John French is Atmospheric Physicist at the Australian Antarctic Division, University of Tasmania
Andrew Klekociuk is Principal Research Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division, and Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Tasmania
Frank Mulligan is Associate Professor, Maynooth University, Ireland
While greenhouse gases are warming Earth’s surface, they’re also
causing rapid cooling far above us, at the edge of space. In fact, the
upper atmosphere about 90km above Antarctica is cooling at a rate ten
times faster than the average warming at the planet’s surface.
Our new research
has precisely measured this cooling rate, and revealed an important
discovery: a new four-year temperature cycle in the polar atmosphere.
The results, based on 24 years of continuous measurements by Australian
scientists in Antarctica, were published in twopapers this month.
The findings show Earth’s upper atmosphere, in a region called the
“mesosphere”, is extremely sensitive to rising greenhouse gas
concentrations. This provides a new opportunity to monitor how well
government interventions to reduce emissions are working.
Our project also monitors the spectacular natural phenomenon known as
“noctilucent” or “night shining” clouds. While beautiful, the more
frequent occurrence of these clouds is considered a bad sign for climate change.
‘Night shining’ clouds photographed by the lead author John French from Davis station in 1998.Author provided (No reuse)
Studying the ‘airglow’
Since the 1990s, scientists at Australia’s Davis research station
have taken more than 600,000 measurements of the temperatures in the
upper atmosphere above Antarctica. We’ve done this using sensitive
optical instruments called spectrometers.
These instruments analyse the infrared glow radiating from so-called
hydroxyl molecules, which exist in a thin layer about 87km above Earth’s
surface. This “airglow” allows us to measure the temperature in this
part of the atmosphere.
Spectrometer in the optical laboratory at Davis station, Antarctica.John French
Our results show that in the high atmosphere above Antarctica, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do not have the warming effect they do in the lower atmosphere (by colliding with other molecules). Instead the excess energy is radiated to space, causing a cooling effect.
Our new research more accurately determines this cooling rate. Over
24 years, the upper atmosphere temperature has cooled by about 3℃, or
1.2℃ per decade. That is about ten times greater than the average
warming in the lower atmosphere – about 1.3℃ over the past century.
Untangling natural signals
Rising greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the temperature
changes we recorded, but a number of other influences are also at play.
These include the seasonal cycle (warmer in winter, colder in summer)
and the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle (which involves quieter and more
intense solar periods) in the mesosphere.
One challenge of the research was untangling all these merged
“signals” to work out the extent to which each was driving the changes
we observed.
Surprisingly in this process, we discovered a new natural cycle not
previously identified in the polar upper atmosphere. This four-year
cycle which we called the Quasi-Quadrennial Oscillation (QQO), saw
temperatures vary by 3-4℃ in the upper atmosphere.
Scientists used sensitive equipment to monitor the upper atmosphere from Davis station.John French, Author provided (No reuse)
Discovering this cycle was like stumbling across a gold nugget in a
well-worked claim. More work is needed to determine its origin and full
importance.
But the finding has big implications for climate modelling. The
physics that drive this cycle are unlikely to be included in global
models currently used to predict climate change. But a variation of 3-4℃
every four years is a large signal to ignore.
We don’t yet know what’s driving the oscillation. But whatever the
answer, it also seems to affect the winds, sea surface temperatures,
atmospheric pressure and sea ice concentrations around Antarctica.
‘Night shining’ clouds
Our research also monitors how cooling temperatures are affecting the occurrence of noctilucent or “night shining” clouds.
Noctilucent clouds
are very rare – from Australian Antarctic stations we’ve recorded about
ten observations since 1998. They occur at an altitude of about 80km in
the polar regions during summer. You can only see them from the ground
when the sun is below the horizon during twilight, but still shining on
the high atmosphere.
The clouds appear as thin, pale blue, wavy filaments. They are
comprised of ice crystals and require temperatures around minus 130℃ to
form. While impressive, noctilucent clouds are considered a “canary
in the coalmine” of climate change. Further cooling of the upper
atmosphere as a result of greenhouse gas emissions will likely lead to
more frequent noctilucent clouds.
There is already some evidence the clouds are becoming brighter and more widespread in the Northern Hemisphere.
The new temperature cycle is reflected in the concentration of sea ice in Antacrtica.John French
Measuring change
Human-induced climate change threatens to alter radically the
conditions for life on our planet. Over the next several decades - less
than one lifetime - the average global air temperature is expected to
increase, bringing with it sea level rise, weather extremes and changes
to ecosystems across the world.
Long term monitoring is important to measure change and test and
calibrate ever more complex climate models. Our results contribute to a
global network of observations coordinated by the Network for Detection of Mesospheric Change for this purpose.
The accuracy of these models is critical to determining whether
government and other interventions to curb climate change are indeed
effective.
Climate policy director Rhiana Gunn-Wright, architect of the Green New
Deal, explains the connections between the pandemic and the climate
crisis.
Rhiana Gunn-Wright at the DealBook/DC Strategy Forum in Washington last year. Credit...Michael Cohen for The New York Times
“It’s actually easier in a lot of ways to talk about climate change now.” — Rhiana Gunn-Wright, climate policy director
Rhiana Gunn-Wright had asthma growing up.
So did many of her neighbors in Englewood, on the South Side of Chicago, where pediatric hospitalization rates for asthma were significantly higher
than the rate nationwide in the early 2000s. Ms. Gunn-Wright had so
many friends with asthma that she assumed it was a “childhood disease”
that all young people had.
Only later in life did she realize it was linked to air pollution in the area, as was shown by research funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.
For some policymakers and advocates, even those organizing global climate strikes,
the effects of climate change can feel distant, but Ms. Gunn-Wright,
30, never had that luxury. Her work on environmental justice has always
felt personal, tied to the public health problems in her community.
In
2018, Ms. Gunn-Wright was recruited by the progressive think tank New
Consensus, which focuses on climate and economic policy, to be a
co-author on a paper titled “The Green New Deal.”
It laid out in
detail a sweeping platform to fight climate change, and it was the basis
of a congressional resolution introduced by Senator Edward Markey,
Democrat of Massachusetts, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
Democrat of New York. The resolution outlines a 10-year mobilization to
achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions while creating new jobs and
investing in infrastructure, galvanizing “every aspect of American
society at a scale not seen since World War II.”
The Green New Deal quickly became a lightning rod
among lawmakers. While Republicans cast it as a socialist plan to take
away cars and planes, some Democratic presidential candidates embraced parts or all of the framework, and it was credited
with encouraging spirited debate on climate policy during the 2020
primary race. Still others critiqued it for its breadth — and many of
its specifics, including cost, are still in question.
A
year later, the country is in the midst of new crises — a pandemic and
an extraordinary economic downturn, amid waves of protest against
systemic racism.
In Her Words spoke
with Ms. Gunn-Wright about how the coronavirus has made climate issues
even more stark, and about the challenges of leading as a Black woman in
the predominantly white male world of environmental policy.
The conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
You’ve
been sounding the alarm on climate change for some time. Now the
headlines are all about the coronavirus. Has it gotten trickier to focus
public attention on climate amid the spread of Covid-19?
In
some ways, it’s easier to talk about climate change than when we first
came out with the Green New Deal resolution. That’s because the connections
between the pandemic and climate crisis are clear, starting with the
fact that people of color — Black and Latino folks — are dying at far
higher rates from Covid. And there’s already at least one study showing how Covid deaths are correlated with exposure to toxic air pollution.
It’s
never normal to surround people with toxic air pollution and cause them
all sorts of respiratory problems, but before Covid that was the normal
drumbeat of injustice. I think Covid has helped break that
normalization.
Are you hopeful that some of the positive climate shifts in recent months, like our decreased reliance on air and car travel, will continue after the pandemic?
No,
because they’re due to reductions in economic activity and not to
policy change. Emissions go down during recessions as a result of
decreased economic activity, but they always rebound. You’re going to
see them kick into overdrive.
The field of environmental research and policy has long skewed white and male.
Columbia University’s earth observatory just appointed its first-
female interim director this month. What are some of the hurdles you’ve
faced as a Black woman in this line of work?
I
had to downplay my Blackness and my own anger. I had to depoliticize
myself. Sometimes the connections that I talked about, between equity
and the environment, weren’t taken seriously, so I wasn’t taken
seriously.
I had at least one white
man tell me that if we didn’t mitigate climate change, it would be my
fault because the Green New Deal tied in equity and race, and that’s too
much, so I will have ruined our changes at climate policy.
How did you respond to that?
I didn’t. Because what climate policy did I interrupt that was happening? There wasn’t anything happening at the federal level.I
had a white man write me a multiple-page essay about how we have to
tackle the climate crisis because it’s the most urgent thing facing
humanity. But racial injustice, he wrote, has always existed, so why do
we have to address that now? The
way I responded was by doubling down. It became clear to me that part of
my work is about elucidating these connections between climate and
justice.
How are you working to put climate change and justice at the center of the country’s response to Covid-19?
I’m
working on a paper now about green stimulus. It’s spelling out what an
economic recovery looks like that is based in climate justice. Climate
policy is often thought of as a very long-term thing, so we’re making
the case for how it can be used for immediate stimulus and fit into our
plans to rebuild the economy.
You’ve
been both a political insider and outsider — working for candidates and
as a researcher and organizer. Where do you get the most traction?
I
sometimes feel that it is easier to do my work outside of the system,
because it’s easier to be myself. The work I do is stressful, and the
ability to look in the mirror and recognize myself and to act in ways
aligned with my values is really important to me.
What parts of yourself have you had to quiet while working inside political institutions?
The
way I dress. My aesthetic is “just dropped off my kids and going on a
Target run,” but I also have a half-sleeve tattoo and a nose ring. I’ve
never seen a person on the inside, like a chief of staff or legislative
director, with a sleeve tattoo. I’m very open about calling out white
supremacy. And I have mental health issues: I have PTSD, anxiety and
depression. I have yet to see a leader, that is someone on the inside,
talk about that.
The closer you get to the inside, the more the models
of leadership and professionalism become exclusionary and focus on a
dominant white male leader. I’m at this point in my life where I’m not
willing to become a narrower person in order to gain power.
Speaking
of people on the inside, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic
presidential nominee, hasn’t fully endorsed the Green New Deal, but he
did just release a sweeping set of climate policies. You’ve been critical of his new platform. Why is that?
I
think it has great elements, but it tries to be transformative while
keeping the power relationships that we have in our economy. I think
returning power to marginalized communities is very important as part of
climate action. For example, if Indigenous communities had the rights
that they deserved, if their treaties were respected, we wouldn’t even
be thinking about a Dakota Access Pipeline.
Some climate experts say there is a connection between women and environmental action. Why are women more likely to bear the brunt of climate disasters?
Actually,
gender is a place where we need to strengthen our analysis. We haven’t
done enough thinking about the care economy. Care jobs are green jobs,
in the sense that they are low carbon emission jobs. And with Covid, it
has become clear how broken our care economy is. On the child care side,
it could very well be decimated. Family child care providers are
closing and won’t have the support to reopen.
With the Green New Deal,
we elevated manufacturing jobs and construction, which are important,
but it often feels like it’s about saving men’s jobs and the women don’t
appear. When there was a gender gap in the original Green New Deal, the
Feminist Green New Deal Network stepped in and started thinking through its impact on women. So I’ve been in conversation with them more and learning so much.
We all claim to love the planet, but do we really? It’s easy to love
something when it’s lavishing you with refreshing hikes, clear lakes,
and gorgeously glowing sunsets. It’s much harder when the object of your affections asks for something in return — such as your toilet paper.
It isn't news that pollution and climate change are threatening our planet. Scientists have been screaming that our lifestyles are unsustainable
for decades, begging people to be more mindful in their consumption.
Yet habit and convenience has caused us to largely ignore these dire
warnings, continuing to use paper coffee cups and burn fossil fuels like
there’s no tomorrow. At this rate, there might not be.
There are of course limits to individualaction (and carbon footprints are a sham). Wider policy changes and changing company behaviour are essential to achieving true sustainability, with just 20 companies
currently responsible for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. A
2017 study found that 71 percent of global emissions were generated by
just 100 companies, highlighting the importance of pressuring companies to go green.
Even so, if you're looking for tiny ways to show big companies that
people do actually care about not destroying the planet, we can help.
Here are six embarrassingly simple ways you can dial up your own
sustainable lifestyle and lessen your personal impact, but which you
still won’t do because they're bothersome.
1. Use a bidet
Many of us are comfortable wiping our asses with toilet paper,
smearing our feces across tissue like disgusting abstract
expressionists. However, if we are open and willing to learn, there is a
better way. Muslims, Asians, and Europeans
have been way ahead on bathroom hygiene for ages, and it’s time
everyone else caught up — for both the environment and our buttholes.
Not only do bidets give you a more thorough, hygienic clean
than toilet paper, they’re also more sustainable. Exactly how much
water is used to manufacture toilet paper depends upon the method, with
estimates ranging from six to 37 gallons for a single roll. However, mostconclude that bidets consume significantly less, at around one eighth of a gallon per use.
Overall, bidets seem like a much less wasteful choice. However, Dr. Tommy Wiedmann,
professor of sustainability research at UNSW Sydney, noted that the
positive impact of the bidet would depend on how people use it. Blasting
your anus like a fire hose for an hour is unlikely to do anyone any
good.
2. Turn off the tap when you brush your teeth
As a citizen of perpetually drought-stricken Australia,
learning that people leave the tap running while brushing their teeth
was like learning people fertilise their lawns with wagyu beef. The EPA
states that leaving the faucet on can waste eight gallons of water per
day. That’s a ridiculous amount of precious liquid literally going down
the drain.
It’s hard to break habits, but there’s absolutely no reason to
continue this one. Both Wiedmann and University of Sydney sustainability
researcher Dr. Lisa Heinze
told Mashable you should definitely turn off the tap while taking care
of your dental hygiene. Though water is technically a renewable
resource, there's a limited amount that's fresh and unpolluted, and it
isn’t always available everywhere. Saving what we have is important.
Saving water will save you money, too, in case you need a more capitalist motivation to care about the world.
3. Use public transportation
Complaining about public transportation is a universal experience
that unites us all. Buses are always late, trains are unspeakably
filthy, and both are packed with coughing strangers who don’t believe in
personal space. We jump at the chance to avoid public transport
whenever we can. Unfortunately, embracing that contemptible subway is
one of the best things you can do to save the planet.
“Transport is still the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases
globally, after the electricity and energy sector, representing 15
percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,” Dr. Chris De Gruyter told Mashable. De Gruyter is a vice-chancellor's research fellow at RMIT University’s Centre for Urban Research in Melbourne.
“In the United States, half of all trips are three miles or less, but
72 percent of these are by car; for trips of one mile or less, 60
percent are by car,” De Gruyter said.
Wiedmann considers using public transport “the most beneficial to
help with curbing climate change” out of all the actions on this list,
“especially when combined with having no car at all.” Recent research
found living car-free has some of the highest potential to mitigate a
person’s carbon emissions, even better than switching to a vegan diet.
According to the EPA, the average car emits around 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide every year.
If you absolutely must drive, Heinze advised using a car-share program rather than owning your own. Babet de Groot,
a Ph.D. candidate studying ocean governance and waste management at the
University of Sydney, further suggested carbon offsetting when such
travel is unavoidable.
“Carbon-offsetting is the purchase of compensation for emissions
generated, which is used to fund emissions-reduction elsewhere,” de
Groot said. “Plant trees to offset your carbon emissions via Offset Earth or Carbon Neutral Charitable Fund.”
4. Stop buying bottled water
Filling a bottle with tap water and carrying it with you only
requires a tiny bit of forethought and prep. Even so, countless people
still refuse to do this bare minimum, preferring to buy single-use
plastic bottles of water they’ll throw in the trash by nightfall. This
is the type of hedonism that will doom humankind, and we will deserve
it.
“Annual production of plastic bottles is projected to reach 600
billion by 2021,” de Groot told Mashable. “That is 600 billion bottles,
in addition to almost all plastic produced to date, that will virtually
persist in the environment forever.”
According to de Groot, humans produced over 7,800 million tons of new
plastic by 2015. Of that, approximately 79 percent has gone into
landfill or the natural environment. It takes over 500 years for plastic
to degrade into smaller particles, but it continues to destroy the
environment even then. “These microplastics risk being ingested by
wildlife and transferred up the food chain where their effects on human
health are yet to be known,” de Groot told Mashable.
You don’t need plastic bottles of Himalayan spring water blessed by a
108-year-old monk who doesn’t use YouTube. If you’re really concerned
about purity, just boil and filter your tap water.
5. Ignore ‘best before’ dates on food
Eating food past its manufacturer mandated “best before” date feels
like dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight. Food poisoning is
never fun, and defying those authoritatively stamped numbers may seem
too close to spitting at the gastrointestinal gods. However, strict
adherence to these dates is actually unnecessary, and only serves to
create equally unnecessary food waste.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
states that, with the exception of infant formula, food is still safe
to consume after the provided date passes — as long as it shows no signs
of spoilage such as "an off odor, flavor or texture." Eat, drink, and
be merry. There is no uniform standard regarding product dating in the
U.S., so the numbers largely mean nothing. "Use by" and "best before"
dates only indicate when food is at its best quality, not when it is
safe to eat.
“Confusion over the meaning of dates applied to food products can
result in consumers discarding wholesome food,” says the USDA.
“The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that
industrialised countries generate approximately 95 to 115 kgs [209-254
lbs] of consumer food waste per capita,” de Groot told Mashable. “This
contributes to climate change in the form of methane emissions emanating
from landfills and carbon emissions associated with production,
processing and transport.”
Learn to trust your senses rather than uncritically obey “best before” dates, and you can help reduce some of that waste.
6. Vote
Voting is a chore, and not one that feels particularly rewarding in
the moment. Standing in line for hours just to tick a few little boxes
might seem irritating, like lost time that might have been spent working
or binging Project Runway. However, just like any other chore,
it’s important that you do it anyway — especially if you want to keep
your environment habitable.
“If we want the right conditions, policies, rules, and support
structures to be able to live sustainably, we need our leaders to be
part of the solutions,” Dr. Simon Lockrey told Mashable. A sustainable design researcher at RMIT University, Lockery is also a board member of the International Sustainable Development Research Society.
“Our votes matter, so we should be using that mechanism to send them a
message. The old way is not necessarily the best way. By voting, or when
we really need to, protesting, we can send these types of messages.”
"[Individual changes] should be a starting point to increased action in our communities, governments, schools and workplaces."
Practically all government policies impact the environment in some
way, but Lockery notes some of the most significant issues concern
energy, waste, forestry, water, and agriculture. These affect “big
ticket items for living sustainably,” such as climate change, threats to
habitats or certain species, and environmental toxicity.
“What we should be pressuring governments to support are policies
that build energy systems that are clean; that drive less greenhouse gas
production in industry; that protect flora and fauna; and eradicate
toxic materials/chemicals from our biosphere,” said Lockery.
“Policies need to do this internationally, at an industry level, as
well as support us as individuals to contribute, such as supporting
household renewable energy, or enabling a waste system that goes beyond
household recycling to being regenerative or truly circular,” he added.
Of course, voting isn’t easy for everyone. Voter suppression
remains a widespread problem in the U.S., with many potential voters
unable to access polling booths on election day (which isn't even a
national holiday). However, if you're privileged enough that you can
cast your ballot with ease, it’s one of the most important things you
can do to save the planet.
“Voting and protesting are benefits of a democracy, and thus are good
ways to call for change,” said Lockery. “We should cherish these
activities, as many don't have these options available to them.”
“Overall, we in the developed world are simply consuming too much;
too many products we don’t really need, too many holiday flights, et
cetera,” Wiedmann told Mashable. “Therefore, in addition to doing these
‘easy’ things, we should generally look at reducing our overall
consumption, by buying less stuff, flying less, living in smaller
houses, maybe growing our own food.”
Of course, not everyone will find these suggestions feasible. As
Heinze notes, “You can't realistically take public transportation if
your commute will take three-times as long.”
“This does not mean we should not embrace individual changes, but
that they should be a starting point to increased action in our
communities, governments, schools and workplaces,” Heinze continued. “If
you're looking to make the biggest impact on the climate for the least
amount of effort, a great place to start is divesting your [retirement
fund] from fossil fuels, and encouraging your institutions to do the
same."
