NASA-Led Ice Melt Study Makes A Terrifying Prediction About Rising Sea Levels

SlashGear - Chris Davies

Unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could lead to more than a 15-inch rise in sea levels, scientists have concluded, using NASA data to issue a stark warning about melting ice sheets. The huge rise would lead to dramatic flooding in coastal regions around the world, and create a potentially apocalyptic chain reaction of consequences.

Warming conditions on Earth are already being blamed for existing melting of ice, and rising sea levels. However according to the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6), led by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, there’s even further melting to be considered.

It saw more than 60 specialists on ice, ocean, and atmospheric research – from three dozen different international institutions from around the world – come together to figure out just what happens if Greenland and Antarctica’s ice sheets melt. The results of the two studies, published in journal The Cryosphere, make for ominous reading.

By the year 2100, they concluded, and if greenhouse emissions are curtailed from their current levels, the combined ice sheet melt could lead to more than 15-inches of global sea level increase. Meltwater from those ice sheets is believed to account for around a third of total global sea level rise. Earlier studies have suggested that, even if we make changes now, sea levels will rise by around a quarter-inch by 2100.



“One of the biggest uncertainties when it comes to how much sea level will rise in the future is how much the ice sheets will contribute,” Sophie Nowicki, now at the University at Buffalo, and formerly at NASA Goddard, and project leader of the study, said today. “And how much the ice sheets contribute is really dependent on what the climate will do.”

The challenge is that there’s a double impact causing ice sheets at the north and south poles to shrink, and in the process release huge amounts of water. On the one hand, air temperatures are increasing, which melts surface level ice. At the same time, ocean temperatures are also increasing, causing glaciers to shrink and retreat. A study in August predicted that unexpectedly precarious ice shelves in the Antarctic could be prone to shearing away, in the process dramatically ramping up the pace at which the ice melts.

This latest study examined two possibilities. On the positive side, the team modeled a lower emissions scenario, where carbon emissions were dramatically curtailed. That still saw global sea levels increase by approximately 1.3 inches.



The other model took a more pessimistic view, where emissions increased with little in the way of attempts to check their output. There, they concluded, melting ice sheets could add around 3.5 inches to the already rising oceans.

Lending further complexity is the fact that the changes and melt-rates aren’t consistent across all areas. Some regions are more sensitive to warmer oceans and differences in currents: the Amundsen Sea sector in West Antarctica, and Wilkes Land in East Antarctica, for example, are cited as being the most vulnerable to changes in the simulations.

“With these new results, we can focus our efforts in the correct direction and know what needs to be worked on to continue improving the projections,” Hélène Seroussi, an ice scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, and lead on the Antarctic ice sheet modeling, explains.

Links

• Greenland's ice is melting much faster than we thought - that's a huge problem
• NASA says Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting six times faster than in the '90s
• Melting faster than expected, this vast glacier could raise seas by 5 feet
• Antarctica’s ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Is Starting To Crack
• Antarctica: 60% Of Ice Shelves At Risk Of Fracture, Research Suggests
• Greenland's Ice Sheet Melted Away At Record Levels In 2019, Scientists Fear It Will Continue
• More Than Half Of World's Oceans Already Being Affected By Climate Change
• (AU) Flooding Could Occur Daily In Sydney By The End Of This Century Because Of Climate Change
• (AU) Unwelcome Sea Change: New Research Finds Coastal Flooding May Cost Up To 20% Of Global Economy By 2100
• (AU) We Can't Beat The Planet Into Submission. We Can Retreat
• (AU) Wamberal Beach Erosion: Seawall Would Deliver No Net Benefit, Study Finds
• (AU) How Coastal Communities On Victoria's Bellarine Peninsula Are Dealing With The Reality Of Sea Level Rises
• Biggest Ice Sheet On Earth More Vulnerable To Melting Than Thought

Noam Chomsky: The World Is At The Most Dangerous Moment In Human History

New Statesman - George Eaton

The US professor warns that the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism mean the risk of human extinction has never been greater. 

Noam Chomsky pictured in Brazil in 2018. HEULER ANDREY/AFP via Getty Images

Noam Chomsky has warned that the world is at the most dangerous moment in human history owing to the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the 91-year-old US linguist and activist said that the current perils exceed those of the 1930s. 

“There’s been nothing like it in human history,” Chomsky said. “I’m old enough to remember, very vividly, the threat that Nazism could take over much of Eurasia, that was not an idle concern. US military planners did anticipate that the war would end with a US-dominated region and a German-dominated region... But even that, horrible enough, was not like the end of organised human life on Earth, which is what we’re facing.”

Chomsky was interviewed in advance of the first summit of the Progressive International (18-20 September), a new organisation founded by Bernie Sanders, the former US presidential candidate, and Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, to counter right-wing authoritarianism. In an echo of the movement’s slogan “internationalism or extinction”, Chomsky warned: “We’re at an astonishing confluence of very severe crises. The extent of them was illustrated by the last setting of the famous Doomsday Clock. It’s been set every year since the atom bombing, the minute hand has moved forward and back. But last January, they abandoned minutes and moved to seconds to midnight, which means termination. And that was before the scale of the pandemic.”

This shift, Chomsky said, reflected “the growing threat of nuclear war, which is probably more severe than it was during the Cold War. The growing threat of environmental catastrophe, and the third thing that they’ve been picking up for the last few years is the sharp deterioration of democracy, which sounds at first as if it doesn’t belong but it actually does, because the only hope for dealing with the two existential crises, which do threaten extinction, is to deal with them through a vibrant democracy with engaged, informed citizens who are participating in developing programmes to deal with these crises.”

Chomsky added that “[Donald] Trump has accomplished something quite impressive: he’s succeeded in increasing the threat of each of the three dangers. On nuclear weapons, he’s moved to continue, and essentially bring to an end, the dismantling of the arms control regime, which has offered some protection against terminal disaster. He’s greatly increased the development of new, dangerous, more threatening weapons, which means others do so too, which is increasing the threat to all of us. 

“On environmental catastrophe, he’s escalated his effort to maximise the use of fossil fuels and to terminate the regulations that somewhat mitigate the effect of the coming disaster if we proceed on our present course.”

“On the deterioration of democracy, it’s become a joke. The executive branch of [the US] government has been completely purged of any dissident voice. Now it’s left with a group of sycophants.”

Chomsky described Trump as the figurehead of a new “reactionary international” consisting of Brazil, India, the UK, Egypt, Israel and Hungary. “In the western hemisphere the leading candidate is [Jair] Bolsonaro’s Brazil, kind of a small-time clone of President Trump. In the Middle East it will be based on the family dictatorships, the most reactionary states in the world. [Abdel al-]Sisi’s Egypt is the worst dictatorship that Egypt has ever had. Israel has moved so far to the right that you need a telescope to see it, it’s about the only country in the world where young people are even more reactionary than adults.”

He added: “[Narendra] Modi is destroying Indian secular democracy, severely repressing the Muslim population, he’s just vastly extended the terrible Indian occupation of Kashmir. In Europe, the leading candidate is [Viktor] Orbán in Hungary, who is creating a proto-fascist state. There are other figures, like [Matteo] Salvini in Italy, who gets his kicks out of watching refugees drown in the Mediterranean.”

Of the UK, he said: “[Nigel] Farage will come along and be a proper candidate if Boris Johnson doesn’t serve the purpose, which he may.” He added that the UK government’s threat to “violate international law and make a total break with the European Union” would “turn a fading Britain into even more of a vassal of the United States then it’s already become”. 

Chomsky described the Progressive International, whose council also includes former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, novelist Arundhati Roy and former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, as “a loose coalition of people committed to a world of justice, peace, democratic participation, of changing social and economic institutions, so that they are not geared for private profit for the few but for the needs and concerns of the general population.”

Having lived through 22 US presidential elections, Chomsky warned that Trump’s threat to refuse to leave office if defeated by Democratic candidate Joe Biden was unprecedented. 

“He’s already announced repeatedly that if he doesn’t like the outcome of the election he won’t leave. And this is taken very seriously by two high-level military officers, ex-military leaders, who’ve just sent a letter to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, reviewing for him his constitutional duties if the president refuses to leave office and gathers around him the paramilitary forces that he’s been using to terrorise people in Portland.

“The military has a duty in that case, the 82nd Airborne Division, to remove him by force. There’s a transition integrity project, high-level people from the Republicans and the Democrats; they’ve been running war games asking what would happen if Trump refuses to leave office – every one of them leads to civil war, every scenario that they can think of except a Trump victory leads to civil war. This is not a joke – nothing like this has happened in the history of parliamentary democracy. 

“It was bad enough when your guy, Boris Johnson, prorogued parliament, which led to a furore. The Supreme Court intervened but it was too late. The [US] Supreme Court isn’t going to intervene here, not after the right-wing appointments that Trump has managed, so we’re at a moment that has never happened.”

Chomsky urged US leftists to vote for Biden in this November’s presidential election and to press him to pursue a progressive agenda. 

“What the left should do is what it always should do: it should recognise that real politics is constant activism, in one form or another. Every couple of years something comes along called an election, you should take off a few minutes to decide if it’s worth voting against somebody, rarely for somebody. In the course of, say, Corbyn in England, I would have voted for him but most of the time the question is ‘who do you vote against?’ 

“This time the answer to that question is just overwhelmingly obvious: the Trump Republicans are just so utterly outrageous, way off the spectrum, that there’s simply no question about voting against them. So you take off a few minutes, go to the voting booth, push a lever, vote against Trump, which in a two-party system means you have to push the vote for the other candidate. But then the next thing you do is to challenge them, keep the pressure on to move them towards progressive programmes.”

Asked whether he still identified as an anarchist, Chomsky replied: “We have to ask what we mean by ‘anarchist’. In my view everybody, if they stop to think about it, is an anarchist, except the people who are pathological. The core principle of anarchism, from its origins, has been that authority and domination and hegemony have a burden of proof to bear, they have to prove that they’re legitimate. Sometimes they are, sometimes you can give an argument. If you can’t, they should be dismantled.

“How should they be dismantled? Well, you have to work on that, you can’t do it by snapping your fingers. Organisations are developing elements of the future society within the present one. But I think that ideal is virtually universal within our moral system, except for really pathological elements.”

Links

• Noam Chomsky: Trump’s Inaction on Climate Change Makes Him “the Worst Criminal in History, Undeniably”
• According to the peerless Noam Chomsky, the top three climate offenders are the United States, Brazil and Australia
• Noam Chomsky: “The Task Ahead Is Enormous, and There Is Not Much Time”
• Noam Chomsky: 'In a couple of generations, organized human society may not survive.'
• Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin: If We Want a Future, Green New Deal Is Key
• Noam Chomsky: Can Capitalism Survive Climate Change? With Robert Pollin
• Global Warming And The Future Of Humanity: An Interview With Noam Chomsky And Graciela Chichilnisky
• Noam Chomsky on Climate Change: Trump Administration Like Nero Fiddling While Rome Burned

How Rich, Western Nations Drive Climate Crisis

New Age - Sarah Lazare

New analysis finds the global north is responsible for 92 per cent of all excess global carbon dioxide emissions while the global south bears the brunt of the devastation, writes Sarah Lazare

Firefighters battle a brush fire along Japatul Road during the Valley Fire in Jamul, California on September 6. — Agence France-Presse/Getty Images/Sandy Huffaker

SUMMARY The Lancet: Planetary Health Jason Hickel As of 2015 percentage of excess global CO2 emissions: USA: 40%. The European Union (EU-28): 29%. G8 nations (the USA, EU-28, Russia, Japan, and Canada): 85%.  UN Framework Convention on Climate Change nations (most industrialised countries): 90%. The Global North (USA, Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Japan): 92%.  The Global South: 8%.

THE climate disaster fuelling unprecedented fires across the western United States, threatening to swallow the Marshall Islands into the ocean, and unleashing perennial hunger crises on South Sudan is a global catastrophe.

But the global responsibility is not born equally. An analysis published in the September issue of The Lancet: Planetary Health shines new light on the outsized role of the United States, European Union and the global north in creating a climate crisis that, while felt everywhere, is disproportionately harming the global south.

As of 2015, the United States bore responsibility for 40 per cent of ‘excess global carbon dioxide emissions’, finds the analysis, authored by Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, author and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

The Group of Eight (the United States, the European Union, Russia, Japan and Canada) is responsible for 85 per cent of such emissions. And the global north (defined as the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) is responsible for 92 per cent.

In contrast, the global south — which is by far bearing the brunt of climate droughts, floods, famines, storms, sea level rise and deaths — is responsible for just 8 per cent of excess global carbon dioxide emissions.

While other researchers have calculated countries’ current annual emissions, as well as cumulative historic ones, Hickel tells In These Times ‘none of this tells us how much nations have contributed to emissions in excess of the safe level.’ His methodology starts from ‘the position that the atmosphere is a common resource and that all people should have equal access to it within the safe planetary boundary (defined as 350 parts per million atmospheric concentration of CO2)’, he says.

Hickel calculated the ‘national fair shares of a safe global carbon budget.’ Then he subtracted these fair shares from the historical emissions of countries — ‘territorial emissions from 1850 to 1969, and consumption-based emissions from 1970 to 2015.’ This calculation was then used to determine ‘the extent to which each country has overshot or undershot its fair share’, states the analysis.

‘In other words’, says Hickel, ‘this method allows us to answer the question: “Who got us into this mess?”’

The analysis is meant to not only measure national responsibility for global emissions, but to identify those countries that are colonising the atmosphere. ‘The results show that the countries of the global north have “stolen” a big chunk of the atmospheric fair-shares of poorer countries, and on top of that are responsible for the vast majority of excess emissions’, Hickel explains. ‘In other words’, he adds, ‘they have effectively colonised the global atmospheric commons for the sake of their own industrial growth, and for the sake of maintaining their own high levels of energy consumption.’

The study finds that, in contrast to global north countries, ‘most countries in the global south were within their boundary fair shares, including India and China.’ This is despite the fact that China, with more than four times the population of the United States, is presently the top overall emitter of greenhouse gases, although the United States is the top emitter per capita.

According to the analysis, ‘When it comes to climate change, however, what matters is stocks of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not annual flows; so responsibility must be measured in terms of each country’s contribution to cumulative historical emissions.’ Yet, the study notes, ‘given that China’s annual emissions are roughly 9 billion tonnes per year, it will soon overshoot its fair share.’

The fact that the United States and global north bear disproportionate responsibility for driving the climate crisis does not let China off the hook for cutting emissions, says Hickel. ‘If China does not reduce emissions, and fast, then we are all doomed’, he underscores. And indeed, climate activists have argued that in order to curb the climate crisis, the United States and China must overcome their confrontational footing and cooperate to dramatically cut emissions.

However, Hickel makes the moral argument that ‘clearly the countries that have contributed the most to excess emissions must cut emissions fastest, with the United States and Europe leading the way. They have a responsibility to get to zero as soon as is physically possible — in a matter of years, not decades. This can be feasibly achieved, and we should all demand it.’

Other studies and analyses have pointed to the disproportionate responsibility of the global north, and wealthy countries, for driving the climate crisis. A study released by Oxfam International in 2015 found that the poorest half of the world’s population — roughly 3.5 billion people — are to blame for just 10% of ‘total global emissions attributed to individual consumption’, yet they ‘live overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change.’ In contrast, the richest 10 per cent of people in the world are responsible for roughly 50 per cent of global emissions.

A 2015 paper published in Scientific Reports identifies ‘free rider’ and ‘forced rider’ countries. It explains, ‘“Free rider” countries contribute disproportionately to global [greenhouse gas] emissions with only limited vulnerability to the effects of the resulting climate change, while “forced rider” countries are most vulnerable to climate change but have contributed little to its genesis.’

Yet, even as acute effects of the climate crisis are being felt in the United States, the Republican Party continues to embrace climate denial, and the leadership of the Democratic Party shows reluctance to curb the fossil fuel production driving the crisis — and hostility to radical solutions like the Green New Deal.

The United States has contributed only $1 billion to the UN’s Green Climate Fund, meant to help ‘developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change’ (former president Barack Obama pledged $3 billion, but president Trump later reneged on $2 billion of it).

Whatever horrific price U.S. residents in the direct path of harmful fires are forced to pay for politicians’ inaction, the costs to the global south will be greater in scale. ‘We know that the global south suffers more than 90 per cent of the costs of climate breakdown, and 98 per cent of the deaths associated with climate breakdown, due to fires, floods, droughts, famine, disease, displacement and so on’, says Hickel. ‘So, just like under colonialism, the North is benefiting at the expense of the South.’
Links

• The Lancet: Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown
• Climate breakdown is coming. The UK needs a Greener New Deal
• "Colonizing the Atmosphere": How Rich, Western Nations Drive the Climate Crisis
• These Folks Think Eternal Economic Growth Will Lead to Unstoppable Climate Change
• Here’s One Way to Fight Climate Change: Stop Rich Countries From Growing
• Stability without Growth: Keynes in an Age of Climate Breakdown

Why Clouds Are The Missing Piece In The Climate Change Puzzle

The Conversation - Paulo Ceppi | Ric Williams

Sam Schooler/Unsplash, CC BY-SA 

Authors Paulo Ceppi is Lecturer in Climate Science, Imperial College London Ric Williams is Professor of Ocean Sciences, University of Liverpool

How much our world will warm this century depends on the actions we take in coming decades. In order to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C and avoid dangerous levels of warming, governments need to know how much carbon they can emit, and over what timeframe.

But current climate models don’t agree on where that threshold lies. In new research, we discovered one of the reasons why there is such a large range of estimates for how much carbon can be safely emitted: the uncertain behaviour of clouds. In some climate models, clouds strongly amplify warming. In others, they have a neutral effect or even dampen warming slightly. So why are clouds likely to play such a pivotal role in deciding our fate?

Projections by climate models typically reveal global temperatures rising almost in tandem with the total amount of carbon emitted over time. This is represented by the black line in the graph below. To avoid exceeding a certain level of warming, the world needs to limit how much carbon is emitted so that it remains within a certain carbon budget. In climate models where clouds amplify warming, this carbon budget is smaller (red dashed line and arrow). Where clouds have a near neutral or damping effect, the carbon budget is larger (blue dashed line and arrow).

Remaining carbon budgets in climate model projections

Paulo Ceppi, Author provided

Why are clouds so important?

Clouds can act like a parasol, cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight away from the planet’s surface and back into space. But they can also act like an insulating blanket, warming the Earth by preventing some of the heat in our atmosphere from escaping into space as infrared radiation. This “blanket” effect is particularly noticeable during the winter, when cloudy nights are typically much warmer than cloud-free ones.

Which of these two effects dominates – parasol or blanket – depends on the altitude and thickness of the clouds. As a general rule, the higher a cloud is, the more effective it is at preventing heat from escaping into space. The thicker a cloud is, the better it is at reflecting sunlight away from Earth’s surface.

High, thin clouds let sunlight through while effectively preventing heat from escaping to space as infrared radiation, providing a net warming effect. Low, thick clouds strongly reflect sunlight, while having little impact on infrared radiation escaping to space, creating a net cooling effect.

As the atmosphere contains far more low, thick clouds than high, thin clouds, the parasol effect dominates and our planet would be much hotter if clouds did not exist.

Thin, high clouds tend to act as a parasol, while low, thick clouds act as a blanket. Paulo Ceppi, Author provided

The clouds are changing

Global warming is expected to cause changes in the amount of cloud cover, and the height and thickness of these clouds in the future, shifting the balance between the parasol and blanket effects of clouds. The knock-on effect this will have on temperature is known as cloud feedback. Climate change projections cannot ignore cloud feedback, as even relatively small changes in cloud properties can have significant implications for global temperature.

To predict how clouds will change in the future, our research combines evidence from observations and climate models with theoretical understanding of cloud physics. Taken together, this tells us that clouds are more likely to amplify global warming than they are to dampen it for two reasons.

First, the cover of low clouds is expected to decrease in the tropics as global temperatures rise, reducing their parasol effect. Second, it is well understood that high clouds will move into higher regions of the atmosphere as it warms, making them more effective blankets. These warming effects may be mitigated slightly by an increase in the thickness of clouds at high latitudes only, particularly over the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, but this will not cancel out the overall warming effect.

While we do know that clouds will likely amplify global warming, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about how strong this effect will be. Here climate models are of little help, as they can only simulate the bulk properties of the atmosphere over scales of tens of kilometres and several hours. Tiny cloud droplets form and evaporate in minutes. Models miss these small-scale details, but they’re needed for accurate predictions.

Climate models have to resort to simplifications in order to represent clouds, which introduces error. As different models make different simplifications in their portrayal of cloud processes, they also make different predictions of the cloud feedback, which results in a range of global warming projections and differences in our remaining carbon budget. For a given future carbon emissions scenario, clouds are the single most important factor behind the differences in future warming predicted between models.

Should we be worried?

Climate sensitivity, the amount of long-term global warming expected if we double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, is currently estimated to lie between 1.5° and 4.5°C. This consequences of this level of warming are already disturbing, but several new climate models currently being developed by world-leading researchers are projecting warming in excess of 5°C. These new models also feature an improved representation of cloud processes, so this seems to suggest that global warming could be even worse than we thought.

Thankfully, there are alternative projections that point towards more moderate warming. The same models with the highest long-term warming also overestimated warming trends that have already been observed. In the meantime, further research efforts are underway to pin down the role of clouds in climate sensitivity.

It is clear that our planet will continue to warm as we carry on emitting carbon into the atmosphere. But by how much will remain written in the clouds.

Links

• Clouds can tell us a lot about climate change - so why aren’t we paying attention to them?
• Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming
• Clouds the Likely Cause of Increased Global Warming in Latest Generation of Climate Models
• Scientists will look at the clouds to predict climate change
• Just how hot will it get this century? Latest climate models suggest it could be worse than we thought
• How plankton help control clouds over the world’s most remote oceans
• What climate ‘tipping points’ are – and how they could suddenly change our planet
• We caught bacteria from the most pristine air on earth to help solve a climate modeling mystery
• Aircraft contrails make clouds brighter – new study

(AU) ‘A Dose Of Reality’: Morrison Government’s New $1.9 Billion Techno-Fix For Climate Change Is A Small Step

The Conversation - Frank Jotzo

Dean Lewins/AAP 

Author Frank Jotzo is Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government today announced A$1.9 billion over ten years to develop clean technology in industry, agriculture and transport. 

In some ways it’s a step in the right direction, but a far cry from what’s needed to drive Australia’s shift to a low emissions economy.

The big change involves what the money is for. The new funding will enable the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to support technologies such as green steel production, industrial processes to reduce energy consumption and somewhat controversially, carbon-capture and storage and soil-carbon sequestration.

This is a big move away from ARENA’s current investment priorities. Importantly it means ARENA will continue to operate, as it is running out of money now.

However technology development alone is not enough to cut Australia’s emissions deeply and quickly – which is what’s needed to address the climate threat. Other policies and more money will be needed.

Cutting emissions from industry will be a focus of the new spending. Dean Lewins/AAPNew role for ARENA

ARENA will receive the lion’s share of the money: A$1.4 billion over ten years in guaranteed baseline funding. ARENA has spent A$1.6 billion since it was established in 2012. So the new funding is lower on an annual basis. It’s also far less than what’s needed to properly meet the challenge, in a country with a large industrial sector and huge opportunities for zero carbon production.

To date, ARENA’s investments have focused on renewable energy supply. Prime Minister Scott Morrison today said the renewables industry was enjoying a “world-leading boom” and no longer needs government subsidies.

Critics may be dismayed to see ARENA steered away from its original purpose. But it is true solar parks and wind farms are now commercially viable, and technologies to integrate large amounts of renewables into the grid are available.

So it makes sense to spend new research and development (R&D) funding on the next generation of low-emissions technologies. But how to choose what to spend the money on?

The prime minister says renewable energy no longer needs subsidies. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

A few simple principles should inform those choices. The spending should help develop new zero- or low-emissions technologies or make them cheaper. It should also enable the shift to a net-zero emissions future, rather than locking in structures that continue to emit. The investment choices should be made by independent bodies such as ARENA’s board, based on research and expert judgement, rather than politically determined priorities.

For the industrial sector, the case for supporting zero-emissions technologies is clear. A sizeable share of Australia’s total emissions stem from fossil fuel use in industry.

In some cases, government-supported R&D could help lay the foundation for zero-emissions industries of the future. But in others, what’s needed is a financial incentive for businesses to switch to clean energy or zero-emissions production methods, or regulation to require cleaner processes.

Green steel is a perfect example of the positive change that is possible. Steel can be made using clean hydrogen and renewable electricity, and the long term possibility of a green steel industry in Australia is tantalising.

Steel could be made cleanly using hydrogen instead of coking coal. Dean Lewins/AAP

A future for fossil fuels?

The government’s support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be highly contested, because it’s a way to continue using fossil fuels at reduced – though not zero – emissions. This is achieved by capturing carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere and storing it underground, a technically feasible but costly process.

CCS will not perpetuate fossil fuel use in the energy sector, because renewables combined with energy storage are now much cheaper. Rather, CCS can be an option in specific processes that do not have ready alternatives, such as the production of cement, chemicals and fertiliser.

One step further is so-called “carbon capture and use” (CCU), where carbon dioxide is not pumped underground but turned into products, such as building materials. One program announced is for pilot projects of that kind.

A different proposition is the idea of hydrogen produced from coal or gas, in which some resulting emissions are captured. This method competes with “green” hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. It seems the government for now intends to support fossil fuel-derived hydrogen.

Reducing fossil fuel use, and using CCS/CCU where it makes sense, will not get the world to net-zero emissions. Emissions from other sources must be cut by as much as technically possible, at justifiable cost. Remaining emissions must then be negated by drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such “negative emissions” can be achieved through technological means, and also by permanently increasing the amount of carbon stored in plants and soil.

The new funding includes support for increasing the amount of soil carbon. This method may hold promise in principle, but in practice its effectiveness is uncertain, and hard to measure. At the same time, the large emissions from agriculture are not yet addressed.

Reducing the burning of fossil fuels is not enough to get to net-zero emissions. Matt Black Productions

A piecemeal effort

The spending amounts to A$140 million per year for ARENA, plus about A$500 million all up through other programs. A dose of reality is needed about what this money can achieve. It will create better understanding of options, some technological progress across the board and surely the occasional highlight. But a much greater effort is likely needed to achieve fundamental technological breakthroughs. And crucially, new technologies must be widely deployed.

For a sense of scale, consider that the Snowy 2.0 scheme is costed at around A$5 billion, and a single 1 gigawatt gas power plant, as mooted by the government for the Hunter Valley, would cost in the order of A$1.5 billion to build.

As well as additional spending, policies will be needed to drive the uptake of low-emissions technologies. The shift to renewables is now happening in the energy sector without government help, though some hurdles remain. But we cannot expect the same across the economy.

Governments will need to help drive uptake through policy. The most efficient way is usually to ensure producers of emissions pay for the environmental damage caused. In other words, putting a price on carbon.

The funding announced today is merely one piece of a national long-term strategy to deeply cut emissions – and not a particularly big piece.

Links

• Government targets emerging technologies with $1.9 billion, saying renewables can stand on own feet
• Yes, carbon emissions fell during COVID-19. But it's the shift away from coal that really matters
• Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt
• Politics with Michelle Grattan: Angus Taylor on the ‘gas-fired’ recovery
• Federal government pre-empts national cabinet to raise the cap for returning Australians
• No, Prime Minister, gas doesn’t ‘work for all Australians’ and your scare tactics ignore modern energy problems
• Morrison government threatens to use Snowy Hydro to build gas generator, as it outlines ‘gas-fired recovery’ plan
• Australians want industry, and they’d like it green. Steel is the place to start
• Investment in new energy technologies

Antarctica’s ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Is Starting To Crack

EcoWatch - Olivia Rosane

Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier, aka the "Doomsday Glacier," is starting to crack. NASA / Wikimedia Commons

Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier has been called the "Doomsday Glacier."

Thwaites and its neighbor, the Pine Island Glacier, are among those in West Antarctica most influenced by the climate crisis.

If they melted, they could destabilize the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has the potential to contribute about 10 feet to global sea level rise.

Now, a new study has found that the ice shelves supporting the two crucial glaciers are beginning to fissure and crack.

"These ice shelves are in the early phase of disintegration," study leader and Delft University of Technology satellite expert Stef Lhermitte told CNN. "They're starting to tear apart."

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Monday, looked at satellite images taken between 1997 and 2019 to document the ice shelves' increasing damage. The images show crevices and fissures in the glaciers, according to a Delft press release.

New paper 'Damage accelerates ice shelf instability and mass loss in Amundsen Sea Embayment' 🇦🇶 just came out in @PNASNews. We use 🛰️ to show structural weakening of the Pine Island and Thwaites ice shelves and its impact on the mass loss of these glaciers https://t.co/zki5KlPCDB

— Stef Lhermitte (@StefLhermitte) September 14, 2020

Ice shelves are important for a glacier's stability because they provide support, similarly to how flying buttresses support a cathedral, International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration lead principle researcher Brent Goehring told ABC News. Goehring was not involved with the paper.

The damage is occurring in the glaciers' shear zones, parts of the ice shelves where the fast-moving ice on top connects with the slower-moving ice or rock beneath, CNN explained. That damage significantly increased in 2016.

The researchers think that the damage they observed to the ice shelves will only beget more damage, Lhermitte explained in a Twitter thread. This is for three reasons:

1. The damage undermines the structural integrity of the ice shelves.
2. The damage weakens the ice shelves and makes them more vulnerable to warming air and ocean temperatures.
3. The damage creates a feedback loop, leading to more weakening and more damage.

Because of this, the scientists suggested that the damage be accounted for in climate models to better predict how Antarctic ice melt will contribute to sea level rise.

Sea levels are currently rising by around 3.5 millimeters a year, and the Thwaites Glacier accounts for four to five percent of that, Goehring told ABC News.

"If those glaciers would destabilize, a lot of neighboring areas would also fall apart, causing a widespread collapse," Indrani Das, a co-principle researcher on an International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration project, told ABC News. "It would cause a huge sea level rise."

However, Das did not think it likely that the collapse would take place this century.

Links

• Record Warm Water Measured Beneath Antarctica’s ‘Doomsday’ Glacier
• Antarctica melting: Climate change and the journey to the 'doomsday glacier'
• Underwater robot reveals hidden base of Antarctica’s ‘doomsday’ glacier
• Antarctica's colossal Thwaites Glacier is melting fast -- and scientists may have discovered why
• One of Antarctica's biggest glaciers will soon reach a point of irreversible melting. That would cause sea levels to rise at least 1.6 feet.
• There's a cavity underneath Antarctica that's two thirds the size of Manhattan — a sign ice sheets are melting faster than we thought
• Antarctica's Thwaites glacier is in peril, images reveal. The so-called 'doomsday glacier' could trigger 10 feet of sea-level rise if it melts.

Sir David Attenborough Delivers Stark Warning In BBC Doc 'Extinction: The Facts'

Mashable - Sam Haysom

At 94 years old and with over 60 years of wildlife documentary-making under his belt, Sir David Attenborough is well-placed to share his thoughts about the future of our planet.

And on Sunday, in the new BBC documentary Extinction: The Facts, the legendary presenter had a warning for all humans — that means you — about the creatures we share the Earth with.

"Over the course of my life, I've encountered some of the world's most remarkable species of animals," Attenborough says at the start of the hour-long film.

"Only now do I realise just how lucky I've been. Many of these wonders seem set to disappear forever. We're facing a crisis, and one that has consequences for us all. It threatens our ability to feed ourselves, to control our climate — it even puts us at greater risk of pandemic diseases such as COVID-19."

"Many of these wonders seem set to disappear forever."

With the help of a number of academics and experts, Attenborough goes on to explain that extinction is now happening much faster than it used to — with 570 plant species and 700 animal species disappearing since the year 1500. "Studies suggest that extinction is now happening a hundred times faster than the natural evolutionary rate," Attenborough says. "And it's accelerating."

A follow-up to Attenborough's 2019 explainer documentary, Climate Change: The Facts, Extinction: The Facts delves into some of the main causes of extinction and disastrous biodiversity loss today, including habitat destruction (either caused by land use or human-induced climate change or both), unsustainable agricultural and fishing practices, and poaching.

The documentary examines a number of species across the world that are at risk, from the two remaining northern white rhinos in Kenya's Ol Pejeta Conservancy to the 25 percent of assessed plant species currently at risk of disappearing forever.

One of the two remaining northern white rhinos. Image: BBC / Charlotte Lathane

Although the documentary is a heavy and often bleak watch, it does end with a message of hope — albeit one with clear responsibility bestowed upon humans.

"One thing we do know, is that if nature is given the chance, it can bounce back," concludes Attenborough, giving one example using archive footage of one of his old documentaries.

"40 years ago, I had one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I was in the Virunga Mountains, which straddle the border of Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda. And there I met some of the few remaining mountain gorillas, including a mischievous youngster called Poppy.

"As I was preparing to talk to camera, Poppy was at my feet, trying to take off my shoes. It was an experience that has stayed with me, but it was tinged with sadness, as I thought that I may be seeing some of the last of their kind."

In the 1970s, there were around 250 mountain gorillas in the area Attenborough visited. But in the years since, thanks to a joint effort from governments, rangers, and conservationists, the numbers have grown in the Viruga Mountains.

In 2005, a scheme was set up to share tourism revenue with local communities, reducing the need to use the gorilla's habitat for agricultural purposes — and now, in 2020, gorilla numbers are up over 1000.

Poppy's daughter and granddaughter are among them.

"To see Poppy's daughter and granddaughter thriving is thrilling," finishes Attenborough.

"It just shows what we can achieve when we put our minds to it. I do truly believe that together we can create a better future.

" I might not be here to see it, but if we make the right decisions at this critical moment, we can safeguard our planet's ecosystems, its extraordinary biodiversity, and all its inhabitants.

"What happens next is up to every one of us."

Links

• The World Lost Two-Thirds Of Its Wildlife In 50 Years. We Are To Blame
• Climate change is having a devastating impact on Australian wildlife
• Climate change could trigger sudden losses of world's wildlife: study
• Half of plant and animal species at risk from climate change in world’s most important natural places 
• Climate Change And Its Effects On Wildlife Resources
• Climate change leads to a loss of species
• 1 million species of plants and animals at risk of extinction, U.N. report warns
• Wildlife destruction 'not a slippery slope but a series of cliff edges'