up carbon dioxide," she said.

“The harsh reality is that we have to find ways to limit the number of cars and the amount that we drive them”

Hydrogen
There is widespread agreement that hydrogen will play a role in reducing climate change – but how much, and in what industrial sectors, is another matter.

A key question is whether it’s sourced from gas – which is expensive and emits troublesome carbon dioxide - or from surplus wind energy, which does the job cleanly but at still greater cost.

Jess Ralston, from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank, said: “Hydrogen can power cars, but electricity seems to have won that technology race. It could heat homes, but electric heat pumps are emerging as a better bet.

“Hydrogen could be really useful, though, in industries such as steelmaking and in heavy transport – including buses that we’re already seeing. But it’s no silver bullet.”

Aviation
On aviation, the prime minister has launched his ambition to devise clean planes. He calls the project “jet zero”.

Industry figures appreciate his boosterish support, but critics warn "jet zero" mustn’t divert attention from the short-term need for rules and taxes to hold down aviation emissions after Covid.

Cait Hewitt from the Aviation Environment Federation told us: “No zero-carbon technology options are currently available for commercial aviation.

She explains: "Planes use masses of energy. Batteries aren’t powerful enough except for tiny planes, and we can only produce biofuels sustainably in small quantities.

“We need a major rollout of radical new technologies, and we need the capacity to remove remaining aircraft emissions from the atmosphere.

But she says that “given how far we are from delivering these things, we’ll also probably need to fly less.”

Nuclear
UK governments have agonised for decades about nuclear energy, but Boris Johnson recently gave it the nod.

That means he’s likely to either agree a financial package for a new station at Sizewell or for small modular reactors, or both.

But nuclear is still a divisive issue. While it "could definitely help to reduce emissions," said Professor Jim Watson, from UCL, "it’s very expensive."

“To play a major role, the cost of new nuclear plants will really need to fall, especially when the costs of other technologies like wind and solar have dropped so far.

“And nuclear developers will need to show that they can build their plants more quickly because we need all electricity to be low carbon within the next 10 years.”

He agreed that mini reactors might bring down costs – but said it was far too soon to be certain.

Capturing carbon
The prime minister has professed himself “an evangelist" for the technology that captures carbon dioxide as it enters the atmosphere and either stores it in underground rocks or uses it for new chemicals.

Two decades ago it was touted as a climate saviour, but it's very expensive and has never taken off.

The main climate authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the technology must be used to capture the emissions from trees being burned for energy.

This way, the plants suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and the emissions are buried - helping to turn climate change into reverse. It's known as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).

But the IPCC's Professor Jim Skea says there are "potential problems."

He explained: "If the trees are grown on land that would otherwise be used for producing food then there are problems with food security. And if we plant acres and acres of land with the same type of tree there are implications for wildlife.”

Silver buckshot?
So much for silver bullets. But what about the silver buckshot I mentioned earlier?

Well, a long list of policies requires government attention, including: standards for new homes; green recovery; food production; planning rules; peat; heat and buildings; meat eating; infrastructure statement; road building; carbon dioxide in soil; medium-term emissions targets; tree planting; energy storage; industrial strategy; appliance standards; and the comprehensive spending review.

I’ll examine some of the non-technology innovations for tackling climate change in a future article.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54662615.

 

[sweep_shot]

My Turn: Climate change action is a moral imperative

As we approach Election Day on Nov. 3, I urge New Hampshire voters to support candidates who pledge to make action on climate change their first priority – the health of our planet and our people demand it.

We have a moral responsibility that is far beyond our immediate concerns to bequeath a livable world to those who come after us. Concerns about climate change impacts and support for candidates who offer solutions that build community are motivators for faith voters.

Recent polling by Climate Nexus, Yale University Program on Climate Change Communication, and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication indicates that nearly 64% of faith voters want a multi-trillion-dollar federal economic stimulus to invest in clean energy infrastructure as part of COVID-19 recovery.

Climate change action is a moral imperative, actively engaging our humanity to act in our collective best interest for future generations. Faith traditions around the globe share a consistent ethos to protect our planet, calling to us to be stewards of creation. As we have seen in recent weeks, the impact of climate change constantly reminds us of our human and earthly vulnerabilities, from the unprecedented powerful and destructive wildfires in the Western United States to the deluge of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

The events that are occurring in the natural world are not unexpected, they are in fact predicted as a result of the increased warming of the planet caused in large part by human industrial activities and elevated carbon emissions.

The trajectory that we are currently on will continue to cause grave harm to our natural world and creation – we are not acting in good faith as the stewards of creation that we are called to unless we dramatically change course.

In many ways, we have become disconnected as a species to the reaction of the natural world to our actions. We are often rudely reminded by the cascade of natural disasters made worse by global climate change that we in fact are not apart from nature but intimately intertwined within it.

Here in New Hampshire, the impact of climate change on our moose population, maple sugaring industry, and agriculture have received a good deal of attention. The threat of sea-level rise, more frequent and powerful storms, and the current drought conditions across the state are all focusing our minds on our predicament.

The impacts of climate change are not limited to the impact on the natural world. Human suffering is compounded by the increase of natural disasters made worse by a warming planet. The National Academy of Sciences projects that 150 million people across the globe will be displaced by rising sea levels by 2050. Large waves of climate migration will occur as an increasingly narrow band of the Earth maintains optimum temperatures for food production.

The populations most affected by global climate change are the least equipped to respond and adapt, as they have access to the least amount of resources, monetary and otherwise.

Alleviating human suffering in the face of climate change demands a moral response, calling to us to act beyond our own concerns.

Here’s the good news – we have it within our grasp to truly improve the human condition while meeting the existential threat of climate change and responding to a higher moral calling.

If we act based on science to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and work to build a clean energy economy based on an aggressive transition to renewable energy, we will create a more just world where fundamental human values and dignity are taken into account.

Science and faith are not at odds – they can co-exist for the benefit of all, working hand-in-hand to create the future we seek.

As John F. Kennedy stated in his inaugural address, “with a good conscience our only true reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

We must choose leaders who will act as stewards of creation, willing to act on behalf of a planet in peril and the human family that depends upon its health.

(Rob Werner is a member of the steering team of New Hampshire Interfaith Power and Light and New Hampshire state director of the League of Conservation Voters.)

Source: https://www.concordmonitor.com/Climate-change-action-36927502.

 

[ahsan17]

You may be right on your last point but the planet will just carry on - there have been six extinction events already. 75% of all species went extinct at the big one before the dinosaurs arrived. We might go extinct but the Earth will keep spinning and a new paradigm of life will evolve.

But let’s not get that far.

Much depends on individuals driving change in responsible government. When Sir Ed Davey was Energy Secretary he persuaded the Germans and Poles (who like burning coal) to commit to carbon reduction targets. Then the whole EU agreed to these, and Obama and Japan signed up and the world had the Paris Agreement.

It’s up to government to help companies and individuals be responsible for carbon capture, water use and waste streams. Companies can be encouraged to seek the triple bottom line of profit / planet / people - meaning that they seek to make money but also commit to environmental management and local social good, perhaps setting up a play park for local kids or a community centre.

I met a beef farmer who claims to be sequestering carbon, having planted willow trees for his cows to graze under. He has rain water collector systems to reduce his draw on water courses.

The government can encourage homeowners to put solar panels and other carbon-sequestering devices on their property, for example with the feed-in tariff scheme. There are now 800,000 such generators in Britain, making as much power in total as a small nuclear reactor. I got in late and only make nine pence per exported kW/hr but people who got in early at the 45p rate say their system paid for itself in a few years. My electricity use dropped by 43% since installation. If I can get a little 1 kW wind turbine installed I can reduce that further.

99% of waste produced by my house either goes to the recycling plant or to fuel the incinerator-driven steam turbine up the road. Ash from the incinerator burn becomes hardcore for construction.

I saw a shocking statistic that really dries home the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

So, something like 70% of carbon emissions come from a handful of companies and industries, not consumers. That, to me, really drives home the point, that governments need to work on strict regulations to fix this problem.

 

[sweep_shot]

Indigenous Peoples are critical to nature-based solutions to climate change

'Indigenous Peoples are already stewarding nearly one-fifth of the total carbon sequestered by tropical and subtropical forests, and Indigenous territories encompass 40 per cent of the world’s protected areas.'

Nature-based solutions (NbS) to climate change — such as ecosystem protection or conservation, improved forest-management practices, and afforestation (planting trees in new areas) — can significantly reduce global net emissions of greenhouse gases. This is especially the case when NbS are paired with emissions reductions and clean-energy solutions. NbS could provide 30 to 40 per cent of the CO2 mitigation required by 2030 to help ensure warming is capped at under 2 C.

While holding great potential for effective climate-change policy, NbS measures such as protected areas and forest plantations can negatively affect Indigenous Peoples globally through displacement, livelihood restrictions, and ensuing cultural impacts. These impacts intensify the disadvantages already faced by Indigenous communities, including human-rights violations, discrimination, and poverty.

Indigenous Peoples are also more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as: food insecurity; displacement as a result of catastrophic flooding, drought, and fires; and threats to critical infrastructure.

Given the twin vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to both the impacts and potential solutions to climate change, how NbS are developed, on whose territories, and with what outcomes, matter deeply to the success of climate-change policy, as well as to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is relevant in Canada, which has extensive carbon sinks and is home to more than 630 distinct First Nations communities, as well as Métis and Inuit.

Many of the carbon-dense forests and peatlands that are prioritized for NbS globally are found within the traditional territories of Indigenous Nations across the country, such as Canada’s expansive Boreal Forest biome.

Canada, like other settler colonial states, is layered with multiple territorial claims, jurisdictions (state and recognized and asserted Indigenous title), and systems of governance (state and Indigenous hereditary and elected). This complexity — and the conflicts inherent to it — complicates environmental governance and can hinder state-Indigenous collaborative efforts in conservation and climate-change mitigation.

Despite the devastating impacts of colonialism, as described by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 2015, most Indigenous Peoples in Canada have long histories of sustainable co-existence with their territories. Their participation and leadership is necessary for the transformative and cross-sectorial systemic change required to deal with the climate crisis.

Land use, changes in land use, and climate change are profoundly linked.

In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified the opportunity to reduce net carbon emissions and advance biodiversity conservation, while recognizing the importance of Indigenous rights.

In response, Indigenous Peoples and local communities from 42 countries stated that “finally, the world’s top scientists recognize what we have always known: … that strengthening our rights is a critical solution to the climate crisis.”

Indigenous Peoples are already stewarding nearly one-fifth of the total carbon sequestered by tropical and subtropical forests (218 gigatons) and Indigenous territories encompass 40 per cent of the world’s protected areas.

Globally, Indigenous territories are important as habitat for biodiversity, and are key to mitigating the effects of climate change as critical carbon sinks.

Given the overlap of Indigenous territories and carbon sinks in Canada, it’s unlikely that NbS could be successfully implemented without upholding Indigenous rights to lands and resources, and respecting Indigenous governance and knowledge systems in climate-change policy.

In May 2019, we hosted a workshop at the University of Guelph with Indigenous leaders, scholars and environmental non-government organizations, representing the first meeting dedicated to Indigenous Peoples and NbS in Canada.

Participants discussed the potential alignment of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas and NbS in climate-change policy, along with other types of environmental stewardship and governance, such as carbon offsets.

While Canada is poised to transform protected areas, planning, establishment, and management through Indigenous-led conservation, the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the development of NbS and climate-change policy is currently lacking.

Workshop participants indicated that many Indigenous Nations in Canada are interested in advancing NbS in their traditional territories because of their potential social, ecological, and economic co-benefits.

These potential benefits include the protection of culturally significant species, economic opportunities, and cultural revitalization. As one participant in the NbS workshop stated, “To be completely grounded in who you are matters, and the work we are doing around conservation economies, carbon credits, and protecting who we are are all connected.”

Many NbS projects led by Indigenous Peoples already exist or are in development in Canada. These include: Coastal First Nations’ carbon offsets derived from conservation and improved forest management in the Great Bear Rainforest (British Columbia); Poplar River First Nation’s pursuit of a provincial carbon-sharing agreement, along with ecosystem carbon accounting (Manitoba); and Wahkohtowin Development GP Inc.’s involvement in forest-management planning with First Nations to develop a climate-action strategy (Ontario).

While Indigenous engagement in NbS is promising, obstacles remain that participants emphasized in the workshop and deserve attention in the development of NbS and climate-change policy in Canada.

First, many Indigenous Nations lack technical knowledge and financial capacity to participate in voluntary and regulated carbon markets, including the development of carbon offsets.

Second, ongoing political uncertainty in climate-change policy is a barrier to Indigenous participation in NbS. For example, First Nations in Ontario no longer have the ability to sell carbon offsets in the regulated carbon market after the provincial government terminated the provincial cap-and-trade program in 2018.

Third, although the principle of “additionality” is central to the validation of carbon-offset projects, ecosystems that are stewarded by Indigenous Peoples often do not qualify, because they don’t present an “additional” net reduction in carbon emissions. This can limit Indigenous participation in carbon offsets that are generated through the ongoing stewardship of traditional territories.

Fourth, Indigenous carbon rights are not legally recognized in Canada, which limits Indigenous autonomy over carbon that is generated, or sequestered and stored, in their territories.

Last, NbS policy and projects that are advanced without the partnership or consent of Indigenous Nations can generate significant opposition from communities who consider such actions as “carbon colonialism” and a threat to inherent land rights. For example, some Indigenous groups have been critical of Ontario’s Far North Act, which was enacted to protect the province’s vast and intact peatlands, wetlands, and forests as a “vital carbon sink” because of inadequate consultation and concerns that it undermines Treaty and Aboriginal rights.

Although the barriers to Indigenous participation in NbS and climate-change policy in Canada are significant, our workshop, as well as other forums, suggest these challenges are not insurmountable if governments ensure that Indigenous Peoples are equal partners in policy development.

The recent resurgence of Indigenous-led conservation in Canada offers considerable insights into how NbS and climate-change policy should be developed.

In 2018, the Indigenous Circle of Experts delivered a landmark report with 28 recommendations predominantly outlining how Crown and Indigenous governments can work together to meet domestic and international targets for expanded protection of lands and waters. As with protected areas and other spatially explicit policy outcomes, NbS such as avoided land conversion, reforestation, and afforestation typically intersect with the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples.

Participants in the NbS workshop emphasized that to reduce conflict and facilitate the free, prior, and informed consent of affected Indigenous Nations, NbS must protect Indigenous land and resource rights, including carbon assets.

Recognizing and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples, incorporating Indigenous knowledge of fire and other ecosystem processes that affect carbon sinks, and investing in the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to develop their own NbS on their territories are all vitally important. Together, these actions could actualize the climate-mitigation potential of improved land stewardship as a solution to climate change in partnership with Indigenous Peoples.

Source: https://ipolitics.ca/2020/10/26/ind...-to-nature-based-solutions-to-climate-change/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: 'Dangerous and dirty' used cars sold to Africa

Millions of highly polluting used cars from rich countries are being "dumped" on developing nations, according to a UN report.

Between 2015 and 2018, some 14 million older, poor quality vehicles were exported from Europe, Japan and the US.

Four out of five were sold to poorer countries, with more than half going to Africa.

Experts say that up to 80% failed to meet minimum safety and environmental standards in exporting countries.

As well as causing accidents, these cars make air pollution worse and contribute heavily to climate change.

Many of the vehicles have also been tampered with to remove valuable parts.

The report, published by the UN Environment Programme (Unep), says that both exporters and importers need to put tougher regulations in place to stem the flow of these cars.

Car ownership is booming all over the world with an estimated 1.4bn vehicles on the roads, a number that's expected to reach around two billion by 2040.

Much of that growth is happening in developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

In their three-year analysis, researchers found that regulations on car imports in the majority of the 146 countries they studied were "weak" or "very weak".

A second study on the issue, by the Netherlands Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate, shows that many cars and vans shipped from Dutch ports to Africa are outdated and contribute to worsening air quality on the continent.

"What we can say is that of those 14 million vehicles up to around 80% are not roadworthy and don't meet a vehicle emission standard that is called Euro 4," said Rob de Jong, from Unep, one of the report's authors.

The Euro 4 car standard came into force in Europe in January 2005.

"That means that those vehicles emit 90% more emissions because they are not meeting this minimal standard," said Mr de Jong.

According to the authors, these cars are both "dangerous and dirty."

They believe these imports are responsible for increased levels of road accidents in many poorer African and Asian countries. The cars are also pumping out fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which are major sources of air pollution in many cities.

"In 2017, the average age of a diesel vehicle imported into Uganda was over 20 years old," said Jane Akumu, also from Unep.

"This is the same story for Zimbabwe. In fact, around 30 countries of Africa do not have any age limit on cars. So, any kind of car of any kind of age, can come in."

As well as failing to meet road safety and environmental standards, a significant number were tampered with and had important equipment removed.

"They cut out catalytic converters, because the platinum value is worth $500. And they put in a piece of steel pipe and weld it back in," said Rob de Jong.

"They have illegally removed the airbags, because they have a value in Europe, they have illegally removed the anti-lock brake system because it has a value and is being sold on the black market."

Of the vehicles in the report, more than 54% came from Europe. Many were exported through the Netherlands.

The Dutch authorities are concerned about the trade and want action taken at the European level.

"The Netherlands cannot address this issue alone," said Stientje van Veldhoven, the Netherlands minister for the environment.

"Therefore, I will call for a coordinated European approach, and a close cooperation between European and African governments, to ensure that the EU only exports vehicles that are fit for purpose, and compliant with standards set by importing countries."

The growing realisation of the dangers posed by these cars has seen several importing countries stiffen their regulations.

Morocco only permits cars less than five years old to be imported. Kenya also has an age limit of eight years for imported cars.

On a regional level, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), representing 15 countries, has set cleaner fuel and vehicle standards from January 2021.

But to really deal with the issue will require action at both ends of the supply chain.

"On one hand, I think it's unethical that these developed countries export vehicles that are not roadworthy on their own roads," said Rob de Jong.

"On the other hand, why have the importing countries been waiting so long to put in place some minimum standards?

"So I think the onus is not only on the exporting country, it's really a joint responsibility."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54665545.

 

[sweep_shot]

How Food Systems Can Reverse Climate Change

While the COVID-19 pandemic continues to monopolize the news cycle, the world continues to face another threat—climate change.

But the pandemic can also offer an opportunity for reflection on the relationship between climate change and global food chains.

On “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg,” Dani talks about how the food system contributes between 21-37 percent of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And the World Research Institute (WRI) finds that if food waste alone were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest emitter of GHG emissions.

But food can also be a solution to the climate crisis. “Eight of the top 20 [climate] solutions are directly food-related,” Paul Hawken, founder of Project Drawdown, tells Food Tank.

Organizations around the world are also working to address the world’s biggest threat. Recently, Food Tank highlighted 36 of these organizations that are using strategic communications, grassroots organizing, and the law to reduce carbon emissions and reverse the effects of climate change.

Dani talks with Paul Hawken of Project Drawdown, Jack Kittinger from Conservation International, and Dr. Rattan Lal, a renowned soil scientist at Ohio State University and the recipient of the 2020 World Food Prize. They discuss ways not only to mitigate, but reverse, climate change through food systems policies, collaboration, and innovation.

Source: https://foodtank.com/news/2020/10/how-food-systems-can-reverse-climate-change/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Arctic sea ice loss could trigger huge levels of extra global warming

If Arctic sea ice vanishes in summers by the middle of the century as expected, the world could see a vicious circle that drives enough global warming to almost wipe out the impact of China going carbon neutral.

Ice losses in frozen regions are known to trigger “climate feedback” loops. For instance, white ice reflects much of the sun’s energy, so when it is replaced by dark open water that absorbs heat, more warming occurs. But how much more warming is an open question.

To answer it, Ricarda Winkelmann at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and her colleagues modelled the impact of such feedbacks on global temperature rises if ice disappeared from mountain glaciers, the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets, and the Arctic in summer. They found that the loss of ice in all four places would, over centuries to millennia, contribute an extra 0.43°C of warming globally in the event of the world holding temperature rises to 1.5°C.

However, Arctic feedbacks could bring warming on much shorter time scales. Summers in the region are expected to be ice-free before 2050. That means the Arctic alone could account for an extra 0.19°C of global warming around mid-century, on top of the 1.5°C. A fifth of a degree is a huge number: China’s recent pledge to become carbon neutral by 2060 is estimated to lower global warming by 0.2-0.3°C.

The Arctic feedbacks would have an even bigger impact locally, raising temperatures 1.5°C in a region that is warming faster than the rest of the world and beset by record fires.

“The ice masses on Earth matter. It’s in our hands what happens with the ice masses and that in turn will have an effect on our global climate,” says Winkelmann. The team used computer simulations of Earth systems to quantify the feedbacks that would follow the total loss of ice – a dramatic scenario that could be averted if humanity curbs emissions.

Changes in reflectivity, or albedo, accounted for 55 per cent of the 0.43°C of warming. The feedbacks also included water vapour, which contributed 30 per cent of warming – warmer air can hold more water and trap more heat in the atmosphere. Clouds contributed 15 per cent.

Winkelmann says that although the total 0.43°C of warming wouldn’t happen immediately, humanity’s emissions are pushing ice sheets such as Greenland and West Antarctica ones to irreversible tipping points, meaning action today matters. “Decisions we make in the next years can actually determine the fate of Earth’s ice masses on the long term,” she says.

Kim Holmén at the Norwegian Polar Institute says it is: “A clever use of models to quantify the contribution of various feedbacks on the final warming.”

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-trigger-huge-levels-of-extra-global-warming/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'

China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.

An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.

Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.

The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.

A carbon sink is any reservoir - such as peatlands, or forests - that absorbs more carbon than it releases, thereby lowering the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

China is the world's biggest source of human-produced carbon dioxide, responsible for around 28% of global emissions.

But it recently stated an intention to peak those emissions before 2030 and then to move to carbon neutrality by 2060.

The specifics of how the country would reach these goals is not clear, but it inevitably has to include not only deep cuts in fossil fuel use but ways also to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

"Achieving China's net-zero target by 2060, recently announced by the Chinese President Xi Jinping, will involve a massive change in energy production and also the growth of sustainable land carbon sinks," said co-author Prof Yi Liu at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

"The afforestation activities described in [our Nature] paper will play a role in achieving that target," he told BBC News.

China's increasing leafiness has been evident for some time. Billions of trees have been planted in recent decades, to tackle desertification and soil loss, and to establish vibrant timber and paper industries.

The new study refines estimates for how much CO2 all these extra trees could be taking up as they grow.

The latest analysis examined a host of data sources. These comprised forestry records, satellite remote-sensing measurements of vegetation greenness, soil water availability; and observations of CO2, again made from space but also from direct sampling of the air at ground level.

"China is one of the major global emitters of CO2 but how much is absorbed by its forests is very uncertain," said the IAP scientist Jing Wang, the report's lead author.

"Working with CO2 data collected by the Chinese Meteorological Administration we have been able to locate and quantify how much CO2 is absorbed by Chinese forests."

The two previously under-appreciated carbon sink areas are centred on China's southwest, in Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi provinces; and its northeast, particularly Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces.

The land biosphere over southwest China, by far the largest single region of uptake, represents a sink of about -0.35 petagrams per year, representing 31.5% of the Chinese land carbon sink.

A petagram is a billion tonnes.

The land biosphere over northeast China, the researchers say, is seasonal, so it takes up carbon during the growing season but emits carbon otherwise. Its net annual balance is roughly -0.05 petagrams per year, representing about 4.5% of the Chinese land carbon sink.

To put these numbers in context, the group adds, China was emitting 2.67 petagrams of carbon as a consequence of fossil fuel use in 2017.

Prof Paul Palmer, a co-author from Edinburgh University, UK, said the size of the forest sinks might surprise people but pointed to the very good agreement between space and in situ measurements as reason for confidence.

"Bold scientific statements must be supported by massive amounts of evidence and this is what we have done in this study," he told BBC News.

"We have collected together a range of ground-based and satellite data-driven evidence to form a consistent and robust narrative about the Chinese carbon cycle."

Prof Shaun Quegan from Sheffield University, UK, studies Earth's carbon balance but was not involved in this research.

He said the extent of the northeast sink was not a surprise to him, but the southwest one was. But he cautioned that new forests' ability to draw down carbon declines with time as the growth rate declines and the systems move towards a more steady state.

"This paper clearly illustrates how multiple sources of evidence from space data can increase our confidence in carbon flux estimates based on sparse ground data," he said.

"This augurs well for the use of the new generation of space sensors to aid nations' efforts to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement."

Prof Quegan is the lead scientist on Europe's upcoming Biomass mission, a radar spacecraft that will essentially weigh forests from orbit. It will be able to tell where exactly the carbon is being stored, be it in tree trunks, in the soil or somewhere else.

Richard Black is director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), a non-profit think-tank working on climate change and energy issues.

He commented: "With China setting out its ambition for net zero, it's obviously crucial to know the size of the national carbon sink, so this is an important study.

"However, although the forest sink is bigger than thought, no-one should mistake this as constituting a 'free pass' way to reach net zero. For one thing, carbon absorption will be needed to compensate for ongoing emissions of all greenhouse gases, not just CO2; for another, the carbon balance of China's forests may be compromised by climate change impacts, as we're seeing now in places such as California, Australia and Russia."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54714692.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate Change is a Security Issue: An Interview with Geoff Dabelko

Climate change is a threat multiplier; it is an underlying and exacerbating factor that makes things worse at a level that all actors, including security actors, need to pay attention to, said Geoff Dabelko, Professor and Associate Dean at the George V. Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University and Senior Advisor to the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program. He spoke in a recent interview about climate change and security as part of CimpaticoTV’s Climate Adaptation Channel.

“Climate change fundamentally impacts the political economic stability of a country,” said Dabelko. In the case of the Syrian Civil War, many experts point out how severe drought adversely affected opponents of the regime, potentially contributing to the protests that preceded the conflict. The situation is complex and climate change is not the sole factor involved—such issues do not have simple answers and explanations, said Dabelko. But if we ignore these dynamics, he said, we overlook how displacement and mobility are impacting people.

There is a general acceptance among governments that climate change has implications for agriculture, the economy, and health that all countries face, said Dabelko. Some places experience its effects more acutely than others, especially countries that are not well-equipped to respond. Climate and security linkages in the Lake Chad Basin has been a particular focus to some degree in the UN and among the G7, particularly Germany, which has consistently been involved in contributing resources and taking action in the region, said Dabelko.

Despite this recognition of climate change’s connection to stability, we’re still a long way from translating it into resources, he said. In some countries, though, the military and intelligence community are integrating climate assessments into their strategies and operations. In the European Union, the military has begun to see the importance of efficient battery technology, including protection against grid failures and reducing vulnerabilities, he said.

While the focus on climate and security links has centered around how climate change contributes to conflict, we must be wary of “backdraft” dynamics as well, said Dabelko. Sometimes well-intentioned climate change responses may exacerbate conflict. When it comes to renewable energy, the sourcing of biofuels from West Africa could adversely affect local livelihoods because farmers might not be able to afford land, he said, while hydropower projects often cause displacement. Similarly, efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation benefit ecosystems but whether the money goes to local communities is a concern. Ultimately, “we have to go in with our eyes open so that we’re not exacerbating conflicts or creating new ones because of the spin-offs of what we’re doing in the climate space,” said Dabelko.

Finally, addressing climate change and security links requires a multidisciplinary approach. “[O]ur notions of security are broadening. And so, that is a conversation that we want to actively push forward,” said Dabelko. “You can’t do that from a disciplinary silo.” What the traditional security community tells us about decision-making, uncertainty, and risk management can inform environmental approaches. Likewise, environmental studies are changing the security landscape.

“And these issues demand that you break down the characters and the stereotypes that we have of each other, let alone just the practical impediments of working across disciplines, sectors,” Dabelko said. Folks coming from the environment and climate side, he said, are doing a whole lot more than hugging trees and pandas.

Source: https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2020/10/climate-change-security-issue-interview-geoff-dabelko/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: You've got cheap data, how about cheap power too?

You're probably reading this on your phone. If not, take it out your pocket and look at it.

It's a smartphone, isn't it? Think how often you use it and all the useful things it helps you do. Now, think back. How long since you bought your first smartphone?

It will be about 10 years, most likely a bit less. Not long. Yet they are now ubiquitous: virtually everyone, everywhere has one and uses it for hours every day.

It shows how quickly new technology can take off. The original iPhone was only introduced in 2007 and - bizarre as it now seems - it wasn't regarded as revolutionary back then.

Check out this Forbes magazine cover published nine months after the iPhone was released.

And Forbes wasn't alone. The iPhone was just "one more entrant into an already very busy space," according to the boss of the company that made Blackberrys. Remember them?

Not only have smartphones crushed all other phone technologies, they have upended dozens of other industries too. They've killed the camera and powered the rise of social media and dating apps. They've decimated the traditional taxi industry.

So what has this got to do with energy?

It proves an important point about all successful new technologies: it is easy to see why they were so transformative in hindsight, much harder to predict how they will reshape our world in advance.

Which brings me to green technology - wind turbines, electric vehicles, solar panels and batteries, that kind of thing.

If you still think adopting these new technologies will be an expensive chore, think again.

Green tech is at a tipping point where it could take off explosively - just like the smartphone did. And, just like the smartphone, it could bring a revolution in how we do much more than just create energy.

So why did the smartphone do so well?

Its success was down to a unique convergence of technologies. For the first time touchscreens, batteries, data networks, compact computer chips, micro-sensors and more, were cheap, reliable and small enough to make a $600 (£460) smartphone possible.

And as demand for smartphones picked up, manufacturers learned how to make those technologies even cheaper and better too.

Something similar is now happening with green tech.

After years of development, it is becoming much cheaper and more effective. The world's best solar power schemes are now the "cheapest source of electricity in history", the International Energy Agency (IEA), which analyses energy markets, said this month.

"Renewable energy is likely to penetrate the energy system more quickly than any fuel ever seen in history," predicts Spencer Dale, the chief economist at the oil giant BP.

And BP is putting its money where Mr Dale's mouth is. It's pledged to cut its oil and gas production by 40% in the next 10 years, and to plough money into developing their low-carbon business instead.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, announced a £160m investment that he said would see offshore wind producing more than half of current UK electricity demand by 2030.

That's right. An investment of just £160m in offshore wind when the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, is costing at least £22.5 billion.

How is it so cheap? Because the UK government won't be paying for the new wind turbines, the private sector will.

In the UK, offshore wind will soon be profitable without subsidy. Indeed, developers may soon have to pay for access to our continental shelf.

Think what that means. You don't need governments offering inducements for companies to build new renewable power, they'll be paying us for the privilege of doing so.

But that is just the beginning. What happens when the world doubles down on cutting carbon?

The European Union has already signed up to a €1tn-plus green stimulus plan. China says it is on board too.

At the United Nation's General Assembly meeting in New York this month, Chinese President Xi Jinping made an unconditional commitment that China would cut its carbon emissions to net zero by 2060.

Japan and South Korea both announced a 2050 net zero pledge this week and if Joe Biden wins the American presidential election, he has similarly ambitious carbon cutting plans.

Both Biden and the EU have warned they will introduce carbon tariffs to penalise countries that haven't abated emissions selling high-carbon products in their markets.

That'll be a powerful encouragement for the rest of the world to follow suit. But even if they don't, we'd have America, China and Europe - half of world emissions and more than half of world GDP - doubling down on cutting carbon.

That means even more investment in wind, solar, batteries, electric cars, electrolysis, carbon capture and storage, and any other green technology you can think of.

Just like with the smartphone, it becomes a virtuous cycle.

A learning curve
"What we've seen up to now is called a learning curve," explains Spencer Dale. "The more you produce something, the better you get at producing it."

As the amount of solar and wind capacity in the world has doubled and doubled again, the costs have steadily fallen - something documented by the clean tech advocate Ramez Naam.

"And at the moment there doesn't seem to be any sign that those learning curves are flattening out," says Mr Dale.

If he's right then costs will continue to fall, making renewables increasingly competitive, which in turn will lead to more investment and more renewable power. You get the idea.

Let's now do a thought experiment.

The big challenge with renewables is what they call in the trade "intermittency" - the fact that you don't get any power when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. It is a big problem. Nobody wants the power to go off.

RethinkX, an American think tank specialising in blue-skies thinking on the future of industries, says we need to change our whole mindset about how we generate power.

We are used to worrying about the costs of overcapacity - producing more power than is needed. That's because the fuel used to generate power is expensive.

Not so with renewables. Once you've built them, the power they generate from the wind and sun comes virtually free of charge.

RethinkX says this will do to energy what the internet and smartphones have done to data. Thirty years ago there was an inherent physical cost to every newspaper printed or photo taken. Now that everything is digital, the only limit on how much we read or post on Instagram is the number of hours in our day.

It argues that instead of simply replacing existing fossil fuel plants with wind and solar - and then worrying about the cost of plugging those big intermittency gaps - we should just build more and more and more wind and solar. Perhaps several times the capacity of the existing electricity grid.

Remember, the more we build, the cheaper it gets. So long as we spread them over a wide enough area we'll always get some power. And we can plug the few small gaps remaining with batteries or other power plants.

And here's the thing. On sunny and windy days we'll have a huge surplus of electricity at pretty much no extra cost.

What could you do with huge amounts of cheap power?

You'll certainly want to use it to make more wind turbines and solar panels. But what about electrolysing water to produce hydrogen that can heat homes, power trucks and ships, or make steel? You could power machines to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Or how about a plant to make carbon neutral aviation fuel from that hydrogen and carbon dioxide? Or a desalination plant to irrigate a desert? RethinkX even suggests the power could be used to mine for cryptocurrencies.

The point is this: the cost of energy is a key constraint in virtually everything we do. So new industries are likely rise up to make use of this plentiful power.

Obviously they'll have to pay something for this bounty and that'll mean the power that boils your kettle and charges your electric car will be cheaper too.

A world of low carbon opportunity
Of course, we are a long way from this utopia. The chances are this vision of unlimited, virtually cost-free energy, may not come to pass - or at least not in the 10-year timeframe they predict.

The sheer physical challenge of building so much new infrastructure means it will take time to build up the supply chains and raw materials needed, and there may be limits to how much solar and wind some countries can harness.

But the central point remains: there are powerful forces driving down the cost of renewable technologies that upend the traditional narrative of decarbonisation.

Contrary to what we are normally told, switching to low carbon energy doesn't have to be an onerous obligation that will impoverish us and make life less exciting.

Instead, it could open up a world of new opportunities, new businesses and livelihoods. And what's more, this could all happen quite soon.

Spencer Dale quotes the eminent German economist, Rudi Dornbusch who said: "In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could."

And if you don't believe that, just think about all the changes your smartphone has helped bring about in the world.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54723147.

 

[sweep_shot]

Study: Ancient people in Turkey adapted to climate change

An examination of two documented periods of climate change in the greater Middle East, between approximately 4,500 and 3,000 years ago, reveals local evidence of resilience and even of a flourishing ancient society despite the changes in climate seen in the larger region.

A new study – led by archaeologists from Cornell and from the University of Toronto, working at Tell Tayinat in southeastern Turkey – demonstrates that human responses to climate change are variable and must be examined using extensive and precise data gathered at the local level.

“The absolute dating of these periods has been a subject of considerable debate for many years, and this study contributes a significant new dataset that helps address many of the questions,” said Sturt Manning, the Goldwin Smith Professor of Classical Archaeology in the College of Arts and Sciences, and lead author of the study, which published Oct. 29 in PLoS ONE.

The report highlights how challenge and collapse in some areas were matched by resilience and opportunities elsewhere. The findings are welcome contributions to discussions about human responses to climate change that broaden an otherwise sparse chronological framework for the northern part of the region known historically as the Levant, which stretches the length of the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea.

“The study shows the end of the Early Bronze Age occupation at Tayinat was a long and drawn out affair that, while it appears to coincide with the onset of a megadrought 4,200 years ago, was actually the culmination of processes that began much earlier,” said Tim Harrison, professor and chair of the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto. Harrison directs the Tayinat Archaeological Project.

“The archaeological evidence does not point towards significant local effects of the climate episode,” he said, “as there is no evidence of drought stress in crops. Instead, these changes were more likely the result of local political and spatial reconfiguration.”

The mid- to late Early Bronze Age (3000-2000 B.C.) and the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200 B.C.) in the ancient Middle East are pivotal periods of early inter-connectedness among settlements across the region, with the development of some of the earliest cities and state-level societies. But these systems were not always sustainable, and both periods ended in collapse of civilizations and settlements, the reasons for which are highly debated.

The absence of detailed timelines for societal activity throughout the region leaves a significant gap in understanding the associations between climate change and social responses. While the disintegration of political or economic systems are indeed components of a societal response, collapse is rarely total.

Using radiocarbon dating and analysis of archaeological samples recovered from Tell Tayinat, a location occupied following two particularly notable climate change episodes – one occurring 4,200 years ago, the other 1,000 years later – Manning and Brita Lorentzen, a researcher at the Cornell Tree-Ring Laboratory, working with the University of Toronto team, established a firm chronological timeframe for Tayinat in these two pivotal periods in the history of the ancient Middle East.

“The detailed chronological resolution achieved in this study,” Manning said, “allows for a more substantive interpretation of the archaeological evidence in terms of local and regional responses to proposed climate change, shedding light on how humans respond to environmental stress and variability.”

The researchers say the chronological framework for the Early Iron Age demonstrates the thriving resettlement of Tayinat following the latter climate change event, during a reconstructed period of heightened aridity.

“The settlement of Tayinat may have been undertaken to maximize access to arable land, and crop evidence reveals the continued cultivation of numerous water-demanding crops, revealing a response that counters the picture of a drought-stricken region,” Harrison said. “The Iron Age at Tayinat represents a significant degree of societal resilience during a period of climatic stress.”

The research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and by the University of Toronto.

Source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/10/study-ancient-people-turkey-adapted-climate-change.

 

[sweep_shot]

Australia will lose more than $3 trillion and 880,000 jobs over 50 years if climate change is not addressed, Deloitte says

The Australian economy will lose more than $3 trillion over the next 50 years if climate change is not addressed, according to a new report from Deloitte Access Economics.

The report found the economy could shrink by 6 per cent over the next 50 years and 880,000 jobs could be lost.

Report author Pradeep Philip, who was a policy director for former prime minister Kevin Rudd, said there was also a lot to be gained if warming was kept below 1.5 degrees and Australia achieved net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

"If we do act over the next few years then in just 50 years there is a benefit to the economy of $680 billion," he said.

"We'll have an economy 2.6 per cent bigger, generating 250,000 jobs, so this tells us if you are pro-growth and pro-jobs then we need to act on climate change now.

"We know that there are new sectors around renewables, hydrogen, electric vehicles that can be created."

Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia will feel the effects most acutely, with trade, tourism and mining some of the industries most exposed to the effects of climate change.

"As things get hotter because the planet warms up, it makes it really difficult for those labour-intensive industries to work," Dr Philip said.

"If you work outside, in construction, higher average temperatures make it quite unbearable to work, so we get a loss of productivity, we get adverse health affects, and this translates across the board into retail, manufacturing, transport and mining.

"Queensland in 50 years will represent half the country's job losses if we don't get this right, but will gain 70 per cent of the jobs if we do get this right."

North Queensland tourism operator Paul Crocombe said he was not surprised by the findings.

He has been taking people scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef from Townsville for 30 years, and while he says the reef is resilient, climate change is making it harder for it to bounce back.

"Things like cyclones, when they go through they tend to break the more fragile corals in the shallower parts of the reef and it can take up to 15 years for the plate coral to grow," he said.

"If we start to get more severe cyclones more often, it makes it harder for those reefs to recover — coral bleaching is a similar thing."

He said more erratic weather would also impact the more practical elements of the business.

"If we don't do anything, there are going to be impacts on the reef, impacts on the weather and therefore our ability to access the reef and even the infrastructure such as hotels, motels, port facilities, vessels. All those can be impacted if we get more severe weather events," Mr Crocombe said.

"Another big impact will be the attitude of travellers. People are looking for a low-carbon option for their travel and holidays … Europeans are certainly thinking twice about doing long-haul travel now and it is something that will have an effect on tourism in Australia in the future."

Businesses 'moving despite Government inaction'
Sheep grazier and chair of Farmers for Climate Action, Charlie Prell, says the pressure is already being felt in his industry, but opportunities are available to help agriculture businesses get by if climate change is addressed.

"Most particularly in hosting renewable energy infrastructure but also the opportunity to be paid for sequestering carbon in trees and in soil," he said.

"During the last drought, the last two years, 2018-19, I reduced my stocking rate by about nearly 60 per cent … and the only reason I could do that and remain viable was because I was receiving income from the company I'm in partnership with for the wind turbines [that are on my land]."

Last week, ANZ Bank announced its climate policy.

The bank will stop lending money to new customers that earn more than 10 per cent of their revenue from thermal coal mining or generation.

ANZ will also abandon its thermal coal investments within 10 years, and has explicitly supported "net-zero" carbon emissions by 2050.

Mr Prell said businesses would push ahead regardless of the Government's approach.

"Transport, buildings, businesses — even oil companies and miners — are moving despite the Government's … inability to take action on climate change and to have some kind of a plan to get to carbon neutral," he said.

"The National Farmer's Federation have a net zero emissions by 2050 policy to achieve that.

"A lot of them are not left-wing, looney, greenie organisations, they're actually capitalists, the ANZ Bank is not a left-wing institution … so they're looking to ameliorate and address risk."

A spokesperson for the Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said in a statement the Government's Technology Investment Roadmap, which prioritised hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon, storage options and "low-carbon" steel and aluminium production, would reduce emissions and "make net zero achievable".

It said the Government would guarantee reliable and affordable energy, without imposing new costs on households.

The Federal Government has promised to deliver net zero emissions in the second half of this century.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-02/australian-economy-lose-$3-trillion-climate-change-inaction/12837244.

 

[sweep_shot]

U of T students host global AI competition to address climate change

Students from the University of Toronto are the driving force behind a global undergraduate research competition that challenges teams to apply machine learning solutions to the impacts of climate change.

Dubbed ProjectX, the remote competition is organized by the U of T Artificial Intelligence student group (UofT AI) and is currently underway during the fall term. Upon final judging, winning teams will share a $70,000 prize pool.

Shardul Bansal and Elias Williams, co-presidents of the student group, lead a dedicated group of approximately 30 student organizers.
Bansal, a fourth-year student studying computer science in the Faculty of Arts & Science, says student organizers had been interested in hosting a competition that improved upon the structure of a typical hackathon.

“We love the opportunity to collaborate with other students, but we felt that the hackathon model didn't give students enough time to come up with meaningful, impact-driven ideas,” says Bansal.

Williams, a fourth-year student studying computer science and biochemistry, adds that he wanted the competition to do more than help a company improve its bottom line.

“As someone who studies artificial intelligence, that’s a depressing thought because we talk about how it has the potential to become the most powerful tool that humans have made, yet we are using it to expedient ends,” he says.

Reflecting on the choice to focus this year’s inaugural ProjectX on climate change, Williams says the intent was to apply machine learning to areas that students may not otherwise encounter while pursuing a career in AI – all while getting more students involved in climate change solutions.

“I think [climate change] is the most urgent problem that we have right now,” Williams says. “I think that pursuing technological solutions is the way that we’re going to get out of the hole that we’re in.”

After observing that students across North America were eager to improve their machine learning knowledge, the ProjectX organizers pitched the idea of the competition to similar student groups at other universities.

“We received positive reactions all around,” recalls Bansal. “We started picking up some steam and had some universities reach out, asking to participate. As organizers, we were happy to accommodate as many bright minds as we could to try to solve this open-ended problem.”

Participating teams hail from top universities across Canada and the United States, but also from countries as far away as Chile, Brazil, Germany and Poland. Each was asked to indicate their preference of three focus areas under the umbrella of climate change: infectious disease; weather and natural disaster prediction; or emissions and energy efficiency.

Once assigned a focus area, teams spoke with experts to find out more information about the problem they intended to address. The teams are now preparing research papers that will ultimately be judged by experts in each of the focus areas. Winners will be announced in mid-December.

The competition was developed with guidance from UofT AI’s faculty adviser Roger Grosse, an assistant professor in the department of computer science and faculty member at the Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence.

The ProjectX organizers say a broad network of support helped make the competition a reality.

“Something that's been very rewarding is the reaction of the academic community and the industry community to ProjectX,” says Lana El Sanyoura, a first-year master’s student in computer science who graduated from U of T’s undergraduate computer science program earlier this year and serves as a member of the research team on ProjectX’s organizing committee.
She adds that partners have contributed everything from a custom-built collaboration platform to data sets and computing power.

“There’s a large network of people who use machine learning tools to tackle climate change-related issues,” agrees Williams, noting that approximately 50 researchers have contributed their time and expertise to the competition.

ProjectX is supported by a range of partners, including Google, IBM and U of T’s Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society.

El Sanyoura says she is excited by the prospect of expanding research opportunities for undergraduates while also opening doors for future careers through the networking and mentorship that happen throughout the competition.

Williams says he views ProjectX as a way to demonstrate the strength of U of T’s undergraduate computer science program to peers across North America in hopes of spurring more collaboration in the future.

“Fundamentally, I think ProjectX is about educating people to start thinking in the way we need to think in order to solve the problems that we need to solve,” he says.

UofT AI plans to host a global, virtual AI conference for undergraduates on Jan. 15 and 16 that focuses on applying machine learning to the world’s most pressing issues.

Source: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-students-host-global-ai-competition-address-climate-change.

 

[sweep_shot]

A68 iceberg on collision path with South Georgia

The world's biggest iceberg, known as A68a, is bearing down on the British Overseas Territory of South Georgia.

The Antarctic ice giant is a similar size to the South Atlantic island, and there's a strong possibility the berg could now ground and anchor itself offshore of the wildlife haven.

If that happens, it poses a grave threat to local penguins and seals.

The animals' normal foraging routes could be blocked, preventing them from feeding their young properly.

And it goes without saying that all creatures living on the seafloor would be crushed where A68a touched down - a disturbance that would take a very long time to reverse.

"Ecosystems can and will bounce back of course, but there's a danger here that if this iceberg gets stuck, it could be there for 10 years," said Prof Geraint Tarling from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

"And that would make a very big difference, not just to the ecosystem of South Georgia but its economy as well," he told BBC News.

The British Overseas Territory is something of a graveyard for Antarctica's greatest icebergs.

These tabular behemoths get drawn up from the White Continent on strong currents, only for their keels to then catch in the shallows of the continental shelf that surrounds the remote island.

Time and time again, it happens. Huge ice sculptures slowly withering in sight of the land.

A68a - which has the look of a hand with a pointing finger - has been riding this "iceberg alley" since breaking free from Antarctica in mid-2017. It's now just a few hundred km to the southwest of the BOT.

Roughly the size of the English county of Somerset (4,200 sq km), the berg weighs hundreds of billions of tonnes. But its relative thinness (a submerged depth of perhaps 200m or less) means it has the potential to drift right up to South Georgia's coast before anchoring.

"A close-in iceberg has massive implications for where land-based predators might be able to forage," explained Prof Tarling.

"When you're talking about penguins and seals during the period that's really crucial to them - during pup- and chick-rearing - the actual distance they have to travel to find food really matters. If they have to do a big detour, it means they're not going to get back to their young in time to prevent them starving to death in the interim."

When the colossus A38 grounded at South Georgia in 2004, countless dead penguin chicks and seal pups were found on local beaches.

The BAS researcher is in the process of trying to organise the resources to study A68a at South Georgia, should it do its worst and ground in one of the key productive areas for wildlife and the local fishing industry.

The potential impacts are multi-faceted - and not all negative, he stresses.

For example, icebergs bring with them enormous quantities of dust that will fertilise the ocean plankton around them, and this benefit will then cascade up the food chain.

Although satellite imagery suggests A68a is on a direct path for South Georgia, it might yet escape capture. Anything is possible, says BAS remote-sensing and mapping specialist Dr Peter Fretwell.

"The currents should take it on what looks like a strange loop around the south end of South Georgia, before then spinning it along the edge of the continental shelf and back off to the northwest. But it's very difficult to say precisely what will happen," he told BBC News.

Colleague Dr Andrew Fleming said a request was going into the European Space Agency for more satellite imagery, particularly from its pair of Sentinel-1 radar spacecraft.

These imagers work at wavelengths that allow them to see through cloud, meaning they can track the iceberg no matter what the weather conditions are like.

"A68a is spectacular," Dr Fleming said. "The idea that it is still in one large piece is actually remarkable, particularly given the huge fractures you see running through it in the radar imagery. I'd fully expected it to have broken apart by now.

"If it spins around South Georgia and heads on northwards, it should start breaking up. It will very quickly get into warmer waters, and wave action especially will start killing it off."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54798031.

 

[sweep_shot]

Arctic animals adapting to climate change, but it may be causing declines: study

A huge new archive of how animals move across the Arctic from season to season gives the clearest picture yet of how species from eagles to caribou are evolving in the face of climate change and hints at why some of them are in decline.

“This is evolution,” said Mark Hebblewhite, a University of Montana biologist who’s one of 148 co-authors of the study published Thursday in the journal Science.

“These are just as much evolutionary responses to climate change as environmental changes.”

The paper combines – for the first time, the authors say – millions of data points on thousands of animals from different herds, flocks and 96 species into one archive.

“Oftentimes, people study this herd or that herd,” Dr. Hebblewhite said.

“They look at climate effects on one population at a time. It’s very difficult to see the forest for the trees. We’ve pulled together data on dozens of populations across the entire Arctic for up to 18 years.”

The results confirm one thing that has been suspected for years, Dr. Hebblewhite said. As the Arctic warms, caribou cows are giving birth earlier and earlier – up to more than two weeks sooner for some herds.

“[That] is a big effect,” he said.

It means something has changed in the internal wiring that governs when caribou young are born.

“Calving doesn’t change,” Dr. Hebblewhite said. “[Cows] don’t decide, ‘Oh, spring’s late this year. I’m going to give birth later.’ ”

Similar changes are appearing in other animals. Some golden eagles now show up at their summer nesting grounds more than a week earlier than they did at the start of the archive’s records.

The good news, he said, is that the archive shows animals are able to evolve fast enough to keep up with climate change in the Arctic, which is happening faster there than anywhere else on Earth. The bad news is that not all parts of the Arctic environment are evolving that quickly, throwing the delicate timing of life in the North out of whack.

Caribou adapted to calve at the same time as nutritious plants begin to sprout on the tundra. What happens if the calves arrive before the food their mothers need?

“We don’t know if that’s good or bad yet,” Dr. Hebblewhite said.

It may, however, be the underlying reason caribou numbers are plummeting.

“What do we see across the Arctic? We see some of the lowest calf survival in barren ground caribou that have ever been recorded. It has to have something to do with climate and this may be the smoking gun.”

Preliminary results suggest the same phenomenon is at work in animals such as bears and wolves, Dr. Hebblewhite said.

The archive already shows that wolves and black bears aren’t moving as much in the summer as they used to, while moose are moving more.

The archive will allow researchers to be much more certain about how animal movement in the Arctic is changing in response to its climate.

“How do you tell if something changes?” Dr. Hebblewhite asked. “For that you need time. You need an archive of what animals did 10, 20 years ago.

“We’ve now done that.”

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ting-to-climate-change-but-it-may-be-causing/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Food emissions could push Earth past global warming limits

PARIS -- Even if all fossil fuel emissions ended immediately, greenhouse gasses from the food we eat could drive global temperatures above internationally agreed warming limits, a new study has warned.

The system to feed Earth's 7.7 billion people accounts for nearly a third of global total greenhouse gas emissions, including from land clearing and deforestation, fertiliser use and livestock.

Researchers in the United States and Britain said the only way to avert devastating levels of warming would be to transform what we eat, how it is produced, and the amount we waste.

"Our work shows that food is a much greater contributor to climate change than is widely known," said co-author Jason Hill, a professor in the Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Minnesota.

"Fortunately, we can fix this problem by using fertiliser more efficiently, by eating less meat and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts, and by making other important changes to our food system."

The study in the journal Science forecasts future food system emissions using expected trends in population growth, dietary changes and the additional amount of land thought to be needed to feed the world.

The authors found that, if left unaddressed, these future food-related emissions would by themselves push Earth above the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming threshold -- seen as the guardrail for avoiding devastating climate impacts -- by 2050.

By the end of the century, they would lift temperatures to nearly 2C above preindustrial levels -- the limit set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

UNSUSTAINABLE APPETITE

There are multiple sources of greenhouse gasses in the food system besides carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels in production and supply chains.

Land clearing and deforestation releases carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O), the authors said, while production and the use of fertilisers and other agrichemicals emit CO2, N2O and methane.

Methane -- which has a warming potential 28 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period -- is also released by livestock like cows, sheep and goats as well as rice production.

The 2015 Paris climate deal saw nations commit to limit temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius. Earth has warmed by about 1.2C so far.

The United Nations says that to stay under the safer 1.5C cap, emissions must fall 7.6 percent annually this decade.

Most efforts to curb global warming focus on cutting carbon pollution from the transport and energy sectors, noted lead author Michael Clark, a researcher at Oxford University's Nuffield Department of Population Health.

"However, our research emphasises the importance of also reducing emissions from the global food system," he said in a statement.

Research published in July by the Global Carbon Project found that emissions of methane have risen by nine percent in a decade, driven by mankind's growing appetite for energy and food.

At the same time, the Diet for a Better Future report on consumption in G20 nations concluded that if everyone ate steaks and dairy the way Brazilians and Americans do, we would need an extra five planets to feed the world.

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-...sh-earth-past-global-warming-limits-1.5178122.

 

[sweep_shot]

Jeffrey Young: Oil Companies Admit to Contributing to Climate Change — and Blame You

In a federal courtroom in San Francisco, five oil companies argued before a judge on facts that uphold the 95 percent to 100 percent likelihood that human activity has been the dominant cause of the global warming of Earth since the mid-20th century.

In 2017, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco and the State of California, filed lawsuits against British Petroleum, Chevon, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. The five largest investor-owned producers of fossil fuels in the world are considered responsible for more than 11 percent of all carbon dioxide and methane pollution that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

That these oil producers agreed to the role they are playing in climate change is worth noting.

The Setting
Oakland, San Francisco and California had sued for the cost to pay for sea walls and other shoreline defenses to protect against rising sea levels that could inundate airport runways, roads, coastal homes and businesses. The cities claimed sea-level rise is being caused by a warming ocean and glacial melt from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels released when fossil fuels are burned.

The case was assigned to Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Alsup, who has a degree in mathematics, invited the parties to present a two-part tutorial on the subject of global warming and climate change “so the poor judge can learn some science — it helps to have science. This is a serious proposition to try to educate the judge.”

Alsup did not want politics in the tutorial, just the science. He requested the following two areas be addressed in the tutorial:

» “The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historical cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes and global warming. Each side will have 60 minutes. A horizontal timeline of major advances (and setbacks) would be welcomed.”

» “The second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise and coastal flooding. Each side will again have another 60 minutes.”

With these two subject areas, Alsup appeared interested to see some of the classic climate-skeptic arguments fought out, face to face, in his courtroom.

Before the hearing started, Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in New York City, told Earther Magazine that, while the hearing wasn’t to be a trial, and he didn’t think it would look like one, “this will be the first instance where these companies have to go on the record in response to a series of particular questions about climate science.”

“What will be different ...,” he said, “is that the fossil fuel companies have to go into court and respond to questions that get at arguments they and their representatives have relied on in one form or another for years, to question the degree of certainty around climate science.”

The hearing was conducted on March 28, 2018, in Alsup’s courtroom and lasted five hours. People lined up for hours before the courtroom doors were opened, and when they were opened, the courtroom became packed to standing-room only. A second courtroom was opened so that others could watch the presentations on closed-circuit TV.

As is normal, the cities, as plaintiffs, were first to give presentations. Myles Allen, an Oxford University geoystem science professor with more than 120 peer-reviewed articles involving different aspects of atmospheric science, outlined the early history and research regarding climate science.

Allen has worked for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for more than 20 years as a lead author on the third, fourth and fifth assessments.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

The assessments are status reports that provide an update on the knowledge of the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Thousands of scientists from countries all over the world do the work of the IPCC.

Allen told Alsup that the role of greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, as they affect the Earth’s temperature, has been known since the mid-1800s.

As greenhouse gas levels increase in the atmosphere, the atmosphere retains more infrared radiation, heating it up. As a consequence the Earth heats up as well.

“We’re seeing carbon dioxide levels rising to levels that have not been seen for over 20 million years,” Allen said. “They are now ... around 410 parts per million.”

In 1853, according to NASA data, the levels were 285 parts per million. In 165 years, CO2 levels have increased by 44 percent. Allen presented graphs dating from 1861 showing the monthly temperature of the Earth increasing with periodic swings in both directions.

Next, UC Santa Cruz earth sciences professor Gary Griggs, who has more than 190 peer-reviewed articles on oceanography, shoreline processes, coastal protection and hazard analysis, spoke about the relationship between climate change and sea level rise.

He explained the role of Earth’s changing orbit, axis tilt and wobble that has brought ice ages and past changes in climate. He also explained the role of what he called “positive feedback loops” and how they push climate change along.

For instance, as more CO2 is emitted, the heat trapping properties of the atmosphere increase, raising Earth’s temperature. As the temperature rises, glaciers and sea ice melt, exposing darker surfaces underneath.

Normally, glaciers and sea ice reflect and deflect the sun’s rays, keeping the land and ocean cold. But as they melt, the darker surfaces below are able to absorb heat, melting more glacial and sea ice, which creates a feedback loop.

In this way, glaciers and sea ice help to moderate Earth’s temperature by reflecting back the sun’s rays and keeping what’s below cold. Without them, the darker surfaces absorb heat and contribute to further heating of the planet.

Griggs also pointed out another feedback loop is created with the melting of permafrost.

Permafrost is frozen ground in the northern latitudes; including northern Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Trapped in permafrost is methane — another greenhouse gas, that is 84 times more potent than CO2. With global heating, permafrost melts — and is melting — releasing large quantities of methane into the atmosphere, which in turn further increases its heat-trapping capability that in turn leads to further increased temperatures.

In September 2019, National Geographic reported that methane was beginning to be released from Alaska and Siberia’s permafrost sooner than expected.

According to National Geographic, “Within a few decades, if we don’t curb fossil fuel use, permafrost could be as big a source of greenhouse gases as China, the world’s largest emitter, is today.”

Griggs then moved on to the subject of sea levels and sea-level rise. A 2018 report by the California Ocean Protection Council says that sea levels along the Pacific Coast are increasing at rates far sooner than have been predicted and that under a continued high greenhouse gas rate of emissions without reductions, sea levels are predicted to rise by 2.3 feet by 2050.

He said scientists are concerned about sea-level rise because 200 million people around the Earth live within 3 feet of a high tide, which is already rising today, and much of this population is centered along the coast or in major cities with a lot of infrastructure that will be at risk.

In Santa Barbara, the staff of the city’s Community Development Department reported in January 2020: “Although Santa Barbara has experienced a relatively small amount of sea-level rise to date from climate change, the rate of sea-level rise in the region is expected to accelerate significantly in upcoming years. The State of California’s current conservative sea-level rise projections for the Santa Barbara area are 0.8 feet by 2030, 2.5 feet by 2060, and 6.6 feet by 2100 (Ocean Protection Council, 2018). If no action is taken, 6.6 feet of sea-level rise could result in increased flooding and erosion hazards on more than 1,250 parcels in the city.”

Griggs then showed slides of what sea-level rise will mean for the Oakland International Airport. He told Alsup that an extra one foot of water would be disastrous to the airport and bay front areas of the East and South San Francisco Bay. During El Niño years, high tides can become even higher, causing an increase in sea level over that of global warming caused sea-level rise.

The next speaker for the cities was Don Wuebbles, a leading climate expert from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s Department of Atmospheric Science. He has published more than 500 peer-reviewed articles involving different aspects of atmospheric science and has been a co-author on numerous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, as well as the “Climate Science Special Report,” which he called the most comprehensive report of its kind ever conducted by the United States.

There have been four of these special reports since Congress passed the Global Change Research Act of 1990, the most current one published in 2017. These reports go through six levels of review; first by the public, then by the National Academy of Sciences, and finally by four U.S. agencies before they are released.

Wuebbles began his presentation with the following statements, supported by the most recent data:

“Our climate is changing, it’s changing very very rapidly, and it’s happening now,” he said. “About 10 times faster than any other changes we’ve seen since the end of the last ice age. So it’s very unusual, certainly in human experience. It’s not just the temperature that is changing, we’re seeing severe weather becoming more intense in many cases.

“We’ve had a lot of discussion today about sea-level rise and certainly sea level is rising. The evidence strongly indicates it’s largely happening because of human activities. The climate will continue to change over the coming decades, no matter what we do, but certainly our choices for the future could make a strong impact on just how large those changes are.”

Wuebbles presented examples of a number feedback loops, based on the publicly stated fact that over the last 50 years the global average temperature “has increased dramatically.” He added that even when factoring in the Medieval warm period and the little Ice Age, the current temperatures are well above anything the Earth has experienced in the last 2,000 years.

He also explained the changes in precipitation patterns that are occurring across the United States, coupled with the general warming trend, which are changes that “don’t happen evenly.”

According to Wuebbles, multiple lines of evidence support the existence of climate change: land and sea surface temperatures are increasing, lower atmosphere temperature is increasing, the heat content of the ocean is increasing, the average humidity of the atmosphere is increasing, the extent of Arctic sea ice is shrinking, as is the mass of the Earth’s glaciers.

These lines of evidence point to the same conclusion. The Earth is heating up.

In the courtroom Wuebbles described how climate change is affecting Americans to date. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been tracking what it refers to as “billion-dollar” events since 1980. These are weather- and climate-related events that cause at least $1 billion in infrastructure and crop-related damage.

Since 1980, the number of these events has been increasing, as well as their cost, in billions of dollars. Adjustments for inflation were made to the data set.

Wuebbles pointed to the increasing trends in California wildfires, which are bigger and burning hotter than ever before, a trend he says is expected to continue because the state is an area prone to drought, and dry periods are expected to increase in the Southwest and Southeast regions of the country. Across the United States, the fire season is now three months longer than it was 40 years ago.

With an increase in temperature, the atmosphere holds more moisture, which means more rain will fall when it does rain. This increases the risk of flooding in areas already prone to flood. Atlantic hurricanes are increasing in intensity because of warmer ocean temperatures, a trend that is also expected to continue.

Another trend: there are now more heat records than cold records. Seventeen out of the last 18 years on record are the warmest years since 1881. This is more proof that the Earth is heating up.

Chevron Presents Its Case
Of the fossil fuel industry, only Chevron gave a presentation, with representatives of four other oil companies in the audience. Chevron was represented by Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Boutrous did not deny the science behind climate change and based his presentation on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013. Allen, who had been the first presenter in this courtroom hearing, had been the lead author on the Fifth Assessment report. The assessments are status reports that provide an update on the knowledge of the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change.

“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” Boutrous said. “There’s no debate about climate science.”

He made the case that oil companies are not directly responsible for climate change.

Rather, he said, humanity’s larger economic decisions are to blame. Boutrous told Alsup that the “... IPCC does not say it’s the extraction of fossil fuels (that causes climate change), it’s the energy use — the economic activity — that generates emissions.”

He deflected the blame to users of fossil fuels. In other words, oil doesn’t cause climate change. People burning oil cause climate change.

With these admissions being made by Chevron, Alsup wanted to hear from the other oil companies in the courtroom. He ordered BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, all of which had been named in the lawsuit, but which had representatives at the hearing — to submit briefs within two weeks detailing any points of disagreement with Chevron.

“Otherwise, I’m going to assume you’re in agreement,” he said. “You can’t get away with sitting there in silence and then later say, (Boutrous) wasn’t speaking for us.”

Alsup told the attorneys for the other companies, “You have two weeks to tell me if he (Boutrous) said something you disagree with.”

The oil companies came back with the following:

ConocoPhillips: “ConocoPhillips Co. understands that Chevron Corp. based its March 21 global warming and climate change science tutorial presentation on the IPCC science assessments, and in particular the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report. ConocoPhillips Co. does not disagree with the points made in the Chevron Corp. tutorial presentation on March 21, 2018.”

Royal Dutch Shell: “Although Royal Dutch Shell does not necessarily adopt each statement contained in the various IPCC reports, RDS agrees that those reports are an appropriate source of information for the court to consider to further its understanding of the timeline and science surrounding climate change, and RDS does not disagree with Chevron’s presentation of that material.”

BP: “BP does not disagree with the tutorial presentation made by Chevron on March 21, 2018, and believes that it fairly responded to the court’s tutorial request and questions.”

ExxonMobil: “ExxonMobil offers this statement in response to the Court's order seeking an explanation regarding the extent to which ExxonMobil is aligned with statements made by counsel for Chevron:

“The risk of climate change is clear, significant and warrants comprehensive policies to understand and address the risk. The climate system is warming in part due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“Human activities, including the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas — and driven largely by population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy use, land use patterns, technology and climate policy — have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“IPCC assessment reports provide contemporaneous analyses of existing climate science research. The assessment reports are a reference point for understanding how scientific knowledge and confidence regarding human influence on climate have evolved over the past 30 years.”

In this manner, the oil companies attested to Alsup that they agreed with Chevron’s presentation and offered no corrections to the record. Royal Dutch Shell went further and told Alsup that “the IPCC reports collect and assess information from a wide variety of sources, including thousands of scientists around the globe, and present a broad-based consensus view regarding climate change science.”

This last statement is noteworthy coming from a large oil company, that a consensus view in fact does exist regarding climate change science.

ExxonMobil added its own significant statements into the record:

“The risk of climate change is clear, significant and warrants comprehensive policies to understand and address the risk ... The climate system is warming in part due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ... Human activities, including the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas — and driven largely by population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy use, land use patterns, technology and climate policy — have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

These are important and substantial statements by ExxonMobil in that the oil company is verifying human cause of climate change.

It is not coming from solar activity. It is not caused by the tilt of the Earth on its axis. It is not caused by volcanic activity.

Additionally, by agreeing that the IPCC reports present a broad-based consensus view of climate change science, the oil companies systematically and methodically nullified some common denials and skepticisms:

» Climate scientists are “in” on a climate hoax.

» There’s no 97 percent climate consensus.

» Climate change is just a “theory.”

» There is still “uncertainty” about climate change.

» There is still a “climate debate ... the science isn’t settled.”

» Temperature and CO2 levels are within the range of natural variation.

» How can we predict next year’s climate when we can hardly predict next week’s weather?

» We breathe out CO2 and plants need it, so how bad can CO2 be?

» The Earth is not warming up but if it is, it’s OK because it’s natural.

The significance of the oil companies’ statements and admissions in Alsup’s courtroom regarding climate change and sea-level rise was characterized by Jessica Wentz, a lawyer with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

After watching the entire hearing, she said, “You have (representatives) for fossil fuel companies on the record conceding the fundamentals of climate change. It could be the first time such a clear admission” that sea-level rise is linked to human activity (has been) presented in a court setting.

“When these biggest of the oil companies are willing to say, clearly and unambiguously, that man’s burning of fossil fuels warms the planet, it means the terms of debate have fundamentally shifted toward solutions to replacing our dependence on fossil fuels and finding the most reliable sources of renewable energy that will not jeopardize the habitability on the Earth,” Wentz said.

Alsup Issues An Order
Alsup, who had kept pace with the presentations in his courtroom, said the court “fully accepts the vast scientific consensus” that the burning of fossil fuels is leading to an increase in global temperatures to increase and to “accelerated sea-level rise.”

He said the following in his order:

“These actions arise out of a vital function of our atmosphere — its thermostat function — that is, keeping the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. The atmosphere hosts water vapor and certain trace gases without which heat at Earth’s surface would excessively radiate into space, leaving our planet too cold for life.

“One of those trace gases is carbon dioxide, a gas produced by, among other things, animal and human respiration, volcanoes and, more significantly here, combustion of fossil fuels like oil and natural gas.

“As heat radiates skyward, some of it passes close enough to molecules of carbon dioxide to be absorbed. These molecules then reradiate the energy in all directions, including back toward Earth’s surface. The more carbon dioxide in the air, the more this absorption and reradiation process warms the surface.

“It turns out, that even trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the air suffice to warm the atmosphere. The science dates back 120 years.

“In 1957, oceanographer Roger Revelle and chemist Hans Suess published a critique of a then prevailing view that the oceans would absorb excessive airborne carbon dioxide and thus reduce the risk of an atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide. Referring to the ongoing combustion of fossil fuels and release of carbon dioxide, they concluded: ‘(h)uman beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.’

“Even with this warning, the alarm bells over climate change did not sound until 1988, when the United Nations established the IPCC. Its main objective was to prepare — based on the best available scientific information — periodic assessments regarding all aspects of climate change, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies.

“... The IPCC completed its first assessment report in 1990 ... The report made a persuasive case for manmade interference with the climate system, and each subsequent report (about five to six years apart) incorporated advancements in measurements, observations, and modeling — and each presented a more precise picture of how our climate has changed, and what has changed it. The fifth assessment report, released in 2013, was abundantly clear:

“‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades and millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.’”

Alsup’s order goes on: “The report was also clear as to the cause, stating that it was ‘extremely likely’ that ‘human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.’”

Alsup acknowledged other causes at play.

“The science acknowledges that causes beyond the burning of fossil fuels are also at work,” he wrote. “Deforestation has been and remains a significant contributor to the rise in carbon dioxide. Others include volcanoes and wildfires in greater numbers.

“Nevertheless, even acknowledging these other contributions, climate scientists are in vast consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels has, in and of itself, materially increased carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has materially increased the median temperature of the planet, which in turn has accelerated ice melt and raised (and continues to raise) the sea level.”

In his order, Alsup concluded:

“The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise. In the last 120 years, the amount of carbon dioxide (and methane) in the air has increased, with most of the increase having come in recent decades.

“During that time, the median temperature of Earth has increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Glaciers around the world have been shrinking. Ice sheets over Greenland and Antarctica have been melting. The sea level has risen by about seven centimeters since 1993 (about seven to eight inches since 1900).

“As our globe warms and the seas rise, coastal lands in Oakland and San Francisco will, without erection of sea walls and other infrastructure, eventually become submerged by the navigable waters of the United States.

“This order fully accepts the vast scientific consensus that the combustion of fossil fuels has materially increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which in turn has increased the median temperature of the planet and accelerated sea-level rise.”

The 2017 courtroom drama in which Alsup insisted on answers from five of the largest investor-owned producers of fossil fuels in the world is historic.

Under questioning, did these companies not testify their responsibility for more than 11 percent of all carbon dioxide and methane pollution that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution? Did they not agree with the IPCC that it is 95 percent to 100 percent likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century?

It is now a matter of record that they did.

We as the human race can no longer look the other way at this impending calamity. For ourselves and for our children, the time to act is now.

Source: https://www.noozhawk.com/article/je...admit_to_contributing_climate_change_20201107.

 

[sweep_shot]

Farming faces 'historic' shift to cut greenhouse gas emissions

Tackling greenhouse gas emissions in farming will require the biggest change since the shift from horses to tractors, a report says.

The Farming for 1.5C inquiry looked at practical ways in which the industry could help tackle climate change.

Its report says methane from livestock must drop while improvements are needed in soil and fertiliser management through precision farming.

But it says farmers need financial help if they are to deliver improvements.

Agriculture accounted for 15% of Scotland's total emissions in 2018, according to the most recent Scottish government assessment.

However, the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere through land use and forestry is equal to 72% of agricultural emissions.

The transformation would be in five phases over 25 years but with some flexibility for farmers to choose their own speed of change.

The aim of the independent inquiry was to find a consensus on the best way for Scottish agriculture to reduce its emissions.

The panel was made up of farmers, scientists and environmentalists and was headed by the former NFU Scotland president Nigel Miller.

He told BBC Scotland: "Government is going to have to invest if it wants to see real change. It's not just investing in agriculture, it's investing in landscape and biodiversity.

For farmers, he said, it needs "a new mindset".

"We've got to think not just about producing food, we've also got to think more about managing carbon."

The report has come up with 15 recommendations including the creation of a transformation steering group.

Food additives
It says there needs to be technical and political clarity about what is expected of Scotland's agricultural land and businesses which goes beyond the five-year political cycle.

Highly potent methane from the digestion process in livestock needs to fall by 30%, it says, with nutrition and food additives helping to limit those emissions.

Integrating renewable energy into new electricity-powered farming technologies should be able to reduce fossil fuel use, it adds.

It also says there should be more "multifunctional land use" - such as agroforestry, where trees which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are planted in fields where livestock are kept.

By 2030, it says there needs to be a change of land use on all farms where some crop land is planted with grass or trees.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54844546.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate Change Will Make Parts of the U.S. Uninhabitable. Americans Are Still Moving There.

Instead of moving away from areas in climate crisis, Americans are flocking to them. As land in places like Phoenix, Houston and Miami becomes less habitable, the country’s migration patterns will be forced to change.

Over the past year, the advent of a professional economy powered by people working from home has quickened the conversation about where to live, particularly among millennials. “Is now the right time to buy property in Minnesota?” “Is Buffalo the new place to be?”

How important is proximity to fresh water? Should you risk moving somewhere that has fire seasons? How far north do you have to go to find liveable summers?

Americans have defied the norms of climate migration seen elsewhere in the world, flocking to cities like Phoenix, Houston and Miami that face some of the greatest risks from soaring temperatures and rising sea levels.

Those patterns seem likely to change.

New data from the Rhodium Group, analyzed by ProPublica, shows that climate damage will wreak havoc on the southern third of the country, erasing more than 8% of its economic output and likely turning migration from a choice to an imperative.

The data shows that the warming climate will alter everything from how we grow food to where people can plausibly live. Ultimately, millions of people will be displaced by flooding, fires and scorching heat, a resorting of the map not seen since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Now as then, the biggest question will be who escapes and who is left behind.

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/...ninhabitable-americans-are-still-moving-there.

 

[sweep_shot]

Hurricanes could reach farther inland due to climate change, study suggests

Storms will be 'bigger, stronger, and move longer distances,' ocean expert says

Hurricanes that make landfall are maintaining their strength longer because of climate change, a new study suggests, meaning such storms could have more of an impact than in the past.

The reason storms are maintaining their strength, according to researchers at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST), is the increase in sea surface temperatures.

A hurricane needs several things to form, the main one being warm water. When warm, moist air rises from that water, it's replaced by cooler air which in turn warms and rises. Clouds form and then, under the right conditions, begin to rotate with the spin of Earth. Given enough warm water, the cycle continues and a hurricane forms.

It's well understood that, because of climate change, ocean temperatures have risen. According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, between 1971 and 2010, sea surface temperatures rose by roughly 0.11 C and will continue to rise as the oceans take up roughly 90 per cent of the excess heat produced by a warming climate.

All of that translates into more fuel for hurricanes. And that means it takes hurricanes longer to run out of gas as they move inland.

"Fifty years ago, for a hurricane to decay [once it made landfall], it took 17 hours. Now, if the landfall is at the same intensity and every other thing is the same … it would take 33 hours," said Pinaki Chakraborty, a professor of fluid mechanics at OIST and co-author of the study, published in the journal Nature Research on Wednesday.

"So the time has almost doubled. Meanwhile, the hurricane is of course traveling inland, which means larger and larger areas are affected."

Anya Waite, a professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax and the CEO and scientific director of the Ocean Frontier Institute, says the findings don't surprise her too much, since it's well-known the role sea surface temperatures play in fuelling hurricanes. But, she said, it is something that Canadians will have to consider to prepare for the effects of climate change.

"We need to worry about risk further and further inland, as the ocean warms up," Waite said. "And that's scary because we're already worried on the coasts

"Now we have to worry that the line that we draw inland goes a lot further. That means that rainfall and wind and other effects and hurricanes are going to go into New Brunswick and much further inland than ever before."

Climatologist Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, says the findings are interesting, and that he looks forward to more followup.

The findings require "rigorous modelling efforts to establish the underlying mechanisms," he wrote in an email. "Since flooding is the major cause of death and destruction from landfalling tropical storms, this study suggests the potential for even greater risk than has been established in past studies."

Chakraborty agrees.

"I would most definitely think that many of the things that we are putting here, may very well be thoroughly revised over time," he said. "This is just a very first step onto something that was somehow missed in all the analysis done before. So I'm hoping more people will get interested."

Climate change and hurricanes
The effects of climate change on hurricanes isn't entirely clear, though the science is beginning to reveal more.

"What we know is that hurricanes are going to be bigger, stronger, and move longer distances as the ocean warms," said Waite. "And we also know that our contribution to that ocean warming is significant: the oceans absorb up to 50 per cent of the heat that we generate, and that is generated through climate change and through the greenhouse effect. So it's really a direct action that we can expect from our activities as greenhouse gas polluters."

While the 2020 hurricane season has been the busiest on record, with 30 named storms as of Tuesday, that is likely due to the influence of La Nina, a cooling of the ocean in the east Pacific that can have global effects.

Not all hurricanes make landfall, and less than half have this year.

"The most intense hurricanes did not make landfall," Chakraborty said. "And therefore, we have been lucky that the terrible effects of climate change are not communicated via hurricanes to us."

Rising ocean temperatures mean that more inland cities need to reconsider their planning in the face of climate change, he says.

Stronger hurricanes also mean more challenges for coastal communities.

"We can certainly look to our coasts intelligently. We can move our houses from the shoreline, which is very hard because we're emotionally attached to the shoreline; we don't want to let go of our cottage on the rocking outcrop," said Waite. "But if we don't do that then the insurance companies are going to be under stress. Because, who's going to pay for a flooded home?"

And that extends inland.

"[In the past] pretty much a day after the hurricane hits land, it's over," said Waite. "It could get as far as Ontario in a very, very unusual case."

But the new study shows that with warming ocean waters, that is set to change.

"Whereas now … you get several days of activity after leaving the ocean. That's really serious for us."

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/inland-hurricanes-climate-change-1.5797376.

 

[sweep_shot]

Australia forecasts prolonged wildfire seasons, more droughts from climate change

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's climate will continue to warm, resulting in prolonged wildfire seasons and less rain in the southeast and southwest that will lead to more frequent droughts, the country's weather bureau said on Friday.

Australia's changing climate patterns can be attributed to an increase in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere triggering more extreme weather events, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said in its biennial climate report.

Australia's climate has warmed on average by 1.44 degrees Celsius since 1910 and this will result in more wild fires, droughts, and marine heat waves, the report said.

"Climate change is influencing these trends through its impact on temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity, and the resulting change to the fuel moisture content," BoM scientist Karl Braganza said.

Fires razed more than 11 million hectares (37 million acres) of bushland across the southeast early this year, killing at least 33 people and billions of native animals - a disaster that Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Australia's "black summer".

Though COVID-19 lockdowns helped cut global emissions, they were not enough to reduce the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, said the report, prepared in collaboration with Australia's national science agency CSIRO.

Morrison has refused to match other developed countries in setting a target for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 but has said that the country, in line with the Paris accord, expects to reach net zero emissions after 2050.

Longer-lasting marine heat waves will raise the likelihood of more frequent bleaching events in coral reefs, including the Great Barrier reef.

"These trends, which are projected to continue in the coming decades, are already posing a significant threat to the long-term health and resilience of the coral reef ecosystems around Australia's coast," Director of CSIRO's Climate Science Centre Jaci Brown said.

(Reporting by Renju Jose; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

Source: https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/...ons-more-droughts-from-climate-change-519759/.

 

[sweep_shot]

Extra £40m for green spaces in England, Boris Johnson pledges

A further £40m is to be ploughed into green spaces in England as part of a plan to restore species and combat climate change.

The government says the cash will fund thousands of jobs in conservation.

The prime minister also promised new national parks and greater protections for England’s iconic landscapes.

Environmentalists welcomed the investment but said it was a fraction of what is needed to restore Britain’s depleted wildlife.

Boris Johnson said the scheme was part of his 10-point plan for combating climate change, which Downing Street said would be unveiled this week.

The plan has been widely leaked and it is thought to include a commitment to:

energy efficiency and heat for homes and business
offshore wind
the power system
nuclear – including small modular reactors
carbon capture storage
hydrogen
innovation funding for net-zero
transport
green financing
natural environment investment
Craig Bennett from the Wildlife Trusts said the new announcement did not really belong in the 10-point climate plan because it focused primarily on wildlife and landscape, rather than saving carbon emissions.

But Boris Johnson said the scheme was part of a plan for a green recovery post-Covid.

'Iconic landscapes'
Funding will go to environmental charities creating or restoring important habitats like peatland and wetland; preventing or cleaning up pollution; creating woodland; and helping people connect with nature.

The prime minister said this will in turn create and retain skilled and unskilled jobs, such as ecologists, project managers, tree planters and teams to carry out nature restoration.

The projects could give a home to species that flourished in similar initiatives across the country, including the curlew, nightingale, horseshoe bat, pine marten, red squirrel and wild orchids.

Mr Johnson said: “Britain’s iconic landscapes are part of the fabric of our national identity - sustaining our communities, driving local economies and inspiring people across the ages.

“That’s why, with the natural world under threat, it’s more important than ever that we act now to enhance our natural environment and protect our precious wildlife and biodiversity.”

There are currently 10 national parks in England - including the South Downs, Lake District and Peak District - as well as 34 areas of outstanding national beauty (AONB).

The government says the process for designating new national parks and AONB will start next year.

And 10 long-term "landscape recovery" projects will be initiated between 2022 and 2024 to restore wilder landscapes.

'Enormous task'
Mr Bennett, from the Wildlife Trusts, said: "Of course this is welcome, but it’s a tiny amount compared with what’s needed.

“A previous promise of £40m was over-subscribed seven times over.

“The government has pledged to protect 30% of the countryside by 2030, but at the moment only 5% is protected for wildlife. We need £1bn every year for this enormous task.

“If the government was really serious about this they’d be creating a delivery authority like the one they created to deliver the Olympics”.

Tony Juniper, head of the government agency Natural England, said: "I warmly welcome this as part of the delivery of the National Nature Recovery Network - and I’m really pleased to have all this coming from the PM.”

The government has slashed funding for his organisation body, and earlier this week he told MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee that its current funding is below the level required to carry out statutory duties to a good standard.

Mr Juniper said taking action to protect species at risk of extinction, ceasing management duties for National Nature Reserves and engaging only a small number of planning authorities to support landscape and biodiversity activities are some of the areas where Natural England has had to scale back support.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54947577.

 

[sweep_shot]

Controversy over study claiming global warming will continue no matter what

PARIS -- Even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, Earth will warm for centuries to come and oceans will rise by metres, according to a controversial modelling study published Thursday.

Natural drivers of global warming -- more heat-trapping clouds, thawing permafrost, and shrinking sea ice -- already set in motion by carbon pollution will take on their own momentum, researchers from Norway reported in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.

"According to our models, humanity is beyond the point-of-no-return when it comes to halting the melting of permafrost using greenhouse gas cuts as the single tool," lead author Jorgen Randers, a professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School, told AFP.

"If we want to stop this melting process we must do something in addition -- for example, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground, and make Earth's surface brighter."

Using a stripped-down climate model, Randers and colleague Ulrich Goluke projected changes out to the year 2500 under two scenarios: the instant cessation of emissions, and the gradual reduction of planet warming gases to zero by 2100.

In an imaginary world where carbon pollution stops with a flip of the switch, the planet warms over the next 50 years to about 2.3 C above pre-industrial levels -- roughly half a degree above the target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement -- and cools slightly after that.

Earth's surface today is 1.2 C hotter than it was in the mid-19th century, when temperatures began to rise.

But starting in 2150, the model has the planet beginning to gradually warm again, with average temperatures climbing another degree over the following 350 years, and sea levels going up by at least three metres.

Under the second scenario, Earth heats up to levels that would tear at the fabric of civilisation far more quickly, but ends up at roughly the same point by 2500.

'TIPPING POINTS'
The core finding -- contested by leading climate scientists -- is that several thresholds, or "tipping points", in Earth's climate system have already been crossed, triggering a self-perpetuating process of warming, as has happened millions of years in the past.

One of these drivers is the rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic.

Since the late 20th century, millions of square kilometres of snow and ice -- which reflects about 80 percent of the Sun's radiative force back into space -- have been replaced in summer by open ocean, which absorbs the same percentage instead.

Another source is the thawing of permafrost, which holds twice as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere. The third is increasing amounts of water vapour, which also has a warming effect.

Reactions from half a dozen leading climate scientists to the study -- which the authors acknowledge is schematic -- varied sharply, with some saying the findings merit follow-up research, and others rejecting it out of hand.

"The model used here is ... not shown to be a credible representation of the real climate system," said Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the University of Exeter.

"In fact, it is directly contradicted by more established and extensively evaluated climate models."

Mark Maslin, a professor of climatology at University College London, also pointed to shortcomings in the model, known as ESCIMO, describing the study as a "thought experiment."

"What the study does draw attention to is that reducing global carbon emissions to zero by 2050" -- a goal championed by the UN and embraced by a growing number of countries -- "is just the start of our actions to deal with climate change."

Even the more sophisticated models used in the projections of the UN's scientific advisory body, the IPCC, show that the Paris climate pact temperature goals cannot be reached unless massive amounts of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere.

One way to do that is planting billions of trees. Experimental technologies have shown that sucking CO2 out of the air can be done mechanically, but so far not at the scale required.

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-...arming-will-continue-no-matter-what-1.5189836.

 

[sweep_shot]

Veteran Investor Appeals to Putin to Do Better on Climate Change

(Bloomberg) -- Backed into a catch-22 situation on green investing, veteran emerging-market money manager Elena Loven made a public plea to the one man who could help: Vladimir Putin.

Her dilemma is one felt by investors everywhere with pressure mounting to keep pension and insurance money out of companies, and countries, that contribute to global warming. But what do you do if the fund you manage can only invest in a country like Russia, where many listed companies are in the business of digging up and selling fossil fuels?

“The weighting of oil, gas and metals companies in the market is so big in Russia that you can’t avoid those stocks,” Loven, who manages $1.1 billion in Russia and Eastern Europe stock funds at Swedbank Robur, told Putin at an online investment forum. “I want to know how much big companies will contribute to complying with the Paris Agreement and global targets for carbon neutrality.”

Her direct approach came at the end of a 2 1/2 hour Q&A session on Oct. 29 and wasn’t the first question on the climate policies of the world’s fourth-biggest carbon emitter. The issue is “very important,” Putin said, adding that Russia’s biggest companies will play a part in helping the nation achieve its climate goals.

That may not come as a great reassurance. The Kremlin bases its commitments under the Paris Agreement on a year when Russia was a part of the Soviet Union and produced far more pollution than it does today, effectively allowing it to increase carbon emissions by 2030. Research group Climate Action Tracker ranks Russia’s preparedness to meet the Paris objectives “critically insufficient.”

Swedbank Robur is aiming for its entire managed portfolio to be in line with the Paris Agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in 2025, and with zero emissions for the entire portfolio by 2040.

Energy and materials companies make up nearly 60% of the Moex Russia Index, compared to just under 12% of the benchmark MSCI emerging-markets index. Russia’s biggest energy firms plan to expand production in the coming decades and, unlike their peers in Europe, haven’t pledged to transition to renewables.

Seven days after his comments at the conference, Putin signed a decree ordering the government to work toward meeting the Paris Agreement, but not changing Russia’s unambitious target.

Loven, who grew up in Moscow and has managed Russia and Eastern-Europe funds in Sweden for most of the past 15 years, said in a phone interview last week that Putin’s response to her question shows the government is making “sincere attempts” to improve. But she added that Russia is still far from adhering to the Paris Agreement, which calls for companies to transition away from fossil fuels.

“In Europe it is quite straightforward: you can’t invest in a fossil fuel company unless it has promised and has a clear agenda to transform into something more sustainable,” she said. “For an investor with a focus on environmental, social and governance factors, Russia is becoming less and less attractive.”

Source: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/veteran...utin-to-do-better-on-climate-change-1.1523408.

 

[sweep_shot]

British Airways to launch Covid testing trial for arrivals

British Airways is to launch a voluntary Covid-19 test for passengers travelling to the UK from three US airports.

The airline wants to persuade governments that testing travellers will make quarantining unnecessary.

American Airlines is also taking part in the trial, which follows a similar effort by United Airlines.

The government is looking at how testing can reduce the time travellers to the UK need to self-isolate.

British Airways owner IAG has long criticised the 14-day quarantine imposed on arrivals, saying it deters people from flying and damages airlines.

It is also trying to convince the US government to open its borders to UK nationals, who have been barred since March.

The trial begins on 25 November and will be free to eligible customers on three flights:

American Airlines flight AA50 from Dallas Fort Worth to Heathrow
British Airways flight BA268 from Los Angeles to Heathrow
And British Airways flight BA114 from New York John F. Kennedy to Heathrow.
Customers will be tested 72 hours before their trip, as well as during and after travelling.

If they test positive before travelling, they will have to reschedule or cancel their flight, but will be able to rebook at a later date without a fee.

The trial will run to mid-December, and British Airways would like to test 500 passengers.

Boss chief executive Sean Doyle, who was parachuted into the role in October, said: "If we have a testing formula it gives people certainty from which they can plan."

He added that he was "confident" the airline would demonstrate that a test three days before flying would make quarantining unnecessary.

Heathrow is already offering rapid coronavirus tests for people travelling to destinations where proof of a negative result is required on arrival.

It comes as airlines struggle with a massive slump in demand that has cost the industry $84.3bn (£64bn) in lost sales globally this year.

The UK government has set up a taskforce to look at how tests could reduce the quarantine period for people flying to the UK, but it says travellers would still need to isolate for a number of days.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "The government's Global Travel Taskforce is working at pace, with clinicians, devolved administrations and the travel industry to develop measures as quickly as possible to protect air connectivity and consider how testing could be used to reduce the self-isolation period."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54971144.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Warmer winters linked to increased drowning risk

Winter activities on ice are becoming increasingly dangerous as the world warms, scientists say.

When researchers looked at data on drowning accidents in largely frozen lakes or rivers, they saw a "strong correlation" to rising temperatures.

They found that deaths from drowning were five times higher when warmer weather made the ice thinner and weaker.

Children aged under nine years and younger adults were most at risk.

For indigenous peoples in many northern regions of the world, livelihoods often depend on access to frozen lakes in winter for hunting, fishing and travel.

In countries like the US, Canada and Russia, winter leisure activities such as skating or tobogganing on ice are also hugely popular.

But as the world warms, winter ice is becoming less stable and scientists believe it poses a greater threat of accidental drowning.

Canadian researchers looked at data on 4,000 drowning events in 10 countries over three decades since the 1990s.

They found that higher temperatures were a good predictor of the number of deaths by drowning.

"We can confidently say that there is a quite a strong correlation between warmer winter air temperatures and more winter drownings," said study leader Sapna Sharma, from York University in Toronto, Canada.

"Almost half of the winter drownings were associated with warmer temperatures."

The researchers collated data from official sources including coroner's offices. They were able to compare these figures to longstanding records from lakes showing when ice formed and melted each winter.

Canada and the US had the highest number of drownings related to ice, an issue that was particularly acute among indigenous communities further north.

The use of snowmobiles on lakes was associated with many of the lake fatalities.

One of the saddest aspects of the study was the fact that many of the victims were very young.

"We found that almost half of those drowned in Minnesota where there was no vehicle involved were children under nine years old," said Sapna Sharma.

"They were playing on the ice, tobogganing or ice skating and they just weren't able to recognise when the ice was unsafe. They may not have recognised that slushy ice or a little open patch of water could be so fatal."

Even where lake or river accidents weren't deadly, they often had life-changing results.

In cold water accidents where children suffered cardiac arrest, some 90% also experienced significant neurological damage - and only 27% were alive a year later.

However, some countries have managed to limit the number of drownings during winter, including Germany and Italy.

Local laws prohibit the use of snowmobiles on lakes and activities like skating are often limited until local authorities deem the ice to be safe.

Education is also seen to be a key element. According to Barbara Byers from the Canadian Lifesaving Society, people just don't recognise the personal threat that a changing climate can pose.

"People think that ice is ice but appearances can be deceiving," she told BBC News.

"People may think it's cold out, the ice must be fine but it really is the quality of the ice or the type of ice that's really important.

"Ice now gets frozen and thawed and when that happens there's water in-between the layers of the ice. So it may look hard and frozen, but it's not."

Researchers say that despite efforts to educate, they expect that drowning events will likely increase in the future.

They are particularly worried about this winter, as people may be spending more time outdoors due to the pandemic, with potentially fatal results.

"Everything's closed right now, and more people are spending time in nature and where they might not have done so before," said Sapna Sharma.

"This year, it's forecast to be a warmer, wetter winter in Canada, so in combination with more people going outside that could be that could be quite dangerous."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54989046.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Can sending fewer emails really save the planet?

Are you the type of person who always says thank you? Well, if it's by email, you should stop, according to UK officials looking at ways to save the environment.

The Financial Times reports that we may all soon be encouraged to send one fewer email a day, cutting out "useless" one-line messages - such as "thanks".

Doing so "would save a lot of carbon", one official involved in next year's COP26 climate summit in Glasgow said.

But would it really make a huge difference?

Why do emails produce carbon at all?
Most people tend to think of the internet as a cloud that exists outside their computing hardware. But the reality is when you send an email - or anything else - it goes along a chain of energy-burning electronics.

Your wi-fi router sends the signal along wires to the local exchange - the green box on the street corner - and from there to a telecoms company, and from there to huge data centres operated by the tech giants. Each of those runs on electricity, and it all adds up.

But a single email's effect on such massive infrastructure is tiny.

Are my emails a big environmental problem?
The Financial Times report says the officials promoting this idea referred to a press release from renewable electricity firm Ovo Energy from one year ago.

It claimed that if every British person sent one fewer thank you email a day, it would save 16,433 tonnes of carbon a year, equivalent to tens of thousands of flights to Europe.

The problem, however, is that even if the sums involved roughly worked out, it would still be a splash in the pond.

The UK's annual greenhouse gas emissions were 435.2 million tonnes in 2019 - so the amount in question here is about 0.0037% of the national picture. And that's if every single British person reduced their email output.

Mike Berners-Lee, a respected professor on the topic whose research was used in the Ovo Energy work, told the Financial Times it was based on "back-of-the-envelope" maths from 2010 - and while useful to start conversations, there were bigger questions.

On top of that, the estimate of how much carbon an email generates "takes into account absolutely everything involved", according to Chris Preist, professor of sustainability and computer systems at the University of Bristol.

It tries to include the energy used by servers, your home wi-fi, your laptop - even a very small share of the carbon emitted to construct the data centre buildings.

"The reality is that a lot of the system will still have impact, whether or not the email is sent," Prof Preist explains.

"Your laptop will still be on, your wi-fi will still be on, your home internet connection will still be on, the wider network will still use roughly the same amount of energy even with a reduction in volume.

"There will be a small saving in the data centre hosting the email, particularly if it allows them to use a few less servers. But the carbon saved will be far far less than 1g per email."

What can make a difference?
Rather than worrying about relatively low-impact emails, some researchers suggest we should turn our attention to services such as game and video-streaming and cloud storage which have a much larger effect.

But the topic is immensely complicated, and there is a debate about how estimates should be calculated - and who should be responsible for it.

Big tech firms such as Google, for example, are already proudly carbon-neutral: they pay subsidies for environmental projects to offset the carbon they burn providing your emails - and other services like YouTube.

"What really makes a difference is buying less kit, and keeping it for longer," Prof Preist explains. "But even this is small fry compared with your travel, heating your home, and what you eat."

He said consumers should focus their "eco-guilt" on things that make a difference - and not sweat the small stuff.

"That is the job of the companies providing the services, who should be designing their systems to deliver services in as energy and resource efficient way as possible."

His advice on email etiquette and thank you messages?

"Send an email if you feel that the other person will value it, and don't if they won't," he said.

"The biggest 'waste' both from an environmental and personal point of view will be the use of time by both of you."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55002423.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change has some bumblebees climbing up mountains, worrying scientists

TORONTO -- Along the border of France and Spain, bumblebees are moving on up.

Researchers tracked bumblebees in the Pyrenees mountain range, and found that they are moving to higher latitudes – nearly 130 metreshigher than they were in the late 19th century, on average.

Climate change appears to be a key driver of this vertical migration. The Pyrenees have warmed significantly over the past century-plus, leading to changes in where certain plants can be found – and bringing along the bumblebees that rely on those plants.

In the video at the top of this article, CTV News Science and Technology Specialist Dan Riskin explains why scientists are concerned the bumblebees' great leap upward could ultimately cause them to disappear.

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-...ng-up-mountains-worrying-scientists-1.5195693.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate pledge on gas boilers for 2023 'vanishes'

The prime minister’s pledge to ban gas boilers from new homes by 2023 has been withdrawn.

The promise first appeared on the Downing Street website this week attached to Mr Johnson’s climate plan.

But the date was later amended, with the PM’s office claiming a “mix-up”.

The original statement from Number 10 announced this goal; "2023 - Implement a Future Homes Standard for new homes, with low carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency.”

That means no room for gas central heating, which is a major contributor to the emissions over-heating the climate.

The latest version of the 10-point climate plan on the Number 10 website includes the line: "Homes built to Future Homes Standard will be ‘zero carbon ready’ and have 70-80% lower carbon emissions than those built to current standards."

Crucially there’s no target attached to the new version of the policy - the 2023 date has disappeared.

A Downing Street spokesperson told BBC News there had been a “mix-up”, saying: “The government wants to implement the measures under the Future Homes Standard in the shortest possible timeline.

“We’ve consulted on introducing this by 2025 and will set out further details in due course.”

But Andrew Warren from the British Energy Efficiency Federation said: “It’s unbelievable to think there would have been a ‘mix-up’ on a really important prime minister’s document like this.

“Are we expected to believe they can't tell the difference between a 3 and a 5? Here we go again.”

Mr Warren harked back to 2015, when the government was preparing to introduce a zero-carbon home standard.

At the last minute, the home-builder Persimmon lobbied the Chancellor George Osborne to get the measure scrapped.

Persimmon said the standard would make homes unaffordable, but engineers said better-insulated homes saved money on bills.

If homes are well insulated they can also use low-energy electric heat pumps, which suck warmth from the surrounding ground or air – a bit like a fridge in reverse.

Hydrogen will also be used to heat some low-carbon homes, although it’s expensive, so it’s not ideal for poorly insulated houses.

Timeline
2011-12 Government agrees standards for zero-carbon new homes - and sets implementation date for 2016
2015 House-builder lobbies against standards, and government delays - with no suggestion of a new date
2019 Government announces consultation for Future Homes Standard, with a view to 2025 implementation date
2020 PM announces regulations will be brought forward to 2023 (from 2025). But the date soon disappears from website.
Presentational white space
Mr Warren added: “Some of the major house-builders simply don’t want to change the way they build homes. They have a plan for building and they want to stick with it.”

A spokesperson for the Home Builders Federation rejected that. He said: "The industry is committed to deliver its carbon saving objectives as soon as can be realistically achieved.

"The Future Homes Standard contains ambitious deadlines that pose enormous challenges for all parties involved including developers, suppliers, energy companies in terms of skills, design, energy infrastructure and the supply chain.

"We will continue to engage to ensure requirements are realistic and deliverable - but any proposals to advance the timetables already set out (for 2025) would cause significant concern."

A Persimmon spokesperson said it hadn't contacted the government to get the 2023 date removed.

Joe Giddings from the Architects Climate Action Network told BBC News: "The industry needs to halve emissions by 2030. As such, the more ambitious timeline for 2023 was welcome - we called for this when the government ran its consultation earlier this year.

“To see this ambition speedily retracted is frustrating and will set the industry back.”

He said the 10-point plan should include not just emissions from heating and cooking, but also the emissions from building a new property.

More and more architects are urging the government to reduce demolition and re-building to reduce construction emissions.

Alan Whitehead MP, shadow minister for energy and the green new deal, said: "It's deeply worrying the Government is already rowing back on one of its key pledges and can't make its mind up on the future of home heating.

"Boris Johnson's low-carbon 10-point plan is already falling to pieces within just days of being announced with one commitment mysteriously vanishing and government admitting that only £3bn of the funding is new."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55020558.

 

[sweep_shot]

New rules for Arctic shipping 'a missed opportunity'

The International Maritime Organization has passed a series of restrictions on ships which use and transport heavy grade oils.

It hopes these will help protect the lands, communities and wildlife of the Arctic.

But the new rules include a series of waivers and exemptions for ships from Arctic coastal states.

The decision has been condemned by environmentalists as a "massive missed opportunity".

Heavy fuel oil (HFO) is widely used to power commercial ships. HFO's have been banned in Antarctic waters since 2011 over fears that oil spills could cause pollution.

Dr Sian Prior, from the Clean Arctic Alliance, said the IMO and its member states "must take collective responsibility for failing to put in place true protection of the Arctic, indigenous communities and wildlife from the threat of heavy fuel oil".

The IMO's plan "would allow 74% of HFO-fuelled ships to keep using HFO in the Arctic," said Dr Bryan Comer, from the International Council for Clean Transportation.

"(It) would result in a reduction of HFO carried of just 30% and a cut in black carbon emissions of only 5%," he added.

And John Maggs, senior policy advisor at Seas at Risk said: "A 'ban' that affects just a quarter of ships is not a ban at all."

A coalition of green groups had proposed a much tougher set of restrictions but they were rejected by delegates.

HFO produces emissions of harmful pollutants, including sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxides, and black carbon. Furthermore, an accident which resulted in an HFO spill from a ship could wreak havoc on the Arctic's fragile ecosystem.

Analysts say with the amount of sea ice reducing in the Arctic, more and more ships will use the Northern Sea Route.

The new restrictions, which will come into force in July 2024, aim to reduce the number of ships that can use and transport HFO in the Arctic.

But included are a whole string of exclusions and waivers for ships that carry the flag of the five central Arctic coastal countries (Russia, Norway, Denmark (Greenland), Canada and the US) until July 2029.

Russia has the largest number of vessels in the Arctic area. It told IMO delegates that the NGO proposal was "irresponsible".

Earlier this month, Norway announced its own proposed HFO ban from all the waters around the Arctic island archipelago of Svalbard.

"This is yet another sad day for the Arctic," said Sigurd Enge, manager of Shipping, Marine and Arctic Issues, Bellona.

"The Arctic environment is threatened from all sides, from climate change, toxic contamination, plastic pollution, oil exploration and other extractive industries. What the Arctic needs now is better protection and bold politicians."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55022257.

 

[sweep_shot]

Switzerland calls for climate-friendly economic recovery from Covid-19

(MENAFN - Swissinfo) Swiss president Simonetta Sommaruga has called on industrialised nations to concentrate on combating climate change as the world seeks to recover from the coronavirus pandemic. Sommaruga, who holds the rotating Swiss presidency this year, made her comments at a virtual G20 summit this weekend.



This content was published on November 22, 2020 - 19:21 November 22, 2020 - 19:21 swissinfo.ch/mga
At the invitation of Saudi Arabia, guest nation Switzerland has this year been invited for the first time to contribute to the full range of activities of the G20 most powerful countries.

The latest discussion focused on ways to deal with Covid-19 and how to enable a sustainable economic recovery.

'A strong and lasting recovery calls for actions that are also well-aligned with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement,' said Sommaruga on Saturday. 'Short-term actions must reinforce longer-term policies to build a more sustainable, inclusive and prosperous future.'

'2020 and 2021 are crucial years in our fight against climate change. We urge all G20 members to aim for net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest,' she added.

Source: https://menafn.com/1101166989/Switzerland-calls-for-climate-friendly-economic-recovery-from-Covid-19.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Covid pandemic has little impact on rise in CO2

The global response to the Covid-19 crisis has had little impact on the continued rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, says the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

This year carbon emissions have fallen dramatically due to lockdowns that have cut transport and industry severely.

But this has only marginally slowed the overall rise in concentrations, the scientists say.

The details are published in the WMO's annual greenhouse gas bulletin.

This highlights the concentrations of warming gases in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gas concentrations are the cumulative result of past and present emissions of a range of substances, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Through the Paris Agreement, countries are trying to reduce emissions of these pollutants which are generated through, for example, the burning of fossil fuels.

These greenhouse gases trap heat close to the Earth's surface, driving up temperatures. This planetary warming threatens global food supplies, makes weather events - such as tropical storms and heatwaves - more extreme and increases the risk of flooding caused by sea level rise.

CO2 levels are measured in parts per million (ppm) - an indication of their overall atmospheric abundance.

According to the WMO, the global average in 2019 was 410.5ppm, an increase of 2.6ppm over 2018. This was larger than the increase from 2017 to 2018 and bigger than the average over the past decade.

Thanks to lockdowns in early 2020, carbon emissions fell by 17% at their peak, but the overall effect on concentrations has been very small.

Preliminary estimates suggest that CO2 will continue to increase this year but that rise will be reduced by 0.08 to 0.23ppm.

This falls within the 1ppm natural variability that occurs from year to year.

"We breached the global threshold of 400 parts per million in 2015, and just four years later, we crossed 410 ppm, such a rate of increase has never been seen in the history of our records," said WMO secretary general, Prof Petteri Taalas.

"The lockdown-related fall in emissions is just a tiny blip on the long-term graph. We need a sustained flattening of the curve," he said.

While there isn't an overall figure for 2020 concentrations, individual monitoring stations show that the rise has continued this year despite the pandemic.

Monthly average CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa in Hawaii - a key atmospheric monitoring station, where carbon dioxide data is gathered - were 411.29ppm in September 2020, up from 408.54 the previous year.

Similarly, at Cape Grim in Tasmania, another key air pollution measurement station, September 2020 saw CO2 concentrations reach 410.8ppm - up from 408.58 in 2019.

While there are no details of methane levels for 2020, concentrations of that gas also went up in 2019.

Methane concentrations increased by more than the average over the past decade, although the increase was slightly lower than in previous years.

More than half of the methane emitted comes from human activities such as raising cattle, growing rice and drilling for oil and gas.

Concentrations of nitrous oxide grew by about the average of the past decade. Emissions come from agriculture, energy and waste management. This gas damages the ozone layer as well as contributing to global warming.

While the Covid-19 pandemic hasn't slowed down the increase in concentrations of all these warming gases in the atmosphere, the decline in emissions in the early part of this year shows what's possible.

"The Covid-19 pandemic is not a solution for climate change," said Prof Taalas.

"However, it does provide us with a platform for more sustained and ambitious climate action to reduce emissions to net zero [balancing out any emissions by absorbing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere] through a complete transformation of our industrial, energy and transport systems.

"The needed changes are economically affordable and technically possible and would affect our everyday life only marginally."

Meteorologists expect CO2 levels to vary by 1ppm between years due to natural fluctuations in the climate - for reasons other than human releases of carbon.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55018581.

 

[sweep_shot]

'Hello Greta!': Justin Trudeau 'fields call from pranksters'

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has joined a growing list of public figures targeted by pranksters posing as climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Audio of Mr Trudeau speaking to an accomplice of pranksters Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov in January has been released by the pair.

The prime minister apparently fielded questions from the fake Ms Thunberg, on Nato, world peace and Donald Trump.

"This is not the first prank call of a world leader," his office said.

"The Prime Minister determined the call was fake and promptly ended it," Mr Trudeau's office said in a statement.

"Hello Greta!" the recording begins.

"I understand that you have a lot of work and not so much time to talk to a young girl, but I'm very concerned about the growing international crisis," the impersonator responds.

Days before the recording, Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 had been shot down after taking off from the Iranian capital of Tehran, amid escalating tensions between Iran and the US. All passengers and crew on board the flight were killed, including 57 Canadian citizens.

Mr Trudeau told the fake Ms Thunberg that he had received "many many phone calls" on the subject talking about "de-escalation on all sides".

The fake Ms Thunberg then told Mr Trudeau that he and other world leaders "are adults, but you act like children".

"Leave Nato, drop your weapons, pick flowers, smile at nature," she said.

Taking the increasingly strange comments in stride, Mr Trudeau applauded the fake Ms Thunberg for her "perspective" and "passionate words".

Asked about US President Donald Trump - whom she described with an expletive - Mr Trudeau replied that his responsibility was to "work with world leaders that other people choose".

"I can certainly understand that people can feel very, very strongly about him," Mr Trudeau said.

Mr Kuznetsov and Mr Stolyarov have previously targeted Elton John, Prince Harry, and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris for pranks.

In 2018 they called then-UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, pretending to be the prime minister of Armenia.

Critics have accused the pair of being linked to Russian security services, which they deny.

"We only choose the subjects we are interested in ourselves," Mr Kuznetsov told the Guardian in 2016.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55062943.

 

[MenInG]

US President-elect Joe Biden has said outreach from the White House over the transition has been "sincere".

"It has not been begrudging so far, and I don't expect it to be," he told NBC News in an interview.

He spoke as he unveiled his choice of top officials for when he takes over from Donald Trump in January.

Mr Trump finally agreed to allow the formal transition process to begin on Monday, nearly three weeks after the presidential election.

Yet he still refuses to admit defeat, repeating unsubstantiated claims that the 3 November vote was "rigged".

What did Biden say exactly?

Speaking to NBC's Nightly News, he confirmed he had not yet spoken to the president but added that he did not expect the beginning of his term to be affected by the delay in beginning the transition.

Could Biden's win doom this town?What Biden's new foreign policy team tells usWhat is the presidential transition?

"It's a slow start but it's starting and there's two months left to go, so I'm feeling good about the ability to be able to get up to speed," he said.

There were, he said, plans for him to meet the Covid-19 task force in the White House about vaccine distribution and access.

As well as getting the Presidential Daily Brief - an update on international threats and developments - Mr Biden can now access key government officials and millions of dollars in funds as he prepares to take over on 20 January.

media captionBiden: "It’s a team that reflects the fact that America is back"

Barack Obama's former vice-president said that his time in office would not be a "third Obama term" because "we face a totally different world than we faced in the Obama-Biden administration".

"America is back" and "ready to lead the world, not retreat from it", he said when he introduced his future team.

He also told reporters he had discussed the Irish border issue with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other leaders.

media captionBiden: "We've just got to keep the border open" between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

US doesn't want guarded border on Ireland - BidenThe 310-mile border at the heart of Brexit

Mr Biden, who has Irish heritage, said he was against a guarded border, arguing it must be kept open: "The idea of having the border north and south once again being closed, it's just not right."

 

[sweep_shot]

Canada: Going Green: Recent Climate Change And Energy Developments

While Canada, along with the rest of the world, continues its efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic, several recent federal and provincial announcements have confirmed that government has not lost sight of the threat posed by global climate change.

Federal Target Net-Zero by 2050
On November 19, Canada took legislative action to affirm its 2019 commitment to target "net-zero" greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, calls for the government to establish GHG emissions targets and reduction plans for milestone years: 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. Although no details have been released, the 2030 target and associated reduction plan are to be established within six months of the legislation coming into force. Subsequent targets and plans are due at least five years prior to the relevant milestone year.

The government will provide an opportunity for the provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, a special advisory board formed under the legislation, and any other interested person to comment on all emission-reduction targets and plans. There are no penalties or other consequences under Bill C-12 for any failure to meet a reduction target or properly implement a reduction plan.

Ontario to Develop a Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy
Also on November 19, Ontario released a discussion paper proposing the development of a low-carbon hydrogen strategy that would further Ontario's 2018 goal of reducing provincial GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The government has identified hydrogen as a lower-carbon alternative to fuels used in Ontario's transportation systems, buildings and industries. Ontario is in the early stages of developing a low-carbon hydrogen strategy, and proposes to conduct public consultations until January 18, 2021.

Alberta to Develop a Natural Gas Strategy
In October, Alberta published Natural Gas Vision and Strategy, announcing its intention to further develop its natural gas sector and pursue access to new markets. Pledging a "whole of government" focus, the strategy seeks to attract investment and deploy natural gas to petrochemical, liquefied natural gas and hydrogen markets. In particular, Alberta aims to achieve large-scale hydrogen production and deployment across the province by 2030 and to other jurisdictions by 2040. Partnership opportunities under a federal hydrogen strategy are being considered.

Québec's 2030 Plan for a Green Economy
On November 16, Québec unveiled the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy (2030 PGE), reiterating its commitment to reduce GHG emissions in the province by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030 and paving the way to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050. Rollout of the 2030 PGE will be outlined in a five-year implementation plan, updated annually, the first of which has already been released. Backed by a budget of $6.7 billion over the next five years, the 2030 PGE is an electrification and climate change policy framework, focusing on the electrification of the Québec economy and adaptation to climate change. The 2030 PGE mainly targets the transportation sector, and aims to develop an industrial ecosystem focusing on electric vehicles, charging infrastructure and batteries. Measures under the 2030 PGE will include incentives for electric vehicles and charging stations, investments to support projects aimed at reducing GHG emission from industrial activities and building heating, efforts to increase the production of bio energy and green hydrogen, as well as financial support relating to flood risk prevention and to the reduction of coastal erosion and landslides.

Source: https://www.mondaq.com/canada/oil-g...recent-climate-change-and-energy-developments.

 

[sweep_shot]

Polar scientists wary of impending satellite gap

There is going to be a gap of several years in our ability to measure the thickness of ice at the top and bottom of the world, scientists are warning.

The only two satellites dedicated to observing the poles are almost certain to die before replacements are flown.

This could leave us blind to some important changes in the Arctic and the Antarctic as the climate warms.

The researchers have raised their concerns with the European Commission and the European Space Agency.

A letter detailing the problem - and possible solutions - was sent to leading EC and Esa officials this week; and although the US space agency (Nasa) has not formally been addressed, it has been made aware of the correspondence.

At issue is the longevity of the European CryoSat-2 and American IceSat-2 missions.

These spacecraft carry instruments called altimeters that gauge the shape and elevation of ice surfaces.

They've been critical in recording the loss of sea-ice volume and the declining mass of glaciers.

What's unique about the satellites is their orbits around the Earth. They fly to 88 degrees North and South from the equator, which means they see the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions, bar a small circle about 430km in diameter at the poles themselves.

In contrast, most other satellites don't usually go above 83 degrees. As a consequence, they miss, for example, a great swathe of the central Arctic Ocean and its frozen floes.

The worry is that CryoSat-2 and IceSat-2 will have been decommissioned long before any follow-ups get launched.

CryoSat-2 is already way beyond its design life. It was put in space in 2010 with the expectation it would work for at least 3.5 years. Engineers think they can keep it operating until perhaps 2024, but battery degradation and a fuel leak suggest not for much longer.

IceSat-2 was launched in 2018 with a design life of three years and fuel until 2025. Its altimeter also uses lasers which are a complex technology to maintain in space.

"Without successful mitigation, there will be a gap of between two and five years in our polar satellite altimetry capability," the scientists' letter states. "This gap will introduce a decisive break in the long-term records of ice sheet and sea-ice thickness change and polar oceanography and this, in turn, will degrade our capacity to assess and improve climate model projections."

The only satellite replacement currently in prospect is the EC/Esa mission codenamed Cristal. It will be like Cryosat, although with much greater capability thanks to a dual-frequency radar altimeter.

Industry has started work on the spacecraft but it won't launch until 2027/28, maybe even later because full funding to make this date a reality is not yet in place.

Dr Josef Aschbacher, the director of Earth observation at Esa, said his agency was working as fast as it could to plug the gap.

"This is a concern; we recognise it," he told the BBC. "We've put plans in motion to build Cristal as quick as we can. Despite Covid, despite heavy workloads and video conferences by everyone - we have gone through the evaluation... and Cristal was kicked off in early September."

Just over 10% of the near-600 signatories to the letter are American scientists.

Dr Thomas Zurbuchen, the head of science at Nasa, is not being sent the letter because it is primarily aimed at European funders - and most of the signatories are European. Nonetheless, Dr Zurbuchen is aware of the letter and its contents.

He said he was hopeful any polar gap could be plugged or minimised.

"I think there are multiple options at this moment in time that we can deploy to that end, in partnership or otherwise," he commented.

One of those solutions in Europe would be to run a version of Nasa's IceBridge project.

This was an airborne platform that the US agency operated in the eight years between the end of the very first IceSat mission in 2010 and the launch of IceSat-2 in 2018.

An aeroplane flew a laser altimeter over the Arctic and the Antarctic to gather some limited data-sets that could eventually be used to tie the two IceSat missions together.

There are many who think a European "CryoBridge" is the most affordable and near-term option to mitigate the empty years between CryoSat-2 and Cristal.

The cost of manufacture of the airborne radar altimeter could be accomplished for perhaps €5m (£4.5m), scientists believe, but its design and fabrication would likely take two years. Such a project would therefore have to get under way relatively soon. It would, of course, also need an operational budget.

The signatories to the letter sent to the EC and Esa include leading scientists using CryoSat and IceSat data, the president of the International Glaciology Society, and lead authors on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which prepares the authoritative state-of-the-climate reports for world governments.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55109092.

 

[sweep_shot]

This is how you can really help reduce greenhouse gas emissions

TORONTO -- When many Canadians think of how they can help lower greenhouse gas emissions, they often look for ways to reduce their own carbon footprint by flying less frequently or driving an electric vehicle, for example.

However, as laudable as those actions may be, climate activists say there are more effective ways for people to become involved and make a difference.

Alex Speers-Roesch, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, explained that the phrase “carbon footprint,” which is the measure of the total greenhouse gas emissions directly or indirectly caused by an individual, organization, event, or product, was actually popularized by the multinational oil and gas company BP in the early 2000s in an attempt to put the burden of change on to the individual.

“It’s good for people to think about the emissions associated with the things that they consume, but there’s a tendency sometimes in the way that carbon footprints are talked about and promoted that tries to put the onus on individuals and consumers for those emissions in a way that can be unfair,” he told CTVNews.ca during a telephone interview in late November.

Lauren Latour, a climate ambition co-ordinator for Climate Action Network Canada, cited a study from a few years ago that showed that just 100 companies were responsible for 70 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.

She also referenced another recent study that claimed frequent-flying “super emitters,” consisting of just 1 per cent of the population, were responsible for half of the world’s aviation carbon emissions in 2018.

“The average Canadian is very much not responsible for the lion’s share of harmful climate change effects,” Latour said during an interview with CTVNews.ca in late November.

So while both Latour and Speers-Roesch said Canadians should be mindful of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the goods and services they consume and how their individual choices affect the environment, they said there are other, more impactful, ways for them to address the climate emergency.

“It’s not going to be the individual actions of consumers that are going to address the climate crisis, what we really need is collective action from all of us working together to produce systemic change,” Speers-Roesch said.

SEEK INFORMATION
Canadians interested in doing their part to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions can start by seeking out more information about the topic from environmental organizations dedicated to the cause, Speers-Roesch suggested.

He said there are many climate change groups operating in Canada, such as Greenpeace Canada, 350 Canada, Environmental Defence, and Climate Action Network Canada.

“Find a group like that, sign up for the email list, see if you can get involved,” he said. “Once you start looking, though, you start to see, ‘Oh there are opportunities everywhere.’”

Speers-Roesch said Canadians can also seek out climate change events happening in their area. For example, if there is a protest nearby, he suggested going to see what it’s about and to meet other attendees.

“As you connect with others and get more involved and get more engaged, you'll probably have more ideas,” he said. “Before you know it, you’ll have lots of stuff to keep you busy on climate change.”

BECOME POLITICALLY ENGAGED
Latour acknowledged that getting involved in politics can be a “scary” thing for a lot of people, but that it doesn’t have to be and there are many opportunities to become engaged by joining community-led initiatives.

She said Canadians can join local organizations that work to influence government policy on the municipal level.

“For instance, a city is able to switch its bus fleet over from fuel combustion buses to low emissions, or hybrid or electric buses, or an electric light rail system,” she said.

Latour said Canadians can also volunteer for a mutual aid effort that is dedicated to building resiliency in their town or region. For example, she cited the groups that stepped up to help mitigate the effects of flooding in the Ottawa area over the past few years.

“In a lot of places, we see municipalities and we see smaller communities really leading the way on climate change and on climate policy,” she said.

“Individual change does matter and that individual change is getting involved in community organizing and getting involved in influencing your politics and local legislation.”

Speers-Roesch, too, said political activism is one of the most important things Canadians can do to become involved in the fight against climate change.

“The majority of the emissions are due to industry and are a result of government policy decisions so that’s really the most important and impactful place that people can focus their energies,” he said.

The Greenpeace campaigner said that Canadians should learn about their local politicians’ environmental platforms and encourage them to act.

“Call your MP, call your MPP, or city councillor,” he said. “Let them know you want them to do more on climate change.”

PUSH THE CONVERSATION FORWARD
Finally, Speers-Roesch said Canadians can still do their part by incorporating climate change issues and pushing the conversation forward in their daily lives.

“Think about how you can bring climate activism into your existing life,” he said. “It doesn't always necessarily have to be finding another group and joining them.”

As an example, Speers-Roesch said someone who is already part of a book club that meets on a weekly basis could suggest a book for them to read on climate change.

He said they could also organize an event within an organization they’re already involved in, such as their workplace, school, sports team, church, or temple, to raise more awareness.

“Look for a little thing that you can do each week to sort of make your voice heard and get activated and engaged on climate change,” Speers-Roesch advised. “Climate change is something that we really need to sort of infuse into every aspect of our lives and our work and everything that we do.”

Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/thi...elp-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1.5207251.