31/10/2019

All That Perfectly Good Water Dumped Into The Ocean Like Some Sort Of Enormous NATURE TOILET!

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

And the people who got us here are
screaming the loudest about how unfair it all is

Links

Damian Carrington On 10 Years As The Guardian's Environment Editor

The Guardian, as told to

One of our leading environment journalists reflects on how awareness of the climate crisis has shifted in the last decade and offers advice for those who want to do more
Damian Carrington: ‘I’ve seen so much of the earth’s beauty. The flip-side to that is being confronted with its destruction.’ Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian
What did you do before you joined the Guardian?
I did a PhD and post-doc research in geology at Edinburgh University, including an expedition to Antarctica, which was amazing: beautiful, pristine with bursts of life along the coast. But I think my attention span was a bit short for academic life, so I started writing science stories for newspapers. My first staff job was at BBC Tomorrow’s World magazine, then BBC News Online. I went to New Scientist next and then the Financial Times. In 2008, I was delighted to be hired by the Guardian, which was – and is! – my favourite paper.
Damian Carrington on the Snorkel Safari in Kimmeridge, Dorset – a marine conservation zone. Photograph: Peter Willows/BNPS.co.uk
How has awareness of the climate crisis changed in the last decade? What do you think the big milestones have been? 
When I joined the Guardian, concern about the climate crisis was running high, following a landmark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth – the IPCC and Gore went on to win the Nobel peace prize. But it was seen as a future problem. The transformative moment was meant to come at the 2009 UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. But it didn’t happen and after that the impacts of the global financial crisis grabbed all the attention. It wasn’t until 2015, by which time the role of human activities in driving climate change was undeniable, that a big step forward was taken with the Paris deal.

How has your role in covering the environment changed in that time?
The Guardian has always taken the environment very seriously. In the decade I have been here, the team has expanded. But the basic approach has largely stayed the same – environmental issues affect everything, so should feature across all our coverage: reporting, exposing and holding to account. Today, the climate crisis is here, evident in more frequent and more severe extreme weather and climate change deniers have been relegated to the far fringes. With the global youth climate strikes inspired by Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion protests, 2019 feels like a new chapter. Those who have campaigned for decades are feeling hopeful.

What would you say are the most important environmental issues?
The climate emergency is the best known, and it will take systemic change to beat it. But the annihilation of wildlife and the destruction of nature is just as crucial in my view – we depend on the natural world for almost everything. The huge scale of the losses – from forests to insects to marine life – has only really become widely reported in the last few years. Pollution is the third issue, particularly the toxic air that causes millions of early deaths every year. Air is actually getting cleaner in some rich nations, but the understanding of how damaging it is – on everything from intelligence to miscarriages – is only really emerging now. Chemical pollution is also a serious global problem, from fertiliser to pesticides to PCBs

What frustrates you about how these issues are sometimes be covered?
One thing is the charge of hypocrisy that is often levelled at environment campaigners because they have a TV or something. Just because you have to live in the world as it is today doesn’t mean you can’t campaign to make it a better place tomorrow. But I think hypocrisy is the attack made by people who know they’ve lost the real argument.

Has your work influenced/informed the way you live your life?
Yes. It’s impossible to write about it every day and not act. I am vegan at home and whenever I can elsewhere. My home is fully insulated and my energy supplier is renewable. I rarely fly for holidays – one short haul flight in the last couple of years – and usually go to Ireland by ferry to surf. I’ve also cycled to work for about 13 years now – it’s cheap, fast and healthy. Being green is often worthwhile for many reasons.

What would you say to readers who want to tackle the environmental crisis?
The big shifts will be driven by the governments we elect (in democracies) and the companies to which we give our custom. Demanding urgent action from those leaders is vital. But personal action is also important, in itself and as an encouragement to others. The biggest action, according to scientists, is having fewer children, but that of course is a deeply personal and complex choice. Flying less and eating less meat and dairy also make big cuts in your impact, as does driving fewer petrol-powered miles and insulating your home.

How can we build on the urgency we’ve seen from many campaigners in 2019 and keep the spotlight fixed firmly on the big changes we need?
We are in a race against time and it’s not at all certain that we are going to win. We understand the problems and what we have to do, more or less, but the pace of action is far too slow. Putting pressure on politicians and business leaders is key – giving them a strong reason to move faster. The good news is that many solutions gain their own momentum once started. In many places, solar and wind power is now the cheapest electricity, and electric cars are the cheapest to own. But there are still big problems to solve, including agriculture and aviation. The young people involved in the climate strikes will be running the world in the not-too-distant future. But we have to make sure we are still in the race by then.

What have been the highlights of your reporting at the Guardian so far? What has made you most proud?
I have written nearly 2,000 stories for the Guardian, and I’d hope most of them have played a part in building awareness of environmental issues. It’s usually hard to know how much impact stories have behind the scenes, but the restoration of slashed flood defence funding in England followed a lot of reporting by me, as did the EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, which harm bees. The recent resignation of the executive director of the UN environment programme also followed a string of my stories, which was a good example of the Guardian holding power to account. The environment team get a lot of positive feedback from readers, scientists and policymakers, which is very heartening. One prominent scientist recently told me: “Thank God for the Guardian!”

What is the area within your work and reporting expertise that you feel most passionately about?
Usually the story I’m working on right now. But in recent years I’ve done a lot on pesticides, insects, the impact of livestock, microplastics and harmful subsidies. And badgers. I’ve written a lot about the cull in England. One of my editors here said I had “made the Guardian the paper of choice for small mammals”, which may or may not have been a compliment.

What about the highs and lows of doing the job?
Often, this is the best job in the world. I’ve been fortunate to see a lot of the Earth’s natural beauty. I’ve tracked forest elephants in Gabon, been swimming with giant mantas in the Maldives and walked through extraordinary landscapes high in the Andes. On the other hand, almost every day I have to report more destruction and degradation of the environment. The most heartbreaking story I have covered is the poisoning of children with lead in a former mining town in Zambia. But I was glad to be able to expose it at least.

What’s next for you and the team?
The next 12 months are going to be absolutely pivotal for the world. There’s a major UN biodiversity conference in China next year – the targets set a decade ago have been woefully missed. The UN climate summit in Glasgow, UK, in 2020 will also be vital – nations are going to have to make big increases in the carbon cuts they pledge if we are to get anywhere near the 1.5C temperature rise seen as a safety limit. And we’ll be reporting day in, day out, across the world holding nations and companies to account for the environment and for social justice.

What makes the Guardian unique?
John Vidal, my brilliant predecessor as environment editor, says: “Environment is the world and everything in it”, and I think the issue now permeates all the newspaper’s coverage. That is because the Guardian has always taken the issue seriously, with full support from the top and the resources to match. Our readers really care too, and they tell us. I’d guess there aren’t many places where all that is the case.

Links

Rising Sea Levels Pose Threat To Homes Of 300m People – Study

The Guardian

Figure based on new analysis of coastlines
is more than three times previous estimate
River erosion in Bangladesh.
The numbers at risk of an annual flood by 2050 in Bangladesh increased
more than eightfold in the study.
Photograph: Zakir Hossain Chowdhury/Barcroft Media
More than three times more people are at risk from rising sea levels than previously believed, research suggests.
Land that is currently home to 300 million people will flood at least once a year by 2050 unless carbon emissions are cut significantly and coastal defences strengthened, says the study, published in Nature Communications. This is far above the previous estimate of 80 million.
The upward revision is based on a more sophisticated assessment of the topography of coastlines around the world. Previous models used satellite data that overestimated the altitude of land due to tall buildings and trees. The new study used artificial intelligence to compensate for such misreadings.
Researchers said the magnitude of difference from the previous Nasa study came as a shock. “These assessments show the potential of climate change to reshape cities, economies, coastlines and entire global regions within our lifetimes,” said Scott Kulp, the lead author of the study and a senior scientist at Climate Central.
“As the tideline rises higher than the ground people call home, nations will increasingly confront questions about whether, how much and how long coastal defences can protect them.”
The biggest change in estimates was in Asia, which is home to the majority of the world’s population. The numbers at risk of an annual flood by 2050 increased more than eightfold in Bangladesh, sevenfold in India, twelvefold in India and threefold in China.
The threat is already being felt in Indonesia, where the government recently announced plans to move the capital city from Jakarta, which is subsiding and increasingly vulnerable to flooding. The new figures show 23 million people are at risk in Indonesia, up from the previous estimate of 5 million.

Revised topographical modelling shows millions more people,
especially in Asia, are at risk from annual flooding by 2050
Guardian graphic. Nature Communications
Benjamin Strauss, Climate Central’s chief scientist and CEO, said more countries may need to follow Indonesia’s lead unless sea defences were strengthened or carbon emissions were cut. “An incredible, disproportionate amount of human development is on flat, low-lying land near the sea. We are really set up to suffer,” he said.
The authors say the calculations could still underestimate the dangers because they are based on standard projections of sea level rise in a scenario known as RCP2.6, which assumes emissions cuts in line with the promises made under the Paris agreement. Countries are currently not on course to meet these pledges.
In a worst-case scenario with greater instability of the Antarctic ice sheet, as many as 640 million people could be threatened by 2100, the scientists say.
Strauss said a World Bank study using the old elevation data estimated damages of $1tn per year by mid-century, and this would need to be updated. More sophisticated topographical measurements would also be necessary, he said.
“The need for coastal defences and higher planning for higher seas is much greater than we thought if we are to avoid economic harm and instability,” said Strauss. “The silver lining to our research: although many more people are threatened than we thought, the benefits of action are greater.”

Links

30/10/2019

The Answer To Climate-Killing Cow Farts May Come From The Sea

Mother Jones

Methane is an especially potent greenhouse gas. A modest feed additive could provide a big leverage effect.
Cristina Byvik
One day in January 2014, police rushed to a farm in Rasdorf, Germany, after flames burst from a barn. They soon discovered that static electricity had caused entrapped methane from the flatulence and manure of 90 dairy cows to explode.
Headline writers had a field day. But the incident pointed to a serious problem: Ruminant livestock, mostly cattle, account for 30 percent of all global methane emissions, pumping out 3 gigatons of the gas every year in their burps, farts, and manure. Methane is an especially potent greenhouse gas: During its 12-year lifespan after being released, it traps 84 times as much heat as carbon dioxide, and its effect on global warming over a century is 34 times that of CO2. According to the United Nations, reducing methane emissions from cows could be one of the quickest ways to slow climate change.
Methane traps 84 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.
The United States government has done little to curb this potent pollution, which makes up 36 percent of the country’s methane emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s AgStar program trains farmers to turn animal waste into biofuel using anaerobic digesters, but it is optional—8,000 farms could implement it, but only about 250 have done so.
Ermias Kebreab, an animal science professor at the University of California–Davis, has spent 15 years studying alternative ways to reduce livestock effusions. Three years ago, he heard that researchers at Australia’s James Cook University had mixed bacteria from cows’ digestive systems with red seaweed and discovered a drastic decrease in methane production. Their lab experiment suggested that reformulating a cow’s diet to contain 2 percent seaweed could reduce its methane emissions by 99 percent.
Kebreab tried to replicate those results with actual animals. His team mixed varying levels of Asparagopsis armata, a type of red seaweed, into the feed of 12 dairy cows over a two-month period. The results were shocking: When the cattle’s chow consisted of just 1 percent seaweed, their methane emissions went down 60 percent. “In all the years that I’ve worked in this area, I’ve never seen anything that reduced it that much,” Kebreab says.
These are preliminary results, but they offer exciting prospects. Seaweed doesn’t require precious freshwater, fertilizer, or land to grow. It can reverse ocean acidification by absorbing carbon dioxide. We’d have to grow quite a bit of seaweed to rely on it for sequestration: One study suggests we could remove the equivalent of 42 percent of all current global CO2 emissions by covering 4 percent of the world’s oceans in seaweed farms—but that’s a lot of ocean.
And as a review published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization notes, if aquaculturists remove rocks or native sea grasses to plant massive seaweed farms, they could disrupt ecosystems and even alter coastal currents. But responsible seaweed cultivation could be a boon to marine habitats, providing nurseries for fish and snails, argues Paul Dobbins, a senior specialist at the World Wildlife Fund and former president of a kelp farm in Maine.
“You don’t have to rebuild 10,000 power plants in the world. You basically create a modest feed additive that has a big leverage effect.”
The need to rein in methane emissions is especially urgent in Cali­fornia, home to 1.8 million dairy cows. A 2016 law requires the state air resources board to implement a strategy to reduce these emissions by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030. In hopes of helping farmers meet those goals, Kebreab and his team launched a larger version of his cow study in March, using 21 steers that he monitored for six months. So far, the results mirror the first experiment’s, but a full analysis won’t be ready until December. Kebreab’s biggest hurdle has been finding enough seaweed; the variety that’s useful for cows isn’t domestically available.
Massachusetts-based Australis Aquaculture hopes to cultivate red Asparagopsis on ropes anchored off the coast of Vietnam. CEO Josh Goldman is excited about feeding his underwater crop to cows: “You don’t have to rebuild 10,000 power plants in the world. You basically create a modest feed additive that has a big leverage effect.”
WWF’s Dobbins says seaweed farming can be a “triple win”: a way to grow nutritious food for both cows and people, provide coastal jobs, and improve the marine environment. “Everything you do in food production has pluses and minuses relative to the environment,” he says. “Seaweed farming, if done correctly, actually comes out more on the plus side.”

Links

Emissions Flat-Line As 'Carrot's Not Working And There's No Stick'

Sydney Morning HeraldPeter Hannam

Australia's carbon emissions appear to have edged higher in the final quarter of the 2018-19 financial year, delaying the downward trajectory the nation needs in order to hit the country's Paris climate goals.
National emissions are projected to have reached 134.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e) in April-June 2019, according to Ndevr Environmental Consultants, an environmental auditing company with a track record of accurately estimating the nation's emissions.
The electricity sector is producing fewer emissions as renewable energy supplies expand, nudging out coal. Credit: AAP
That total would come in about 900,000 tonnes of CO2-e more than for the previous three months, Ndevr said in a report based on public data and sector estimates. The tally would be less - by a similar amount - than the fourth quarter of 2017-18.
For the whole year, emissions were modestly higher than for previous 12 months, marking three consecutive years of increases. Excluding land-use changes - such as deforestation or tree planting - annual emissions have risen for the five years since the Abbott government scrapped the carbon price in 2014.
Source: NDEVR, Australian government
"Emissions are flattening out but it's not good enough," Matt Drum, Endvr's managing director, told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. "Australia needs a significant decrease to get anywhere near the Paris goals."
A Senate order requires the federal government release official quarterly figures within five months of the end of the respective period. The fourth quarter data is due out by the end of next month.
In line with recent quarters, rises in emissions in the booming liquefied natural gas sector have negated a drop in pollution from the electricity industry as renewable power continues to expand push out coal- and gas-fired power, Ndver estimated. The worsening drought also cut emissions from agriculture.
A reduction in emissions from the electricity sector are being negated by increases from the gas industry.
Angus Taylor, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, said that while the government won't pre-empt the official figures, "we can confirm that they will take into account the government's $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package which accounts for every tonne of abatement needed to meet our 2030 [Paris] target".
"Australia’s international emissions reporting is world class," Mr Taylor said. "We have a comprehensive and timely reporting program for emissions."
Labor, the Greens and environmental groups have criticised the government's emissions stance, not least its plan to meet about half of Australia's Paris target by counting projected "credits" from the current Kyoto Protocol period that ends in 2020.
An environment department official told Senate estimates last week no other country has indicated it would use Kyoto "carryover" credits for their Paris goals. Germany, New Zealand and the UK are among nations to rule them out.
Mr Drum said Australia's emissions trajectory would see it overshoot the 2030 Paris target by 860 million tonnes of CO2 or equivalent gases, or about 1.6 years of its entire annual pollution at current rates.
For instance, the so-called safeguard mechanism introduced by then environment minister Greg Hunt for the 100-plus largest emitting sites had failed to stop pollution rising. Companies had found ways to tap loopholes to lift emissions about 7 per cent in the most recent annual statistics, he said.
"The carrot's not working and there's no stick," Mr Drum said.

Links

Anthony Albanese Recasts Labor's Climate Policy To Make It 'All About Jobs'

The Guardian

Opposition leader’s first vision statement says a shift to clean energy will unlock new economic opportunities
The first of Anthony Albanese’s vision statements has put a heavy emphasis on the job-creating potential of a low-carbon economy. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
Anthony Albanese has sought to recast Labor’s climate policy as part of a new industrial “revolution”, saying the shift to clean energy will underpin an Australian manufacturing boom that unlocks new jobs and export opportunities.
In the first of the Labor leader’s vision statements that aim to reposition the party in the wake of the May election loss, Albanese focuses on jobs and the future of work, with a heavy emphasis on the job-creating potential of a low-carbon economy.
“The world is decarbonising. With the right planning and vision, Australia can not only continue to be an energy exporting superpower, we can also enjoy a new manufacturing boom. This means jobs,” Albanese said in a draft of a speech to the Centre of Economic Development in Perth on Tuesday, according to excerpts released in advance.
“Working towards a low-carbon future provides the opportunity to revitalise the Australian manufacturing sector – opportunities that are all about jobs.”
The speech comes as Labor MPs jostle over how the party should reposition itself on climate policy after the shadow resources minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, called for the opposition to abandon its emissions reduction target in favour of the coalition’s less ambitious plan to reduce emissions by 28% on 2005 levels by 2030.
Labor had proposed an emissions reduction target of 45% in the same period.
In a sign that Albanese wants to maintain the party’s action on climate change as a key point of difference with the coalition, he used Tuesday’s speech to emphasise the benefits of an ambitious emissions reduction policy for jobs in the renewable energy sector.
Labelling climate change “one of the greatest challenges that we face today”, Albanese also said that countries which act to harness cheap renewable energy would also be able to transform into “manufacturing powerhouses”.
“We have the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent, we also have some of the best wind and wave resources and we have some of the best engineers and scientists, breaking the barriers of what is possible with renewable energy,” Albanese said.
“Australia can be the land of cheap and endless energy – energy that could power generations of metal manufacturing and other energy intensive manufacturing industries.”
He points to the potential export opportunities of lithium, rare earths, iron and titanium as the “key ingredients” of the renewables revolution, saying the minerals would be in high demand in a low-carbon future.
“Just as coal and iron ore fuelled the industrial economies of the 20th century, it is these minerals that will fuel the clean energy economies of the 21st,” Albanese said, pointing to the growing demand for lithium for electric vehicles, batteries and energy storage.
But the Labor leader also used the speech to reassure “traditional industries” that they would benefit from the shift to renewables, saying the demand for metallurgical coal would continue, fuelled by growth in wind energy.
Labor has been at pains to reconnect with coal communities since its election defeat, amid concern that blue-collar workers abandoned the party in its traditional stronghold seats.
The former leader Bill Shorten has said since the election that he had misread “some of the mood”, particularly in the resources states of Queensland and Western Australia, saying voters saw some of the party’s policies as “being green-left, not for the worker, not for working people.”
“It pains me to realise at the last election our presentation meant that some people felt we weren’t putting jobs first and foremost in everything we did,” Shorten said.
Labor’s shadow treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has said there was a perception that Labor was “sending mixed messages on the coal industry” during the campaign, while Fitzgibbon has said it was a “huge error” for Labor not to talk about coal because of a fear that it would cost city seats.
Albanese said in the speech that with more than 200 tonnes of metallurgical coal required to produce one wind turbine, growth in global wind generation over the next decade could see Australia exporting 15.5 million tonnes of coking coal to build turbines.
“This is the equivalent of three years output from the Moranbah North coking coal mine in Queensland,” Albanese said.
“Simply put, the road to a low-carbon future can be paved with hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs, as well as supporting traditional jobs, including coalmining. Labor wants to lead that clean energy revolution.”
The first of Albanese’s headland speeches comes as the party braces for the release of a review of the election that is being spearheaded by Jay Weatherill and Craig Emerson to establish what went wrong in its campaign, with climate policy and the party’s position on the Adani coalmine expected to be scrutinised.
Albanese has said the review will be a “line in the sand” for the party as it seeks to reassess all of its policies ahead of the next election, due in 2022.
Along with the focus on green jobs, Albanese also used Tuesday’s speech to call for the government to introduce an upgraded investment guarantee, saying it should form part of a “measured” economic stimulus package.
“Labor has been urging a bringing forward of the infrastructure investment that is needed to stimulate the economy,” he said.
“A bring-forward of infrastructure investment combined with increased business investment would create jobs in the short term as well as lift productivity.”

Links

29/10/2019

How To Mourn A Glacier

New Yorker*

In Iceland, a memorial ceremony suggests
new ways to think about climate change.
Video by Josh Okun
Along the western edge of Iceland’s central-highland plateau, in the far east of the Borgarfjörður district, the Kaldidalur, or “cold valley,” stretches twenty-five miles between two barren volcanic ridges: the Prestahnúkur system to the east and the Ok volcano to the west. These volcanoes form part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the longest mountain range in the world, which runs under the ocean from Antarctica to the Arctic and into the Siberian Sea. On the valley’s eastern slope, massive glaciers push dolerite boulders down the mountainsides with their shining blue snouts. The western slope rises slowly toward the summit of Ok, a low shield volcano shrouded in mist.
Although nearly every mountain, stream, and valley in Iceland has a name and a history, Ok isn’t particularly famous. No path brings tourists to its summit, and those who travel the one-lane gravel road through the valley floor typically take no note of Okjökull—meaning “Ok’s glacier”—which spanned sixteen square kilometres at its largest, at the end of the nineteenth century. By 1978, it had shrunk to three square kilometres. In 2014, Iceland’s leading glaciologist, Oddur Sigurðsson, hiked to Ok’s summit to discover only a small patch of slushy gray ice in the shadow of the volcano’s crater. Okjökull could no longer be classified as a glacier, Sigurðsson announced to the scientific community. It had become “dead ice.”
In August, I joined about a hundred scientists, activists, dignitaries, farmers, politicians, journalists, and children, as they gathered at the base of Ok to mourn the lost glacier. The day began cold and gray; a cover of low clouds threatened rain. “The climate crisis is already here,” Iceland’s Prime Minister, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, told the crowd. “It is not just this glacier that has disappeared. We see the heat waves in Europe. We see floods. We see droughts.” Film crews pointed their cameras, while the wind whipped Jakobsdóttir’s hair and the paper on which she had written her remarks. “The time has come not for words, not necessarily for declarations, but for action,” she said.
Her message was echoed by Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and by Kumi Nadoo, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, who assured us that the planet would be fine. But, if we sustain our current trajectory, he continued, humans would be gone. Nadoo passed the microphone to the writer and former Icelandic Presidential candidate Andri Snær Magnason, who gripped it with both gloved hands. “Some of the students who are here today are twenty years old,” he said, his voice shaking. “You may live to be a healthy ninety-year-old, and at that time you might have a favorite young person—a great-grandchild, maybe—who is the age you are now. When that person is a healthy ninety-year-old, the year will be 2160, and this event today will be in the order of direct memory from you to your grandchild in the future.”
Magnason, who wore black glasses, a black stocking cap, and waterproof pants, had written the text for a memorial plaque that was to be installed at the top of the volcano, at the site of the former glacier. Like his speech, the plaque was meant, he said, to connect us to “the intimate time of the future.” He asked us to turn toward the mountain. I followed the crowd away from the road and up Ok’s slope. Behind us, the volcanoes darkened with rain.
The area where Ok Glacier once was. The landscape is desolate, with rocks that are reminiscent of a large lakebed. Photograph by Josh Okun
Dominic Boyer, Cymene Howe, and Magnús Örn Sigurðsson brave the elements to hike to the summit of Ok mountain and drill holes for the plaque. Photograph by Josh Okun
When Sigurðsson first announced Okjökull’s death, it was reported with little fanfare. A brief program aired on public television, and one short, four-line story appeared in an English-language newspaper. Around that time, two American anthropologists, Cymene Howe and Dominic Boyer—my colleagues at Rice University—began conducting fieldwork on the social impacts of the climate crisis in Iceland. The story about the death of Okjökull caught their attention, they told me, because Ok (pronounced “auk”) “was not O.K.” Photographs of the melting ice cap showed the caldera in the shape of an “O”; inside the crater, a black rock jutting from the ice, looked like a “C”. One Icelander they spoke to pointed out that “Oc” is the spelling of Ok in medieval Icelandic. The mountain, they said, seemed to be writing its own name.Howe and Boyer began making a documentary about the glacier. Working with a team of Icelanders, they filmed interviews with farmers and artists who lived near the volcano, and with scientists, politicians, folklorists, writers, professors, tourists, and religious leaders. When asked how they felt about the death of Okjökull, some people shrugged and said that they were sad. Others admitted that they were hearing its name for the first time. Sigurðsson, the glaciologist, insisted to Howe and Boyer that, even though Okjökull was the smallest named glacier in Iceland, its death was a major loss. “It should not feel like just brushing something off your coat,” he told them. Children learn the name of Okjökull in their earliest geography lessons; they see its name printed on nearly every Icelandic map. “A good friend has left us,” Sigurðsson said.
After the documentary premièred, in 2018, Howe and Boyer sought a sense of closure. They settled on the idea of installing the memorial plaque and asked Magnason to write the text. It was a difficult prompt, Magnason told me: only a handful of people might ever climb the mountain, and fewer still would happen to stumble across the plaque. The other challenge was how to evoke, in words, the linkage between glaciers and memory. “The oldest Icelandic texts are a thousand years old,” Magnason said—around the same age as the ice in the country’s oldest glaciers. “In all that time, the Earth has been quite stable, but the Earth will have changed more in the next two hundred years than in the last thousand years.” The plaque, cast in copper, would need to cohere for a reader two centuries from now, he explained, while also enshrining a specific moment of urgency.Magnason decided to address his imagined audience directly. “A letter to the future,” the plaque reads in both Icelandic and English. “Ok is the first Icelandic glacier to lose its status as a glacier. In the next 200 years, all our glaciers are expected to follow the same path. This monument is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and what needs to be done. Only you know if we did it.” As Howe, Boyer, and Magnason planned the ceremony, the first public photographs of the plaque were released and went viral. Soon, they began hearing from people all over Europe, Asia, and North America—scientists, journalists, even the Prime Minister of Iceland—who wanted to be part of the funeral for the dead glacier at the top of the world.f we say something has died, can we also say it once lived? A few days before the memorial ceremony for Okjökull, I met Sigurðsson for coffee on an uncommonly sunny morning in Reykjavík, hoping to learn more about why he had chosen to frame the loss of the glacier as a death. For a glaciologist, Sigurðsson has amassed an unusual degree of celebrity. His phone rang several times as we talked, and he admitted that he was not used to the attention. He was looking forward to a trip with his wife, the next week, to celebrate their anniversary.
Sigurðsson brightened when I asked him about glaciers. “They are enormously interesting as a natural phenomenon,” he said. Partly his passion was aesthetic—“They just shine,” he said—but he was also interested in why they surge suddenly and without explanation. When I asked him directly if glaciers were living, he hesitated. Things that grow and move, we tend to consider animate, he said, even if we resist the idea that every animate thing has a soul. A healthy glacier grows each winter more than it melts each summer; moves on the ground under its own weight; and is at least partially covered with a thick, fur-like layer of snow. Glaciers also move on their insides, especially in Iceland, where the glaciers are made of temperate ice, which exists right at the melting point. This sets them apart from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which are frozen and older by hundreds of thousands of years.
In Iceland, Sigurðsson said, the oldest ice was born more than a thousand years ago, before the Little Ice Age, on the north side of Vatnajökull, the largest glacier in the country. Vatnajökull is roughly the area of Delaware and Rhode Island combined, and stands almost as tall as the Empire State Building. Okjökull, by comparison, was small and young when it died; ice covered the mountaintop for only a few centuries. Sigurðsson knows this because he had counted the glacier’s rings, which were formed by dust each year—not unlike the rings on a tree. The rings contained a sort of memory—a record of pollen clouds, volcanic eruptions, world wars, and nuclear meltdowns. When a glacier melts, Sigurðsson explained, its memory disappears.
Having “memory” is just one of the many ways scientists refer to glaciers in terms that make them seem alive. They also “crawl” and have “toes”; when they break off at the ablation edge, they are said to have “calved.” They are born and die—the latter at increasing rates, especially during “the great thaw” of the past twenty years. When Sigurðsson conducted a glacier inventory in the early two-thousands, he found more than three hundred glaciers in Iceland; a repeat inventory, in 2017, revealed that fifty-six had disappeared. Many of them were small glaciers in the highlands, which had spent their lives almost entirely unseen. “Most of them didn’t even have names,” he told me. “But we have been working with local people to name every glacier so that they will not go unbaptized.” Now, he intends to complete their death certificates and bring a stack of them to meetings. The next to go, he thinks, will be Hofsjökull, to the east.
It is unusual for a glaciologist to fill out a death certificate, but something concrete, like a piece of paper or a plaque, helps to make clear that the loss is irreversible. The last ice age began in the Pleistocene and ended ten thousand years ago, when Iceland was covered in a massive ice sheet thousands of feet thick. The planet has warmed, cooled, and warmed again since then; ice has advanced and retreated, and this movement has carved the mountains and valleys that we claim as our own. But, in the past several years alone, we have witnessed not only an acceleration of the great thaw, but also the sudden bleaching of the coral reefs, the rapid spread of the Sahara desert, continuous sea-level rise, the warming of the oceans, and record-breaking hurricanes each season and every year. This is one of the most distressing things about being alive today: we are witnessing geologic time collapse on a human scale.
The crowd moments after the plaque placement ceremony. The monument is within a few hundred feet of the remaining glacial ice, and is the largest rock in the area. Photograph by Josh Okun
A rare ground rainbow in the Kaldidalur. Photograph by Josh Okun
Climbing Ok, we scrambled for hours over dolerite boulders, pitted lava rocks, patches of thick moss, and the small streams that trickled down the volcano to the lake below. We paused for lunch before the final leg of the hike, and Magnason instructed us to approach the caldera with reverence and humility. Elsewhere in Iceland, he explained, climbing to the summit of a mountain in silence and without looking back is said to grant the hiker three wishes. Wishes are sometimes too grand to be of use, Howe added, but it can be useful to imagine the future we hope to see.
As we walked the last few hundred feet, I realized that we lack metaphors for comprehending the future, much less the scale of the disaster that it has in store for us. Then the mountainside levelled, and the sight of the crater purged all thoughts from my head. The ice was gray, lifeless, uncanny. Guðmundur Ingi Guðbrandsson, Iceland’s Minister of the Environment, stood on the boulder that had been chosen as the site of the memorial. Children surrounded him with protest signs, demanding that their political leaders, their parents, and their teachers do more. “When I grew up as a little boy not very far away from here, my grandmother taught me the names of all the mountains we could see on the horizon, and the names of the four glaciers,” Guðbrandsson said. “When I visit my parents today on their farm, I can see only three.” The wind chill had dropped below freezing, and the crowd huddled together for warmth. Sigurðsson read a list of vital statistics from Okjökull’s death certificate. “The age of this glacier was about three hundred years,” he said. “Its death was caused by excessive summer heat. Nothing was done to save it.”
Howe and Boyer asked the children to come to the front of the crowd. “We need to understand our relationship to the world in ways we haven’t had to in the past,” Howe said. “We need to be able to imagine a new future.” There was a moment of silence as the children pushed the plaque into place. The day had cleared a little, and I could see across the Kaldidalur to the glaciers on the opposite peaks. Below them, in the valley’s deepest crevice, a meltwater lake was forming, already so blue and deep.
  • Lacy M. Johnson is the author, most recently, of “The Reckonings.”
Links

Thirst Turns To Anger As Australia's Mighty River Runs Dry

ReutersTracey Nearmy

MENINDEE, Australia (Reuters) - Reduced to a string of stagnant mustard-colored pools, fouled in places with pesticide runoff and stinking with the rotting carcasses of cattle and fish, the Darling River is running dry.

The parched earth of Australia’s longest waterway, if tributaries are included, is in the grip of the continent’s most severe drought in a century.
At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.
Locals now avoid using tap water for drinking and washing babies and children, saying it has caused skin irritation, and prefer boxed and bottled water instead.
“That was our food source, the river, our water source. That was our livelihood,” said Aboriginal elder Patricia Doyle, in her backyard piled with flotsam discovered in the now-exposed riverbed.
“When you live on a river and you have to have water brought into your town to drink and survive on, what’s that saying? It’s saying that our system ... isn’t looked after properly.”
The past two years have been the driest in the catchment area of the Darling, which flows 2,844 km (1,767 miles) over the outback to the sea, and adjoining Murray river since records began in 1900.
Ngiyaampaa girl Punta Williams poses for photographs on the dry riverbed before performing at Yaama Ngunna Baaka Corroboree Festival on the banks of the Darling River in Wilcannia, New South Wales, Australia, October 1, 2019. Recently, Aboriginal communities held special festivals along the river "to heal the Barka". Ochre-painted dancers performed around fires at dusk, revering the river but also seeking to draw attention to its plight. REUTERS/Tracey Nearmy  
 Drought is weighing on economic growth, and the dire conditions have prompted Australia, a major wheat exporter, to import the grain for the first time in 12 years.
Last summer was the hottest on record, and in Menindee, where temperatures regularly top 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit), another scorching season is expected.
The government has set up a panel to evaluate water management and ordered its anti-trust watchdog to investigate trading in irrigation rights.

‘The River Should Be Flowing’
Doyle’s clan is called the Barkindji, or people of the river, and in Aboriginal language, the Darling is called the Barka.
The river is at the heart of stories about the origins of the clan and its cultural life, particularly evident in Menindee where a third of 550 residents are indigenous, compared with a national average of less than 3%.
Lined with river red gums, the Darling also waters some of Australia’s richest grazing land, and until the construction of railways in the early 20th century, was the main route used to take wool and other goods to market.
All aspects of society are now suffering. “The river country itself, it doesn’t provide as much as what it used to,” says Kyle Philip, a Barkindji hunter and goat musterer.
Parents have forbidden children from swimming in the murky water that remains. Fish caught in holes still deep enough to hold water are inedible.
“We could taste the mud in the meat of the perch,” said Philip. “We couldn’t really eat them.”
The trunk of a gum tree glows as the sun sets over what is left of the Darling River in Menindee, Australia, September 29, 2019. Lined with river red gums, the Darling also waters some of Australia's richest grazing land. Reduced to a string of stagnant mustard-coloured pools, fouled in places with pesticide runoff and stinking with the rotting carcasses of cattle and fish, the Darling River is running dry. REUTERS/'Tracey Nearmy
Recently, Aboriginal communities held special festivals along the river “to heal the Barka”. Ochre-painted dancers performed around fires at dusk, revering the river but also seeking to draw attention to its plight.
“We’re going to start dancing and singing the land,” organizer Bruce Shillingsworth said. “Singing the rivers, singing our environment back again to make it healthy.”
And in the Anglican church at Menindee, there are prayers. “The river should be flowing,” said Reverend Helen Ferguson.
“When that river flows, the people are just abuzz and the whole town just comes to life. But that hasn’t happened for some time now and my prayer is that people don’t get worn down through that.”

Links

The Real Reason Some Scientists Downplay The Risks Of Climate Change

The GuardianDale Jamieson | Michael Oppenheimer | Naomi Oreskes

Climate deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, but if anything they’re often too conservative
Sea ice on the ocean surrounding Antarctica. Photograph: Ted Scambos/AP
Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes are authors of Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy.
Although the results of climate research have been consistent for decades, climate scientists have struggled to convey the gravity of the situation to laypeople outside their field.
If anything, the wider public only recently seems to have awakened to the threat of the climate crisis. Why?
In our new book, Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy, we attempted to illuminate how scientists make the judgments they do.
In particular, we wanted to know how scientists respond to the pressures, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt, that arise when they know that their conclusions will be disseminated beyond the research community – in short, how scientists are affected when they know the world is watching.
We explored these questions with respect to assessments of acid rain, ozone depletion and sea level rise predictions from the west Antarctic ice sheet.
While climate skeptics and deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, the available evidence suggests the opposite.
By and large, scientists have either been right in their assessments, or have been unduly conservative. We noticed a clear pattern of underestimation of certain key climate indicators, and therefore underestimation of the threat of climate disruption.
When new observations of the climate system have provided more or better data, or permitted us to re-evaluate earlier conclusions, the findings for ice extent, sea level rise and ocean temperature have generally been worse than previously thought.
One of the factors that appears to contribute to this trend of underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we call “univocality”: the felt need to speak in a single voice.
Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction.
Others worry that even if policy-makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message.
Therefore, scientists actively seek to find their common ground, and to focus on those areas of agreement. In some cases, where there are irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists may say nothing, giving the erroneous impression that nothing is known.
How does the pressure for univocality lead to underestimation? Consider a case in which most scientists think that the correct answer to a question is in the range one to 10, but some believe that it could be as high as 100. In this case, everyone will agree that it is at least one to 10, but not everyone will agree that it could be as high as 100.
Therefore, the area of agreement is one to 10, and this will be reported as the consensus view. Wherever there is a range of possible outcomes that includes a long, high-end tail of probability, the area of overlap will lie at or near the low end.
We are not suggesting that every example of under-estimation is caused by the factors we observed in our work, nor that the demand for consensus always leads to underestimation. But we found that this pattern occurred in all of the cases that we studied.
We also found that the institutional aspects of assessment, including who the authors are and how they are chosen, how the substance is divided into chapters, and guidance emphasizing consensus, also generally tilt in favor of scientific conservatism.
Knowing this, what do we do?
To scientists, we suggest that you should not view consensus as a goal. Consensus is an emergent property, something that may come forth as the result of scientific work, discussion and debate. When that occurs, it is important to articulate the consensus as clearly and specifically as possible. But where there are substantive differences of opinion, they should be acknowledged and the reasons for them explained.
Scientific communities should also be open to experimenting with alternative models for making and expressing group judgments, and to learning more about how policy makers actually interpret the findings that result.
Such approaches may contribute to assessments being more useful tools as we face the reality of adapting to the climate crisis and the disruptions that will occur.
For political leaders and business people, we think it is important for you to know that it is extremely unlikely that scientists are exaggerating the threat of the climate crisis. It is far more likely that things are worse than scientists have said.
We have already seen that the impacts of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are unfolding more rapidly than scientists predicted. There is a high likelihood that they will continue to do so, and that the IPCC estimates – that emissions must be rapidly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, by 2050 – may well be optimistic.
The fact that this conclusion is hard to swallow does not make it untrue.
And for ordinary citizens, it is important to recognize that scientists have done their job. It is now up to us to force our leaders to act upon what we know, before it is too late.

Links

28/10/2019

The Emperor’s New Clothes: Greta Thunberg Versus The Climate Contrarians

Pearls and Irritations - Andrew Glikson

It is not an accident that fascist philosophies and movements willfully ignore human-induced global warming leading to the Sixth mass extinction of species, the largest since 56 million years ago. The nature of denialists is manifest in their venting of hate on the 16 years-old Gerta Thunberg, the voice of a generation destined to face the global warming calamity perpetrated by sections of humanity.
Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images
Andrew Glikson
Dr Andrew Glikson is an Earth and Paleo-climate Scientist, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, Research School of Earth Science, the School of Archaeology and Anthropology, and the Planetary Science Institute, and a member of the ANU Climate Change Institute.
There is nothing moral about the fundamentalists telling children they may be burning in hell if they sin on Earth, while ignoring the evidence of the inferno facing future generations as the atmosphere is heated by greenhouse gas emissions, plunging the planet into a hothouse Earth.
In their panic the denialists attribute the girl’s views, which are consistent with climate science, to her asperger syndrome or smear her as mentally ill, ignoring many with this syndrome are highly intelligent people. By extension they dismiss the basic laws of physics, climate science and the consensus on global warming, which the 16 years-old reiterates.
While the destruction of the habitability of Earth is in progress, rather than comprehend the extreme consequences of global warming the contrarians appear to be alarmed by the voice of a teenage girl, just in case this may deprive the industry of death from their enormous profits. Further, these people instinctively correlate attempts at defending life on Earth with “left” socialist ideas.
The history of H. sapiens is dominated by a conflict between life-enhancing forces and the life-destroying conduct, carnage and wars, the cycle symbolized in the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva cycle in Hindu mythology. Climate change has not been invented by “conservatives” but once its fatal consequences have become manifest it fits well with the “survival of the fittest” ideology, denying science, nature and life.
Such conflicts originate in the natural world, however once a species has acquired a range of lethal techniques—chemical detonation, atom splitting, radiation, biological warfare—the survival of the fittest paradigm becomes a recipe for global suicide, compounded by the lunacy of seeking shelter on other planets.
Global governance and legal systems are not designed to cope with this ultimate danger. Elaborate legal systems exist to collect taxes or enforce traffic rules, but no courts exist to prevent the powers that be from changing the composition for the atmosphere, thereby leading to one of the greatest mass extinction of species the Earth has suffered.

Links