Scientists just issued a grim new warning on climate change: 'We are not prepared'

[good guy]

New research shows that countries around the world are falling short of greenhouse gas goals in the Paris climate deal, and the consequences will likely be unprecedented extreme weather.

Published in the journal Science Advances this week, the study found that the likelihood of extreme heat, dryness and precipitation will increase across as much of 90% of North America, Europe and East Asia if countries do not accelerate their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are not prepared for today’s climate, let alone for another degree of global warming,” says study author Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University professor of earth system science.

The 2015 Paris Agreement, which President Donald Trump has promised to exit when the U.S. is eligible to do so, aims to keep temperature rise below 3.6°Fahrenheit by 2100 with an ideal target of 2.7° Fahrenheit. Though the differences seem minor, the study shows the difference between those targets would lead to dramatic increases in the likelihood of record warm or wet days, according to the study.



Under the agreement, countries from across the globe offered their own individually determined pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but those collective commitments still allow temperatures to rise 5.8° Fahrenheit, according to data from the United Nations Environment Program. Some countries do not seem eager to meet their commitments at all.

Scientists say the clock is ticking if countries aim to actually reduce emissions in a way that’s consistent with the Paris Agreement’s targets. In some cases, greenhouse gases emitted today will stay in the atmosphere decades.
http://time.com/5156775/climate-change-paris-agreement-research/

 

[good guy]

we are doomed

 

[Yossarian]

we are doomed

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9EH1G4EwljM" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.

 

[Pakistanian]

So much scare mongering

 

[sweep_shot]

Mountaineering in some parts of the world is becoming riskier because of climate change, climbing experts and scientists warn.

They say warming in the Alps has thinned ice and snow cover, resulting into frequent rock-falls and landslides.

Their concerns were voiced at a meeting of the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation this week.

Melting glaciers have also added challenges for mountaineers.

Climbing routes have either had to be abandoned or changed because of the increased risks.

In some places, climbing seasons have had to be brought forward.

What do the scientists say?
A study of mountaineering plans for climbers in the Mont Blanc massif showed numerous changes. Almost all climbing "itineraries" for the region had been affected since the 1970s and a few routes no longer existed.

In the journal Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research, Jacques Mourey from the University of Grenoble Alpes and colleagues wrote: "Moreover, periods during which these itineraries can be climbed in good conditions in summer have tended to become less predictable and periods of optimal conditions have shifted toward spring and fall, because the itineraries have become more dangerous and technically more challenging."

A 2017 study of several summits in the Mont Blanc massif by a French team showed significant degradation of permafrost between 1850 and 2015.

This led to the slopes becoming unstable, causing rockfalls.

Findings from a study in the Austrian Alps have been similar.

"Many of these routes have become extremely dangerous," Florian Ritter, from the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna, and colleagues wrote recently in the journal BioOne Complete.

"Numerous classical ice climbs in the Eastern Alps have become heavily affected by rockfall and falling stones, as well due to rocks melting out at the ice margins... during late summer and autumn."

The Austrian research also pointed to other factors.

"While the described processes related to global warming might increase the potential, events are generally triggered by other processes that are less linked to global warming, such as extreme rain events," it said.

Analysis of guidebooks written for those climbing in the Bernese Alps, Switzerland, confirms the changes.

"In the climbing guides, multiple generations of climbers noted the climbing dangers for whole mountain ranges," said co-author Arnaud Tremme, a geographer with Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

"The oldest guide out of the dozens of guides used in the research was written 146 years ago, this allowed us to record the changes for a longer period and link these with climate change."

For the past 10 years, a network of wireless sensors on Mount Matterhorn in the Alps has been streaming data on the condition of steep rock faces, permafrost and prevailing climate.

"Based on the data we have received, we see that the rate of change is quite fast," said Jan Beutel, a Zurich-based researcher, who leads the monitoring project.

"As a result, some of the places can't be visited anymore."

New conditions in New Zealand
A study on Aoraki Mount Cook in New Zealand also highlighted difficulties for climbers.

Climbers here have to navigate the Tasman Glacier, but this is now becoming more difficult because it's melting.

"One of the interesting results of our study was the spatial variability associated with climate change - the impacts are greater at lower elevations, but much higher on the mountains. Because of the large seasonal snowfall, the effects are somewhat buffered," Heather Purdie, one of the authors of a study on the mountain told the BBC.

Climbers' confirmation
Mountain guides say routes are now becoming more challenging and they have had to adapt.

"Rockfalls are becoming the biggest challenge," says Christian Trommsdorff, president of the International Federation of Mountain Guides Associations.

"Although impacts of the changing climate differ; on some mountains they are massive, while on others they are not."

Professional mountaineers in the US say some peaks in the Pacific Northwest that still have glaciated terrain have become increasingly hazardous. In some cases, it is no longer possible for mountaineers to climb them.

"The combination of crevasses becoming un-crossable, overhead icefall hazard increasing and rockfall events occurring regularly has made many classic routes more dangerous and less predictable," said Angela Hawse, president of the American Mountain Guides Association.

Although few studies along these lines have been conducted in the Himalayas, mountain guides in the region say climbing is becoming riskier.

They say wearing crampons on thin ice and exposed rocks is particularly dangerous.

"It becomes like wearing (ladies') high heels on a marble surface," says Tshering Pande Bhote, vice president with the Nepal Mountain Guides Association.

"When there is enough snow and ice, the crampons get their grip but now that is becoming less and less available."

Nepalese mountain guides say that widening crevasses are also becoming a threat.

"We have noticed that the gaping of crevasses, mainly underneath the surface, are increasing and it appears that is happening because of accelerated melting," said Mr Bhote.

A number of studies in the Himalayas, mainly in the Everest region, have shown that glaciers there are fast retreating.

The Khumbu glacier, that Everest climbers must cross before their ascent, has seen several ponds forming on it and joining up because of its rapid melt.

Training for guides
The annual meeting of the International Federation of Climbing and Mountaineering in Cyprus will also be discussing how to operate in the changing circumstances.

Mr Trommsdorff agreed that the changing nature of different routes needed to be included in training mountain guides.

"We are starting to do something in this regard but we need more of research and development support," he said.

"But we also adapt very well to such changes."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50237551.

 

[sweep_shot]

A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency.

The study, based on 40 years of data on a range of measures, says governments are failing to address the crisis.

Without deep and lasting changes, the world is facing "untold human suffering" the study says.

The researchers say they have a moral obligation to warn of the scale of the threat.

Released on the day that satellite data shows that last month was the warmest October on record, the new study says that that simply measuring global surface temperatures is an inadequate way of capturing the real dangers of an overheating world.

So the authors include a range of data which they believe represents a "suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the past 40 years".

These indicators include the growth of human and animal populations, per capita meat production, global tree cover loss, as well as fossil fuel consumption.

Some progress has been seen in some areas. For example, renewable energy has grown significantly, with consumption of wind and solar increasing 373% per decade - but it was still 28 times smaller than fossil fuel use in 2018.

Taken together, the researchers say most of their vital signs indicators are going in the wrong direction and add up to a climate emergency.

"An emergency means that if we do not act or respond to the impacts of climate change by reducing our carbon emissions, reducing our livestock production, reducing our land clearing and fossil fuel consumption, the impacts will likely be more severe than we've experienced to date," said lead author Dr Thomas Newsome, from the University of Sydney.

"That could mean there are areas on Earth that are not inhabitable by people."

How does this differ from other reports on climate change?
The study echoes many of the warnings that have been reported by scientists including the IPCC. The authors set out to present a clear and simple graphical picture of a broader ranger of indicators that can drive home to the public and to governments that the threat is serious while the response has been poor.

Where it differs is in showing that while things might be bad, they are not hopeless. The researchers show six areas in which immediate steps should be taken that could make a major difference.

These are:

Energy: Politicians should impose carbon fees high enough to discourage the use of fossil fuels, they should end subsidies to fossil fuel companies and implement massive conservation practices while also replacing oil and gas with renewables.

Short-lived pollutants: These include methane, hydrofluorocarbons and soot - the researchers say that limiting these has the potential to cut the short-term warming trend by 50% over the next few decades.

Nature: Stop land clearing, restore forests, grasslands and mangroves which would all help to sequester CO2.

Food: A big dietary shift is needed say researchers so that people eat mostly plants and consumer fewer animal products. Reducing food waste is also seen as critical.

Economy: Convert the economy's reliance on carbon fuels - and change away from growing the world's gross domestic product and pursuing affluence.

Population: The world needs to stabilise the global population which is growing by around 200,000 a day.

So who are the scientists who have endorsed the report?
Some 11,000 researchers of all types and varieties from 153 countries have endorsed the research

The authors say they didn't target individuals so there is a marked lack of some of the bigger names in climate change research.

All the details of who's signed the endorsement have been published online.

"We have rising emissions, rising temperatures, and we've known this for 40 years and we haven't acted - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know we have a a problem," said Dr Newsome.

What do the authors want to happen now?
The researchers are fed up because multiple climate conferences and assemblies have failed to produce meaningful action. However they believe that the growing, global protest movement offers hope.

"We are encouraged by a recent global surge of concern - governments adopting new policies; schoolchildren striking; lawsuits proceeding; and grassroots citizen movements demanding change.

"As scientists, we urge widespread use of the vital signs and hope the graphical indicators will better allow policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of the crisis, realign priorities and track progress."

So what about human population growth?
The idea of trying to influence human population growth is highly controversial and has been deemed too hot to handle by UN negotiators. The authors say that looking the other way is no longer an option.

"It is certainly a controversial topic - but I think that population should be talked about when considering human impacts on the Earth," said Dr Newsome.

"It's important when presenting these results to look at some positives, and one of the more positive things that we've pulled out of this data is that there is now a slight decline in birth rates at a global level."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392.

 

[sweep_shot]

Red deer in the Highlands are evolving because of climate change, a 45-year study has found.

Scientists say they have seen genetic changes in birth patterns of deer on the Isle of Rum.

Not only do warmer temperatures encourage deer to give birth earlier in the year, it has also meant the gene for breeding earlier has become more common among Rum deer.

Researchers said it was "rare" to see evolution over such a short period.

Why has it happened?
Previous studies have shown that the deer have been giving birth earlier since the 1980s, at a rate of about three days per decade.

This is partly due to the effects of warmer temperatures on the deer's behaviour and physiology.

Now researchers are saying that the deer who give birth earlier have more calves over their lifetime - which means they have more reproductive success.

The gene which causes earlier birth is therefore much more common among the Rum deer population over time.

This is an example of natural selection, the theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin.

'Evolution in action'
A team, including scientists from the University of Edinburgh, made the discovery using field records and genetic data collected on Rum over a 45-year period since 1972.

The research also involved scientists from the Australian National University and the universities of St Andrews and Cambridge.

Dr Timothée Bonnet, of the Australian National University, who led the study, said they had "documented evolution in action".

He added that the research showed that natural selection "may help populations adapt to climate warming."

However, Robin Parker from WWF Scotland said urgent action was needed to reduce climate change.

He said: "Climate change is here and this report highlights the impact our changing climate is already having on animals.

"In order to tackle the joint nature and climate emergencies we face, it's vital we accelerate action to slash our emissions.

"In doing this we can protect our precious wildlife, while also creating a healthier, fairer and more prosperous Scotland for us all."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-50306365.

 

[sweep_shot]

A British Airways whistleblower has revealed an industry-wide practice that deliberately adds weight to flights, increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

"Fuel tankering" sees planes filled with extra fuel, usually to avoid paying higher prices for refuelling at their destination airports.

It could mean extra annual emissions equivalent to that of a large town.

BA said it was common to carry extra fuel for "operational, safety and price reasons".

BBC Panorama has discovered the airline's planes generated an extra 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide last year through fuel tankering.

Cost savings made on a single flight can be as small as just over £10 - though savings can run to hundreds of pounds.

Researchers have estimated that one in five of all European flights involve some element of fuel tankering.

The practice on European routes could result in additional annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that produced by a town of 100,000 people.

Critics say the widespread use of the practice undermines the aviation industry's claims that it is committed to reducing its carbon emissions.

John Sauven, Greenpeace UK's executive director, told the BBC this was a "classic example of a company putting profit before planet".

He added: "This is why we can't afford another decade of believing corporate greenwash and waiting for the voluntary carbon reductions to appear.

"We need tough regulations to limit aviation's emissions, because so long as there's money in polluting, they'll pollute as much as they can."

International Airlines Group (IAG), the company that owns BA, says it wants to be the world's leading airline group on sustainability.

BA boasts it even prints its in-flight magazine on lighter paper to save weight.

Yet BBC Panorama has seen dozens of internal BA documents that show up to six tonnes of extra fuel have been loaded onto planes in this way. It has also seen evidence that Easyjet carries extra fuel in this way.

Airlines can save money from the fact that the price of aviation fuel differs between European destinations.

Make a profit
BA insiders say the company - like many airlines running short haul routes in Europe - has computer software that calculates whether costs can be saved by fuel tankering.

The software will calculate whether there is a cost saving to be made. If there is, crews load up the extra fuel.

An example of documents seen by Panorama show that a recent BA flight to Italy carried nearly three tonnes of extra fuel.

The extra weight meant the plane emitted more than 600kg of additional carbon dioxide - the same emissions one person is responsible for on a return flight to New York.

The cost saving on that trip was less than £40, but the documents Panorama has seen show that it can be even lower than that.

IAG made an annual profit of €2.9bn (£2.6bn) in 2018, around 80 per cent of which came from BA.

A BA insider described the practice as "hypocritical".

"For such a big company to be trying to save such small amounts while emitting so much extra CO2 seems unjustifiable in the current climate," he said.

BA said it was common practice for the airline industry to carry additional fuel on some flights.

The airline said for BA this applies mainly to short-haul destinations "where there are considerable price differences between European airports".

It said the additional emissions from the airline represented approximately two per cent of the total extra emissions generated by all airlines tankering fuel in Europe, based on research by Eurocontrol.

'Questionable'
BA pointed out that since 2012 all flights within Europe are covered by the EU Emissions Trading System.

It added that from 2020 the company will offset all CO2 emissions from its UK domestic flights.

Easyjet said it has reduced the level of tankering in recent years and that it only takes place on a tiny proportion of flights for operational and commercial reasons.

Eurocontrol, the body which coordinates air traffic control for Europe, has calculated that tankering in Europe resulted in 286,000 tonnes of extra fuel being burnt every year, and the emission of an additional 901,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

It calculates that the practice saved airlines a total of €265m (£228m) a year.

Eurocontrol described the practice as "questionable" at a time when aviation is being challenged for its contribution to climate change.

But the BA whistleblower said: "I've been a BA employee for a long time.

"I'm very proud to be part of BA but in all honesty it makes me sad and disappointed."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50365362.

 

[sweep_shot]

Cutting the speed of ships has huge benefits for humans, nature and the climate, according to a new report.

A 20% reduction would cut greenhouse gases but also curb pollutants that damage human health such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides.

This speed limit would cut underwater noise by 66% and reduce the chances of whale collisions by 78%.

UN negotiators will meet in London this week to consider proposals to curb maritime speeds.

Ships, of all sorts and sizes, transport around 80% of the world's goods by volume. However they are also responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse emissions thanks to the burning of fuel.

Shipping generates roughly 3% of the global total of warming gases - that's roughly the same quantity as emitted by Germany.

While shipping wasn't covered by the Paris climate agreement, last year the industry agreed to cut emissions by 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels.

This new study, carried out for campaign groups Seas at Risk and Transport & Environment builds on existing research that suggests that slowing down ships is a good idea if you want to curb greenhouse gases.

The report though also considers a range of other impacts of a speed cut such as on air pollution and marine noise.

As ships travel more slowly they burn less fuel, which means there are also savings in black carbon, sulphur and nitrogen oxides. The last two in particular have serious impacts on human health, particularly in cities and coastal areas close to shipping lanes.

The report found that cutting ship speed by 20% would cut sulphur and nitrogen oxides by around 24%. There are also significant reductions in black carbon, which are tiny black particles contained in the smoke from ship exhausts.

Cutting black carbon helps limit climate warming in the Arctic region because when ships burn fuel in the icy northern waters, the particles often fall on snow, and restrict its ability to reflect back sunlight, which accelerates heating in the Arctic region.

The study also says that a 20% cut in speed would reduce noise pollution by two thirds - while the same speed limitation would reduce the chances of a ship colliding with a whale by 78%.

"It's a massive win, win, win, win," said John Maggs from Seas at Risk.

"We've got a win from a climate point of view, we've got a win from a human health point of view, we've got a win for marine nature, we've got a potential safety gain, and up to a certain point we are saving the shipping industry money.

"It is also of course by far the simplest of the regulatory options. Thanks to satellites and transponders on commercial vessels it really is quite easy to track their movements and the speed they are travelling."

Proposals to reduce the speed of ships are among the ideas that will be considered at this week's meeting of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in London.

Experts believe that in the medium to long term, the industry will move to alternative fuels. But there is considerable pressure, including from many countries and shipping companies, for effective short term measures to curb emissions.

One proposal from France would focus on oil tankers and bulk carriers but not container or cruise ships. Denmark is proposing that the industry has a goal-based standard, where it is up to the individual shipping companies as to how they meet it.

Many shipping companies are in favour of slowing down.

"Slow steaming not only reduces the fuel costs but its application does not require time-consuming procedures as it can be implemented instantly, it requires no investment from ship owners, can be easily monitored and is the most efficient means of slashing CO2 emissions," said Ioanna Procopiou, a Greek shipping company owner.

But the idea is not supported by some of the biggest names in the trade.

"Maersk remains opposed to speed limits," said Simon Christopher Bergulf, who is Regulatory Affairs Director with the giant Danish shipping conglomerate.

"We rather support the principle of applying power limitation measures. Focusing on power instead of speed limits will help deliver on the CO2 reduction targets set by the IMO, whilst rewarding the most efficient ships."

What gives campaigners hope is that shipping has already tried out the concept of going slow - back in 2008, during the global financial crisis, cargo ships slowed down to cut costs. With average speeds dropping by 12% this helped cut daily fuel consumption by 27%, which equated to a significant drop in emissions.

Campaigners believe that whatever decision the IMO eventually comes to will involve slower steaming.

"The short term measure, whatever it is, is going to reduce ship speed," said John Maggs.

"We think the best way to do this most effectively is with a direct speed limit, whether we get that or not is unknown, but ships will have to slow down in the future."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50348321.

 

[sweep_shot]

A loss of snow and ice cover are the main reasons for a reduction in the Arctic's ability to reflect heat, not soot as had been previously thought.

The capacity of the Arctic to reflect heat is determined by something known as the albedo effect.

This is a measurement of how well a surface, such as snow or ice, bounces sunlight back into space.

Scientists say soot is not the major contributor, as levels have dropped recently, while warming has continued.

The findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Arctic region has warmed significantly since the 1980s, up to three times as much as the average seen elsewhere across the globe.

Much of this warming has been attributed to the reduction of the surface albedo effect.

When sunlight hits a white surface such as snow and ice, more of it is reflected back into space without warming its surroundings than when light hits a darker surface.

Thus, darker surfaces tend to absorb more heat. As the albedo effect in the Arctic is reduced, there is a positive feedback effect because, as the region warms, more and more ice and snow cover is lost. As a result, more dark areas are left exposed to sunlight.

This results in an amplification in the cycle of warming, a phenomenon that has been described as the Arctic Amplification.

Understanding the Arctic albedo
The team of scientists from the US used satellite data, which stretches back to the early 1980s, to determine the level of the albedo effect in the Arctic.

They found that sea-ice, snow on top of sea-ice and ice on land contributed equally to the region's albedo effect.

"These three factors contributed almost equally to the reduction of the surface albedo," explained co-author Hailong Wang, an earth scientist from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the US.

Within the scientific community, there had been a considerable level of debate over the role of soot blowing up from urban areas to the Arctic. One view was that it played a significant role in the reduction of the albedo effect in the Arctic because the dark soot would absorb more sunlight, thus increasing warming.

Dr Wang and his team considered this in their study: "We tried to quantify that impact as well," he said.

"Soot absorption in snow and ice have had a minimal impact on the reduction of the albedo effect."

He told BBC News that the study was able to calculate for the first time the impact of snow cover on sea ice - considered to be equal to the albedo effect of sea-ice and terrestrial ice - as a result of the study's modelling.

Causes of warming
The study showed that there was a 1.25%-1.51% per-decade reduction in the surface albedo effect in the Arctic during the springs and summers from 1982 to 2014.

Climate modelling around the globe shows that the warming has lead to an increase in precipitation levels.

Dr Wang say this was true for the Arctic as well. However, he added, the increase in precipitation was mainly rain, not snow despite it being in the northern polar region.

"Snowfall actually has been decreasing as well, so that is a decrease contribution of about 30% to the snow cover reduction," he observed.

Although not covered in the study, one hypothesis is that the reduction in snowfall has been a result of warming in the region.

As the temperature warms, the albedo effect will continue to fall thus generating a positive feedback loop that will result in continual warming until the loop is broken.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50381328.

 

[Captain caveman]

Climate change is inevitable with a population of 7.5 billion and growing.
The worlds population reached 1 billion around about 1880 c.e.(ad).
So basically, it took 300,000 years for the human popuation to reach 1 billion, but only 140 years for it to increase by a further 6.5 billion!
Obviously, the extra resources required to feed and nuture this amount of people, will have an affect on nature.
And as any scientist will tell you, nature will readdress the balance!

 

[sweep_shot]

VENICE: Much of Venice was underwater on Wednesday after the highest tide in 50 years ripped through the historic Italian city, beaching gondolas, trashing hotels and sending tourists fleeing through rapidly rising waters.

Officials blamed climate change while shopkeepers on the Grand Canal raged against those who have failed to protect the Unesco city from the high tide.

They said corruption had repeatedly delayed a barrier protection system which could have prevented the disaster.

“The city is on its knees,” Venice mayor Luigi Brugnaro said in an interview with national broadcaster RAI.

“There’s widespread devastation,” he said in the famed St. Mark’s Square, which bore the brunt of the flooding. “In all likelihood the damage from last night runs into hundreds of millions of euros (dollars)”.

Tourists lugging heavy suitcases waded in thigh-high galoshes or barefoot through the submerged alleys, as water taxi and gondola drivers baled sewage-tainted water out of their trashed vessels.

A 78-year old was killed by electric shock as the waters poured into his home.

“We ask the government to help us, the costs will be high,” Brugnaro tweeted. “These are the effects of climate change.” Environment Minister Sergio Costa blamed climate change and the “tropicalisation” of violent rainfall and strong winds.

“This is what is happening more and more often in the Mediterranean,” Costa said on Facebook, referring to “Global warming will destroy our planet if we do not immediately reverse the direction.” The exceptionally intense “acqua alta,” or high waters, peaked at 1.87 metres (six feet). Only once since records began in 1923 has the water crept even higher, reaching 1.94 metres in 1966.

“It was unbelievable, the water rose so quickly,” said resident Tiziano Collarin, 59, as he surveyed the damage.

“Windows were blown out, there are those who have lost everything,” he said as the flood alarm rang out to warn those in the canal city that the tide, which had receded somewhat overnight, was coming in once again.

The fire brigade said it had carried out over 400 operations as well as laying on extra boats as water ambulances.

Around 160 fire fighters were deployed to rescue people stranded on jetties and to recover boats broken free from their moorings.

President of the Veneto region Luca Zaia said 80 percent of the city had been submerged, causing “unimaginable damage”.

German tourist Gabi Brueckner, 58, said the nighttime drama had been “horrifying”.

She said she feared ,like many people, that climate change “will get worse and at some point Venice will drown”.

A massive infrastructure project called MOSE has been underway since 2003 to protect the city, but it has been plagued by cost overruns, corruption scandals and delays.

The plan involves 78 gates that can be raised to protect Venice’s lagoon during high tides — but a recent attempt to test part of the barrier caused worrying vibrations and engineers discovered parts had rusted.

“They’ve done nothing, neglected it. It doesn’t work and they have stolen six billion euros. The politicians should all be put in jail,” said local Dino Perzolla, 62.

St. Mark’s Square in one of the lowest parts of the city was particularly affected, its vestibule inundated with water.

“It was apocalyptic, enough to give you goosebumps,” said Marina Vector, as she and her husband used buckets to scoop water out of their shop selling Venetian festival masks. “The storm was so bad it broke the marble flood barrier out front.

Nothing’s survived,” she said.

Tables and chairs set out for aperitifs bobbed outside bedraggled luxury hotels, where people of all ages seeking safety from the storm late Tuesday had been forced to climb in through windows after gangways washed away.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1516603/climate-change-corruption-blamed-for-venice-flood-devastation.

 

[sweep_shot]

The next satellite tasked with maintaining the "gold standard" measurement of sea-level rise is about to enter final testing.

Sentinel-6a will pick up from the long-running Jason series of spacecraft when it launches in November 2020.

These missions track the height and shape of Earth's oceans with microwave altimeters.

Since 1992, the orbiting instruments have observed sea level go up by an average of 3.2mm per year.

This trend is accelerating, however. The most recent five-year period, from 2014 to 2019, has witnessed a 4.8mm/yr increase.

Sentinel-6a marks the first time this hugely important mission series will fly under the badge of the EU's Copernicus Earth observation programme.

It is still a joint venture between Europe (principally France) and the US, but the Copernicus patronage gives longterm security of financing.

In the past, there was always a little uncertainty over where the funding would come from to initiate the next iteration of spacecraft.

Now, not only is Sentinel-6a entering testing but its follow-on, Sentinel-6b, has all its money in place with construction due to begin in 2021.

Senior space agency and industry officials gathered at the IAGB facility in Ottobrunn, near Munich, Germany, on Friday to celebrate one year to launch.

The IABG company will check over the Sentinel's systems to ensure they are fit to ride to orbit on a Falcon-9 rocket.

When it eventually gets up there, Sentinel-6a will spend some weeks running alongside the current operational satellite, Jason-3.

This will enable scientists to cross-calibrate their "Poseidon altimeters".

These instruments are used to map the various "hills" and "valleys" in the ocean surface below.

Understanding the variations in elevation over time has myriad applications, both short term and long term.

Just as air pressure tells meteorologists what is going on in the atmosphere, so ocean height will betray details about the behaviour of water below just the top layers.

The data gives clues to temperature and salinity. When combined with gravity information, it will also indicate current direction and speed.

The oceans store vast amounts of heat from the Sun, and how they move that energy around the globe and interact with the atmosphere are what drive key elements of our weather and climate systems.

A classic example is the El Niño phenomenon. This sees usually cold waters in the eastern central Pacific overtaken every few years by a surge of warm waters from the west. This disrupts weather patterns worldwide, bringing drought to some areas and intense rainfall to others.

Sentinel-6a will act as an early warning system for El Niño by detecting the developing bulge in surface waters associated with the warming.

The spacecraft will be managed on a day-to-day basis by Eumetsat, the intergovernmental organisation tasked with operating Europe's weather satellites.

It sends the altimeter data to national met agencies to be ingested in the numerical models that produce weather forecasts.

Storm intensity and the onset of heatwaves, to give just two examples, will have telltale signatures in the changes detected in sea-surface height.

Eumetsat also manages another altimeter-equipped Copernicus mission called Sentinel-3.

The key difference is in the orbit flown around the Earth.

Sentinel-6 moves between 66 degrees North and South, while Sentinel-3 goes to 82 degrees.

They are "a system", says Eumetsat director-general, Alain Ratier.

"Altimeters are narrow-swath and they [look straight down] - and yet the oceans provide great variety across space and time which we have to sample fully. So for this you need several orbits," he explained.

"Sentinel-6 has a 10-day repeat cycle but the distance between its tracks is relatively large. This means it's optimised to monitor big features like the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio Current. Whereas, Sentinel-3 is on a 27-day repeat cycle where the tracks are closer together, which makes it good for seeing the small ocean eddies that are perhaps 15-20km across and move very slowly."

The latest version of Poseidon altimeter on Sentinel-6 comes with greater precision - so much so that scientists hope it can help tease out even some of the more subtle shifts in climate.

For instance, there's an expectation that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to an intensification of tropical trade winds. This should push warm equatorial surface waters westwards.

It's the sort of detail required to make better predictions about the likely impacts of regional sea-level rise, says Benoit Meyssignac from the French Laboratory of Geophysical Studies and Spatial Oceanography.

"This response from greenhouse gases - we see it in climate models and we're starting to see in the observations. However, because the uncertainty in observations is about 1.2-1.5mm/yr regionally, we cannot attribute it with confidence. But with Sentinel-6, we expect we will have the necessary precision and accuracy," he told BBC News.

The European-US partnership at space agency level has become very important in recent years.

Sentinel-2 is a land imager whose data products overlap with America's Landsat Earth observation programme - deliberately so; their respective imaging instruments were built to complement each other.

It's teamwork Sandra Cauffmann, the acting director of the Earth Science Division at Nasa, would like to strengthen.

"We are in conversation with the European Space Agency (Esa) and we will be having a workshop in February to consider the potential for partnership in the future architecture of Landsat. It makes sense that Sentinel-2 and Landsat go forward together," she said.

As well as the European Commission, Esa, Nasa, and Eumetsat - major partners on Sentinel-6 project include the French space agency (Cnes), the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Airbus, who built the satellite.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50438611.

 

[sweep_shot]

The world is beginning to tackle the threat of plastic waste, according to the renowned broadcaster Sir David Attenborough.

"I think we're all shifting our behaviour, I really do," Sir David said in an interview with the BBC.

Describing plastic pollution as "vile" and "horrid", he said there was growing awareness of the damage it can do.

"I think we are changing our habits, and the world is waking up to what we've done to the planet," he said.

Sir David was speaking as he and the BBC's Natural History Unit (NHU) were announced as the winners of the prestigious Chatham House Prize for their Blue Planet II series of documentaries.

Chatham House, a foreign affairs think-tank based in London, awards the prize to people or organisations making a significant contribution to improving international relations.

Its director, Dr Robin Niblett, described plastic pollution as "one of the gravest challenges facing the world's oceans".

The world is beginning to tackle the threat of plastic waste, according to the renowned broadcaster Sir David Attenborough.

"I think we're all shifting our behaviour, I really do," Sir David said in an interview with the BBC.

Describing plastic pollution as "vile" and "horrid", he said there was growing awareness of the damage it can do.

"I think we are changing our habits, and the world is waking up to what we've done to the planet," he said.

Sir David was speaking as he and the BBC's Natural History Unit (NHU) were announced as the winners of the prestigious Chatham House Prize for their Blue Planet II series of documentaries.

Chatham House, a foreign affairs think-tank based in London, awards the prize to people or organisations making a significant contribution to improving international relations.

Its director, Dr Robin Niblett, described plastic pollution as "one of the gravest challenges facing the world's oceans".

For Sir David, these sights are "very powerful - they speak to parental instinct"; and they seem to have helped motivate people to take action.

"It's the beginning, and people in all parts of society are aware of what's happening, and it's vile, it's horrid and it's something we are clearly seeing inflicted on the natural world and having a dreadful effect and there's something they can do about it.

"So in a way it's a bit of a litmus test to see if the population care about it and people do."

Sir David said that techniques needed to be devised for handling plastic waste.

"We still need to know how to dispose of the wretched material, surely if we can invent it, somebody somewhere is going to be able to deal with it, to deal with these mountains of this appalling material."

Also nominated for the Chatham House Prize were Abiy Ahmed, prime minister of Ethiopia, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize; and Katrín Jakobsdóttir, prime minister of Iceland for her commitment to gender equality.

Sir David's current series with the BBC NHU - Seven Worlds, One Planet - is broadcast on BBC One on Sunday nights.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50419922.

 

[sweep_shot]

A third of tropical African plants are on the path to extinction, according to a new assessment.

Much of western Africa, Ethiopia, and parts of Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are the hardest hit regions, standing to lose more than 40% of their richness of plants.

Species at risk include trees, shrubs, herbs and woody vines.

Threats include deforestation, population growth and climate change, the scientists said.

"Biodiversity provides countless benefits to humans and losing diversity jeopardises our future," said lead researcher Dr Thomas Couvreur of the French National Institute for Sustainable Development.

Loss of biodiversity will be particularly problematic in tropical Africa, "a region of incredible diversity but with major social and political challenges and expected rapid population growth over the next decades", he added.

The findings of the study, published in Science Advances, are based on a revised method for assessing extinction risk.

Official assessments of extinction are recorded in The Red List of Threatened Species, published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature - IUCN.

So far, almost nine in 10 mammals and two-thirds of birds have been assessed, but less than 8% of vascular plants (flowering plants and most other plants, excluding mosses and algae).

The researchers used a similar, but more speedy, method to assess the likely extinction risk of more than 20,000 plant species.

They found that 33% of the species are potentially threatened with extinction, and another third of species are likely rare, potentially becoming threatened in the near future.

This is mainly due to human activities such as deforestation, land-use changes, population growth, economic development, and climate change, they said.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50477684.

 

[sweep_shot]

While the rest of the world has cut coal-based electricity over the past 18 months, China has added enough to power 31 million homes.

That's according to a study that says China is now in the process of building or reviving coal equivalent to the EU's entire generating capacity.

China is also financing around a quarter of all proposed coal plants outside its borders.

Researchers say the surge is a major threat to the Paris climate targets.

China's reliance on coal as a key step in developing the economy led to the fabled "one coal plant a week" building programme between 2006 and 2015.

But the push had many negative consequences, choking the air with pollution in many Chinese cities and leading to huge overcapacity. Many of these plants were only able to run 50% of the time.

In 2015, in an attempt to curb the growth, the national government tried to clamp down on new-build coal. However, it continued to allow provincial governments the freedom to issue permits for new coal plants. That move misfired badly.

Local authorities subsequently permitted up to five times more plants than in any comparable period.

According to Ted Nace, from coal researchers Global Energy Monitor, it was like a "snake swallowing a goat".

"This goat that the snake swallowed is still moving through the snake, and it's coming out in the form of another 20% in the Chinese coal fleet on top of a fleet that was already over-built," Mr Nace added.

The researchers say that through 2018 and up to June 2019, countries outside of China cut their coal power capacity by 8.1 gigawatts (GW). In the same period, China added 43GW, enough to power around 31 million homes.

The authors say that right now the amount of coal power under construction or under suspension and likely to be revived is about 147.7GW, an amount that is almost the same as the entire coal generating capacity of the European Union (150GW).

Compared to the rest of the world, China is building about 50% more coal plants than are under construction in all other countries combined.

The country is on track to top 1,100GW of coal by 2020.

The Chinese government has signalled that it wants to rely less on coal for the country's energy production and is making some headway cutting coal's share of total energy from 68% in 2012 to 59% in 2018.

However, despite the share going down, absolute coal consumption has gone up in line with overall energy demand.

What concerns the researchers is that within China, coal and electricity industry groups are pushing for an even bigger increase in the country's overall coal power capacity.

"The thing we are super worried about is that industry has actually organised to keep the whole thing going," said Ted Nace.

"There are three different powerful trade groups, proposing to increase the coal fleet by 40%. This is sheer madness at this point."

China is also busy financing coal development outside the country, funding over a quarter of all the coal plants outside its borders in countries like South Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Observers outside of China say they are concerned that by building or permitting these plants, the authorities are locking in a form of power generation that just doesn't make sense economically.

"The economics will not be borne out," said Mark Lewis, head of climate change investment research at BNP Paribas Asset Management.

"I would argue that almost all this new capacity that's being added will never make the economic return on which they have been premised. Those assets that are coming online now will have to be written down; they will be stranded assets essentially."

The bigger question is how this new coal will affect the ability of the world to meet the targets set out in the Paris climate agreement.

The researchers say that by 2030, China needs to reduce its coal power capacity by over 40% from current levels in order to meet the reductions required to hold global warming well below 2C.

"China's proposed coal expansion is so far out of alignment with the Paris Agreement that it would put the necessary reductions in coal power out of reach, even if every other country were to completely eliminate its coal fleet," said co-author Christine Shearer of Global Energy Monitor.

"Instead of expanding further, China needs to make significant reductions to its coal fleet over the coming decade."

Global Energy Monitor was originally known as Coal Swarm and has received funding from environmental groups, including the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Rockefeller Family fund, the US National Resources Defence Council, the European Climate Foundation, among others.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50474824.

 

[sweep_shot]

Hundreds of students have disrupted the annual Harvard-Yale football game in a climate change protest.

They invaded the field in New Haven, Connecticut, at half-time, demanding that the two elite US universities stop investing in fossil fuels.

As officials appealed for them to leave, spectators and some players also joined the protest, US media report.

About 50 people were escorted from the field by police, while others left voluntarily.

The protest began when dozens of students and alumni stormed the field, linking arms and holding signs reading Yale and Harvard United for Climate Justice, the Harvard Crimson newspaper reported.

Some chanted "Disclose, divest, or this will be our death".

Divestment refers to the shedding of stocks, bonds or other investments as a way to tackle climate change.

The protest delayed the game by about half an hour.

In a video released by the group Divest Harvard, university football team captain Wesley Osgbury said both universities were investing in industries that are "destroying our futures".

"When it comes to the climate crisis, no-one wins," he said.

"Harvard and Yale can't claim to truly promote knowledge while at the same time supporting the companies engaged in misleading the public, smearing academics and denying the truth. That's why we are joining together with our friends at Yale to call for change."

A Yale spokeswoman said that while the university supported the right to freedom of expression it did not approve of the protesters' tactics, or the disruption of university events.

Harvard said it did not believe that divestment was the best way to tackle the climate crisis.

In a statement published by the Harvard Crimson, spokeswoman Rachael Dane said: "Universities like Harvard have a crucial role to play in tackling climate change and Harvard is fully committed to leadership in this area through research, education, community engagement, dramatically reducing its own carbon footprint, and using our campus as a test bed for piloting and proving solutions."

The football game - the 136th between the two universities - resumed after the protest and was won by Yale 50-43.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50534143.

 

[sweep_shot]

PARIS: Two French environmental NGOs and a union group on Sunday slammed the environmental impact of Amazon, vowing to disrupt its “Black Friday” sale campaign later this week.

The NGOs Attac and les Amis de la Terre, as well as the Solidaires association of unions, said in a report that the “world according to Amazon is not sustainable”.

But Amazon said in a statement that it rejected the “erroneous” information put forward by the groups, saying their report contained numerous factual errors and speculation lacking foundation.

The three groups pledged to turn the upcoming Black Friday on November 29 into a “Black Day for Amazon” by staging dozens of demonstrations across France to protest the policies of the company.

Their statement accused Amazon of increasing greenhouse gas emissions through rapid delivery services, of destroying unsold products and showing a lack of transparency in its carbon budget.

Putting together information from all the three groups, it accused Amazon of being responsible for 55.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of all the emissions of Portugal.

Meanwhile, the report claimed that Amazon’s practices involved “considerable waste”, with some three million new products destroyed by Amazon in France alone in 2018.

It also charged that Amazon worldwide hired people on insecure, short term contracts, meaning that “for every job created by Amazon, two are destroyed”.

The French parliament earlier this year defied US anger to pass a law taxing companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook or Apple for revenues accrued in the country, even if they are not based there.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1518713/ngos-slam-amazon-environment-impact-of-black-friday.

 

[sweep_shot]

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

The WMO report looks at concentrations of warming gases in the atmosphere rather than just emissions.

The difference between the two is that emissions refer to the amount of gases that go up into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels, such as burning coal for electricity and from deforestation.

Concentrations are what's left in the air after a complex series of interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans, the forests and the land. About a quarter of all carbon emissions are absorbed by the seas, and a similar amount by land and trees.

Using data from monitoring stations in the Arctic and all over the world, researchers say that in 2018 concentrations of CO2 reached 407.8 parts per million (ppm), up from 405.5ppm a year previously.

This increase was above the average for the last 10 years and is 147% of the "pre-industrial" level in 1750.

The WMO also records concentrations of other warming gases, including methane and nitrous oxide. About 40% of the methane emitted into the air comes from natural sources, such as wetlands, with 60% from human activities, including cattle farming, rice cultivation and landfill dumps.

Methane is now at 259% of the pre-industrial level and the increase seen over the past year was higher than both the previous annual rate and the average over the past 10 years.

Nitrous oxide is emitted from natural and human sources, including from the oceans and from fertiliser-use in farming. According to the WMO, it is now at 123% of the levels that existed in 1750.

Last year's increase in concentrations of the gas, which can also harm the ozone layer, was bigger than the previous 12 months and higher than the average of the past decade.

What concerns scientists is the overall warming impact of all these increasing concentrations. Known as total radiative forcing, this effect has increased by 43% since 1990, and is not showing any indication of stopping.

"There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

"We need to translate the commitments into action and increase the level of ambition for the sake of the future welfare of mankind," he added.

"It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. Back then, the temperature was 2-3C warmer, sea level was 10-20m higher than now," said Mr Taalas.

The UN Environment Programme will report shortly on the gap between what actions countries are taking to cut carbon and what needs to be done to keep under the temperature targets agreed in the Paris climate pact.

Preliminary findings from this study, published during the UN Secretary General's special climate summit last September, indicated that emissions continued to rise during 2018.

Both reports will help inform delegates from almost 200 countries who will meet in Madrid next week for COP25, the annual round of international climate talks.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50504131.

 

[sweep_shot]

Countries will have to increase their carbon-cutting ambitions five fold if the world is to avoid warming by more than 1.5C, the UN says.

The annual emissions gap report shows that even if all current promises are met, the world will warm by more than double that amount by 2100.

Richer countries have failed to cut emissions quickly enough, the authors say.

Fifteen of the 20 wealthiest nations have no timeline for a net zero target.

Hot on the heels of the World Meteorological Organization's report on greenhouse gas concentrations, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) has published its regular snapshot of how the world is doing in cutting levels of these pollutants.

The emissions gap report looks at the difference between how much carbon needs to be cut to avoid dangerous warming - and where we are likely to end up with the promises that countries have currently committed to, in the Paris climate agreement.

The UN assessment is fairly blunt. "The summary findings are bleak," it says. "Countries collectively failed to stop the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that deeper and faster cuts are now required."

The report says that emissions have gone up by 1.5% per year in the last decade. In 2018, the total reached 55 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is putting the Earth on course to experience a temperature rise of 3.2C by the end of this century.

Just last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that allowing temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees this century would have hugely damaging effects for human, plant and animal life across the planet.

This report says that to keep this target alive, the world needs to cut emissions by 7.6% every year for the next 10 years.

"Our collective failure to act early and hard on climate change means we now must deliver deep cuts to emissions - over 7% each year, if we break it down evenly over the next decade," said Inger Andersen, Unep's executive director.

The report pays particular attention to the actions of the richest countries. The group of the 20 wealthiest (G20) are responsible for 78% of all emissions. But so far, only the EU, the UK, Italy and France have committed to long-term net zero targets.

Seven G20 members need to take more action to achieve their current promises. These include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and the US.

For example, Brazil's plans were recently revised, "reflecting the recent trend towards increased deforestation".

Three countries - India, Russia and Turkey - are all on track to over-achieve their plans by 15% but the authors of the report say this is because the targets they set themselves were too low in the first place.

For three others - Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia - the researchers are uncertain as to whether they are meeting their targets or not.

That leaves China, the EU and Mexico as three countries or regions that are set to meet their promises or nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as they are called, with their current policies.

Without serious upgrades to most countries' plans, the UN says the 1.5C target will be missed by a significant amount.

"We need quick wins to reduce emissions as much as possible in 2020, then stronger NDCs to kick-start the major transformations of economies and societies," says Inger Anderson.

"We need to catch up on the years in which we procrastinated," she added. "If we don't do this, the 1.5C goal will be out of reach before 2030."

The report outlines some specific actions for different countries in the G20.

So for Argentina it's recommended that they work harder to shift the public towards widespread use of public transport in big cities. China is urged to ban all new coal-fired power plants, something that recent research casts doubt on.

The biggest focus of action is the energy system. To get a sense of the massive scale of change that is needed, the study says the world will have to spend up to $3.8 trillion per year, every year between 2020 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5C target.

The impression that time is running short is reinforced by the report - and UN negotiators gearing up to meet in Madrid next week at COP25 are feeling the pressure to increase their ambitions on carbon.

"This is a new and stark reminder by the Unep that we cannot delay climate action any longer," said Teresa Ribera, Spain's minister for the ecological transition.

"We need it at every level, by every national and subnational government, and by the rest of the economic and civil society actors. We urgently need to align with the Paris Agreement objectives and elevate climate ambition.

"It would be incomprehensible if countries who are committed to the United Nations system and multilateralism did not acknowledge that part of this commitment requires further climate action. Otherwise, there will only be more suffering, pain, and injustice."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50547073.

 

[sweep_shot]

Forests can cope with a warming world if - and only if - temperature rises increase in line with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Increased CO2 allows trees to develop physiological characteristics, such as greater foliage, that can cope with higher temperatures.

But researchers warn that a break in the temperature-CO2 increase ratio could trigger mortality in forests.

The findings appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Nobody had really considered incorporating the ability of trees, the forests, to adjust to novel conditions and to acclimate," explained co-author John Sperry from the University of Utah.

"So it felt like we were bringing in two new approaches to this longstanding question of whether CO2 or warming were going to play out in the future."

Delicate balancing act
Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 allow trees to consume relatively less water and photosynthesise more, whereas increased temperatures result in trees consuming more water and photosynthesising less.

Using a unique model that took into account the trees' physiology, Prof Sperry and his colleagues reached a rather surprising conclusion.

"What's interesting is that it is not the magnitude of the CO2 increase or the magnitude of the warming, it was the ratio of the two," he told BBC News.

"For example, it was interesting to see that the low emissions scenario is actually predicted to be closer to the tipping point; closer to the critical ratio than the higher emissions scenario.

"That's simply because in the lower emissions scenario, the ratio of CO2 increase for warming is lower."

Co-author Martin Venturas said the team did not find many differences between species in the study, which covered 20 locations across the mainland of the US, and included both deciduous and conifer species.

But Dr Venturas added: "There is still a huge amount of uncertainty, despite the fact that we have reduced uncertainty related to the physiology of the forest."

One such uncertainty, he explained, was precipitation levels in a changing climate and how this change affected soil moisture levels.

However, the researchers said the study findings helped move the debate forward.

"If you were coming at this naively, you would think the more emissions, the worse the forest was going to be affected because it was going to get warmer," observed Prof Sperry.

"But it is really the ratio of the two that is important. You can have a massive shift in CO2 and warming but as long as they travel along that neutral ratio, the force is physiologically neutral and you'll have no response."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50552135.

 

[sweep_shot]

Critical elements in the Earth’s climate may be more likely to break down than previously thought, according to a group of scientists.

Their commentary in the journal Nature says there’s growing evidence that irreversible climatic changes could be triggered within a few decades.

The authors claim this could lead to a “climatic emergency” in which one shift amplifies another.

But other researchers say the argument is speculative.

The authors specialise in what’s known as Earth Systems Science, which studies the interactions of elements of the climate system.

For several years they have been promoting the theory that the climate may switch suddenly as a result of one climatic shift amplifying other changes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) introduced this idea of "tipping points" two decades ago.

The commentary says that at the time these large-scale shifts were considered likely only if global warming exceeded 5C.

The authors argue that information from IPCC reports over the past two years suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2C of warming.

They say research has shown that the Amundsen Sea bay of West Antarctica might already have passed a tipping point where the meeting point of ice, ocean and bedrock is retreating irreversibly.

One computer model suggests that when this sector collapses, it could destabilise the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet like toppling dominoes - leading to about three metres of sea-level rise on a timescale of centuries to millennia.

The authors also point to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

As the elevation of the ice sheet lowers, it melts further, exposing the surface to ever-warmer air in what's known as a "positive feedback".

Some models suggest that the Greenland ice sheet could be doomed to disappear relentlessly if the world warms by just 1.5C.

The commentary says: “Politicians, economists and even some natural scientists have tended to assume that tipping points in the Earth system such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest or the West Antarctic ice sheet, are of low probability and little understood.

“Yet evidence is mounting that these events could be more likely than was thought, have high impacts and are interconnected across different biophysical systems, potentially committing the world to long-term irreversible changes.”

Human pressures
Co-author Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, says it is not only human pressures on Earth that continue rising to unprecedented levels.

“It is also that as science advances, we must admit that we have underestimated the risks of unleashing irreversible changes, where the planet self-amplifies global warming," he says.

"This is what we now start seeing, already at 1C global warming.

“This provides strong evidence for declaring a state of planetary emergency to unleash world action that accelerates the path towards a world that can continue evolving on a stable planet.”

But not every scientist agrees with the thrust of their argument. One critic is Professor Mike Hulme from Cambridge University, who is disturbed by the talk of planetary emergency.

“Their position is speculative; there are no new research findings presented here.

“Their mathematical ‘formula’ contradicts everything that social science and humanities scholarship tells us about public emergencies - namely that they result from political argument, reflection and judgement.

“Emergencies are declared by legitimate political actors; they are not calculated mathematically by self-appointed scientists.”

Professor Richard Betts from the Met Office says the chances of passing these tipping points increases with the level of global heating.

"Therefore, if we want to keep the risks to a minimum, it is logical that global heating should also be kept to a minimum.

"Even if we do pass a 'point of no return' (or if we have done so already - which may or may not be the case) we still have a chance to limit the damage if we don't overshoot too far."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50578516.

 

[sweep_shot]

Sales of "bags for life" rose to 1.5bn last year as the amount of plastic used by supermarkets increased to 900,000 tonnes, Greenpeace research has found.

Campaigners are calling for higher charges for the bags or a complete ban as the research showed households bought an average of 54 a year.

In 2016, there were 2bn single-use bags sold. Bags for life must be used four times to be better for the environment.

Retailers say they have reduced plastic packaging for their own-brand products.

In their second annual study of plastic use by UK supermarkets, Greenpeace and campaigning charity the Environmental Investigation Agency conclude the rising sales of bags for life mean they are used as a disposable option by many customers.

Many supermarkets have stopped selling 5p single-use bags altogether in favour of stronger 10p bags, which are intended to be reused.

A study by the Environment Agency concluded that these plastic bags for life needed to be used at least four times to ensure they contributed less to climate change than the lighter, single-use bags.

The Greenpeace and EIA research says that bag for life sales were cut by 90% in the Republic of Ireland by setting higher prices of 70 cents. The report recommends a charge of 70p or "ideally" a government ban.

The research also found that overall supermarket plastic use has risen to more than 900,000 tonnes in 2018, despite pledges by retailers to cut down on packaging.

The previous year, they used 886,000 tonnes of single-use plastic packaging.

Ultimatum on plastic
Fiona Nicholls, ocean plastics campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: "Supermarkets are failing on plastics and failing their customers.

"We hear piecemeal supermarket announcements on plastic every other week, but in reality they are putting more plastic on the shelves than ever."

The report found that supermarkets had slightly reduced the plastic from own-brand goods but that packaging from branded goods increased.

Only Tesco has given suppliers an ultimatum to cut plastic use or see their products removed from the shelves.

The report ranked the supermarkets by their progress on reducing plastic and their future plans.

Challenging targets
Waitrose was ranked top for cutting its packaging and trying out refill stations for products such as coffee, rice, pasta, wine and detergent.

Morrisons came second and was praised for setting a quantified target to increase reusable and refillable packaging, as well as making its loose and refillable products 10% cheaper than packaged alternatives.

The British Retail Consortium, which represents major supermarkets and other shops, said retailers achieved a drop in their own-brand plastic use by removing all polystyrene packaging and plastic cutlery as well as trialling refillable options.

But Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability, said "more needs to be done" and supermarkets have set "challenging" targets with the aim of making all packaging 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50579077.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Critical year for climate change starts in Madrid

A critical 12 months in the battle against rising temperatures begins in Madrid this week, as UN delegates gather for key talks.

The 25th Conference of the Parties, or COP, will see negotiators from almost 200 countries in attendance.

Ahead of the meeting the UN secretary general has warned that the world is at the point of no return.

Spoiler

António Guterres said the global response to date has been "utterly inadequate".

The conference takes place amid a welter of bad news on climate change in recent days.

The World Meteorological Organisation announced that greenhouse gas concentrations reached their highest recorded level in 2018.

The UN Environment Programme showed that there's a huge gap between the plans that governments currently have on the table to cut emissions and what's needed to keep under 1.5C. Keeping to that guardrail will need a five-fold increase in the carbon cutting ambitions of countries.

The UN Secretary General warned delegates ahead of the meeting "the point of no return was no longer over the horizon".

"We simply have to stop digging and drilling and take advantage of the vast possibilities offered by renewable energy and nature-based solutions," Mr Guterres said.

As well as demanding that the negotiators increase their level of carbon cutting ambition at this meeting, Mr Guterres announced that the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney will take on the role of UN Special Envoy on climate action and climate finance.

Wasn't this meeting supposed to be in Chile?
Yes, this annual event, the Conference of the Parties or COP was due to take place in the Chilean capital Santiago this year. It was cancelled by President Sebastián Piñera due to ongoing civil unrest in the country.

After a brief flurry of diplomatic activity, Spain said they would step into the void and host the conference, with Chile still leading the diplomatic negotiations.

The Spanish argue that it is critical to support a UN process that depends on global co-operation in the face of rising nationalism around the world.

"COP25 will reaffirm that multilateralism is the best tool to solve global challenges such as climate change," said Spain's minister for the ecological transition Teresa Ribera.

"Neither the UN nor the international community have let the climate agenda fall, despite the challenges to organise this event, because this is a vital moment to drive implementation and action. Spain immediately offered to organise the summit in record time. There is no turning back."

What will this gathering achieve?
The hope is that this meeting will concentrate the minds of international diplomats on the huge scale of the challenge.

Governments have promised to update their climate pledges by 2020, when the COP will be held in Glasgow.

But so far, despite the urgings of scientists, major improvements in pledges have been slow to materialise.

Many nations have aspirations to carbon neutrality in the long term, but they have been slow to put specific short-term commitments on the table.

"Some 70 countries have pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050, this must be carried on at Madrid COP," said Sonam Wangdi, the Chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group in UN climate change negotiations.

"There must be an agreement among us all to do our fair share. If it doesn't happen in Madrid it could be too late for 2020 pledges."

The hope for Madrid is that the meeting can avoid major bust ups and keep edging forward.

It also has to overcome two possible banana skins - loss and damage, and carbon markets.

What is loss and damage, and why is it important?
This issue has dogged the negotiations for several years now, but the likelihood is that it will come to a head in Madrid.

Loss and damage are the impacts that can't be prevented or adapted to by countries.

Some experts consider "loss" to apply to the complete destruction of something such as human lives, habitats and species. "Damage" refers to something that can be repaired, such as roads or buildings.

So the examples that are given are rising sea levels which can't be prevented, or storms that are connected to rising temperatures.

Back in 2013, under pressure from developing countries, the climate talks set up a special forum to discuss loss and damage. In Madrid the delegates must decide how to progress. Poorer nations want the loss and damage to have teeth within the UN setup, and more importantly, funding.

"Everybody has to recognise that there is a need and then there must be a funding window," said Sonam Wangdi from the LDCs.

"Once you have that, where the funding comes from is secondary, right now there is no fund."

Rich countries fear that the whole question is a way of tying them into paying out for sea level rise and storms for centuries ahead, because the bulk of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels used by the developed world.

As the conference starts, 150 environmental groups including climate activists Naomi Klein and Lidy Nacpil have written to ministers calling for adequate funding for loss and damage.

They say the combination of climate disasters and debt can prove toxic for developing nations.

"The climate crisis has been causing death, despair and displacement in the global south," said Harjeet Singh from Action Aid.

"This bullying of the countries hardest hit by climate change, by those that got rich from extracting and consuming fossil fuels, must end now."

What about carbon markets - a load of hot air?
Hot air is in fact one of the big concerns with the question of carbon markets.

In the past richer countries have often paid for carbon reduction projects in poorer nations.

The wealthy have then been able to count the carbon saved from these projects against their own emissions.

These schemes were discredited amid accusations of fraud and "double counting" where both the poor and the rich countries counted the same emissions reduction as part of their plans.

Article six of the Paris agreement set out to reform these carbon markets, recognising that if they were transparent and effective they could really help to raise ambitions.

Discussions on how the new arrangements would work were due to be completed in Katowice at the COP last year but they ran into real problems. Brazil resisted all attempts to curtail double counting. Other countries wanted to carry forward carbon credits from older schemes.

Some also want to be able to sell or carry forward credits if they overachieve on their existing carbon cutting plans, which observers feel would encourage countries to set a low bar in terms of commitments.

Experts often call these types of credits "hot air" as they are more an accounting exercise than a real reduction in carbon dioxide.

The amount of "hot air" is huge, running into billions of tonnes of carbon. Experts fear that these could undermine the integrity of the Paris pact if they are allowed to continue.

"We believe that these markets will have an impact but they must result in real reductions on the ground," said Sonam Wangdi from the LDCs.

"The option is needed and the carbon market is one of the tools - but there needs to be environmental integrity and they need to be transparent and there needs to be real reductions there."

Why does Madrid matter if the real deadline is 2020?
Trying to get unanimous agreement between almost 200 countries on how to tackle climate change is a really big ask. The agreement that was struck in Paris in 2015 only came about after six long years of snail pace negotiations.

It was the deal that diplomats had hoped to strike in the failed Copenhagen COP in 2009.

So if the goal is that countries have new promises in place by the end of 2020, Madrid is an important snapshot of what can realistically be achieved.

Countries often tend to hold back on their pledges until they see what others are likely to do. Madrid will give a sense of whether there is a willingness from some of the larger countries, like India, China and the EU, to show leadership.

"After 30 years of advocacy and optimism, we see COP 25 as the last opportunity to take decisive action," said Ambassador Janine Felson from Belize, the deputy chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.

"Anything short of a vastly greater commitment to emission reduction through new national plans that are consistent with our fight for a 1.5 degree world, greater momentum towards honouring outstanding 2020 climate finance commitments, a new climate finance goal suitable for achieving a 1.5 degree world and tangible support for disaster risk reduction and reconstruction in small island and developing states will signal a willingness to accept catastrophe."

What about the US - will they play a role?
This could be the last year in which a US team will play a part in the negotiations. On 4 November President Trump sent a formal letter to the UN, which has triggered the 12-month countdown to the US pullout.

The Americans are due to leave on 4 November 2020, one day after the next US presidential election and five days ahead of the critical COP26 in Glasgow.

The US has been playing a more truculent role in recent negotiations, joining with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia to prevent the conference welcoming a key IPCC report on how the world can keep temperatures under 1.5C this century.

Over the past couple of years the US has also supported side events promoting coal and will likely continue to do so in the future.

Even if they do withdraw completely next year, that will only be from the Paris agreement part of the negotiations. The US will still be party to the UN climate convention. It is unlikely they will stop sending teams to the conferences.

What about Greta Thunberg - will she make it in time?
Just a year ago, Greta Thunberg attended the Katowice COP as a relatively unknown Swedish student who was taking direct action in striking from school for the climate. A year later and she has become a global icon who can get a standing ovation from diplomats by calling out their hypocrisy on rising temperatures.

Greta's dedication to the cause has been enhanced by her decision to cross the Atlantic in a yacht to attend the Santiago meeting. Now she is on another boat on her way back to Madrid. She is due to arrive a few days after the start. Her participation and her speech will likely make headlines around the world.

Will the meeting give a voice to climate strikers and young people?
Conferences like the COP are rooted in a traditional UN diplomatic that requires a unanimous agreement on steps forward. While environmental campaigners and others can observe, there is limited input from young people, school strikers and other voices.

Nordic countries are attempting to do something different this year with ministers from Sweden, Finland and Iceland inviting five young people from different countries to take part in discussions with politicians and report back from COP25.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50588128.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: COP25 island nation in 'fight to death'

Spoiler

The president of an island nation on the frontline of climate change says it is in a "fight to the death" after freak waves inundated the capital.

Powerful swells averaging 5m (16ft) washed across the capital of the Marshall Islands, Majuro, last week.

But President Hilda Heine said the Pacific nation had been fighting rising tides even before last week's disaster.

Political leaders and climate diplomats are meeting in Madrid for two weeks of talks amid a growing sense of crisis.

This conference of the parties, or COP25, was due to be held in Chile but was cancelled by the government due to weeks of civil disturbances.

Spain then stepped in to host the event, which will see 29,000 attendees over the two weeks of talks.

The world's average surface temperature is rising rapidly because human activities release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). These gases trap heat in the atmosphere, a bit like the glass roof of a greenhouse.

At the meeting, Ms Heine commented: "Water covers much of our land at one or other point of the year as we fight rising tides. As we speak hundreds of people have evacuated their homes after large waves caused the ocean to inundate parts of our capital in Majuro last week."

She added: "It's a fight to the death for anyone not prepared to flee. As a nation we refuse to flee. But we also refuse to die."

Ms Heine is not alone in the view that small nations like the Marshall Islands face an imminent existential threat. At the Madrid summit, ambassador Lois Young, from the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), which represents low-lying coastal countries and small island nations, launched a rebuke to the world's big polluters.

"We are disappointed by inadequate action by developed countries and outraged by the dithering and retreat of one of the most culpable polluters from the Paris Agreement," she said.

"In the midst of a climate emergency, retreat and inaction are tantamount to sanctioning ecocide. They reflect profound failure to honour collective global commitment to protect the most vulnerable.

"With our very existence at stake, COP 25 must demonstrate unprecedented ambition to avert ecocide."

The COP25 meeting will aim to step up ambition so that all countries increase their national commitments to cut emissions. The meeting follows on the heels of three UN reports which stressed the increased urgency of limiting dangerous climate change.

According to UN Secretary General António Guterres, "the point of no return is no longer over the horizon".

Speaking ahead of the meeting, he said political leaders had to respond to the imminent climate crisis.

"In the crucial 12 months ahead, it is essential that we secure more ambitious national commitments - particularly from the main emitters - to immediately start reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a pace consistent to reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.

"We simply have to stop digging and drilling and take advantage of the vast possibilities offered by renewable energy and nature-based solutions," Mr Guterres said.

Almost every country in the world has now signed and ratified the Paris climate agreement and under the terms of the pact they will all have to put new climate pledges on the table before the end of 2020.

Countdown to Glasgow
This meeting in Madrid signals the start of a frantic 12 months of negotiations that will culminate in Glasgow with COP26 in November next year.

Some 50 world leaders are expected to attend the meeting in the Spanish capital - but US President Donald Trump will not be among them.

The US became a signatory to the landmark Paris climate agreement in April 2016, under the Obama administration. But President Trump has said the accord - which has been signed by more than 190 countries - would lead to lost jobs and lower wages for American workers.

Last month, he began the process of withdrawing from the Paris deal.

However, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will attend the conference with a congressional delegation.

While her presence has been welcomed, US environmentalists want to see concrete steps on climate.

"While it's great Speaker Pelosi is coming to Madrid in place of Trump, symbolic gestures are no substitute for bold action," said Jean Su from the US Center for Biological Diversity.

How years compare with the 20th Century average

"America remains the number one historic contributor to the climate emergency, and even Democratic politicians have never committed to taking responsibility for our fair share."

Underlining the real world impacts of climate change, a report from the charity Save the Children, says that what it calls "climate shocks" are threatening tens of millions of people in East and Southern Africa.

The charity says 33 million people are at emergency levels of food insecurity due to cyclones and droughts. More than half of these are believed to be children.

The situation has been made worse because the two strongest cyclones ever to hit the African continent, affected the same region just weeks apart.

Cyclone Idai struck Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi last March, while six weeks later Cyclone Kenneth slammed Mozambique with millions affected by flooding.

"The climate crisis is happening here, and it's killing people, forcing them from their homes and ruining children's chance of a future," said Ian Vale from Save the Children.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50614518.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate change: Emissions edge up despite drop in coal

Spoiler

Researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions this year have risen slightly, despite a drop in the use of coal.

The Global Carbon Project's annual analysis of emission trends suggests that CO2 will go up by 0.6% in 2019.

The rise is due to continuing strong growth in the utilisation of oil and gas.

Since the Paris agreement was set out in 2015, CO2 emissions have risen by 4%.

Last year saw a strong rise in emissions of almost 3%, with strong demand for coal in China being the main factor. There was also a surge in demand for oil, driven by a booming global market for cars, particularly SUVs.

This year's modest rise, if indeed it is a rise, as the margin of error is large, reflects some significant changes in the demand for fossil fuels.

While global emissions from coal use fell by less than 1%, this masks some huge drops in countries like the US and across the European Union.

"Through most of 2019 it was looking as if coal use would grow globally, but weaker than expected economic performance in China and India, and a record hydropower year in India - caused by a strong monsoon - quickly changed the prospects for growth in coal use," said Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at the Cicero Centre for International Climate Research, part of the Global Carbon Project.

"Coal use in both the US and the EU28 has dropped substantially, possibly by as much as 10% in both regions in 2019 alone, helping push down global coal consumption," Mr Andrew said.

The drop in coal as a source of energy was offset by the continued rise of oil and gas.

The data comes as the COP25 climate summit continues in Madrid amid a growing sense of crisis.

Gas use rose by a robust 2.6%, and while renewable sources like wind and solar have also grown substantially, according to the authors the greener fuels have merely slowed the rise in the growth of fossil fuel emissions.

"Compared to coal, natural gas is a cleaner fossil fuel, but unabated natural gas use merely cooks the planet more slowly than coal," said Dr Glen Peters, also from Cicero.

According to the Global Carbon Project researchers, the continuing use of fossil fuel-based technology is threatening the targets that countries have set for themselves in the Paris climate agreement.

"This is still not good news this year, as the emissions are still going up, the emissions are going more slowly, so we are making progress but the actions need to be higher in terms of implementing renewable energy and removing those tech that produce CO2," said Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia (UEA), another author of the research.

There are some interesting developments on a country level in the emissions data.

US emissions have declined by around 1% per year every year since 2005. That trend continued in 2019.

Even with President Trump's favourable policies towards fossil fuels, cheap gas, wind and solar are replacing coal.

China's emissions are expected to rise up by 2.6% but would have been higher if it wasn't for slower economic growth and a weaker demand for electricity.

Similarly in India, slower economic growth has seen a much smaller rise in emissions expected to be 1.8% compared to the normal recent rate of 5.1%.

The figures show just how far back the world is in terms of meeting the goals of cutting carbon quickly to avoid dangerous temperature rises.

"There are lots of countries now that are ramping up their policies on climate change but still not big enough," said Prof Le Quéré.

"There's not enough countries making commitments. The big emitters are still awaited at the table - so 2020 will be a really big year for countries on climate change."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50648495.

 

[sweep_shot]

Climate action

IN an alarming, though not wholly unexpected, revelation, Pakistan has jumped three places to take fifth position on The Global Climate Risk Index 2020 in the list of nations most affected by climate change.

Last year’s report had ranked Pakistan as the eighth most vulnerable country.

The 10 countries/territories most affected by climate change include Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, the Philippines, Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, Nepal and Dominica. The report reiterates that of the places most affected by climate change in the past 20 years, seven are developing nations — in the low- or middle-income category.

Spoiler

IN an alarming, though not wholly unexpected, revelation, Pakistan has jumped three places to take fifth position on The Global Climate Risk Index 2020 in the list of nations most affected by climate change.

Last year’s report had ranked Pakistan as the eighth most vulnerable country.

The 10 countries/territories most affected by climate change include Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, the Philippines, Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, Nepal and Dominica. The report reiterates that of the places most affected by climate change in the past 20 years, seven are developing nations — in the low- or middle-income category.

Sadly, poor countries like ours are paying the ultimate price for the unbridled greed of the big polluters.

The release of the climate index report coincides with the two-week-long 25th UN Climate Change Conference taking place in Madrid where representatives of nearly 200 countries, including Pakistan, are meeting to discuss and strategise the impacts and solutions for slowing down the pace of global warming.

The climate risk index has called on participants of the Madrid summit to address the dearth of “additional climate finance” to help poor countries that must tackle the damage wrought by recurring extreme weather events. It asserts that developing countries are hit harder by climate change because their vulnerability is increased by a poor capacity to cope.

These remarks are especially true for Pakistan where the climate crisis, along with the rest of the world, has perhaps reached a point of ‘no-return’ in the words of UN chief António Guterres.

Explaining Pakistan’s increased vulnerability to climate change, David Eckstein, one of the authors of the report, said that the country’s geographical location made it more “prone to extreme weather events, in particular, heavy rainfalls”.

Between 1998 and 2018, some 10,000 people died due to extreme weather events including floods and heatwaves; the economic loss, meanwhile, was to the tune of nearly $4bn. In fact, where economic figures are concerned, Pakistan ranked third among the most affected countries of the world over this period. This shows that climatic hazards, besides having a devastating impact on the ecosystem, also affect the overall development of nations, including public health, agriculture and the economy.

Pakistan, says the report, needs technical and financial support from the international community through platforms such as the Green Climate Fund to meet ambitious national goals set under the Paris Climate Accord.

However, it would be a mistake to expect foreign donors to come to our rescue unless we ourselves appear to be taking the crisis seriously and are ready to self-correct.

Prime Minister Imran Khan has highlighted the dangers of climate change both at home and internationally. But that in itself is not enough.

The country needs drastic steps to, among other things, improve its air quality and harness renewable energy sources if it is to tackle the damage inflicted by changing weather patterns.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1520563/climate-action.

 

[sweep_shot]

Exxon wins New York climate change fight

Spoiler

Exxon Mobil has won a court battle in New York in which it was accused of misleading investors about the costs of addressing climate change.

The state had argued that oil giant used two figures to calculate the risks of climate change, misrepresenting the cost in public disclosures.

Exxon had denied wrongdoing. It said the two figures served different purposes.

A New York judge said the evidence presented supported that claim.

"What the evidence at trial revealed is that Exxon Mobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible," Judge Barry Ostrager of Manhattan Supreme Court said.

Exxon, which had called the suit politically motivated, hailed the victory.

"Today's ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York Attorney General's baseless investigation," it said. "We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change."

"Lawsuits that waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change," it added.

New York's attorney general filed the lawsuit against Exxon in 2018, after years of investigation. The trial started in October. It had been closely watched as one of the most high-profile of a rising number of suits against the company.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said despite her loss in court, the case had forced Exxon to "answer publicly" about its decision-making related to climate change.

"We will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change," she said in a statement.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50733127.

 

[Firebat]

Climate change: More than 3bn could live in extreme heat by 2070

Spoiler

More than three billion people will be living in places with "near un-liveable" temperatures by 2070, according to a new study.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions fall, large numbers of people will experience average temperatures hotter than 29C.

This is considered outside the climate "niche" in which humans have thrived for the past 6,000 years.

Co-author of the study Tim Lenton told the BBC: "The study hopefully puts climate change in a more human terms".

Researchers used data from United Nations population projections and a 3C warming scenario based on the expected global rise in temperature. A UN report found that even with countries keeping to the Paris climate agreement, the world was on course for a 3C rise.

According to the study, human populations are concentrated into narrow climate bands with most people residing in places where the average temperature is about 11-15C. A smaller number of people live in areas with an average temperature of 20-25C.

People have mostly lived in these climate conditions for thousands of years.

However should, global warming cause temperatures to rise by three degrees, a vast number of people are going to be living in temperatures considered outside the "climate niche".

Mr Lenton, climate specialist and director of the global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, conducted the study with scientists from China, the US and Europe.

He told the BBC: "The land warms up faster than the ocean so the land is warming more than three degrees. Population growth is projected to be in already hot places, mostly sub-Saharan Africa, so that shifts the average person to a hotter temperature.

"It's shifting the whole distribution of people to hotter places which themselves are getting hotter and that's why we find the average person on the planet is living in about 7C warmer conditions in the 3C warmer world."

Areas projected to be affected include northern Australia, India, Africa, South America and parts of the Middle East.

The study raises concerns about those in poorer areas who will be unable to shelter from the heat.

"For me, the study is not about the rich who can just get inside an air-conditioned building and insulate themselves from anything. We have to be concerned with those who don't have the means to isolate themselves from the weather and the climate around them," Mr Lenton said.

Mr Lenton says the main message from the team's findings is that "limiting climate change could have huge benefits in terms of reducing the number of people projected to fall outside of the climate niche.

"It's about roughly a billion people for each degree of warming beyond the present. So for every degree of warming, we could be saving a huge amount of change in people's livelihoods."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52543589

 

[LongHorn]

Few months back so many things were considered evil by climate activists

1) Disposable cutlery
2) Driving own car (vs using public transport)
3) Using plastic bags
4) Wrapping stuff up in plastic
5) Using anything more than minimum water

All of these are now considered good to reduce risk of virus (wash hands as much as you can, don't use public transport, no recyclable bags etc)

 

[Firebat]

Coral bleaching: Scientists 'find way to make coral more heat-resistant'

Scientists in Australia say they have found a way to help coral reefs fight the devastating effects of bleaching by making them more heat-resistant.

Rising sea temperatures make corals expel tiny algae which live inside them. This turns the corals white and effectively starves them.

In response, researchers have developed a lab-grown strain of microalgae which is more tolerant to heat.

When injected back into the coral, the algae can handle warmer water better.

The researchers believe their findings may help in the effort to restore coral reefs, which they say are "suffering mass mortalities from marine heatwaves".

The team made the coral - which is a type of animal, a marine invertebrate - more tolerant to temperature-induced bleaching by bolstering the heat tolerance of its microalgal symbionts - tiny cells of algae that live inside the coral tissue.

They then exposed the cultured microalgae to increasingly warmer temperatures over a period of four years. This assisted them to adapt and survive hotter conditions.

"Once the microalgae were reintroduced into coral larvae, the newly established coral-algal symbiosis was more heat-tolerant compared to the original one," lead author Dr Patrick Buerger, of Csiro, Australia's national science agency, said in a statement.

"We found that the heat-tolerant microalgae are better at photosynthesis and improve the heat response of the coral animal," Prof Madeleine van Oppen, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the University of Melbourne, said.

"These exciting findings show that the microalgae and the coral are in direct communication with each other."

The next step is to further test the algal strains across a range of coral species.

How bad is coral bleaching?

"Coral reefs are in decline worldwide," Dr Buerger says.

"Climate change has reduced coral cover, and surviving corals are under increasing pressure as water temperatures rise and the frequency and severity of coral bleaching events increase."

Earlier this year, Australia's Great Barrier Reef suffered a mass bleaching event - the third in just five years.

Warmer sea temperatures - particularly in February - are feared to have caused huge coral loss across it.

Scientists say they have detected widespread bleaching, including extensive patches of severe damage. But they have also found healthy pockets.

Two-thirds of the reef - the world's largest such system - were damaged by similar events in 2016 and 2017.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-52661860

 

[Firebat]

Climate change: Sport heading for a fall as temperatures rise

Global sport faces major disruption from climate change in coming decades, according to a new analysis.

By 2050, it's estimated that almost one in four English football league grounds can expect flooding every year.

But tennis, rugby, athletics and winter sports will also face serious challenges from the impacts of rising temperatures, the author says.

The study finds that sports leaders are, in the main, failing to address the issue seriously.

While the Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted sports as much as any other aspect of social life, many experts believe that this is just a dress rehearsal for the long-term impacts on sport of a world that's way too hot.

Extreme weather events, related to rising temperatures, have already disrupted some of the world's most high-profile sports in recent years.

A typhoon, which wreaked havoc in Japan last year, also affected fixtures at the Rugby Union World being held there.

Smoke from bush fires stopped play at the Australian Tennis Open at the start of this year.

These and many other instances are a foretaste of the future, according to this new study compiled by academic and author David Goldblatt.

As football slowly recovers from the coronavirus crisis, his analysis shows that 23 of 92 English football league clubs will face partial or total annual flooding of their stadiums by 2050.

In the current Premier League, the home grounds of Southampton, Norwich, Chelsea and West Ham face a similar threat.

Cricket faces huge challenges globally as temperatures rise in places like India, Australia and the West Indies.

Venues in Adelaide and Perth will see a 60% increase in days with temperatures over 40C over the next decade.

In golf, one in three British Open courses will be damaged by rising sea-levels, the report says.

Winter sports also face an uncertain future.

Researchers say that of the 19 venues that have already hosted the Winter Olympics, just 10 will be able to hold them by 2050.

But as well as showing the likely impacts of climate change on sports, the new study also looks at the contribution that the sporting industry makes to carbon emissions.

The author says that the scale of CO2 is equivalent to a country like Bolivia at the low end but as large as a country like Spain on the high end.

The estimations are likely an underestimate as they exclude the global sportswear and sports broadcasting industries, who have impacts on carbon that are difficult to calculate.

Whatever the size of its carbon footprint, the cultural significance of sport gives it a tremendous platform to effect change, says the author.

"Sport may be just big enough to register, in terms of carbon emissions, as a small nation state, or a single megacity, but its own efforts are just a fraction of a percentage point of the world total," said David Goldblatt.

"Making a carbon zero world the common sense priority of the sports world would make a huge contribution to making it the common sense priority of all politics," he said.

While some organisations including the International Olympic Committee and FIFA have signed up to a UN action plan to make sport carbon neutral by 2050, the majority of sports authorities have not.

The International Cricket Council is one of those who have not signed up.

Among winter sports, only the ice hockey and skiing federations have joined, "which makes one wonder what the people in charge of luge and bobsleigh think they are going to be sliding on in the future," the report waspishly notes.

The report was commissioned by the Rapid Transition Alliance, a international group of academics and campaigners who argue for a faster response to climate change.

"A first step would be to bring an end to sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and products promoting fossil fuel intensive lifestyles," said Andrew Simms from the group.

"If players also speak out and say they believe clean air and a stable climate matter, millions more will see the possibilities for change. It will not only send a message of hope for the wider world, but it will help to guarantee a planet that is safe for sport."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53111881