The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
We’re Running Out of Time
By Rhea Suh
A widening madness threatens the world, only one thing can avert catastrophe, and we're running out of time.
That's no Hollywood action film trailer. It's the sobering and all-too-real warning sounded by the world's top climate scientists in an authoritative report released this week. We can still prevent runaway climate disaster, they conclude, but only by taking "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented" action now to shift to cleaner, smarter ways to power our future. We can do this, the report says, but we have about a decade—tops—to get it right.
In a tragic reminder of the urgency we face, the people of Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas are grappling with the aftermath of yet another unexpectedly powerful hurricane. Many factors combine to create a storm like Michael; however, we do know that warming oceans and air pack more energy and moisture into a storm, setting the stage for greater damage when they reach our shores, in yet another indicator of the growing dangers of climate disruption.
"Climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet," states the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body. It's the work of nearly 100 climate experts drawing on more than 6,000 peer-reviewed studies from scientists worldwide.
Yes, we've seen similar reports before. This one, though, uses the most current science to draw a stark line between climate threats we can manage and runaway destruction we won't be able to reverse. The difference comes down to whether we can hold global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Whether we succeed will be determined by what we accomplish between now and 2030. There's no time left to squander.
To no one's surprise, this urgent call to action fell on deaf ears at the White House. President Trump is doing all he can to accelerate the growing dangers of climate change and leave our kids to pay the price. He's working to roll back common sense standards to clean up our dirty power plants and our cars and trucks, the biggest sources of the dangerous carbon pollution that's driving climate change. He's diminishing the role of science in protecting the environment and public health. And he's working to withdraw U.S. participation in the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.
That's not leadership. It's a betrayal, frankly, of the public trust and an abdication of the duty we have to leave future generations a better world. And it's not what the American people want, not when 64 percent of us expect our government to do more, not less, to fight climate change.
Fortunately, decision makers in businesses, cities and states across the country are singing a different tune. Just last month, more than 4,000 of these leaders and activists from around the world gathered in San Francisco to rally around a historic slate of actions to dramatically advance a global effort to meet climate change head-on.
True leaders understand what's at stake. They have a vision for confronting climate change. And they're putting policies in place to accelerate the shift away from the dirty fuels that are driving this global scourge and toward cleaner, smarter ways to power our future.
That starts with improving energy efficiency, so we do more with less waste. It means building, right here in our country, some of the best all-electric and hybrid vehicles anywhere. And it means getting more clean, homegrown American power from the wind and sun.
By doing those things and shifting away from coal-fired power plants to cleaner energy sources, we've cut our carbon footprint more than 14 percent since 2005 while our economy has grown 21 percent in real terms.
The shift to a clean energy economy, by the way, has created well-paying jobs for 3.2 million Americans, nearly three times the number of people working to produce coal, oil and gas and to staff the power plants that burn those fuels.
By building on clean energy progress and accelerating these gains, we can cut our carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. The new report from the IPCC makes clear why we need to do that.
A century of increasingly intensive fossil fuel use has already raised the average global temperature, land and sea, by 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. That's why, in this century alone, we've seen 17 of the 18 hottest years since global record-keeping began in 1880.
The results are already reshaping our world. Seas are rising. Croplands are turning to desert. We're losing entire species at the fastest rate since the dinosaurs disappeared 60 million years ago. The Great Barrier Reef is dying. Wildfires, storms and floods are raging.
The reason is that burning coal, oil and gas has raised the level of carbon dioxide, a powerful earth-warming gas, in the planet's atmosphere. It's up nearly 45 percent over a little more than a century. Nearly half the increase has occurred since 1980, and we're continuing to raise it faster than at any other time in the past 800,000 years.
That has already baked in more warming to come. Since 1970, in fact, the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7 degrees Celsius per century. We have to slow that down, in order to hold total warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Here's the difference between 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming and 2 degrees:
- Losing 70 percent of the world's tropical ocean reefs vs. losing pretty much all of them
- Experiencing life-threatening heat waves every five years that affect 14 percent of the world's people vs. 37 percent
- More than half of habitat becoming uninhabitable for 4 percent of the world's vertebrate animals vs. 8 percent
- The disappearance of Arctic sea ice one summer per century vs. one summer every decade.
The IPCC report also highlights the intersection of sustainable development and global justice. Just as the benefits of industrialization have favored some nations over others, the world's poor are paying the highest price for climate disruption. Scores of millions of people in low-income countries already struggle with food scarcity and forced migration that contribute to regional instability and brutal poverty.
We know that number is going to rise as we approach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming as early as 2030. If we go to 2 degrees of warming, hundreds of millions more people will suffer, as withering drought and blistering heat take a growing toll on livestock and crops like rice, maize and wheat across Africa, Southeast Asia and South America; as freshwater sources become depleted or dry up; and as mosquitoes widen their range, spreading diseases like dengue fever, malaria and the Zika virus.
The science is clear. We must move away from fossil fuels and transition to cleaner, smarter ways to power our future—and do so quickly—or we'll condemn our children to a world of widening damage and growing peril.
Generations from now, when our children's children's children look back on this report, they will know we understood the threat. They will know that we were warned. They will know us by how we respond.
- Climate change denial won't even benefit oil companies soon | Phil ... ›
- The world is losing the war against climate change - In the line of fire ›
- Dirty Energy & Fossil Fuels | NRDC ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›