Environmental Graphiti® is a venture that uses art to dramatize the critical science of climate change in an effort to expand public awareness of this urgent issue.
ART makes the science more accessible. Science makes the art more meaningful. Together they tell the story of climate change in a unique and powerful way.
The art in this series is based on the compelling data that describes the various factors that have contributed to climate change over the last two hundred years. Click on image title to see graphic data source.
CO2 emissions and temperatures had been relatively stable over most of the last 1,000 years, but have increased dramatically over the last 100 years. LARGE IMAGE
Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. A rise of an additional 3 to 11 degrees is projected by the year 2100, depending on the level of future carbon emissions. LARGE IMAGE
Emissions from burning coal, oil and gas, (and producing cement), account for about 80% of the total global carbon emissions from human activities. LARGE IMAGE
Although carbon dioxide (CO2) occurs naturally in our atmosphere, levels have increased dramatically over the last 50 years (from approximately 300 to 400 parts per million). LARGE IMAGE
In Laudato Si, Pope Francis’s 2015 seminal encyclical on climate change, he laments consumerism (referring to it as “our throwaway culture”) and its destructive impact on the planet, global warming and climate change. “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.“ Over-consumption has a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions. According to Diana Ivanova, one of the lead authors of a recent study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology: “…(B) between 60-80 percent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption. If we change our consumption habits, this would have a drastic effect on our environmental footprint as well.” LARGE IMAGE
Radiative Forces From Greenhouse Gases
Significant increases in various heat-trapping greenhouse gases (such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and others) have contributed substantially to the warming of our atmosphere. LARGE IMAGE
Every sector of our economy contributes to the critical problem of greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat in our atmosphere and lead to global warming. LARGE IMAGE
“It is virtually certain that, in the long term, global precipitation will increase with increased global mean surface temperature.” Rising temperatures caused by CO2 emissions increase water vapor and global precipitation. Most of the warmth generated by these emissions is absorbed by the oceans, which also has the effect of increasing evaporation and precipitation. LARGE IMAGE
Methane (CH4) traps far more atmosopheric heat than carbon dioxide. Although methane’s global warming effects last only a few decades, (compared to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for centuries), it can warm the planet 86 times as much as CO2 before it decays into CO2*. In recent years, global methane levels have been hitting new highs. Over 60 percent of global methane emissions come from human activities such as industry, agriculture, and waste management. LARGE IMAGE
Climate scientists have warned for some time: In order to avoid extremely serious climate change impacts, global temperature increases should be limited to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels. At the recent COP21 Paris Conference (December 2015) 195 countries agreed to hold the increase to "...well below 2 degrees Celsius ... and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius ...". LARGE IMAGE
The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history (from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm). Current CO2 levels are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years, and may be higher than at any time in the last 25 million years. LARGE IMAGE
Many different groups have observed various changes which are consistent with what would be anticipated in a warming world, based on a range of climate indicators. LARGE IMAGE
In the last month alone, major players within the fossil fuel
industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding
climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its US$1-US$2 billion green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.
But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth.
Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels
and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to
the detriment of our planet.
Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it
Measures put in place now to address climate change must be
sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on
quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice. Yet this is
precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address
climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.
But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down
during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only
means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil
fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100%
environmentally sustainable is an illusion.
A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground.
But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for
climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.
Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry
According to a recent report,
climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end
of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick,
and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.
Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists
have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven
reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be
consumed.
Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change
Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.
Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in
their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3% of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1% in 2015, 0.1% in 2014, and so on.
Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option
One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus
from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are
talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution
limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or
market-based quota systems.
There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would
prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a
direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred
costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based
mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely
accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.
Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop
Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked:
“Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is
probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not.
Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.
As the World Bank
has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more
fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the
current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of
people back into poverty. The UN concurs,
signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more
waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in
developing parts of the world.
Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making
Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate
policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the
wallpaper at international environmental conferences.
This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of
the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for
two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.
Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.
Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change
If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate,
natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when
disrupted. Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the
chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for
Earth’s inhabitants.
Fossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as
evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas
such as the Arctic.
The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled
and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As
independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”
