31/03/2020

United Nations: Climate Change Is The Defining Issue

United Nations

The wind farm “Los Granujales” in the South of Spain (Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz). Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources like wind is one of the measures needed to slow down climate change. Vidar Nordli-Mathisen
Climate Change is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future will be more difficult and costly.

▶The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases occur naturally and are essential to the survival of humans and millions of other living things, by keeping some of the sun’s warmth from reflecting back into space and making Earth livable. But after more than a century and a half of industrialization, deforestation, and large scale agriculture, quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen to record levels not seen in three million years. As populations, economies and standards of living grow, so does the cumulative level of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions.
There are some basic well-established scientific links:
  • The concentration of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth;
  • The concentration has been rising steadily, and mean global temperatures along with it, since the time of the Industrial Revolution;
  • The most abundant GHG, accounting for about two-thirds of GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2), is largely the product of burning fossil fuels.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment to provide an objective source of scientific information. In 2013 the IPCC provided more clarity about the role of human activities in climate change when it released its Fifth Assessment Report. It is categorical in its conclusion: climate change is real and human activities are the main cause.
Fifth Assessment Report The report provides a comprehensive assessment of sea level rise, and its causes, over the past few decades. It also estimates cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial times and provides a CO2 budget for future emissions to limit warming to less than 2°C. About half of this maximum amount was already emitted by 2011. The report found that:
  • From 1880 to 2012, the average global temperature increased by 0.85°C.
  • Oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished and the sea level has risen. From 1901 to 2010, the global average sea level rose by 19 cm as oceans expanded due to warming and ice melted. The sea ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk in every successive decade since 1979, with 1.07 × 106 km² of ice loss per decade.
  • Given current concentrations and ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases, it is likely that by the end of this century global mean temperature will continue to rise above the pre-industrial level. The world’s oceans will warm and ice melt will continue. Average sea level rise is predicted to be 24–30 cm by 2065 and 40–63 cm by 2100 relative to the reference period of 1986–2005. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries, even if emissions are stopped.
There is alarming evidence that important tipping points, leading to irreversible changes in major ecosystems and the planetary climate system, may already have been reached or passed. Ecosystems as diverse as the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic tundra, may be approaching thresholds of dramatic change through warming and drying. Mountain glaciers are in alarming retreat and the downstream effects of reduced water supply in the driest months will have repercussions that transcend generations.
 Global Warming of 1.5°C
In October 2018 the IPCC issued a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C, finding that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, the report found that limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society. While previous estimates focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by 2°C, this report shows that many of the adverse impacts of climate change will come at the 1.5°C mark.
The report also highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2ºC.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
▶United Nations legal instruments
 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The UN family is at the forefront of the effort to save our planet. In 1992, its “Earth Summit” produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a first step in addressing the climate change problem. Today, it has near-universal membership. The 197 countries that have ratified the Convention are Parties to the Convention. The ultimate aim of the Convention is to prevent “dangerous” human interference with the climate system.
 Kyoto Protocol
By 1995, countries launched negotiations to strengthen the global response to climate change, and, two years later, adopted the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol legally binds developed country Parties to emission reduction targets. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. The second commitment period began on 1 January 2013 and will end in 2020. There are now 197 Parties to the Convention and 192 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
 Paris Agreement
At the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015, Parties to the UNFCCC reached a landmark agreement to combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.
The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
On Earth Day, 22 April 2016, 175 world leaders signed the Paris Agreement at United Nations Headquarters in New York. This was by far the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement on a single day. There are now 186 countries that have ratified the Paris Agreement.
▶2019 Climate Action Summit
On 23 September 2019, Secretary-General António Guterres convened a Climate Summit to bring world leaders of governments, the private sector and civil society together to support the multilateral process and to increase and accelerate climate action and ambition. He named Luis Alfonso de Alba, a former Mexican diplomat, as his Special Envoy to lead preparations. The Summit focused on key sectors where action can make the most difference—heavy industry, nature-based solutions, cities, energy, resilience, and climate finance. World leaders reported on what they are doing, and what more they intend to do when they convene in 2020 for the UN climate conference, where commitments will be renewed and may be increased. In closing the Climate Action Summit, the Secretary-General said “You have delivered a boost in momentum, cooperation and ambition. But we have a long way to go.”
“We need more concrete plans, more ambition from more countries and more businesses. We need all financial institutions, public and private, to choose, once and for all, the green economy.”
▶Nobel Peace Prize
In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to former United States Vice-President Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

Secretary-General António Guterres calls for global action on climate change

Links

Children Of The Crisis

Rolling Stone

A generation of kids faces a more dangerous world as they come of age in the era of eco-anxiety

Jasper McTaggart, at home with his family in Queens, New York, finds himself worrying about the future of the planet. Amy Lombard for Rolling Stone

Last summer, Jasper McTaggart came to the abrupt realization that life as he knew it may be coming to an end. He was nine years old. It was lunchtime, and he was eating a sandwich in the dining hall of a New Hampshire summer camp. Sitting near him, a fellow camper had just opened a letter from home, and in the envelope was a news clipping with a picture from Paris, where temperatures were reaching record, fatal highs. Jasper looked up from the picture and at the faces of his friends. “We’re not in climate change now, are we?” he asked the table.

“Yes, we are,” his counselor confirmed.

Jasper couldn’t believe it. He sat there stunned. A New York City kid, he had spent his time at camp that summer basking in the promise and excitement of the great outdoors, a playground big enough to hold a boy’s dreams of adventure. There was danger there, yes, but he would be kept safe. Adults knew how to keep children safe — or so he’d thought.

Now, sipping hot cider in a coffee shop near his Queens home, he shakes his head at the memory of this moment when he realized that maybe they didn’t. “I was shocked,” he says. “I didn’t know climate change was already in effect. I knew it was going to come — and possibly in my lifetime — but I expected it more in the distant future.”

Jasper took it upon himself to find out more. He learned that parts of Florida were flooding regularly. “It’s just going to be gone. It’ll be like a hidden state,” he says. When the temperature reached 95 degrees one day, he worried about what that might mean. When he returned home from camp, he told his parents he wanted to participate in the youth climate march in September, and after the march, he joined his school’s Green Team along with his friend Kavi, who now sits next to Jasper in the coffee shop with his own hot drink and shared concerns.

“I’m scared,” says Kavi, who is 10. “Like, at some point, this is all just going to be gone. And there’s going to be no second chances. It’s just going to be game over.”

“The fires in Australia made me really sad,” Jasper adds. “Whenever I think of it, I’m like, ‘Oh no!’ ”

It’s hard to predict these “oh no!” moments. The boys say they’ll come to them unexpectedly, souring childhood memories that older generations have experienced without any emotional undercurrent of despair. Jasper thinks back to the time, a few weeks prior, when he was in his garden having a snowball fight with his dad. “I was in a snow fort, ducking and throwing snowballs, and I was like, ‘I’m so sad I won’t be able to do this with my kids.’ It just came to me that I might not be able to do this with the next generation because the Earth is warming.”

“I try to forget about it, but that doesn’t work,” admits Kavi. “It’s like the world’s going to end —not now, but it’s going to end at some point — and I might be there to experience it. So I’m kind of, like, screaming inside.

“Other generations did not have to worry about this. They didn’t have to try to save the environment.

“And all the people that made this happen and fueled it are just going to be gone by the time it really takes effect. They have the most power, but they refuse to use it.”

Kavi looks down into his cup glumly. “It’s just up to us, a couple of 10-year-old kids, to fix the world’s problems now.”



The world’s problems have not usually been the domain of its 10-year-olds, but the climate crisis has changed that, creating a veritable tide of tiny and teenage warriors who have taken to the streets and halls of power to demand that their futures be safeguarded by the actions of today. Behind their signs and placards, their anger and frustration are clear. What is harder to see is their anxiety, the psychological burden of those “oh no!” thoughts that threaten to arise, the private moments of panic and fear felt by a generation that cannot remember a time before the planet’s future was imperiled.

“I grew up in the nuclear era, and I feel like the nuclear threat activated my nervous system at a very young age,” says Renee Lertzman, a psychologist and founding member of the Climate Psychology Alliance, a group of psychology professionals who specialize in addressing climate change. When she began learning about the climate crisis in college, Lertzman felt a similar sense of panic and came to believe that, psychologically speaking, “There are really important parallels: The threats are human-created, and there’s a pervasive, visceral anxiety about the future at all times.”

Yet much of Lertzman’s research has been into how the climate-change threat is unique to our time. “Unlike the nuclear threat, we’re talking about how we live,” she continues. “This is about virtually every aspect of our contemporary lives. This is about how I eat, how I get around, how I dress myself, what I put on my face. It’s very intimate.” And as such, it implicates normal people — all of us — in our own potential demise. Which, quite frankly, can really mess with your head.

Kavi in Queens, New York: “I try to forget, but that doesn’t work. Other generations didn’t have to worry about this.” Photograph by Amy Lombard for Rolling Stone
In 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement positing that “the social foundations of children’s mental and physical health are threatened by the specter of far-reaching effects of unchecked climate change,” and that “given this knowledge, failure to take prompt, substantive action would be an act of injustice to all children.”

Since then, those in the mental health fields have started to see the effects of this specter: children coming to therapists grief-stricken at the thought that they wouldn’t live in a world where it was ecologically sensible to have children of their own; kids arriving at the ER, suicidal with despair about damage to the environment; children who refused to drink water during droughts or who suffered from panic attacks at the thought of human extinction. These may be the more extreme cases, but for many of those who traffic in mental health, they represent a bubbling over of what is just under the surface for scores of young people today.

“This time last year, there was maybe one request a month,” says Caroline Hickman, a British psychotherapist whose particular focus is eco-anxiety in children. “This year, there are two or three a week. I’ve got the NHS, I’ve got the civil service, I’ve got counseling organizations, I’ve got schools approaching me on a weekly basis saying, ‘Can you help?’ ”

“I’m struggling to find the words to describe the magnitude of what is being faced from a public mental health perspective,” says psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren, who was an expert witness in Juliana v. United States, a 2015 case in which 21 young plaintiffs sued the federal government for infringing upon their right to life and liberty by failing to take substantive action on climate change (the case is currently in appeal). “If we think the storms are bad outside, wait until we see the storms inside,” Van Susteren continues. “You cannot continue to hold up in front of young people the fact that things are only going to get worse and expect that they can create a kind of life that will allow them to thrive.”

Indeed, a December Amnesty International survey of more than 10,000 18- to 25-year-olds in 22 countries identified climate change as the most important issue facing the world in these Generation Z’ers’ minds (pollution came in second). In the fall, The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation released the results of a poll in which 57 percent of American teenagers (ages 13 to 17) said that climate change made them feel scared, 52 percent said it made them angry, and only 29 percent said they were optimistic about the issue. Among young adults (18 to 29), the results were even more stark — with 68 percent of that group reporting feeling afraid and 66 percent saying they feel helpless — implying that distress grows with age.

In 2019, both the National Association of School Nurses and the California Association of School Psychologists endorsed climate-change resolutions, the latter declaring climate change a potential threat to the psychological development of children and calling on “Congress to take effective action on climate change to protect current and future students.” This came after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2018 that policymakers have only 12 years to act before the consequences of global warming become irreversible, a timeline that young people have latched onto with what has been referred to as “ecological doom.” The home page of youth activist group Zero Hour features large black numbers counting down the years, days, hours, minutes, and seconds to this deadline, like a ticking bomb.

And while it makes sense that young people would be particularly susceptible to eco-anxiety — knowing that they will be the ones inheriting the brunt of the issues — there’s more to it than that. There’s also the particular makeup of young minds, and the way those minds function. “Children are incredibly switched on to fairness and unfairness, and what’s right and wrong,” says Hickman. “They’re also emotionally connected to other species. How do we teach children how to empathize and build relationships? We buy them picture books with rabbits and puppies or kittens. That’s how we teach kids about relationships. That’s how we teach them to care. So, of course, they care.”

Then there’s the reality that young people are sensing the loss of a world they are still in the process of trying to figure out and understand — a heartbreaking form of FOMO (“fear of missing out”) at a time when the vestiges of another, healthier natural world remain. “I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and I still live here,” says Jamie Margolin, 18-year-old co-founder of Zero Hour. “Our bus cards are called Orca cards, but I’ve never seen an orca in my entire life. In the park close to where I live, there are signs that say, ‘Please don’t feed the resting seal pups.’ I’ve never actually seen any seals or wildlife in that park for as long as I’ve lived here. Ever.”

This sense of impermanence matters, as a child’s process of making sense of the world is best accomplished when that world is seen as fairly immutable, if not entirely predictable. “I remember thinking it was so weird that all these adults were saying that so many different things were true,” says Jane Nail, a 20-year-old college student who grew up in Alabama and first heard about climate change when Barack Obama was running for president. “It was one of the first times that the adults in my life weren’t all on a united front. The concept of good and evil was in my head, and I remember thinking that one side had to be good and one side had to be evil. One of them was obviously lying, but I didn’t necessarily know which side. I remember being really jolted by that.”

There’s also the growing knowledge, in our age of attachment parenting, that “attachment to the natural world is just as important in terms of security as our attachment to other human beings,” says Elizabeth Haase, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and a founding member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance. “That’s actually a radically new concept in psychology.” Just as children need to trust that a caregiver will be there for them in order for healthy psychological development to occur, they need to trust that their environment will be there as well.

That it may not be — or not as it is now — creates a sense of insecurity, a sense of loss that can’t cycle through the normal stages of grief because it’s a loss that’s ongoing. “When you have a traumatic loss or any kind of disruption that’s very painful, you can come out of it by going back to trying to do it the way you did it before, right?” Haase asks me. “Which is mostly what you hear from people: ‘I can’t wait to get things back to the way they used to be and just get back that sense of security, or get another dog, or rebuild my house after the hurricane.’ ”

Jasilyn Charger, who led protesters at Standing Rock, says activism gave her friends hope. Photo credit: Dawnee Lebeau
Not only do children not have enough life experience to envision that sort of regenerative cycle as effectively as adults can, but they also don’t conceive of climate change that way. For them, there’s no going back to how things were, which is leading to a type of dread that’s sometimes referred to as solastalgia (a sort of anticipatory grief caused by the climate crisis) or pre-traumatic stress disorder, in which, as Haase puts it, “the focus is not on being constantly vigilant to what has happened, but constantly vigilant to what can happen.” The limited studies of Pre-TSD — often done on soldiers before they entered a war zone — shows that those who have it are far more likely to develop Post-TSD if something bad does in fact happen — they are, in a sense, primed to have their stress systems kick into overdrive.

“As animals, we are wired to react to trauma and danger — the fight-or-flight system, right?” says psychiatrist Beth Mark, who has worked at the counseling center at the University of Pennsylvania for more than 20 years. The response is not just psychological but physical: Heart rates and inflammation go up, immunity goes down. “The dilemma that seems completely new to humankind is that we’re having a pre-traumatic response. We can look ahead and think about what’s going to happen, which has to be raising our fight-and-flight response in a low-grade way. We are more and more at this constant edge, and it creates a chronic state of depletion with negative impact on how we are going about our days.”

And for kids who assume that most of their days are still in front of them, it can also create a sense of paralysis. “I’m not even sure if I’m going to go to college,” 18-year-old Alejandro Vasquez tells me from the sidewalk in front of New York’s City Hall, where every week he protests as part of the Fridays for Future campaign. “What’s the point of having an education if we’re not going to have a future?” When I interviewed Zero Hour’s Margolin, she was on her way to a college interview, the irony of which did not escape her: “I’m talking to you about my fear of there not being a future, while I’m going through the motions of preparing for my future. I’m still preparing for a future that doesn’t exist, out of hope that it maybe will.”

Almost none of the teens I talked to want to have kids, though some said they had wanted to before learning about climate change. “I feel like it would be cruel to myself and to children to bring them into such an unstable world,” said 15-year-old Fiona Jarvis, a member of the New York chapter of the youth advocacy group Extinction Rebellion, which has its own Slack channel devoted to mental health. “If I think 20 years out, I get stressed out, to be honest. It’s very much on a day-to-day basis for me.”

All of which may explain why, according to the National Institutes of Health, nearly one in three teenagers in America will experience an anxiety disorder, and why anxiety disorders in this group rose 20 percent between 2007 and 2012. “Climate crisis affects our mental state more than we know and more than we actually understand,” says Jasilyn Charger, 23, one of the original founders of the Standing Rock encampment, where thousands of Native American youth moved to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Though the movement is famous, what is less known is that it grew out of group called One Mind Youth, which was created to combat the spate of teen suicides that plagued the Cheyenne River Reservation. The encampment gave its young people singular purpose, reigniting a sacred connection to the land that their culture prized — and for its duration, suicide rates on the reservation plummeted. When the youth lost their battle with the fossil-fuel industry and were forcibly moved from the encampment, rates spiked again.

“Standing Rock really helped a lot of my friends with their mental problems — depression, PTSD, anxiety, insomnia. A lot of people felt at home,” says Charger. “But when people started coming back from the encampment, a lot of them fell deep into a hole of either drugs and alcohol or depression. We lost a lot of young people when we came back.” It wasn’t just that the movement had failed, threatening the ecology of the area and the future of its youth — it was that, for a time, kids had seen a glimpse of hope for the natural world. “They killed themselves because they missed camp,” Charger says. “The younger people who weren’t there, they felt like they missed out on something. It took a toll on us mentally.”



For every young person like Charger, who has seen a hint of what a world of climate cooperation might look like, there are now far more kids who’ve witnessed the other extreme. From an Australia on fire to the sinking Maldives, a growing number of children and young adults no longer experience pre-traumatic stress disorder when it comes to climate change; they know what climate trauma is firsthand. And they know that they are likely to be traumatized again.

Madigan Traversi evacuated her Sonoma County, California, home late one October night in 2017 wearing her pajamas, with the smell of smoke in the air. She didn’t take the time to change, to pack more clothes, or to even grab her toothbrush. “We just grabbed my dog and got in the car,” the 14-year-old explains. “I took my school backpack, and that was it.” Two days later, she and her parents were in a hotel in the San Francisco area when they got a call from a neighbor and learned that their house had burned to the ground 20 minutes after they had evacuated. As Madigan huddled in the hotel room, crying with her family, she was in utter disbelief. “It didn’t seem real — I still don’t feel like it’s real two and a half years later.”

Weeks afterward, when she finally returned to her neighborhood, the outlines of where her home had been were all you could see. She looked for her favorite tree, the one with the swing she had played on almost every day, but it was gone — along with everything she had owned or made as a child. “The hardest possessions to lose were things like diaries and artwork from when I was little,” she says. “Of course, I remember my childhood, but I don’t have any first artworks. I know my mom was heartbroken about that.” Now, all throughout fire season, Madigan keeps two laundry baskets packed with everything that she wouldn’t want to lose a second time. During the Camp Fire of 2018, schools in her area shut down. In the Kincade Fire of 2019, she had to evacuate yet again.

“Just in the past two and a half years, our school has been closed due to four different climate-related disasters,” says Park Guthrie, a sixth-grade teacher in Sonoma County, father of three and co-founder of Schools for Climate Action, who speaks of the “psychological or spiritual destabilization” he sees in many of his students, some of whom have lost their homes and all of whom live with the uncertainty that fire season brings. For these kids who have experienced climate change acutely, Guthrie thinks climate inaction is particularly damaging — and undermines his role as an educator. “They’re right at that age where they have one foot in childhood and one foot in a broader world,” he tells me. “It’s a moment of revelation in many ways, and as it relates to the climate crisis, it’s a terrible revelation. Like, ‘If this is the case, then what about everything else you’ve been telling us about who we are as a country — that we value mainstream science, we value solving big problems, working together, speaking up for justice?’ A healthy classroom culture is embedding these lessons, and when you pull back the veil on not just climate crisis, but our national climate neglect, it’s totally destabilizing. It’s painful cognitive dissonance.”

That cognitive dissonance is what gets to Guthrie, that as his students are donning masks to go to school, members of Congress are denying the existence of climate change and the National School Boards Association is refusing to use the term for fear of alienating some of its members. He calls climate inaction a “form of neglect/abuse” arguing that “it’s not just metaphorical: We have collectively abandoned our children’s generation and future generations.”

Considering this neglect, he’s also frustrated by the patronizing way adults congratulate kids for being the ones who will assuredly solve climate change. “They hate hearing that ‘You’re going to be the ones that fix this problem that we elders couldn’t fix.’ That’s a terrifying thing to tell a seventh-grader,” says Guthrie. “It’s not healthy for kids to grow up with this nagging sense that ‘the adults aren’t in charge.’ ” In fact, this sentiment was echoed by all the young people I interviewed. They didn’t want the burden of saving the planet when some of them couldn’t even vote, when they had a Spanish test looming, and when they had come to understand that climate change is not simply a matter of science but of classism, racism, capitalism, and the way the global north indiscriminately dumps on the global south.

The psychological enormity of what they’re up against has actually helped fuel the Republican argument that climate change should not be taught in schools, that reiterating the subject could augment student distress; and it’s true that among some young people, there’s a level of alarmism that reflects the most dire of all possible outcomes. But it’s also true that those outcomes could come to pass, and that eco-anxiety is not necessarily pathological. “It’s a logical, emotionally healthy response to the reality of what’s going on,” argues Hickman, who recently had an 11-year-old point out to her that in “the world in which I am growing up, it is normal not to have polar bears. And that’s different to the world in which you grew up.”

In fact, mental-health professionals warn that the internal inconsistencies created by climate disavowal — knowing a truth but not acting on it — can be more psychologically disruptive than confronting that hard truth repeatedly. “We know that what we try to push away usually comes back or turns into a symptom in some other form,” says psychotherapist and Climate Psychology Alliance North America co-president Elizabeth Allured, who argues that rather than constraining climate education, we need to train educators on how to deal with the psychological implications of what they’re teaching.

Madigan Traversi’s family evacuated her Sonoma County home 20 minutes before it was destroyed by fires. “I still don’t feel like it’s real,” she says. Photograph by Cayce Clifford for Rolling Stone






Instead, we’re leaving that to kids as well. Just before the September climate march, Zero Hour’s Margolin was approached by a group of girls who knew of her activism and wanted her help. “They were like, ‘I was crying myself to sleep the other night about this. I’m so scared. Jamie, do you genuinely think that we’re going to be OK?’ I was trying not to discourage them, but what could I say? ‘I don’t know,’ I told them. ‘It depends on the action that we take.’ ”

For her part, Margolin has found activism to be the only way to push back on overwhelming eco-anxiety, the only way to navigate the precarious line between existential dread and improbable — but necessary — hope. “I think the psychological is what we need to impact,” says Allured. “We need more people to be thinking psychologically about this and to be feeling what’s going on. In terms of social tipping points, we never know what is going to push a system out of its equilibrium into a new level of awareness.”

In other words, we need the Jamies of the world, the Gretas, the iconoclasts, the idealists, the people whose brains are still wired for exploration. And we need them not to solve the climate crisis for us but rather to invite us into their way of seeing the issue. If young people are scared, anxious, and grieving, then so should we all be. We need the psychology of children to be our guide.



Sometimes, though, that scares me almost as much as the climate crisis itself. This past September, on the Facebook page for my son’s first-grade class, someone posted the question, “Is anyone taking their kids out of school tomorrow for the climate march?” Some parents wrote that they were, but I opted against it. At the time, my son was only five. I didn’t know if he was aware of climate change yet. I didn’t want to expose him to something so scary at such a young age. I wanted to preserve his blissful ignorance as long as I possibly could.

So it was a surprise when, a few months later, he came home with a petition he’d created to save the koalas (or “kwola’s,” as he spelled it). He’d gotten his teachers and classmates to sign it. He wanted me to send it to President Trump, and to the zoo. He doesn’t watch the news, nor had my husband and I talked about the fires in Australia in front of him. But, somehow, some way, the message had gotten through. And what I realized, standing on the sidewalk beside his bus stop, holding that piece of paper, is that I was naive to think that I could shield him from the truth that the world he lives in is changing. And in my naiveté, I had allowed his introduction to that concept to come from someone other than me.

When I tell Hickman this story, she’s silent for a moment. “Often, we have to interpret what children say to us,” she eventually says. “It would be too traumatic and frightening for your six-year-old to say, ‘Mommy, save me.’ But he is asking you to save him. When children ask us to save koala bears, they’re asking us to save them. He’s saying, ‘Save me.’ ”

By this time, of course, I’m in tears. Right now, I don’t know how to save him. I know to recycle, to try to offset my carbon footprint when I fly, to buy locally and organically when I can, to compost. I know how to make decisions that can help us all feel a little more in control. But I also know that these things are salves, that while they are important — psychologically and otherwise — the problem of climate change cannot be solved by these steps alone. And I know that when my son asks me about this, I will have to tell him the truth.

In the meantime, I practice what I might say to him when the time comes. “I am sorry that my generation and other generations haven’t fixed this for you already,” I tell Jasper and Kavi the afternoon we meet. By now, we’ve carried our drinks to the benches outside, the January day mild enough for us to sit there in light jackets.

“Well, yeah,” Kavi agrees. “It’s a lot of pressure.”

Jasper nods. “It’s a lot of stress on us.”

“I just tell myself, ‘Well, we’re going to do something.’ ” Kavi says. “And hopefully that’s true.”

Jasper looks at his friend uncertainly. “I thought climate change was going to make its way across like a storm. But no,” he sighs. “It’s here to stay.”

Links

(AU) 'Probably The Worst Year In A Century': The Environmental Toll Of 2019

The Guardian

The annual Australia’s Environment report finds last year’s heat and drought caused unprecedented damage
The sun glows red during the ACT bushfires, one of the events that contributed to a disastrous 2019 for the environment in Australia. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Record heat and drought across Australia delivered the worst environmental conditions across the country since at least 2000, with river flows, tree cover and wildlife being hit on an “unprecedented scale”, according to a new report.
The index of environmental conditions in Australia scored 2019 at 0.8 out of 10 – the worst result across all the years analysed from 2000.
The year delivered unprecedented bushfires, record heat, very low soil moisture, low vegetation growth and 40 additions to the threatened species list.
The report’s lead author, Prof Albert van Dijk of the Australian National University’s Fenner school of environment and society, told Guardian Australia 2019 was “probably the worst in a century or more” for the environment.
“This is not the new normal – this is just getting worse and worse,” he said, adding that 2019 had seen a “continuing descent into an ever more dismal future. You start to see ecosystems fall apart and then struggle to recover before the next major disturbance.”

2019 at a glance
National average values for 15 environmental indicators: numbers represent the relative change from 2000-2018 average conditions.
Environmental Condition Score (ECS) by State and Territory and change from the previous year.
National Environmental Condition Score (ECS) and its components for 2000–2019.

The Australia’s Environment report scored environmental conditions across seven indicators – inundation, streamflow, vegetation growth, leaf area, soil protection, tree cover and the number of hot days.
Across all years analysed, 2005 was the next worst year, impacted by the millennium drought. The year 2010 was the best; it was also one of Australia’s wettest on record.
Van Dijk said the cause of the impacts for 2019 were global heating as well as natural variability in Australia’s climate. The number of days above 35C was 36% higher than the previous 19 years.
The population had continued to grow and the country’s greenhouse gas emissions had remained high, the report said.
Greenhouse gas emissions per person were 11% below the 2000-18 average, but remained among the highest in the world because of high energy use per person and the burning of coal for electricity.

CLICK images

Findings were underpinned by about 1m gigabytes of data, including satellite data that only became available from 2000, as well as field data and on-the-ground surveys.
Reviewing biodiversity impacts, the report highlighted the number of spectacled flying foxes – one of many species vulnerable to heat stress – had dropped to 47,000 from an average of 100,000 before 2016.
The numbers of threatened species had risen by 36% since 2000, the report said.
River flows were 43% below the 2000-18 average, causing water storages to drop and mass fish deaths in the Murray-Darling Basin, and wetland environments had also seen record-low inundation.
River flows were above average around the coast of northern Queensland, around Karratha in Western Australia and at Strahan in Tasmania’s west.
The protection of soils by vegetation and moisture was “extremely poor”, causing dust storms. The average soil moisture was also lowest since at least 2000 and farming productivity had been hit.
The Great Barrier Reef, which has just experienced its third mass bleaching event in five years, had escaped bleaching in 2019 but its condition remained poor.
World heritage-listed Gondwana rainforests, the Blue Mountains, alpine regions, eastern Gippsland and Kangaroo Island had all been badly hit by bushfires.
A co-author of the report, Dr Marta Yebra, said: “Our data clearly shows that the combination of dry forests and hot weather made for an especially explosive mixture.”
All the findings and data from the report, now in its fifth year, can be viewed on a website and interactive map.

Links

30/03/2020

The Big Impact Of A Small Number - What 2C Of Warming Actually Looks Like

NEWS.com.au - Stephanie Bedo | Shannon Molloy

This number is pretty insignificant on its own and doesn’t seem like it could do much harm. But it will change every aspect of our lives.

People cover their faces in Batemans Bay, NSW on New Year’s Eve last year. Picture: Mark Graham/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On its own, the number two doesn’t seem overly significant or much to worry about, but in the context of degrees, it could change every aspect of life.

Australia has committed to the Paris Agreement target of limiting climate change to 1.5C, but a growing chorus of experts doubt whether that is achievable with current policies.

The reality is that 2C of warming could occur as soon as 2050 - and that’s significant.

“When it sometimes feels like the weather in Melbourne changes by 20C in the space of a day, a few degrees here and there doesn’t sound like much,” says Sophie Lewis, a senior lecturer in science at University of NSW, Canberra.

“But there’s a big difference in terms of weather and climate, and a world that’s 2C warmer will result in impacts on every aspect of life.”

Our Bodies

In a world that’s 2C warmer, an extra 420 million people will be exposed to extreme heatwaves globally and Australia will cop its fair share.

The impacts will be far more serious than feeling uncomfortable and sweaty.

Professor Emeritus Gerard Fitzgerald from the School of Public Health and Social Work at the Queensland University of Technology said the optimal internal temperature for normal bodily function was around 36.8C.

“The human body generates a certain amount of energy in itself and so it needs suitable environments in order to stay in balance,” Prof Fitzgerald said.

“The body cools itself through evaporation of water, via the breath or sweat.”

As temperatures rise, people sweat more to try to cope and this increases the loss of fluids. If they’re not replaced, dehydration is likely.

In a world that’s 2C warmer, more people will be at increased risk of heat stress in the body.

“If you don’t replace fluid, the human body becomes dry and the place that’s seen is in the bloodstream,” Prof Fitzgerald said.

“Blood becomes thicker and is more likely to clot, raising the risk of heart attack and stroke. At the same time, the body tries to retain water by shutting down the kidneys.”


Climate change: how Australia 'cooked the books'

Generally speaking, younger and fitter people are well-placed to cope and tend to accommodate by staying in cool places, avoiding exertion at the hottest times and staying hydrated.

But for vulnerable populations - the sick, the elderly and children in some cases - it’s harder to cope with extreme heat, Prof Fitzgerald said.

“The consequences can be serious, from renal failure to heart attack or stroke, to death.

“If the body can’t cool itself enough, human systems can be distressed and that’s associated with respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease, heart attacks but also broader things like mental illness.”

If the internal body temperature hits 40C or above, the consequences can be catastrophic.

“Basically, proteins start breaking down and the body begins dying. Cells break apart. It’s extremely serious.”

Australia will need to adopt an approach to extreme heat that’s similar to what public health and safety authorities elsewhere in the world rely on for blizzards.

“Heat is Australia’s most deadly natural hazard right now,” Dr Lewis said. “There’s likely to be significant health impacts in the future.

“With 2C of warming, the ability to go to work or school will be impacted. It seems unlikely to me that we’ll be able to maintain consistent days of work. People will have to have heat-related absences to stay safe.

“We will need to protect the most vulnerable people in our community - old people, children, pregnant women - and we need to design systematic heat policies like reducing heat exposure at work, play or school.”

Non-essential services and businesses could have to close on extreme heat days in the future, along with schools, she said.

Outdoor activities like sport might become too dangerous over long stretches of the year.

“If we hit 2C, we can’t expect to be living the same lives we’re living now. Going on summer holiday in January, even playing cricket on the beach, isn’t realistic,” Dr Lewis said.



Our Environment

The impact of a warmer world is already starkly evident in one of our most beautiful and environmentally significant assets - the Great Barrier Reef.

Dr David Suggett is a coral reef expert at the University of Technology in Sydney and said in a 2C warmer world, reefs would “quite simply cease to look and function as we know them”.

“At least in the tropics. 2C will push corals closer to their thermal limits for survival along with creating more acid and deoxygenated waters,” Dr Suggett said.

Numerous experiments have demonstrated that such conditions drive many coral species into “metabolic decay”, he said.

“This will all be exacerbated by more routine heatwaves that similarly drive mortality of these same corals through rapid mass bleaching,” Dr Suggett said.

“Fundamentally, these changes will collapse the ecosystems that we almost take for granted these days - reefs primarily provide coastal protection and food, as well as cultural heritage. Corals would likely stop growing at a rate needed to build reefs.”

Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, senior lecturer and ARC Future Fellow at the Climate Chance Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, said warm water corals - the Reef - would essentially cease to exist as we know them.

“Already, the Great Barrier Reef has lost as much as 50 per cent of its shallow water corals. It provides habitat for one million species, not to mention its contribution to things like tourism.

“The destruction would occur quickly and long-term recovery is extremely unlikely. All up, 99 per cent of corals would be lost.”

A full melting of the Arctic during summer would occur more often as the world gets warmer, says Dale Dominey-Howes, a professor of science at the University of Sydney and an expert in hazards, disasters and risk.

“Under 1.5C, this occurs once a Century. Under 2C, it’s once every decade. The more ice that melts, the more the sea rises.”

Permafrost, or the permanently frozen ground in the Arctic Circle, is already melting, but the rate of thaw will continually accelerate, he said.

“At 2C, an extra 1.2 million square kilometres of it is likely to thaw at a rapid pace. The more it melts, the greater volume of methane that’s released into the atmosphere - it’s 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

“Methane only lasts in the atmosphere for a decade or so, but it’s impact is serious and will accelerate climate change. Thawing permafrost also releases carbon dioxide, it should be said.”

Much like heatwaves over land or in the atmosphere, oceans are also subjected to extended periods of extremely hot conditions.

“The number of marine heatwaves has already doubled since the early 1980s and if the world warms by 2C, this number blows out to 23 times more heatwaves days, it’s been projected,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

Marine heatwaves not only result in massive coral bleaching but also the degradation of other sensitive ecosystems such as kelp forest. They also impact fisheries and therefore the livelihoods of many people.

The world’s rainforests have already faced decades of challenges due to logging.

Those that remain will essentially dry out under a 2C scenario, making them more susceptible to bushfires.

“In a warmer world, forests are more prone to drying - if they’re drier they’re more prone to wildfires, an event they’ve never previously experienced which could result in a shift to a completely different ecosystem,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

“A good example of this are the bushfires that destroyed ancient Tasmanian forests a few years ago. This was under a warming of 1C. Events like this will become more common under 2C.”

On top of that, rainforests are home to almost half of all the world’s plants and animals and warmer conditions put those at significant risk.

“Two degrees will reduce the size of the Amazon by 40 per cent within 100 years,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

In Australia, a 2C warmer scenario will see more disasters like what we’ve just witnessed over summer, Professor Robert Hill, director of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide, believes.

NASA Earth Observatory map shows active fire detections in South America, including Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador, Uruguay and northern Argentina last year. Source:AFP

A devastating illustration of this sits in his own background.

More than half of Kangaroo Island was devastated during the worst of the bushfires crisis in January, causing widespread destruction across the pristine and critical environment.

“I’m hearing from people on the ground that’s what happened is the loss of potential regeneration in some areas,” Prof Hill said.

“There are pictures of green sprouts coming out of the burnt landscape, but it’s on the wet margins where there’s water available and the fire wasn’t quite so bad.

“There are big swathes of Flinders Chase where it appears the fire has burnt right down to the mineral soil, smouldering stumps of trees until they’ve killed the tree.”

Fires as intense as what was witnessed in January are rare, but will become more common in a world that’s 2C warmer, he said.

The potential consequences of that is the loss of entire plant and tree species.

“We may have already done so - we won’t know for a while.”

It’s not just the natural landscape that will suffer in a warmer world, but also agricultural and farming land.

There’s evidence that the loss of viable land is already occurring in South Australia, Professor Hill said.

“We have this thing in South Australia called Goyder’s Line and it was mapped a long time ago by someone who understood vegetation very well, who basically drew a line and said, ‘anything south, good for growing crops, north of this line, forget it’.

“He proved to be astonishingly accurate and there were many failed attempts to crop north of the line. There are many abandoned buildings up there to show for it.

“Goyder’s Line is moving south. In some parts of South Australia, it’s moving quite quickly.

“Of course, you don’t have to push south for too long and you run out of land. That’s not something that will happen in a decade, but in some parts of the southeast, the line movement is being measured in kilometres, not metres.

“That’s an example of plants, in this case crop plants, being under pressure from climate change.



Our Wildlife

There’s virtually no doubt that Earth is now within its six mass extinction event, according to Professor Corey Bradshaw, global ecologist at Flinders University.

All species are connected and “this great big ecosystem is constantly interacting”, and so the cascade effects of extinction are serious and dramatic.

“If the predator doesn’t have food, they’re also dying out,” Prof Bradshaw said. “Because of that we’re underestimating the extinction rate from climate change by up to 10 times.”

Under a 2C warmer world, we’re looking at a 10 to 20 per cent extinction rate by the end of the century, just from climate change alone and no other factors.

If you take into account the cascade effects, we’re looking at extinction rates up to 60, 70 and even 80 per cent, Prof Bradshaw said.

Already we’re seeing female sea turtles outnumber males 100 to 1 because the temperature of the sand determines their sex. The hotter the sand, the more likely turtles will hatch as females.

“That will impact the success of their breeding,” says nature campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, Jess Abrahams.

Fruit bats already fall out of trees at 42C - days that will be more likely and more frequent in the future.

A flying fox being cared for at Flying Fox Rescue and Rehab. Source: News Regional Media

In rainforests, animals are already having to migrate to higher ground because of hot conditions, narrowing their habitat reach.

Even our domesticated species are in decline — some 10 per cent of domesticated breeds of mammals have become extinct in human history, with more than 1000 others threatened with extinction.

“All this means that we are now without a doubt well within a sixth mass extinction event,” Prof Bradshaw says.



Our Cities

Already suburbs or communities further away from the coast are hotter than places on the coast.

That’s just part of the climate, but throw in cleared land, inappropriately designed houses with darkened roofs, suburbs with lots of bitumen, no trees and buildings placed close together, and you have the recipe for hotter areas.

That is exacerbating worse consequences of climate change and the extreme temperatures it brings, Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

“What we’re describing here is the urban heat island effect,” she said. “And many new suburbs amplify increases in temperature because of their design.”

Under 2C warming, Australia will experience four more heatwaves per year, on average, compared to a world without climate change.

In places like India, roads already melt under heatwaves. The tar already goes soft under your feet in Australia, so the design of hard urban surfaces will need to change.

Temperatures that cause road melting are more likely in Australia under 2C warming.

Because roads are black they absorb more heat so they’re much hotter than the actual reading on a thermometer.

A 2C rise in temperature would bring with it a higher number of extreme heat days. Picture: Liam Driver Source: News Corp Australia

Train tracks can also buckle in extreme temperature conditions - it happened in Melbourne in 2019.

That sort of disruption will occur more often. Trains already have to go slower on heatwave days in case tracks in front of them have already buckled.

In 2018, planes were grounded in Phoenix, Arizona in the United States when temperatures reached 49C because of how higher temperatures affect the ability to take off.

“That might be something we need to consider when the world climbs towards 2C warmer,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

Professor Elizabeth Mossop, landscape architect at UTS, said there’s going to be a lot more heat and a lot more heat stress.

“This is incredibly dangerous, especially for vulnerable properties,” Professor Mossop said.

“We need to rethink where we develop, how we develop. There’s no question we need to make changes to how we design and build communities.”

The recent bushfires crisis gave a brief but stark illustration of what a rapidly warming world could mean for everyday life for millions of people who weren’t directly in the firing line, Dr Lewis said.

“It impacted people’s abilities to go on holidays, to move around, to go to work, to breathe clean air,” Dr Lewis said.

“It’s not to say that every aspect of it was 100 per cent climate change, but it’s an indicator of unprecedented extremes under 1C of warming. If you think about another degree, well, you get the picture.”

It’s not just plants and trees in the bush and forests that will be impacted by warmer temperatures, but also those in city environments.

And they serve a greater purpose than an aesthetic one, Prof Hill said.

Green spaces and tree cover help to shade urban spaces and reduce temperatures, as well as provide fresh air, while science has also demonstrated the mental health benefits of parks.

“The problem is that many of the types of trees we have don’t cope well in extreme heat,” Professor Hill said.

“The heat gets to them and so does the lack of water. Trees try to suck water out of a ground that’s dry and they get into trouble. If you’re living in a place that’s in the mid-40s, the last thing you need is for the trees to start dying.”

A 2C rise in temperature would bring with it a higher number of extreme heat days, modelling has shown.

“We’re already seeing that,” he said. “We had a string of days this summer in Adelaide of 45C or above. That’s well outside anything plants have evolved to cope with.”

Links

Zero Hour: There’s No Stopping Climate Change, But How Bad It Gets Is Still Up To Us

Rolling Stone

It is more important than ever that we eliminate fossil fuels and reduce suffering in a warming world
The unincorporated community of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, located at the edge of the earth in southern Terrebonne Parish, is particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise. William Widmer/Redux
When people you love are sick and dying, it’s hard to think about anything else. In the course of just a few short weeks, the coronavirus has upended our daily lives, causing immense suffering and economic chaos around the world. It’s hard to recall (or care, even) that it was 69 degrees Fahrenheit in Antarctica a few weeks ago — T-shirt weather in the coldest, most remote place on Earth. Or that bush fires burned 46 million acres in Australia, and by one count, a billion animals were lost. Or that there was a marine heat wave in the Pacific and devastating floods in Indonesia. But when this terrible pandemic ends, as it surely will, we will be faced once again with a central fact of 21st-century life: The longer we wait to get off fossil fuels, the hotter the world will get, and the faster climate chaos will accelerate.

This is not about saving the planet. For one thing, the planet itself is not at risk — in its 4.5-billion-year history, the Earth has been through much worse than anything we can throw at it. It’s civilization as we know it today that’s in trouble. Second, the whole notion of “saving” anything is a flawed way to think about the crisis we are facing. Yes, it is more important than ever that we eliminate fossil fuels and reduce suffering and loss in a warming world. And, yes, the faster we get off fossil fuels, the better chance we have to make sure we don’t push the climate system past irreversible tipping points, such as the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could raise global sea levels by 10 feet.But no matter how fast we act, we are not going to “fix” the climate like a doctor fixes a broken leg.

“The Earth’s climate is not a binary system or a switch that you can toggle on and off,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow and stabilized the Earth’s temperature where it is today, we would still face several feet of sea-level rise in the coming century, as well as collapsing coral reefs and changing rainfall patterns. “The notion that we can avoid climate change is unequivocally false,” says Marvel. “We’re at 1 degree of warming now, and we’re already seeing the impacts of climate change very clearly with wildfires, flooding, and other extreme weather events. But it’s also true that our actions over the next decade very much matter.”

We have already crossed one of the most important thresholds of the climate crisis: We’ve gone from “Is it happening?” to “What are we going to do about it?” In this new world, there are no solutions — only better and worse choices about where we will live, how we will live, who and what will survive, and who and what will be lost. Above all, it’s a world that will be defined by how hard we are willing to fight for our future.

“We might be living in a horror movie right now, but we are the ones writing the script,” says writer Mary Annaïse Heglar. “And we’re the ones who will decide how this movie will end.”



From the earliest days of the climate crisis, scientists have struggled to define the risks of life on a warming planet. “We have understood the basic physics of climate change for more than 120 years,” says Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M. But nobody was too worried at first. The warming of the planet, if it was seen as a threat at all, was viewed as a far-off, distant event, something that would play out over century-long time scales.

The warming is a result of the slow accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which traps heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. Unlike other air pollutants, such as the chemicals that cause smog, which vanish as soon as you stop emitting them, a good fraction of CO2 that was emitted while factories forged cannons during the Civil War is still in the atmosphere today, and will remain for centuries into the future. “The climatic impacts of releasing CO2 will last longer than Stonehenge,” wrote climate scientist David Archer. “Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.”

The fingerprints of accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere were also hard to detect, at least in real time. In March 1958, when scientist Ralph Keeling first started measuring it from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 315.71 parts per million. A year later, it was 316.71 parts per million. Why would anyone be alarmed by an increase of one part per million of CO2?

But in the atmosphere, small changes over time can add up to big impacts. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate that the burning of fossil fuels was now altering the Earth’s climate. “Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming,” Hansen said. “It is already happening now.’’ He and other scientists understood the implications of this warming — droughts, heat waves, sea-level rise. But they didn’t have a clear timeline for when these impacts would occur or how severe they would be.

A map showing the average temperature rise over the past four years; 2016 and 2019 were the hottest on record. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
Big Oil and Big Coal understood the implications of rising CO2 levels all too well. They immediately began cranking out propaganda arguing that a warmer world was a better world. Groups like the Greening Earth Society argued that more CO2 meant plants would grow faster, agriculture would boom, and we would all enjoy more days at the beach. Companies like Exxon (now ExxonMobil) began spending hundreds of millions of dollars in a well-orchestrated campaign to deny, confuse, and block any understanding of the risks of burning fossil fuels. In the coming years, they organized and funded industry groups with innocuous-sounding names like the Global Climate Coalition, and poured money into conservative think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, where undermining climate science was job one.

In addition, there was a collective-action problem. Even if half the nations of the world decided to slash carbon pollution, if big fossil-fuel burners like the U.S. and China didn’t take action too, the problem wouldn’t be solved. Many leaders saw restrictions on carbon as hobbling their economy and thus jeopardizing their political power. As Dan Dudek, a vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, puts it, “What president or prime minister is going to restrict fossil fuels if it means he or she will be turned out of office?”

But the biggest issue was simply defining the threat of global warming. With nuclear weapons, the risks were clear: Start a war, and millions of people could die in minutes. The ozone hole was similarly clear-cut: If you let deadly levels of radiation hit the Earth, you get cancer and die. In both cases, global treaties were effective in reducing risk. But with global warming, the threat was not so clear. Nobody was going to die — at least, not directly — from a few more parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In 1988, under the auspices of the U.N., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created — an organization of top scientists tasked with issuing periodic reports that assessed the latest knowledge about climate change. The first report, released in 1990, was a weak sketch of the risks, from sea-level rise to drought to increased storm intensity. But it inspired the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where the issue of climate risk was addressed directly for the first time.

The summit was a big event, with virtually every nation in the world signing a global treaty called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The goal of the treaty was “to stabilize greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.” Nice thought, but as Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann later wrote, “Dangerous to whom?” The risks to an islander living on a low atoll in the Pacific were surely different than the risks to the Mercedes-riding diplomats who crafted the treaty, to say nothing of the outsize risks to future generations.

In 1995, the IPCC followed up with a second report, which was more thorough but still full of cautious, bureaucratic language (“potentially serious changes have been identified”). Nobody but hardcore scientists and activists read it. In 1997, at the climate talks in Kyoto, Japan, UNFCCC members agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, which required that by 2012 developing countries cut total emissions of greenhouse gases by five percent from 1990 levels.

The agreement got a lot of press and inspired high-minded speeches about the importance of reducing the level of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. But it didn’t inspire much action. “Part of the problem was that negotiations focused on agreeing on the percentage of tons of carbon-dioxide-emission reductions, which no regular human being has any clue about,” Dudek explains. “How can you build political support around a goal that most people can’t understand, even if they wanted to?”



The Jakobshavn glacier, on the west coast of Greenland, is the fastest-moving glacier in the world. It is flowing into the sea at a rate of about 150 feet per day. If you fly along the face of it in a helicopter, as I did a few years ago, you can watch slabs of blue ice fall into the sea every few minutes. They eventually melt into the North Atlantic, adding almost imperceptibly to the level of water in the ocean, which pushes waves a fraction of an inch higher on beaches around the world — the climate crisis in action.

In the 1990s, Greenland also changed how scientists think about climate change. Until then, most climate scientists believed the Earth’s climate was a fairly steady system — that it might grow warmer or colder, but that changes were gradual, like water heating up in a pot. Wallace Broecker, a brash and colorful geochemist at Columbia University, who died in 2019, hypothesized that changes in the Gulf Stream system about 14,000 years ago, during a period known as the Younger Dryas, had caused dramatic temperature swings in the Northern Hemisphere.

Evidence for this was sketchy until the mid-Nineties, when a team of researchers, including Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State, extracted a two-mile ice core from the Greenland ice sheet. By examining the decay of carbon isotope ratios in air bubbles trapped in the ancient ice, Alley found that at the end of the Younger Dryas, the temperature in Greenland warmed by 15 F in less than a decade. It was a remarkable discovery, which demonstrated that the Earth’s climate tended to lurch from one steady state to another. “You might think of the climate as a drunk,” Alley later explained. “When left alone, it sits. When forced to move, it staggers.”

Alley’s work revolutionized how scientists conceptualized changes that are to come. It also pushed scientists to think about climate risk in terms of temperature changes, not carbon-emission rates. In 2001, the IPCC issued its third report, which was far more pointed and urgent than previous reports. It’s remembered today mostly for a single graphic, known as “the burning embers” diagram. It was a simple chart with five bars that corresponded to five categories of climate risk, from “Risks of Extreme Weather Events” to “Risks of Large Scale Discontinuities” (such as the rapid melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets). The bars were shaded from white to yellow to orange to dark red, depending on the severity of the risk, which were calculated on a scale from zero to 5 C of warming. “The diagram was revolutionary,” says Mann. “For the first time, the risks of climate change were intelligible to someone who didn’t have a degree in physics.”

In 2010, the UNFCCC threw out the old metric of measuring progress by emissions reductions. Instead, they adopted a goal of stabilizing warming at less than 2 C (3.6 F), which quickly became known as the threshold for dangerous climate change. Where did the 2 C target come from? Think of it as a rough balance between what should be done and what can be done. (“I would avoid thinking about these temperature targets as ever being based in science,” says Dessler.) Although a temperature target was much more coherent to most people than a percentage of emissions reductions, it reinforced an artificial notion that climate change was binary: Below 2 C of warming, all was good. Above 2 C, all hell breaks loose. “That is not how the climate system works,” says Dessler. “Is 1.8 C of warming better than 2 C? Yes. Is 2 C better than 2.5 C? Yes. But there is no bright line here.”

Mann’s question, “Dangerous to whom?” continued to haunt negotiations over climate targets. The better that scientists understood the climate system, the clearer it became that even a warming of 2 C put people in low-lying nations like Bangladesh at risk for increased flooding from rising seas, as well as other climate impacts. Was the 2 C target too high? Was it safe only for the privileged? The counterargument, however, was that a climate target needed to be achievable or nobody would take it seriously. Virtually every study showed that hitting the 2 C target would require a Herculean effort by all the industrialized nations of the world.

At the climate talks in Paris in 2015, even the 2 C target was seen as not strong enough. By then, the impacts of climate change were moving out of the modeling world and happening in real time. Greenland and Antarctica are shrinking “100 years ahead of schedule,” Alley said. Leaders of small island states like Tuvalu and the Maldives argued that the 2 C target was essentially dooming their nations. They pushed for an “aspirational goal” of limiting warming to 1.5 C (2.7 F), which eventually became embedded in the language of the Paris Agreement. Thus, 1.5 C became the new de facto threshold for dangerous climate change. But it was clear that the 1.5 C target was more of a desperate dream than a practical reality. As one observer in Paris quipped to me, “They may as well agree that all fairies shall ride unicorns too.”



There may be a climate scientist or energy analyst somewhere in the world who believes that limiting warming to 1.5 C is doable, but I haven’t met him or her. Net emissions would need to fall by half by 2030, and to zero by 2050. “The level of action and coordination necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 C utterly dwarfs anything that has ever happened on any other large-scale problem that humanity has ever faced,” journalist David Roberts wrote on Vox. “The only analogy that has ever come close to capturing what’s necessary is ‘wartime mobilization,’ but it requires imagining the kind of mobilization that the U.S. achieved for less than a decade during WWII happening in every large economy at once, and sustaining itself for the remainder of the century.”

If we blow past the 1.5 C target, as seems likely, where are we headed? Until recently, the IPCC had projected a warming of about 4.5 C by the end of the century if we continue on our current emissions path. That is truly a horrific number, one that would render large swaths of the Earth uninhabitable. But a recent study by Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute in California and Justin Richie of the University of British Columbia demonstrated that this estimate was based on unreal projections of coal consumption and other factors. After they reanalyzed the data, they concluded the business-as-usual scenario may be something more like 3 C. Which would still be hellish, but less hellish than 4.5 C.

Even if we achieve the target of holding to 2 C, there will be unfathomable changes to our climate. In 2018, the IPCC published a special report that laid out the differences between a 2 C world and a 1.5 C world. “I was grumpy about the idea of the 1.5 report,” says NASA’s Kate Marvel. “I thought it was just fan fiction. But it had an unexpectedly galvanizing impact on people.” The report showed that, at 2 C, severe heat events would become 2.6 times worse, plant- and vertebrate-species loss two times worse, insect-species loss three times worse, and decline in marine fisheries two times worse. Instead of 70 percent of coral reefs dying, 99 percent will die. Many vulnerable and low-lying regions would become uninhabitable and the flow of refugees would rise dramatically.

Beyond future emissions rates, there are two big uncertainties on how fast the climate will warm. One is climate sensitivity, which is the measure scientists use to calculate how much the climate will warm as CO2 increases. It’s tricky to measure, because as the Earth heats up, it tweaks the climate dynamics in subtle ways, changing cloud cover, wind and rainfall patterns, and ocean circulation, among many other things. And all of this can impact warming.

Hamburg, Iowa: Historic flooding, due to climate change, rocked the Midwest last spring. Photo credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
According to Hausfather, the real uncertainty lies with clouds, which are notoriously hard to capture in models, and have a big impact on the Earth’s temperature (high thin clouds trap heat, while low thick clouds shade and cool the Earth). Hausfather points out that the latest climate models, which use more-sophisticated cloud-modeling techniques, are showing a higher climate sensitivity, with potential warming of as much as 5 C if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere. These new climate-model runs are still in progress and, thus, inconclusive, but this is definitely not good news.

The other big uncertainty about our climate future has to do with tipping points. The latest research is showing some Earth systems may be more resilient than most people thought. The Gulf Stream system, for example, “has been slowing down in recent decades,” says Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “But I don’t think anyone is worried about it shutting down anytime soon.”

It’s the same with the melting of the permafrost in the Arctic: The more the permafrost warms, the more methane it releases, the more it warms the atmosphere — but none of the climate scientists I talked to believe there is a point when it runs away with itself. Similarly with the Amazon rainforest: As warming combines with deforestation, parts of it may turn into more of a savannah-like ecosystem. “But it’s not like there is a sudden crash and the entire Amazon disappears,” says Hausfather.

On the other hand, the more scientists learn about what’s happening with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the more unstable it looks. Earlier this year, researchers in Antarctica found evidence of warm water directly beneath the glacier, which is not good news for the stability of the system. Eric Rignot, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the top ice scientists in the world, believes that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is beyond its tipping point and in the midst of an irreversible collapse. As Rignot put it recently, “The fuse has been blown.”



When you look at images of the bush fires in Australia or the cracking ice shelves in Antarctica, it’s easy to think that it’s too late to do anything about the climate crisis — that we are, for all intents and purposes, fucked. And it’s true, it’s too late for 182 people who died from exposure to extreme heat in Phoenix in 2018, or for 1,900 people in northern India who were swept away in extreme floods in 2019, or the 4 million people who die each year around the world from particulate air pollution caused by our dependence on fossil fuels. And the way things are going, it’s probably too late for the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro, for large portions of the Great Barrier Reef, and for the city of Miami Beach as we know it.

But the lesson of this is not that we’re fucked, but that we have to fight harder for what is left. Too Late-ism only plays into the hands of Big Oil and Big Coal and all the inactivists who want to drag out the transition to clean energy as long as possible. Too Late-ism also misses the big important truth that, buried deep in the politics and emotion of the climate crisis, you can see the birth of something new emerging. “The climate crisis isn’t an ‘event’ or an ‘issue,’ ” says futurist Alex Steffen, author of Snap Forward, an upcoming book about climate strategy for the real world. “It’s an era, and it’s just beginning.”

This new era might be arriving more quickly than most people think. According to a new poll from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, nearly six in 10 Americans are now “alarmed” or “concerned” about global warming. Political support for the Green New Deal is rising as fast as the price of clean energy is falling. Greta Thunberg and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have inspired a new generation of climate activists who see the crisis as an opportunity to create a fairer, more equitable society.

Germany, the industrial powerhouse of Europe, plans to shut down all coal plants by 2038. In the U.S., the coal industry is in free-fall. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the financial giant that manages about $7 trillion in assets, acknowledged in a letter to shareholders that climate change is now “on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.” Jim Cramer, CNBC’s notoriously cranky Wall Street guru, said in January, “I’m done with fossil fuels. … We’re in the death-knell phase.  .… The world has turned on them. It’s actually kind of happening very quickly.”

“I don’t have any doubt that we will take action on climate,” says Steffen. “But it won’t be the old-fashioned version of social change. It won’t be an orderly transition. It won’t be the climate version of the civil-rights movement. It will be more like the Industrial Revolution — a huge social and cultural and economic transition, which will play out over decades, and with no clear leadership and nobody in control.” In Steffen’s view, climate doomers are as blind as climate deniers. “The apocalyptic is in its very heart a refusal to see past the end of an old worldview, into the new possibilities of the actual world.”

I think Steffen is right. Whenever I feel like we’re fucked, I talk to landscape architects like Susannah Drake, who recently completed a preliminary redesign of the National Mall Tidal Basin in Washington, D.C., that will help restore a more natural ecosystem and embrace the rising waters of the Potomac River. I talk to entrepreneurs like Bill Gross, who has figured out a technology that uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight hot enough to manufacture concrete and steel. I talk to kids on school climate strikes who are determined to hold polluters and politicians accountable for trashing their future. Writer Mary Annaïse Heglar, who grew up in Alabama and Mississippi, sees the climate fight as part of a centuries-long battle for racial and social justice. “I don’t care how bad it gets,” she tweeted recently. “I don’t care how many thresholds we pass. Giving up is immoral.”

Like many people on the front lines of the climate fight, Heglar bristles at lazy questions about what gives her hope. “I think hope is really precious, and the most precious thing about it is that you have to earn it,” she tells me. “So, usually when people are asking me what gives me hope, what they really mean is, ‘Give me hope,’ and I can’t do that for you. No one can do that for you. You have to go out and make your own hope. And so that means I hope you get involved. The type of hope I have is that I hope you get off your ass.”

Links