25/05/2017

New Coalmines Will Worsen Poverty And Escalate Climate Change, Report Finds

The Guardian -


An Oxfam report says the climate change impacts of coal-fired power will disproportionately affect the world’s poor. Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP
New coalmines will leave more people in poverty, Oxfam has said in a new report, calling on Australia to commit to no new coalmines and to end public subsidies for coalmining. The report comes as the Queensland and federal governments continue to push for the controversial Adani coalmine in the Galilee basin, signalling potential infrastructure support and “royalty holidays”.
The government’s support for the mine, which would be the biggest in Australia, has been met with a fierce campaign of resistance from environmental, legal, social justice and human rights groups.
The Oxfam report, More Coal Equals More Poverty, says the climate change impacts of coal-fired power will disproportionately affect the world’s poor and – with most of the energy-poor households in developing countries beyond the reach of electricity grids – new coal-fired power plants won’t bring them energy.
“Renewables are the clear answer to bringing electricity to those who currently live without it,” the report says. “The real cost of burning more coal will be measured in further entrenched poverty – through the escalating impacts of climate change and humanitarian disasters, increasing hunger and deaths and disease caused by pollution.”
The Oxfam report cites the example of the two most populous nations on earth – with emerging middle classes in the hundreds of millions – China and India, which have recently suspended or abandoned plans to build new coal-fired power plants in favour of renewable energy.
China has suspended more than 100 planned or partly-constructed coal-fired plants and has earmarked more than $493m for renewables projects over the next three years.
India’s draft 10-year energy blueprint, released in December, predicts 57% of the country’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027, far above the Paris climate accord target of 40% by 2030. India and China also have nuclear power.
The Oxfam report calls on the Australian government to prohibit new coalmines in the country and to end public subsidies for coalmining.
It identified, in particular, the Indian conglomerate Adani’s proposed Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee basin, which would be the largest coalmine in Australia’s history.
The state and federal governments are supportive of the mine. The federal resources minister, Matt Canavan, has consistently said the mine is “great news for regional Queensland and ... will boost the Queensland and Australian economies”.
The federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is considering funding Adani’s coal rail line to the coast, while the Queensland government has reportedly offered Adani a “royalties holiday” worth more than $300m from state coffers.
But the mine faces a financing impasse. Globally 19 banks, most recently Westpac, have either specifically or by way of stated policy committed to not funding the Adani project.
Subsidising coal-fired power plants is “clinging to the technologies of the past”, the Oxfam report says.
“Australia’s current stance is fundamentally at odds with the global shift to renewable energy and ignores our responsibility to help protect communities from the ravages of climate change, the opportunities for new jobs and prosperity through renewable energy, and the global goals of achieving universal energy access and ending poverty.”
Oxfam Australia’s chief executive, Helen Szoke, said the development of renewables in Australia had been hampered by shifting government agenda and a lack of policy certainty over several years.
“Against the backdrop of an imperilled Great Barrier Reef and extreme weather disasters, Australia’s carbon pollution is continuing to climb – the tragic consequence of more than a decade of climate policy paralysis and short-term political opportunism,” she said.
“Renewable energy is set to power the fair economies of the future and Australia can make a choice to be part of that. Through its 2017 review of climate change policies, the Australian government has the opportunity to set a credible long-term goal and plan of action.”
The next round of global climate talks will be held in Bonn in November. But the meeting, COP 23, is being chaired by Fiji, which has said it will bring the concerns of developing and vulnerable Pacific states to the fore of negotiations.
The Pacific – which, as a region, has the lowest per capita emissions in the world – has felt the impacts of climate first and most acutely. Pacific states, many of which are low-lying archipelagos, have experienced cyclones and storm surges of increased frequency and power and are losing arable land and, in some cases, whole islands to rising sea levels.

Links

Just 7 Per Cent Of Voters Want The Government To Invest In Adani Mine: Poll

Fairfax - 

Just 7 per cent of voters want money from the federal government's northern Australia investment used to prop up Adani's giant coalmine, while nine times that number say they would prefer taxpayer cash going towards renewable energy or education infrastructure.
A new poll ReachTEL poll has found just 6.8 per cent of people support the idea of using public money to support coal mine projects such as the Indian mining conglomerate's controversial Carmichael proposal, which would be Australia's biggest coalmine.
Adani Group founder Gautam Adani with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in India earlier this year. Photo: AAP
Adani is seeking a $1 billion concessional loan from the Turnbull government's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to build a railway for the mine. The application will be assessed by the fund's independent board but the government supports the plan.
But the new poll of nearly 3000 people – commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation – suggests the public wants NAIF investments made elsewhere. Even among Coalition voters there was only 10.5 per cent support for public money going into coalmine infrastructure.
The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of two degrees. Photo: Robert Rough
The poll found nearly 33 per cent of people believe renewable energy projects should be NAIF's top priority. Nearly 28 per cent believe schools and universities should be first in line for funding, with tourism and telecommunications infrastructure also attracting more support than coal.
The polling accompanies a new ACF research paper on the "opportunity cost" to northern Australia of funding the mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin, identifying scores of other job-creating projects.
ACF economist Matt Rose says across Queensland, Western Australian and the Northern Territory there are 20 alternative proposals for jobs-rich large-scale solar plants.
There are 20 potential higher education campuses, 67 Indigenous ranger groups with no certainty of long-term funding and hundreds of locations with poor phones or internet.
Bob Brown returned to Parliament House in Canberra with Geoff Cousins and environmental groups to protest against the Adani coal mine. Photo: Andrew Meares
"Any NAIF investment in coal will come at a huge cost to Northern Australia in terms of missed opportunities for a cleaner, smarter future," Mr Rose said.
"Public investment in Adani coal would cheat Australians in the north out of jobs in renewable energy, better education facilities and tourism."
Respondents to the poll also showed support for strong restrictions on any NAIF lending, with 60 per cent saying they agreed the government should "only provide funding to companies that meet minimum social and environmental standards".
The ReachTEL poll surveyed 2984 residents across Australia in late April.
ACF is one of 130 groups involved in trying to stop the $21 billion mine, which is shaping up as one of the country's big environmental battles.
The big four banks have all ruled out funding for the mine, angering Resources Minister Matt Canavan. But Mr Turnbull has defended the potential use of the NAIF, saying the mine would create "tens of thousands" of jobs and boost state and federal budgets.
The Queensland Labor government last week flagged it may provide Adani with a $320m "royalty holiday" to help get the mine up and running. It has also offered it free water in the form of an unlimited water licence.
At a federal level, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has suggested the mine should only go ahead if it stacks up environmentally and commercially – and that means no federal loan. However some federal Labor MPs do not believe the mine should go ahead at all.

Links

More People Heading To Court To Spur Action On Climate Change, Study Finds

The Guardian - 
  • Study by UN and Columbia finds ‘proliferation’ of cases instigated by citizens
  • Lion’s share of court cases are in US but number also growing around the world
High tides on the Mekong delta in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government says 40% of the delta could be submerged if sea levels rise by one-meter in decades to come. Photograph: Linh Pham/Getty Images
Governments around the world are increasingly being challenged in court to do more to combat the threat of climate change, with litigation ranging from a group’s attempt to stop an airport runway in Austria to a Pakistani farmer suing his government over its failure to adapt to rising temperatures, a new study has found.
The lion’s share of the litigation is in the US, but the number of countries with such cases has tripled since 2014.
UN Environment and Columbia law school, which undertook the research, found a “proliferation” of cases instigated by citizens and environmental groups demanding action on areas such as sea-level rise, coal-fired power plants and oil drilling.
“It’s patently clear we need more concrete action on climate change, including addressing the root causes and helping communities adapt to the consequences,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. “The science can stand up in a court of law, and governments need to make sure their responses to the problem do too.”
The US has been the staging ground for 654 climate-related cases, almost three times that of the rest of the world combined. Some of these cases have proved pivotal, such as a 2007 case where various states and cities demanded the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
The supreme court ruled against George W Bush’s administration, leading to the EPA determining that greenhouse gases are a public health threat and opening the way for Barack Obama’s executive action on climate change.
Other cases are continuing, such as the 21 children who are represented in a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that its failure to sufficiently cut emissions violates their constitutional right to life, liberty and property. The Sierra Club, an environmental group, said the case would “upend climate law as we know it” should it be successful.
Australia, with 80 cases, and the UK, with 49 cases, are the next largest national sources of climate litigation, although the report notes that legal action is starting to emanate from all corners of the world. The issue of “climate refugees”, where people have had to flee their country due to flood or drought, is gaining traction, following a case where a man from Kiribati sought refuge in New Zealand.
In the Netherlands, an environmental group called the Urgenda Foundation joined with several hundred Dutch citizens to sue the government over its decision to lower its greenhouse gas reduction target. The court concluded the case had merit based on the Dutch constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the “no harm” principle of international law.
In a separate case, several groups managed to overturn the approval of a third runway at Vienna’s main airport, while in yet another case, a court in Pakistan ruled in favor of Ashgar Leghari, a farmer, over his government’s “delay and lethargy” in implementing its climate change adaption policies.
Not all cases have been as successful. A Peruvian man sued a German energy company over the climate impacts suffered in his homeland, with the case ultimately dismissed.
“We haven’t seen any major wins filed in actions against fossil fuel companies but there have been successes in lawsuits against governments,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia. “A lot of this legal action is in the US because America is a litigious society but also because there is such a partisan divide over the fundamental reality of climate change, which doesn’t really exist elsewhere in the world.”
Burger said legal action will prove significant in pushing the countries closer to their agreed target of avoiding global warming of 2C or more compared to the era shortly before the advent of heavy industry. The world is currently on course to breach this limit, causing ever more dangerous climate change, even with the emissions reduction pledges agreed in the Paris climate deal.
“The role of litigation will be different in each country but we will continue to see an increase in climate lawsuits that make explicit reference to the Paris agreement,” he said. “In the US, I don’t think that any court will hold the government to account over Paris as it’s not binding, but other courts in other countries may give it different weight.
“Legal action will be used to stave off the worst aspects of climate change. Litigation has been absolutely essential in instigating action in the US and elsewhere, and it will continue to be so.”

Links

24/05/2017

Climate Change Will Affect Millennials’ Pension Prospects

Financial Times - Mark Fawcett*

Nest’s Mark Fawcett says the long-term future of the global economy is green
Getty
Millennials aren’t thinking much about retirement, but climate change is something many of them care deeply about.
That’s smart, because by the time they retire, climate change and whatever humans do in the next 30 years to mitigate its effects will almost certainly have transformed the way we live; a transformation that could also have a big impact on their prospects for retirement.
Donald Trump, the US president, signed an executive order in March rolling back his predecessor’s Clean Power Plan, rejecting with a stroke of the pen what one commentator called “the most important thing any nation had ever done to reduce carbon emissions”.
Will that alter the long-term picture? We don’t think so.
It is not clear what impact it may have, but we believe the long-term future of the global economy is green.
The reasons are political, technological and financial.
The cost of generating solar and wind power is becoming cheaper than fossil fuels in many parts of the world.
Renewable capacity overtook coal-fired generation for the first time in 2016.
China and India, respectively the world’s biggest and third-biggest polluters, have been investing heavily in green energy at home.
China is planning to spend £292bn on its domestic green-energy market in the next three years and India’s Central Electricity Authority recently said that no coal-fired power stations will be built over the coming decade beyond those already in the pipeline.
It is predicted that renewable-energy capacity in India will overtake that of new fossil fuel plants from 2018.
The energy infrastructure market appears to be heading in the same direction.
Once again, where the US appears to be pulling back, China is stepping forward.
Not only has it invested in more clean power at home, it is pouring money into developing economies’ energy infrastructure, spending $165bn since 2000.
And the focus of that money, while fossil fuels still dominate, may be starting to shift to cleaner sources such as nuclear, hydropower and renewables.
China outspent any other country in the world on overseas investments in green technology in 2016.
Closer to home, commitments made in Paris at the global climate talks in 2015 have spurred many businesses into action.
Utility companies in almost every EU country pledged in March to phase out coal-fired plants from 2020.
These companies are not waiting around for governments to shift the ground under their feet.
Those that are not thinking about how to diversify away from heavily polluting fossil fuels will probably face future losses as markets leave them behind and policies penalise them.
For institutional investors with long-term horizons, the debate is not whether there will be a transition to a lower-carbon economy, it is about how quickly it occurs.
Pension fund trustees in the UK have spent some time pondering the legalities of climate-related de-risking strategies, and some still are.
Now these strategies are becoming an investment imperative.
Short-term policy shifts may well have short-term effects.
But for millennials saving into pensions for the next 40 to 50 years, the global transition to a low-carbon economy, which appears highly likely, is a more significant trend.
Among the world’s largest institutional investors, whose ranks Nest will join in the coming decade, that long-term picture is guiding our thinking.
The smart money is being used to signal to businesses that a profound economic change in the way power is generated is happening.
This is not about divestment.
It is not in our members’ interests for companies to make losses or become unprofitable.
But we do need to plan ahead and prepare their portfolios for the evident investment risks and opportunities that climate change and the transition to low carbon represent.
That means finding scaleable, cost-effective ways to invest more in those companies that are well positioned for the low-carbon future, investing less in those that are not and engaging where progress can be encouraged.
Over the next 15 years or so, £1.7tn is due to flow into defined contribution pensions in the UK.
We believe a significant proportion of those assets will be channelled towards a greener global economy.
There may be mixed messages coming from the US at the moment, but the signals from the rest of the world, including the world of finance, are clear.

*Mark Fawcett is chief investment officer of Nest, the UK state-backed workplace pension provider.

Links

Climate Change: Model Predicts Australia To Lose Iconic Sites In New Sea-Level Rise

ABC News - Tom Wildie

Tourists would be disappointed at a visit to Sydney under new climate change modelling. (Supplied: Coastal Risk Australia 2100)
Major sites at risk
  • NSW: Sydney International Airport, Circular Quay, Botanic Gardens
  • QLD: Brisbane Airport, Stradbroke Island, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast
  • VIC: Docklands, Bells Beach, Greater Geelong
  • WA: North Fremantle, Cottesloe and Coogee Beaches, Elizabeth Quay, WACA Ground
  • SA: Glenelg, Hindmarsh Island
  • TAS: Lauderdale
Sydney's iconic Circular Quay and Botanic Gardens, Brisbane Airport, Melbourne's Docklands and Perth's Elizabeth Quay will all be underwater in dramatic new climate modelling.
The projection used data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United States which revealed global sea levels could rise by 2 metres by 2100 if emissions remain at their current levels.
It is substantially higher than the 74-centimetre increase proposed in a 2013 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Professor John Church from the Climate Change Research at the University of New South Wales said while rising sea levels cannot be stopped, they could be slowed.
"We cannot prevent all sea-level rise, but we can certainly rein in the worst-case scenarios," Professor Church said.
"With business as usual emissions, the questions are when, rather than if, we will cross a 2-metre sea-level rise."
Brisbane will lose the airport, islands off the coast, Wellington Point and parts of East Brisbane.
Professor Church said the Australian Government needed to prepare for inevitable rises.
"We need to do two things. One is we need to urgently mitigate our emissions," he said.
"But because we can't stop all sea-level rise we will have to adapt, so we will need to think about appropriate planning measures for Australia, for our coastline."
Animals at Melbourne's Sea Life Aquarium will probably be the only ones happy with the projected sea-level rise. (Supplied: Coastal risk Australia 2100)
Professor Church said the Government also needed to consider the impact rising sea levels will have on Pacific neighbours, which did not have the same resources as Australia.
Faster melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is the major contributor to the revised increase in sea levels, but Professor Church said it could be mitigated.
"With the strongest emissions reductions, the Antarctic contribution is very much in line with what the last IPCC report said, whereas if we have unmitigated omissions, then the Antarctic contribution starts to become the dominant contribution fairly quickly," he said.
According to the Coastal Risk Australia website, which maps predicted sea-level change, major infrastructure could be lost by the end of the century.
Website creator Nathan Eaton said 80 per cent of Australians lived in coastal areas, and it was critical people appreciated the impact rising levels would have.
Perth will lose all of Langley Park, Elizabeth Quay and the WACA. (Supplied: Climate Risk Australia 2100)
A predicted sea level rise of 2m by the year 2100 will see Adelaide's Glenelg and Hindmarsh Island at risk. (Supplied: Coastal Risk Australia 2100)
Links

'The Great Unknown': New Climate Change Data Lifts The Sea-Level Threat

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are melting faster than scientists previously estimated, raising the prospect of faster sea level rise placing at risk low-lying areas of Sydney and similar exposed cities around the world.
New research, including from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has lifted the "plausible" sea level rise by 2100 to as much as two metres to 2.7 metres.
That has superseded earlier estimates, such as the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that placed the likely top range of sea level rise at about one metre if greenhouse gas emission rises continued unabated.
Those higher forecasts have now been included in new mapping by Coastal Risk Australia that combines the estimates with national high-tide data and the shape of our coastline.
The resulting maps show airports in Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart will be largely under water by 2100 if that two-metre rise happens.
Other areas at risk in Sydney from such a rise include Circular Quay, Wentworth Park, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Woolloomooloo and Rose Bay. (See map below of indicative water-level increases.)
"Our worst case scenario [for 2100] is now looking three times worse than it did previously," said Nathan Eaton, a senior principal with NGIS, a digital mapping consultancy that compiled the maps.
Collaroy beach front after last June's huge east coast low. Photo: Peter Rae
Elsewhere in NSW, at-risk regions include low-lying parts of Newcastle, Port Macquarie, Ballina and Byron Bay.
Among exposed areas of other states are the Port of Melbourne, St Kilda and Docklands in Melbourne, parts of Noosa, the Gold Coast and Port Douglas in Queensland, and the WACA ground and Cottesloe beach in Perth, WA.
"Every state has got an area that's massively different [from previous forecasts for 2100]," Mr Eaton said. "For a lot of low-lying areas, it makes the inundation that much further inland."

Rising seas
NOAA estimates global mean sea levels have risen about 3.4 millimetres a year since 1993, roughly double the average rate of increase during the 20th century. (See chart below).
Even the last century's pace of increase was the fastest in at least 2800 years, NOAA said.
Global warming is driving the increase in sea levels by melting land ice - such as glaciers and ice sheets - and from the thermal expansion of the warmer oceans.
John Church, a global sea level expert at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, said other new research indicated Antarctica's contribution to rising seas appears to particularly sensitive to carbon emissions rates - underscoring the urgency to reduce them.
"With 'business as usual' emissions, the questions are when, rather than if, we will cross a two-metre sea-level rise," Professor Church said. "This scenario would result in major catastrophes and displace many tens of millions of people around the world."
Serena Lee, a research fellow and coastal dynamics specialist at Griffith University, said the rate of Antarctic ice melt was "a great unknown", limited by the relative lack of long-term data and the region's inaccessibility.
Of particular concern was the melting of the ice sheets from below of ice sheets as they come in contact with warming seas.
The newest studies indicate a two-metre rise by 2100 "would probably be more towards the conservative mean" of outcomes, Dr Lee said.
The mapping tool - which Coastal Risk say should not be relied upon for site specific decision making - may itself underestimate the speed threats will increase for some localities.
Some areas of Australia, particularly the north, are recording much higher rates of sea level increase than the global average, Dr Lee said.
The mapping also doesn't take into account the impacts of more extreme weather, such as the destructive storm surge triggered by last June's huge east coast low off NSW.
Cyclone Debbie also caused severe flooding in northern NSW in some of the regions in the state that are also particularly exposed to rising seas.
Even with those uncertainties, the updated mapping "can't do anything but help someone's understanding" of those changing coastal, ocean and flooding processes, Dr Lee said.

Links

23/05/2017

Let’s Change The Conversation From Climate Change To ‘Shared Benefits’

Huffington Post - Max Guinn

How do we talk about climate change and the need for action without turning people off?
Most people would agree that a world with elephants is a shared benefit. Getty Images
Last September, I emailed President Obama. His response helped me to focus on what matters. He wrote,
“Progress doesn’t come easily, and it hasn’t always followed a straight line. Keeping our world’s air, water, and land clean and safe takes work from all of us, and voices like yours are sparking the conversations that will help us get to where we need to be. I will continue pushing to protect the environment as long as I am President and beyond, and I encourage you to stay engaged as well.”
But I worry that adults will never agree on climate change. The issue has become too political. The words “climate change” have even been scrubbed from government websites! Our current President refers to climate change as “a hoax.” Most people have no interest in discussing it. Try talking about C02 levels or climate science and see how far you get. The reality is that climate change has become a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of scientific fact. It has made the opinion of the ordinary person with no scientific background equal to the findings of eminent scientists who have devoted their lives and education to the study of the problem.
IMAGE
Only 27 percent of Americans surveyed in a 2016 Pew study agreed with the statement that, “almost all” climate scientists believe climate change is real and primarily caused by humans. Contrast this to multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that 97 percent of climate scientists believe climate change is real and that humans are the main contributor. In an age of alternative facts and a distrust of science, how do we talk about climate change and the need for action without turning people off?
Stanford Professor Rob Jackson thinks we should stop arguing over climate change and start talking about the shared benefits of addressing problems, like health, green energy jobs, and safety. My experience tells me that he is right.
Renewable Energy Jobs. theguardian.com
 Six years ago, just before I turned 10, I started a non-profit called Kids Eco Club to inspire kids to care for the planet, its wildlife and each other. It starts and supports environmental clubs in K-12 schools. Over 100,000 kids now participate annually in Kids Eco Club activities, learning the skills necessary to lead, and to understand the issues facing our world, including climate change. Kids Eco Club is successful because we focus on shared values rather than C02 levels. Take a class snorkeling, and everyone becomes interested in protecting coral reefs. Bring local wildlife into the classroom, and kids will fight for green energy and clean water to protect their habitat. Passion drives us.
Porcupine classroom visit. kidsecoclub.org
 My generation does not have the luxury of addressing human-caused climate change as callously or as passively as the generations before us ― because we are running out of time. Agriculture, deforestation, and dependence on fossil fuels release greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, trapping heat, making the Earth warmer. The hottest year on record? Last year, 2016. A warmer Earth creates major impacts everywhere: on ecosystems, oceans, weather. Sea levels are rising because the polar ice caps are melting, and the oceans are warming, which causes them to expand. Severe weather events are created from warmer oceans – warmer water, more evaporation, clouds, and rain―causing greater storm damage, more flooding, and, ironically, larger wildfires and more severe droughts since weather patterns are also changing.
The morning Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. graphics.latimes.com
Imagine three out of every four animal species you know disappearing off the face of the Earth. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, we are currently experiencing the worst species die-off since dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Species are vanishing at a rate roughly 100 times higher than normal. While things like asteroids and volcanoes caused past extinctions, humans almost entirely cause the current crisis. Global warming caused by climate change, habitat loss from development and agriculture, pesticide use, poaching, unsustainable fishing practices, pollution and disease spread by the introduction of exotic species, are driving the crisis beyond the tipping point. Can you picture a world without butterflies, penguins, elephants, rhinos, sea turtles, honeybees, orangutans, salamanders, or sharks?
Mother orangutan and baby. Getty Images
 The oceans provide 50% of the earth’s oxygen and 97% of its livable habitat. The health of our oceans is vital to our survival and the survival of the over one million types of plants and animals living there. Climate change and fossil fuel reliance raise ocean temperatures, causing extreme weather, coastal flooding, and ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is beginning to cause the die-off of calcium-rich species at the base of the ocean’s food chain, like coral, shellfish, and plankton. This die-off would trigger a spiral of decline in all sea life – from fish to seabirds to whales – and negatively impact hundreds of millions of people who rely on the oceans for food. Other human threats include overfishing, pollution, oil drilling and development. We need to act now to create change in our own communities by protecting ocean habitats, promoting conservation, and creating sustainable solutions to nurse our oceans back to health.
Dead sperm whales found with plastic in their stomachs. mintpressnews.com
In a world with over 7 billion people, we cannot continue to divide ourselves into categories like believers and climate change deniers, or Republicans and Democrats. The best chance we have of ensuring a world with clean water and clean air is to engage all of us. If this takes changing the conversation from “climate change,” to “shared benefits,” then change the conversation. Together all things are possible.

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative