Climate Change: A Threat to International Peace & Security?

OpinioJuris - Mark Nevitt

Author Mark Nevitt is an Associate Professor at Syracuse University College of Law and affiliated faculty with Syracuse University’s Institute for Security Policy & Law and a former lawyer in the United States Navy.

Is the climate-security century upon us?  If so, what are the implications for international legal governance and institutions?

In his recent Opinio Juris essay, based on his provocative and meticulously researched article, Atmospheric Intervention, Professor Martin argues that the climate change crisis may well exert pressure for change on the governing jus ad bellum regime.

Climate Change: A Destabilizing Physical and Legal Force

I am persuaded by Prof. Martin’s argument that the climate change crisis is likely to impact the international collective security system.  While his focus was on the jus ad bellum regime, he briefly discusses the role of the UN Security Council and other institutional structures.   My own work has focused on how the crisis will implicate the international institutions and governance structures that oversee the entire collective security system, particularly the UN Security Council.

In a forthcoming law review article, I argue that climate change will force us to look at international institutions and governance structures with fresh eyes as we struggle to prevent climate-exacerbated conflict and save island nations from possible climate-driven extinction.  In turn, the UN Security Council can and should play a substantive role in addressing the multi-faceted challenges that we face in our “climate security century.” 

Climate change demands both innovative governance solutions and a legal entrepreneurship mindset—using existing tools in new ways.   After all, climate change is an aptly named “super-wicked” problem—no one technological innovation or legal agreement is likely to solve it by itself.  As climate change’s risks are felt—not to mention the risk of “green swan” climate events that transcend any one risk model—we must proactively expand the climate governance aperture.

Call it the “all hands-on deck” approach to international climate governance.  In what follows, I acknowledge both the challenges to UN Security Council action on climate, while arguing that the Council should take three concrete steps to meet the climate security challenges.

The Security Council and Climate Change:  Political and Legitimacy Challenges

Increased Council climate engagement faces significant political headwinds:  witness the Council’s failure last week to extend the 13-year-old embargo on arms trade with Iran, Council gridlock surrounding the Syrian crisis, and the Council’s slow response to the COVID-19 crisis.  And any Council climate action must overcome political calculations from each member of the Permanent Five (P5).   It may also face legitimacy challenges by some Members who argue that the Council is simply exceeding its understood mandate.

Skeptics will assert that climate change is not part of the Council’s agenda and should remain solely within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Economic and Social Council.  Further complicating matters, P5 Members are some of the world’s worst climate offenders.  China, for example, contributes more Greenhouse Gas emissions than any other nation on an annual basis, while the U.S. is the largest GHG emitter on a historical basis.  Why should we listen to them?

But Council climate inaction presents its own legitimacy and political costs.  After all, the UN Charter confers on the Council the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”  With this responsibility comes broad, delegated authorities.  The Council is afforded broad discretion in both investigating situations likely to endanger international peace and security (Chapter VI) and making a “threat to the peace” determination under Article 39 (Chapter VII) of the U.N. Charter.  What constitutes a “threat to the peace” is left to the Council’s discretion.

Increasingly, a diverse group of environmentalists, climate scientists, and national security professionals are sounding the alarm on climate change’s role in catalyzing conflicts, intensifying natural disasters, and threatening the territorial integrity and very sovereignty of several island nations.

Several studies suggest that the climate crisis will  increase the future risk of violent armed conflict within countries.  The consequences of climate change also strikes at the heart of the sovereignty-based UN Charter system:   Scientists predict that four island nations—Kiribati, Maldives, Republic of Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu—may well be uninhabitable by mid-century.

Can the Council afford to stand by while climate change leads to drought and food insecurity, a rise in violent conflicts, mass migration, and possible nation extinction? 

Of course, Council policy—and the votes of the P5—are beholden to politics.  And U.S.-China relations may well be at a nadir, thus thwarting Council action today.  I recognize the current political and legitimacy headwinds that any Council climate action faces.  But I also acknowledge that political calculations can change quickly—witness proactive Council action on terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11.

In addition, the United States is less than 75 days from a historic election. A new Biden Administration would immediately rejoin the Paris Agreement and may well seek to jumpstart the China-U.S. bilateral climate agreement signed in the run-up to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.

Indeed, in his Democratic acceptance speech last night, Biden explicitly called climate change an existential threat and one of the four historic crisis facing the nation.  So what should the Council do to address the climate crisis that may be within the realm of political possibility in the short or medium term?

Formalize & Synchronize Council Debates & Discussions on Climate Change

First, the Council should lean into its role as a powerful, agenda-setting international institution by continuing to host high-level open debates and climate security discussions with U.N. Member Nations, NGOs, and IGOs.

Doing so taps into Security Council expertise, provides a ready-made forum to engage with the leading climate scientists, and allows space to formulate legal and policy solutions to address the most pressing climate-security threats.  Since 2007, the Council has sponsored four Climate Security open forums and several more informal “Arria-formula” climate meetings.

Yet these Council climate debates and meetings occur in an ad hoc manner.  Whether they occur rests entirely on the whims and priorities of the rotating Security Council Presidency.  Why not synchronize and formalize future Security Council climate debates in a systematic way? 

Such meetings could take place in the immediate aftermath of the Framework Convention’s annual Climate Change’s Conference of the Parties (COPs)? These “Security COPs” would work in governance harmony with ongoing climate efforts, establish a more formal linkage to the Framework Convention.

It would also centralize the Framework Convention’s role in climate mitigation matters while tapping into specialized Council expertise on discrete security matters. This establishes a two-way dialogue between the Council and other climate efforts. Too often, international institutions fail to break free from their governance silos despite the clear need to collaborate across institutions and expertise.

Develop Forward-Looking Climate-Security Risk Assessment Tools

Second, the Council should build upon its earlier efforts to address climate change’s adverse effects via Security Council Resolutions.  But the Council should take a more proactive risk-based approach to climate.  In 2017, the Council took the historic step of specifically recognizing climate change’s destabilizing effects on the ongoing conflict in the Lake Chad Basin.

It followed up with similar pronouncements in Mali, Somalia, and Darfur.  In doing so, the Council emphasized the need for adequate risk assessments and risk management strategies to address future conflict areas.  While the Council acknowledged the relationship between climate change and conflict in these resolutions, they were fundamentally reactive in nature.

We know that climate change serves as both a catalyst for conflict and threat multiplier and threat accelerant.  Why not take the lead in developing these risk management strategies before climate disaster strikes? Clearly, climate change will have a massively destabilizing impact in the African Sahel and numerous developing nations in other regions.  Where are the other climate-security hotspots and how can we begin to plan for them today?

Developing forward-looking risk assessment measures could take many forms.  The Council could coordinate specific climate-security matters across interested U.N. organs.  This could potentially include the development of an early climate warning system.  Better yet, the Council could establish an early warning information-sharing “clearinghouse” system across U.N. organs or establish a more formal institutional home to assist the U.N. in responding to future climate crisis. 

Either way, the Council—which has historically been criticized as a reactive institution—must think proactively on where future climate disruption and conflict is likely to take place.  Best to adopt a proactive, risk-based approach to climate today, rather than waiting for climate disruption to inevitably strike.

Debate Whether Climate Change Is a Threat to International Peace and Security

Third, the Council should debate whether the consequences or causes of climate change constitute a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the UN Charter.  Doing so elevates climate change and its security impacts on the international stage and serves as a  potential key that unlocks the door to a menu of powerful and legally binding Council follow-on actions.

Article 41 economic measures—or the mere threat of its invocation—could serve as a powerful tool to address climate change through the use of targeted sanctions to punish particularly destructive climate actions by the “climate rogue states” discussed in Prof. Martin’s article. 

Declaring a non-military or non-traditional security threat such as the consequences or causes of climate change to be a threat to international peace and security is not entirely without precedent.   The Council made such a determination during the Ebola crisis in 2014, a public health crisis with similar collective action characteristics. This facilitated the flow of logistics and humanitarian assistance to countries ravaged by Ebola.

Doing so reflects a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of what can threaten national security—a point made by Prof. Oona Hathaway and others. The COVID-19 crisis showcases that non-traditional security threats can have a devastating effect on human security—projected coronavirus deaths in the U.S. could surpass American lives lost in World War II.  

Alternatively, the Council could issue a broad climate-security resolution that falls short of a formal Article 39 determination.  This is similar to the Council’s earlier efforts on HIV/AIDS that date back to 2000.  While the Council has been relatively slow (and heavily criticized) in its COVID-19 response, it did manage to address the COVID-19 crisis last month through the passage of Resolution 2532.

This Resolution called for a global 90-day ceasefire and requested that the Secretary General provide updates to the Council “on the U.N. efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic in countries in situations of armed conflict or affected by humanitarian crisis.”  An analogous climate-security resolution could adopt a similar approach, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in climate hotpots and establishing a more formal dialogue between the Secretary-General and the Council.

Either way, there is space and precedent for Council action to address non-traditional security threats.  And climate change’s continual physical toll—130 degrees in Death Valley last week and ongoing California wildfires—will stress the need for any meaningful climate action.

Climate Change Transcends Borders and Governance Frameworks

Regardless of whether the Council can overcome its current political paralysis, this much is clear:  climate change is indifferent to both political borders and political calculations. Just as climate change massively destabilizes the physical environment, it will destabilize existing legal frameworks and institutions.

Climate-drive disruption will continue to occur, irrespective of international governance efforts. Greta Thunberg and other climate change activists have even brought their advocacy for massive climate action to the Council:  they recently critiqued the climate policies of two prospective non-permanent Security Council members (Canada and Norway) in this year’s election for a non-permanent seat on the Council.

The Council can and should proactively play a role in shaping governance solutions as we come to terms with an “all hands-on deck” approach to international climate governance.  These three concrete steps are a good place to start.

Links

• Climate change, human security and violent conflict (pdf)
• Climate change as catalyst of conflict (audio)
• New Report From Military Leaders Calls Climate Change “Catalyst for Conflict”
• Most atolls will be uninhabitable by the mid-21st century because of sea-level rise exacerbating wave-driven flooding
• Podcast & essay: Mark Nevitt on “Climate Change and National Security: Top 10 Questions that Demand Answers”
• Only 2 countries are meeting their climate pledges. Here’s how the 10 worst could improve
• Climate Wars and Jus ad Bellum: Part I
• Atmospheric Intervention? The Climate Change Crisis and the Jus ad Bellum Regime

(AU) Australia’s Big Polluters Required To Offset Just 1.2% Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Guardian - Murray Griffin of Footprint News

Analysis shows state and federal governments not exercising their powers to require companies to increase offsets

Australia’s top 65 greenhouse gas-emitting companies were responsible for about two-thirds of the country’s greenhouse output, a new analysis shows. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Only 1.2% of the greenhouse gas emissions released by Australia’s top 65 emitting companies had to be offset under federal and state laws last financial year, an analysis has found.

The analysis by Footprint, a sustainability news site, examined both regulatory constraints imposed on businesses with emissions greater than 1m tonnes and any voluntary offsetting commitments they made.

Combined, the 65 businesses emitted 352.7m tonnes – about two-thirds of Australia’s total greenhouse output. The analysis examined operational emissions only, and did not consider “scope 3” emissions that result from the products the businesses sell.

Energy giant AGL was the biggest emitter, releasing more than 40m tonnes. The smallest on the list was the corporate group that owns rail freight business Pacific National, which emitted slightly more than 1m tonnes.

The federal government’s safeguard mechanism policy was promised to limit emissions from major industrial facilities, in part by requiring them to offset carbon dioxide above a baseline. States and territories can also require companies to offset emissions through environmental approvals and licences.

However, the analysis shows that both levels of governments have opted not to exercise these legislative powers. No state or territory government has imposed a carbon offset condition for more than a decade and there are only two state-imposed legacy offset conditions in place.

Both were enforced by the Western Australian government – one on Chevron’s Gorgon liquefied natural gas project, the other on Woodside’s Pluto LNG development. Between them they require less than 4.5m tonnes of greenhouse gas to be offset.

That equates to about 1.2% of total emissions from the 65 businesses that had to be offset.

At the federal level, the safeguard mechanism is explicitly designed to constrain only “rogue emitters”, so the 65 do not have to offset in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Five businesses had to surrender a total of 27,357 carbon credits last financial year to stay below their emissions limit, or baseline. It covered less than .0008% of the emissions released by the 65 entities.

Nearly a third of the companies examined – 22 – had set voluntary targets that they would reduce their emissions in line with the headline temperature goals of the Paris agreement or expressed some kind of aspiration to reach net-zero emission.

This group included several large corporate players: AGL, Origin Energy, Anglo American, BHP, Qantas, Fortescue and Telstra.

Another 17 were found to have voluntary targets that were outdated, not based on what climate scientists say is necessary, including a net-zero aspiration.

These included EnergyAustralia, Chevron, Alcoa, Santos, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, South32, Adelaide Brighton, Orica, Incitec Pivot, Boral and Newcrest. Two of these, Energy Australia and South32, say they intend to set goals that align with the Paris agreement.

The remaining 25 had no emissions reduction target. They include Delta Electricity, LNG company Inpex, Peabody, Whitehaven, APA Group, Viva Energy, Coles Group and the owner of the Loy Yang B coal-fired power station. Coles says it plans to change this and set a target.

The analysis also found that 25 of the businesses had not committed to adopting the globally recognised recommendations on climate-related financial disclosure, which set out what businesses should reveal to investors and shareholders about their exposure to climate risk.

Those who had not committed to the disclosure standards include Alcoa, Delta, Peabody, Yancoal, Virgin Australia, Pratt Holdings, CITIC Pacific and several government-owned energy businesses, including Queensland’s Stanwell and CS Energy.

Links

• Australia’s big polluters required to offset just 1.2% of greenhouse gas emissions
• Australian greenhouse gas emissions fall to lowest level since 1998 under Covid restrictions
• Methane released in gas production means Australia's emissions may be 10% higher than reported
• NSW plan for 21 coalmines would create seven years of nation's emissions, expert says
• Construction and mining industry super fund puts carbon-intensive companies on notice
• Arctic wildfires emit 35% more CO2 so far in 2020 than for whole of 2019
• Only one in 10 utility firms prioritise renewable electricity – global study
• Banks should disclose lending to companies with carbon-related risks, says report

IPCC: The Dirty Tricks Climate Scientists Faced In Three Decades Since First Report

The Conversation - Marc Hudson

EPA-EFE/FELIPE TRUEBA 

Author Marc Hudson is Research Associate in Social Movements, Keele University.

Thirty years ago, in a small Swedish city called Sundsvall, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its first major report.

Even then, the major dilemmas facing those who sought rapid action were clear.

An account by Jeremy Leggett, who had thrown in a well-paid job as a geologist for Shell to become Greenpeace’s climate campaigner, reported the events of that first summit, including an encounter with coal industry lobbyist Don Pearlman.

They had their heads down, copies of the draft negotiating text for the IPCC final report open in front of them. Pearlman was pointing at the text, and talking in a forceful growl… As I walked past, I saw him pointing to a particular paragraph and I heard him say, quite distinctly, ‘if we can cut a deal here…’
Although it seems so naïve now, I was shocked.

Days later, a delegate from the Pacific island of Kiribati pleaded with the conference for a breakthrough in the negotiations.

Concerted international action is needed to drastically decrease our consumption of fossil fuels. The time to start is now. In the low-lying nations, the threat… of global warming and sea level rise is frightening.“

He paused before concluding.

I hope this meeting will not fail us. Thank you.

Shortly afterwards the US delegation "tabled a catalogue of attempted emasculations” of the text. Along with the Saudi and Soviet delegations, representatives of the richest and most powerful country in the world “chipped away at the draft, watering down the sense of alarm in the wording, beefing up the aura of uncertainty”.

It would be a painful three decades for people anxious to see action on climate change. For the scientists investigating the problem, it would often be a personal battle against powerful interests.

Kiribati is an island nation that is at risk of disappearing due to sea level rise. Nava Fedaeff/Shutterstock

The path to the summit

The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, had been worrying scientists since the 1970s. The discovery of the “ozone hole” above Antarctica had given atmospheric scientists enormous credibility and clout among the public, and an international treaty banning chlorofluorocarbons, the chemicals causing the problem, was swiftly signed.

The Reagan White House worried that a treaty on CO₂ might happen as quickly, and set about ensuring the official scientific advice guiding leaders at the negotiations was under at least partial control. So emerged the intergovernmental – rather than international – panel on climate change, in 1988.

Already before Sundsvall, in 1989, figures in the automotive and fossil fuel industries of the US had set up the Global Climate Coalition to argue against rapid action and to cast doubt on the evidence. Alongside thinktanks, such as the George Marshall Institute, and trade bodies, such as the Western Fuels Association, it kept up a steady stream of publishing in the media – including a movie – to discredit the science.

But their efforts to discourage political commitment were only partially successful. The scientists held firm, and a climate treaty was agreed in 1992. And so attention turned to the scientists themselves.

The Serengeti strategy

In 1996, there were sustained attacks on climate scientist Ben Santer, who had been responsible for synthesising text in the IPCC’s second assessment report. He was accused of having “tampered with” wording and somehow “twisting” the intent of IPCC authors by Fred Seitz of the Global Climate Coalition.

In the late 1990s, Michael Mann, whose famous “hockey stick” diagram of global temperatures was a key part of the third assessment report, came under fire from right-wing thinktanks and even the Attorney General of Virginia. Mann called this attempt to pick on scientists perceived to be vulnerable to pressure “the Serengeti strategy”.

As Mann himself wrote

By singling out a sole scientist, it is possible for the forces of “anti-science” to bring many more resources to bear on one individual, exerting enormous pressure from multiple directions at once, making defence difficult. It is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd.

Michael Mann - The Serengeti Strategy

As the evidence became ever more compelling, the attacks on scientists escalated.

In late 2009, just before the Copenhagen climate summit, emails among climate scientists were hacked and released. They were carefully selected to make it seem as if scientists were guilty of scaremongering.

The so-called “climategate” scandal was not to blame for Copenhagen’s failure, but it kept climate deniers energised and helped muddy the waters enough to make it seem as if legitimate doubt persisted over the scientific consensus.

What next?

Thanks to COVID-19, the next IPCC assessment report probably won’t be delivered before the delayed conference in Glasgow at the end of 2021. There probably won’t be anything in it that tells us more than what we already know – CO₂ levels are rising, the consequences are piling up, and campaigns for delaying meaningful action have been spectacularly successful for the last 30 years.

Some scientists, including Columbia University professor James Hansen, argue that the agonising efforts of scientists to avoid provoking accusations of alarmism have led to an innate optimism bias. The official science reported by the IPCC may in some cases be a cautious underestimate. It’s likely worse – much worse – than we think.

If the last three decades have taught the international community anything, it’s that “the science” is not a single, settled entity which, presented properly, will spur everyone to action. There are no shortcuts to the technological, economic, political and cultural changes needed to tackle climate change.

That was true 30 years ago in Sundsvall. The only thing that has changed is the time in which we have left to do anything.

Links

• Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of U.S. Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989–2015
• George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) — Now CO2 Coalition
• Western Fuels Association
• Explainer: what is the IPCC anyway, and how does it work?
• IPCC 1.5℃ report: here’s what the climate science says
• How does the IPCC know climate change is happening?
• Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric

(US) Proving "A Different World Is Possible," ExxonMobil Dropped From Dow Jones After 92-Year Run

Common Dreams - Julia Conley

"Big Oil has fallen. Our job is to make sure they don't take us down with them."

Activists rally against ExxonMobil during the Global Climate March in Washington, D.C., on November 29, 2017. (Johnny Silvercloud/Flickr)

Climate campaigners have marked a major milestone in the fight to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and transition to a green energy economy as ExxonMobil was dropped from the S&P Dow Jones Industrial Average after nearly a century.

The oil giant, the oldest member of the Dow, was replaced on the index by software company Salesforce as more than 100,000 people were displaced by wildfires raging across California, a third year of global Fridays for Future climate action protests kicked off, and the Republican Party was rebuked for failing to even mention the planetary emergency on the first night of its national convention. 

The finance world, 350.org executive director May Boeve said, has been forced to "[wake] up and [cut] ties with these climate criminals."

"Big Oil has fallen," Boeve said. "Our job is to make sure they don't take us down with them. Fossil fuel companies like Exxon knew and lied for decades about the main cause of the devastating impacts we're now experiencing across the globe: from fires, storms, and floods to droughts and rising seas... We are rising up to make polluters pay for their destruction."

Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, credited climate campaigners who have spent decades educating the public about the climate crisis and the dangerous effects of extracting fossil fuels from the Earth, and demanding a transition to renewable sources of energy like solar and wind power.

As recently as 2011 Exxon was the biggest company on earth. Now it's been booted from the Dow Jones Index.

Thanks to all who have helped!https://t.co/nptSaBjeYm

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) August 24, 2020

In April, oil prices fell below $0 per barrel for the first time on record, prompting calls by climate action advocates to nationalize the oil industry rather than continuing to prop it up.

Meanwhile, the solar and wind sectors have grown at a rapid rate in recent decades, with job growth in the renewable field outpacing oil. 

"Exxon's deep fall today is another powerful reminder of how fossil fuels are too volatile to be the basis of a resilient economy," said Boeve. "It is past time for Exxon to recognize that it is not only one of the most responsible for the climate crisis, but also that its assets are quickly becoming stranded as we move towards more sustainable, resilient, and regenerative economic systems, based on renewable, accessible, and just energy sources."

A poll taken last year by Business Insider found that a majority of Americans favored transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources, and aligned with other recent findings by Gallup.

Seven oil companies have downgraded their assets by at least $87 billion in the last nine months, while more than 1,200 institutions representing more than $14 trillion in assets have committed to fossil fuel divestment.

"None of this is to say Exxon is officially done for or that it doesn't still hold massive power," wrote Brian Kahn at Earther. "A company worth $175 billion with its tentacles latched onto the Republican Party is still a formidable foe. But it does show a different world is possible. Fingers crossed the Dow Jones can get Chevron out of there next."

Links

• It’s Been A Landmark Year For Investor Action On Climate Change
• Deutsche Bank Says It Will No Longer Invest In Fracking Or Arctic Oil As Banks Turn Away From Fossil Fuels
• (AU) Environmental investigations - From Covid-19 To Climate: What's Next After The Global Oil And Gas Industry Crash?
• Big Oil Loses Bid To Move California Climate Court Fight
• A Silver Lining In The Global Pandemic: The Beginning Of The End For Oil?
• AU) Corporate Climate Risk Disclosures Must Show More: IGCC
• Bank Of England Chief Mark Carney Issues Climate Change Warning
• The New Science Fossil Fuel Companies Fear
• (AU) Australian Banks ‘Undermining Paris Agreement’ With $7bn In Fossil Fuel Loans
• (US) Minnesota Sues Exxon And Koch Industries For ’30-Year Campaign Of Deception’ On Climate

How Neanderthals Adjusted To Climate Change

Eurasia Review - Eurasia Review

Neanderthal reconstruction made by Fabio Fogliazza

Climate change occurring shortly before their disappearance triggered a complex change in the behaviour of late Neanderthals in Europe: they developed more complex tools.

This is the conclusion reached by a group of researchers from Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Università degli Studi die Ferrara (UNIFE) on the basis of finds in the Sesselfelsgrotte cave in Lower Bavaria.

Various Keilmesser and a simple backed knife (top right) from the Neanderthal period 60,000 to 44,000 years ago, from the Sesselfelsgrotte cave near Kelheim. (G-complex, excavations by Prof. Freund, FAU; photo: D. Delpiano, UNIFE).

Neanderthals lived approximately 400,000 to 40,000 years ago in large areas of Europe and the Middle East, even as far as the outer edges of Siberia.

They produced tools using wood and glass-like rock material, which they also sometimes combined, for example to make a spear with a sharp and hard point made of stone.

From approximately 100,000 years ago, their universal cutting and scraping tool was a knife made of stone, the handle consisting of a blunt edge on the tool itself.

These Keilmesser (backed, asymmetrical bifacially-shaped knives) were available in various shapes, leading researchers to wonder why the Neanderthals created such a variety of knives? Did they use different knives for different tasks or did the knives come from different sub-groups of Neanderthals? This was what the international research project hoped to find out.

Keilmesser are the answer

‘Keilmesser are a reaction to the highly mobile lifestyle during the first half of the last ice age. As they could be sharpened again as and when necessary, they were able to be used for a long time – almost like a Swiss army knife today,’ says Prof. Dr. Thorsten Uthmeier from the Institute of Prehistory and Early History at FAU.

Digital analysis of the cross-section and angle of the cutting edge using a 3D model of a backed knife from the Sesselfelsgrotte cave.  (G-complex, excavations by Prof. Freund, FAU; photo: D. Delpiano, UNIFE)

‘However, people often forget that bi-facially worked knives were not the only tools Neanderthals had. Backed knives from the Neanderthal period are surprisingly varied,’ adds his Italian colleague Dr. Davide Delpiano from Sezione di Scienze Preistoriche e Antropologiche at UNIFE.

‘Our research uses the possibilities offered by digital analysis of 3D models to discover similarities and differences between the various types of knives using statistical methods.’

The two researchers investigated artefacts from one of the most important Neanderthal sites in Central Europe, the Sesselfelsgrotte cave in Lower Bavaria.

During excavations in the cave conducted by the Institute of Prehistory and Early History at FAU, more than 100,000 artefacts and innumerable hunting remains left behind by the Neanderthals have been found, even including evidence of a Neanderthal burial.

The researchers have now analysed the most significant knife-like tools using 3D scans produced in collaboration with Prof. Dr. Marc Stamminger and Dr. Frank Bauer from the Chair of Visual Computing at the Department of Computer Science at FAU.

They allow the form and properties of the tool to be recorded extremely precisely.

‘The technical repertoire used to create Keilmesser is not only direct proof of the advanced planning skills of our extinct relatives, but also a strategical reaction to the restrictions imposed upon them by adverse natural conditions,’ says Uthmeier, FAU professor for Early Prehistory and Archaeology of Prehistoric Hunters and Gatherers.

Other climate, other tools

What Uthmeier refers to as ‘adverse natural conditions’ are climate changes after the end of the last interglacial more than 100,000 years ago.

Particularly severe cold phases during the following Weichsel glacial period began more than 60,000 years ago and led to a shortage of natural resources. In order to survive, the Neanderthals had to become more mobile than before, and adjust their tools accordingly.

The Neanderthals probably copied the functionality of unifacial backed knives, which are only shaped on one side, and used these as the starting point to develop bi-facially formed Keilmesser shaped on both sides.

A Neanderthal model at Zagros Paleolithic Museum, Kermanshah. Photo by ICHTO, Wikimedia Commons.

‘This is indicated in particular by similarities in the cutting edge, which consists in both instances of a flat bottom and a convex top, which was predominantly suited for cutting lengthwise, meaning that it is quite right to refer to the tool as a knife,’ says Davide Delpiano from UNIFE.

Both types of knife – the simpler older version and the newer, significantly more complex version – obviously have the same function. The most important difference between the two tools investigated in this instance is the longer lifespan of bi-facial tools.

Keilmesser therefore represent a high-tech concept for a long-life, multi-functional tool, which could be used without any additional accessories such as a wooden handle.

‘Studies from other research groups seem to support our interpretation,’ says Uthmeier. ‘Unlike some people have claimed, the disappearance of the Neanderthals cannot have been a result of a lack of innovation or methodical thinking.’

Neanderthals became extinct around 40,000 years ago. Image: Luca Lorenzelli/Shutterstock

Links

• German-Italian research project investigates different cutting tools from the Sesselfelsgrotte cave
• Resilience? Already a Neanderthal heritage
• Neanderthal Tool Innovation Was Driven By Climate Change
• Neanderthals
• The ancient history of Neanderthals in Europe
• Keilmesser: asymmetric bifacial backed knife
• Neanderthals Dived For Clam Shells To Make Tools Long Before Homo Sapiens Showed Up
• Siberian Neanderthals originated from various European populations
• Neanderthals of the Western Mediterranean did not become extinct because of changes in climate
• Cold and heat adaptations in humans
• Techno-functional and 3D shape analysis applied for investigating the variability of backed tools in the Late Middle Paleolithic of Central Europe

(US) What Climate Change Does To The Human Body

Scientific American - Neelu Tummala

An Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) Physician sees the effects in her patients all the time

Pixabay

Author Neelu Tummala, M.D., is an ENT doctor with George Washington Medical Faculty Associates. Dr Tummala is a climate advocate with a special interest in the intersection of climate and health. She is a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

The wildfire season is off to a roaring start. The hot summer is worsening drought and drying out vegetation—an unfortunately ideal environment for wildfires to rage.

But that’s just one consequence of global warming; it’s also leading to flooding, torrential rainstorms and heat-related deaths. In fact, the climate crisis has led to a widespread public health crisis.

And as an ear, nose and throat physician, I see the effects more and more often.

I vividly remember a patient who came in late for her appointment during a July heat wave. When I walked in, she said, “I’m so sorry I’m late, I was up all night walking my grandbaby around the train station.” Without air conditioning at home, the child was sweating through her clothes in the heat of the night, putting her at risk for dehydration.

July 2019 was the hottest July on record; September 2019 was the hottest on record; January 2020 was the hottest on record; May 2020 was the hottest on record. This is not a coincidence. It is a pattern. Carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas contributing to global warming, has increased by 9 percent since 2005 and by 31 percent since 1950.

A U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report pointed out that the world has already warmed about one degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels. It stressed the urgency to act to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and that a two-degree increase will lead to unprecedented extreme heat, water scarcity and food shortages around the globe.

Getty Images

Heat affects every part of our body. It can lead to heat exhaustion, heat stroke, anxiety, impaired cognitive function and even premature death from heart and lung disease. Across the country, the health concerns of the climate crisis are increasingly being recognized, pushing thousands of medical providers—doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, medical students—to become advocates for change.

In my own practice, I explain to patients how the climate crisis affects their health. For example, apart from contributing to global warming, rising carbon dioxide levels increase the amount of pollen that plants produce as a consequence of higher rates of photosynthesis. This rise in pollen levels can lead to worsening allergy symptoms.

Another example is fine particulate matter (known as PM_2.5) associated with air pollution, much of it linked to the burning of fossil fuels that help drive the warming. When we breathe in these particles, they travel down the airway and settle in the tiny air sacs called alveoli of the lungs, causing inflammation and potentially worsening asthma symptoms.

The explanations are simple, but the health risks are widespread and complex. Ground-level ozone pollution, which is worse in hotter weather, can also harm people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.

And that harm falls disproportionately on the poor. Wealthier people living in North America have a per capita carbon footprint that is 25 percent higher than those of lower-income residents, with some affluent suburbs producing emissions 15 times higher than nearby neighborhoods.

These carbon emissions contribute to global warming, and the subsequent health consequences are felt far beyond the neighborhood that produces them. Older adults, children, low-income communities and communities of color are less resilient on average to the health impacts of climate change.

The climate crisis is thus leading to a disproportionate public health crisis—and worse, it is a threat multiplier. At a time when many Americans are economically challenged, continued heat waves and the higher energy bills they trigger threaten access to water and energy security. The economic benefits of a low-carbon economy are clear. Estimates suggest that without climate investments, the United States will face economic damage from climate change equivalent to 1–3 percent of GDP per year by 2100.

The majority of Americans think global warming is happening. The climate crisis has unfairly been labeled as political, when in fact, people recognize that something needs to be done about it. Even for those who are seemingly unaffected, there is increasing global recognition that the safeguards of living in a protected community and affording expert medical care will eventually fail if global warming continues unchecked.

Unfortunately, there will be no vaccine in six months or a year for the climate crisis. The only treatment is collective climate action in the present.

Climate action is required of our elected leaders, and we must mandate it of ourselves. It can be as simple as educating family and friends, while making sustainable shopping and traveling choices. It includes eating less meat, unplugging electronics and raising a voice against the fossil fuel industry.

With a rise in demand for absentee ballots for the election this November, it is crucial to request mail-in ballots right away to make sure our voices are heard. The United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and we must vote for green policy.

Legislative action and policy change work, as evidenced by the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments, which are projected to save 230,000 lives in 2020.

The climate crisis is a public health issue, and we must start healing the planet in order to heal each other. Fighting against the climate crisis is one of the most patriotic things we can do right now; it will protect our health and the health of our neighbors across the country and the globe, and will allow all of us to live on this planet, the only home we have.

Links

• Report: Medical Alert! Climate Change Is Harming Our Health
• (AU) Coal-Fired Pollution Killing 800 Australians A Year: Report
• (AU) 'Two Global Health Emergencies': Doctors Group Backs Green Stimulus
• Rising Temperatures Will Cause More Deaths Than All Infectious Diseases – Study
• (AU) Under Climate Change, Winter Will Be The Best Time For Bush Burn-Offs – And That Could Be Bad News For Public Health
• Climate Change: Summers Could Become 'Too Hot For Humans'
• (US) Cities Are Becoming Climate Death Traps

(UK) An Update On Climate Change Litigation – No Signs Of Cooling

Leigh Day Legal - Katharina Theil

Katharina Theil considers progress on legal moves around the world to bring companies to account for their contribution to climate change.

Author Katharina Theil specialises in international human rights and corporate accountaiblity law.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly changed many aspects of our daily lives.

However, one issue that remains firmly on the agenda is the urgent need for action to mitigate the worst consequences of climate change.

As the UK emerges from lockdown, the UK Committee on Climate Change has urged the Government to tackle the climate emergency in its attempt to revive the economy and has called for 'a green, resilient COVID-19 recovery'.

Due to many governments' failures to take adequate action, individuals and communities have turned to the courts as one means of achieving change ('climate litigation').

Revelations that fossil fuel producers have known about the impact of carbon emissions since the 1980s, and possibly earlier, and have engaged in misinformation and deception campaigns have meant that not only governments, but increasingly also corporations have been subject to these lawsuits.

In October 2017, my colleague Jonny Buckley examined a number of US climate change lawsuits against major fossil fuel producers ('carbon majors'), and considered whether these could pave the way for litigation against corporates in the UK.

He concluded that although theoretically possible, the likelihood of similar claims being brought in the UK remained remote. This was primarily due to the difficulty in attributing specific damage to the carbon emissions of a particular company.

Update: Climate change lawsuits two years on

More than two years later, there has been much development in the global field of climate litigation.

Recent cases that have attracted particular attention include claims against states, such as Urgenda Foundation v the Netherlands ('Urgenda'), and Juliana v US.

In Urgenda, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands confirmed an earlier decision holding that the state had a duty to protect its citizens from 'dangerous climate change' in accordance with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR').

Even more recently, on 31 July 2020, in a case known as Climate Case Ireland, the Irish Supreme Court held that the Irish Government's National Mitigation Plan was defective and ordered the Government to produce a more ambitious strategy.

Juliana v US, a constitutional climate lawsuit brought on behalf of 21 young people in the US, however, was dismissed in January 2020.

The court held 'reluctantly' that the relief sought (an order requiring the US government to devise and implement a remedial plan) was beyond the court's constitutional power, as this would involve complex policy decisions.

Nevertheless, the claimants have noted that the judges were divided over the decision and requested a rehearing by a new panel of judges.

In the Californian cases filed by San Francisco and Oakland in September 2017, in state courts against five carbon majors, legal arguments have largely focused on whether the claims should be allowed to proceed in state or federal courts.

The cases, brought in public nuisance, allege that carbon majors are the 'proximate cause' of climate change and seek to reimburse taxpayers for associated adaptation costs such as sea walls to protect from rising sea levels. Similar cases are also ongoing.

In May 2020, the US Court of Appeals confirmed that San Francisco's and Oakland's claims could proceed in state courts. The carbon majors' request for a rehearing was denied.

Consequently, following an earlier dismissal, this most recent ruling appears to pave the way for the substance of the claims to be heard.

Climate attribution science has continued to expose the relationship between anthropogenic emissions and climate change.

An update to a study first published in 2014 suggests that the 20 largest oil, natural gas and coal companies are responsible for 35 per cent of the global fossil fuel and cement emissions between 1965 and 2017. The causal link between a specific company's carbon emissions and particular harm, however, is still one of the key issues for claimants to grapple with.

To date, climate litigation in the UK has largely targeted state entities, for example by challenging planning permissions or policies that pay insufficient regard to State commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. A case in point is Friends of the Earth's recent success in challenging the government's decision to expand Heathrow, represented by Leigh Day's environmental law team.

Corporate accountability after all?

Despite these difficulties, some recent cases indicate that courts around the globe are gradually becoming more receptive to engaging with corporates' responsibility for their contribution to climate change.

In Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited [2020], for example, a court in New Zealand rejected Smith's arguments that the defendant companies had been negligent in emitting greenhouse gases or that their emissions constituted a public nuisance.

Nevertheless, the court held that the claim for a novel tortious duty to cease contributing to climate change should proceed to trial.

The court commented that "it may be that a novel claim such as that filed by Mr Smith could result in the further evolution of the law of tort. (...) I am not prepared to strike out the third cause of action and foreclose on the possibility of the law of tort recognising a new duty which might assist Mr Smith."

A Peruvian farmer's claim against RWE, a German energy company, was allowed to proceed in the German courts on appeal in November 2017. The farmer alleges that global warming has caused glacial retreat in the area near his village Huaraz, causing acute threat of flooding of his property.

The claimant is seeking payment of 0.47 per cent of the estimated cost of measures to protect the property from damage in case of flooding. The amount claimed is proportionate to RWE's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions between 1965 and 2010 (see Particulars, §9).

Considering RWE's submissions against the appeal, the court held that "[i]n this context, the alleged threat to the plaintiff's property is attributable to the defendant's actions, i.e., to the active operation of power plants by the subsidiaries controlled by the defendant."

RWE denies liability, arguing that a single company cannot be held responsible for the consequences of climate change. The court and parties are currently awaiting permission from the Peruvian authorities for a site inspection in Huaraz.

The case of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. filed in the Netherlands in 2019, which builds on the arguments advanced against the government in Urgenda as regards a duty of care to take positive action, is likely to give further insight into a court's willingness to extend duties recognised for the state towards corporate actors in the area of climate change.

In addition to tort claims by affected individuals and communities or NGOs who represent them, shareholders have become more vocal in advancing climate-related causes, including in courts and non-judicial forums.

Over recent years, lawsuits have been brought against banks, pension and investment funds for failing to disclose information on climate-related risks or to incorporate these risks into their decision-making.

At the same time, some government institutions have relied explicitly on climate change related reasons when denying permission for mining or infrastructure projects.

Other routes have included complaints about misleading advertising by fossil fuel companies in breach of consumer protection legislation, such as a complaint to the UK Contact Point against BP for alleged violation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Climate litigation continues to be pursued actively in many countries and new and old avenues are being explored and developed.

Recent successes have been achieved primarily in cases brought against governments, and significant barriers to litigating climate change against corporate actors in the UK remain.

US courts hearing the lawsuits against the carbon majors are yet to grapple with the issue of causation and attribution of liability.

Some pending cases from around the globe suggest that courts may become more receptive to holding corporates to account for their contribution to climate change.

In addition, it appears that other avenues, such as shareholder actions, have a significant role to play.

It is hoped that both judicial and non-judicial routes being developed around the world will be useful in holding corporates to account for the actions they take and that recent climate litigation successes against governments are indicative of what the future may bring.<

Links

• Global trends in climate change litigation: 2020 snapshot (pdf)
• Tessa Khan: ‘Litigation Is A Powerful Tool In The Environmental Crisis’
• (AU) Australia Asks UN To Dismiss Torres Strait Islanders' Claim Climate Change Affects Their Human Rights
• (AU) New FOI Ruling Orders Disclosure Of CSIRO Internal Documents On Its Response To Murray-Darling Criticisms
• (LEGAL) Climate Change: 'Huge' Implications To Irish Climate Case Across Europe
• (AU) ‘A Wake-Up Call’: Why This Student Is Suing The Government Over The Financial Risks Of Climate Change
• (AU) Climate Change Litigation: The Australian Government Gets Sued
• (AU) 'World-First' Legal Case: Student Accuses Australia Of Misleading Investors On Climate Risk
• (AU) Review Of Australia’s Hopeless Environmental Laws Completely Ignores Climate Change
• (AU) Federal Environment Law Review Calls For Independent Cop, But Morrison Government Rules It Out