RenewEconomy - Christian Roselund (PV Magazine)
Only ten days before the U.S. solar industry finds out whether or not
it will have to deal with trade remedies imposed by the Trump
Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable
Energy Laboratories (NREL) put out a new report showing new low costs
for solar in the first quarter of 2017.
U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017 shows
PV system prices falling roughly 30 per cent in only one year for
utility-scale solar, to an average price of $1.03 per watt-DC for
fixed-tilt systems and $1.11 per watt for systems with tracking.
This is a dramatic slide in prices even for an industry that has been
greatly successful in reducing prices, and appears to come mostly from
the collapse in PV module prices over the same period.
This in turn is largely due to a mismatch between supply and demand
in China, which has caused significant pain for module makers, and it is
not coincidence that there is currently a case before the U.S.
government on potential trade protection for U.S. solar cell and module
makers.
NREL has estimated that this translates to levelized costs of
electricity from $50-66 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for fixed tilt systems
and $44-$61/MWh for tracking systems, excluding the effect of the U.S.
federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC).
These prices show that utility-scale solar has already beaten the
2020 targets set by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) SunShot
Initiative, which has led the new head of the DOE’s Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to shift the focus of SunShot
away from cost reduction and towards integration of high levels of
renewable energy (please see our interview with EERE head Daniel Simmons here).
As the bulk of cost reductions were driven by the module price
collapse, prices in other sectors have not fallen as quickly. NREL found
that prices for commercial and industrial (C&I) systems fell a
still-impressive 15% over the last year to an average of $1.85 per
watt-DC, while prices for residential systems fell only 6% to $2.80 per
watt.
This means LCOE of $92-120/MWh for C&I systems, and $129-167/MWh
for residential systems. This is still well below SunShot goals for
unsubsidized solar and given the current rate of price declines
residential solar may not meet its SunShot target in 2020.
However, when the effect of the ITC is calculated, such costs fall
significantly, putting the average cost of residential PV below
$100/MWh.
NREL notes that this points to the difficulty in reducing non-hardware
“soft” costs, which have increased to two-thirds of the cost of
residential systems and 59% of C&I systems.
Links
22/09/2017
Rooftop Solar And Storage – Cheaper Than Subsidising Old Coal
RenewEconomy - Giles Parkinson
Leading energy analyst Bruce Mountain says if governments were serious about lowering electricity prices for consumers, they would focus more on supporting rooftop solar and battery storage than seeking to subsidise ageing coal-fired power generators like Liddell.
Mountain, the director of Carbon + Energy Markets CEM says the combination of solar and battery storage is already cheaper than grid prices for most consumers in South Australia, and it would not take much effort or expense to make it so in other states too.
The federal government has claimed that forcing AGL to keep open the ageing and decrepit Liddell power station will lead to more reliability and cheaper prices, despite most analysts and energy companies saying it would do the exact opposite.
“If the federal government is determined to deliver lower electricity prices, it might focus its effort on ensuring that demand is more responsive to short-term price signals, and on making up the narrowing shortfall needed to encourage widespread uptake of distributed batteries,” Mountain says in a presentation to an energy forum in Melbourne.
“Such policies will not be difficult to develop or implement, they will require outlays many times smaller than those needed to build baseload coal plants, and will show results during the term of a government.”
The idea of using rooftop solar and battery storage (part of what is known as “distributed energy”) has been raised in numerous studies – by the CSIRO, by energy networks, and most recently by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which sees 40 per cent of all demand being serviced by localised generation and storage.
AEMO boss Audrey Zibelman sees such resources as critical to not just lowering prices, but also creating a smarter, cleaner and more reliable grid than the system which now relies heavily on centralised generation and extended networks, and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure of equipment, storms and bushfires.
The government knows only too well the benefits of rooftop solar, and battery storage. Many politicians have rooftop solar in their homes and some like Malcolm Turnbull have battery storage. Yet none have ever chosen to champion this, instead promoting the technologies deployed by large corporations.
“One of the few constants in Australia’s energy debate is the fervour of politicians’ and administrators’ homage to the idea that electricity prices should be lower than they are,” Mountain says.
“That electricity prices have reached the level they have, suggests the homage has all too often been a camouflage for other agendas.
“For too long ideology and the protection of vested interests has lurked behind the apparent pursuit of “lower electricity prices”. The obsession with coal-fired “baseload” generation is an enduring manifestation of this malaise.”
He notes that the technology limits of the era required oversized and poorly insulated water heaters to be operated at night to keep inflexible baseload coal generators operating in the dead of night, when there was little demand.
But the viability of the coal fleet relies on its ability to operate continuously, but this is being threatened by the emergence of new cheaper technologies, such as rooftop solar, which cost around one sixth the cost of grid supplied electricity.
“It is no surprise that photovoltaics are now being installed at record rates not just on household roofs but also on farms and in businesses.”
This is now being accompanied by the plunging cost of battery storage, particularly those with lithium chemistries, whose cost curve is even more dramatic than that of solar PV.
"Rooftop solar PV is clearly much cheaper than the grid, but solar PV typically only displaces around 30 per cent of grid consumption for a typical house,” Mountain notes (see graph above). “Rooftop PV pays for itself in almost all cases with north or west-facing roof. There is also rapid growth in the commercial sector.”
The combination of battery and photovoltaics installed behind customers’ meters now promises to meet customers’ needs more cheaply than grid-only supply.
In South Australia, which suffers from concentrated electricity markets, dependency on expensive gas and structurally high network charges, this is already the case,
This estimate is supported by the local network operator SA Power Networks, which predicts the cost of solar and storage to fall to just 15c/kWh within five years – less than half the current grid cost.
The combination of solar PV and Battery storage allows grid-independence for 70-100 per cent of consumption,” he says, although the optimal sizing of the two technologies would depend on many factors.
And Mountain argues that it soon will be in other states. This graph above compares the cost of a rooftop solar installation with battery storage, and grid only prices. With the costs of battery storage falling quickly, this equation will quickly change.
“The combination of solar PV and Battery storage allows grid-independence for 70-100 per cent of consumption,” he says, although the optimal sizing of the two technologies would depend on many factors.
The issue with a growing uptake of rooftop solar and storage has implications for the grid operators, who have built a network on the assumption of growing demand and “many years of wasteful gold plating”, Mountain says.
They may have no choice but to contemplate write downs. “The biggest adjustment is needed where the networks are partially or fully government-owned,” he says.
“The challenge is not insurmountable but requires governments to take responsibility for their past mistakes. For the privately owned networks, asset write-downs raise legitimate worries about political expropriation and these would need to be resolved.
“If the federal government is really concerned to do something about electricity prices, yesterday’s heroes must be put out to pasture. Those calling the shots must drop the ideology and find the gumption to put the customer first in deed, not just in word.”
Links
Leading energy analyst Bruce Mountain says if governments were serious about lowering electricity prices for consumers, they would focus more on supporting rooftop solar and battery storage than seeking to subsidise ageing coal-fired power generators like Liddell.
Mountain, the director of Carbon + Energy Markets CEM says the combination of solar and battery storage is already cheaper than grid prices for most consumers in South Australia, and it would not take much effort or expense to make it so in other states too.
The federal government has claimed that forcing AGL to keep open the ageing and decrepit Liddell power station will lead to more reliability and cheaper prices, despite most analysts and energy companies saying it would do the exact opposite.
“If the federal government is determined to deliver lower electricity prices, it might focus its effort on ensuring that demand is more responsive to short-term price signals, and on making up the narrowing shortfall needed to encourage widespread uptake of distributed batteries,” Mountain says in a presentation to an energy forum in Melbourne.
“Such policies will not be difficult to develop or implement, they will require outlays many times smaller than those needed to build baseload coal plants, and will show results during the term of a government.”
The idea of using rooftop solar and battery storage (part of what is known as “distributed energy”) has been raised in numerous studies – by the CSIRO, by energy networks, and most recently by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which sees 40 per cent of all demand being serviced by localised generation and storage.
AEMO boss Audrey Zibelman sees such resources as critical to not just lowering prices, but also creating a smarter, cleaner and more reliable grid than the system which now relies heavily on centralised generation and extended networks, and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure of equipment, storms and bushfires.
The government knows only too well the benefits of rooftop solar, and battery storage. Many politicians have rooftop solar in their homes and some like Malcolm Turnbull have battery storage. Yet none have ever chosen to champion this, instead promoting the technologies deployed by large corporations.
“One of the few constants in Australia’s energy debate is the fervour of politicians’ and administrators’ homage to the idea that electricity prices should be lower than they are,” Mountain says.
“That electricity prices have reached the level they have, suggests the homage has all too often been a camouflage for other agendas.
“For too long ideology and the protection of vested interests has lurked behind the apparent pursuit of “lower electricity prices”. The obsession with coal-fired “baseload” generation is an enduring manifestation of this malaise.”
He notes that the technology limits of the era required oversized and poorly insulated water heaters to be operated at night to keep inflexible baseload coal generators operating in the dead of night, when there was little demand.
But the viability of the coal fleet relies on its ability to operate continuously, but this is being threatened by the emergence of new cheaper technologies, such as rooftop solar, which cost around one sixth the cost of grid supplied electricity.
“It is no surprise that photovoltaics are now being installed at record rates not just on household roofs but also on farms and in businesses.”
This is now being accompanied by the plunging cost of battery storage, particularly those with lithium chemistries, whose cost curve is even more dramatic than that of solar PV.
"Rooftop solar PV is clearly much cheaper than the grid, but solar PV typically only displaces around 30 per cent of grid consumption for a typical house,” Mountain notes (see graph above). “Rooftop PV pays for itself in almost all cases with north or west-facing roof. There is also rapid growth in the commercial sector.”
The combination of battery and photovoltaics installed behind customers’ meters now promises to meet customers’ needs more cheaply than grid-only supply.
In South Australia, which suffers from concentrated electricity markets, dependency on expensive gas and structurally high network charges, this is already the case,
This estimate is supported by the local network operator SA Power Networks, which predicts the cost of solar and storage to fall to just 15c/kWh within five years – less than half the current grid cost.
The combination of solar PV and Battery storage allows grid-independence for 70-100 per cent of consumption,” he says, although the optimal sizing of the two technologies would depend on many factors.
And Mountain argues that it soon will be in other states. This graph above compares the cost of a rooftop solar installation with battery storage, and grid only prices. With the costs of battery storage falling quickly, this equation will quickly change.
“The combination of solar PV and Battery storage allows grid-independence for 70-100 per cent of consumption,” he says, although the optimal sizing of the two technologies would depend on many factors.
The issue with a growing uptake of rooftop solar and storage has implications for the grid operators, who have built a network on the assumption of growing demand and “many years of wasteful gold plating”, Mountain says.
They may have no choice but to contemplate write downs. “The biggest adjustment is needed where the networks are partially or fully government-owned,” he says.
“The challenge is not insurmountable but requires governments to take responsibility for their past mistakes. For the privately owned networks, asset write-downs raise legitimate worries about political expropriation and these would need to be resolved.
“If the federal government is really concerned to do something about electricity prices, yesterday’s heroes must be put out to pasture. Those calling the shots must drop the ideology and find the gumption to put the customer first in deed, not just in word.”
Links
- Rooftop solar provides 48% of South Australia power, pushing grid demand to record low
- Let’s follow Malcolm Turnbull’s rooftop solar and storage lead, and keep the lights on
- US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in just one year
- Whyalla steel owners buy into Zen solar and storage company
- Work begins on world’s biggest solar tower and storage plant
Two Major Cities Demand Fossil Fuel Companies Pay For Climate Damages
ThinkProgress - Natasha Geiling
San Francisco and Oakland are the two latest cities looking to take
major fossil fuel companies to court over their role in fueling climate
change. City attorneys announced on Wednesday that they had filed
lawsuits with state courts in San Francisco and Alameda counties
alleging that a handful of fossil fuel producers not only contributed to
climate change through their business practices, but did so knowingly.
The cities are asking fossil fuel producers to pay into a fund that
would be used to pay for current and future damages associated with sea
level rise.
The litigation mirrors lawsuits brought earlier in the summer by two California counties and the city of Imperial Beach, and signals a growing movement of cities attempting to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their contribution to climate change through the courts.
All five lawsuits allege that fossil fuel companies have caused widespread harm to the community by knowingly releasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, which in turn fuel climate change. Legal experts note similarities between these climate-related public nuisance claims and claims brought against tobacco companies in the mid-1990s, which alleged that the companies had created a public nuisance by knowingly selling harmful products (those suits eventually culminated in a $206 billion settlement).
Unlike previous lawsuits, however, those filed by San Francisco and
Oakland are narrower in scope, asking just five major fossil fuel
producers to create a fund to pay for current and future adaptation to
sea level rise.
The Bay Area is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, with much of the region built on reclaimed tidal marshes that can easily flood in times of increased rain, high tide, or rising ocean levels. To compound the problem, the region is heavily populated, with around seven million inhabitants relying on infrastructure that could periodically be underwater as climate change continues to push sea levels higher.
According to the Pacific Institute, about four and a half feet of sea level rise by 2100 — on the higher end of projections, but certainly not out of the question — would leave more than 75,000 people in San Francisco and Alameda County vulnerable to inundation. Up and down the California coast, that same amount of sea level rise would threaten $100 billion worth of existing property.
“It’s definitely a continuation of the trend, but it’s actually a very different suit both in scale and the legal strategy behind it,” Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, told ThinkProgress. “The real important thing in their doing this is that they both highlight the significant costs that cities are having to pay now, and they open up another new and really powerful legal avenue that other city, county, and state governments can pursue to recoup those costs from polluters that played a major role in creating those costs.”
The companies named in the lawsuits are Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP. Those companies, along with three leading coal producers, have been responsible for nearly 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions released since the Industrial Revolution, according to a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists study.
Increased scientific evidence linking specific companies to greenhouse gas emissions might help bolster the plaintiffs’ case, as well as recent investigations showing that at least one defendant — ExxonMobil — was aware of the dangers of climate change as early as the 1970s, but continued to mislead both investors and the public about the threats to both the planet and the company’s assets.
“The science of climate attribution has evolved rapidly, both in the
ability to attribute greenhouse gas emissions to specific producers of
fossil fuels and the ability to actually map those increased emissions
to changes in temperature, sea level rise, and ultimately, the harms
from specific extreme weather events,” Muffett said.
The ability to better link fossil fuel companies to the harm they have caused — and continue to cause — might actually be the primary difference between the tobacco litigation of the 1990s and the new wave of climate litigation seen today, Muffett added.
“It took three decades for a court to find evidence of corporate malfeasance,” Muffett said of tobacco companies. “The real difference is that plaintiffs are going into court now with that evidence of malfeasance in hand. These plaintiffs are much farther along at this stage in litigation than tobacco plaintiffs were.”
Beyond better attribution science, Muffett points to one other way that climate litigation already seems to be outpacing tobacco litigation: the speed at which litigation seems to have moved from individual claims to claims by cities and counties. Individuals had attempted to bring civil suits against tobacco companies for decades, but the real breakthrough in tobacco litigation happened when claims moved from individual to class action to, eventually, state claims against companies — an evolution that has occurred much more quickly with climate litigation.
“If you look at the scale and speed of the litigation, while the parallels to tobacco are there, the truth is climate litigation is going much farther, much faster, and the universe of potential plaintiffs and the scale of their potential damages is much greater,” Muffett said.
And while the first wave of climate litigation cases brought by cities against fossil fuel companies have been based in losses from sea level rise, as attribution science becomes stronger, and the links between climate consequences and the actions of fossil fuel companies becomes clearer, the scope of these kinds of claims will likely widen. Muffett suggested that places like Puerto Rico or the Gulf Coast — which are reeling from a series of devastating hurricanes — could potentially bring similar claims against fossil fuel companies in the future.
“We will see more of these suits and we will start seeing them faster, and the scale of what they address is only going to grow,” he said.
Links
![]() |
| A pair of sailboats make their way across San Francisco Bay. (CREDIT: AP Photo/Eric Risberg) |
The litigation mirrors lawsuits brought earlier in the summer by two California counties and the city of Imperial Beach, and signals a growing movement of cities attempting to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their contribution to climate change through the courts.
All five lawsuits allege that fossil fuel companies have caused widespread harm to the community by knowingly releasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, which in turn fuel climate change. Legal experts note similarities between these climate-related public nuisance claims and claims brought against tobacco companies in the mid-1990s, which alleged that the companies had created a public nuisance by knowingly selling harmful products (those suits eventually culminated in a $206 billion settlement).
![]() |
| California communities are suing 37 fossil fuel companies over climate damages |
The Bay Area is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, with much of the region built on reclaimed tidal marshes that can easily flood in times of increased rain, high tide, or rising ocean levels. To compound the problem, the region is heavily populated, with around seven million inhabitants relying on infrastructure that could periodically be underwater as climate change continues to push sea levels higher.
According to the Pacific Institute, about four and a half feet of sea level rise by 2100 — on the higher end of projections, but certainly not out of the question — would leave more than 75,000 people in San Francisco and Alameda County vulnerable to inundation. Up and down the California coast, that same amount of sea level rise would threaten $100 billion worth of existing property.
“It’s definitely a continuation of the trend, but it’s actually a very different suit both in scale and the legal strategy behind it,” Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, told ThinkProgress. “The real important thing in their doing this is that they both highlight the significant costs that cities are having to pay now, and they open up another new and really powerful legal avenue that other city, county, and state governments can pursue to recoup those costs from polluters that played a major role in creating those costs.”
The companies named in the lawsuits are Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP. Those companies, along with three leading coal producers, have been responsible for nearly 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions released since the Industrial Revolution, according to a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists study.
Increased scientific evidence linking specific companies to greenhouse gas emissions might help bolster the plaintiffs’ case, as well as recent investigations showing that at least one defendant — ExxonMobil — was aware of the dangers of climate change as early as the 1970s, but continued to mislead both investors and the public about the threats to both the planet and the company’s assets.
![]() |
| What happens if the EPA is stripped of its power to fight climate change? |
The ability to better link fossil fuel companies to the harm they have caused — and continue to cause — might actually be the primary difference between the tobacco litigation of the 1990s and the new wave of climate litigation seen today, Muffett added.
“It took three decades for a court to find evidence of corporate malfeasance,” Muffett said of tobacco companies. “The real difference is that plaintiffs are going into court now with that evidence of malfeasance in hand. These plaintiffs are much farther along at this stage in litigation than tobacco plaintiffs were.”
Beyond better attribution science, Muffett points to one other way that climate litigation already seems to be outpacing tobacco litigation: the speed at which litigation seems to have moved from individual claims to claims by cities and counties. Individuals had attempted to bring civil suits against tobacco companies for decades, but the real breakthrough in tobacco litigation happened when claims moved from individual to class action to, eventually, state claims against companies — an evolution that has occurred much more quickly with climate litigation.
“If you look at the scale and speed of the litigation, while the parallels to tobacco are there, the truth is climate litigation is going much farther, much faster, and the universe of potential plaintiffs and the scale of their potential damages is much greater,” Muffett said.
And while the first wave of climate litigation cases brought by cities against fossil fuel companies have been based in losses from sea level rise, as attribution science becomes stronger, and the links between climate consequences and the actions of fossil fuel companies becomes clearer, the scope of these kinds of claims will likely widen. Muffett suggested that places like Puerto Rico or the Gulf Coast — which are reeling from a series of devastating hurricanes — could potentially bring similar claims against fossil fuel companies in the future.
“We will see more of these suits and we will start seeing them faster, and the scale of what they address is only going to grow,” he said.
Links
- California Coastal Communities Sue 37 Fossil Fuel Companies For 'Knowingly Contributing To Climate Change'
- Exxon, Shell And Other Carbon Producers Sued For Sea Level Rises In California
- This Could Be The Next Big Strategy For Suing Over Climate Change
- California Communities Are Suing 37 Fossil Fuel Companies Over Climate Damages
- Local Governments in California File Common Law Claims Against Largest Fossil Fuel Companies
21/09/2017
Silent Killer: Sweltering Planet Braces For Deadly Heat Shocks
Reuters - Laurie Goering
As hurricanes and floods grab headlines, heatwaves associated with climate change are claiming lives around the world
Two weeks later, Hurricane Irma churned into Florida, killing at least 33 people there and causing billions more in damages - as well as brutal loss of life in the Caribbean.
But these storms may not be 2017's deadliest U.S. disaster. Instead, that title may go to a largely unseen killer: rising temperatures.
Over the last 30 years, increasingly broiling summer heat has claimed more American lives than flooding, tornadoes or hurricanes, according to the U.S. National Weather Service.
And the problem has not been limited to the United States. More than 35,000 people died during a European heatwave in 2003, and tens of thousands perished in Russia during extreme heat in 2010.
The threat is particularly severe in already sweltering places, from South Asia to the Gulf, and has been linked to a rise in migration out of hot and poor parts of rural Pakistan.
But experts say heat remains underestimated as a threat by governments, aid agencies and individuals. That's both because it's an invisible, hard-to-document disaster that claims lives largely behind closed doors - and because hot weather just doesn't strike many people as a serious threat.
"If you have a natural disaster like a cyclone or an earthquake or a flood, the impacts are immediate. Things get washed away, people drown. But heat is a silent killer," said Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate change researcher at Australia's University of New South Wales.
"In Australia, heatwaves kill more people than any other natural disaster - but no one realises the destruction they can cause. The attitude is, 'It's hot, suck it up, get on with it'."
Around the world, heat is a neglected and poorly understood disaster, in part because few of the deaths it produces are directly attributed to heatwaves.
Victims - many elderly, very young, poor or already unhealthy - often die at home, and not just of heat stroke but of existing health problems aggravated by heat and dehydration.
In India, for instance, a major risk factor for women - who die of heat far more often than men, researchers say - is the lack of an indoor toilet.
To avoid embarrassment or harassment, many women refrain from drinking water during the day to limit their trips to the toilet - a potentially deadly strategy during heatwaves.
"These deaths are recorded as normal deaths. But they wouldn't have happened if it wasn't so hot," said Gulrez Shah Azhar, an Indian heat researcher who works for the RAND Corporation, a global think tank.
Hotter cities
To find the true rate of deaths during heatwaves, health officials look at "excess" deaths - how many more people died than would otherwise be expected during that period.
In places used to dealing with hot conditions, there is a "diagnostics failure" in recognising the risks of extreme heat, noted Eric Klinenberg, an American sociologist and expert on a deadly 1995 Chicago heatwave.
In steamy cities like Miami, "there's a sense we know how to deal with heat here, while everybody else is complaining", he said. "There's a will not to see the risk."
City dwellers, from Bangkok to Cairo, face particular - and growing - risks. In many rural areas, trees and open land planted with crops help daytime heat subside at night, providing some respite.
But in cities, acres of concrete and asphalt absorb warmth during the day and radiate it back at night, creating heat islands that can be nearly as hot at night as during the day.
During Chicago's three-day heatwave in 1995, more than 730 people died, many of them older people living alone and already facing health problems. With city services overwhelmed, hospitals turned away emergency cases, and the city's morgue had to rent refrigerated trucks to store the dead.
With more than half the world's population now living in cities - and two-thirds of people expected to live in them by 2050 - finding ways to reduce urban heat will be crucial to saving lives as climate change ramps up heat extremes.
Cooling down
Many parts of the world, especially those that have already seen substantial heat deaths, are experimenting with ways to lower the risks.
In New York, and a host of other cities, authorities are painting roofs white to reflect more heat and cool inhabitants. They are planting more trees and preparing hospitals to deal with more heat stroke and other health problems when temperatures soar.
A pioneering heat action plan in Ahmedabad, a city in western India, for instance, automatically triggers deliveries of water to slum areas when temperatures hit dangerous levels, as well as opening neighbourhood cooling centres.
Simple measures like this are a clear, economical way to save lives, their backers say.
"The cost of setting up a heat preparedness plan is orders of magnitude cheaper than the cost of lives. It's background noise," said Azhar, who helped develop the Ahmedabad plan after a 2010 heatwave that killed more than 1,300 people in the city.
In other countries, architectural styles designed to deal with heat - often abandoned when air conditioning became available - are being revived.
Construction workers, who can't avoid being outside on hot days, are being kitted out with gel-filled cooling vests and collars.
Governments are experimenting with cloud-seeding to bring cooling rain. And some scientists are already discussing "geoengineering" the planet using sun shields in space or sulfur particles in the atmosphere to reflect the sun's heat.
China, one of the countries grappling with worsening heatwaves, is trying to create "sponge cities" with abundant trees and green areas that can absorb heavy rainfall, then gradually evaporate the cooling moisture back into the air.
Power to the people
In most hot places, people are advised to stay inside on sweltering days, drink more water, wear cool clothing and avoid strenuous activity. But those things can be hard to manage in practice when there's work to be done and deadlines to be met.
"I was working at home on a 45-degree (113-degree Fahrenheit) day, and the guy across the street was still building a home in that heat," recalled Perkins-Kirkpatrick, who lives in Sydney. "There needs to be more education that it's not okay to be outside in those conditions."
In rural areas, as well as many urban ones, lack of access to electricity can be one of the biggest risks during heatwaves.
India alone has 300 million people without a power connection, which means they cannot turn on a fan or air conditioning when temperatures soar.
In New Delhi, some of the poorest of the poor, living on the streets, sleep near the curb of busy roads at night, hoping to catch a breeze from passing cars.
When Azhar was growing up in the Indian city of Lucknow, in a home without electricity, "there was no escape" from debilitating summer heatwaves. "You're trapped and there is literally nothing you can do," he said.
Experts say one clear way to reduce growing health risks from heatwaves is to provide more of the world's population with access to power, particularly in the hottest areas.
"The best way to mitigate (heat deaths) is to get electricity" to run fans or air conditioning, said Steven J. Davis, a University of California, Irvine earth system science professor and one of the authors of a 2017 report that predicted a growing risk of widespread deaths during Indian heatwaves.
Global efforts, including as part of the Sustainable Development Goals, to bring power to those without it could play a significant role in reducing heat deaths, experts say.
But if action to curb climate change is not robust enough, heatwaves could more often overwhelm or break down power grids, leaving rich and poor without help to cool down, they warn.
Gains and losses
In many poor communities, deadly heat is driving innovation. In the slums of Bhubaneswar, a humid city in eastern India where temperatures last summer hit 46.8 degrees Celsius (116 degrees Fahrenheit), families have learned to soak jute sacks in water and place them on their tin roofs, to cool the inside.
And rickshaw drivers have added wet cooling mats to their vehicle roofs, drawing more customers and boosting their income.
"There was never a day all this summer that he didn't bring home 500 rupees ($8)- a third more than others did," said Kumari Behera, a Bhubaneswar resident whose son drives one of the "air-conditioned" rickshaws.
Intensifying heat presents many risks beyond growing loss of life. It is a contributor to longer and more intense droughts and water shortages that are destroying harvests and creating more severe forest fires, with choking smoke.
Higher temperatures can increase smog production in cities, as heat "cooks" pollution from vehicles, and extend the length of allergy seasons, prolonging periods of misery for millions.
And while rising temperatures may boost harvests in some parts of the world, extreme heat threatens to slash farm production in many areas, particularly of staple crops such as wheat, maize, rice and soybeans, scientists say.
In the shorter term, rising temperatures present opportunities for some cooler parts of the world, however.
In northern Canada, for instance, warmer weather is opening once frost-prone land to farming for the first time, raising the prospect of new harvests in new places.
"There's a lot more interest in taking a look at underdeveloped land in northern Ontario and Quebec because of changes in climate," said Rod Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Fishermen around the world, meanwhile, are finding different species in their nets, many driven into new waters by ocean warming. Iceland's fishermen alone have spotted more than 30 new species in the last two decades, as some old ones disappear.
"The gains and losses seem to be balanced for now. But in the long term, I think (the change) will be slightly positive," said Hreidar Thor Valtysson, an Icelandic natural resources specialist, whose children now catch mackerel near the Arctic Circle.
Disease, migration
Rising temperatures also look set to change the world's disease threats. Mosquitoes that spread potentially deadly viruses from Zika and dengue to chikungunya thrive better in warmer climates than their malaria-carrying cousins, researchers at Stanford University found.
That means malaria rates could fall in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, as temperatures rise and malaria-carrying mosquitoes struggle - or move to cooler areas of the continent.
But communities that see malaria diminish likely will face new threats, including from diseases that are less researched and have lower-funded eradication efforts.
"We have this intriguing prospect of the threat of malaria declining in Africa, while Zika, dengue and chikungunya become more of a danger," said Erin Mordecai, a Stanford University professor.
Fiercer heatwaves also are raising questions about the limits of humanity's ability to adapt.
Christian Clot, a French-Swiss explorer, has been testing humans' limits in extreme conditions, including the nearly 60-degree Celsius (140-degree Fahrenheit) heat of Iran's Dasht-e Lut desert.
What he and doctors have found is that the ability to do just about anything - including sweat, work and think - diminishes as exposure to extreme heat grows.
That is a worry with three in four people in the world expected to face deadly heat by the turn of the century, according to a study published in the journal Nature.
"We think we're stronger than nature - but we're not," Clot warned.
Researchers believe heat-related migration - already underway - will ramp up.
A 2014 study in Pakistan found that increasing heat - rather than worsening flooding, as thought - was a strong driver of migration out of agricultural villages over a 20-year period.
And in India's southern state of Tamil Nadu, Vinod Kumar's family is already on the move after heat and drought repeatedly wrecked their crops.
"At this time of year, these fields should be green with paddy shoots, but no one seems to be farming," he said, driving past arid land overgrown with scrub and thorns.
With too much heat and too little water, "it has become impossible to make a living from farming", Kumar said. He now drives a taxi in Chennai to get by.
Higher temperatures are also a driver of worsening wildfires that have scorched woods from Los Angeles to Italy and Canada this year, and killed more than 60 people in Portugal alone.
In northeast Spain, farmers spooked by soaring fire risk have moved herds of goats and sheep into nearby forests to clear underbrush, in an effort to reduce the chance of runaway blazes.
"We're very worried," said Pau Figueras Mundo, a 36-year-old herder, as his animals nibbled at the fringes of a forest.
Paradoxically, however, it's the relative lack of obvious damage from most heatwaves that results in them being underestimated as a threat, experts say.
"Heat is by no means taken as seriously by governments as hurricanes or earthquakes or floods. I believe that's because a lot of our system for providing relief and assistance is based on property damage," U.S. sociologist Klinenberg said.
Extreme heat can lead to the buckling of roads and railway lines, and reduce the capacity of power grids. But most of the damage remains "less photogenic" than other disasters, he said.
Preparing for worsening heat shocks will require planning and broader resilience-building efforts, experts say.
In Ethiopia, aid agency World Vision has helped rural communities re-grow felled forests to provide shade, hold more moisture in fields, and give farmers alternative ways to earn money when drought destroys crops.
"The more prepared we are for heat stress, the more that communities can conserve water and change their agricultural practices, (and) the more they can absorb acute stress," said Maggie Ibrahim, a resilience manager with World Vision.
Similar preparation needs to happen in many parts of the world, said Australian heat expert Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
"In Australia we have heat plans but they're not very detailed. There needs to be a national plan and money put into infrastructure - not just advice like drink water, stay inside and check on your elderly neighbours," she said.
That advice is good and necessary, but "it's not enough", she said. Soon "everyone" will be affected, including people out on a run or mothers walking their kids to school, she added.
Invisible disaster
One key problem in getting heat action plans in place - already a challenge with a largely invisible disaster threat - is the politics surrounding climate change.
Heatwaves are the hazard most clearly tied to global warming. But U.S. President Donald Trump's Republican-led administration has denied climate change is a significant risk.
That has hampered determined efforts by many U.S. cities, states and companies to prepare for what they see as increasingly evident climate threats.
Despite an international agreement to curb climate change reached in Paris in 2015, cuts in the use of fossil fuels around the world are not yet ambitious enough to meet the accord's goal of keeping warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.
Instead the world is on a path towards at least 3 to 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the turn of the century, scientists say.
"How is the global community going to respond to that?" Ibrahim asked. "Are we just going to accept millions of deaths? We do now around drought, but will we do that around heat exhaustion? And how are we going to manage the migration flows?"
"We are not at all prepared globally for the big numbers that will be affected," she said.
Texas and Florida, still recovering from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, may have particular reason to worry in the years ahead, scientists say.
An analysis by Climate Central, a U.S. non-profit science and media organisation, found that Houston by 2030 is likely to face "heat danger days" - when combined heat and humidity make temperatures feel like 105 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) - 110 days a year.
Miami will face 126 such days each year by 2030, it noted.
"A one-off every now and then we can recover from," said Perkins-Kirkpatrick. "But we'll be seeing this almost every summer in the next 40 or 50 years. We need to do something about it."
Links
As hurricanes and floods grab headlines, heatwaves associated with climate change are claiming lives around the world
Two weeks later, Hurricane Irma churned into Florida, killing at least 33 people there and causing billions more in damages - as well as brutal loss of life in the Caribbean.
But these storms may not be 2017's deadliest U.S. disaster. Instead, that title may go to a largely unseen killer: rising temperatures.
Over the last 30 years, increasingly broiling summer heat has claimed more American lives than flooding, tornadoes or hurricanes, according to the U.S. National Weather Service.
And the problem has not been limited to the United States. More than 35,000 people died during a European heatwave in 2003, and tens of thousands perished in Russia during extreme heat in 2010.
The threat is particularly severe in already sweltering places, from South Asia to the Gulf, and has been linked to a rise in migration out of hot and poor parts of rural Pakistan.
But experts say heat remains underestimated as a threat by governments, aid agencies and individuals. That's both because it's an invisible, hard-to-document disaster that claims lives largely behind closed doors - and because hot weather just doesn't strike many people as a serious threat.
"If you have a natural disaster like a cyclone or an earthquake or a flood, the impacts are immediate. Things get washed away, people drown. But heat is a silent killer," said Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate change researcher at Australia's University of New South Wales.
"In Australia, heatwaves kill more people than any other natural disaster - but no one realises the destruction they can cause. The attitude is, 'It's hot, suck it up, get on with it'."
Around the world, heat is a neglected and poorly understood disaster, in part because few of the deaths it produces are directly attributed to heatwaves.
Victims - many elderly, very young, poor or already unhealthy - often die at home, and not just of heat stroke but of existing health problems aggravated by heat and dehydration.
In India, for instance, a major risk factor for women - who die of heat far more often than men, researchers say - is the lack of an indoor toilet.
To avoid embarrassment or harassment, many women refrain from drinking water during the day to limit their trips to the toilet - a potentially deadly strategy during heatwaves.
"These deaths are recorded as normal deaths. But they wouldn't have happened if it wasn't so hot," said Gulrez Shah Azhar, an Indian heat researcher who works for the RAND Corporation, a global think tank.
Hotter cities
To find the true rate of deaths during heatwaves, health officials look at "excess" deaths - how many more people died than would otherwise be expected during that period.
In places used to dealing with hot conditions, there is a "diagnostics failure" in recognising the risks of extreme heat, noted Eric Klinenberg, an American sociologist and expert on a deadly 1995 Chicago heatwave.
In steamy cities like Miami, "there's a sense we know how to deal with heat here, while everybody else is complaining", he said. "There's a will not to see the risk."
City dwellers, from Bangkok to Cairo, face particular - and growing - risks. In many rural areas, trees and open land planted with crops help daytime heat subside at night, providing some respite.
But in cities, acres of concrete and asphalt absorb warmth during the day and radiate it back at night, creating heat islands that can be nearly as hot at night as during the day.
During Chicago's three-day heatwave in 1995, more than 730 people died, many of them older people living alone and already facing health problems. With city services overwhelmed, hospitals turned away emergency cases, and the city's morgue had to rent refrigerated trucks to store the dead.
With more than half the world's population now living in cities - and two-thirds of people expected to live in them by 2050 - finding ways to reduce urban heat will be crucial to saving lives as climate change ramps up heat extremes.
![]() |
| Children cool themselves under misting fans at the Australian Open tennis tournament at Melbourne Park, Australia, January 21, 2016. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu |
Many parts of the world, especially those that have already seen substantial heat deaths, are experimenting with ways to lower the risks.
In New York, and a host of other cities, authorities are painting roofs white to reflect more heat and cool inhabitants. They are planting more trees and preparing hospitals to deal with more heat stroke and other health problems when temperatures soar.
A pioneering heat action plan in Ahmedabad, a city in western India, for instance, automatically triggers deliveries of water to slum areas when temperatures hit dangerous levels, as well as opening neighbourhood cooling centres.
Simple measures like this are a clear, economical way to save lives, their backers say.
"The cost of setting up a heat preparedness plan is orders of magnitude cheaper than the cost of lives. It's background noise," said Azhar, who helped develop the Ahmedabad plan after a 2010 heatwave that killed more than 1,300 people in the city.
In other countries, architectural styles designed to deal with heat - often abandoned when air conditioning became available - are being revived.
Construction workers, who can't avoid being outside on hot days, are being kitted out with gel-filled cooling vests and collars.
Governments are experimenting with cloud-seeding to bring cooling rain. And some scientists are already discussing "geoengineering" the planet using sun shields in space or sulfur particles in the atmosphere to reflect the sun's heat.
China, one of the countries grappling with worsening heatwaves, is trying to create "sponge cities" with abundant trees and green areas that can absorb heavy rainfall, then gradually evaporate the cooling moisture back into the air.
Power to the people
In most hot places, people are advised to stay inside on sweltering days, drink more water, wear cool clothing and avoid strenuous activity. But those things can be hard to manage in practice when there's work to be done and deadlines to be met.
"I was working at home on a 45-degree (113-degree Fahrenheit) day, and the guy across the street was still building a home in that heat," recalled Perkins-Kirkpatrick, who lives in Sydney. "There needs to be more education that it's not okay to be outside in those conditions."
In rural areas, as well as many urban ones, lack of access to electricity can be one of the biggest risks during heatwaves.
India alone has 300 million people without a power connection, which means they cannot turn on a fan or air conditioning when temperatures soar.
In New Delhi, some of the poorest of the poor, living on the streets, sleep near the curb of busy roads at night, hoping to catch a breeze from passing cars.
When Azhar was growing up in the Indian city of Lucknow, in a home without electricity, "there was no escape" from debilitating summer heatwaves. "You're trapped and there is literally nothing you can do," he said.
Experts say one clear way to reduce growing health risks from heatwaves is to provide more of the world's population with access to power, particularly in the hottest areas.
"The best way to mitigate (heat deaths) is to get electricity" to run fans or air conditioning, said Steven J. Davis, a University of California, Irvine earth system science professor and one of the authors of a 2017 report that predicted a growing risk of widespread deaths during Indian heatwaves.
Global efforts, including as part of the Sustainable Development Goals, to bring power to those without it could play a significant role in reducing heat deaths, experts say.
But if action to curb climate change is not robust enough, heatwaves could more often overwhelm or break down power grids, leaving rich and poor without help to cool down, they warn.
![]() |
| Tourists at the Jokulsarlon, a glacier lagoon in southern Iceland where ice bergs breaking off from the Breidamerkurjokull glacier, July 4, 2017. Thomson Reuters Foundation/Thin Lei Win |
In many poor communities, deadly heat is driving innovation. In the slums of Bhubaneswar, a humid city in eastern India where temperatures last summer hit 46.8 degrees Celsius (116 degrees Fahrenheit), families have learned to soak jute sacks in water and place them on their tin roofs, to cool the inside.
And rickshaw drivers have added wet cooling mats to their vehicle roofs, drawing more customers and boosting their income.
"There was never a day all this summer that he didn't bring home 500 rupees ($8)- a third more than others did," said Kumari Behera, a Bhubaneswar resident whose son drives one of the "air-conditioned" rickshaws.
Intensifying heat presents many risks beyond growing loss of life. It is a contributor to longer and more intense droughts and water shortages that are destroying harvests and creating more severe forest fires, with choking smoke.
Higher temperatures can increase smog production in cities, as heat "cooks" pollution from vehicles, and extend the length of allergy seasons, prolonging periods of misery for millions.
And while rising temperatures may boost harvests in some parts of the world, extreme heat threatens to slash farm production in many areas, particularly of staple crops such as wheat, maize, rice and soybeans, scientists say.
In the shorter term, rising temperatures present opportunities for some cooler parts of the world, however.
In northern Canada, for instance, warmer weather is opening once frost-prone land to farming for the first time, raising the prospect of new harvests in new places.
"There's a lot more interest in taking a look at underdeveloped land in northern Ontario and Quebec because of changes in climate," said Rod Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Fishermen around the world, meanwhile, are finding different species in their nets, many driven into new waters by ocean warming. Iceland's fishermen alone have spotted more than 30 new species in the last two decades, as some old ones disappear.
"The gains and losses seem to be balanced for now. But in the long term, I think (the change) will be slightly positive," said Hreidar Thor Valtysson, an Icelandic natural resources specialist, whose children now catch mackerel near the Arctic Circle.
Disease, migration
Rising temperatures also look set to change the world's disease threats. Mosquitoes that spread potentially deadly viruses from Zika and dengue to chikungunya thrive better in warmer climates than their malaria-carrying cousins, researchers at Stanford University found.
That means malaria rates could fall in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, as temperatures rise and malaria-carrying mosquitoes struggle - or move to cooler areas of the continent.
But communities that see malaria diminish likely will face new threats, including from diseases that are less researched and have lower-funded eradication efforts.
"We have this intriguing prospect of the threat of malaria declining in Africa, while Zika, dengue and chikungunya become more of a danger," said Erin Mordecai, a Stanford University professor.
Fiercer heatwaves also are raising questions about the limits of humanity's ability to adapt.
Christian Clot, a French-Swiss explorer, has been testing humans' limits in extreme conditions, including the nearly 60-degree Celsius (140-degree Fahrenheit) heat of Iran's Dasht-e Lut desert.
What he and doctors have found is that the ability to do just about anything - including sweat, work and think - diminishes as exposure to extreme heat grows.
That is a worry with three in four people in the world expected to face deadly heat by the turn of the century, according to a study published in the journal Nature.
"We think we're stronger than nature - but we're not," Clot warned.
Researchers believe heat-related migration - already underway - will ramp up.
A 2014 study in Pakistan found that increasing heat - rather than worsening flooding, as thought - was a strong driver of migration out of agricultural villages over a 20-year period.
And in India's southern state of Tamil Nadu, Vinod Kumar's family is already on the move after heat and drought repeatedly wrecked their crops.
"At this time of year, these fields should be green with paddy shoots, but no one seems to be farming," he said, driving past arid land overgrown with scrub and thorns.
With too much heat and too little water, "it has become impossible to make a living from farming", Kumar said. He now drives a taxi in Chennai to get by.
Higher temperatures are also a driver of worsening wildfires that have scorched woods from Los Angeles to Italy and Canada this year, and killed more than 60 people in Portugal alone.
In northeast Spain, farmers spooked by soaring fire risk have moved herds of goats and sheep into nearby forests to clear underbrush, in an effort to reduce the chance of runaway blazes.
"We're very worried," said Pau Figueras Mundo, a 36-year-old herder, as his animals nibbled at the fringes of a forest.
Paradoxically, however, it's the relative lack of obvious damage from most heatwaves that results in them being underestimated as a threat, experts say.
"Heat is by no means taken as seriously by governments as hurricanes or earthquakes or floods. I believe that's because a lot of our system for providing relief and assistance is based on property damage," U.S. sociologist Klinenberg said.
Extreme heat can lead to the buckling of roads and railway lines, and reduce the capacity of power grids. But most of the damage remains "less photogenic" than other disasters, he said.
Preparing for worsening heat shocks will require planning and broader resilience-building efforts, experts say.
In Ethiopia, aid agency World Vision has helped rural communities re-grow felled forests to provide shade, hold more moisture in fields, and give farmers alternative ways to earn money when drought destroys crops.
"The more prepared we are for heat stress, the more that communities can conserve water and change their agricultural practices, (and) the more they can absorb acute stress," said Maggie Ibrahim, a resilience manager with World Vision.
Similar preparation needs to happen in many parts of the world, said Australian heat expert Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
"In Australia we have heat plans but they're not very detailed. There needs to be a national plan and money put into infrastructure - not just advice like drink water, stay inside and check on your elderly neighbours," she said.
That advice is good and necessary, but "it's not enough", she said. Soon "everyone" will be affected, including people out on a run or mothers walking their kids to school, she added.
Invisible disaster
One key problem in getting heat action plans in place - already a challenge with a largely invisible disaster threat - is the politics surrounding climate change.
Heatwaves are the hazard most clearly tied to global warming. But U.S. President Donald Trump's Republican-led administration has denied climate change is a significant risk.
That has hampered determined efforts by many U.S. cities, states and companies to prepare for what they see as increasingly evident climate threats.
Despite an international agreement to curb climate change reached in Paris in 2015, cuts in the use of fossil fuels around the world are not yet ambitious enough to meet the accord's goal of keeping warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.
Instead the world is on a path towards at least 3 to 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the turn of the century, scientists say.
"How is the global community going to respond to that?" Ibrahim asked. "Are we just going to accept millions of deaths? We do now around drought, but will we do that around heat exhaustion? And how are we going to manage the migration flows?"
"We are not at all prepared globally for the big numbers that will be affected," she said.
Texas and Florida, still recovering from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, may have particular reason to worry in the years ahead, scientists say.
An analysis by Climate Central, a U.S. non-profit science and media organisation, found that Houston by 2030 is likely to face "heat danger days" - when combined heat and humidity make temperatures feel like 105 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) - 110 days a year.
Miami will face 126 such days each year by 2030, it noted.
"A one-off every now and then we can recover from," said Perkins-Kirkpatrick. "But we'll be seeing this almost every summer in the next 40 or 50 years. We need to do something about it."
Links
- This is how your world could end.
- Deploying the science of extreme weather attribution in the courts.
- Twin megastorms have scientists fearing this may be the new normal.
- Climate change increasing the intensity and impact of extreme weather, BOM tells emergency managers.
- Governments face 'wave of legal action' over climate change inaction as natural disasters worsen, activists warn.
- The (very) long tail of hurricane recovery.
- Climate change, mass tourism threaten Alps.
- Ambitious 1.5C Paris climate target is still possible, new analysis shows.
- After hurricanes, climate change resurfaces in Washington.
- Climate change is complex. We’ve got answers to your questions.
- Climate change could dampen Argentina’s recovery.
- The new face of "war" at home.
- EU must cut emissions and adapt to climate change now, auditors urge.
- As Hurricane Maria intensifies, how climate science can improve forecasts.
- 'Weird winter': Climate change behind Australia's record hot and dry weather.
- Yes, this hurricane season has been worse than usual.
Enough Tiptoeing Around. Let’s Make This Clear: Coal Kills People
The Guardian - Tim Hollo
Burning more coal, knowing what we know, is a deliberate act of arson. We must urgently come to grips with this fact and reconnect with nature and our communities
Coal kills people. This isn’t even slightly scientifically controversial.
From the mines to the trains to the climate disruption; from black lung to asthma, heat stress to hunger, fires to floods: coal is killing people in Australia and around the world right now.
Yet we are once again having what passes for political debate about extending the life of coal-fired power stations and, extraordinarily, building new ones. The conversation is completely disconnected from the fact that two thirds of Bangladesh was reported to be under water, record-breaking hurricanes were battering the US, and wildfires were roaring in both the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time.
Even environmental campaigners often only talk coyly about the impact of climate change on our “way of life”. It’s time we put it clearly: if Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce and their colleagues succeed in extending the life of the Liddell power station, let alone building new coal, they will kill people. Burning more coal, knowing what we know, is a deliberate act of arson, lighting a match in dry bushland, with homes just around the bend and a hot wind blowing in their direction.
It’s hard to say that. It’s hard to read it. But we must come to grips with this connection urgently.
And it is connection – and disconnection – which is at the heart of the problem, and which points the way to the only hope for a solution.
How is it that our politicians can be so drastically disconnected from the consequences of their actions? How can citizens not be out on the streets? How can corporate executives be continuing business as usual (a business as usual that is moving away from coal but still nowhere near fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate disruption)? How can journalists and editors report on the politics of coal on one page and bushfires around Sydney in September on another without making the connection?
The answer, I would suggest, is because connection is fundamentally at odds with how we have trained ourselves to see the world. Our economic, social and political system is based around disconnection. And our most vital and urgent task is to find ways to get over that, to draw each other and our ideas together, to see the world as the glorious interconnected ecosystem it is.
We are, today, at the end point of a millennia-long process of disconnection. Since we first built cities and started leaving the land we have been disconnecting from nature; losing sight of it, quite literally; losing our vocabulary of it, to the extent that blackberry is no longer a fruit to be plucked and eaten but a device to tie us to our desks when we’re on the toilet.
Nature was just the beginning. While this slow severing has been going on for thousands of years, the last few centuries – the reformation, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and capitalism – performed the amputation.
In capitalism, we have created the first social organising principle based on selfishness, the first system to make greed, competition, non-cooperation its credo. In Thatcherism, we have the declaration that there is no such thing as society. In neoliberalism, we have a system which alienates us from each other, from our labour, from democracy; a system which declares we have great choice while turning everything into a supermarket aisle full of different but identical toothpastes; a system which insists we have great freedoms while systematically removing more and more of our capacity to have any real control or influence over, or stake in anything real in our lives.
That’s why we can have politicians actively discussing doing something which not only makes no economic sense but will actually kill people, while most of the population turns away to binge-watch the next series on Netflix.
There is only one way through this – we have to reconnect. And it’s already happening. Around Australia and the world, people are seeking out reconnection in all sorts of ways. We are starting community groups, getting involved in community gardens and food co-ops, starting childcare and health co-ops, joining sharing groups instead of buying more stuff. Instead of always doing things on our own, as disconnected individuals, we are looking for innovative ways to work together, to eat together, to live together. And, excitingly, we’re banding together to create social and political forces to be reckoned with.
Bringing it right back to coal, tens of thousands of people are bypassing the politicians and corporations altogether, frustrated by their inability to think beyond coal, and setting up renewable energy cooperatives. From Canberra to Copenhagen, people are pooling their resources to jointly set up solar farms or windfarms, sharing the benefits not only among themselves but with all of us.
If all this seems terribly small, remember – going from 280 to 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is already causing havoc. With a few more parts per million, we could reach tipping points in the climate beyond which unimaginable disaster looms.
But there are tipping points in society, too. And, if we work together to rebuild connection, we can reach that tipping point first. We can turn this around, and maybe not only survive, but thrive.
*Tim Hollo is executive director of the Green Institute
Burning more coal, knowing what we know, is a deliberate act of arson. We must urgently come to grips with this fact and reconnect with nature and our communities
![]() |
| ‘How can journalists and editors report on the politics of coal on one page and bushfires around Sydney in September on another without making the connection?’ Photograph: Aaron Favila/AP |
From the mines to the trains to the climate disruption; from black lung to asthma, heat stress to hunger, fires to floods: coal is killing people in Australia and around the world right now.
Yet we are once again having what passes for political debate about extending the life of coal-fired power stations and, extraordinarily, building new ones. The conversation is completely disconnected from the fact that two thirds of Bangladesh was reported to be under water, record-breaking hurricanes were battering the US, and wildfires were roaring in both the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time.
Even environmental campaigners often only talk coyly about the impact of climate change on our “way of life”. It’s time we put it clearly: if Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce and their colleagues succeed in extending the life of the Liddell power station, let alone building new coal, they will kill people. Burning more coal, knowing what we know, is a deliberate act of arson, lighting a match in dry bushland, with homes just around the bend and a hot wind blowing in their direction.
It’s hard to say that. It’s hard to read it. But we must come to grips with this connection urgently.
And it is connection – and disconnection – which is at the heart of the problem, and which points the way to the only hope for a solution.
How is it that our politicians can be so drastically disconnected from the consequences of their actions? How can citizens not be out on the streets? How can corporate executives be continuing business as usual (a business as usual that is moving away from coal but still nowhere near fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate disruption)? How can journalists and editors report on the politics of coal on one page and bushfires around Sydney in September on another without making the connection?
The answer, I would suggest, is because connection is fundamentally at odds with how we have trained ourselves to see the world. Our economic, social and political system is based around disconnection. And our most vital and urgent task is to find ways to get over that, to draw each other and our ideas together, to see the world as the glorious interconnected ecosystem it is.
We are, today, at the end point of a millennia-long process of disconnection. Since we first built cities and started leaving the land we have been disconnecting from nature; losing sight of it, quite literally; losing our vocabulary of it, to the extent that blackberry is no longer a fruit to be plucked and eaten but a device to tie us to our desks when we’re on the toilet.
Nature was just the beginning. While this slow severing has been going on for thousands of years, the last few centuries – the reformation, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and capitalism – performed the amputation.
In capitalism, we have created the first social organising principle based on selfishness, the first system to make greed, competition, non-cooperation its credo. In Thatcherism, we have the declaration that there is no such thing as society. In neoliberalism, we have a system which alienates us from each other, from our labour, from democracy; a system which declares we have great choice while turning everything into a supermarket aisle full of different but identical toothpastes; a system which insists we have great freedoms while systematically removing more and more of our capacity to have any real control or influence over, or stake in anything real in our lives.
That’s why we can have politicians actively discussing doing something which not only makes no economic sense but will actually kill people, while most of the population turns away to binge-watch the next series on Netflix.
There is only one way through this – we have to reconnect. And it’s already happening. Around Australia and the world, people are seeking out reconnection in all sorts of ways. We are starting community groups, getting involved in community gardens and food co-ops, starting childcare and health co-ops, joining sharing groups instead of buying more stuff. Instead of always doing things on our own, as disconnected individuals, we are looking for innovative ways to work together, to eat together, to live together. And, excitingly, we’re banding together to create social and political forces to be reckoned with.
Bringing it right back to coal, tens of thousands of people are bypassing the politicians and corporations altogether, frustrated by their inability to think beyond coal, and setting up renewable energy cooperatives. From Canberra to Copenhagen, people are pooling their resources to jointly set up solar farms or windfarms, sharing the benefits not only among themselves but with all of us.
If all this seems terribly small, remember – going from 280 to 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is already causing havoc. With a few more parts per million, we could reach tipping points in the climate beyond which unimaginable disaster looms.
But there are tipping points in society, too. And, if we work together to rebuild connection, we can reach that tipping point first. We can turn this around, and maybe not only survive, but thrive.
*Tim Hollo is executive director of the Green Institute
Links
- Australian health groups urge coal phase-out and strong emissions reduction
- The current energy debate is farcical. What does this government stand for?
- Coalition's public shaming of AGL another assault on imaginary energy enemies
- Tony Abbott warns against 'unconscionable' renewable target
- Q&A: panellists spar over coal as energy debate dominates
- Enough tiptoeing around. Let’s make this clear: coal kills people
- Tony Abbott calls for end to all energy subsidies, including on coal
- Barnaby Joyce says any new energy investment mechanism must include coal power
- Turnbull accused of bullying AGL boss to extend life of Liddell station
- The Guardian view on climate change: see you in court
- 'The lift will stop': Barnaby Joyce tells Nationals coal power can't be ignored
- Liddell power station: five extra years could give government $1bn rehab bill
- Greens warn Labor not to do clean energy deal that protects coal power
The Current Energy Debate Is Farcical. What Does This Government Stand For?
The Guardian - John Hewson*
Neither the government nor the opposition has yet produced a deliverable energy policy. Consumers know they’re being ripped off and Turnbull will pay
Neither the government nor the opposition has yet produced a deliverable energy policy. Consumers know they’re being ripped off and Turnbull will pay
![]() |
| ‘Malcolm Turnbull assumed the leadership with the expectation that he actually believed in a significant and urgent response to the climate challenge.’ Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP |
How bizarre can the energy debate get? Every time I think that we
have heard it all, reached the “bottom”, or whatever, even stranger
things happen – now almost daily.
Our political leaders have now spent years scoring points on each other, and attempting to shift the blame, indeed, doing everything they can to avoid addressing the issue of rapidly rising electricity and gas prices. Yet, ironically, they are collectively to blame.
In all this “colour and movement” neither the government, nor the opposition, has yet produced a believable and deliverable energy policy. That is, a policy to specify the path forward to a low-carbon society, demonstrating a genuine capacity to lower power prices and to guarantee supply.
The bottom line is an outcome you might reasonably have expected that they would have wanted to avoid. While consumers are totally confused about what our pollies are doing, they get their regular power bills, which they can’t understand, and the power companies certainly don’t help them in this respect, so they remain absolutely convinced that they are being “ripped off”, which of course they are!
One of the most disturbing aspects of all this is that the government seems to have lost its sense of what it stands for – or at least what the electorate had come to accept that it stood for.
For example, as a Liberal government supposedly believing in small
government, little regulation, market processes and private enterprise,
they now feel at home “shirtfronting” the board and management of a
significant power company, AGL, pressuring them to reverse a board
decision to close the Liddell power plant in 2022.
This has come on the heels of them pressuring gas companies to “reserve” a proportion of their output for the domestic market, rather than for the exports that they had been encouraged to pursue in the past.
While it is reasonable to expect that government should define a regulatory framework within which the power market would operate, this is certainly a “new” interpretation of “market forces” and of what it means to be a “conservative” or a “Liberal”. Isn’t it much more “socialist”? Is this but the early stages of the nationalisation of the power sector?
And this is a government led by Malcolm Turnbull, who assumed the leadership with the expectation that he actually believed in a significant and urgent response to the climate challenge – indeed, an issue on which he once, apparently, believed in passionately enough to cross the floor of the parliament.
Moreover, we all emerged from the last election saturated with the “promise” of “jobs and growth”. Just how many thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars of investment and growth, have been lost due to this short-term, political opportunism and game playing?
Finkel went to great lengths to recognise the political reality of the government’s objections to the best and second best, responses – namely, an emissions trading scheme and an emissions intensity scheme – proposing a technology neutral clean energy target (CET) to provide a clear direction and certainty for the essential transition to reach our Paris commitments by 2030. While this clearly contemplated the necessary further movement to renewables as a source of power, it still admitted a sizeable reliance on coal-fired power by that date.
It is worth pointing out that a true “conservative” response would be a purely market-based emissions trading scheme, using a market-determined carbon price to ensure the most cost-effective transition.
The suggestion that we may now need a new, supercritical, coal-fired power plant to fill a capacity gap left by the closure of Liddell is, quite frankly, farcical. When the private sector says they will not build or finance it, it is simply just a sop to the National party to even raise it as a possibility. But then, of course, in our “new conservatism” we don’t respect what markets are telling us, do we?
This “gap” would be easily filled by a combination of base-load solar thermal projects, batteries and some better demand management well before 2022. Having set the regulatory direction of the “market” with a CET, the government should stand back and let the technologies compete to deliver the most cost-effective and sustainable outcome.
It is also worth recognising that a new coal-fired power plant, if it could be built, may simply accelerate the closures of other older, less efficient, plants, so not actually closing the perceived “gap”.
Turnbull needs to rise well above this mire and deliver the leadership he promised on assuming the prime ministership. If he does, I believe the electorate would cut him a lot of slack. However, to continue as he is, he will surely lose the next election. It will be his failure to address the rising costs of power, housing, childcare and school fees, and other key elements of the cost of living, that will be decisive with voters.
*Dr John Hewson is a professor at ANU and a former leader of the Liberal party
Our political leaders have now spent years scoring points on each other, and attempting to shift the blame, indeed, doing everything they can to avoid addressing the issue of rapidly rising electricity and gas prices. Yet, ironically, they are collectively to blame.
In all this “colour and movement” neither the government, nor the opposition, has yet produced a believable and deliverable energy policy. That is, a policy to specify the path forward to a low-carbon society, demonstrating a genuine capacity to lower power prices and to guarantee supply.
The bottom line is an outcome you might reasonably have expected that they would have wanted to avoid. While consumers are totally confused about what our pollies are doing, they get their regular power bills, which they can’t understand, and the power companies certainly don’t help them in this respect, so they remain absolutely convinced that they are being “ripped off”, which of course they are!
One of the most disturbing aspects of all this is that the government seems to have lost its sense of what it stands for – or at least what the electorate had come to accept that it stood for.
This has come on the heels of them pressuring gas companies to “reserve” a proportion of their output for the domestic market, rather than for the exports that they had been encouraged to pursue in the past.
While it is reasonable to expect that government should define a regulatory framework within which the power market would operate, this is certainly a “new” interpretation of “market forces” and of what it means to be a “conservative” or a “Liberal”. Isn’t it much more “socialist”? Is this but the early stages of the nationalisation of the power sector?
And this is a government led by Malcolm Turnbull, who assumed the leadership with the expectation that he actually believed in a significant and urgent response to the climate challenge – indeed, an issue on which he once, apparently, believed in passionately enough to cross the floor of the parliament.
Moreover, we all emerged from the last election saturated with the “promise” of “jobs and growth”. Just how many thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars of investment and growth, have been lost due to this short-term, political opportunism and game playing?
Finkel went to great lengths to recognise the political reality of the government’s objections to the best and second best, responses – namely, an emissions trading scheme and an emissions intensity scheme – proposing a technology neutral clean energy target (CET) to provide a clear direction and certainty for the essential transition to reach our Paris commitments by 2030. While this clearly contemplated the necessary further movement to renewables as a source of power, it still admitted a sizeable reliance on coal-fired power by that date.
It is worth pointing out that a true “conservative” response would be a purely market-based emissions trading scheme, using a market-determined carbon price to ensure the most cost-effective transition.
The suggestion that we may now need a new, supercritical, coal-fired power plant to fill a capacity gap left by the closure of Liddell is, quite frankly, farcical. When the private sector says they will not build or finance it, it is simply just a sop to the National party to even raise it as a possibility. But then, of course, in our “new conservatism” we don’t respect what markets are telling us, do we?
This “gap” would be easily filled by a combination of base-load solar thermal projects, batteries and some better demand management well before 2022. Having set the regulatory direction of the “market” with a CET, the government should stand back and let the technologies compete to deliver the most cost-effective and sustainable outcome.
It is also worth recognising that a new coal-fired power plant, if it could be built, may simply accelerate the closures of other older, less efficient, plants, so not actually closing the perceived “gap”.
Turnbull needs to rise well above this mire and deliver the leadership he promised on assuming the prime ministership. If he does, I believe the electorate would cut him a lot of slack. However, to continue as he is, he will surely lose the next election. It will be his failure to address the rising costs of power, housing, childcare and school fees, and other key elements of the cost of living, that will be decisive with voters.
*Dr John Hewson is a professor at ANU and a former leader of the Liberal party
Links
- Enough tiptoeing around. Let’s make this clear: coal kills people
- Australian health groups urge coal phase-out and strong emissions reduction
- Coalition's public shaming of AGL another assault on imaginary energy enemies
- Tony Abbott warns against 'unconscionable' renewable target
- Q&A: panellists spar over coal as energy debate dominates
- Enough tiptoeing around. Let’s make this clear: coal kills people
- Tony Abbott calls for end to all energy subsidies, including on coal
- Barnaby Joyce says any new energy investment mechanism must include coal power
- Turnbull accused of bullying AGL boss to extend life of Liddell station
- The Guardian view on climate change: see you in court
- 'The lift will stop': Barnaby Joyce tells Nationals coal power can't be ignored
- Liddell power station: five extra years could give government $1bn rehab bill
- Greens warn Labor not to do clean energy deal that protects coal power
20/09/2017
Why The Wiring Of Our Brains Makes It Hard To Stop Climate Change
Los Angeles Times - David G. Victor* | Nick Obradovich* | Dillon Amaya*
Houston has barely begun to dry out from Hurricane Harvey, and
Florida faces a massive rebuilding effort after the Irma catastrophe.
These two storms, among the most powerful in American history, are
typical of the extreme weather events that are likely to become more
common as the planet warms. A third hurricane, Jose, waits offshore and
the storm season is far from done.
So why isn’t the public heeding scientists and demanding climate action by politicians that could help deal with these destructive extremes? You can point fingers at the influence of fossil fuel companies, at misinformation from climate deniers and at political obstructionism, notably from a fragmented Republican party. But a much deeper force is also at work: the way our brains function.
Humans aren’t well wired to act on complex statistical risks. We care a lot more about the tangible present than the distant future. Many of us do that to the extreme — what behavioral scientists call hyperbolic discounting — which makes it particularly hard to grapple with something like climate change, where the biggest dangers are yet to come.
It isn’t surprising, then, that most people don’t process information about extreme events the way scientists do. And they don’t do a good job of holding politicians accountable when the effects of political inaction are far removed from the policy failures that cause them.
The arrival of extreme events — hurricanes, wildfires, drought and torrential deluges — is not proof to many people that scientists are right and that a complete rethinking of climate policy is overdue. Instead, voters see these shocks more as evidence that things are out of whack. Change is needed, and voters deliver that verdict not by reevaluating policy but by casting politicians out of office.
Political scientists call such decision-making retrospective voting, and it too is rooted in how the brain deals with complex topics. It seems less than rational, but for busy voters, focusing on immediate, visible results and situations is a practical way to assess politicians, even if those results and situations are many steps removed from elected leaders’ actual responsibilities.
When it comes to climate change, this sort of brain-driven behavior tends to create churn in political leadership rather than the continuity needed for long-term planning. It ejects whoever happens to be in office, rather than the real culprits. It doesn’t help that when politicians know they are at risk of losing office due to disasters, they may pursue quick payoffs, neglecting longer-term policies like those needed for emissions mitigation and climate adaptation.
California’s climate actions prove there can be exceptions to these rules. But what matters for global warming is ultimately what happens across the nation and the planet. Overall, the politics of controlling emissions, especially given the time horizons we face, will continue to bring out the worst in how we make important policy decisions.
Quick, deep cuts in emissions would impose high costs on existing well-organized interest groups for benefits that will be diffused across all nations and that will accrue mainly in the distant future. Failing at emissions control, we will have to grapple with the politics of adaptation — abandoning vulnerable regions and subsidizing the construction of various forms of protection, like sea walls to deal with worsening storm surges.
Voters consistently report being worried about climate change. But asked to rank their priorities, they rarely put climate policy high on the list. Nor does the public indicate that it is willing to spend what is needed to address the problem. What voters know is mixed, muddled and sparse.
This grim analysis explains why political systems will always be playing catch-up. Even with the conspicuous signals of regular extreme events, public support for the policies needed to stop global warming will be fleeting. But that realization can also inspire new policy strategies that are better wired for our political brains.
First, investments in technology can help immensely because they lower the cost of reducing emissions, making change appear less costly and easier to adopt. New energy technologies also create new interest groups that can help keep policy makers focused on controlling emissions when voters’ minds drift.
Second, we’re likely to do better with policies that generate immediate and tangible benefits. A good example is efforts to control soot — a potent warming pollutant and also a central ingredient in noxious local air pollution. Even countries and societies that care little about global goals find it in their self-interest to protect the air their citizens breathe.
Third, our political institutions can help people focus on the long view by surveying climate impacts on a regular basis, so that each extreme storm is less a novel event and more a part of a pattern that needs sustained policy attention. One model is California’s program of localized climate assessments that inform decisions about land-use planning and development. Another is the Obama administration’s regular, nationwide assessments, which are at risk of termination under President Trump.
Our brains are unfortunately not wired to tackle problems like climate change. With some help we can build policies that enable us to do better. What the storms in the Gulf and Atlantic are reminding the public — for now, if not for long— is that the consequences of failure are big.
*David G. Victor is a professor at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy & Strategy and codirector of the Initiative on Energy and Climate at the Brookings Institution.
*Nick Obradovich is a research scientist at MIT’s Media Laboratory.
*Dillon J. Amaya is a PhD student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Links
![]() |
| Pedestrians walk in a flooded street as Tropical Storm Irma hits Charleston, S.C. on Sept. 11. (Mic Smith / Associated Press) |
So why isn’t the public heeding scientists and demanding climate action by politicians that could help deal with these destructive extremes? You can point fingers at the influence of fossil fuel companies, at misinformation from climate deniers and at political obstructionism, notably from a fragmented Republican party. But a much deeper force is also at work: the way our brains function.
Humans aren’t well wired to act on complex statistical risks. We care a lot more about the tangible present than the distant future. Many of us do that to the extreme — what behavioral scientists call hyperbolic discounting — which makes it particularly hard to grapple with something like climate change, where the biggest dangers are yet to come.
Humans aren’t wired to act on complex statistical risks very well. We care a lot more about the tangible present than the distant future.Our mental space is limited and we aren’t primed to focus on abstruse topics. Except for a small fraction that are highly motivated, most voters know little about the ins and outs of climate change, or the policy options relating to it. Instead, voters’ opinions about such things derive from heuristics such as political party affiliation and basic ideology.
It isn’t surprising, then, that most people don’t process information about extreme events the way scientists do. And they don’t do a good job of holding politicians accountable when the effects of political inaction are far removed from the policy failures that cause them.
The arrival of extreme events — hurricanes, wildfires, drought and torrential deluges — is not proof to many people that scientists are right and that a complete rethinking of climate policy is overdue. Instead, voters see these shocks more as evidence that things are out of whack. Change is needed, and voters deliver that verdict not by reevaluating policy but by casting politicians out of office.
Political scientists call such decision-making retrospective voting, and it too is rooted in how the brain deals with complex topics. It seems less than rational, but for busy voters, focusing on immediate, visible results and situations is a practical way to assess politicians, even if those results and situations are many steps removed from elected leaders’ actual responsibilities.
When it comes to climate change, this sort of brain-driven behavior tends to create churn in political leadership rather than the continuity needed for long-term planning. It ejects whoever happens to be in office, rather than the real culprits. It doesn’t help that when politicians know they are at risk of losing office due to disasters, they may pursue quick payoffs, neglecting longer-term policies like those needed for emissions mitigation and climate adaptation.
California’s climate actions prove there can be exceptions to these rules. But what matters for global warming is ultimately what happens across the nation and the planet. Overall, the politics of controlling emissions, especially given the time horizons we face, will continue to bring out the worst in how we make important policy decisions.
Quick, deep cuts in emissions would impose high costs on existing well-organized interest groups for benefits that will be diffused across all nations and that will accrue mainly in the distant future. Failing at emissions control, we will have to grapple with the politics of adaptation — abandoning vulnerable regions and subsidizing the construction of various forms of protection, like sea walls to deal with worsening storm surges.
Voters consistently report being worried about climate change. But asked to rank their priorities, they rarely put climate policy high on the list. Nor does the public indicate that it is willing to spend what is needed to address the problem. What voters know is mixed, muddled and sparse.
This grim analysis explains why political systems will always be playing catch-up. Even with the conspicuous signals of regular extreme events, public support for the policies needed to stop global warming will be fleeting. But that realization can also inspire new policy strategies that are better wired for our political brains.
First, investments in technology can help immensely because they lower the cost of reducing emissions, making change appear less costly and easier to adopt. New energy technologies also create new interest groups that can help keep policy makers focused on controlling emissions when voters’ minds drift.
Second, we’re likely to do better with policies that generate immediate and tangible benefits. A good example is efforts to control soot — a potent warming pollutant and also a central ingredient in noxious local air pollution. Even countries and societies that care little about global goals find it in their self-interest to protect the air their citizens breathe.
Third, our political institutions can help people focus on the long view by surveying climate impacts on a regular basis, so that each extreme storm is less a novel event and more a part of a pattern that needs sustained policy attention. One model is California’s program of localized climate assessments that inform decisions about land-use planning and development. Another is the Obama administration’s regular, nationwide assessments, which are at risk of termination under President Trump.
Our brains are unfortunately not wired to tackle problems like climate change. With some help we can build policies that enable us to do better. What the storms in the Gulf and Atlantic are reminding the public — for now, if not for long— is that the consequences of failure are big.
*David G. Victor is a professor at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy & Strategy and codirector of the Initiative on Energy and Climate at the Brookings Institution.
*Nick Obradovich is a research scientist at MIT’s Media Laboratory.
*Dillon J. Amaya is a PhD student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Links
- Fires, droughts and hurricanes: What's the link between climate change and natural disasters?
- Humans have solved both man-made and natural threats. We can do the same on climate change.
- Climate deniers play politics with looming natural disasters
- Catastrophic storms, once rare, are almost routine. Is climate change to blame?
- What should you say to a climate change skeptic?
- Nature isn't on a rampage. That would be us.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)















