Another Two Years Lost To Climate Inaction, Says Greta Thunberg

The Guardian - Damian Carrington

Two years on from her first school strike, activist attacks ‘ignorance and unawareness’

A mural of Greta Thunberg by artist Jody Thomas in Bristol.

Two years on from Greta Thunberg’s first solo school strike for the climate, she says the world has wasted the time by failing to take the necessary action on the crisis.

Thunberg’s strike inspired a global movement, and on Thursday she and other leading school strikers will meet Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, which holds the rotating presidency of the European council. They will demand a halt to all fossil fuel investments and subsidies and the establishment of annual, binding carbon budgets based on the best science.

“Looking back [over two years], a lot has happened. Many millions have taken to the streets … and on 28 November 2019, the European parliament declared a climate and environmental emergency,” Thunberg said in an article for the Guardian with fellow strikers Luisa Neubauer, Anuna de Wever and Adélaïde Charlier.

“But over these last two years, the world has also emitted over 80bn tonnes of CO₂. We have seen continuous natural disasters taking place across the globe. Many lives and livelihoods have been lost, and this is only the very beginning.”

They said leaders were speaking of an “existential crisis”, yet “when it comes to action, we are still in a state of denial. The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute. Effectively, we have lost another two crucial years to political inaction.”

Thunberg and her colleagues said fighting the climate emergency must involve rich nations stopping some of their polluting activities. “However, it’s a fact which most people refuse to accept. Just the thought of being in a crisis that we cannot buy, build or invest our way out of seems to create some kind of collective mental short-circuit. This mix of ignorance, denial and unawareness is the very heart of the problem,” they said.

The trillions of dollars being spent by governments in response to the coronavirus pandemic are seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put the world on course to halt global heating, with economists, scientists and health experts all saying the benefits would outweigh the costs.

However, G20 governments’ rescue packages are giving significantly more support to fossil fuels than to low-carbon energy. Germany’s recovery plan includes €40bn for climate measures such as electric vehicles, public transport and energy efficiency, and has been praised by green groups. But elsewhere, too little is being done, Thunberg and colleagues said.

“Even a child can see that the policies of today are incompatible with the current best available science,” they said.

Scientists calculate that global carbon emissions must be cut by half by the end of this decade if humanity is to have a reasonable chance of keeping temperature rises to below 1.5C, the limit set in the Paris climate deal. Drops in emissions during coronavirus lockdowns are only a small blip in a long-term rising trend and will have a “negligible” effect on the climate crisis, researchers say.

“We understand the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy or seem unrealistic,” said the school strikers. “But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our societies would be able to survive the global heating we’re heading for. We are inevitably going to have to fundamentally change, one way or another. The question is: will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?”

Links

• Greta Thunberg: the world is still in a state of climate crisis denial
• Greta Thunberg says EU recovery plan fails to tackle climate crisis
• Greta Thunberg in Bristol: thousands turn out for climate strike
• Global climate strike: Greta Thunberg and school students lead climate crisis protest – as it happened
• ‘We need everyone’: Greta Thunberg calls on adults to join climate strikes
• Germany’s AfD turns on Greta Thunberg as it embraces climate denial
• Greta Thunberg backs climate general strike to force leaders to act
• Greta Thunberg hopes to join climate protests during London visit
• Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel peace prize

After Two Years Of School Strikes, The World Is Still In A State Of Climate Crisis Denial

The Guardian - Greta Thunberg | Luisa Neubauer | Anuna De Wever | Adélaïde Charlier

We can have as many meetings as we like, but the will to change is nowhere in sight. Society must start treating this as a crisis

‘The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute.’ The Rhenish brown coalfield in Bergheim, Germany, Europe’s largest carbon dioxide source. Photograph: Sascha Steinbach/EPA

Authors Greta Thunberg is a 17-year-old environmental campaigner from Sweden. This article was co-written with youth climate activists Luisa Neubauer from Germany, Anuna de Wever from Belgium, and Adélaïde Charlier from Belgium

On Thursday 20 August, it will be exactly two years since the first school strike for the climate took place.

Looking back, a lot has happened.

Many millions have taken to the streets to join the decades-long fight for climate and environmental justice. And on 28 November 2019, the European parliament declared a “climate and environmental emergency”.

But over these past two years, the world has also emitted more than 80 gigatonnes of CO₂. We have seen continuous natural disasters taking place across the globe: wildfires, heatwaves, flooding, hurricanes, storms, thawing of permafrost and collapsing of glaciers and whole ecosystems. Many lives and livelihoods have been lost. And this is only the very beginning.

Today, leaders all over the world are speaking of an “existential crisis”. The climate emergency is discussed on countless panels and summits. Commitments are being made, big speeches are given. Yet, when it comes to action we are still in a state of denial.

The climate and ecological crisis has never once been treated as a crisis. The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute. Effectively, we have lost another two crucial years to political inaction.

Last month, just ahead of the European council summit, we published an open letter with demands to EU and world leaders. Since then, more than 125,000 people have signed this letter. Tomorrow we will meet the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and deliver the letter and demands, as well as the signatures.

We will tell Merkel that she must face up to the climate emergency – especially as Germany now holds the presidency of the European council. Europe has a responsibility to act. The EU and the United Kingdom are accountable for 22% of historic accumulative global emissions, second only to the United States.

It is immoral that the countries that have done the least to cause the problem are suffering first and worst. The EU must act now, as it has signed up to do in the Paris agreement.

Our demands include halting all fossil fuel investments and subsidies, divesting from fossil fuels, making ecocide an international crime, designing policies that protect workers and the most vulnerable, safeguarding democracy and establishing annual, binding carbon budgets based on the best available science.

We understand the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy or may seem unrealistic. But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our societies would be able to survive the global heating we’re heading for – as well as other disastrous ecological consequences of today’s business as usual.

We are inevitably going to have to fundamentally change, one way or another. The question is, will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?

In the Paris agreement, world leaders committed themselves to keeping the global average temperature rise to well below 2C, and aiming for 1.5C. Our demands demonstrate what that commitment means. Yet this is just the very minimum of what needs to be done to deliver on those promises.

So if leaders are not willing to do this, they’ll have to start explaining why they’re giving up on the Paris agreement. Giving up on their promises. Giving up on the people living in the most affected areas. Giving up on the chances of handing over a safe future for their children. Giving up without even trying.

Science doesn’t tell anyone what to do, it merely collects and presents verified information. It is up to us to study and connect the dots.

When you read the IPCC SR1.5 report and the UNEP production gap report, as well as what leaders have actually signed up for in the Paris agreement, you see that the climate and ecological crisis can no longer be solved within today’s systems.

Even a child can see that policies of today don’t add up with the current best available science.

We need to end the ongoing wrecking, exploitation and destruction of our life support systems and move towards a fully decarbonised economy that is centred on the wellbeing of all people, democracy and the natural world.

If we are to have a chance of staying below 1.5C of warming, our emissions need to immediately start reducing rapidly towards zero and then on to negative figures. That’s a fact.

And since we don’t have all the technical solutions we need to achieve that, we have to work with what we have at hand today. And this has to include stopping doing certain things. That’s also a fact.

However, it’s a fact that most people refuse to accept. Just the thought of being in a crisis that we cannot buy, build or invest our way out of seems to create some kind of collective mental short circuit.

This mix of ignorance, denial and unawareness is at the very heart of the problem. As it is now, we can have as many meetings and climate conferences as we want.

They will not lead to sufficient changes, because the willingness to act and the level of awareness needed are still nowhere in sight. The only way forward is for society to start treating the crisis like a crisis.

We still have the future in our own hands. But time is rapidly slipping through our fingers. We can still avoid the worst consequences. But to do that, we have to face the climate emergency and change our ways. And that is the uncomfortable truth we cannot escape.

Links

• Report: Vital time being lost to climate inertia, say activists
• Another Two Years Lost To Climate Inaction, Says Greta Thunberg
• 'Our house is on fire': EU parliament declares climate emergency
• Global Carbon Emissions
• Why don’t we treat the climate crisis with the same urgency as coronavirus?
• Face The Climate Emergency​
• Global Warming of 1.5 ºC
• Governments planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels by 2030

The Guardian View On Coronavirus And The Climate Crisis: Seize This Chance

The Guardian - Editorial

Greta Thunberg has warned that we have wasted valuable time in the fight against global heating. We need Green New Deals

Greta Thunberg, left, takes part in a protest on 5 March 2020. Photograph: François Walschaerts/AFP via Getty Images

In the early days of the pandemic, many people urged that societies could not and should not return to business as usual afterwards. Coronavirus not only confronted us with danger, but showed what was possible.

By forcing massive overnight change, it demonstrated that dramatic action could be taken when a crisis was urgent enough; that many people could agree to make sacrifices when truly necessary; and that governments could invest trillions when the future of their countries demanded it. But as the great pause has turned into a gradual reopening, there is little sign that these lessons have been learned.

Greta Thunberg’s call for climate action should be seen in this context. The campaigner, writing for the Guardian to mark the second anniversary of her first school strike, says the world has wasted that time. While millions have been inspired to follow her in protest, and the European parliament has declared a climate and environmental emergency, little action has resulted.

Over the last six months or so, the pandemic has not only demonstrated that change can be quicker than anyone anticipated, it has also offered a practical opportunity to reconfigure economies. Governments are spending money as they have never done in peacetime. Germany and South Korea have seized this chance for big green investments.

Others, including the UK, have not. Shockingly, G20 countries are spending much more in support of fossil fuels than on low-carbon energy in their rescue packages; few even imposed green targets when they bailed out the airlines, as France did.

Boris Johnson promised that Britain would “build back greener” and Rishi Sunak pledged a green recovery. Yet the chancellor’s summer statement showed precious little sign of that beyond the £3bn insulation programme – unimpressive given the £9bn promised in the Conservatives’ November manifesto. These shortcomings look all the more glaring when the UK is not on course to meet its 2025 or 2030 carbon targets, and when it will host next year’s crucial UN climate change conference.

They are also more concerning as we experience rising temperatures and strange weather patterns. A week ago, scientists warned that the past decade was the hottest ever recorded. In recent weeks Britons have sweltered through a heatwave and farmers have warned of the worst wheat harvest since the 1980s due to consecutive seasons of extreme weather.

Ms Thunberg’s article, co-written with fellow activists, notes that the movement’s demands may seem unrealistic – but that it is much more so to believe that our societies could survive the global heating and other disastrous ecological outcomes we are heading for: “The question is, will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?” they ask.

Just over a decade ago, the UN secretary general and others urged a Green New Deal in response to the global financial crisis. The world missed that opportunity, and looks set to repeat its mistake. But the benefits of a drastic shift in priorities are clearer than ever: economists and health experts say that they would outweigh the costs.

The World Economic Forum said last month that tackling what it calls the global nature crisis could create 400 million jobs and $10tn (£8tn) in business value each year by 2030 – while the current rate of destruction threatens half of global GDP.

There is still time to act. Economic rescue packages are still being shaped; Berlin’s has shown what is possible. In the UK, coal’s role in power generation has slumped from almost 25% to 2% in just a few years, and the offshore wind industry is thriving.

The ban on petrol and diesel cars slated for 2035 should be accelerated, and the installation of gas boilers outlawed. But above all, pandemic response spending must be directed to those parts of the economy that can reduce global heating, not worsen it.

Links

• Nature-led coronavirus recovery could create $10tn a year, says WEF
• Another Two Years Lost To Climate Inaction, Says Greta Thunberg
• Climate crisis exerting increasing impact on UK, says Met Office
• Last decade was Earth's hottest on record as climate crisis accelerates
• 'Our house is on fire': EU parliament declares climate emergency
• Global Carbon Emissions
• Why don’t we treat the climate crisis with the same urgency as coronavirus?
• Face The Climate Emergency​
• Global Warming of 1.5 ºC
• Governments planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels by 2030

(AU) Fight For Planet A: Our Climate Challenge Episode 2

ABC TV - Fight For Planet A

Fight for Planet A: Our Climate Challenge explores how we can all reduce our individual and collective carbon emissions. This three-part documentary aims to empower and motivate Australians to take action on climate change. 

Fight For Planet A: Our Climate Challenge Tuesdays 8.30pm on ABC + iview Craig Reucassel tackles one of our planet's biggest challenges: climate change, exploring where our energy comes from, health effects of transport and travel emissions plus the carbon footprint of what we eat. Episode 2 iview

Fight for Planet A: Our Climate Challenge explores how we can all reduce our individual and collective carbon emissions.

This three-part documentary aims to empower and motivate Australians to take action on climate change.

In Episode 2, Craig Reucassel investigates Australia's  transport emissions, which are the second major contributor to the nation's total carbon emissions.

He explores how we can make the move from petrol guzzlers to electric vehicles.

The Guardian reports:

Over three episodes, the team that made the ABC’s highly successful War on Waste delve into the more abstract but urgent issue of carbon emissions, and with it a vital question: how do you convince Australians that something they cannot see represents their greatest existential threat?

Fight for Planet A uses balloons to give Australia’s emissions a visual representation, and right from the first episode, we’re left in no doubt that there are too many of them. But what to do about it? And do we have the bandwidth to deal with the climate crisis now given everything else that’s going on in the world?

The onset of the coronavirus pandemic initially meant the air date for the show, which was filmed last year, was pushed back from June to August. Stephen Oliver, manager of documentaries at the ABC, thinks that now is the time to get the climate back on the agenda.

“No one knew how long the pandemic would last, how serious it would be, how it would change people’s psychology. It’s still bad, but to some extent, with the exception of the situation in Melbourne, we have come to terms with it,” he says.

And although global lockdowns have caused emissions to plummet, it is long-term behaviour and policy change that will make a difference in the long term. So how do we make that happen?

Fight for Planet A is a solutions-based show that aims to empower viewers to cut their own emissions at home and in their communities.

By way of example, five Australian households were chosen to take on the show’s “climate challenge” to reduce the carbon emissions generated by the energy they used, their modes of transport and their food production.

Can the wealthy family with underfloor heating and a massive TV for their pets cut their electricity bill? Can the share house of five blokes use less hot water and skateboard to uni instead of driving an old banger?

Those strategies for individuals wanting to reduce their carbon footprint include everything from changing showerheads so less water is used, to ditching the car, to switching to solar panels. There’s a good segment on how easy it is to cut emissions in schools by turning off power points at the end of the day.

Craig Reucassel with members of the community of Oatlands public school. Photograph: ABC TV

Other solutions are more expensive and thus more difficult – such as trading in your old fossil-fuel-guzzling car for an electric vehicle (the cheapest in Australia starts at around $50,000).

When asked if a lot of the individual environmental fixes are geared towards the rich, Reucassel told Guardian Australia: “People who are wealthier – say, in the top 50% of income – have a larger carbon footprint. They travel more, their houses are bigger, they use more energy. We need to call on the rich people first – we shouldn’t be putting more of the burden on poorer people.”

But does all this community and individual empowerment let the government and big business off the hook?

Reucassel says: “I wouldn’t have done this show if it had only been about individual change. But people becoming involved and interested in an issue changes the political debate and more strongly influences the business debate. We can underestimate the role that the public can take in leading.”

Councils too have proven to be proactive when it comes to grassroots climate action, says Reucassel, “much more so than leadership at a federal level, which tends to be really depressing”.

“Unlike coronavirus, we know the solutions to climate change,” says Oliver. “We can actually do something about climate change, whereas with the pandemic we’re sitting there waiting for the experts to find a vaccine. We wear a mask and stay distant but we’re not actually solving the problem, we’re waiting for experts to solve the problem.

“But we can all solve the problem of climate change. This is empowering. We can give people solutions rather than just bunker down waiting for more horror to hit us.”

“The hardest part is getting people to visualise emissions,” says Reucassel. But knowledge is power. “In Australia, change is up against far more vested interests – that’s why we need a population that is knowledgeable and engaged.”

Oliver agrees. “It’s about getting people to be more engaged in the issue instead of feeling a bit angry and hopeless. If you only focus on the big corporations and the government you can get angry, frustrated and just kind of retreat from the conversation.”

YOUR PLANET

Links

• Climate Change TV
• Representing climate change on public service television: A case study
• We Tried to Write a Blog About TV Shows Tackling Climate Change. Here’s What Happened
• TV’s climate change problem
• Broadcast news networks paid more attention to climate change in 2019
• Children's educational TV falls short on climate change
• Climate Communicators
• Community Solutions Plan: Connect with others to reduce emissions
• Carbon Counter: The simple changes that can help you create less CO2
• Fight For Planet A: Our Climate Challenge
• Stability of the grid (video)
• Park it for the Planet to help reduce carbon emissions
• Is community solar power the future?
• Back to Nature: Making money while restoring the land (video)
• Resourceful Renters
• Australia's Ocean Odyssey

Tessa Khan: ‘Litigation Is A Powerful Tool In The Environmental Crisis’

The Guardian - Tessa Khan

When a court in the Netherlands ruled its government’s actions unlawful, it inspired others to hold big polluters to account

From the Philippines to Canada to Colombia, people are looking for accountability for decades of broken promises.’ Composite: Getty Images 

Tessa Khan Tessa Khan is a climate change lawyer, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network and a member of Urgenda’s legal team

At key moments in history, courts around the world have helped to accelerate social change – they have vindicated the demands of people fighting to end slavery, racial segregation and gender inequality.

It should therefore come as no surprise that they are being called on to help resolve the biggest social and environmental crisis of our time: the climate emergency.

The case against the government of the Netherlands powerfully illustrates what climate litigation can achieve. In 2015, the Hague district court issued a groundbreaking decision in response to a lawsuit filed by the Urgenda Foundation and 886 Dutch citizens, arguing that the government was failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough.

The court agreed that the government’s actions were unlawful and ordered it to slash the Netherlands’ emissions by 2020. That decision was upheld by a court of appeal and ultimately by the supreme court of the Netherlands in 2019.

It’s hard to overstate the impact: in response, the government has taken huge steps to reduce emissions, including closing or significantly reducing the capacity of coal-fired power plants and overseeing €3bn worth of low-carbon investment. The first judgment also spurred public debate that led to a new Climate Change Act.

But the value of the litigation was just as clear in the hushed, crowded courtroom in the Hague. People waited for the country’s highest court to validate what they instinctively knew to be true: that governments cannot know the risks of climate change and wilfully ignore them.

Urgenda’s case has inspired communities and organisations around the world to hold governments and big polluters legally responsible for their contribution to the climate crisis. From the Philippines to Canada to Colombia, people are looking for accountability for decades of broken promises.

Governments signed an international treaty to address climate change almost 30 years ago, and fossil fuel companies have known that since at least the 1970s the product that they sell leads directly to global warming.

Last month, we supported a historic case challenging the Irish government’s inadequate emissions reduction plan, which resulted in the supreme court requiring the government to make a new, more ambitious one.

Lawsuits are not a panacea. It takes significant public vigilance and pressure to ensure that judgments translate into real change. But litigation is one of the most powerful tools we have for claiming our rights and making clear what’s at stake – and the stakes have never been higher.

Links

• The Urgenda Climate Case Against The Dutch Government
• Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action
• Dutch officials reveal measures to cut emissions after court ruling
• Urgenda Foundation
• Climate battles are moving into the courtroom, and lawyers are getting creative
• Climate change: 'Huge' implications to Irish climate case across Europe
• Exxon knew about climate change half a century ago.1 They deceived the public,2 misled their shareholders,3 and robbed humanity of a generation’s worth of time to reverse climate change.

(AU) Climate Grief Expected To Be Widespread Soon But It's Still Not Openly Acknowledged

ABC Health & Wellbeing | Paige Cockburn

Those who suffer from climate grief don't always feel their grief is worthy which leads to complications. (AAP: Dean Lewins) 

Feeling miserable, anxious, helpless and just generally terrible because the world is becoming less habitable? You're not alone.

The good news is there are strategies that may help you cope. The bad news is the pandemic we're now facing may test your passion and enthusiasm for climate action.

For the past 18 months, Canadian scientist Kurtis Baute says he has been dealing with a lot of 'climate grief'.

"Basically I can't stop thinking about the fact that millions of people, real people, are dying or will die because of something that is completely unavoidable," he recently announced on his YouTube channel.

"We can stop using fossil fuels but so far we've completely failed to do so...it feels completely out of control and it's depressing."

Kurtis Baute recently sought out professional help to cope with his despair about climate change. (Supplied: Kurtis Baute)

Climate grief — or eco anxiety/despair — is a strong psychological response to the current and future loss of habitats, species and ecosystems.

It's recognised by the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and sufferers may feel emotions like fear, anger, guilt, shame, grief, loss and helplessness.

It can be related to the direct impacts of climate change, such as drought or bushfire. But it can also take the form of a sense of doom or even existential crisis about our warming world.

In some ways it's a lot like the grief we experience when someone dies.

The health industry predicts it will be common place in the next 10 years.

The danger of unvalidated grief

Climate grief is often categorised as a form of disenfranchised grief which means it isn't always publicly or openly acknowledged.

"There's no ritual around loss of environment," says Tristan Snell, a counselling psychologist and researcher in environmental psychology at Deakin University.

Make just one change...

Find out how much CO2 you could save with one lifestyle change. Read more

"When you lose someone, there's a funeral and all sorts of ways people connect and this helps process that loss. That's just not the case for loss of environment."

People experiencing disenfranchised grief can feel unsupported or ashamed, and consequently can be very reluctant to talk with friends, family or a professional.

"People may feel this isn't something someone else can help with," says Dr Snell.

This can then snowball into major physical and mental health problems.

Some will feel this more than others

Researchers, including Dr Snell, are currently trying to gauge the mental health impacts of climate change and recent climate-related events on Australians with this survey which you can get involved in.

However, the latest research says that if you're between 15 and 24-years-old you are at higher risk of feeling climate grief, with almost half of young Victorians feel extremely frustrated, fearful, sad and outraged about climate change.

Young Australians are particularly vulnerable to climate grief as their future is at stake. (ABC News: Jedda Costa)

Dr Snell says the issue is also pressing for younger children and unfortunately they won't be able to handle grief as well.

"What usually helps is expressing it, talking about it, making sense of it. But that's really hard for young children," he says.

"I don't know if we have the right language in our culture to recognise and express grief related to climate change, so it makes it really hard for adults and even harder for children."

Feeling homesick when you're home

'Solastalgia' is a term coined by the Australian philosopher Glenn Albrecht to describe the feeling of homesickness, even when you're at home, due to climate change.

Those who depend on the land for their livelihood are very susceptible to this kind of loss.

An interview series with farmers in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia revealed the ecological grief that comes with wind erosion, which is a consequence of persistent dryness.

"[Losing the farm] would be like a death. Yeah, there would be a grieving process because the farm embodies everything that the family farm is [...] And I think if we were to lose it, it would be like losing a person ... but it would be sadder than losing a person," one farmer said.

While no research on climate grief among Australian Indigenous people exists, interviews with Inuit communities in Canada speak volumes about the disruption to cultural identity when the land changes.

"It's hurting in a way. It's hurting in a lot of ways. Because I kinda think I'm not going to show my grandkids the way we used to do it. It's hurting me. It's hurting me big time. And I just keep that to myself," one Inuit said.

The realisation that the world must be relearned is particularly disruptive for Indigenous people, and healthcare professionals predict they will be the hardest hit by climate change-related mental health issues in the future.

Grief may lead to burnout

The impact of COVID-19 on those who struggle with any form of eco grief is still unknown but psychologists are looking for answers.

Dr Snell predicts that some people may feel more positive about COVID-19 related changes — like working from home — enabling us to reduce our environmental impact.

But the APS emphasises others may experience burnout from the combined stress of the pandemic and climate change.

Your planet

Stories and interactives exploring our environment and seeking solutions to climate change. Read more

This could in turn trigger cynicism and a loss of purpose and energy, and could even undermine enthusiasm for climate action.

There are certain aspects of climate change action that can make people particularly vulnerable to burnout, including the slow pace of progress and having to work against resistance (for example of the fossil fuel industry).

How to cope

Clinical psychologists are developing strategies to help people work through climate grief, but research is still quite limited.

However you may find the follow tactics help with feelings of emotional distress:

• Gather trusted and authoritative information on the topic to ensure your knowledge on climate change is correct
• Become more environmentally engaged by getting involved in land care or tree planting for example — taking action to better the planet is thought to relieve some anticipatory grief
• Spend time in nature to remind yourself it's a source of strength
• Talk with like-minded family or friends and if needed, seek professional help

For Mr Baute, finding a therapist who was responsive to the concept of climate grief has helped with his anxiety and helplessness.

"This is a really serious problem for a lot of people .... and [the therapist] is helping me navigate the emotions," he says.

"Again, these emotions are entirely rational, it's an extreme situation, and it's reasonable that we would be having an extreme emotional response."

Links

• (AU) Stop Making Sense: Why It's Time To Get Emotional About Climate Change
• How Our Brains Make It Hard To Solve Climate Change
• What Do We Think About Climate Change, And Why?
• Psychiatrist Studied Major 20th Century Atrocities, Now Turns To Climate Change
• (AU) 'Two Global Health Emergencies': Doctors Group Backs Green Stimulus
• Rising Temperatures Will Cause More Deaths Than All Infectious Diseases – Study
• (AU) Under Climate Change, Winter Will Be The Best Time For Bush Burn-Offs – And That Could Be Bad News For Public Health
• Climate Change: Summers Could Become 'Too Hot For Humans'
• (US) Cities Are Becoming Climate Death Traps
• (AU) Climate Change Is The Next Health Crisis We Face
• Climate Change Is Making Mosquito-Borne Diseases Deadlier

Death Valley Temperature Rises To 54.4c – Possibly The Hottest Ever Reliably Recorded

The Guardian - Graham Readfearn

US National Weather Service’s automated station at Furnace Creek in California hit extreme high at 3:41pm on Sunday

If the Death Valley temperature is verified, it would beat the previous hottest August day for the United States. Photograph: Steve Marcus/Reuters

A temperature of 54.4C – or 129.9F – has been recorded in Death Valley, California, in what some extreme weather watchers believe could be the hottest reading ever reliably recorded on the planet.

The United States National Weather Service’s automated weather station at Furnace Creek near the border with Nevada hit the extreme high at 3:41pm on Sunday afternoon, a statement said.

🥵Yep it was HOT out there today...

So hot in fact, that the PRELIMINARY high temperature @DeathValleyNPS was 130°F. If verified, this will be the hottest temperature officially verified since July of 1913. For more info...https://t.co/qFXcIVoPig#DeathValley #Climate #CAwx pic.twitter.com/lAl8NQDCyp

— NWS Las Vegas (@NWSVegas) August 17, 2020

“This observed high temperature is considered preliminary and not yet official,” a statement from NWS Las Vegas said.

“If verified, this will be the hottest temperature officially verified since July of 1913, also at Death Valley.”

Per the climate data in xmACIS2, this is the first time since 1913 that Death Valley has reached 130F. In July 2013, it last reached 129F. If valid, it would be the hottest August temperature at the site by 3F. @NWSVegas pic.twitter.com/gZNBW4NXI4

— NWS WPC (@NWSWPC) August 16, 2020

If the temperature reading is verified, it would beat the previous hottest August day for the United States.

Death Valley’s all-time record high, according to the World Meteorological Organization, is 134F (56.7°C) taken on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch. That reading still stands as the hottest ever recorded on the planet’s surface, according to the WMO.

The Death Valley 1913 reading was installed as the planet’s hottest after a 2013 WMO investigation dismissed a 58C temperature supposedly recorded in Libya in September 1922.

A committee concluded the Libya reading was likely wrong, with human error, the type of thermometer used and inconsistencies with other temperatures in the region all contributing to that temperature being struck off.

But Christopher Burt, from a private US meteorological service, who prompted the investigation into the Libya record, has also challenged the legitimacy of the 1913 Death Valley readings, saying they were “essentially not possible from a meteorological perspective”.

Speaking to the Washington Post, Prof Randy Cerveny, of Arizona State University, who leads a WMO group that maintains an archive of climate extremes, said of the new Death Valley temperature reading: “Everything I’ve seen so far indicates that is a legitimate observation.”

He was recommending the WMO “preliminarily accept the observation” but that the reading would be examined in detail in the coming weeks.

The only other WMO-verified temperature record higher than those taken at Death Valley are from July 1931 at Kebili in Tunisia, where a reading of 131F (55C) was taken.

But like many older temperature readings, this too has been challenged.

Some extreme weather watchers believe the most recent Death valley reading could – in time – be verified as the hottest ever reliably recorded on the planet.

Indeed, if Sunday's temperature is found to be valid--and assuming Chris Burt's exhaustive work is correct--then we have a new global heat record on our hands. We'll have more to say about this at @CC_Yale on Monday. https://t.co/P58jNH6AMt

— Bob Henson (@bhensonweather) August 17, 2020

Bob Henson, a meteorologist, told a blog of the American Geophysical Union: “It’s quite possible the Death Valley high set a new global heat record. The extreme nature of the surrounding weather pattern makes such a reading plausible, so the case deserves a solid review.

“There are nagging questions about the validity of even hotter reports from Death Valley in 1913 and Tunisia in 1931. What we can say with high confidence is that, if confirmed, this is the highest temperature observed on Earth in almost a century.”

US Heat wave day 3#16 August : The Death Valley record of 130F-54.4C, which is the highest reliable temp. ever recorded in climatic history will be checked and confirmed by NOAA. Other records set today include an August monthly record Tmax at Stockton CA with 113F-45.0C. pic.twitter.com/Euof3yLAct

— Extreme Temperatures Around The World (@extremetemps) August 17, 2020

Prof James Renwick, a climate scientist at Victoria University of Wellington, has taken part in WMO efforts to check temperature readings.

He said the Death Valley reading would need to be checked and verified before any record could be confidently declared. Checks would be made of the instruments to make sure there had been no changes at the Death Valley site, which is close to a visitors’ centre at Furnace Creek.

He said: “There will be a lot of cross-checking to make sure that that value is correct.”

Elsewhere in California, record high temperatures led to wildfires, at least one of which was reported to have turned into a “firenado”. This rarely recorded phenomenon occurs when hot air from a fire on the ground rises in a tall column and starts to rotate in the winds higher off the ground, giving the appearance of a tornado mixed with fire.

The heatwave in the west of the US has also given rise to lightning storms which may start further wildfires, leading agencies in the region to put out warnings.

Persistently high temperatures have been recorded in many areas of the northern hemisphere this summer, giving added weight to the prediction made earlier this year that it could be the hottest on record, as the Earth’s climate changes under human influence. Most concerning for climate scientists has been a “heatwave” recorded in the Arctic.

A record temperature of 38C was observed in Siberia in June, with the Arctic sea ice shrinking to its lowest extent for 40 years in July. Siberian temperatures were more than 5C above average from January to June. New research has suggested that on current trends the Arctic could be ice-free in summer as soon as 2035.

Links

• Why Death Valley’s 130 F heat record matters
• Scorching Temperature In US's Death Valley Could Be Global High
• Death Valley hits a blistering 130°F — the hottest anywhere on Earth since 1931 | Earth Day
• 'Highest temperature on Earth' as Death Valley, US hits 54.4C
• Denver Reaches The Top 5 List For Most 90 Degree Days In A Year
• Scorching temperatures set new records throughout Alberta
• Blistering heat breaks 13 weather records
• Japan ties national high-temperature record amid blistering heat wave
• Impressive data set shows July likely warmest of any month since 1850 worldwide
• Heatwave Harry? As temps soar, naming the threat may save lives
• Antarctica logs hottest temperature on record with a reading of 18.3C