31/08/2020

Why We Believe Planting 1 Trillion Trees Can Save The Planet

TIMEJane Goodall | Marc Benioff



Authors
For more than six months, a pathogen has swept through nearly every country in the world, unleashing an unprecedented global health and economic emergency.

At the same time, another potentially more lethal emergency continues to threaten us: the warming of the planet.

While the impacts of the climate crisis have been more gradual than the spread of COVID-19, there is no doubt that our world is changing.

Millions of people have suffered losses from catastrophic droughts, hurricanes and floods. It’s not just that our own health and economies are being threatened; it’s that climate change is reshaping a planet that will not support the lives of future generations.

The climate-science community has demonstrated that if we do not make significant progress in combatting this crisis, global temperatures could rise above the critical 1.5°C threshold, permanently damaging the natural systems that sustain us.

And, like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change disproportionately affects our more disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, exacerbating existing economic and racial inequalities.

The truth is, we know how to fight the climate crisis: reduce emissions, become carbon neutral, clean up oceans and develop a sustainable relationship with the natural world to restore the biodiversity of key habitats. Climate scientists, environmental organizations and even governments have, each in their own way, worked out how to tackle every one of these steps. Their implementation requires a combination of technology, policy, funding and coordination.

By far the most cost-effective of all the big solutions is to protect and restore forests. Forests extract and store CO2 from the atmosphere and produce the oxygen we breathe. But these complex ecosystems have been systematically destroyed. We have already lost nearly half the world’s trees, most within the last 100 years. And most of the remaining trees—about 3 trillion—are still under threat, even though they are a critical tool in the fight against climate change.

At this moment in time, massive fires have yet again erupted around the world, from California to the Congo Basin to the Amazon. Far too many of these fires are intentionally set because agricultural profits have been prioritized over the health of our planet. A call to stop deforestation is more important than ever before.

That’s why forward-thinking corporate leaders who understand the urgent need to heal our planet are supporting environmentalists who have been in the fight for decades. We’ve joined forces—a businessperson and a conservationist—to support the Trillion Tree challenge (1T.org), an effort to bring together old and new partners to add momentum to the regreening of our planet and plant 1 trillion trees around the world by 2030. Companies joined by NGOs and youth movements as well as a number of governments, such as the U.S., have pledged their support for this solution. Those involved will be able to share best practices, with a major goal of maintaining biodiversity standards.

This effort could capture an estimated 200 gigatonnes of carbon over the coming decades, an amount equal to two-thirds of the pollution produced since the Industrial Revolution. But it will take time for young trees to capture the same amount of CO2 as mature forests. That is why we need many new partners to join the tens of thousands of efforts already under way.

Planting 1 trillion trees won’t be easy, but each one of us can make a difference in this fight. We can plant trees in backyards and neighborhoods, or donate to one of the many responsible programs that have long been restoring and protecting forests and woodlands in almost every country around the world.

Our challenge is clear. We can protect and restore our forests while also investing in jobs and global economies. But our success will depend on one another; together we can create the kind of change needed to heal our planet.

Links

Antarctica: 60% Of Ice Shelves At Risk Of Fracture, Research Suggests

The Guardian

Collapse of shelves would accelerate loss of Antarctic ice sheet and increase sea-level rise

Fracture at the front of Ross ice shelf, the largest in Antarctica. A platform of ice nearly four times the size of the UK is at risk of collapse. Photograph: Martin Wearing/PA 

Approximately 60% of Antarctica’s ice shelves could be vulnerable to fracture, accelerating the loss of the Antarctic ice sheet and increasing sea-level rise, according to a paper.

Antarctica’s ice shelves, floating extensions of the ice sheet, help slow the flow of ice into the ocean. But if these shelves fracture and then collapse, the flow of melting glaciers into the oceans accelerates.

A study published in the journal Nature has mapped areas where ice shelves hold back upstream ice and are susceptible to “hydrofracture”, where meltwater flows into crevasses and fissures in the ice and enlarges them, potentially triggering the collapse of the ice shelf.

This process could accelerate the loss of Antarctic ice more than some climatic models predict as atmospheric warming increases. The study follows scientists’ recent announcement that Earth has lost 28tn tonnes of ice from its surface since 1994.

Most climatic models do not include the impact of hydrofracturing in their calculations, although one 2016 paper did account for them in a simpler way than the new study.

Hydrofracturing can only occur if the surface of an ice shelf is inundated with meltwater. Large pools of meltwater have existed in many areas of Antarctica for decades without causing the collapse of an ice shelf because the flow of water into surface fissures is slow or refreezes.

A tributary ice stream flowing from the Transantarctic mountains into the Ross ice shelf. Photograph: Martin Wearing/PA

While some areas are not susceptible to fracture, Ching-Yao Lai of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and colleagues identified that 60% of the Antarctic ice shelf was both slowing the flow of ice into the ocean and also vulnerable to fracture.

While fractures in the ice are visible in satellite imagery, manual mapping is impractical because of the extent of the ice. So Lai and colleagues used machine learning to identify fracture-like features in satellite pictures of Antarctica, before modelling which fractures were vulnerable to hydrofracturing.

They developed a model to predict where fractures could form and found close agreement with the fractures mapped by their machine learning algorithm.

Lai said: “We predicted that the ice-shelves areas that can collapse due to hydrofracture are mostly the crucial part of ice shelves that hold back the upstream flow of ice sheets. Thus the loss of these ice-shelf areas due to hydrofracture can substantially affect the flow of ice sheets into the ocean.

“But predicting how much and how fast the loss of Antarctic ice and sea-level rise will occur due to the hydrofracturing process will require coupling our new fracture model with an ice-sheet and climate model, which is an important next step.”

The researchers hope their fracture model can help create more accurate models of the fate of the ice sheets, which together with climatic modelling will produce more accurate predictions of sea-level rise, which scientists believe could exceed one metre by the century’s end.

The researchers warned that while many areas of Antarctic meltwater were not currently likely to cause the hydrofracture of the ice beneath, with global heating these areas could become newly at risk in the future.

“Increased meltwater ponding in resilient locations will not lead to widespread hydrofracturing according to our analysis,” the authors wrote. “However, predictions of future melt suggest that melt rates seen in locations that experience meltwater ponding today could become widespread by 2100 under high-emissions scenarios.”

Links

(AU) Climate Crisis: Business, Farming And Environment Leaders Unite To Warn Australia 'Woefully Unprepared'

The Guardian

An extraordinary statement by 10 groups says the nation’s future prosperity is at risk without a coherent response

Leaders representing the breadth of Australian society are calling on Australian governments to act immediately to reduce and manage climate risks. File photo of the Port Kembla steelworks. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP

Business, industry, farming and environmental leaders have joined forces to warn Australia is “woefully unprepared” for the impact of climate change over the coming decades and to urge the Morrison government to do far more to cut emissions and improve the country’s resilience.

An extraordinary statement by 10 organisations, several with close ties to the Coalition, said climate change was already having a “real and significant” impact on the economy and community. The groups, representing the breadth of Australian society, called on the federal and state governments to act immediately to reduce and manage the risks.

Organisations including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the National Farmers’ Federation, the Australian Aluminium Council and the ACTU said public debate about the cost of doing more to reduce emissions had too often not considered the cost of climate change to the economy, environment and society.

They cited evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that emissions would need to be net-zero by 2050 if the goals of the Paris agreement are to be achieved, and said Australia must adopt that target.

The statement, issued under the Australian Climate Roundtable banner, said Australia’s future prosperity would be at risk unless it had a coherent national response to the crisis.

“The scale of costs and breadth of the impact of climate change for people in Australia is deeply concerning and will escalate over time,” it said. “It is in Australia’s national interest that we do all we can to contribute to successful global action to minimise further temperature rises and take action to manage the changes we can’t avoid.”

The groups, some of which have been involved in past campaigns to slow action on climate change, agreed to the statement after holding five climate-themed expert workshops. They heard from climate scientists and organisations including the Reserve Bank, the Australian Energy Market Operator and Insurance Australia Group.

The statement said the expert advice made clear temperatures were increasing, extreme climate-related events such as heatwaves and bushfires were becoming more intense and frequent, and natural systems were suffering irreversible damage. Some communities were now in a constant state of recovery from successive natural disasters with growing economic ramifications.

It said inaction would lead to unprecedented economic damage to Australia and its regional trading partners, heightened risks to financial stability – particularly as the insurance industry became compromised – and significant threats to the agriculture, forestry, tourism and fishing industries.

There would be severe pressure on government budgets due to a dramatic fall in tax revenue and a rise in natural disasters that demanded emergency response and recovery spending and there would be major and long-lived social and health impacts, including loss of life.

The roundtable concluded Australia must play its fair part in international efforts to limit average global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, or at most to well below a 2C increase.

That meant setting a target of net-zero emissions by mid-century and introducing policies to meet it that aimed to lift social equity and the country’s global competitive advantage in a zero-emissions world.

The Morrison government has rejected calls that it back the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. The target has been adopted by more than 70 countries, all Australian states and a growing number of business and investors, including fossil fuel companies. National emissions have dipped 1.5% since the Coalition was elected in 2013 after falling about 14% in six years under Labor.

The roundtable said even with ambitious global action Australia faced escalating costs due to unavoidable climate change from historical emissions, and must act swiftly to improve resilience. It said the country was “woefully unprepared” for the scale of threats that would emerge as it lacked a systemic government response at any level.

The groups recommended climate change response become a standing item at national cabinet meetings and that the government order a biannual climate vulnerability assessment similar to that undertaken in the US and New Zealand. They said the climate crisis needed to be addressed as the country tackled the Covid-19 economic recovery.


The Green Recovery: how Australia can ditch coal (without ditching jobs)

Other members of the roundtable are the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Energy Council, the Investor Group on Climate Change and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Innes Willox, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said the evidence was deeply concerning. “The urgency of (the risk of huge costs) should drive all Australian governments to lift our game on adaptation and put net zero emissions by 2050 at the heart of their plans for prosperity,” he said.

The business council chief, Jennifer Westacott, said: “Putting Australia on the path to net zero emissions by 2050 can be an opportunity to drive billions of dollars of new investment, create new jobs, create new industries, boost our resilience and build the stronger regions we’ll need to supercharge our recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.”

The roundtable said it planned a second series of workshops on what a successful transition to net-zero emissions would look like. It said the country risked losing investment to countries with clearer targets and transition roadmaps if it did not act.

“We are prepared to work with all stakeholders to help Australia rise above decades of delay and come together to address one of the greatest challenges the nation has ever faced,” it said.

A spokesperson for the emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, said the government was committed to the Paris agreement and its policies, including a technology investment roadmap and recommendations by businessman Grant King, would help it beat its 2030 climate goal of a 26-28% cut below 2005 levels.

Scientists and analysts have found Australia would need to cut its emissions by at least 45% by 2030 to play its part under the Paris pact.

Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, said: “If Scott Morrison or the ‘moderate Liberals’ have any backbone they will listen to this statement and commit to net zero emissions by 2050.”

The Insurance Council of Australia said on Thursday the industry had received more than 297,780 claims relating to bushfire, flood and hailstorm catastrophes last summer, with losses totalling almost $5.4bn. The chief executive, Rob Whelan, said it was the worst natural disaster season he had experienced in 10.5 years in the role.

Links

30/08/2020

These African World Heritage Sites Are Under Threat From Climate Change

The Conversation |  |  | 

Grand Old Mosque of Djenné, Mali. UNESCO

Very few academics or policy makers are talking about the impact of climate change on heritage. Yet heritage is essential for social wellbeing, for identity creation, for safeguarding traditional knowledge and livelihoods and for sustainable development.

The conversations taking place are mainly on the effects of climate change in wealthier countries. One recent study estimates that only 1% of research on the impacts of climate change on heritage is related to Africa. Yet climate change has already resulted in loss and damage to African heritage.

Three of us are contributing authors to the Africa chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s sixth assessment report. Our research for the report has drawn our attention to the total lack of quantifiable data on the impacts of climate change on heritage in sub-Saharan Africa.

So we teamed up with a climate scientist with years of experience working on the continent and set about highlighting the threat of different kinds of climate change and climate variability to heritage in Africa.

Restoring the mosque of Djenné in Mali. MICHELE CATTANI/AFP via Getty Images 

Our research is conclusive. Without significant intervention some of Africa’s most important heritage will be lost as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of climate change over the coming decades.

There is a need for research into the impacts of climate change on different forms of cultural heritage in Africa, and to highlight the possible harmful effects these losses will have on society more generally.

The next ten years will be a critical period in which research agendas can be developed that will have a practical application for the management of African heritage in the face of climate change.

The bad news

Coastal erosion and sea-level rise have damaged African World Heritage Sites. The Roman city of Sabratha on the Libyan coast and the colonial forts along the coastline of Ghana are slipping into the sea. Natural sites are also under threat. Relict Guinean coastal forests have largely disappeared, partly through coastal erosion.

By 2050, Guinea, The Gambia, Nigeria, Togo, Bénin, Congo, Tunisia, Tanzania (including Zanzibar) and the Comoros will all be at significant risk from coastal erosion and sea-level rise.

The view from the heart of Stone Town in Zanzibar. ALEXIS TOUREAU/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

Villages and towns associated with the historic Swahili Indian Ocean trading networks are all forecast to suffer significant loss from sea-level rise and coastal erosion in the coming decades. These are almost all located on the coasts of Mozambique, mainland Tanzania, Kenya, the Comoro Islands, Zanzibar and Madagascar.

A host of unique heritage locations are built on coral, sand or mud – all at elevations less than 10 metres above sea level. These include Ibo Island in the Quirimbas Archipelago in northern Mozambique, Shanga and Pate islands in Kenya, Pemba and the ruins of Kaole in Tanzania, Mahilaka in Madagascar and Suakin in Sudan.

A combination of underlying geology and low elevation make these sites extremely vulnerable to coastal erosion.

Stone Town of Zanzibar,Tanzania. UNESCO

In addition, low-lying World Heritage Sites that are densely populated, such as Lamu Old Town and the Stone Town of Zanzibar, are located in regions of Africa predicted to be most severely impacted by shoreline retreat.

Inland of the coast, the World Heritage mud-built town of Djenné, on the Inland Niger Delta, is suffering multiple threats, exacerbated by climate change. Rock art sites in the Golden Gate Highlands National Park in South Africa are experiencing biodeterioration due to microbial activity arising from increased humidity.

But African heritage is predominantly lived heritage, which presents unique opportunities for heritage conservation.

Why a site like Djenné matters

Take Djenné in Mali, a town composed almost entirely of earthen buildings. Because of its unique vernacular architecture and its iconic mosque, it was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988.

There has been a conspicuous degradation of its mud architecture. The reasons are complex but climate change has definitely worsened the process of loss.

The mud for Djenné’s earth architecture comes from the floodplains of the river Bani just outside town. Erika Alatalo

The lowering of the high water stand of the Inland Niger Delta has meant high quality mud has become scarcer. Mud bricks must be sourced further afield at greater cost, which locals simply can’t afford. The result is buildings being repaired in cheaper materials such as concrete and fired clay bricks.

Traditional building methods are often perceived as being at odds with modernity and globalisation. But earthen buildings such as those at Djenné emit fewer greenhouse gases, consume less energy and maintain a high level of internal thermal comfort. They are more sustainable against climate change than brick and breeze block construction.

Some hope

Heritage has unseen potential. Traditional custodianship and community engagement will be at the forefront of a sustainable future.

The good news is that five years ago the World Heritage Convention adopted Unesco’s World Heritage and Sustainable Development Policy. The policy is built on the principles of human rights, equality and long-term sustainability. It’s potentially groundbreaking for African heritage, which has been beset by a colonial legacy of centralised heritage management.

Lamu Old Town, Kenya. UNESCO

It represents an opportunity for the restoration of traditional custodianship and local community engagement in heritage management. As heritage is reinserted into local lifeways, communities are able to reengage with traditional ways of doing things, which are often much more in tune with the environment.

In this, African countries have the opportunity to be at the forefront of sustainable development.

And in our intergovernmental climate report, the Africa chapter has for the first time included heritage in its assessment. It identifies heritage as critical for a sustainable future.

Resetting the research agenda towards a sustainable heritage in the face of climate change will not only enable reengagement with the past, but will help mitigate the impacts of climate change beyond heritage.

Links

How One Swedish Teenager Armed With A Homemade Sign Ignited A Crusade And Became The Leader Of A Movement

Rolling Stone

Jack Davison for Rolling Stone 



There is persona and there is reality in Greta Thunberg. It is Valentine’s Day in her hometown of Stockholm, but there’s only wind, no hearts and flowers. A few hundred kids mill about, with a smattering of adults. If there were not signs reading “Our Earth, We Only Have One,” it could be mistaken for a field trip to the ABBA museum.

But where is Greta? I find a scrum of reporters interviewing a child in a purple puffer jacket, pink mittens, and a homemade-looking knit hat. It takes me a minute to realize that it’s Greta. She is 17, but could pass for 12. I can’t quite square the fiery speaker with the micro teen in front of me. She seems in need of protection.

Of course, this is emphatically wrong. Greta Thunberg has Asperger’s, which, she says, gives her pinpoint focus on climate minutiae while parrying and discarding even the smallest attempt at flattery. We stand near the Swedish Parliament house, where less than two years ago Thunberg started her Skolstrejk för klimatet, School Strike for Climate.

Back then, it was just Greta, a sign, and a lunch of bean pasta in a reusable glass jar. Then it was two people, and then a dozen, and then an international movement. I mention the bravery of her speeches, but she waves me away. She wants to talk about the loss of will among the olds.

“It seems like the people in power have given up,” says Thunberg, taking her hat off and pushing back her mussed up brown-blond hair. She remains on message despite the tourists and teens taking her picture and mugging behind us. “They say it’s too hard — it’s too much of a challenge. But that’s what we are doing here. We have not given up because this is a matter of life and death for countless people.

”It was my second encounter with Greta in three weeks. Back in January, before the Coronavirus brought the world to its knees, forcing Greta to move her Friday protests online, she was in Davos, Switzerland, for the annual conference of the World Economic Forum, where billionaires helo into the Swiss resort town and talk about solving the world’s problems without making their lives any harder. Thunberg had appeared last year and made her now iconic “Our House Is on Fire” speech, in which she declared the climate crisis to be the mortal threat to our planet. Solve it or all the other causes — feminism, human rights, and economic justice — would not matter.

“Either we choose to go on as a civilization or we don’t,” said Thunberg with cold precision. “That is as black or white as it gets. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival.”

The speech made Thunberg the unlikely and reluctant hero of the climate crisis. She crossed the ocean in a sailboat — she doesn’t fly for environmental reasons — to speak before the United Nations. She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year, conjuring the manic jealousy of Donald Trump, who called the honor “so ridiculous” and suggested she go to the movies and chill out.

In Davos, the illuminati prattled on about planting a trillion trees, even as we are still clear-cutting actual trees from the Amazon all the way to Thunberg’s beloved Sweden. This did not amuse nor placate the hoodie-wearing Greta. She seemed irritated and perhaps a little sick; she canceled an appearance the day before because she wasn’t feeling well. She was in no mood for flattery and nonsense. So when Time editor Edward Felsenthal asked her how she dealt with all the haters, Greta didn’t even try to answer diplomatically.

“I would like to say something that I think people need to know more than how I deal with haters,” she answered, before launching into details from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report. She mentioned that if we are to have even a 67 percent chance of limiting global temperature change to under 1.5 C, the point where catastrophic changes begin, we have less than 420 gigatons of CO2 that we can emit before we pass the no-going-back line. Thunberg stated that, at the current rate, we have eight years to change everything.

Thunberg’s face was controlled fury. This was the persona: an adolescent iron-willed truth teller. The Davos one-percenters clapped and rattled their Rolexes. It has become a disconcerting pattern for Thunberg appearances that would be repeated at the European Commission: Greta tells the adults they are fools and their plans are lame and shortsighted. They still give her a standing ovation. A few minutes later, she was gone and the audience dispersed into a fleet of black BMWs and Mercedes, belching diesel into the Alpine sky.

Greta Thunberg illustration by Shepard Fairey. Based on a photograph by Markus Schreiber/AP Images/Shutterstock

My Greta travels featured a Vancouver-Zurich round trip and then an L.A.-Stockholm trip. In between, I fly from Vancouver to L.A. for another story. It’s the job, but I take stock in horror and calculate that my three flights burn more carbon than the yearly usage of the average citizen of more than 200 countries. I torch the atmosphere so I can hear others praise the girl who won’t fly.

“The phrase ‘A little child shall lead them’ has come to mind more than once,” Al Gore tells me in Davos, before sharing his favorite Greta moment. It was at the U.N. summit last fall. “She said to the assembled world leaders, ‘You say you understand the science, but I don’t believe you. Because if you did and then you continue to act as you do, that would mean you’re evil. And I don’t believe that.’” Gore shook his head in wonderment. “Wow.” He then gives a history lesson: “There have been other times in human history when the moment a morally-based social movement reached the tipping point was the moment when the younger generation made it their own. Here we are.”

Activist-actress Jane Fonda was so inspired by Greta that she has been hosting a series of Fire Drill Fridays. “I was just filled with depression and hopelessness, and then I started reading about Greta,” Fonda tells me one winter afternoon in Los Angeles. “She inspired me to get out there and do more.”

But in Stockholm, the world of presidential taunts, former vice presidents slathering praise, and Oscar winners rhapsodizing seems far away.

Outside of the Parliament building, Greta tells me she doesn’t worry about her safety despite Trump and others speaking cruelly about her on social media. (According to her mother, locals have shoved excrement into the family mailbox.) Later in February, she would march in Bristol, England, and be met by social media posts suggesting she deserved to be sexually assaulted.

“It’s just the people with 10 accounts who sit and write anonymously on Twitter and so on,” Greta says. “It’s nothing you can take seriously.”

Still, all is not rotten. America has come up with the Green New Deal. In Trumplandia, that seems like a beacon of hope, right?

Nope.

“If you look at the graphs to stay below the 1.5 degree Celsius global average temperature and you read the Green New Deal, you see that it doesn’t add up,” says Thunberg with some impatience. She references her Davos speech about how the world only has 420 gigatons of CO2 to burn over the next eight years or the 1.5 goal becomes impossible. “If we are to be in line with the carbon-dioxide budget, we need to focus on doing things now instead of making commitments like 10, or 20, 30 years from now. Of course, the Green New Deal is not in line with our carbon-dioxide budget.”

Meanwhile, the main criticism of the Green New Deal at home is that it moves too fast in getting the United States to zero carbon emission by 2050. But Greta doesn’t do politics.

“At least it has got people to start talking about the climate crisis more,” says Thunberg in a tone that suggests the slightest of praise. “That of course is a step in the right direction, I guess.”

There’s more to say, but now it’s time to march. The children’s crusade forms into a regimented mob. Greta moves to the front and holds a Skolstrejk för klimatet banner with some other teens. The taller kids lift it too high, and she nearly vanishes. All you can see is Greta’s winter hat and her gray eyes. That’s enough.

Al Gore was right. A child leads us.

Technically, Greta Thunberg’s childhood continues for another year. But she hasn’t been a kid for some time. She is one of two daughters of Malena Ernman, an opera-singer-turned-Eurovision-contestant, and Svante Thunberg, an actor.

According to the family’s book, Our House Is on Fire, the bohemian clan has endured a scroll of psychological disorders beginning with Malena, who suffered from bulimia and still deals with ADHD. Greta’s younger sister, Beata, was diagnosed with OCD and ADHD, and has an acute noise sensitivity, which has meant at times the rest of the family eating in a guest room with plastic plates to keep noise to a minimum. When Beata went to dance class, Malena wasn’t allowed to move during the two-hour session lest Beata have a tearful meltdown.

Greta battled her own life-threatening demons. When she was 11, she stopped eating and rarely spoke to anyone outside of her family for months. Sometimes she would come home after being bullied at school — recess was spent hiding out in the bathroom — and either spend hours petting her dogs or crying at her own pain. She lost 20 pounds as her parents chronicled her food intake. (“Five pieces of gnocchi in two hours.”)

Somehow, it was Greta turning her weakness into strength that made her a global icon. According to Malena, Greta fell silent after seeing a film in school depicting floating armies of plastic infesting our oceans. Other students were horrified, but quickly returned to their iPhones and talk of upcoming ski trips. Not Greta. She fell silent and obsessed over the climate’s demise.

“I felt very alone that I was the only one who seemed to be worried about this,” Greta tells me in Stockholm. “I was the only one left in this sort of bubble. Everyone else could just continue with their lives as usual, and I couldn’t do that.”

Greta read all she could and sometimes went online and battled with climate deniers, oft exclaiming triumphantly, “He blocked me,” to her parents. She eventually wrote an essay on the climate crisis for a Swedish newspaper. Eco-activists contacted her, and Greta mentioned the inspiration she took from the school strikes after the Parkland, Florida, mass shooting, and suggested a climate version. The activists showed little interest. Greta didn’t care and slowly broke out of her cocoon.

“I thought what the Parkland students did was so brave,” says Thunberg. “Of course, it was not the only thing that got me out of that feeling. I did it because I was tired of sitting and waiting. I tried to get others to join me, but no one was interested and no one wanted to do that. So I said, ‘I’m going to do this alone if no one else wants to do it.’ ”

So in August 2018, Greta and her father bicycled down to the Swedish Parliament, across the cobblestone street from where Greta and I now stand. She propped up the first Skolstrejk för klimatet sign, which she’d made from scrap wood. Greta also wrote up an information sheet with climate data and a hint of the defiant humor that eventually led her to make her Twitter profile read, “A teenager working on her anger management problem,” after Trump told her to chill out. Her bio was simple:

“Because you grown-ups don’t give a damn about my future, neither do I. My name is Greta, I am in ninth grade, and I am going on strike from school for the climate.”

Photograph by Jack Davison for Rolling Stone

Her dad left, and she sat alone. She posted a couple of images to Instagram. It was passed on by a few of her followers. Then a reporter noticed. And then local activists from Greenpeace. Within two months, there were hundreds of fellow travelers, and the news spread through Scandinavia to Europe and on to America. Within a year, climate student strikes attracted tens of thousands, from London to New York.

Greta’s rise was the activist version of a perfect storm. Her ascension from bullied Swedish student to global climate icon has been driven by both a loss and a regaining of hope. It is not a coincidence that her ascent happened immediately in the aftermath of the election of Trump. It’s impossible to see a Greta-like phenomena emerging during the Obama-driven run up to the Paris climate talks, when it actually looked like nations of the world were getting their shit together to deal with global warming. It became obvious after Trump and the Paris implosion that 30 years of rhetoric and meetings had created very little except more talk.

And then you had the natural disasters. California could not stop burning. Floods ravaged Europe. We now watch glaciers melt and collapse in real time. The dawn of 2020 brought the Australian calamity, with images of scorched earth, koalas and kangaroos burned alive, and the death of a way of life.

The irony of the Greta Age is that we now have options, but refuse to take them. Clean-energy technology has evolved to a point where old arguments that fossil fuels remain the cheapest way to create energy are now obviously nonsense. The cost of clean energy is no longer a barrier to change. Over the past decade, it became an obvious truth: Burning fossil fuels no longer made economic sense anywhere, anytime. What remains is the power and influence of the energy conglomerate superpowers to maintain the status quo. No politician has the courage to face them down. By 2018, it became even clearer that politicians could not be trusted. Talk was wasted. Companies would continue to put profits before nature. We were on our own.

And that’s when Greta came along.

Thunberg’s perceived psychological weakness became her superpower. Her flat, affectless, blunt voice was the perfect counterpoint to the bureaucratic bullshit of the climate negotiators. It cut through all the gobbledygook about offsets and the economic necessity of coal and cost curves of solar power. She put it in simple human language: We are losing our planet. Unlike many activists before her, she is not political. She is not interested in reforming the process. Her voice is unabashedly and explicitly moral — “How dare you.”

“I think she is extraordinary in her determination,” says Eva Jones, an American high school senior who recently spent a week protesting for climate justice in Davos. “When you hear her speak, she doesn’t do vanity interviews. It’s never like, ‘So what do your friends think about this?’ She’s like, ‘No, I don’t want to talk about my friends, I want to talk about the crisis.’ She’s absolutely insane about getting reporters and getting politicians and getting whoever’s talking to her back to the subject.”

All of this from a teenager who sometimes still wears her hair in pigtails.

Thunberg and her fellow protesters head toward Medborgarplatsen (Citizen Square), in central Stockholm. They pass over a bridge by the harbor, where massive renovations are being done so the city can host even more waste-multiplying mega cruise ships. The kids chant in Swedish, “What do we want? Climate justice! When? Now! When? Now, now, now!” At the square, the squirrelly tweens play tag and are entertained by a rapper in a ski mask (some things don’t translate).

Eventually, Greta takes the stage. She speaks in her native Swedish, and her tone is faster and more emotional than in English. She mentions that temperatures in Sweden have been 5 to 10 degrees Celsius above normal this winter, and how globally 19 of the past 20 years have been the warmest on record.

“I have been on the road and visited numerous places and met people from all over the globe,” says Greta. “I can say that it looks nearly the same everywhere I have been: The climate crisis is ignored by people in charge, despite the science being crystal clear. We don’t want to hear one more politician say that this is important but afterward do nothing to change it. We don’t want more empty words from people pretending to take our future seriously.”

She pauses, and her face goes grim. “It shouldn’t be up to us children and teenagers to make people wake up around the world. The ones in charge should be ashamed.”

The crowd chants, “Greta, Greta, Greta.…”

She must hate that.

Greta keeps moving. In January, it was Davos. This week it is Stockholm. Next Friday is Hamburg. It’s a debilitating schedule since she doesn’t fly. Greta says it won’t go on forever. And she’s right.

Within a few weeks, the world would shut down for the coronavirus, with Greta and her father both falling ill (neither of them was tested for the virus, but she said she thought it was “extremely likely” that they had it, given her schedule). Besides, she is nearing the end of her gap year, between high school and university. “I really hope that we can solve this thing now because I want to get back to studying,” says Thunberg, shivering a bit in the Stockholm wind. I can’t tell if she is joking or is having a rare moment of optimism.

Still, she is so small, and the world is so big. I wonder how she continues forward as the world pays lip service and not much else.

For the first time, Thunberg softens.

“I’m very weak in a sense,” says Thunberg quietly. “I’m very tiny and I am very emotional, and that is not something people usually associate with strength. I think weakness, in a way, can be also needed because we don’t have to be the loudest, we don’t have to take up the most amount of space, and we don’t have to earn the most money.”

A friend comes over and whispers in her ear. It’s time to go, maybe home for a silent walk with her two dogs, Moses and Roxy. But she isn’t quite finished.

“We don’t need to have the biggest car, and we don’t need to get the most attention. We just need to…”

Mighty Greta’s voice trails off as if she is lost in thought or searching for the right word in English. Then, she looks up, locks eyes, and smiles for the first time.

“We need to care about each other more.”



Links

(VIDEO) Keira Knightley Calls For Action In ‘Climate Crisis, And Why We Should Panic’

Rolling Stone

“This animation explains the climate change aspect in a no-nonsense way,” actress says, “though the message is horrifying to hear”



Keira Knightley
Keira Christina Knightley, OBE is a British actress. Starring roles in independent films, and period dramas as well as big-budget blockbuster productions have earned her nominations for two British Academy Film Awards, three Golden Globe Awards, three British Independent Film Awards and two Academy Awards.
Keira Knightley calls for action in the urgent, animated explainer Climate Crisis, and Why We Should Panic. 

Translated into 14 different languages, the short features Knightley describing what’s causing climate change, and why governments need to enter crisis mode before it’s too late.

“Our children will grow up in this devastated world,” she says, while a red-headed child holds the Earth in her hands. “What will we say when they ask, ‘The science and data were all there for everyone to see. Why didn’t you stop this while you still could?'”

Climate Crisis, and Why We Should Panic was written, directed and animated by Miritte Ben Yitzchak. It’s part of Extinction Rebellion, an international and politically non-partisan movement that persuades governments to act justly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency.

“I want to speak out in support of Extinction Rebellion,” Knightley said in a statement. “Lending my voice to the most urgent issue of our time feels like the right way for me to take a stand, in the hope that we can leave a world worth living in for our children. Climate change and the ecological crisis are two sides of the same problem. This animation explains the climate change aspect in a no-nonsense way — though the message is horrifying to hear.”

The video follows Extinction Emergency, and Why We Must Act Now, an animated short on the ecological crisis. It was voiced by Naomie Harris with music by Brian Eno.

Links

29/08/2020

(AU) Coal-Fired Pollution Killing 800 Australians A Year: Report

Sydney Morning HeraldMiki Perkins

Air pollution from Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations kills around 800 people each year and spreads hundreds of kilometres from regional plants into major cities, new research finds.

This national death toll is twice as high as the number of smoke inhalation deaths in the recent catastrophic bushfire season, and eight times greater than the average annual casualties from all natural disasters, according to a new report from Greenpeace Australia.

This is the first time the national health impacts of burning coal for electricity have been scientifically assessed, its authors say.

Plume modelling of pollution from coal-fired power stations on Australia's eastern coast, based on atmospheric observations and industry data using CALPUFF. Supplied: Greenpeace.

Air pollution from coal-burning power stations also causes an average of 850 babies each year to be born with low birth weight, which puts them at greater risk of serious health conditions as adults, like cardiovascular disease, it finds. This represents 450 babies each year for Sydney and 260 for Melbourne.

"Australians all over the country are paying for electricity with their lives and health, even if they don’t use power from burning coal or live near a power station," said Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner Jonathan Moylan.

There are 14,000 asthma attacks and symptoms among Australian children and young people aged between 5 and 19 that can be attributed to emissions from coal-burning power stations each year, the report finds.


Plume modelling of pollution from coal-fired power stations in Victoria, based on atmospheric observations and industry data using CALPUFF.  Supplied: Greenpeace

Some of these symptoms come from cross-state pollution, with about 20 percent of cases occurring in states and territories that are not home to the power station that is the source of the emissions.

But a spokesperson for the Australian Energy Council, which represents major generators, rejected the report as "alarmist, misleading and lacking in rigour".

They pointed out it had not been peer-reviewed, saying it used outdated data from overseas and extrapolated it to Australia.

"This report appears to be part of a broader campaign that seeks to demonise fossil fuel plants regardless of their health, safety or environmental performance," they said. "All power plants have to meet health and environmental limits set and monitored by independent bodies."

The Greenpeace study modelled how much pollution from coal power stations could be expected in certain areas, based on observed meteorological conditions, reported pollutant emissions and electricity generation.

Existing health studies were then used to calculate how many additional deaths occur with this increased pollution. For mortality, this included deaths due to heart disease, cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, lower respiratory infections and stroke.

Report co-author Professor Hilary Bambrick, an environmental epidemiologist, said power plant air pollution had caused Australians to die and suffer from preventable diseases for decades: "Governments must come up with a plan to replace our ageing and unreliable coal burning power stations with clean energy solutions as quickly as possible."

New research recently published in the Medical Journal of Australia found unborn babies whose mothers were exposed to smoke from the Hazelwood coal mine fire are at greater risk of respiratory infections in early childhood, despite not directly inhaling the pollution.

Australia still operates 22 coal-burning power stations, some of which are among the oldest and most polluting in the world. Power stations in Australia are licensed to emit pollutant concentrations that dramatically exceed limits set by comparable countries, says Max Smith, a campaigner at Environmental Justice Australia.

Mr Smith urged federal and state governments to address flaws in the regulatory system and fit Australia’s coal-fired power stations with basic pollution controls that could cut toxic pollutants by more than 85 percent.

Links

Climate Apocalypse Now

Rolling Stone

Maybe it’s just a failure of human imagination to understand what is coming

This GOES-16 GeoColor satellite image taken Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2020, at 4:50 p.m. EDT., and provided by NOAA, shows Hurricane Laura over the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA/AP

Author
Jeff Goodell is an American author and contributing editor to Rolling Stone magazine.
Goodell's writings are known for a focus on energy and environmental issues.
He was a 2016-2018 Fellow at New America and a 2020 Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council.
I’m not a religious person, or someone who sees messages written in clouds, but if I were, I might believe that Mother Nature is trying to tell President Donald Trump something right now.

California is burning, a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 150 mph just blasted into the Louisiana coast, and nearly 180,000 are reported dead from a viral outbreak that is just a harbinger of what one scientist calls “a new pandemic era” driven in part by our changing climate and wanton destruction of ecosystems.

But on the eve of Trump’s big speech to accept the Republican nomination, if Mother Nature had a voice, I imagine she would say something like this: Pay attention to me, asshole, or you — and every generation of humans to come — will regret it.

But that’s not what Mother Nature is saying. Mother Nature (a corny but, somehow, still useful phrase that goes back to the Greeks) doesn’t say things directly. She doesn’t give a shit about Trump, or his re-election, or about you or me, or the coastline of Louisiana, or the majestic coast redwoods in California. She operates with the cold, careless laws of physics and chemistry. In the vast space of time, our magnificent Earth is a random collection of molecules, a mote of dust flying in the 150 mph winds of Hurricane Laura.

Despite what Mike Pence says, there are no miracles in America, or anywhere else. We humans are on our own. If we fuck this up, it’s on us.

And, of course, we are fucking it up. We are heating up the planet so fast that large parts of it will be uninhabitable by the end of the century. We are amping up storms like Hurricane Laura — it is the strongest storm to hit the Louisiana coast since 1856 — and turning the Gulf Coast into a shooting gallery — which city is going to get hit next? New Orleans? Houston? Tampa? Miami? They are all living on borrowed time. And it’s not just the hurricanes: As Greenland melts and Antarctica falls into the Southern Ocean, they will be swamped by rising seas, as will virtually every other low-lying city in the world. The rich will huddle behind sea walls; the poor will flee or drown.

We are mowing down rainforests, destroying the lungs of the planet, and pushing animals — and the viruses they carry — into new places, increasing the risks of spillover into humans. You think Covid-19, with a fatality rate of about one percent (depending on risk group), is bad? Wait until a Nipah virus, with a fatality rate of 50 percent or higher, morphs in a way that allows asymptomatic transmission. Wait until Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever, which currently is transmitted by Hyalomma ticks and causes Ebola-like bleeding out of every orifice, figures out a way to leap into Asian longhorned ticks, an invasive species that is already spreading wildly across the U.S. If that happens, you will go for a walk in the woods, and a week later, you’re bleeding from your nose, gums, and ass.

The hotter the planet gets, the faster it burns. Earlier this year, bushfires in Australia burned through 72,000 square miles and killed several billion animals. Now, California and Colorado are aflame. As Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute recently tweeted, “One telling aspect of California wildfires is that the number of fires has actually declined while average area burned has increased more than threefold. It’s changing conditions — dryer fuels from a changing climate, greater fuel loading from fire suppression — that are to blame.”

In parts of California, fire season is now 50 days longer than in 1979. Studies of the Western United States suggest that about 40 percent more area is burned today than would have in a world where climate conditions remained as they were in the 1980s.

I could go on. I could tell you about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef. I could tell you about marine heatwaves that are radically transforming undersea ecosystems and devastating fish stocks and fishermen’s livelihoods. I could tell you about my recent visit to Antarctica, where I witnessed the slow-motion collapse of Thwaites Glacier: a chunk of ice the size of Florida, which, if it tumbles into the ocean, could raise sea levels by 10 feet.

The catalog of planetary chaos is endless. It is more visible today than it was yesterday, and the changes that are underway are accelerating. There is no magical boundary where we cross over into a lost world, when the planet becomes uninhabitable. But we are on a journey in that direction.

Luckily, there are signs we are waking up to the risks we face. Recent polls show that the number of Americans who feel passionately about climate change is rising sharply. The Green New Deal, a policy framework that for the first time frames the climate crisis in all its human dimensions, is increasingly popular and helped shape Joe Biden’s ambitious climate plan. Global carbon-dioxide emissions are still rising, but only at half the rate they were in the 2000s. Coal — the most CO2-intensive fossil fuel — peaked in 2013 and has been in freefall ever since. In many parts of the country, electricity generated from clean energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. Nightmare scenarios where global emissions triple by the end of the century are increasingly unlikely.

And we are beginning to adapt. Urban forests are being planted in many cities to offer shade from the heat. Coastal cities are changing zoning laws to encourage people to build in less flood-prone areas. And in places like Paradise, California, which burned to the ground in 2018, city officials are making plans to rebuild in ways that greatly reduce fire hazards.

But still, the scale and ambition of our actions are nowhere near what is necessary. To avert the worst of the climate crisis, we need to get to zero emissions by 2050. Better zoning laws aren’t going to save coastal cities — they need to be reimagined entirely. We need to see the climate crisis as racial and environmental justice issues — like the Covid-19 pandemic, it doesn’t hit everyone equally, and generations of structural racism and poverty need to be addressed with as much energy and ambition as we put into reducing carbon pollution.

Maybe it’s a failure of human imagination to understand what is coming. Maybe it’s a failure of democracy and the media (including writers like myself). After all, at this vital turning point in the climate crisis, at a moment when most scientists agree is the last chance to save a stable climate, America elected a president who sees science as a church for losers, and who believes the climate crisis is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

The climate crisis was not created by Trump. It was created by the industrialized nations of the West who burned fossil fuels to build cities, fight wars, and grow rich. For a long time, we were blissfully ignorant of the consequences of that fossil-fuel binge. But now we are not. And now we are at a point where every ton of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere creates a hotter, riskier, more dangerous world. And the man who could lead us out of this, who could begin a journey of carbon redemption, just doesn’t give a shit.

Maybe the real message that Mother Nature is sending with these storms and fires in the midst of the Republican National Convention is not to Trump, but to us. And it says this: You can have four more years of Trump, or you can have a habitable planet. But you can’t have both.

Links

Big Disasters Make Headlines. But The Most Dangerous Part Of Climate Change Is That You Barely Notice It’s Happening

The CorrespondentEric Holthaus

Big, headline-grabbing climate disasters make the news, but it’s steady changes to the Earth’s ecosystems that truly threaten civilisation as we know it.

All images by David Ellingsen from the series Weather Patterns, an ongoing project of more than 10 years. Read more about this series at the end of the article. LARGE IMAGE

Author
Eric Holthaus is a meteorologist, climate scientist and journalist, working mostly in the US, the Caribbean, and East Africa.
There was once a time when the weather was the realm of the gods. Lightning strikes, tornadoes, droughts and floods were all subject to the whims of the divine – powers beyond not only humanity’s control but also beyond our comprehension.

It’s even written into our insurance contracts: “Acts of God.”

But over thousands of years, scientists have learned that the weather follows repeatable, predictable patterns. And one of the main stories of the past 100 years has been the realisation that human activities are powerful enough to bend those patterns. One of the main stories of the next 100 years will be whether or not we change those activities fast enough.

Within our lifetimes, something remarkable has happened. It’s no longer the gods that cause the most extreme of weather events. It’s us.

2018 Wildfires, Sunrise Through Smoke. In 2018 British Columbia had the worst fire season to date; the smoke left some areas in the province with the worst air quality in the world. LARGE IMAGE

Human activities now affect every single weather event in every part of the globe. That’s not to say every single weather event is driven solely by human activities – the sun still drives the hydrologic cycle and all weather on Earth. But it’s no longer true to say that we live in a world where “natural” weather patterns exist.

Meteorological science has progressed so far that its implications are being written into law. One of the most rapidly developing fields of climate science is called "event attribution" – scientists can now assign a percentage of climate blame to every weather event, with specificity down to individual oil and gas companies.

Knowing that fossil fuel companies are directly responsible for imperceptible changes in daily weather is not hyperbole. It’s integral to our understanding of the new era we are now in.

The end of the era of climate stability

To put it simply, we’ve left the era of climate stability that’s given rise to human civilisation.



In the absence of human activities, the world would be slightly cooling right now.

In fact, according to several assessments, humans are responsible for greater than 100% of global warming. We’ve offset the natural cooling trend, and then some. The planet’s temperature and chemistry are now changing at the sharpest rate in at least 55 million years.

If every part of the atmosphere has now been affected by humanity’s presence, we should pay just as close attention to the everyday subtle shifts in the weather as we do the headline-grabbing mega-disasters. It’s these steady changes, a degree or two here and there, year after year, that are breaking the system.

Climate change is no longer a prediction

Over all the millennia of our existence, weather disasters were deadly but temporary. Now, the worst of them are subtle, cumulative, and permanent.

Climate change is the shorthand term we have for that long-term, irreversible shift in the baseline conditions of our existence on the planet. On the timescale of a human lifetime, these shifts in the weather are barely perceptible. From the perspective of the global ecosystem, they are as loud and damaging as an asteroid strike.

Abrupt climate change used to be a prediction. Now it is recent world history, and the greatest shared threat we face as a civilisation. Air pollution – one of the world’s leading causes of death – already kills millions of people per year. By the end of the century, extreme heat alone could kill as many people as all infectious diseases combined do today. And none of this factors in the threat to the stability of nations as migration due to natural disasters approaches levels not seen since the second world war.

2017 Dissipating Heat, Summer Evenings. The summer of 2017 in the Pacific Northwest broke dozens of maximum temperature records. LARGE IMAGE




There are hundreds of examples of plants and animals whose long-term behaviours have already shifted due to subtle changes in the weather over the past few decades. Individually, these changes are not alarming. A certain species of plant blooming three days earlier, on average, shouldn’t matter much to a robust ecosystem.

But if nearly every animal and plant is changing their behaviour, the fragile relationships between them can fray remarkably fast. A certain type of bee may no longer be able to pollinate the flower it has co-evolved with over millions of years, and the migratory bird that depends on that plant’s fruit may now starve. If that bird needs to traverse the Arctic on its migration and there is no more sea ice, it may go extinct.

If that bird goes extinct, it won’t be because of a single extreme weather disaster; it will be because small shifts in the weather became too much for it to bear. Magnified over millions of species, and amplified over all the other environmental factors at work like habitat loss and pollution, you can gradually come to see why climate change is an existential threat. Not only because of rising seas and fiercer hurricanes but because the web of life on which our existence depends is fraying.

How the weather is different now

This era of irreversible weather disasters has arrived without a grand entrance, so it’s important to distinguish exactly what it looks like. Any time a system moves outside the range that it’s adapted to, it’s prone to breaking down. When it does so quickly, it could collapse.

There are several ways to think about how the weather is different now.

From a human perspective, some weather and climate events have been made better by climate change. There are fewer deaths from hypothermia in colder climates, like northern Europe. Some places with short growing seasons may begin to produce more food. Arctic countries may benefit from increased maritime trade as the sea ice melts and the shipping season lengthens.

20 March 2019, 48 Temperature Records Broken on First Day of Spring. 122 provincial high-temperature records were broken over the third week of March. LARGE IMAGE




But these trends don’t hold for the world as a whole. Northern Europe and Canada are the main beneficiaries of shorter winters, the same countries that have made a huge percentage of their fortunes from the fossil fuel industry.

Then there are weather events that are made worse by climate change. Nearly every new high temperature record, like the recent 37.8°C/100°F in London or the 54.4°C/130°F in California, was made more likely by climate change. The wind speeds of some extremely strong cyclones, like Hurricane Dorian’s impact in the Bahamas last year, are likely due in part to warmer ocean temperatures caused by climate change.

There’s evidence that certain heavy rain events – like this year’s exceptionally strong south Asian monsoon that has flooded large parts of India and Bangladesh – were also connected to warming oceans. But it’s plausible these events could have happened without climate change, even though their severity is increasing.

Some weather events, like 2018’s heatwave in Japan, were so unusual that they could not have happened without climate change. This year, another heatwave hit Japan with similar force. Recent heatwaves in the Middle East and south Asia are approaching the level at which human survival is impossible, which they are expected to reach by the end of the century if the world remains on anything like a business-as-usual course. As deadly as these heatwaves are, they aren’t irreversible. They didn’t kickstart some long-dormant Earth process on their own.

2018 Wildfires, Sunrise Through Smoke. LARGE IMAGE

Climate ‘tipping points’

And then there’s the third category: weather events that, if they happen enough times in the same place, turn into climate disasters that alter the environment permanently.

These disasters are what we are trying to prevent when we take action on climate change. These are the disasters that, if left unchecked, will endanger civilisation as we know it.

Some of them are already underway: the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, the collapse of mountain glaciers worldwide, the desertification of the Mediterranean region. Some are already effectively irreversible, like the acidification of the oceans. All of them are causing immense suffering to people and to the biosphere in ways that rarely make the news.

These disasters happen through a process that scientists also call “tipping points”.

The phrase “tipping point” is often used as a colloquial way of saying things are starting to get really bad, but it’s also a technical term scientists use to describe a point at which a natural system in a steady state irreversibly transitions to an entirely new equilibrium.

2019 June July August, Hottest Ocean Temperature in Recorded History (global). June 2019 recorded the hottest global ocean temperature in recorded history. July broke that record and August surpassed it. LARGE IMAGE



The classic example is sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, which has been continuously covered with a bright white reflective layer of frozen seawater for thousands of years. The region is now one of the fastest-warming places on Earth, and as more dark blue liquid is exposed beneath the ice, the water absorbs more and more heat energy due to a lower albedo.

The warmer the Arctic gets, of course, the faster it melts. The fear is that in just a few years, the Arctic will experience a “blue ocean event”, after which ice will have trouble reforming, sending a cascade of weather and ecosystem implications throughout the northern hemisphere.

It’s this category of climate consequences that are most worrying.

To name a few more

When they burn, forest fires release huge amounts of carbon dioxide and soot that warm the atmosphere. This year’s fires in the Arctic alone have already released more carbon than Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland will over the entire year from all human activities combined. Those additional emissions will warm the atmosphere further, boosting the likelihood of larger fires in the coming years.

And those fires, clearly, are already bad enough. Forest fires in the Amazon are happening at a frequency unseen in the past 20,000 years. Even the wetlands in Brazil are on fire. This year’s bushfires in Australia, one of the worst wildlife disasters in modern history, may have pushed at least 113 species closer to extinction.

Because of an increase in drought, floods, and heatwaves, climate change is already reducing crop yields worldwide. An overlap of crises in 2020 has kicked off the most severe global food shortage in 50 years. That’s just one of more than a dozen effects that the climate emergency is having this year, worsening the effects of the pandemic and stressing human systems to the breaking point.

A trend toward overlapping disasters is causing an exponential growth in the complexity and danger of every other type of disaster. As we saw during the Arab Spring revolutions, food crises can create political crises, which can destabilise governments and create humanitarian crises, which greatly reduce our ability to deal with the climate crisis.

When climate change makes the news – that “it’s worse than you think” story we all dread reading – this is what they’re talking about. Donald Rumsfeld, the US philosopher-military architect, had a famous saying about “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” that was meant to strike fear and build the case for rapid action. Climate change has reached the point where even the known unknowns should be enough for us to take action. No need to tempt the gods even more.

Figures released by the US science agency NOAA for March 2015 show that for the first time since records began the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere were over 400 globally for an entire month. The grid illustrates the 16 days Ellingsen photographed this location in March 2015, multiplied by 25, in order to mark this milestone event with a composite work of 400 parts. LARGE IMAGE

See more work by Ellingsen

About the images

Photographer David Ellingsen has been working on his series Weather Patterns for more than 10 years. Using a consistent set of parameters such as location, focal length, aperture and framing, he captured the landscape in front of him on a daily basis, interested by events related to the changing global climate system – such as temperature records, drought or wildfires. At a later stage, he would go back into his archive and assemble single pictures into a bigger composition.

As viewers, if we consider the single landscape image as one shot, it is just the image of a regular sunset or a sea that we all experience during our lives. It is only by putting them together that we can perceive visually and materially that it is the accumulation of all those moments that lead to the tipping point of climate disasters. (Veronica Daltri, Image editor)

Links