Future Sailors: What Will Ships Look Like In 30 Years?

The Guardian - Fred Pearce

With a target to halve its huge carbon footprint, the race is on to find new technologies to green the world’s shipping fleet

Low-tech solutions can deliver big emission cuts: sails could once again become the norm. Photograph: Courtesy of Elomatic Oy/NYK 

Watch out for the return of the sailing ship.
After a commitment last month to cut greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by at least 50% by 2050, the race is on to find new technologies that can green the 50,000-strong global shipping fleet. Wind power is one of the options being discussed.
International shipping accounts for more than 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, roughly the same as aircraft. But the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change left control of the shipping industry’s emissions to the International Maritime Organisation.
While environment groups applauded the agreement to cut hard and deep by 2050, they pointed out that it falls far short what is technically achievable.
A report published just before the meeting by the International Transport Forum (ITF), a thinktank run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), found that the industry could achieve up to 95% decarbonisation as early as 2035 using “maximum deployment of currently known technologies.”

Low-tech solutions
The good news is that easy-to-do low-tech solutions can deliver a lot. Maersk, the world’s largest container shipping line, has already discovered it can cut fuel use 30% simply by steaming more slowly.
Because of the wide availability of cheap (and often dirty) fuel, shipping has traditionally been wasteful. Most merchant ships are made of heavy steel rather than lighter aluminium, and don’t bother with obvious energy-saving measures like low-friction hull coatings or recovering waste heat.
More slender ship designs alone could cut fuel use — and hence emissions — by 10-15% at slow speeds and up to 25% at high speeds, says the ITF. But replacing the existing fleet would take time. The average age of today’s shipping fleet is 25 years. Rules of energy efficiency for new ships introduced by the IMO in 2013 will only fully come into force from 2030, meaning that any switch to slender ships would not apply to most ships at sea until mid-century or beyond.
But much could be done more quickly by retrofitting existing ships with technology to cut their fuel use and hence emissions, according to the ITF. Here are just four:

• Fitting ships’ bows with a bulbous extension below the water line reduces drag enough to cut emissions 2-7%;
• A technique known as air lubrication, which pumps compressed air below the hull to create a carpet of bubbles, also reduces drag and can cut emissions by a further 3%;
• Replacing one propeller with two rotating in opposite directions recovers slipstream energy and can make efficiency gains of 8-15%,
• Cleaning the hull and painting it with a low-friction coating can deliver gains of up to 5%.

Entirely new ships
Putting together better designs and better fuel will create entirely new kinds of ships in future. And the blueprints are already being drawn up.
The Aquarius Ecoship, a cargo ship devised by a Japanese company called Eco Marine Power, is driven by a phalanx of rigid sails and solar panels. The same system could power oil tankers, cruise ships and much else. It would not, the designers admit, entirely eliminate the need for conventional fuel: Even with large batteries to store the solar and wind energy, back-up would be needed. But it could cut emissions by 40 percent.

The Aquarius Eco Ship concept design incorporates the innovative solar and wind power. Photograph: Courtesy of Eco Marine Power

Going one better, the Japanese shipping line NYK boasts that its design for a 350m-long container ship, the Super Eco Ship 2030, would use LNG to make hydrogen to run fuel cells. Backed up by solar panels covering the entire ship and 4,000 square metres of sails to catch the wind, the combination could cut emissions by 70%. Or for a completely zero-carbon option, engineers at Wallenius Wilhelmsen, a Scandinavian shipping line, offer the E/S Orcelle, a lightweight cargo ship designed to transport up to 10,000 cars (electric, we trust) on eight decks.
It would be powered by electricity, half coming directly from wind, solar and wave energy, and the other half from converting some of that energy into hydrogen to power fuel cells. The company says the ship could be afloat by 2025.
Today’s ships are in many respects almost indistinguishable from those of a century ago. But the IMO decision to finally get with the global climate agenda has fired the starting gun on what is set to be a race to create a new standard for low-carbon shipping that should be the norm just a few decades from now.
Some of the biggest gains will require banishing conventional petroleum-based fuel, says the Sustainable Shipping Initiative, a progressive industry ginger group whose members include cruise lines and commodities shipping lines. Innovations ranging from biofuels to liquefied natural gas (LNG), nuclear reactors to sails to catch the wind, and hydrogen to solar panels have been proposed.
Each has its benefits and drawbacks, and nobody is putting all their money on one solution. Biofuels are problematic because they take land to grow, though specially engineered crops such as algae could change that, says the ITF. While electric engines already operate on some short ferry journeys, the sheer weight and space taken up by batteries on oceangoing ships make them unviable until there are breakthroughs in lithium-ion batteries. Solar power can only augment other power sources.
One innovation already underway is converting ships to run on LNG. There are already more than a hundred LNG-fuelled ships globally. A new generation of giant cruise ships powered this way and carrying up to 7,000 passengers will be launched by MSC Cruises starting in 2022. Some LNG ships claim a reduction in CO₂ emissions of 15%, though that depends crucially on keeping leakage of the greenhouse gas methane to a minimum in ships and bunkers.

 LNG-powered Viking Grace boasts the first ship-based ‘rotor sail’. Photograph: Tuukka Ervasti/Lloyd’s Register

The first LNG-powered cruise ship is the Viking Grace, operating between Finland and Sweden. This vessel has another claim to fame. As of this April it also boasts the first ship-based “rotor sail” to capture power from the wind. Rotor sails have a large spinning cylinder amidships. Wind hitting the rotor creates a vertical force that can be used to power the ship, a phenomenon known as the Magnus effect. The Viking Line says the extra power will reduce the ship’s CO₂ emissions by 900 metric tonnes (1,000 tons) per year.

Links

• Carbon dioxide from ships at sea to be regulated for first time
• The environmental cost of moving all our stuff is huge. How can we shrink it?
• Decarbonising Maritime Transport (pdf)
• Low Emission Concept Ship with Rigid Sails & Solar Power

Hurricane Season May Be Even Worse In 2018 After A Harrowing 2017

The Guardian - Oliver Milman

The initial forecasts of an above-average season for hurricanes, beginning on 1 June, follow a punishing spate of storms last year

Flooded homes at Citrus Park in Bonita Springs, Florida on 16 September 2017, six days after Hurricane Irma. Photograph: Nicole Raucheisen/AP 

The US may have to brace itself for another harrowing spate of hurricanes this year, with forecasts of an active 2018 season coming amid new research that shows powerful Atlantic storms are intensifying far more rapidly than they did 30 years ago.
The peak season for Atlantic storms, which officially starts on 1 June, is set to spur as many as 18 named storms, with up to five of them developing into major hurricanes, according to separate forecasts from North Carolina State University and Colorado State University. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will soon provide its own 2018 hurricane predictions.
The initial forecasts of an above-average season for hurricanes follow a punishing 2017, most notable for Hurricane Harvey, which drenched large areas of Texas, Hurricane Irma’s sweep over Florida and the devastation that stubbornly lingers in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria.
These huge hurricanes brought winds of up to 185mph and lashing rains, causing hundreds of deaths, flattening homes, felling power lines and ruining roads. Combined, the three storms caused around $265bn in damage, and all ranked in the five most destructive hurricanes ever recorded.
Many communities, particularly in Puerto Rico and Texas, are still struggling to recover from last year’s hurricanes as the upcoming storm season approaches. And while the US may be spared 2017 levels of devastation this year, scientists have warned that the warming of the oceans, driven by climate change, is likely to stir greater numbers of prodigious storms in the future.

Atlantic hurricanes are intensifying far more rapidly than they did 30 years ago, according to a new study that analyzed the acceleration in wind speed of previous storms. Major hurricanes are defined by a sharp increase in speed, of at least 28mph in a 24-hour period.
Researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that these big hurricanes are, on average, speeding up 13mph faster in this 24-hour period than they did 30 years ago. Much of this has to do with shifts in a natural climate cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
Separate research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests this natural variation will combine with escalating warming in the oceans and atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels by humans, to produce stronger hurricanes in the future. A warm ocean surface, combined with consistent wind patterns, contribute to the formation of fiercer, if not more numerous, hurricanes.

People make their way onto an I-610 overpass after being rescued from flooded homes during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, on 27 August 2017 in Houston, Texas. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

In the weeks before Hurricane Harvey smashed into Texas in August last year, the Gulf of Mexico’s waters were warmer than any time on record at around 30C (86F), the NCAR research found.
“The implication is that the warmer oceans increased the risk of greater hurricane intensity and duration,” said Kevin Trenberth, an NCAR senior scientist and lead author of the study. “As climate change continues to heat the oceans, we can expect more supercharged storms like Harvey.
“While we often think of hurricanes as atmospheric phenomena, it’s clear that the oceans play a critical role and will shape future storms as the climate changes.”
Hurricanes act as a sort of relief valve for hot tropical oceans, funneling heat away into the atmosphere. Persistent warmth in the oceans, however, adds further energy to hurricanes and risks causing worse damage to life and property when these storms make landfall.
Faced with the prospect of supercharged hurricanes, as various other burgeoning climate change-related threats, Donald Trump has rescinded Obama-era rules preparing infrastructure for climate impacts. He has taken an axe to policies that would lower greenhouse gas emissions from cars and power plants and announced that the US will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
This agenda has been criticized by researchers who have called for an urgent reappraisal of the risk posed by climate change.
“We know this threat exists, and yet in many cases, society is not adequately planning for these storms,” Trenberth said.
“I believe there is a need to increase resilience with better building codes, flood protection, and water management, and we need to prepare for contingencies, including planning evacuation routes and how to deal with power cuts.”
This year, however, the focus will again be on disaster recovery rather than long-term mitigation. Ken Graham, director of Noaa’s National Hurricane Center said that the “entire Gulf Coast is at risk from storms and that several hurricanes can strike in a single season”.
“Don’t wait for a hurricane to be on your doorstep to make a preparedness plan, by then it may be too late,” he added. “Take the time now to get prepared for the season ahead.”

Links

• 'We've been forgotten': Hurricane Harvey and the long path to recovery
• Hurricanes and heatwaves: stark signs of climate change 'new normal'
• Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones (pdf)
• Increasing Magnitude of Hurricane Rapid Intensification in the Central and Eastern Tropical Atlantic

Climate Change: Washington County Lawsuit Demands Oil And Gas Companies Help Pay Adaptation Costs

The Independent - Clark Mindock

The lawsuit is similar to legal efforts in Colorado, California, and New York

The county that has sued the oil giants includes Seattle Getty Images

A county in Washington State has become the latest locality to sue the oil industry for cash to help pay for the costs of adapting to climate change.
King County — a large county in the northwest of the state that includes Seattle — filed suit against British Petroleum, Chevron, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, and Conocophillips, with attorneys for the county arguing that those oil giants should help pay for the “hundreds of millions of dollars” that is expected to be needed to adapt to changing conditions created by climate change.
Those five companies, the lawsuit reads, knowingly sold a product with the potential for massive consequences. Comment requests sent to the companies were not immediately returned.
“This egregious state of affairs is no accident. Rather, it is an unlawful public nuisance of the first order,” court filings read.
“The use of fossil fuels — oil, natural gas, and coal — is the primary source of the greenhouse gas pollution that causes global warming, a point that scientists settled years ago,” the filing continues, noting that a 2015 investigation revealed that scientists for the fossil fuel industry knew for decades that climate change posed a threat, but that the companies allegedly did not adequately disclose those dangers to the public or its stockholders.
Exxon, one of the companies that was implicated in that 2015, has said that it did not act in any way inconsistently with its knowledge about climate change.

Hanna Petursdottir examines a cave inside the Svinafellsjokull glacier in Iceland, which she said had been growing rapidly. Since 2000, the size of glaciers on Iceland has reduced by 12 per cent. Tom Schifanella

Citing the heavy costs that the county will incur for adapting its infrastructure for storm water management, salmon recovery, protecting public health, and other adaptation costs, King County Executive Dow Constantine said that the lawsuit is there to make sure the companies that profited from selling fossil fuels pay their fair share.
““The science is undisputable: climate change is impacting our region today, and it will only cause greater havoc and hardships in the future,” Mr Constantine said in a statement.
“The companies that profited the most from fossil fuels should help bear the costs of managing these disasters. Big Oil spent many decades disregarding and dismissing what is our most pressing generational challenge. We must hold these companies accountable as we marshal our resources to protect and preserve what makes this region great.”
The lawsuit is at least the 11th lawsuit of its kind filed against oil and gas companies this year. The Washington county joins the likes of Boulder, Colorado — which is currently the only landlocked locality to be suing for climate change adaptation costs — as well as communities in New York and California.
“The average person should know we’re finally dealing with the costs of climate change. Irrespective of weather, this is a big concern to you,” Richard Wiles, the executive director of the Centre for Climate Integrity, told The Independent when Boulder filed its lawsuit last month.

Links

• First landlocked US city sues oil industry over climate change
• Four Climate Change Lawsuits To Watch In 2018
• Company Directors Can Be Legally Liable For Failing To Manage Climate Change Risks - Report
• How To Fight Climate Change: Figure Out Who's To Blame, And Sue Them
• California Sues Trump Administration Over Car Emissions Rules
• California, 17 Other States Sue Trump Administration To Defend Obama-Era Climate Rules For Vehicles
• The Fighting Has Begun Over Who Owns Land Drowned By Climate Change
• From Australia To El Salvador To Vietnam, The Environment Is Finally Getting Its Day In Court
• The Case For Climate Reparations 
• Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama era
• Americans who believe in conspiracies likely to doubt climate change
• Our expectations 'making spring weather seem more extreme than it is'
• First genetically engineered coral created to help save reefs
• Climate change means chicks hatch too late to eat caterpillars

Food For Thought: Food Security, Population Growth & Over-Farming

Al Jazeera

We look at the state of global food security amid rising concerns about the world population and climate change.



There are currently 7.6 billion people on the planet, and they all need feeding. However, producing crops and rearing livestock is environmentally unsustainable. Nearly one-third of the Earth's land is severely degraded and 90 percent of our oceans are quickly being emptied of fish.
The pace of harvest is relentless and with the worldwide population expected to grow to 10 billion by 2050, it is clear that our planet won't be able to keep up the pace of food production.

3D Farming
Bren Smith is in the process of creating thousands of decent jobs, transform how we harvest food from the oceans, and blunt the effects of climate change and marine degradation - all at the same time.
The system he has developed to do this is called '3D Ocean Farm', a polyculture vertical farming system under the water's surface which grows a mix of seaweed crops and shellfish.

Scientists, fisherman and farmers have found that kelp reduces water acidification rate. It pulls so much carbon and nitrogen out that it changes the water quality [Alice Martineau/Al Jazeera]

Requiring zero inputs, it is the most sustainable form of food production on the planet, and it also sequesters carbon and rebuilds reef ecosystems. The crops can be used as food, fertiliser, animal feed and even energy.
"If you were to take a network of these farms, totalling five percent of US waters, you could remove the equivalent carbon output of over a million cars," says Smith.
"What the kelp does is it reduces the acidification rate. It pulls so much carbon and nitrogen out, that it changes the water quality."
In this episode of earthrise, we head to Connecticut to meet a commercial fisherman turned climate farmer who has developed a system of polyculture vertical agriculture in the ocean, called 3D farming.

Lab Meat
The global animal agriculture industry needs immediate and truly urgent attention. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, habitat destruction and is responsible for more CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year than all forms of transportation.

The impact of farming cattle on climate change is so significant that some experts believe that giving up beef reduces our carbon footprint more than giving up cars [University of Maastricht/ Al Jazeera]

While the statistics surrounding the industry are terrifying, there is no sign that the industry is slowing down. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75 percent by 2050.
Scientists at Mosa Meats in the Netherlands believe they have found a solution to this dangerous trend: growing meat in a lab.
This technique eliminates the need to harm live animals, eradicates the dedication of large swathes of land to the cultivation of animals and dramatically reduce methane emissions.
"Methane is actually a very powerful greenhouse gas," says Dr Mark Post at the University of Maastricht. Post is part of a number of teams involved in research surrounding the production of lab-grown meat.
"[Methane is] 20 times more powerful than C02 and livestock is accountable for 40 percent of all methane emissions. This process would reduce the number of animals from 1.5 billion to 30,000," continues Post.
In this episode of earthrise, we will visit the Mosa Meats lab who are at the forefront of this truly extraordinary meat movement, and examine the process behind it and learn of the huge benefits it could offer, while also looking at the varying social opinions on the new method of meat production.

Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2018), World Resources Institute (2013-14), Science Direct (2016)

Links

• Feeding a Hungry Nation: Climate change, food and farming in Australia
• Climate change could alter ocean food chains, leading to far fewer fish in the sea
• Climate change: Coping with extremes
• Brexit: A threat to Britain's food security?
• Climate change will impact Africa food security – UN
• India needs a systematic overhaul in agriculture to ensure food security
• Climate Impacts on Food Security
• Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security
• As global food demand rises, climate change is hitting our staple crops

Four Climate Change Lawsuits To Watch In 2018

Deutsche Welle - Anne-Sophie Brändlin

Did you know it's possible to take legal action to fight global warming? Ever more citizens are doing just that. Here are four landmark climate change lawsuits with significant decisions pending in 2018.

Citizens around the world are taking climate action to the courtroom by suing their own governments and some of the world's biggest oil and energy companies over failing to protect against the risks and consequences of climate change.
According to a survey by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia Law School, climate change lawsuits are on the increase — with nearly 900 cases in 24 countries as of March last year — and courts will play a greater role to in the fight against global warming over the year to come.
Here are four high-profile climate lawsuits to watch in 2018 — each is likely to make waves by setting a possible legal precedent in pressuring governments and companies to take responsibility over climate change.

Citizens vs. the government of the Netherlands

Plaintiffs wait for the verdict in Netherlands climate lawsuit

It started with a precedent-setting climate lawsuit in the summer of 2015, when 900 Dutch citizens, represented by the Urgenda Foundation, took their government to court to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.
This was the first time a group of citizens sued their own government over climate change action — and won.
The lawsuit resulted in a Dutch court ordering the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide by at least 25 percent by the year of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels), forcing it to take more measures against climate change.

AUDIO

"The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," the verdict read.
The landmark ruling is the first case in which regular citizens have managed to hold their government accountable for taking insufficient action to fight global warming. It is also the only case in the world thus far to define a government's obligation to control climate change.
While the Dutch government has taken concrete steps, such as announcing a coal exit, it is also appealing the verdict, and a first hearing is scheduled for May 2018.
The Dutch landmark case laid the foundations for similar lawsuits around the world, for instance by a group of Belgian artists, filmmakers and rock stars, who are suing the Belgian government to increase its climate change game, and make deeper greenhouse gas emission cuts.

Youth vs. the government of the United States 

Scientist James Hansen (right) with his granddaughter, who is among US youth suing their government over climate change

Another lawsuit inspired by the Dutch court case was started by a group of American youths, who are suing the US government for failing to curb climate change.
The 21 plaintiffs, who are between 10 and 21 years old, and come from all over the US, filed the climate change lawsuit together with their attorneys and climate scientist James Hansen in 2015.
All the kids and teenagers in the plaintiff group have been personally impacted by climate change. Some of them live on farms being affected by drought, while others have lost their homes due to floods, or face health issues due to forest fires.

AUDIO

In the unprecedented lawsuit, entitled "Juliana vs. US," the youth accuse the federal government of violating the younger generations' constitutional rights to life and liberty by failing to take action against global warming. They argue that the government is failing to protect essential public trust resources like air and water, which are vital to survival.
"Our role as plaintiffs is to show them the personal harm climate change is causing. We represent the children — not just of this nation, but of the entire world," 20-year-old student Tia Hatton told DW.
"We are all very worried about our future, health and safety from the climate change impacts that we're seeing already, and that will worsen as time goes on," said the plaintiff in the lawsuit.
An initial ruling in an Oregon district court upheld their main argument that "the government has known for more than 50 years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia."

Wildfire is among the impacts of climate change more strongly felt in recent years in the US

Yet, the court case argues, the government has failed to take action, making it responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change.
Since then, the landmark court case has been the target of strong opposition from lobby groups, the fossil fuel industry, and the US government, which sought for the case to be thrown out.
The US government has even asked a federal appeals court to block the lawsuit, claiming it could lead "to a constitutional crisis."
But motions for appeal were denied and the lawsuit was ruled valid by US District Judge Ann Aiken.
She wrote in her ruling: "This lawsuit may be groundbreaking, but the fact does not alter the legal standards governing the motions to dismiss. [...] Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environment law, and the world has suffered for it."
The case will now officially go to trial in February 2018.

Peruvian farmer vs. German energy company RWE

Peruvian farmer Saúl Lliuya ia taking on German energy company RWE over greenhouse gas emissions

Not just governments are facing legal challenges over climate — also a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide is suing German energy firm RWE.
He is claiming that the company's contribution to climate change is threatening his home, and is asking RWE to take on financial responsibility for the damage.
Saúl Lliuya from Huaraz, a city located in the Andean Mountains in western Peru, says his family and a large part of the city are facing catastrophic flooding as global warming melts a nearby glacier.
RWE's coal power emissions contribute to around 0.5 percent of global climate change, so the company should have to pay around half a percent of the measures required for protecting Lliyua's home and the area, says the plaintiff, who is being supported by environmental organization Germanwatch.

AUDIO

The farmer is asking for €17,000 ($20,000) from RWE, which would go toward funding flood defenses he plans to install for his community, as well as a further €6,384 in reimbursement for money he's already spent out of his own pocket on protective measures.
RWE says the case has no legal basis, and that the alleged danger of flooding has never been sufficiently demonstrated. The company further argues that emitting CO2 is not illegal, as RWE has authorization under carbon emissions trading laws.
Plus, RWE says climate change is a global problem that has to be solved on a state and international level, meaning individual companies should not be held responsible.
But a German court decided that Lliuya's allegations had merit and ruled to proceed with the case, which is due to hear evidence in 2018.
It is the first time a German civil court has been asked to rule on whether a company can be held financially responsible for its contribution to the effects of climate change in other parts of the world.

ExxonMobil vs. US state attorneys

Oil multinational ExxonMobil is accused of covering up research over climate change for decades

In the US, a similar case is coming to a head this year: the first-ever US legal action aimed at holding the oil giant ExxonMobil accountable for its climate change coverup.
The American multinational oil gas corporation is being sued over failing to safeguard Massachusetts communities against pollution relating to climate change impacts, and lying to the public about the risks of climate change.
The suit was started by a group of state attorneys general, led by New York's Eric Schneiderman, after it came to light that Exxon executives had been aware of the climate risks associated with fossil fuels as early as 1977, but launched a campaign to cover up those findings.
According to the lawsuit, ExxonMobil endangered communities by ignoring the threat posed by severe weather events and rising sea levels to its Everett facility along the Mystic River in Massachusetts — despite its long-held knowledge of the risks associated with climate change.
ExxonMobil has denied the claims, and said in a statement it would fight the lawsuit in court. A verdict is expected in 2018.

What went right for the environment in 2017? 

Bye bye, diesel 

Countries such as India, France and the United Kingdom have pledged to move away from gas and diesel cars in favor of less-polluting options, such as electric vehicles. Even China, the world's largest car market, is developing a plan to ban the production and sale of vehicles that rely purely on fossil fuels. 2018 could be an important year in the shift toward cleaner transportation.

Links

• Germany court boosts Peruvian challenge to energy giant RWE
• COP23: Canada and UK launch anti-coal alliance in Bonn
• Climate change: Peru farmer's claims against German energy giant RWE 'admissible' in court
• US environmentalists move from Capitol Hill to the courts
• US states challenge Trump with climate lawsuit
• Peruvian farmer sues German energy firm RWE
• Citizens across the world are suing their governments over climate change
• Exxon Mobil sued for 'climate deceit' in US
• Exxon Mobil subpoenaed by New York prosecutors over climate change
• Court: Netherlands endangering citizens with emissions
• What went right for the environment in 2017?
• UN Environment: The status of climate change litigation 
• Verdict of climate change lawsuit against Dutch government 
• Climate change lawsuit against the federal government of the United States
• Ruling against the motion for the lawsuit against the US government to be thrown out
• Living Planet: Kids sue the US government 
• Climate lawsuit in Belgium 
• Living Planet: Peruvian farmer takes on energy giant 
• Setting a precedent 
• Resisting coal in Germany

Global Warming Is Melting Antarctic Ice From Below

The Guardian - John Abraham

Warming oceans melting Antarctic ice shelves could accelerate sea level rise

A view of the leading edge of the remaining part of the Larsen B ice shelf that extends into the northwest part of the Weddell Sea is seen in this handout photo taken on March 4, 2008. Photograph: HO/REUTERS

We all know intuitively that in a warmer world there will be less ice. And, since the North and South Pole regions contain lots of ice, anyone who wants to see evidence of climate change can look there.
But beyond this simplistic view, things can get pretty complex. First, it’s important to recognize that the Arctic and the Antarctic are very different places. In the Arctic, almost all the ice is floating on water – there is very little land. So, we talk about ‘sea ice’ in the north, formed from frozen sea water. On the other hand, Antarctica is a massive land mass that is covered by ice formed from snowfall (called an ‘ice sheet’). There is some floating ice around the perimeter of the land, but the vast majority of Antarctic ice is on land.
This difference not only affects how these regions response to climate change, but it also impacts their importance. We know that when floating ice melts, the ocean levels will not rise, because the ice was already floating in the water. But, when land ice melts, the liquid water flows into the ocean and causes the water levels to rise. So, at least from a sea-level perspective, land ice is more important than floating ice.
There are other differences between the north and south. One feature of the south is that there is a strong current that travels around Antarctica and partially shields it from waters elsewhere in the ocean. The Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory provides a good summary of some of the differences between the poles.
With global warming, both of the poles are warming quite quickly, and this warming is causing ice to melt in both regions. When we think of ice melting, we may think of it melting from above, as the ice is heated from the air, from sunlight, or from infrared energy from the atmosphere. But in truth, a lot of the melting comes from below. For instance, in the Antarctic, the ice shelves extend from the land out over the water. The bottom of the ice shelf is exposed to the ocean. If the ocean warms up, it can melt the underside of the shelf and cause it to thin or break off into the ocean.
A new study, recently published in Science Advances, looked at these issues. One of the goals of this study was to better understand whether and how the waters underneath the shelf are changing. They had to deal with the buoyancy of the waters. We know that the saltier and colder water is, the denser it is.
Around Antarctica, water at the ocean surface cools down and becomes saltier. These combined effects make the surface waters sink down to the sea floor. But as ice melt increases, fresh water flows into the ocean and interrupts this buoyancy effect. This “freshening” of the water can slow down or shut down the vertical mixing of the ocean. When this happens, the cold waters at the surface cannot sink. The deeper waters retain their heat and melt the ice from below.
The study incorporated measurements of both temperature and salinity (saltiness) at three locations near the Dalton Iceberg Tongue on the Sabrina Coast in East Antarctica. The measurements covered approximately an entire year and gave direct evidence of seasonal variations to the buoyancy of the waters. The researchers showed that a really important component to water-flow patterns were ‘polynyas.’ These are regions of open water that are surrounded by ice, typically by land ice on one side and sea ice on the other side.
A satellite photograph of a polynya is shown below. When waters from the polynya are cold and salty, the waters sink downwards and form a cold curtain around the ice shelf. However, when the waters are not salty (because fresh water is flowing into the polynya), this protective curtain is disrupted and warm waters can intrude from outside, leading to more ice melt.

A polynya off the coast of Antarctica, near Ross Island and McMurdo Station on November 16, 2011. Photograph: Jeff Schmaltz, LANCE/EOSDIS MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC.

Based on this study, we may see increased ice loss in the future – sort of a feedback loop. That concerns us because it will mean more sea level rise (which is already accelerating), and more damage to coastal communities. I asked the lead author, Alesandro Silvano about this work:

We found that freshwater from melting ice shelves is already enough to stop formation of cold and salty waters in some locations around Antarctica. This process causes warming and freshening of Antarctic waters. Ocean warming increases melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, causing sea level to rise. Freshening of Antarctic waters weakens the currents that trap heat and carbon dioxide in the ocean, affecting the global climate. In this way local changes in Antarctica can have global implications. Multiple sources of evidence exist now to show that these changes are happening. However, what will happen in Antarctica in the next decades and centuries remains unclear and needs to be understood.

This is just another reason to take scientists seriously and act to slow down climate change before it is too late.

Links

• One Of The Scariest Effects Of Climate Change Might Already Be Happening -- And It'd Mean Our Projections Are Way Off
• The Guardian View On Antarctica: The Worrying Retreat Of The Ice
• An Alarming 10 Percent Of Antarctica’s Coastal Glaciers Are Now In Retreat, Scientists Find
• Underwater Melting Of Antarctic Ice Far Greater Than Thought, Study Finds
• Inside Antarctica: The Continent Whose Fate Will Affect Millions
• This Dire Ocean Scenario Is A Stark Reminder Of Why The World Is Trying To Stop Climate Change
• 'First Hint' Of A Puzzling Change In Southern Ocean Revealed By CSIRO
• Expect More 'Complete Surprises' From Climate Change: NASA's Schmidt 
• Global warming will depress economic growth in Trump country
• Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
• The missing maths: the human cost of fossil fuels
• America's best scientists stood up to the Trump administration

Budget 2018: Climate Change Denial And Conservation Jobs Slashed

Independent Australia - Sue Arnold

Image via @FoEAustralia.

Climate change did not even rate a mention in Treasurer Scott Morrison's 2018 Budget announcement last night (Tuesday, 8 May).
The writing is on the wall for Australia’s unique environment as the Turnbull Government demonstrates its real agenda.
With revelations that one-third of the staff in the Department of Environment and Energy’s conservation and biodiversity division will be slashed, Australia is a sure bet to take up the dishonour of holding the global record of extinction.
These words are the substance of a major petition by Avaaz, which is circulating around the world:

'By 2020, two-thirds of the worl'd wild animals will be gone. Life is being extinguished as fast as when the dinosaurs disappeared — and it’s happening because humanity is taking a chainsaw to the tree of life.'

Should anyone believe these predictions have no validity, an article in The Guardian newspaper quotes renowned biologist, E. O. Wilson who wants to set aside half of the planet as protected areas for nature and says:

'If we don't change our ways, we will witness a mass extinction event that will not only leave our world a far more boring and lonely place but will undercut the very survival of our species.'

IMAGE

 As the Avaaz petition states:

We’re testing the boundaries of our planet’s ability to sustain us and all life, but the biodiversity crisis still isn’t high on the political agenda! If enough of us engage now, we could change that.

Scientists say our best chance to save our ecosystems and 80-90% of all species is giving them enough safe space to thrive, then nature uses its wisdom to regenerate. The 50% plan sounds ambitious but in fact it’s totally viable and likely the best way to sustain our intricate web of life. 

Many scientists are predicting the sixth mass extinction. A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is underway and is more severe than previously feared, according to recent scientific analysis.
Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis and warn that it threatens the survival of human civilisation, with just a short window of time in which to act.

IMAGE

A study published in the peer-reviewed journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences', eschews the normally sober tone of scientific papers and calls the massive loss of wildlife a “biological annihilation” that represents a 'frightening assault on the foundations of human civilisation'. 
Professor Gerardo Ceballos, of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work, said:

“The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.”

IMAGE

 Unfortunately, the Turnbull Government is deaf to the message.
Given Australia styles itself as a Western nation with an educated population, the Zen koan we must all ask is, how did we end up with a Prime Minister and a Government hell-bent on destroying Australia’s unique and irreplaceable species?
What must be done to ensure the environment becomes a critical primary policy of not only the Turnbull Government but the equally environmentally destructive Berejiklian Government?
Let’s not forget, Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world:

• 87% of our mammal species, 93% of reptiles, 94% of frogs and 45% of our bird species are found only in Australia.

• One out of three mammal extinctions in the last 400 years have occurred in Australia.

• More than 1,700 species of animals and plants are listed by the Australian Government as being at risk of extinction.

• Australia has lost about 40% of its total forest cover over the last 200 years.

A recent national review of threatened species monitoring found about one-third of 548 species were not being tracked at all.
According to Professor John Woinarski, Deputy Director of the Threatened Species Hub from Charles Darwin University:

Ten Australian birds and seven mammals are likely to become extinct over the next 20 years, if we continue with current management, according to new research.
Most of these extinctions could be prevented if conservation managers and our community are more aware of the risk these species face, and managers are able to respond effectively and rapidly.
Identifying the species at greatest risk of extinction is a crucial first step in avoiding their extinctions.
The fate of these species depends upon support from governments and communities, and public interest, awareness and involvement. 
Some of our other research recently published has compiled case studies of successful conservation for almost 50 Australian threatened species, so we know it can be done when the commitment is there. 

IMAGE

Last month, the Turnbull Government announced it would deliver half a billion dollars for the Great Barrier Reef 'to protect the Reef from climate change and pollution'. Oops! Does that mean that Adani's coal mine will be rejected given the massive carbon emissions it will deliver to the world’s environment if the mine goes ahead? Unlikely.
According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald:

' ... the Coalition tries to balance environmental concerns with its pro-mining focus through the Adani coal mine.'  

Exactly how half a billion dollars will protect the Reef from climate change amid Adani's destruction is not explained.
A new report by the Climate Council looked into Indian resources giant Adani's proposed Carmichael Coal Mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin.
If built, Carmichael would be Australia's largest ever coal mine. It would have six open cut pits as well as numerous underground mines. Coal would be transported 200 kilometres to a terminal at Abbot Point, adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. And it would only be the beginning. The report states that the development of the Carmichael mine would likely pave the way for other coal mines to go ahead in Queensland's Galilee Basin. The basin has around 250,000 square kilometres of thermal coal. If it were developed, Australia's carbon emissions would more than double.

IMAGE

At a dinner at Sydney Opera House, French President Emmanuel Macron challenged Turnbull to lift his game when it comes to tackling climate change.
However, our PM is as disinterested in climate change as President Trump in spite of overwhelming evidence of catastrophic consequences. As a former banker and a wealthy developer, one would expect that a balance sheet which covers the costs and benefits of a healthy environment would be the foundation of policy.
What is life on earth worth? Is there a price that can be attributed to species and ecosystems? What about our children and grandchildren? What price does the Turnbull Government put on their future?
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all will be a silent world. A world without birdsong and the wonder of nature. This will be the legacy of the Turnbull Government and all anti-environmental governments.
It’s up to us to change the paradigm.

Links

• Budget Strategy and Outlook Budget Paper No. 1 2018-19 (pdf)
• Budget 2018: Funding cuts put Paris climate goal further out of reach
• Turnbull’s Election Budget Dumps On Climate And Renewables
• Rare Australian species could slip into extinction as jobs axed at environment department
• Budget 2018 Was Old News For Energy Policy – The Next Big Headlines Won’t Come Until July
• A high price for policy failure: the ten-year story of spiralling electricity bills
• As the Libs claim South Australia, states are falling into line behind the National Energy Guarantee