17/01/2017

Prince Charles Co-Authors Ladybird Climate Change Book

BBC

The cover of the book was based on an image of flooding in Uckfield, East Sussex. Penguin
Prince Charles has co-authored a Ladybird book on the challenges and possible solutions to climate change.
It is part of a series for adults written in the style of the well-known children's books that aims to clearly explain complicated subjects.
The 52-page guide has been co-authored by former Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper and climate scientist Emily Shuckburgh.
Mr Juniper said he hoped the book would "stand the test of time".
Ladybird produced a series of books for children in the 1960s and 1970s and has recently found renewed success with a range of humorous books for adults.
Titles include the Ladybird Book of the Mid-Life Crisis and the Ladybird Book of the Hangover.
The latest series involves experts explaining complex subjects in simple form.
The prince previously co-authored a book with Mr Juniper and Ian Skelly called Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World. He also wrote a children's book entitled The Old Man of Lochnagar.
The full cover of the climate change book, which goes on sale later in January. Penguin
Mr Juniper told the Mail on Sunday: "His royal highness, Emily and I had to work very hard to make sure that each word did its job, while at the same time working with the pictures to deliver the points we needed to make.
"I hope we've managed to paint a vivid picture, and, like those iconic titles from the 60s and 70s, created a title that will stand the test of time."
A publishing director for Penguin, which produces Ladybird books, revealed Clarence House had put the latest idea to the publisher.
Rowland White told the Sunday Times: "It was a coincidence where we were thinking about a new series for adults after the huge success of the spoof books, but this time wanted some factual books by experts on science, history and arts subjects."
Penguin Books said the title, which will be released on 26 January, had been read and reviewed by figures within the environmental community.
The other books in the series are Quantum Mechanics by Jim Al-Khalili, and Evolution by Steve Jones.
Asked how the book might be received in the academic community, Dr Phillip Williamson, an associate fellow at the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences, said: "There's the obvious danger that this won't be taken seriously.
"But if the style is right, and the information is correct and understandable, the new Ladybird book with royal authorship could be just what is needed to get the message across that everyone needs to take action on climate change."
Ladybird Books has recently had renewed success with a range of humorous books for adults. Ladybird
Links

Climate Change Fallout in Bangladesh: 9.6m people to migrate by 2050

Daily Star - Staff Correspondent



Increased natural disasters and loss of livelihoods due to climatic factors are forcing people to migrate internally, according to a study of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).
Costal districts are very vulnerable to cyclones, storm surges, tidal floods, salinity intrusion and sea level rise, while drought, flash floods and riverine floods have made public life very difficult in the north and northeast region of Bangladesh, it says.
The IOM yesterday shared the information at a Regional Dissemination Meeting of “Assessing the Climate Change, Environmental Degradation and Migration Nexus in South Asia” jointly organised by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in the capital's Bangabandhu International Conference Centre.
The IOM conducted the study in Bangladesh, the Maldives and Nepal. In Bangladesh, the research was carried out among 320 households in four upazilas of Khulna, Patuakhali, Rajshahi and Sunamganj.
Around 9.6 million people in Bangladesh, excluding temporary and seasonal migrants, will migrate internally due to climatic factors between 2011 and 2050, says the IOM in its study referring to a report of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) done in 2015.
Referring to another report of Displacement Solutions, an international organisation dedicated to resolving cases of forced displacement throughout the world, the IOM also mentioned that around six million people have been displaced from their houses due to climate change effects in Bangladesh.
Increased temperatures and variations in rainfall are the most prevalent climate change elements affecting the lives and livelihoods of people in Bangladesh in recent years, it mentioned.
Golam Rabbani, a leading consultant at Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, led the team for conducting the study in Bangladesh.
As he was presenting his research findings, he said 92 percent respondents felt that the impacts of internal migration had made women more vulnerable as men could go for work in another district.
Referring to the IDMC report, he said more than 19 million people across the world were displaced internally in 2015 due to sudden-onset of disasters.
Of the global total, 7.9 million or 41 percent were from South Asia, he added.
Bangladesh and Nepal are the countries of origin of many less skilled international migrants, while the Maldives is identified as the destination of many migrants from both Bangladesh and Nepal. However, all three countries are also destination for skilled migrants originating from within the region.
Prof Ainun Nishat, an eminent expert on climate change issues and former vice-chancellor of BRAC University, however, said it was essential to ensure alternative livelihoods for the affected people instead of encouraging them in migration.
Environment and Forests Ministry Secretary Istiaque Ahmad and Chief of Mission of IOM Bangladesh Sarat Dash, among others, spoke on the occasion.

Links

Climate Change: 90% Of Rural Australians Say Their Lives Are Already Affected

The Guardian

Overwhelming majority believe they are living with the effects of warming and 46% say coal-fired power should be phased out
The Climate Institute says 82% of poll respondents in rural and regional Australia and 81% of those in capital cities were concerned about increased droughts as a result of climate change. Photograph: kristianbell/Getty Images/RooM RF
Ninety per cent of people living in rural and regional Australia believe they are already experiencing the impacts of climate change and 46% believe coal-fired power stations should be phased out, according to a new study.
A poll of 2,000 people conducted by the Climate Institute found that 82% of respondents in rural and regional Australia and 81% of those in capital cities were concerned about increased droughts, flooding and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef due to climate change, and 78% of all respondents were concerned there would be more bushfires.
About three quarters of all respondents – 76% in capital cities and 74% in rural or regional areas – said ignoring climate change would make the situation worse and about two-thirds said they believed the federal government should take a leading role.

Level of concern for the effect of climate change on scenarios for capital city population compared to regional and rural
Guardian graphic | Source: Climate Media Centre

However, only a third of respondents said the federal government should be contributing to action on climate change.
Instead, two-thirds, (67% in capital cities and 71% in regional areas) said individuals should be contributing to action on climate change and about half said state and local governments and businesses should be contributing to action on climate change.
The majority of people – 59% in capital cities and 53% in regional areas – said solar was their preferred energy source, followed by wind and hydro.
Only 3% of respondents in the city and 4% in regional areas said coal was their preferred energy source.
Nicky Ison, the director of the Community Power Agency, which represents 80 grassroots groups, said the results showed that concern about climate change was not limited to inner-city suburbs.
“I think there’s a misconception that concern is mainly held in the city and I think there are some strong voices, particularly in rural and regional Australia, that have exaggerated or stoked that misconception,” Ison said.
“A vocal minority gets a lot of traction, probably because they have a greater access to megaphones.”

Most preferred energy source for capital city population compared to regional and rural
Guardian graphic | Source: Climate Media Centre
Matthew Charles-Jones is a co-president of Totally Renewable Yackandandah, a community-run initiative that aims to make the small town, 300km north-east of Melbourne, entirely run on renewable power by 2022.
Charles-Jones said the group was motivated by energy security and rising electricity costs but members were also concerned about the effects of climate change.
“We have been threatened by bushfire roughly every three years for the last decade,” he said.
The last bushfire was in December 2015. “It’s very real for us in Yackandandah,” Charles-Jones said.

Links

16/01/2017

Early Skirmishes Point To A War Over Renewable Energy Lasting Well Into 2017

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Just before last year's federal elections, Jay Weatherill, the South Australian premier, was ruminating about what it would take to finally get attention paid to the nation's looming energy crunch.
Would it be the closure of the brown coal-fired Hazelwood power station, which accounted for a fifth of Victoria's power and a supplier to SA when the wind didn't blow? Or perhaps the shutdown of the ageing Portland aluminium smelter – a huge consumer of electricity adjacent to his state?
Wind farms supply more than 40 per cent of South Australia's electricity and have become a political hotspot.
"It may be those sorts of events that might precipitate that discussion," Weatherill told Fairfax Media in his parliamentary office in Adelaide.
The Premier wasn't to know that within months, a series of mishaps would thrust energy – and in particular, his state's relative dependence on renewable sources such as wind and solar – into the spotlight.
The events included a massive September storm that spawned at least seven tornadoes and knocked out a key transmission line, triggering a "system black" power outage for all of SA. And just days before the tempest, Fairfax revealed Hazelwood's French owner Engie would close the 1600-megawatt plant by April 2017, news that sent wholesale power prices surging.
Trenches are now being dug for what looms as a political battle that will probably last through 2017.On one side lie the Turnbull government, fossil fuel suppliers and right-wing pundits, who say the priority has to be affordable and reliable power.
On the other, Labor and the Greens and clean-energy backers who argue ageing coal-fired power stations need to prepare for an orderly if not accelerated exit to meet Australia's commitments agreed in the Paris climate treaty.
The Hazelwood power station in Victoria is to close by the end of March 2017. Photo: Eddie Jim
Josh Frydenberg, environment and energy minister, ended holidays early on Thursday to rail against states for curbing unconventional gas exploration, which also feeds into higher electricity prices. That's especially true in SA where gas provides all the power that's not from wind or the sun.
He took particular aim at Queensland, where the Labor government under Annastacia Palaszczuk is aiming for a 50 per cent share of renewable by 2030, up from 4.4 per cent in 2015.
"It's going to dramatically send their prices up," Frydenberg told Macquarie Radio on Thursday. "It will inevitably lead to a reduction in the amount of coal-fired power."

'Hard right'
Frydenberg's Labor counterpart, Mark Butler, though, says the Coalition's energy policy was "being dictated by the hard right of the party with the likes of Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi".
"The culture-war element starts to blind people to pretty clear policy," he says, noting three-quarters of Australia's fleet of power stations were operating beyond the end of their design life and needed to be replaced.
"The Turnbull government leaves a policy vacuum at the federal level, the states will fill the void," he says.
Federal Labor remains committed to a 50 per cent renewable share by 2030, he said, noting the Turnbull government has no target beyond 2020 nor is a target among the terms of reference for its 2017 climate policy review.
For her part, Lily D'Ambrosio, Victoria's energy minister, batted off criticism that her government's policies caused Hazelwood to close.
 "Victorians expect us to work together to take this action [on an orderly exit of coal-fired power] - but it seems like the Commonwealth is more interested in taking political pot shots," D'Ambrosio told Fairfax.
"It's time Josh Frydenberg showed some backbone and stood up to the extreme elements within the Liberal Party by supporting more renewable energy."
Abbott, as if on cue, weighed into the renewables debate on Saturday, declaring that the Turnbull government's "first move this year should be to introduce legislation to protect existing renewable generation but to remove all further mandatory use requirements".
"Despite the reduction that my government secured to the renewable energy target, Australia is still supposed almost to double renewable energy supplies over the next four years," he wrote in a News column. "If it goes ahead, it will be the death knell for the heavy ­industries of Whyalla and Port Pirie in South Australia and will ­almost certainly destroy the aluminium industry everywhere."

Energy prices rise
What is certain is that energy bills are on the rise – although the causes are highly debated.
The closure of Hazelwood alone is likely to raise annual power bills by $30-$200 during the three years to 2018-19 across the eastern states that make up the National Electricity Market, the Australian Electricity Market Operator said late last year. That amounts to an increase of 2-10 per cent.
For NSW, a typical bill that in 2015-16 was $1403 before GST, will rise 9.8 per cent in 2016-17. This rise will slow to an average 3.9 per cent for the following two years, AEMO predicts.
In Victoria, a typical residential bill in 2015-16 was $1358 before GST, and can be expected to rise 0.7 per cent this year. Market offer prices should rise 8.4 per cent in 2017-18 but drop 1.3 per cent the following year, AEMO said.
Bruce Mountain, an energy economist with CME Australia, says rising energy prices will prompt more people to add solar panels and also batteries as prices continue to tumble – much faster than regulators predict.
Tesla's new 13.5-kilowatt-hour Powerwall 2, costing about $8800 before installation, already offers a lower battery price than AEMO had predicted for 2040, he says
An average household in Adelaide, where power prices have doubled in the past eight years to be among the highest in Australia, would now be better off with panels and storage.
While panels alone typically slash demand for electricity from the grid by a third, adding a battery will reduce grid purchases by about 95 per cent, he said.

'Existential threat'
Dylan McConnell, a research fellow at the Melbourne Energy Institute, notes AEMO is predicting 15.5 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants  will be shut by 2030. That's about half of such stations and equivalent to 10 Hazelwoods.
Importantly, AEMO is betting 12GW of new gas-fired power will come on stream "assuming no alternative technologies come to fruition", Mr McConnell said.
However, the open-cycle gas plants that can provide peaking power to complement variable suppliers such as wind and solar farms "face an existential threat from batteries", he said.
The problem for gas is made worse by the current high price in Australia as supplies get exported, doubling cost for local consumers as international rather than domestic prices now apply.
"You know the price of wind in 25 years' time but with gas, you don't know the price six months out," Mr McConnell said.
Matthew Warren, chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, which represents major generators and retailers, says it is unlikely Australia will see another coal-fired power station built "unless there are major technological developments".
"From the industry's perspective, the key is consistent and integrated, national energy and emission reduction policy," Warren said.
 "This is not about good guys versus bad guys, [but] about reducing emissions at the lowest cost without compromising reliability," he said.
Without clear signals, investors won't have the confidence to invest the billions needed to bring new, more efficient capacity online.

RET challenges
Bloomberg New Energy Finance underscored the scale of the challenge even meeting the 2020 Renewable Energy Target of supplying 33,000 gigawatt-hours from clean energy annually from 2020.
Last year, investment in large scale renewables under the RET bounced back from a meagre $US10 million in 2014 and 2015 after the Abbott government's review of the sector threw it into a panic. In 2016, it recovered to $US1.1 billion ($1.45 billion).
 "However it is still well below the $US2.9 billion per annum now needed to satisfy the notional 20 per cent target by 2020," Bloomberg said.
Greens energy spokesman Adam Bandt says the Coalition will be tempted to stir up fears of rising electricity prices "in the hope that they can repeat 2013", when Tony Abbott swept to power in part because of the carbon tax issue.
"They'll try to beat the electricity bill drums but the prices are going up on their watch," he says.
Tennant Reed, national policy adviser to the Australian Industry Group, doubts the renewable energy issue will become as fraught as the carbon tax debate.
 "I don't think there's the same degree of political uniformity on renewable energy as there developed on carbon pricing," Reed said, adding it's a lot more concrete an issue, especially for those panels on their roofs.
There's also a wide recognition that it's an important issue to resolve, not least because renewables will play "a gigantic part of the future energy system", he said.

Links

Very Soon, We'll Have Blown The World's Entire Carbon Budget

Fast CompanyAdele Peters

By one calculation, we have a little more than a year left to do something drastic with our carbon emissions before we lock in a future of drastic climate change.
Photo: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Flickr
As of now—by one calculation—the world has one year to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere if we want to stop climate change at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, the aim of the Paris climate agreement.
A carbon countdown clock from researchers at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change does the math, estimating the time left at current emission levels. Even with a higher limit of two degrees of warming and the most optimistic projections, we still only have about 23 years to fully transition to a carbon-free economy.



"Once we have exhausted the carbon budget, every ton of CO2 that is released by cars, buildings, or industrial plants would need to be compensated during the 21st century by removing the CO2 from the atmosphere again," says Fabian Löhe, a spokesperson for the Mercator researchers. "Generating such 'negative emissions' is even more challenging, and we do not know today at which scale we might be able to do that. Hence, the clock shows that time is running out: It is not enough to act sometime in the future, but it is necessary to implement more ambitious climate policies already in the very short-term."
Moving to a clean economy obviously requires massive change. Despite the massive growth of renewable energy, most energy still comes from fossil fuels. China, which is moving aggressively to shut down coal plants and spending an unprecedented $361 billion on renewable energy over the next few years, will still get half of its power from nonrenewable sources in 2020. Most heat is fossil-powered. Most transportation runs on gas. Building the infrastructure needed to change that in a year (or a little over four years, if you look at the optimistic projections for staying under 1.5 degrees) would take a level of action that isn't happening now.
"Many experts see a growing dissonance between the increasing ambitions of climate policy and the lack of success in achieving sustained emission reductions today," says Löhe. "So far, there is no track record for reducing emissions globally. Instead, greenhouse gas emissions have been rising at a faster pace during the last decade than previously—despite growing awareness and political action across the globe."
Researchers have found that the commitments that countries made in the Paris agreement don't go far enough to keep warming under 1.5 degrees—or even under 2 degrees.

"While countries were able to agree upon adequate long-term climate policy targets, they have not been able to match these long-term ambitions with appropriate short-term actions," says Löhe. "In fact, short-term emission reduction commitments by countries so far—the so-called nationally determined contributions (NDCs)—will only slow the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions rather than starting an era of substantial and sustained emission reductions."
That half-degree makes a difference; the flooding and droughts and other extreme weather that are already becoming more common will get worse at 1.5 degrees, and likely far worse at 2 degrees. It's possible that Arctic sea ice might survive with "only" 1.5 degrees of warming. Some parts of the Persian Gulf that would be uninhabitable after 2 degrees of warming might still be tolerable at 1.5 degrees.
The International Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN group that produces comprehensive reports on climate change, won't publish its report on 1.5 degrees of warming—and how to avoid it—until 2018, likely after the carbon budget has been blown. Even to stay under 2 degrees of warming, the world needs to act much more quickly.
"It is crucial that countries jointly raise the short-term ambition of climate policy by ratcheting up their respective [commitments made in Paris] through concrete policies and credible implementation plans for additional emission reductions," Löhe says. "To successfully manage the transition toward a carbon neutral world economy, it is crucial to steer investments in the right direction. This will at some point require a price on carbon, either through a tax or a functioning emissions trading system."


Links

Why Teenage Hip-Hop Artist And Climate Change Warrior Xiuhtezcatl Martinez Is Suing The US Government

Fairfax - Andrew Masterson

In the United States in November, in a single 48-hour period, two hugely significant things happened. One of them received worldwide attention but the other, somewhat improbably, might yet turn out to be more important.
The first, of course, was the election of Donald Trump. The second, the following day, concerned prominent District Court judge Ann Aiken, who delivered a legal order that seems set to shake American and global business practice to the core.
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez is one of a group of teenagers suing the US government to force on climate change.  Photo: Earth Guardians
In the process it may just save humanity from climate change-induced catastrophe. It might also make a Colorado teenager a household name of even greater ubiquity than the President-elect's.
And that will be a hell of an achievement, not least because the name in question is Xiuhtezcatl Martinez.
Scientists rallying in San Francisco, December 2016, against what they say are unwarranted attacks by the incoming Trump administration against scientists advocating for the issue of climate change. Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
Martinez, 16, is the public face of a group of 21 US teens who in October last year launched a court action against the American government. The case alleged that because the government was undertaking activities that cause climate change, it was therefore denying the constitutional rights of young people to life, liberty and property.
Rather than dismiss the move as a symbolic gesture, the government and various fossil fuel companies lodged strong objections to it. A year later, Judge Aiken delivered a stunning verdict: the objections were thrown out and the way opened for the group to take the US administration to trial.
There is a kind of grim humour to the outcome. In a Republican-dominated Washington DC, where evidence of global warming is routinely dismissed, why not get the job done by simply suing those at the top?
To Martinez – who is heading to Australia in February – the court victory delivered a powerful antidote to the election result.
Martinez, 16, is also a hip-hop artist. He is in Australia in February on a speaking tour. Photo: Earth Guardians
"I believe that regardless of the administration in place this law suit has serious implications," he said.
"If we win, the federal courts are going to force the US government to reduce our carbon emissions to a safe levels. We're not letting Trump slow us down."
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez has been an environmental activist most of his life. Photo: Earth Guardians
Although still in high school, Martinez is in heavy demand as a guest speaker across the US and beyond. He said that he sometimes has to deliberately remind himself to be a teenager every now and then. The problem is finding the time to do so.
"Man, it's really hard some days," he said. "Travelling a lot can be very exhausting, but I feel like at the end of the day I still have the freedom to live my life how I want. One good thing is that I've made friends all around the world, and I get a chance to catch up with them a lot because I'm on the road so much."
If we win, the federal courts are going to force the US government to reduce our carbon emissions to a safe levels. We're not letting Trump slow us down.
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez
Twelve years before he was born, his mother, Tamara Rose, founded an environmental activist group called Earth Guardians. Xiuhtezcatl (pronounced Shoo-Tez-Caht) was literally born into the climate fight. There is video footage of his six-year-old self – tiny and cute and long-haired – hammering points through a microphone at an eco-rally.
These days he still has the long hair and still uses a microphone, but his audiences have grown significantly in size and influence.
Six-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez gives a speech calling on children to protect the environment. Photo: YouTube
He also has an increasingly successful career as a hip-hop artist. It's debatable whether he's more influential in that sphere or in the White House where, for the next little while at least, he still has the ear of the President.
Martinez has been a member of Barack Obama's 24-member youth council since 2013 – when he was the youngest appointee. The President also presented him with the United States Community Service Award (so we can safely assume that Obama doesn't take it personally that the niceties of US litigation mean that he is named in the climate change law suit).
In 2015, the young man was also invited to address a full session of the United Nations.
A contemporary report captured the moment:
Dressed in a donated suit, with dark hair skimming his waist, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the youth director of Earth Guardians, issued a brief prayer in both Spanish and the Nahuatl language. As befuddled U.N. staffers reached for headphones, seeking translation, he began an extemporaneous speech on the folly of climate dithering."I stand before you representing my entire generation," he said. "Youth are standing up all over the planet to find solutions. We are flooding the streets and now flooding the courts.""We need you to take action. We are all Indigenous to this earth."
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, with his younger brother.  Photo: Earth Guardians
There is something admirable but slightly sad about Martinez and the growing band of teenage activists that are accreting around his name. It's a weird twist on the teenage rebellion trope. In this case, the rebellion is not against the conformity of the older generation, but its irresponsibility.
It's faintly depressing, too, that the young activists seem to hold little hope that their elders will eventually come to their senses.
"To an extent this will be lifelong for me," said Martinez. "My involvement will continue until I've built a solid enough platform, when I'll be able to take my hands off.
"Perhaps one day I'll have done my part to help inspire a movement of young people all over the place. There's a lot of work still to be done. I'm always going to be passionate about this, but I don't know whether I want to be on the front lines forever."
His trip Down Under will see him at events in Melbourne, Sydney and Auckland. While here he is determined to be a teen, at least for a little while, and get out to listen to some big fat beats.
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez is a fan of Australian hip-hop including Hilltop Hoods.
"Man I've been into Aussie hip-hop for a long time now," he said. "Spit Syndicate. Hilltop Hoods, Urthboy – I am all over the Aussie hip-hop scene!"

Xiuhtezcatl Martinez is in Melbourne on 11 February and Sydney 12 February.

Links

15/01/2017

Climate Change: The Potential Impacts Of Collective Inaction

Eurasia Review

In the early 1900s when the idea that industrialisation could potentially result in global warming was first posited, the consensus was that it was unlikely, and in any case, an increase in temperature was to be welcomed. What possible harm could it do?
Well, we are now witnessing the widespread consequences of climate change. Destructive, life-threatening effects, which demand a fundamental shift in the way we are living if we are to preserve the integrity of the planet, and protect the rich abundance of life on Earth.

Warmer year on year
The industrial revolution, beginning in Britain in the late 17th century, then Europe and later America and Japan, is the birthplace of man-made climate change, previously known simply as Global Warming. All the power required to feed the new factories, light the streets and heat the homes was generated through burning fossil fuel. It was thought by some scientists at the time that the consequential increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would indeed result in the Earth’s temperature rising. Others disagreed; the evidence was slim, the science new and the impacts comparatively slight.
Today however, the evidence that anthropomorphic (man-made) climate change is a reality is overwhelming: data from all manner of scientific institutions shows the clear, and one would imagine, unquestionable link, between rising global temperatures, climate change with its myriad impacts, and endemic human activity. Despite this, many people including blinkered, duplicitous politicians deny the fact and continue to live life in the same exploitative, complacent manner.
Since 1880 the global ground temperature has increased by 0.9˚C (1.4˚F); two-thirds of which, NASA says, “has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.” An increase of less than one degree C sounds tiny, irrelevant, but as NASA points out, in the distant past “a one or two degree drop in global temperature resulted in a minor Ice Age.”
Steadily increasing emissions of greenhouse gases – particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) – has meant that the last 10 years have been the warmest on record. Every year trumps the previous one, setting new record highs, resulting in more extreme weather patterns than had previously been experienced; intense heat and driving cold, tremendous storms, forest fires and life-threatening droughts, seasonal shifts causing changes in wildlife activity and disruptions to ecosystems.
In 2016 hundreds died in India as temperatures hit 51˚C (123.8˚ F); terrible flooding swept through Myanmar, Argentina, Indonesia, Spain and Egypt, and in December the Arctic experienced a heat wave, the second in the same year. Recorded temperatures were 15˚C above normal – whatever that is now – at -7˚C. This in turn impacts on wildlife, sea levels and weather patterns further south: all is interconnected.
Bizarre weather patterns like these examples occur everywhere and have become commonplace: destructive, extreme and forecast to increase and intensify. Set in motion by mankind’s continued burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas. Reckless, irresponsible human activity driven by rabid consumerism and the ongoing obsession with material goods to satisfy a deep yet unfulfilled longing for joy and contentment.

A 2˚C World picture
Global climate change is the greatest crisis facing humanity, but politicians and the corporations that pull their political strings, continue to place short-term economic interests before the integrity of the planet, the survival of wildlife and the health of the human population. International agreements and national emission targets are often postponed or totally ignored.
In such an environment, euphoric rhetoric, the like of which we heard at the close of the pivotal 2015 Paris Climate Change Summit (COP21), becomes little more than meaningless theatrics.
The accord reached in Paris was tailored to be the climate template for governments around the world up to and beyond 2050. It was hailed as historic, a collective triumph of responsible good sense over ignorance and apathy. But whilst it achieved – on paper at least – more than seemed possible, as George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, put it days after the summit, “by comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.”
Described by the EU as “a bridge between today’s policies and climate-neutrality before the end of the century”, a year on little of substance has been done to change behavior that could eventually lead to realization of the Parisian aims.
Government delegates from 197 countries agreed “on the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible [an acceptably vague term to elicit official signatures], recognizing that this will take longer for developing countries”; and, most significantly, shook hands on a proposal to limit “the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C.”
Such a target, they stated, is dependent on global emissions of greenhouse gases being ‘net neutral in the second half of this century’. Bearing in mind greenhouse gases are still increasing, even these targets, which many believe are too high anyway, are probably un-achievable.
Leading up to Paris, each country submitted a climate plan, the ‘Nationally Determined Contribution’ (NDC). It detailed how respective governments were planning to reduce emissions and stay below the warming target. Well, interestingly, analysis of these national Statements of Intent, by The United Nations Environment Programme, reveals that even if “all the Paris pledges were implemented in full, global temperatures would rise between 2.9C and 3.4C by the end of this century.”
Such a rise would be catastrophic; even if warming could be limited to 2˚C the consequences, scientists predict, will be widespread and life-changing, affecting tens of millions of people, devastating ecosystems, killing off wildlife and further poisoning the air we breathe.
With higher global temperatures come melting ice caps and rising sea levels. Since 1870 the mean sea level has risen by eight inches, almost half of which occurred between 1993 and 2003, according to a report from the National Research Council. Should the level rise a further 12 inches large parts of the world’s surface would become less habitable, and coastal flooding could threaten up to 200 million people, they state – this would create an unprecedented refugee crisis. Back in 2009 at the COP15 gathering in Copenhagen, a number of Caribbean states decried the prospects of a 1.5˚C increase even – and now the hope is to restrict it to 2˚C – saying, it “would undermine the survival of their communities… and threaten the continued existence of small island states.”
A 2˚C increase would endanger low-lying islands and coastal cities, where population growth is largely concentrated, resulting in huge numbers of people being displaced. The populations of the worst affected areas, George Monbiot relates, “are likely to face wilder extremes: worse droughts in some places, worse floods in others, greater storms and, potentially, grave impacts on food supply.” With Arctic ice melting, the poisoning of the seas and the destruction of coral reefs, “entire marine food chains could collapse…mass extinction [of wildlife] is likely to be the hallmark of our era.”
Many of the cities in greatest danger are situated in developing countries, where, generally speaking people remain uninformed about climate change. Having produced less of the pollutants that cause the problems, they are the greatest victims of this man-made catastrophe: Manila in the Philippines, Jakarta in Indonesia, Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh, Kolkata in India and Addis Ababa in Ethiopia – where drought in 2016 triggered a ‘minor’ famine.
Such is the potential 2˚C world picture, the temperature increase being aimed at and hailed as a major achievement a little over a year ago in the French capital. It is an alarming image, which should motivate all to act; but apathy, duplicity and greed all too often hold sway.

Ignorance or arrogance
In addition to the temperature target, one of the key agreements in Paris was funding for The Green Climate Fund, established in 2010 to “assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change”. Swept up in the excitement of the day the US generously pledged $3 billion to the fund – a third of the total, but to date has only given $500 million. This is symptomatic of the discrepancy that often exists between many governments’ rhetoric, good intentions and actions, which are commonly inadequate at best, criminal at worse.
Saving Our Planet is not, it seems, terribly important for the men of power – the politicians and corporations; the priority is national economic growth and the exploitation of everyone and everything through the cancer of commercialization and rabid consumerism. Every natural resource, every tranquil valley and peaceful forest, every waterway and mountain range; everything drained of all inherent goodness, in the pursuit of financial profit and market dominance.
And with the imminent arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, the chances of the life threatening environmental crisis being further side-lined, or completely ignored, loom large.
In a depressing sign of the ‘Trump Times’, Scott Pruitt, a proud ‘climate change skeptic’, is to head the US Environmental Protection Agency, and it is reported that the President-elect intends to “remove the budget for climate change science currently used by NASA and other US federal agencies [as well as many international groups] for projects such as examining Arctic changes, and to spend it instead on space exploration.”
If carried out this would be the first of what threatens to be many catastrophic climate mistakes, based either on ignorance or dishonesty, and one is a bad as the other. Such irresponsible, reckless behavior adds grist to the mill of those both inside America and throughout the world, people content to bury their heads in the sands of denial and continue to carry out actions, and live lives, which are causing far-reaching, perhaps irreparable damage to the Earth, its diverse ecosystems and to humanity itself.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative