Fear Of Drought, Flood And Fires Leads Farmers To Plea For Urgent Action On Climate Change

ABC Rural - Tim Fookes

Farmer Robert Lee wants to see more action taken about the impact climate change is having on agriculture. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

Key points A group of farmers concerned about the future has formed a lobby group, Farmers for Climate Action About 200 farmers from around NSW attended a conference this week to lobby for more action on climate change A climate scientist says farmers bring new perspectives that people may not have considered

Extreme weather variabilities have farmers like Robert Lee, who has just watched more of his cattle leave for greener pastures, on edge.
The farmer from Larras Lee, in central west New South Wales, has lived through drought before, but not like this.
"The cattle I had were about to start calving, and I just haven't got enough to feed them," he said.
"I was proud of those cows that have gone this week; I bred them, and I regret I have to sell them."
Having already destocked, Mr Lee knows of other farmers destocking because there is a better opportunity for them in southern NSW and Victoria where they have had rain.
"The agents tell me how embarrassed they are with the amount of rain they've had in Victoria," Mr Lee said.
"But it's great to hear that some people have had [rain] and have got some grass to take on stock that we can't handle.

"With the way the climate is, with warmer-than-average temperatures and lower rainfall, I have to be much more nimble with how much stock I have."

Drought conditions in NSW is pushing farmers to demand urgent action on climate change. (ABC News: Caitlyn Gribbin)

Farmers for climate activism
Mr Lee is not alone in his concerns over the climate and has become a member of the lobby group, Farmers for Climate Action.
It involves people from rural Australia pushing for more action on the effects that climate change is having on agriculture.
A conference this week in Orange attracted nearly 200 people to discuss ways of lobbying for more action on the effects a warming, dryer climate is having on those who make a living on the land.
Two thirds of those at the conference were farmers who had travelled from around NSW to attend.

Cootamundra farmer John Angus is urging farmers to pressure for more climate change action. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

Among those who made the trip was John Angus, an agronomist with the CSIRO for 40 years who now farms near Cootamundra.

"It's bloody inspiring to see so many farmers concerned about what is going on," he said.

"We can make a difference [and] if we can suppress the methane emissions from grazing animals, it will make a big improvement.
"Due to climate change, the production of crops will become more difficult, because cropping leads to a reduction of soil carbon of two to three percent a year, and that can't be avoided."

Urgent action needed
The drought affecting much of Queensland and New South Wales has added to the concern some farmers have that not enough is being done to prevent extreme weather conditions.
While the issue of climate change can still be a tough sell for some, for those who say the science is irrefutable, there needs to be a more concerted effort to focus on doing what is possible to combat the risk of drought and floods.

Farmers are being encouraged to put up signs showing their support for climate change action. (ABC Rural: Tim Fookes)

"In the last five years there has been a general sway in terms of the view of climate change," said Steven Crimp, a climate applications scientist at the Australian National University.

"When farmers talk about the impact of climate change, it's particularly valuable.

"They bring in new ideas and new points of discussion on the ways of farmers that people may not have thought of before."

Impact on farming
With rising average temperatures and more variable rainfall, those on the land will bear the brunt of more frequent drought.
In the past 100 years of records, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has found a one degree Celsius rise in temperature, leading to more extreme weather events.

Australian farmers need to be given climate information to enable them to make good decisions says one expert. (ABC Wide Bay: Brad Marsellos, file photo)

"We've seen an increase in heat events and while we have seen drought events in the past, this one is severe," Lynette Bettio, a senior BOM climatologist said.
"We are seeing these record high temperatures with the drought, so that's increasing its intensity.

"Our farmers are at the forefront of dealing with this [and] are already some of the most adaptable in the world, given Australia's variable climate.

"But they need to be given the information about the climate so they can make the decisions they need to."

Getting heads around science
Harden farmer Peter Holding was among those to organise the Farmers for Climate Action conference.
"I've farmed for 40 years and the last 20, it's just been getting drier and drier," he said.
"I live in an area of southern NSW that supposedly got one drought every 10 years, but we rarely have a good year anymore; it's just not normal.
"I don't know why some people continue to put out fallacious arguments about the effect of climate change because they do enormous damage to the farming community by being wrong."
As Mr Holding looked across the room full of farmers concerned about the current situation and future, he was of the belief they could make a difference at a national and individual level.
"It gives us confidence and hope that the discussion around climate change is becoming more logical as people get their head around the science," he said.

Links

• How climate change is affecting what we grow and eat
• Military and government figures have been wargaming to prepare for climate change — they're worried
• Are farmers getting climate change support?
• Push to mass farm puffy pink seaweed that stops cows burping methane
• Watch: Australia's drought crisis on iView
• Water supplies drying up as drought continues to ravage rural Australia
• Where has drought aid been allocated and what difference is it making?
• How can I help? The dos and don'ts of drought donation
• What you need to know about droughts
• The big dry: 'See us, hear us, help us'

Green With Rage: Women Climate Change Leaders Face Online Attacks

The Conversation - Tracey Raney | Mackenzie Gregory

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has had to hire security due to sexist vitriol aimed at her in public. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Women leaders who support climate action are being attacked online with increasing regularity. These attacks should be viewed as a problem not only for the planet, but also to the goals of achieving gender equality and more inclusive, democratic politics.
Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment and climate change minister, recently announced that she’s had to hire security to protect herself and her family while in public. With an election now on, it’s likely she’ll face further abuse in the weeks to come.
McKenna hired security after she was out with her children and a driver rolled down his window and shouted: “F-k you, Climate Barbie.” This sexist taunt was popularized by Conservative MP Gerry Ritz, who once used the slur in reference to McKenna on Twitter.
It resulted in a tsunami of #Climatebarbie hashtags and variations of the slur ever since. Ritz has since apologized and deleted the original tweet.

A worldwide problem
Unfortunately, vitriol directed at women leaders who support climate action is becoming more frequent in Canada and beyond.
Maxime Bernier, leader of the Peoples’ Party of Canada, recently tweeted at 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg, calling her:

“…clearly mentally unstable. Not only autistic, but obsessive-compulsive, eating disorder, depression and lethargy, and she lives in a constant state of fear.”

Other “green” women leaders have spoken out about the sexism they have experienced, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Tzeporah Berman from Stand.Earth and Catherine Abreu from the Climate Action Network.
Following the proposal of the New Green Deal by U.S. congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, critics attacked her intelligence and her personal and professional background. National Review writer Charles Cooke referred to her as an “unmarried, childless bartender” who “somehow has the temerity to fancy herself a congressional representative.” He claimed the New Green Deal she supports is:

“ …an untrammeled Dear Santa letter without form, purpose, borders, or basis in reality.”

When New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke about climate change, an Australian “shock jock” broadcaster said someone should “shove a sock down [her] throat.”

Nothing new
Violence and threats of violence against women leaders are certainly not new. According to research by Rutgers University professor Mona Lena Krook and University of Florida professor Juliana Restrepo Sanỉn, women in politics experience violence, sexism and sexual harassment because of the threat they pose working in a male-dominated field.
Sexist attacks and threats of violence therefore serve to discredit women’s ideas and delegitimize their power, with the ultimate goal of excluding them from the public sphere.
Other research shows that the higher their position of power, the more threatening women become.
Although male politicians are also attacked online, recent research in the United Kingdom reveals that the effects of online attacks are particularly difficult for women politicians to deal with. That’s because women MPs are more likely to fear for their safety compared to their male colleagues.
Attacks against women climate leaders specifically can be further explained by the relationship between misogyny and climate denialism.

Misogyny at work
Unlike sexism, an ideology that promotes patriarchal social relations, misogyny is an enforcement mechanism that seeks to punish women who challenge the traditional patriarchal order, according to Cornell University professor Kate Manne.
Climate denialism has also been linked to traditional assumptions of masculinity. Research shows that climate deniers are more likely to adhere to older forms of industrial modern masculinity that helped to push society towards “industrialization, mechanism and capitalism.”
Accordingly, some climate deniers prefer this older form of masculinity over a newer “eco-modern masculinity” of care and compassion for the environment.
A 2019 study found that some men will avoid certain environmental actions, such as recycling or using reusable shopping bags, in order to maintain “an outward-facing heterosexual identity.”
These versions of heterosexual masculinity appear to be predicated upon the domination and exploitation, rather than the preservation, of the environment.

A double threat
Women leaders who promote climate policies are therefore doubly threatening to those who hold misogynistic attitudes. First, simply by being women in a powerful position and, second, by espousing policies that directly challenge traditional norms of masculinity.
“Green rage” directed at women climate leaders thus serves the function of safeguarding male dominance by punishing women who challenge the patriarchal social order. The result is a toxic brew of masculinity directed at women climate leaders by way of sexist attacks and threats of violence.

Even Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, has faced misogynistic online abuse, including from Canada’s Maxime Bernier. (AP Photo/Jeenah Moon)

Social media reactions to McKenna’s announcement that she now requires security for her and her family reveal how deeply embedded misogynistic attitudes are about women today.
After she tweeted about how difficult it is for women working on climate issues, some tweeters expressed support and sympathy. But many others denied that gender played a role in the attacks against her. Others continued to degrade her with sexist language, using hashtags #hypocriteBarbie and, once again, #climateBarbie.
Canadians go to the polls soon and the climate crisis is bound to be a heated campaign issue in the weeks to come.
Understanding the complex and challenging terrain women leaders must navigate is an important requirement of an informed electorate.
While some women politicians like McKenna have attempted to tackle head on the problem of online attacks against them, it should not be left to women alone to combat this issue. Dismantling patriarchal assumptions about gender is not just good for women, it is also good for men — and for the planet.

Links

• Women Take The Lead On Climate Change
• The Misogyny Of Climate Deniers
• Can Women Save Planet Earth? 4 Women Fighting Climate Change Say They Can — And Must
• From Antarctica To Costa Rica, Women Team Up To Build A Climate-Safe Future
• Woman Fest Founder Plans Training Camp For Climate Rebels
• 25 Female Climate Leaders Shaping 2019
• These Women Are Changing The Landscape Of Antarctic Research
• Sydney Wins Bid To Host Major Climate Conference For Women In 2020
• Young Women More Likely To Care About Climate Change: Study
• Climate Change Is Everyone's Problem. Women Are Ready To Solve It
• Mary Robinson Launches New Feminist Fight Against Climate Change
• Climate Change A 'Man-Made Problem With A Feminist Solution' Says Robinson
• Margaret Atwood: Women Will Bear Brunt Of Dystopian Climate Future
• Where Women Lead On Climate Change
• Indigenous Women Show The Way For Banks To Divest From Fossil Fuels
• Climate Change 'Impacts Women More Than Men'
• Women Key To Fight Against Climate Change
• When Environmental Crises Hit Homes, Women Suffer The Most
• To Stop Climate Change, Educate Girls And Give Them Birth Control
• Lack Of Women In Energy ‘Holding Back Fight Against Climate Change’
• Bringing Women Together To Fight Climate Change
• Another barrier for women in politics: Violence

Littleproud's Gaffe And PM's Reluctance Only Reinforce Australia's Climate Reputation

The Guardian - Adam Morton

Most major players, including China, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia apparently is not

David Littleproud's flip flop on climate science

On one level it appeared just another week in Australian climate politics. A ridiculous statement by a government minister made headlines; the crossbench pushed for stronger action; the prime minister’s office quietly suggested he may not fulfil the next step of the Paris agreement, a deal he has repeatedly promised voters he would honour.
Meanwhile, much of the media coverage of climate policy focused on what the opposition might do if it wins power in three years’ time.
But the repercussions from decisions made public this week may reverberate longer than was immediately obvious.
First, the ridiculous. David Littleproud, the minister responsible for drought and natural disasters, made international news after telling Guardian Australia he did not know if climate change was manmade. By Thursday, he was saying he had always accepted the science on the role humans play in the climate changing. He blamed his initial statement on a TV interview being cut short, neglecting to acknowledge it first appeared in an email responding to questions from this publication.
The minister’s position was backed to varying degrees by cabinet colleagues who played down the need to focus on the link between the climate crisis and bushfires ravaging Queensland and New South Wales or, in the case of the resources minister, Matt Canavan, volunteered that the government supported “sensible responses” to the issue that included supporting coal and gas developments.
If this all sounds wearyingly familiar and anti-science, it is worth noting Littleproud’s past comments back his claim that he more or less accepts mainstream science and the need to respond, if not the urgency scientists say is necessary. Beyond reinforcing Australia’s reputation as a global laggard on the climate emergency, his misstep was extraordinary mostly for illustrating the extent to which relative centrists within the Coalition are tying themselves in knots to avoid the wrath of the hard right.
But put Littleproud’s gaffe aside. Confirmation by my colleague Katharine Murphy that Scott Morrison will not attend a climate summit convened by the UN secretary general later this month, despite landing in the US that week to meet Donald Trump, is more significant – and not just for surface-level appearance reasons.
Morrison was not offered a speaking slot at the summit because he turned down António Guterres’ call for leaders to come to New York armed with concrete plans to boost national climate commitments next year. The foreign minister, Marise Payne, will attend in his place. While it has received relatively little attention beyond the Guardian, international observers are interpreting it as a sign Australia is backing away from its pledge under the Paris agreement.
It’s worth looking at what Australia signed up to in France in 2015. The overarching goal agreement is to limit global heating to well below 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible. To get there, countries included a “ratchet-up” mechanism. Every five years, they would update their commitments (known, in the UN’s typically alienating language, as “nationally determined contributions”) informed by the latest science.
Everyone in Paris knew the initial targets set for 2030 were nothing like enough. Everyone knew the success of the pact would depend on countries lifting their commitments sooner rather than later. The point was reinforced last year when the world’s climate scientists, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released a major report examining what would be necessary to limit heating to 1.5C.The report, which was requested by leaders in Paris, was stark. As Guterres has noted, it suggests a global 45% cut in emissions is needed by 2030 to keep the 1.5C goal within reach – a significant ask, but one in which analysts have found Australia could play its part.
Armed with that information, leaders are now supposed to be doing their part: ramping up commitments for the first five-yearly update of the Paris agreement next year.
As one of the world’s 15 biggest emitters and a wealthy developed country, what Australia does is noticed. But in a comment to the Guardian this week, Morrison’s office offered nothing to suggest a change was on the cards as promised. “Australia has already outlined our policies to tackle climate change including cutting our emissions by 26-28% and investing directly into climate resilience projects through our regional partners,” a spokesman said.
Australia has an infamous history of fudging on its climate targets, dating back to the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, when it demanded a target that allowed it to increase pollution by 8%. It also pushed for the inclusion of land-use changes in its baseline year of 1990, an historically high year for Australian carbon pollution from rampant land clearing in Queensland.
As land clearing had already reduced in the years that followed, it meant Australia could meet its goal while it continued to dramatically expand fossil fuel operations. It set up a situation where it could claim to be playing its part while doing no such thing.
That approach has continued. Australia has changed baseline years to make cuts appear deeper than they are and set targets that ignore scientific advice. Its has set low emissions reduction targets and then wants to claim extra credit towards its next target for beating the first goal. The credits go to Australia, not the atmosphere.
As has been well documented, Australia’s national emissions have risen four years straight. Multiple analyses have found existing climate change policies are not enough to meet the current 2030 target.
It would be foolish to be Pollyannaish about the state of international action to combat climate change. Global emissions increased last year after plateauing for a couple of years in the middle of the decade. The national governments of the biggest emitters, China and the US, either give mixed messages or are actively opposed to taking action.
But most major players, China included, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia is not. High-level discussions between China and the European Union about increasing their emissions commitments are ongoing. India is watching those talks closely ahead of announcing its position next year. More than 60 countries have signed up to give a presentation at the NYC climate summit, according to an early list seen by the Guardian.
Amid this, Australia’s plans are unclear at best. It has committed to develop a long-term strategy, but not explained what this will mean. It is possible it could still take an increased 2030 target to the UN climate conference in Glasgow next year. But it has said nothing to indicate this is likely.
Why does this matter? Beyond it going against Australia’s pledge in 2015, it makes deeper cuts in the future that much harder. Bill Hare, the chief executive and senior scientist with Climate Analytics, says it is well established scientifically that inadequate emissions reductions by 2030 leaves little to no chance of reaching zero emissions by 2050, the underlying goal implied by the Paris deal.
Visiting bushfire-damaged Queensland on Friday, Morrison followed a familiar formula: he accepted that climate change was a factor in what he was witnessing and claimed Australia was acting. “We have already responded and we will continue to respond, to take action on climate change. I do not accept any suggestion that we do not,” he said.
It is a proven technique: straight denial despite all the evidence running the other way. But talk to international observers of climate efforts and the view is different. Australia is seen as a roadblock, more focused on expanding its coal and gas exports than supporting a global solution. As efforts build ahead of Glasgow next year, Morrison may find it is not just the Pacific pushing back.

Links

• Australian natural disasters minister's complete about face: 'I believe in climate science'
• Scott Morrison won't attend UN climate summit despite being in the US
• UN chief calls for 2050 zero emissions plans – but Australia remains tightlipped
• Australia's annual carbon emissions reach record highAustralia’s carbon emissions highest on record, data shows
• Australia turns back on allies as it refuses to cut emissions above Paris pledge
• PM claims Australia will meet Paris target 'in a canter' despite emissions climbing
• Renewable energy spike led to sharp drop in emissions in Australia, study shows

Danish Project Aims To Plant 1m Trees Across Nation In TV Fundraiser

The Guardian - Gregory Robinson

Telethon asking viewers to give £2.4m for forests project to help tackle climate crisis

The prime minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, will plant one of the first trees in the live telethon. Photograph: Mads Claus Rasmussen/AFP/Getty Images

People in Denmark will be able to “plant trees” from the comfort of their sofa in what is believed to be the world’s first TV fundraiser for forests.

On Saturday the national broadcaster TV2 will air Denmark Plants Trees, a two-and-a-half hour live benefit event which will ask viewers to donate funds to plant 1m trees across the country.
Planting trees helps to reduce levels of CO₂ and is seen as a central part of the climate crisis solution.
The telethon will take place in the middle of Gisselfeld Klosters Skove forest with the prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, planting one of the first trees.

Martin Sundstrøm, a producer for the event, said viewers would be encouraged to raise 20m kroner (£2.4m) to help the Danish Society for Nature Conservation plant 1m trees, while 10% of the money raised would go to WWF to help save tropical forests.
Nicolai Hansson, the editor of TV2, said: “We know we won’t solve the climate crisis just by planting trees, but hopefully people will feel that it’s something tangible that they can be an active part of and enjoy afterwards when they visit the new forests and watch them grow and flourish.”
Those who donate to the cause will become a member of a new “folk forests” initiative, which will be created close to Danish cities. The project has 600 hectares (1482 acres) of land ready, and more will be added in the future.
“All potential areas have been evaluated and prioritised based on suitability by forest experts from the Danish Society for Nature Conservation,” Sundstrøm said. “After Saturday there will be a number of tree planting events all over Denmark. The first events will be this autumn and then in spring 2020 a larger number of events will take place depending on how much we raise. If we raise the funds to plant one million trees we expect around 30 events.”
Sundstrøm said he hoped to see Denmark Plants Trees lead to similar events in other countries. “I hope events like this might spread to other countries in order to engage the public, like Live Aid did in 1985.”
Sara Lom, CEO of the UK’s Tree Council charity, said she would welcome a tree planting telethon in the UK. “To plant enough trees to help tackle climate change we will need everyone to get involved – and fast,” said Lom. “A national TV telethon – or a tree-athon if you will – would be a wonderful way of engaging people around the country to raise money to plant and care for more trees.”

Links

• Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
• World losing area of forest the size of the UK each year, report finds
• How climate’s impact on land threatens civilisation – and how to fix it
• Brazilian Amazon deforestation surges to break August records
• Brazilian minister booed at climate event as outcry grows over Amazon fires
• Jair Bolsonaro claims NGOs behind Amazon forest fire surge – but provides no evidence
• Ethiopia plants 350m trees in a day to help tackle climate crisis
• ‘Death by a thousand cuts’: vast expanse of rainforest lost in 2018

Conflict And Disaster Force Millions From Their Homes

Reuters - Sonia Elks

Natural disasters such as cyclones and floods caused 7 million people to leave their homes, while a further 3.8 million fled conflict and violence

Mariam (Om Salih), a displaced Iraqi woman, who returns to camp after trying to go home and find the conditions in their towns unbearable, with lack of services and destroyed buildings, sits with her sons outside their tent at Hassan Sham camp, east of Mosul, Iraq July 29, 2019. Picture taken July 29,  2019. REUTERS/Abdullah Rashid

LONDON - Conflict and disasters forced nearly 11 million people from their homes in the first half of this year, a global monitoring group said on Thursday, warning mass displacement was becoming "the norm".
Natural disasters such as cyclones and floods caused 7 million people to leave their homes, while a further 3.8 million fled conflict and violence, said the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC).
Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Yemen suffered the highest levels of displacement due to conflict.
"These numbers are ... at a concerningly high level and the trend overall is that they are not going down," Bina Desai, the IDMC's head of policy and research, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
"The number of people exposed to displacement risk is increasing as more people live in poverty or insecurity as well as in areas at risk of flooding or other disasters."
A growing number of people face more than one such threat, from poverty or environmental degradation to political instability, said Desai.
Countries already battered by conflict or disaster are suffering high levels of new displacement, said the IDMC, a Geneva-based monitoring and analysis organisation set up by the Norwegian Refugee Council.
Natural climate patterns usually cause a rise in extreme weather events towards the end of the year, meaning the total displaced by disaster is expected to grow to about 22 million in 2019, said the IDMC.
However, it pointed out that in some cases, high levels of displacement represent success.
Cyclone Fani caused more than 3.4 million new displacements in India and Bangladesh, which saw a huge planned evacuation ahead of the storm. Many of those forced to flee suffered losses but survived and were ultimately able to return home.
The response to the cyclone underscored the need for governments to take early action to protect communities and make them more resilient to disasters, the report said.
"In terms of risk reduction and longer-term comprehensive approaches towards addressing conflict displacement, there are opportunities now because a number of countries have started to recognise the issue as a development issue," said Desai.
"The challenge now on the international community and the donor countries is to really support those opportunities ... rather than just perpetuating a reactive humanitarian system."

Links

• Running Dry
• Amazon forest and climate change
• Carbon capture struggles to run in race to avert climate crash
• Teenage activist Greta Thunberg takes climate protest to Trump 
• Flight To The Future: One land's quest to defuse a climate 'timebomb'
• In fuel-short Mali, farmers find money in saving tree stumps
• EU considers energy taxes to counter climate change
• With glue and fake blood, climate protesters target London Fashion Week
• World 'losing battle' on 2020 goal to cut deforestation

Climate Activist Greta Thunberg On The Power Of A Movement

PBS NewsHour - William Brangham

Covering Climate Now This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of climate change. These organisations have a combined audience of more than 1 billion people. From September 15-23, they have committed to emphasizing climate stories.  Their goal is to maximize coverage of the climate crisis and its impacts in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Summit on September 23. Follow the coverage on social media, with the hashtag #coveringclimatenow.

Since arriving in the U.S. by boat to participate in the UN Climate Action Summit, 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has led crowds in both New York and Washington with a call for greater action against climate change.
Thunberg first captured the world’s attention in August 2018 after she skipped school to sit on the steps of Swedish parliament, demanding that political leaders do more to address the environment.
Since then, Thunberg has successfully spread her eco-activism message on social media and inspired young people all over the world to lead school strikes in protest.
“We are the future. We are those who are going to have to adapt from this crisis,” Thunberg told PBS NewsHour.

More highlights from the interview:

• On the urgency of climate change: “Many people seem to have this double moral. They say one thing and then do another thing. They say that the climate crisis is very important and yet they do nothing about it,” Thunberg said. “If I want to do something, then I go all in. I walk the walk. Walk the talk…I want to practice as I preach.”
• On the hope that political leaders will address climate change: “I think people are just simply unaware of the situation and people are not feeling the urgency. I think that once we start treating this crisis as an emergency, people will be able to grasp the situation more.” Thunberg added: “All of these climate movements that have played out during the last year, or years, is proof of that. I don’t think anyone could have predicted the school strikes and the Fridays for Future movement to become so big and many other movements as well.”
• On the concern that small scale eco-activism will distract from broader policy changes: “Of course, we focus on these isolated problems. We talk about, ‘People need to eat less meat’ …and then someone else says, ‘No, it’s much more effective if everyone stops flying,’ and so on,” Thunberg said. “We need to focus on all of these things. Of course, individual change doesn’t make much difference in a holistic picture…but we need both systemic change and individual change.”
• How being on the autism spectrum influences her worldview: “Humans are social animals. We follow the stream and since no one else is behaving like this is a crisis, we see that and we think, then I should probably behave as they do,” Thunberg said. “I’m on the autism spectrum. I don’t usually follow social coding and so therefore I go my own way.”
• On what Thunberg wants people to take away from her movement: “Everyone can make a huge difference. We should not underestimate ourselves, because if lots of individuals go together then we can accomplish almost anything. So that’s what I want people to take away from this.”

Links

• Transcript |  Audio
• Greta Thunberg, Climate Change Activist, Sails Into New York City
• David Wallace-Wells: ‘There Are Many Cases Of Climate Hypocrisy’
• Greta Thunberg Sets Sail For New York On Zero-Carbon Yacht
• World Leaders Must Prove They've Listened To Climate Activists: Thunberg
• 'Time To Rebel': Greta Thunberg Adds Voice To New Song By The 1975
• Teen Climate Activist Greta Thunberg Wins France's First Freedom Prize
• Greta Thunberg: ‘They See Us As A Threat Because We’re Having An Impact’

World Losing Area Of Forest The Size Of The UK Each Year, Report Finds

The Guardian - Fiona Harvey

• Chance of ending deforestation by 2030 seems lower than when pledge was made five years ago
• Deforestation: damage goes far beyond Amazon

A deforested area of the Amazon in Pará state, Brazil. The global rate of tree loss is 26m hectares a year. Photograph: João Laet/AFP/Getty Images

An area of forest the size of the UK is being lost every year around the world, the vast majority of it tropical rainforest, with dire effects on the climate emergency and wildlife.

The rate of loss has reached 26m hectares (64m acres) a year, a report has found, having grown rapidly in the past five years despite pledges made by governments in 2014 to reverse deforestation and restore trees.
Charlotte Streck, a co-founder and the director of Climate Focus, the thinktank behind the report, said: “We need to keep our trees and we need to restore our forests. Deforestation has accelerated, despite the pledges that have been made.”

The New York declaration on forests was signed at the UN in 2014, requiring countries to halve deforestation by 2020 and restore 150m hectares of deforested or degraded forest land.
But the rate of tree cover loss has gone up by 43% since the declaration was adopted, while the most valuable and irreplaceable tropical primary forests have been cut down at a rate of 4.3m hectares a year.
The ultimate goal of the declaration, to halt deforestation by 2030 – potentially saving as much carbon as taking all the world’s cars off the roads – now looks further away than when the commitment was made.
In Latin America, south-east Asia, and Africa – the major tropical forest regions – the annual rate of tree cover loss increased markedly between 2014 and 2018, compared with 2001 to 2013. While the greatest losses by volume were in tropical Latin America, the greatest rate of increase was in Africa, where deforestation rates doubled from less than 2m hectares a year to more than 4m.

Guardian graphic. Source: World Resources Institute analysis based on 2019 data from Global Forest Watch

The report uses data up to 2018 in most cases, so the figures do not include the impact of the most recent burning in the Amazon. The report’s authors note that in June, deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon rose by 88% compared with the same month last year.
Streck warned the recent fires were a particular concern because, whereas in previous decades when the humid nature of the rainforest made it hard to burn, with the lush vegetation acting as an effective firebreak, global heating in recent years has dried out parts of the forest and made it easier to combust.
“The fires are coming at the beginning of the dry season, which is when you would have expected the forests to be at their wettest and hardest to burn,” she said. “This shows we could be entering into a feedback loop.”

---

Tropical deforestation has increased

since the New York declaration on

forests was signed in 2014.
---

Average annual tropical tree

cover loss, million hectares

Guardian graphic | Source: World Resources Institute analysis based on 2019 data from Global Forest Watch. Note: Tree cover loss calculated using a >25% tree cover density threshold. Improvements to methodology starting in 2011 may result in higher estimates of loss in 2011-18 compared with 2001-10

---

Feedback loops are feared by climate scientists because they amplify the effects of heating. In the case of forests, climate change dries out trees, making them more flammable, and increasing temperatures so they burn more easily, which then contributes more carbon dioxide, which fuels heating.
Keeping existing forests standing, particularly in tropical regions, and restoring wooded areas that have been damaged, has long been recognised as one of the cheapest ways of tackling the climate crisis. The cost of preserving key forests globally has been estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars a year, compared with the trillions needed to shift to low-carbon infrastructure.
Jo House, a reader in environmental science and policy at the University of Bristol, said: “Deforestation, mostly for agriculture, contributes around a third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. At the same time, forests naturally take up around a third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
“This natural sink provided by forests is at risk from the duel compounding threats of further deforestation and future climate change. The continued loss of primary forests, at ever-increasing rates, despite their incalculable value and irreplaceability, is both shocking and tragic.”
One of the difficulties highlighted by the report is that of gaining private sector support and investment for keeping forests standing. While there are clear economic benefits to cutting down forests, in the form of timber production and expanded agriculture, there are few investments being made in keeping existing forests healthy.

---

Annual deforestation in Brazil fell below
2m hectares for seven years to 2016

Guardian graphic. Source: For 2001-13, Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Stehman, S. V., Smith-Rodriguez, K., Okpa, C., & Aguilar, R. (2017). Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal Amazon, 2000–2013, Science Advances, 3(4), e1601047; For 2014-18 data, Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A. et al. (2013). Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/Nasa). Global Forest Watch database.

---

Another complicating factor is that many governments offer subsidies to agriculture, which provide perverse incentives for deforestation.
The report from a coalition of 25 organisations is being presented in New York before a series of events focusing on the climate crisis in the run-up to the UN secretary general’s summit later this month. At the meeting, world leaders are expected to come up with new proposals for tackling the climate emergency.
But Streck said the failure to meet the pledges made five years ago undercut the value of such promises if they were not backed up with finance, detailed plans and on-the-ground implementation.
“We don’t need more important guys standing up making pledges,” she said. “We need to go beyond declarations. Implementation is complicated, but it’s what we need.”
There have been some bright spots. The rate of loss of primary forest in Indonesia slowed by nearly one-third between 2017 and 2018. Palm oil plantations in the country are a major cause of deforestation, but companies and the government have come under pressure from consumers and aid donors. Wetter weather that reduced forest fires also helped.
While some countries have embarked on tree-planting schemes, notably in Ethiopia, but also in Mexico and El Salvador, these have been far outweighed by the loss of existing forests. Tree planting does not compensate for the loss of standing forests, because established growth yields benefits beyond carbon uptake, through the whole ecosystem.
“It can take centuries for forests to recover their full carbon-absorbing and weather-regulating capabilities,” Streck said.

Links

• Deforestation: damage goes far beyond Amazon
• Can we save the world, one tree at a time?
• 'Chaos, chaos, chaos': a journey through Bolsonaro's Amazon inferno
• Amazon fires are a shameful indictment of our lust for excess
• Berlin startup offers €1m to save ancient Hambach forest from coal mining