The Solutions To The Climate Crisis No One Is Talking About

Common Dreams - Robert Reich

Make no mistake: the simultaneous crisis of inequality and climate is no fluke. Both are the result of decades of deliberate choices made, and policies enacted, by ultra-wealthy and powerful corporations.

"We deserve a world without fossil fuels," writes Reich. "A world in which workers and communities thrive and our shared climate comes before industry profits." (Image: Inequality Media)

Robert Reich is the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. Robert Reich is the author of many books, including the best-sellers Aftershock, The Work of Nations, Beyond Outrage, and Saving Capitalism.

Both our economy and the environment are in crisis.

Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few while the majority of Americans struggle to get by.

The climate crisis is worsening inequality, as those who are most economically vulnerable bear the brunt of flooding, fires, and disruptions of supplies of food, water, and power.

At the same time, environmental degradation and climate change are themselves byproducts of widening inequality. The political power of wealthy fossil fuel corporations has stymied action on climate change for decades.

Focused only on maximizing their short-term interests, those corporations are becoming even richer and more powerful — while sidelining workers, limiting green innovation, preventing sustainable development, and blocking direct action on our dire climate crisis.

Make no mistake: the simultaneous crisis of inequality and climate is no fluke. Both are the result of decades of deliberate choices made, and policies enacted, by ultra-wealthy and powerful corporations.



We can address both crises by doing four things:

►First, create green jobs

Investing in renewable energy could create millions of family sustaining, union jobs and build the infrastructure we need for marginalized communities to access clean water and air.
The transition to a renewable energy-powered economy can add 550,000 jobs each year while saving the US economy $78 billion through 2050.
In other words, a Green New Deal could turn the climate crisis into an opportunity - one that both addresses the climate emergency and creates a fairer and more equitable society.

►Second, stop dirty energy

A massive investment in renewable energy jobs isn’t enough to combat the climate crisis. If we are going to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must tackle the problem at its source: Stop digging up and burning more oil, gas, and coal.

The potential carbon emissions from these fossil fuels in the world’s currently developed fields and mines would take us well beyond the 1.5°C increased warming that Nobel Prize winning global scientists tell us the planet can afford. Given this, it’s absurd to allow fossil fuel corporations to start new dirty energy projects.

Even as fossil fuel companies claim to be pivoting toward clean energy, they are planning to invest trillions of dollars in new oil and gas projects that are inconsistent with global commitments to limit climate change. And over half of the industry’s expansion is projected to happen in the United States. Allowing these projects means locking ourselves into carbon emissions we can’t afford now, let alone in the decades to come.

Even if the U.S. were to transition to 100 percent renewable energy today, continuing to dig fossil fuels out of the ground will lead us further into climate crisis. If the U.S. doesn’t stop now, whatever we extract will simply be exported and burned overseas.

We will all be affected, but the poorest and most vulnerable among us will bear the brunt of the devastating impacts of climate change.

►Third, kick fossil fuel companies out of our politics

 For decades, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP have been polluting our democracy by pouring billions of dollars into our politics and bankrolling elected officials to enact policies that protect their profits.

The oil and gas industry spent over $103 million on the 2016 federal elections alone. And that’s just what they were required to report: that number doesn’t include the untold amounts of “dark money” they’ve been using to buy-off politicians and corrupt our democracy. The most conservative estimates still put their spending at 10 times that of environmental groups and the renewable energy industry.

As a result, American taxpayers are shelling out $20 billion a year to bankroll oil and gas projects – a huge transfer of wealth to the top. And that doesn’t even include hundreds of billions of dollars of indirect subsidies that cost every United States citizen roughly $2,000 a year. This has to stop.

And we’ve got to stop giving away public lands for oil and gas drilling. In 2018, under Trump, the Interior Department made $1.1 billion selling public land leases to oil and gas companies, an all-time record – triple the previous 2008 record, totaling more than 1.5 million acres for drilling alone, threatening multiple cultural sites and countless wildlife.

As recently as last September, the Trump administration opened 1.56 million acres of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, threatening Indigenous cultural heritage and hundreds of species that call it home.

That’s not all. The ban on exporting crude oil should be reintroduced and extended to other fossil fuels. The ban, in place for 40 years, was lifted in 2015, just days after the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement. After years of campaigning by oil executives, industry heads, and their army of lobbyists, the fossil fuel industry finally got its way.

We can’t wait for these changes to be introduced in 5 or 10 years time — we need them now.

►Fourth, require the fossil fuel companies that have profited from environmental injustice compensate the communities they’ve harmed

As if buying-off our democracy wasn’t enough, these corporations have also deliberately misled the public for years on the amount of damage their products have been causing.

For instance, as early as 1977, Exxon’s own scientists were warning managers that fossil fuel use would warm the planet and cause irreparable damage.

In the 1980s, Exxon shut down its internal climate research program and shifted to funding a network of advocacy groups, lobbying arms, and think tanks whose sole purpose was to cloud public discourse and block action on the climate crisis.

The five largest oil companies now spend about $197 million a year on ad campaigns claiming they care about the climate — all the while massively increasing their spending on oil and gas extraction.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans, especially poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities, already have to fight to drink clean water and breathe clean air as their communities are devastated by climate-fueled hurricanes, floods, and fires. As of 2015, nearly 21 million people relied on community water systems that violated health-based quality standards.

Going by population, that’s essentially 200 Flint, Michigans, happening all at once. If we continue on our current path, many more communities run the risk of becoming “sacrifice zones,” where citizens are left to survive the toxic aftermath of industrial activity with little, if any, help from the entities responsible for creating it.

Climate denial and rampant pollution are not victimless crimes. Fossil fuel corporations must be held accountable, and be forced to pay for the damage they’ve wrought.

If these solutions sound drastic to you, it’s because they are. They have to be if we have any hope of keeping our planet habitable. The climate crisis is not a far-off apocalyptic nightmare — it is our present day.

Australia’s bushfires wiped out a billion animals, California’s fire season wreaks more havoc every year, and record-setting storms are tearing through our communities like never before.

Scientists tell us we have 10 years left to dramatically reduce emissions. We have no room for meek half-measures wrapped up inside giant handouts to the fossil fuel industry.

We deserve a world without fossil fuels. A world in which workers and communities thrive and our shared climate comes before industry profits. Working together, I know we can make it happen. We have no time to waste.

Links

• There’s Less Than A Decade Left Before Climate Change Becomes Irreversible—Here’s What Activists Say We Can Do About It
• (AU) Tackling Climate Change Is Vital For The Strongest Economic Recovery After Coronavirus
• It’s Important To Keep Talking About Climate Change Now
• (NZ) Climate Change: We're Borrowing From Our Children, So Let's Make It Count
• Climate Responsibility
• Climate Change: For Big Emissions Reductions, We Need To Think Small
• How We Will All Solve The Climate Crisis
• How Changes Brought On By Coronavirus Could Help Tackle Climate Change
• Here Are The Top Ways The World Could Take On Climate Change In 2020
• (AU) We Must Fight Climate Change Like It’s World War Iii – Here Are 4 Potent Weapons To Deploy

Dutch Officials Reveal Measures To Cut Emissions After Court Ruling

The Guardian - Jonathan Watts

Green activists claim victory as government will spend €3bn on new climate initiatives

Marjan Minnesma with climate activists who were campaigning outside the Dutch Supreme Court last year during the case. Photograph: Ana Fernandez/SOPA Images/REX/Shutterstock

The Dutch government has announced measures including huge cuts to coal use, garden greening and limits on livestock herds as part of its plan to lower emissions to comply with a supreme court ruling.

Climate litigation activists described the move as “an enormous win”.

The small non-profit Urgenda Foundation, which filed the initial legal challenge in 2013, said this and earlier compliance measures totalled about €3bn euros, which confirms the impact of the world’s most successful climate lawsuit to date.

Under the new package, coal-fired power stations will have to scale back or close completely, cattle and pig herds will be reduced, subsidies will be provided to home owners to use less concrete and more plants in their gardens, and industry will have to find alternatives for several polluting processes.

“That is an enormous win,” said Marjan Minnesma, the director of Urgenda, which has 15-staff and operates out of two former school classrooms. “For many people this will give hope that it is possible to use the law as a strategic instrument for change.”

After a seven-year legal battle, the supreme court in the Hague ordered the government in December to reduce emissions by 15 megatonnes in 2020.

The judges accepted Urgenda’s argument that climate change posed a dangerous threat to human rights and the Netherlands needed to accelerate its actions to meet its international commitment of a 25% cut compared with 1990.

To comply, the government has adopted 30 of the proposals in Urgenda’s “54 Climate Solutions Plan”, which was drawn up in collaboration with 800 civil society groups and other organisations.

The headline change is a 75% reduction in capacity at the country’s three coal-fired power stations, all of which have been opened in the past five years. The government is also reportedly in negotiations to close one of these plants.

In addition, it will provide about €400m for household energy saving measures such as double glazing, €360m to compensate farmers for livestock reductions, and €30m for LED lighting in greenhouses.

Along with earlier steps – including lower speed limits to control emissions of nitrogen dioxide, €2bn for rooftop solar and other forms of renewable energy, solar panels on all school rooftops, more sustainable forestry and changes in the use of concrete, the measures are expected to save 8 megatonnes of emissions this year and provide extra benefits in terms of air quality and wildlife habitat.

Minnesma said this should be seen as a “promising start” because the government is still about 4 megatonnes short of its obligations. She said the coronavirus lockdown should not be used as an excuse to backpedal.

The package was presented to parliament on Friday afternoon. The government said the measures would provide an economic stimulus and also help to reduce nitrogen pollution, which has been the subject of other legal actions.

MPs said the package should inspire activists across the world to pursue litigation against governments that drag their feet.

“Without a doubt this should encourage climate lawsuits in other countries. It’s a shining example,” said Green party politician Tom van der Lee. “This package wouldn’t be there without an order from the highest court. Without that verdict, the government would have chosen a slower trajectory.”

The environmental law charity ClientEarth said the result was unprecedented in Europe and testament to the impact of climate litigation, which is spreading around the world. “The Urgenda case should be considered a groundbreaking success, not just legally, but for driving real world action on climate change,” Sophie Marjanac, a ClientEarth lawyer.

The Dutch legal system’s ease of access and political independence of judges helped to make the case possible. If Urgenda had lost, they would only have had to pay €18,000 rather than the government’s extensive costs.

The Urgenda case has been closely watched around the world. While climate activists have welcomed the outcome, they urge the Netherlands to raise ambition beyond 2020 compliance with the orders of the supreme court.

“The Netherlands now needs to lay out a strategy to reach net zero by around the middle of this century,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

Links

• Landmark Ruling That Holland Must Cut Emissions To Protect Citizens From Climate Change Upheld By Supreme Court
• 'New Weapon': Courts Offer Hope For Driving Serious Climate Action
• Doctrine of Public Trust
• Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions
• Dutch Government Appeals Against Court Ruling Over Emissions Cuts
• Are Countries Legally Required To Protect Citizens From Climate Change?
• See You In Court, Citizens Tell Governments On Climate Change
• The Trial Of The Century
• A Dramatic New Plan To Fight Climate Change: Sue The Federal Government
• More People Heading To Court To Spur Action On Climate Change, Study Finds
• Climate Change Before The Court

(AU) 'Kick Them Into Action': Fire Group Takes EPA To Court Over Climate

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam

Lisa Roberts spent 25 years building a native plant business that was as sustainable as they come, with off-grid solar power and water harvesting, only to see it go up in flames in the recent bushfires.

Her home and nursery in Wandella in southern NSW reduced to rubble, Ms Roberts fled to Canberra, powerless to act as fires threatened another venture in nearby Pialligo. Living in the smoke-choked capital also damaged her vocal cords, which have still not recovered.

Lisa Roberts and her partner lost their home and nursery in Wandella in summer's bushfires, prompting her to lead a novel legal case against the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Credit: Lisa Roberts

"A part of me totally rages at the world for its totally inadequate response to climate change," Ms Roberts said. "Everybody's safety is at risk."

That anger is being now channelled into a legal challenge against the NSW Environment Protection Authority. Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, of which Ms Roberts is a member, began the suit last week with the NSW Environmental Defenders Office "to kick [the EPA] into action", she said.

Today we're announcing a new case against the NSW EPA.

Our clients, the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, seek to compel the EPA to fulfill their duty + protect NSW communities by regulating greenhouse gases that cause catastrophic climate change. https://t.co/EnQusvDm8x pic.twitter.com/3RoDQdIRbR — Environmental Defenders Office (@EDOLawyers) April 19, 2020

EDO chief executive David Morris said the case, in the Land and Environment Court, would seek to force the EPA, which does not have a climate policy, to use its powers to keep communities safe from the increasingly severe impacts of a warming world.

Mr Morris said the EPA was chosen as a test case among similar agencies nationally in part because of a section of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

That section requires the agency to “develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection”.

"It's an opportunity for the EPA to recognise they have a legal obligation to take action," he said. "They should have a policy and a plan to address the greatest threat to the environment."

'A part of me totally rages': Lisa Roberts, a horticulturist entrepreneur, is part of a legal challenge against the NSW Environment Protection Authority after bushfires hit her multi-million businesses hard.

An EPA spokesman said the agency had received court documents from the EDO "and is considering them". A spokesman for NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean said it was "inappropriate to comment" on an ongoing legal matter.

The Land and Environment Court has made significant climate-related decisions before, including in February last year when it found the final, so-called scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning coal should be taken into account when considering the environmental impacts of new mines.

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action chairwoman Jo Dodds says she can't look at the environment without imagining how it will look when it is burnt.

Bushfire Survivors chairwoman Jo Dodds, who is also a Bega Shire councillor, said the group's 30-odd members had endured fires from the 2003 blazes in Canberra, Black Saturday in Victoria in 2009 and the fires that devastated parts of her town in Tathra two years ago.

Cr Dodds said the legal action was aimed at making the EPA "live up to its remit".

The agency "needs to have adequate policies around climate change", including setting limits on greenhouse emissions and enforcing them, she said.

Cr Dodds said she had to evacuate to the Bega River in 2018 and watch on as aerial water bombers tried to save hers and other homes from being engulfed in flames.

That experience, and the past season's endless fire threat, had left lingering emotional scars.
"I'm always looking at the environment and imagining what it will look like when it burns," she said.

At the time, the Tathra bushfires in March 2018 seemed unseasonal because they erupted in autumn. Last fire season, though, ran from July until February 2020. Credit: Suzie Duffy

Links

• 'New weapon': courts offer hope for driving serious climate action
• How You Can Take Your Government To Court For Not Acting On The Climate Crisis
• (AU) Can Legal Action Force Governments And Businesses To Respond To Climate Change?
• Climate Change Litigation Update
• (AU) Bushfire Survivors Join Claim Against ANZ For Financing Climate Crisis
• These residents stopped a coal mine, made history and sent ripples through boardrooms around the world
• Environment group seeks to join coal mine appeal after IPC drops out
• State government backs big batteries and solar to drive recovery

(AU) If We Can Put A Man On The Moon, We Can Save The Great Barrier Reef

The Conversation - Paul Hardisty | Christian Roth | Damien Burrows | David Mead
                                  Ken Anthony | Line K Bay | Mark Gibbs | Peter J Mumby

Credit: Shutterstock

Scientists recently confirmed the Great Barrier Reef suffered another serious bleaching event last summer—the third in five years. Dramatic intervention to save the natural wonder is clearly needed.

First and foremost, this requires global greenhouse gas emissions to be slashed. But the right combination of technological and biological interventions, deployed with care at the right time and scale, are also critical to securing the reef's future.

This could include methods designed to shade and cool the reef, techniques to help corals adapt to warmer temperatures, ways to help damaged reefs recover, and smart systems that target interventions to the most strategically beneficial locations.

Implementing such measures across the breadth of the reef—the world's biggest reef ecosystem—will not be easy, or cheap. In fact, we believe the scale of the task is greater than the Apollo 11 moon landing mission in 1969—but not impossible.

That mission was a success, not because a few elements worked to plan, but because of the integration, coordination and alignment of every element of the mission's goal: be the first to land and walk on the moon, and then fly home safely.

Half a century later, facing the ongoing decline of the Great Barrier Reef, we can draw important lessons from that historic human achievement.

Research into breeding coral hybrids for heat-stress resistance could help restore parts of the reef. Credit: Marie Roman/AIMS, Author provided

Intervening to save the reef

The recently released Reef Restoration and Adaptatio … pt feasibility study shows Australia could feasibly, and with reasonable probability of success, intervene to help the reef adapt to and recover from the effects of climate change.

The study, of which we were a part, involved more than 100 leading coral reef scientists, modellers, economists, engineers, business strategists, social scientists, decision scientists and reef managers.

It shows how new and existing interventions, supported by the best available research and development, could help secure a future for the reef.

We must emphasise that interventions to help the reef adapt to and recover from climate change will not, alone, save it. Success also depends on reducing global greenhouse emissions as quickly as possible. But the hands-on measures we're proposing could help buy time for the reef.

More than 100 coral reef scientists took part in the feasibility study. Credit: Nick Thake/AIMS, Author provided

Cloud brightening to heat-tolerant corals

Our study identified 160 possible interventions that could help revive the reef, and build on its natural resilience. We've whittled it down to the 43 most effective and realistic.

Possible interventions for further research and development include brightening clouds with salt crystals to shade and cool corals; ways to increase the abundance of naturally heat-tolerant corals in local populations, such as through aquarium-based selective breeding and release; and methods to promote faster recovery on damaged reefs, such as deploying structures designed to stabilise reef rubble.

But there will be no single silver bullet solution. The feasibility study showed that methods working in combination, along with water quality improvement and crown-of-thorns starfish control, will provide the best results.

Harder than landing on the moon

There are four reasons why saving the Great Barrier Reef in coming decades could be more challenging than the 1969 moon mission.

Field testing the heat resistant coral hybrids in the Great Barrier Reef. Credit: Kate Green/AIMS, Author provided

First, warming events have already driven the reef into decline with back-to-back bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, and now again in 2020. The next major event is now only just around the corner.

Second, current emission reduction pledges would see the world warm by 2.3-3.5℃ relative to pre-industrial levels. This climate scenario, which is not the worst case, would be beyond the range that allows today's coral reef ecosystems to function.

Without swift action, the prospect for the world's coral reefs is bleak, with most expected to become seriously degraded before mid-century.

Third, we still have work to do to control local pressures, including water quality and marine pests crown-of-thorns starfish.

And fourth, the inherent complexity of natural systems, particularly ones as diverse as coral reefs, provides an additional challenge not faced by NASA engineers 50 years ago.

So keeping the Great Barrier Reef, let alone the rest of the world's reefs, safe from climate change will dwarf the challenge of any space mission. But there is hope.

The Great Barrier Reef has been hit by consecutive bleaching events – restoring it may be harder than landing on the moon. Credit: Shutterstock

We must start now

The federal government recently re-announced A$100 million from the Reef Trust Partnership towards a major research and development effort for this program. This will be augmented by contributions of A$50m from research institutions, and additional funding from international philanthropists.

Our study shows that under a wide range of future emission scenarios, the program is very likely to be worth the effort, more so if the world meets the Paris target and rapidly cuts greenhouse gas emissions.

What's more, economic analyses included in the feasibility study show successful Great Barrier Reef intervention at scale could create benefits to Australia of between A$11 billion and A$773 billion over a 60-year period, with much of it flowing to regional economies and Traditional Owner communities.

And perhaps more importantly, if Australia is successful in this effort, we can lead the world in a global effort to save these natural wonders bequeathed to us across the ages. We must start the journey now. If we wait, it may be too late.

Links

• (AU) We Just Spent Two Weeks Surveying The Great Barrier Reef. What We Saw Was An Utter Tragedy
• (AU) Scientists Trial Cloud Brightening Equipment To Shade And Cool Great Barrier Reef
• Big Parts Of The Great Barrier Reef Are Dying
• More Than Half Of Remote Reefs In Coral Sea Marine Park Suffered Extreme Bleaching
• (AU) Great Barrier Reef Found To Be Coral Bleached From North To South For First Time
• Rescuing The Great Barrier Reef: How Much Can Be Saved, And How Can We Do It?
• Climate Crisis May Have Pushed World's Tropical Coral Reefs To Tipping Point Of 'Near-Annual' Bleaching
• (AU) Great Barrier Reef’s Latest Bleaching Confirmed By Marine Park Authority

The Pandemic Could Be A Call To Action On Climate Change

Washington Post - Ishaan Tharoor

This combination photo shows Murcia, Spain, days before the national coronavirus lockdown on Feb. 29, left, and again weeks into the lockdown on April 23. (Maarcial Guillen/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Amid its horrors and tragedies, the coronavirus pandemic has driven home a startling reality.

Travel bans and lockdowns have cleaned the globe, flushing the murk from Venice’s canals, clearing Delhi’s polluted smog, making distant snowy peaks visible for the first time in years from the shores of the Bosporus.

With humans in retreat, nature reclaimed what was once its own in whimsical ways: Goats strutted through villages, antlered deer grazed on manicured city lawns and mountain lions found perches by suburban fences.

U.S. scientists still predict 2020 will be the hottest year on record, even as experts forecast the largest annual drop in carbon emissions in modern history — a direct consequence of the pandemic’s freeze on human activity, trade and travel. The crisis isn’t uniformly good news for the planet: For example, satellite data shows that deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is at its fastest pace in years, with environmental officials otherwise sidelined or preoccupied by the outbreak.

The pandemic is not just a reminder of the human impact on the environment, including the significance of man-made emissions on global warming and air pollution. It’s also similar: an imperceptible menace that knows no borders, overwhelms aging infrastructure and bedevils policymakers and politicians who struggle to grapple with the scale of the threat.

“A good way to think about the coronavirus pandemic is that it is like climate change at warp speed. What takes decades and centuries for the climate takes days or weeks for a contagious disease,” New York University climate economist Gernot Wagner wrote last month. “That speed focuses the mind and offers lessons in how to think about risk in an interconnected world.”

"We now must put our differences aside and cooperate and listen to the science and the experts." That's why we're supporting @WHO to prevent the next pandemic before it starts. Join us and @GretaThunberg and take the pledge to stay #TogetherAtHome: https://t.co/26xVXSb0qy pic.twitter.com/sqiJMrF3V2

— Global Citizen (@GlblCtzn) April 18, 2020

The question now is who’s learning what lessons.

 The commemorations for the 50th annual Earth Day saw a litany of prominent climate campaigners link action on that front to the experience of the outbreak.

For years, climate scientists have been calling on governments to “flatten the curve” — that is, reduce emissions to lessen the likely catastrophic toll global warming will exact on societies in decades to come.

In the Boston Globe, former U.S. secretary of state John F. Kerry pointed to evidence suggesting climate change could be a “threat multiplier” for zoonotic and pandemic diseases. He also took aim at President Trump and other politicians who cling to positions outside the scientific consensus and impede collective action.

“Just as in today’s pandemic, progress has been halted by finger-pointing, denial, replacing real science with junk science, misinformation, and flat-out lies, elevating political hacks instead of scientists and experts, refusal to work with allies and even adversaries, and leaving states and cities to fend for themselves,” wrote Kerry.

“The coronavirus pandemic has delivered sharp and painful reminders of our collective vulnerability and the value of paying very close attention to reality,” wrote physicist Mark Buchanan. “If there’s any good to come out of the current tragedy, it may be in helping to persuade a few people to help tip the scales and get our leaders to take the next looming issue much more seriously.”

The Trump administration isn’t quite set on tipping the scales.

Stimulus money the White House has been empowered to spend in the pandemic’s aftermath may go to U.S. fossil fuel companies that were already in financial trouble before the crisis.

On Earth Day, Andrew Wheeler, Trump’s administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, sought to shift focus away from climate change to government efforts to curb pollution.

“We’re taking climate change seriously,” Wheeler told The Washington Post’s PowerUp newsletter. “But it’s not the only environmental issue that we face as a planet.”

But away from the White House, others are seeking to take the lead. Under the aegis of the World Economic Forum, major financial firms — including some that may help manage elements of the federal response to the pandemic — have pledged to divest from fossil fuels. Campaigners are calling for government stimulus to fund sustainable development projects that could build the green economy. The World Bank is proposing linking governments’ post-pandemic spending to greener infrastructure projects and future disaster-proofing.

NEW: Two thirds of Britons believe #ClimateChange is as serious as #COVID19 and a majority want it prioritised in an economic recovery https://t.co/6aNuPPk2P6 #EarthDay pic.twitter.com/mtrKgUF2bX

— Ipsos MORI (@IpsosMORI) April 22, 2020

In Washington, there’s a cautious hope that the urgency presented both by climate change and the pandemic may cool the geopolitical tensions between the United States and China and force greater global collaboration.

“We all breathe the same air and we’re all going to live with the same rising seas,” Michael Chertoff, a former head of the Department of Homeland Security in the George W. Bush administration, told Today’s WorldView during a webinar this week. “And whatever we may disagree about some things, we’re going to need to sit down with them and our like-minded allies and everybody else and figure out what can we do collectively to protect the global commons against either pandemic diseases or disastrous climate change.”

But, as Slate’s Joshua Keating noted, the opposite may well be true, given the growing hostility between both countries. He added that some right-wing parties elsewhere in the West have already seized on the threat of climate change not as a call for collective action, but as a justification for limiting migration and unraveling globalization.

“It’s not hard to imagine a future U.S. administration, rather than denying the increasingly obvious reality of climate change, using it to argue that the country needs tougher immigration controls and fewer refugees,” wrote Keating. “The alternative, they will argue, is to be overwhelmed by the human invaders and see our own natural resources depleted in the way other countries already have.”

Links

• Analysis: Coronavirus set to cause largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions
• The Energy 202: Three charts that explain what coronavirus is doing to climate emissions
• Thinking ahead: For a sustainable recovery from COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• This year is on track to be Earth’s warmest on record, beating 2016, NOAA says
• Amazon Deforestation Accelerates as Coronavirus Pandemic Hinders Enforcement
• Coronavirus Shows We Are Not At All Prepared For The Security Threat Of Climate Change
• Carbon Emissions From Fossil Fuels Could Fall By 2.5bn Tonnes In 2020
• (AU) Tackling Climate Change Is Vital For The Strongest Economic Recovery After Coronavirus
• (US) Coronavirus Is A Dress Rehearsal For Climate Change
• (AU) Climate Scientists Say Coronavirus Could Be Australia's Golden Opportunity

(AU) Two Thirds Of Citizens Around The World Agree Climate Change Is As Serious A Crisis As Covid-19 – Ipsos Survey

Ipsos - Climate Change

Most Australians support a green economic recovery from COVID-19.

Citizens want economic recovery actions to prioritise climate change.

A new Ipsos poll conducted in 14 countries shows widespread support for government actions to prioritise climate change in the economic recovery after COVID-19 with 65% globally agreeing that this is important.

For Australia, 57% agreed climate change should be prioritised in the economic recovery actions.

Furthermore, the survey finds that 71% of adults globally agree that, in the long term, climate change is as serious a crisis as COVID-19. While the majority of Australians (59%) agree climate change is as serious a crisis as COVID-19, this is well below the global average.

The survey was conducted online among more than 28,000 adults between April 16^th and April 19^th 2020.

A second Ipsos survey commissioned for Earth Day found that while climate change remains the most important environmental issue for citizens globally, they are no more likely to say they plan to make changes to their own environmental behaviours than they were six years ago.

The second survey was carried out online among more than 20,000 adults across 29 countries between Friday, February 21^st and March 6^th 2020.

Key Australian findings include:
 

• Climate change remains the most important environmental issue to Australians. Two-in-five (42%) cited it as one of the three most important environmental issues facing the nation. This was consistent with the global trend; climate change is the number one environmental issue globally too (37% identified it as a top issue).
   
• Also of concern to Australians are dealing with the amount of waste we generate (37%); future energy sources and supplies (29%); wildlife conservation (25%); and overpopulation (24%).
   
• Globally, other environmental issues that are important to citizens are air pollution (33%) and dealing with the amount of waste we generate (32%), followed by deforestation (26%) and water pollution (25%). Concern for the top four issues has increased since two years ago.
   
• A majority of the public globally (68%) agrees that if their governments do not act now to combat climate change, they will be failing their citizens. Australians feel similarly, 65% agreed Government inaction on climate change would be failing citizens.
   
• More than half of Australians (55%) say they would be put off from voting for a political party whose policies do not take climate change seriously.
   

Comparison of this year’s findings highlight changing environmental priorities for Australians. In 2018, future energy sources and supplies was a top-three environmental concern for Australians (40% identified it as a top environmental issue, compared with 29% this year).

Climate change was the third most commonly mentioned issue for Australians in 2018 at 35%; and is the number one environmental issue this year, up by 7 points to 42%.

Of all the countries’ citizens surveyed in 2020, Australians placed the greatest concern on wildlife conservation. A quarter (25%) of Australians identify it as a top-three issue compared with an average of 15% globally.

It is likely this concern has been shaped by the loss of Australian wildlife during the bushfire crisis over summer. However, concern was also relatively high in 2018 compared with the rest of the world. In 2018, 22% of Australians selected this issue (14% globally).

Across a range of environmental behaviours, as many as two fifths globally feel they are already contributing as much as they possibly can by undertaking specific behaviours.

Australians feel they are already doing much to limit their impact on climate change including recycling (54% report they are already doing as much as they possibly can); saving energy at home (e.g. through insulation, 43% already doing as much as they possibly can); and saving water at home (40% already doing as much as they possibly can).

Australians are divided on whether the environment should have to endure some setbacks in order to help the economy to recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19.

Half (50%) agree that the Government should focus on helping the economy to recover first and foremost, even if that means taking some actions that are bad for the environment. Two-in-five (41%) disagree.

Ipsos Australia Public Affairs Director, Jennifer Brook, said: “It’s not surprising Australians feel conflicted about the potential of environmental sacrifices for economic recovery.

"In another of our monthly Ipsos Issues Monitor surveys, we have seen the environment get pushed out as the number one issue facing the nation at the start of 2020 to be replaced by healthcare, the economy and unemployment.

“These three issues have all experienced a dramatic surge in concern during the coronavirus pandemic. At the beginning of the year, it was the bushfire crisis that put the environment at the top of the list, but clearly COVID-19 is driving concern about these other issues at the moment.

“Despite the environment taking a back seat compared with other current issues, it’s still important to people. There is strong support among the public for a green economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.

"The importance of staying at home as much as possible is having major impacts on our consumption and travel patterns at present. What remains to be seen is how sticky these behaviour changes are as the economy opens up again in post-pandemic life.”

Technical notes
 

• The findings come from two surveys conducted by Ipsos on the Global Advisor online platform.
   
• One is a 14-country survey conducted April 16-19, 2020 among 28,029 adults aged 18-74 in Canada and the United States and 16-74 in Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia and Spain. The sample consisted of approximately 2,000+ individuals in each of the 14 countries.
   
• The other is a 29-country survey conducted February 21 - March 6, 2020 among 20,590 adults aged 18-74 in the United States, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Turkey and aged 16-74 in 23 other markets.
  The sample for this survey included approximately 1000+ individuals in each of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland), France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S.; and approximately 500+ individuals in each of Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Hungary, India, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey.
   
• The precision of Ipsos online polls are calculated using a credibility interval with a poll of 1,000 accurate to +/- 3.1 percentage points and of 500 accurate to +/- 4.5 percentage points. For more information on the Ipsos use of credibility intervals, please visit the Ipsos website.
   
• 17 of the 29 countries surveyed online generate nationally representative samples in their countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and United States).
  Brazil, China, Chile, Colombia, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey produce a national sample that is more urban & educated, and with higher incomes than their fellow citizens. 
  We refer to these respondents as “Upper Deck Consumer Citizens”.  They are not nationally representative of their country.
   
• Weighting was employed in both surveys to balance demographics and ensure that the sample's composition reflects that of the adult population according to the most recent country Census data, and to provide results intended to approximate the sample universe.
   

Links

• Ipsos full report (ZIP) | 1MB
• Ipsos Earth Day
• Australians' environmental concerns in January 2020
• Ipsos Predictions 2020
• Understanding Australia 2019
• Australians rank their most important Sustainable Development Goals
• Are you doing anything different in your life to combat climate change?
• Saving the planet starts at home

Devastating Simulations Say Sea Ice Will Be Completely Gone In Arctic Summers By 2050

ScienceAlert - Peter Dockrill

Arctic ice changes from 1984 to 2016. Cindy Starr/NASA SVS

For millions of years, the Arctic has observed an unbroken ritual. In winter, Arctic sea ice expands, as sub-zero polar temperatures freeze waters in their place. In summer, the ice pack retreats, as warmer temperatures thaw the winter-made gains, surrendering them back to the ocean.

In the era of anthropogenic climate change, the ebb and flow of this timeless cycle has become disturbed. For decades, the overall coverage of Arctic sea ice has been in decline, expanding less and retreating more with each year. Nonetheless, the Arctic has, as always, remained frozen, covered in sea ice, even in the summer. It may not for much longer.

A new analysis of numerous climate models predicts the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free in the summer in only decades, and even before the mid-point of this century – a startling forecast that persists even in the best case scenarios, in which we manage to significantly cut down atmospheric CO2 emissions.

"If we reduce global emissions rapidly and substantially, and thus keep global warming below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, Arctic sea ice will nevertheless likely disappear occasionally in summer even before 2050," says polar geophysicist Dirk Notz from the University of Hamburg in Germany.

"This really surprised us."

Sea ice area at the end of the Arctic summer in 1979, at left, versus 2019. Dirk Notz

In the new study, Notz and his team examined dozens of different climate models simulating the evolution of Arctic sea ice in the future.

The models – which come from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) – comprise some of the latest generation of global climate models, and encompass a number different hypothetical scenarios, including trajectories based on rapid reduction of future CO2 emissions, as well as largely unchanged, 'business as usual' situations.

In most of the CMIP6 simulations, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (defined to mean sea‐ice area covering an area of less than 1 million square kilometres) in summers before we reach the year 2050, and regardless of the hypothetical scenario employed.

"The CMIP6 models simulate a large spread for when Arctic sea-ice area is predicted to drop below 1 million km², such that the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea-ice free," the authors write in their paper.

"However, the clear majority of all models, and of those models that best capture the observed evolution, project that the Arctic will become practically sea-ice free in September before the year 2050 at future anthropogenic CO2 emissions of less than 1,000 [gigatonnes of] CO2 above that of 2019 in all scenarios."

Dirk Notz

While the results are certainly shocking, the overall prediction of a soon-to-be ice-free Arctic is not. Scientists have been forecasting this outcome for years, envisaging the end of the Arctic as we know it, and speculating what this could mean for all kinds of other ecosystems.

It's also something that will amplify the global warming effects the world is currently experiencing, scientists say, as with less ice in the Arctic, less sunlight can be reflected in the region, meaning our hotter planet absorbs even more heat as the North Pole increasingly melts away.

"It's a two-way street," NASA climate scientist Claire Parkinson, who wasn't involved with the current study, explained in 2018.

"The warming means less ice is going to form and more ice is going to melt, but also, because there's less ice, less of the Sun's incident solar radiation is reflected off, and this contributes to the warming."
If there's any good news here, it's that we may still be able to lessen the frequency of these ice-free Arctic summers, if we can manage to steeply reduce our CO2 emissions.

Models and simulations can predict many things, but the only trajectory that really matters is the path we collectively decide to take.

The findings are reported in Geophysical Research Letters.

Links

• Geophysical Research Letters: Arctic Sea Ice
• The end of the Arctic as we know it
• Disappearing sea ice is changing the whole ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean
• The emergence of modern sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean
• Arctic sea ice decline
• What Do Global Climate Models Tell Us about Future Arctic Sea Ice Coverage Changes?