05/02/2022

(USA CBS News) Earth Is Likely Just A Decade A Way From Hitting 1.5°C Of Global Warming — And Scientists Say It Will Be "Catastrophic" For Coral Reefs

CBS News - Li Cohen

Study: Climate Change "catastrophic" for coral reefs

The United Nations has warned the continued use of fossil fuels is hurtling the planet to 1.5°C of global warming, relative to 1850-1900 levels, a threshold that will result in "unprecedented" extreme weather events.

According to new research, climate change will also result in coral bleaching that will be "catastrophic" for reefs, and potentially, the marine life that live around them.

Bleaching can occur from a change in ocean temperature, pollution, overexposure to sunlight and low tides. Any of these influences can stress coral and causes it to release the algae that live in its tissues.

The loss of algae, corals' primary food source, causes the coral to turn white and makes it more susceptible to disease.

Reefs are "among the most biologically diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth," serving as a vital resource for an estimated 25% of all marine life, which depend on reefs for their life cycles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Roughly half a billion people also depend on reefs for food, coastal protection, tourism and fisheries' income.

But as climate change continues to negatively impact the planet, it will "overwhelm" those reefs, researchers said, and almost none of them will be able to escape a grave scenario.

The latest study, published in PLOS Climate on Tuesday, focused on thermal refugia, areas of coral reefs that can maintain the temperatures that coral reefs need to survive, even as nearby ocean temperatures increase.

Presently, about 84% of reefs are thermal refugia and have had enough time to recover between heat waves that bleach, and kill, coral reefs.

Once the planet hits 1.5°C of warming, researchers said, just 0.2% of Earth's thermal refugia will have enough time to recover between extreme heat events, and more than 90% of those reefs will suffer "an intolerable level of thermal stress."

At 2°C, researchers found, no thermal refugia will remain, and all coral reefs will be exposed and vulnerable.

This study was published the same day that other researchers concluded that marine heat is the "new normal" for oceans.

The only areas researchers believe might be able to survive the 1.5° threshold are small regions in Polynesia and the Coral Triangle where lower rates of warming are anticipated. But even those regions would no longer be suitable if Earth hits 2°C of warming.

"Our finding reinforces the stark reality that there is no safe limit of global warming for coral reefs," lead author of the study Adele Dixon said in a statement.

And the world may just be years away from watching this unfold.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in August that the world is likely to hit the 1.5°C of warming threshold in the early 2030s. As the IPCC explained, global warming of 1.5°C will result in more frequent and more intense extreme heat events.

It usually takes coral reefs about a decade to grow back and be fully functional again after a severe coral bleaching event, but under the predicted climate scenarios, they will not have enough time to recover.

Humans' excessive rates of deforestation and overuse and burning of fossil fuels, which greatly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and heat within Earth's atmosphere, are the primary driver for the anticipated outcome of global warming.

The researchers proposed some measures that can be put into place to help the ailing reefs, including removing stressors such as fishing and tourism, and helping coral migrate to more suitable environments.

But they added that such measures may only be beneficial in the short term, and that the true culprit — global warming — must be addressed, and quickly.

Scott Heron, a physics professor at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Australia, said that the study confirms that people must urgently take "significant action" on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Paris Climate Agreement has the majority of nations committed to staying below the 1.5°C level, but researchers of this study said that limiting global warming to that change "will not be enough to save most coral reefs."

"Coral reefs are important for the marine creatures that live on them and for over half a billion people whose livelihoods and food security rely on coral reefs," research supervisor Maria Beger said.

"We need to not only deliver on Paris goals - we need to exceed them, whilst also mitigating additional local stressors, if we want children born today to experience reef habitats."

Links - CBS News Climate Change Articles

(Independent Australia) Fossil Fuels Put Climate Crisis Price Tag In The Billions

Independent Australia - Elliott Negin

Governments across the USA are suing major climate polluters for the damage caused by their ‘intentional, reckless and negligent’ actions, writes Elliott Negin.

ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy have been major contributors to global warming (Image by Dan Jensen)

FOUR YEARS AGO, Boulder, Colorado, sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy – owner of the only oil refinery in the state – for climate change-related damages and adaptation expenses.

Author

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Boulder and its co-plaintiffs, Boulder County and San Miguel County, home to Telluride, estimated the damage caused by extreme weather events would cost them more than U.S.$100 million (AU$140,335,428) by 2050.

As it turns out, they overestimated the time span — and underestimated the price tag.

At the end of December, the Marshall Fire devastated Boulder County, laying waste to more than 6,000 acres and incinerating more than 1,000 homes and seven commercial buildings at a projected cost of U.S.$1 billion (AU$1.4 billion), making it Colorado’s most destructive fire in terms of property loss.

Fossil fuel giants hit by court rulings
over climate impacts

Three of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies have suffered significant blows in quick succession.

The Marshall Fire was hardly the only one – or even the largest – in Colorado since the three communities filed their lawsuit, which is still pending in a state court.

In fact, four of the five biggest Colorado fires by acreage have occurred since then, ranging from 108,000 to nearly 209,000 acres.

Both ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy – an Alberta, Canada-based company – have a large carbon footprint in Colorado.

ExxonMobil has produced more than one million barrels of oil from Colorado deposits, according to the Colorado communities’ complaint, and its subsidiary XTO Energy currently produces 60 million cubic feet of natural gas per day from 492,000 acres in Rio Blanco County.

There are also 95 Exxon and Mobil gas stations in the state. Altogether, the company’s production and transportation activities in Colorado were responsible for more than 420,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions between 2011 and 2015, according to the complaint.

Meanwhile, Suncor’s U.S. headquarters is based in Denver and its oil refinery, which produces 98,000 barrels of refined oil per day, is less than five miles (eight kilometres) from downtown.

Suncor’s gas stations, which sell Shell, Exxon and Mobil brand products, supply about 35% of the gasoline and 55% of the diesel sold in the state, according to a 2016 Denver Business Journal article.

Farmers claim win over fossil fuel industry

Legislation in favour of farmers' water bore rights has given them the upper hand over coal seam gas companies.

According to the complaint, Suncor’s Colorado operations were responsible for some one million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2016 alone, equivalent to the annual output of more than 217,000 typical passenger vehicles.

The Colorado communities contend that ExxonMobil and Suncor were aware that their products caused global warming as early as 1968, when a report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. oil and gas industry’s largest trade association, warned of the threat burning fossil fuels posed to the climate.

Regardless, ExxonMobil and Suncor not only continued to produce and market fossil fuel products without disclosing the risks, the communities’ complaint charges, but they also engaged in a decades-long disinformation campaign to manufacture doubt about the reality and seriousness of climate change.

‘Defendants’ actions have already caused or contributed to rising temperatures in Colorado,’ the complaint states. ‘Colorado has seen average temperatures rise by 2.5 degrees [Fahrenheit] over the last 50 years, with over a 2 degree [Fahrenheit] rise since 1983.’

Those higher temperatures have extended what used to be a four-month-long fire season in western states to six to eight months, if not all year round, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Wildfires are starting earlier, burning more intensely and destroying larger areas of land than ever before.

The corporations making big money,
paying no tax and laughing at us

The latest ATO annual transparency report reveals one-third of large companies are paying zero tax.

The three plaintiffs want ExxonMobil and Suncor to pay ‘their share’ of the damage caused by their ‘intentional, reckless and negligent conduct’.

That share could amount to billions of dollars to help cover the cost of an increasing number of heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, intense precipitation and floods.

Boulder’s April 2018 lawsuit was not the first U.S. climate-related case against the fossil fuel industry.

New York City and eight coastal California cities and counties, including San Francisco and Oakland, had already filed similar lawsuits against ExxonMobil and other oil and gas companies, seeking compensation for damage to their communities.

As of today, at least 27 states, counties and cities have sued major fossil fuel companies for climate-related fraud or damages, or both — and with good reason.

The cost of climate change-related disasters is continuing to climb.

Indeed, the Marshall Fire was just one of the 20 climate and weather disasters in 2021 that resulted in at least $1 billion in damages, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, just two shy of the record-breaking 22 in 2020 and significantly more than the average of 6.3 large-scale U.S. disasters per year between 2000 and 2009.

All told, last year’s billion-dollar disasters resulted in U.S.$145 billion (AU$203.5 billion) in damages – 52% higher than in 2020 – and 688 deaths.

The common denominator in these escalating numbers? Climate change.

Rachel Licker, a senior climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said:

“The fingerprints of climate change were all over many of the billion-dollar events that hit the United States in 2021. We’re essentially watching longstanding climate projections of the past come true.”

The Harsh Economics of Climate Change 12min 02 sec

Links

(AU SMH) In the climate fight, your wallet is more powerful than your vote

Sydney Morning Herald - Andrew Charlton

Author

Andrew Charlton is a managing director at Accenture, adjunct professor at Macquarie University and co-director of the e61 Institute for economic research. He was an economic adviser to Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Climate change is set to animate the upcoming federal election, with major parties selling their green credentials and a raft of climate-focused independents threatening to capture seats from Goldstein in Melbourne to Wentworth in Sydney.

But frustrated by decades of political inertia, Australians are waking up to a new type of climate activism: the power of their own money.

Consumer spending is the cause of more than two-thirds of total global emissions. Credit: Paul Jeffers

Consumer spending is the ultimate cause of more than two-thirds of total global emissions.

We have always had some information to help us make eco-friendly choices at the shops, such as Energy Star ratings on appliances, fuel efficiency ratings on vehicles and packaging indicators on recyclable products.

But we are witnessing a wave of new information and business transparency that will enable consumers to wield their spending as a precision climate weapon.

The Commonwealth Bank now helps customers analyse the emissions produced by each of their individual transactions to help them understand and reduce their environmental footprint.

Australian shopping app Greener has helped its users cut 30 per cent of their carbon footprint by connecting them with sustainable merchants. Google has begun to introduce new product features to give people greener options when they travel and shop.

In Europe, for instance, Google Maps now shows you the most fuel-efficient route as well as the fastest.

Google users in the United States can see the carbon emissions for every flight they book and quickly find lower-carbon options.

Australian environmental data service PurposeBureau tracks the carbon emissions of every Australian business. Some of the data is startling.

For example, did you know that each dollar you spend at your butcher funds more carbon emissions than those you spend filling up your car at the petrol station? Or that getting a brick wall built in your garden could generate 10 times more emissions than having your pipes fixed by a plumber?

Ethical investing

Ethical super outperforms mainstream options

It’s not just your spending, but also your savings that can help save the planet. Ensuring that your superannuation is invested in sustainable businesses can have a huge climate impact.

Research from the UK shows that making sustainable investment choices can have 21 times more impact on your carbon footprint than giving up flying, becoming vegetarian and switching your energy provider combined.

Here in Australia, fintech startup Acacia Money helps members rate the sustainability of their investment portfolio.

And climate-friendly superannuation options such as Future Super promise to ensure your nest egg isn’t funding fossil fuels.Businesses are responding to the new consumer empowerment.

Brands are rushing to compete for the “conscious dollar” and appeal to the growing army of sustainability-focused customers.

For example, if you buy a jumper from trendy knitwear company, Sheepinc, you can tap your smartphone against the tag for a full history of how it got to you.

Spoiler alert: it was woven on a 100 per cent solar-powered machine and delivered to you by a carbon-neutral logistics firm.

Sustainable shopping: There's an app for that

If you buy a pair of shoes from the hot New Zealand-American footwear company, Allbirds, you’ll find a number stamped prominently on the inside sole.

That’s not the shoe size, it’s the kilograms of carbon emissions used in its manufacture.

In case you are wondering, the average Allbirds shoe generates 7 kilograms of emissions, less than half the CO2 of typical joggers.

Big companies are also making major sustainability pivots. While many companies are pledging to get to “net zero”, some are going even further.

Microsoft has committed to not only eliminating emissions, but to reverse its historical emissions. Their goal is to eliminate all the carbon the company and its suppliers have emitted since its founding in 1975.

Importantly, new global rules will crack down on companies that are all talk and no action on sustainability. The United Nations Glasgow climate summit last year launched the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) which will replace a patchwork of voluntary disclosure practices with “baseline” global standards to lift transparency and crack down on greenwashing.

Eight in 10 Australians say sustainability is important to them, but until recently they didn’t have the information to act on their preferences.

That is starting to change.

While our votes will matter in the next election, we don’t have to wait for politicians to act.

We have the power every day to vote climate with our wallets

Links