The Power of Women: Combating Blizzards, Droughts and the Changing Climate

Huffington Post - Lorena Aguilar

In the past seven days, the east coast of the United States was hammered with one of the biggest snowstorms it has ever seen and a breaking report was published stating that 2015 broke records as hottest year in history by about 0.14°C. All around us, extreme weather is intensifying and climate change is finally being recognized as one of the most serious threats of this century -- but a clear path to mitigating the challenges of a warming planet remains unseen. This means an uncertain future for those who are least resilient to impacts, have the fewest resources to cope, and have limited protection from ever increasing climate-related threats.
At the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December, 195 countries adopted the first ever universal, legally binding global climate deal that aims to limit global warming to below 2°C. The Paris Agreement also provides a framework to support those in developing countries that stand on the front lines of climate change. This is especially important for the women and girls in every region who are experiencing the most severe impacts of climate change due to the social, economic and political barriers they face to protect themselves, their families, and their communities and to build resilience to the impacts of climate change. The new Agreement does partially reflect the importance of gender equality: the preamble includes gender equality and empowerment of women; adaptation and capacity building articles include that action must be gender-responsive; and implementation of the decision is meant to take into account gender balance. Unfortunately, however, other essential texts--such as gender equity with respect to finance and technology needs assessments--were lost in the last rounds of intense negotiations, meaning that a true paradigm shift towards gender equality, and understanding the intrinsic importance of it in relation to fighting the climate battle, is still needed. Gender must be an integral thread woven throughout all parts of climate change policy, planning and programming.The President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, summarized it best, saying: "Climate change isn't only an environmental issue it is a social problem, perhaps it is the greatest political issue that will bring us together in the next few years. As we aspire to achieve climate justice, we must consider the inclusion of the gender dimension because women are victims, but they can also be a significant part of the solution to the climate issue." [From translation]
It is important to highlight the invaluable contributions, expertise, and perspectives of the women who participated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations. The countries that had women as heads of delegations, as well as Parties with gender expertise, such as Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic, took the lead in ensuring that social concerns, gender equality and human rights--were fully addressed in the Paris Framework. It is also fundamental to recognize the role and negotiation skills exhibited by the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Ms. Christiana Figueres, at COP21. Undeniably, she is one of the driving forces behind the gender-responsive elements of the Paris Agreement.

GGO team participates at COP21

The power of women's leadership has proven true in other environmental arenas outside of the climate change meetings. For instance, countries with higher female parliamentary representation are more likely to set aside protected land areas, as a study of 25 developed and 65 developing countries reveals; and to ratify international environmental treaties, according to a study of 130 countries. In addition, of the 49 countries that reduced carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2007, 14 had a very high Human Development Index rank, specifically 10 of which with higher than average female parliamentary representation (Human Development Report 2011). Another telling example occured this past Tuesday, when the US Senate reconvened after one of the biggest snowstorms that Washington, D.C. has ever seen and the only people present were women (floor managers, pages, parliamentarians). Speaking about this incident, Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski reminds us of the power of women in difficult circumstances: "Something is genuinely different, and I think it's genuinely fabulous. So perhaps it just speaks to the heartiness of women, that you put on your boots and put your hat on and get out, slog through the mess that is out there."
Inclusive and equitable climate policies and programs can deliver social and economic development co-benefits and will support steps towards sustainable development. Very often initiatives designed without a clear understanding of the realities of people's lives, including the social and cultural structures that can ignore and sideline women and girls, are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives. For this reason, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Global Gender Office (GGO) has created a suite of knowledge products covering a range of issues that provide policymakers and practitioners information, best practices, and tangible strong examples of gender-responsive climate change so that they can incorporate these lessons into their work.
We at the GGO believe that the Paris Agreement stands as a critical turning point for the global community in its recognition of the importance to act on climate change. We are grateful that it does include indications of its growing understanding of the vulnerability of women in many regions of the world and the critical need to integrate women, their empowerment, and gender equality concerns proactively. And ultimately, we look forward to future opportunities to support implementation for gender-responsive climate change policies and projects.

Soil Productivity Cut By Climate Change, Making Societies More Marginal: Studies

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Ethiopia, one fragile dryland nation, is in the grip of its worst drought in 50 years. Photo: Jay Court

The health of the world's soils hinges on the abundance and diversity of the microbes and fungi they contain, and environmental changes including from global warming will undermine their ability to support humans and other species, according to two new studies.
While animal and plant diversity has long been understood to be important, the multiple roles of soils – from the decomposition of organic matter to nutrient cycling and carbon fixing – have been less researched.
One of the studies, published in Nature Communications on Thursday, examined microbial diversity in 78 drylands on all inhabited continents and 179 sites in Scotland. It found that the loss of varieties – such as from climate change increasing arid zones – undermined the services the soils provided.

A property at Brewarrina in October 2013: as much as 75 per cent of Australia is arid. Photo: THE LAND

"As the aridity of soils goes up, the microbial diversity and abundance is reduced," Brajesh Singh, a professor at Western Sydney University and an author of both papers, said. "As the soils' multi-functions are reduced, so there are social and economic consequences."
The second paper, published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal found the area of the world's drylands – where rainfall and evaporation rates are roughly balanced – is increasing.
Now covering about 41 per cent of the land surface – and home to a similar share of the world's population – these drylands will increase by at least a tenth by 2100 because of overgrazing, erosion and climate change.

Species other than humans will also be affected by less productive lands. Photo: Supplied

"Ninety per cent of human settlements in dryland are based in developing countries, posing serious challenges to food security, carbon sequestration and desertification," Professor Singh said.
David Eldridge, a University of NSW-based arid zone specialist and a co-author of the PNAS study, said there is already evidence of "a consistent decline" in the soil microbes and fungi in many regions.
Drylands account for as much as three-quarters of Australia and the functions of soils, including their ability to hold water and withstand erosion, will be affected by diversity loss within them, he said.
Severe degradation of as little as 10-20 per cent of dryland would have an impact on some 250 million people as well as harming the viability of many other species that rely on soil health, from plants to the animals that eat them, Professor Singh said.
While rising carbon dioxide levels – such as from burning fossil fuels – could spur plant growth, such an outcome required available nutrients and water. Those elements, particularly water, that may become less available with climate change, he said.

Links

• Severe thunderstorms to cap city's wettest January in 28 years
• Climate change could worsen diseases like Zika virus, experts say
• Australia sinks on 'most credible' environmental index in the world

Australia Sinks On 'Most Credible' Environmental Index In The World

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Australia ranks 150th out of 180 nations surveyed by Yale University when it comes to carbon emission trends from the power sector. Photo: Fairfax Media

Australia's global ranking has dived on an international survey that Environment Minister Greg Hunt had described as "the most credible, scientifically based" analysis in the world.
The 2016 Environmental Performance Index, released every two years by Yale University in the US, has dropped Australia's ranking by 10 places to 13th out of 180 nations in its latest update.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has been a fan of the Yale index. Photo: Andrew Meares

Australia was ranked top for water and sanitation, and for exposure to environmental risks. It achieved only mid-rankings for biodiversity, agriculture, and forestry.
The country's worst performance, though, came in the climate and energy category, where Australia was ranked 150th for its trend in carbon emissions for electricity generation.
Yale said that, among wealthy nations, only Saudi Arabia had a lower ranking than Australia for the decade to 2012.
The survey, which benchmarks nations according to their economic peers, follows a recent report showing investor confidence in Australia's large-scale renewable energy industry had evaporated because of uncertainty in the sector.
Australia's greenhouse gases from its power sector jumped by 3.8 million tonnes in 2015 alone, and were 5.1 per cent higher than in June 2014 before the Abbott government scrapped the carbon tax, energy consultants Pitt & Sherry said.
Fairfax Media sought comment from Mr Hunt's office.
Mr Hunt had previously praised the Yale index, telling the ABC TV 7.30 program last November that it was "the most credible, scientifically-based, hard data-based analysis in the world".
The Yale report comes as Labor began consultations on Wednesday with industries, employers, unions and community groups on how Australia can move towards zero-net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and meet a goal of sourcing half of all electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
The 40 or so meetings are aimed at establishing "a solid framework" of Labor's climate policy ahead of this year's federal elections, a spokesman said.
Mark Butler, Labor's shadow environment minister, said the government had signed up to the Paris climate agreement last month but had no realistic mechanism to reach the pledge of reducing 2005-level emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030. He described its $2.55 billion Direct Action plan as a "fraud".
"The Yale report states that over the last decade 'nearly every country has improved it's [index] score' - every country that is except Australia," Mr Butler told Fairfax Media. "The Turnbull Government is taking Australia backwards at a shocking pace."
Larissa Waters, the Greens deputy leader and environment spokeswoman, said the government's "inaction on global warming is shameful, especially when compared to other countries".
"International report after international report shows Australia is lagging on cutting climate pollution and yet the Liberal government is sticking with Tony Abbott's useless climate policies that leave us missing out on the trade and job opportunities in renewable energy," Senator Waters said.
Yale said that Nordic nations dominated the environment rankings at the start of 2016, with Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark claiming the top four positions.
"Trends suggest improvement in many areas, yet progress remains slow, and some trends are overshadowed by other, more troubling findings," the report's executive summary said.
"The world's nations protect more marine habitat than ever, for instance, yet fish stocks are declining."

Links

• Australia's power sector emissions jump
• Confidence in renewable energy sector 'evaporates'

Australia Drops 10 Spots In Greg Hunt's Most Trusted Climate Rankings

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Environment minister has described Yale’s environmental performance index as ‘the most credible ... in the world’ but Australia performs badly in latest ratings

Emissions pour from a factory chimney at a Sydney industrial park. Australia is ranked 150th out of 180 countries for its trend in carbon emissions each kilowatt hour. Photograph: Tim Wimborne/Reuters

The index that Greg Hunt used to defend Australia’s record on climate change has placed the country lower in its rankings, leaving only Saudi Arabia with a worse ranking among wealthy nations in some categories.
Yale’s environmental performance index ranks countries’ performance in protecting human health and ecosystems, and looks at nine areas including air quality, climate and energy, forests and water resources.
When Australia’s climate change policies were questioned in November, the environment minister relied on the index to defend its record. “The Yale environment performance index, the most credible, scientifically based, hard data-based analysis in the world, ranks Australia number three of 178 countries in terms of our environmental performance,” he told ABC’s 730.
The index’s report, released this week, shows Australia has dropped 10 places overall, leaving it at 13 out of 180 countries examined.
It performed worst in the climate and energy category. It was ranked 150th for its trend in carbon emissions each kilowatt hour, leaving only Saudi Arabia behind among wealthy nations. Overall in the climate and energy category, Australia was ranked 82nd.
While global CO2 emissions appear to have dropped in 2015 for the first time during a period of economic growth, Australia’s emissions have continued to grow.
Mark Butler, Labor’s spokesman on the environment, told Fairfax Media: “The Yale report states that over the last decade ‘nearly every country has improved it’s [index] score’ – every country, that is, except Australia … The Turnbull government is taking Australia backwards at a shocking pace.”

Links

• Greg Hunt says overseas emissions credits will 'probably' be allowed
• Australia ranked third-last in climate change performance of 58 countries
• Australia approved coalmine because it isn't a 'neo-colonialist' power, Greg Hunt claims
• Greg Hunt describes analysts' focus on expected rise in emissions as 'desperate'

Key Findings 2016 Yale University Environmental Performance Index

2016 Yale University Environmental Performance Index

The Yale University Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks countries' performance on high-priority environmental issues in two areas: protection of human health and protection of ecosystems.
The following are key findings from the 2016 Index.
1) The world is making progress addressing some environmental issues while others have worsened considerably. A "global scorecard' (Figure 1) illustrates this progress and deterioration, showing promising trends in Health Impacts, Access to Drinking Water, and Access to Sanitation. Air Quality (NO₂) and Fisheries, however, exhibit troubling declines. Comparing relative performance across issues, the world performs poorly on Wastewater Treatment and Air Quality (PM_2.5) as well as in Carbon Intensity Trend indicators. Trends suggest improvement in many areas, yet progress remains slow, and some trends are overshadowed by other, more troubling findings. The world's nations protect more marine habitat than ever, for instance, yet fish stocks are declining. Performance among areas is linked and trends sometimes conflict, exhibiting the complexity of global environmental measurement.

2) Economic development leads to improvement in some environmental areas, yet development is also associated with increased prevalence of environmental hazards. Air and Water indicators clearly exhibit these conflicting signals. As nations have become wealthier, particularly in Asia, their governments invest in sanitation infrastructure and fewer people are exposed to unsafe water, leading to fewer deaths from waterborne illnesses. But as countries develop, increased industrial production, shipping, and automotive transportation foul the air, exposing human populations to dangerous airborne compounds. Thus, deaths attributed to air pollution have risen steadily in the past decade in step with exposure.
Air pollution is a growing global problem; worse in rapidly developing economies, like China and India, than in wealthy or very poor nations. Yet dangerous air pollution is not confined to any one country or group of countries – it is a global issue. More than 3.5 billion people, or half of the world's population, live in nations where average exposure to fine particulate matter exceeds levels the World Health Organization (WHO) considers safe (10 micrograms/m3). One-third (1.3 billion) of these people live in the East Asia and Pacific region, where in China and South Korea more than 50 percent of their populations are exposed to unsafe levels of fine particulate matter. In India and Nepal, the percentage is nearly 75 percent. In contrast, drinking water metrics have improved steadily, The number of people lacking access to clean water has been cut nearly in half from 960 million in the year 2000 to 550 million, or around 8 percent of the world's population, today.

3) When measurement is poor or not aligned with proper management, environmental and human health suffer. EPI shows that sectors with weak measurement are also areas exhibiting decline. Marine fisheries are poorly monitored, for instance, as many fleets misreport or fail to report catch data, and international policy targets are ad hoc and incomplete. It is no surprise that fish stocks around the world are in stark decline. The 2016 EPI, in collaboration with Sea Around Us – a fisheries research initiative based at the University of British Columbia – takes into account the quality of fisheries data by penalizing countries whose data are incomplete or unreliable.

4) Developing policy relevant indicators based in science is essential to appropriate measurement and management. Indicators and policy targets are too often framed by political aims rather than science. Two new EPI indicators – Species Protection and Drinking Water Quality – show how policy targets are frequently defined according to political expediency. The 2016 EPI Species Protection indicator, which relies on the Map of Life – a global database of species – measures the gap between terrestrial protected areas and actual species habitats. This gap (Figure 4) suggests that nationally designated protected areas do not always align with species preservation. Protected areas are often established on marginal lands, rather than in high-value areas where wildlife is forced out by agricultural development and human settlements.

Millennium Development Goal-7 includes an indicator that assesses Access to Drinking Water, yet this MDG metric is not optimally suited to its goal, which is for countries to increase access to "safe drinking water." The indicator used to measure the goal's progress is framed in terms of access to "improved" or "unimproved" sources, as determined by a piped (as opposed to open) water source. This metric does not say whether the water from improved sources is actually treated and safe to drink. Data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) – a research organization that produces the Global Burden of Disease, a measure of death attributable to certain risk factors – reveals a radically different picture of unsafe water quality exposure than the one that MDG-7's indicators paint (Figure 5). In many countries and regions, a significant portion of 'improved' drinking water sources are untreated. These results show policy targets that are politically expedient – it is easier, after all, to measure access to "improved" and "unimproved" water than to measure water quality – but not wholly relevant to science or human health.

5) The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement specifies climate change action expected from all countries, yet solid metrics to evaluate performance remain elusive. Measuring climate change performance – that is, assessing which countries are implementing policies that result in measurable climate mitigation – is one of the most urgent challenges facing society today. The inextricable linkage between carbon and economic growth makes disentangling performance signals from emissions difficult. As a result, the 2016 EPI's Climate and Energy indicators primarily signal how countries are decarbonizing economic growth rather than whether their climate policies are having a tangible effect. These indicators cannot point to underlying drivers of decarbonization, whether they are due to economic decline or through concerted policy effort. Denmark, for instance, has made strong commitments to reduce emissions through increasing efficiency and renewable energy production. Singapore, as a result of its high urban density, has been able to lower its carbon intensity relative to economic peers over the last decade. Other countries, such as Russia, are likely overachieving compared to economic peers due to recession rather than ambitious climate efforts.

Other Conclusions
1) Data from new sources including from cutting-edge technologies help improve global monitoring of progress towards international goals, such as the SDGs, yet these innovations do not represent a policy silver bullet. The EPI uses advances in satellite technology and remote sensing, which contribute to globally comparable datasets where national governments fail to monitor or report environmental data. Satellite data is used to generate air quality and forestry metrics that are more readily comparable and comprehensive than what has emerged from previous models and national reports. These new data sources, however, are not perfect. Satellite-derived tree cover data, for instance, uses a global definition of forest cover that counts plantations and natural forest equally. Because satellites have set orbits and a limited time series, forests with slower growth and regeneration cycles may be incorrectly registered as "loss" depending on the duration of measurement. Long-term, three-year rolling averages of air quality data also result in lower exposure values than data produced by ground-based monitors.
2) Sub-national indicators often illustrate more accurate and actionable data than national level metrics. Environmental issues are rarely confined to national borders. And many environmental issues, when measured at the national level, lose local relevance. How can a single measure of air or water quality define an entire country, particularly when it is as large and diverse as the United States or Russia? The EPI's selection of the nation-state as the unit of measure is not always the best level of analysis for a particular environmental concern. In the case of Nitrogen Balance, for example, a country can exhibit areas of both excess nitrogen and nitrogen deficiency, due to soil and climatic differences. A national measure of Nitrogen Balance obscures these nuances.
3) Better environmental measurement and indicator systems are needed. Every EPI underscores this conclusion. While there has been progress in some areas of measurement, particularly with technological advances and innovations like satellite data, many environmental concerns lack comparable data to monitor extent or progress. Freshwater quality, species loss, climate adaptation, and waste management are some issues that remain absent from the EPI's evaluation because of insufficient data. Without this information, environmental management will suffer and natural systems and human health will decline. As the EPI shows, progress occurs only when measurement and management align.

Links

• EPI Downloads
• EPI 2016 Report

How To Tell The Story Of Climate Change, In Photos

Grist - Heather Smith

An Arctic drilling protest at the White House. Payton Chung

When I started out at Grist in 2013, I covered climate change activism — which was interesting, and still is. Whether you're a fresh-faced youth from a maple syrup farm or a former hedge fund manager, trying to change the world for the better is a tricky business.
What was not interesting — what was negative interesting — was the photos. How do you represent divestment? At first, I tried to use photos from divestment-related events — which were pretty much always protests at college campuses.
ut one campus protest looks pretty much like any other campus protest. And what to do about that guy — there's always that guy — standing in middle of every shot, who's a dead ringer for Ras Trent? College students have the earnestness, the lack of dependent minors, and the flexible schedules to really accommodate protest attendance — but they are far from representative of an entire movement.
And so I fell back on stock images. Divestment was about money — so how about a tiny person sailing across a money ocean? What about a tower of money reaching up into space? Not perfect, but it would have to do. But then how to illustrate oil-by-rail? What about a new solar panel regulation ruling? Or another story about melting glaciers? Have polar bears jumped the shark?
A recent study from Climate Outreach, a British climate change communication think tank, sets out to answer just this question: What images do the best job of making climate change — which consists of difficult-to-photograph, or empathize with, changes to the troposphere — seem like a real thing that people might want to pay attention to?
To explore this question, Climate Outreach held four in-depth focus groups (two in London and two in Berlin) followed by a less in-depth online survey of 3,014 people, with participants split equally between the U.K., Germany, and the U.S. Climate Outreach showed them many, many photographs. The result: a report on what does and doesn't work for illustrating climate change, and a collection of images they consider to be ideal. Here's what the group found:

Stephen Melkisethian

No one likes pictures of protests (except for protesters)
Images of protesters had some of the lowest ratings in the survey (with some exception for the small number of study participants who considered themselves activists). "Most people do not feel an affinity with climate change protesters, so images of protests may reinforce the idea that climate change is for 'them' rather than 'us,' the Climate Outreach findings summary said. "Protest images involving people directly affected by climate impacts were seen as more authentic and therefore more compelling."

However: Not many people like posed photographs of happy children with solar panels, either
Photos with people were rated more highly than those without, especially if those people were looking directly into the camera. But of those images, spontaneous-looking photos received much higher ratings than posed ones.
For example, the photo above, of adorable children holding a banner and waving solar panels in the air got points for being cheerful, but was viewed as "gimmicky" and "staged." Same with a photo of several people watching enthusiastically while someone installed weather-stripping on a door. "I think that family needs to get out a little more," a focus group member said. An unposed photo of a man installing insulation all by himself was viewed with much more enthusiasm.
Posed pictures of politicians were the lowest-ranked photos of all. The two lowest-ranked photos in the survey were images of President Barack Obama making a speech (shown to survey responders in America) and Prime Minister David Cameron posing with a sled dog (shown to survey responders in the U.K.). An unposed photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel looking thoughtfully at a green energy installation was slightly more favourably rated. The Climate Outreach study concludes:

Many campaigns and articles focus on climate policies, and so it is unrealistic to expect that photos should avoid politicians altogether. However if an image is designed to send a positive signal the politician should be as authentic and credible as possible — doing something useful rather than posing for a photo-opportunity — and the widespread distrust of mainstream politicians should not be underestimated. As one German discussion group participant put it, all the images of politicians "make me almost vomit."

Nothing says "this is an article about climate change" like a polar bear. Nothing makes people feel cynical like a polar bear
Classic climate change images like polar bears on melting ice both got high ratings for being easy to recognize, and low ratings from people who were tired of seeing them.

One participant (in a comment characteristic of the London and Berlin groups) said "… the polar bear … makes me angry for some reason. Not because I'm like 'oh no that's a pressing issue', but like 'oh this is so annoying' I don't want to see them again."

The few participants who were worried about the polar bear were pretty much only worried about the polar bear. "I might donate for the polar bear thingy," one participant said, "but not for global warming."

Jeff Turner

People preferred photos of climate change effects to climate change causes
A photo of a traffic jam, for example, made more sense to those surveyed than a photo of an individual car — partly because traffic jams are something that everyone hates, while many people are fond of individual cars. As one German participant put it: "[This] is not climate change because that's normal to drive a car. We can't stop that. It's normal."
There are, of course, major caveats that come with this type of research. This is a very small number of people, from a very small number of countries. It's hard to tell if an effort was made to adjust for age, income level, cultural background, or any number of things that a more comprehensive study would take into account. I also won't be likely to use their database of climate images — for one thing, you can't easily determine what's copyrighted and what's not. For another thing, while these images may have tested well, they all look like outtakes from a UNICEF brochure. But still. I am someone who spends a lot of time looking at pictures of traffic jams, polar bears, and wind turbines. Many of the study's findings resonated with me. All genres of journalism have their own special way of falling into a rut, and climate journalism is no exception. I have had those long, dark teatimes of the soul, cruising through image after image of people pointing at solar panels.
Maybe the answer is not to develop new image rules, but to try to break out of the old ones. So what if people don't like pictures of polar bears? So what if people don't like pictures of protests? I just found a picture of polar bears protesting. They are standing front of the White House, no less. I'm pretty sure one of them is taxidermied. I think I saw another one get arrested in New York a few years ago. All of these furballs are totally disobeying market research — and they totally made my day.

List

• What do racism and poverty have to do with pollution and climate change?
• Climate dystopia is here: Zika virus prompts calls for women to stop having babies
• Denmark preps for climate change by building parks that can transform into ponds
• Florida mayors to Marco Rubio: Stop ignoring climate change
• Doomsday Clock says the world is still pretty screwed despite the Paris accord

Climate Change Inaction Pushes 'Doomsday Clock' Closest To Midnight Since 1984

The Guardian - Suzanne Goldenberg

Symbolic clock is now at three minutes to apocalypse, the darkest hour for humanity since the cold war

Professor Richard Somerville of the University of California in San Diego unveils the doomsday clock, which says the world is now ‘three minutes’ away from apocalypse. Photograph: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

The symbolic doomsday clock moved to three minutes before midnight on Thursday because of the gathering dangers of climate change and nuclear proliferation, signalling the gravest threat to humanity since the throes of the cold war.
It was the closest the clock has come to midnight since 1984, when arms-control negotiations stalled and virtually all channels of communication between the US and the former Soviet Union closed down.
“It is now three minutes to midnight,” said Kennette Bennedict, the executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, announcing the two-minute shift toward the midnight hour.
The move came as scientists sounded a warning about climate change for the second time in three years. The last move of the clock hands, from six minutes to five minutes to midnight, in 2012, was also because of climate change.
As the scientists noted last Thursday, 2014 was the hottest year in 130 years of systematic record keeping. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.
But the scientists suggested that the greater danger lay in the failure of leaders to recognise and act on climate change.
“Stunning government failures have imperiled civilisations on a global scale,” Benedict said. “World leaders have failed to act on a scale or at a speed to protect humanity from catastrophe.”

The greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change have risen more since 2000 than in the three previous decades combined, Richard Somerville, a research professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said. Even so, he observed, negotiators had steadily lowered their ambitions for a global climate deal.
Meanwhile, the scientists said, global efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals have slowed since 2009, and all of the nuclear powers were expanding reactors and weapons programmes.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the symbolic clock in 1947 to indicate the cold war threat. In 1991, when the threat of nuclear annihilation receded with the end of the cold war, the clock stood at 17 minutes to midnight.
But it was now moving closer to the apocalypse because of climate change. “We are not saying it is too late to take action, but the window to take action is closing rapidly,” Benedict said.

Links

• 2014 officially the hottest year on record, US government scientists say
• US Senate refuses to accept humanity's role in global climate change, again