Pixabay
By Tara Lohan
Would you like to take a crack at solving climate change? Or at least creating a road map of how we could do it?
<p>That's possible now thanks to a new computer modeling tool called <a href="https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/" target="_blank">En-ROADS</a>.</p><p>Created by the nonprofit think tank <a href="https://www.climateinteractive.org/" target="_blank">Climate Interactive</a> and MIT's Sloan's Sustainability Initiative, the scientifically rigorous online tool lets you put your hand on the lever to figure out what mix of energy, economic and technological changes can get us to a livable future.</p><p>For example, what if we stop burning coal now and move to clean energy in the next 10 years? What if we curb deforestation? Or demand increased energy efficiency and the electrification of our vehicles? Put a tax on carbon? There are too many variables to wrap our heads around. That's where computer modeling comes in: It can help us visualize the possibilities.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://therevelator.org/author/taralohan/" target="_blank">Tara Lohan</a> is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard</em><em> and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.</em></p><p><em></em><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/climate-interactive/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em><em></em></p>
<p>"We use computers to keep track of all of the feedback loops and interconnections and tipping points that exist either in the atmospheric or biological or economic or political parts of the system," said Climate Interactive cofounder <a href="https://www.climateinteractive.org/about/staff/elizabeth-sawin/" target="_blank">Elizabeth Sawin</a>.</p><p>These kinds of high-level tools are usually reserved for scientists and other experts, but En-ROADS is available to everyone. Launched in 2019, it's already been used by government officials, business leaders and educators, and local activists in dozens of countries. It helps people visualize that climate solutions are in reach, says Sawin.</p><p>Climate Interactive's work extends beyond computer modeling. We talked to Sawin about the potential of En-ROADS to change communities and the organization's practice of "multisolving" — employing collaborative solutions that work for climate change, health, equity and well-being — and how improving the social safety net can also help address the climate crisis.</p>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/359091159" width="100%" height="480" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="12b26d011672d3836e7ec5b380e854cd"></iframe>
When you build a tool like En-ROADS, who are you hoping uses it?
<p>The tools that we build are used by quite a range of people, which is one of the exciting things about them.</p><p>Before En-ROADS we had a tool called C-ROADS, which was used in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. During the negotiations in Copenhagen it allowed people to add up what each country was offering to do in terms of emissions cuts and calculate what that would mean for the global temperature at the end of the century. That was of interest to the U.S. State Department under President Obama and negotiating parties from other countries.</p><p>As a young bunch of scientists, it was fairly thrilling to hand our results to a colleague who took them to [science advisor] John Holdren, who took them to the president.</p><p>Today we find En-ROADS having quite a lot of traction in the upper levels of companies and governments, but one thing we've learned over the years is that those high-level leaders really can't move further or faster than the civil society is ready to.</p><p>So we invest quite a lot in supporting teachers — university and high school — and advocates. We're in the middle of a second round of webinars training around 1,000 people to use En-ROADS so they can teach others.</p><p>These are people all around the world. One is interested in going to her members of Congress with her laptop and using the simulation to advocate for a better future for her kids.</p>What does En-ROADS do differently from other computer simulations?
<p>One thing we talk about is the democratization of this information. En-ROADS isn't breaking new scientific ground that other computer simulations of climate change don't do. In fact, often we're relying on that cutting-edge research of other groups.</p><p>But we have paid attention to making it run fast and making it freely available online, where most of these other tools aren't designed for those purposes. They're doing scientific research for other scientists. Top leaders can often get the input of those academics if they have a question or a scenario, but it's unlikely that a politically active mom who's trying to influence her member of Congress would have access to those kinds of tools. Whereas if she puts in the time to learn, she can use En-ROADS.</p><p>I think more and more, and especially in the last few years, we come across people who have the impression that [the climate crisis is] pretty much hopeless. "It's too late. We've left it too long." And En-ROADS, for those people, is motivating because it shows that the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement to keep temperature increase well below 2 degrees [Celsius] is still physically possible. There's a huge amount of social and political will needed to do it, but it's within reach.</p>Your organization is guided by a practice you call “multisolving.” What is that?
<p>In the early years of working with models like C-ROADS and En-ROADS, we were really focused on tons of greenhouse gases and how to limit those. And clearly that's the core of the problem. But what we found in Copenhagen was that, despite our group and a few others who were doing this analysis actually being heard, and being on the front page of top newspapers, it didn't lead to more ambitious pledges from countries.</p><p>There was a soul-searching moment for me and for Climate Interactive in realizing that just being good scientists within this narrow bound of counting tons of carbon isn't getting us onto the path we need to be on.</p><p>That got me interested in this question of what else would be different in a world that has gotten off of fossil fuels. This was around 2009-2010. I hired the best researcher I knew, and she went away and came back and handed me this report.</p><p>It said that the benefits of being off fossil fuels, when monetized — when you took all the lives saved, all the healthcare costs saved, all the jobs created — the savings were of the same order of magnitude as the cost.</p><p>I thought she had made a mistake. Because I had worked my whole career trying to convince people that it's going to be <em>hard</em>, it's going to be <em>expensive</em>, but we <em>need</em> to get off fossil fuels. And she was saying that if you just widened your scope and looked not just on the carbon side, but you looked at the lives and health and community well-being, we were going to reap all these benefits.</p><p>I felt like I had been spending my life on a problem that was framed in a way where we would never be able to solve it. But by expanding our view, the things we were missing — basically political will, political power and budgetary power — seemed like maybe they could be aligned.</p><p>After that, for a long time we talked about the "co-benefits," and that that was kind of the word at the time. And many people still use it. We ended up dissatisfied with that word because it sounds like climate change is the main benefit, and then there are these other nice co-benefits.</p><p>That's still putting CO2 at the center of the world.</p><p>To a parent who's been in the emergency room all night with a child with asthma, is protecting the climate 100 years from now the main benefit of closing the neighborhood coal-fired power plant? Or is ending asthma the main benefit and climate is a nice co-benefit?</p><p>So we made up the word "<a href="https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/multisolving/" target="_blank">multisolving</a>" to talk about how all these problems matter.</p>What does this look like in action?
<p>We learned that by and large our systems are not set up to allow people to take advantage of these synergies. And just to give you one example, if a country is going to go on a low-carbon transportation plan, those are going to be costs that are felt by the ministry of transportation. But the savings are largely going to be felt by the ministry of health. There'll be less hospitalization, fewer premature deaths, less cardiovascular and respiratory illness, less premature birth. But the way current governments are set up, no transportation minister is going to get much political appreciation or an incentive by saving money for the health ministry.</p><p>So for the last few years we've been working more and more on how to bring people together, to build the relationships that are needed to take advantage of these synergies because — until people can shift their systems around in a way where they can act together across these different silos and boundaries and jurisdictions — this will all just stay theoretical.</p><p>One place we have been doing this is in Atlanta with a group called Partnership for Southern Equity. We're creating a community network, the <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/justgrowth/just-growth-circle?authuser=0" target="_blank">Just Growth Circle</a>, that can be mobilized to have influence, decision-by-decision, on the kind of pattern of growth and development that will eventually change a whole city.</p>That kind of deep-relationship building isn’t something that can be done quickly. How do you balance that kind of work to establish these interconnections with the urgency of the climate crisis?
<p>Wendell Berry said, "To be patient in an emergency is a terrible trial." But we're in the kind of emergency that calls for patience. Time is very short and yet to make the kind of changes we need to make requires trust and relationships that can't be rushed and can only be cultivated. All you can do is create the conditions for them.</p><p>If you have urgency — if you need to bring things to scale, if you're looking for transformation and not incremental change — then actually this very slow and patient work of building trust and relationships is the way that you get to a very fast and transformative change.</p>Has anything shifted in your thinking in the last few months during this global pandemic?
<p>There's been a lot of talk about opportunities for transformation within the pandemic, especially about the need for low-carbon solutions. The other side is the social safety net. A lot of what we need to do to help people through the pandemic is also what the smart people behind the Green New Deal have said from the beginning needs to be part of the plan.</p><p>When they talked about universal healthcare, childcare, gender equity programs and the job training side of it, lots of people responded that they were way outside their lane. "What does this have to do with carbon?" But the pandemic is showing us that if you want a society to be able to pivot rapidly, you need a social safety net to support people.</p><p>If you want to pivot to green infrastructure, if you want low carbon infrastructure, you're changing a whole workforce in a generation. The social safety net is the lubrication that allows that to happen with less friction.</p><p>The social safety net we need to build to get through the pandemic could be built to also carry us through the transition to a climate-safe economy. It's not the technical side of this transition, but it is the taking care of each other through the transition. That may sound selfless, but it's also highly practical because the transition isn't going to happen if we can't move a whole society very quickly.</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Climate campaigners and Indigenous peoples across Canada have spent the past several years protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline. Mark Klotz / Flickr / cc
By Elana Sulakshana
Rainforest Action Network recently uncovered a document that lists the 11 companies that are currently insuring the controversial Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline in Canada. These global insurance giants are providing more than USD$500 million in coverage for the massive risks of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, and they're also lined up to cover the expansion project.
<p>The existing Trans Mountain pipeline is a major environmental and public health hazard with a <a href="https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/frequently_asked_questions_regarding_the_kinder_morgan_pipeline_proposal" target="_blank">long history of disastrous spills</a>. Earlier this month, 50,000 gallons of crude oil <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trans-mountain-pipeline-oil-spill-british-columbia-2646173087.html" target="_self">spilled</a> from a pump station located above an aquifer that supplies the Sumas First Nation with drinking water.</p>
<p>The Trans Mountain Expansion Project would multiply these risks tremendously. Though it is officially called an "expansion," this is no minor renovation. The Canadian government, which owns Trans Mountain, is attempting to build a parallel pipeline that would ship more than 890,000 barrels per year of highly-polluting tar sands crude oil to the coast of British Columbia.</p><p>For more than a decade, the expansion of Trans Mountain has been delayed in the face of powerful, Indigenous-led resistance on the ground and in the courts. It has not secured the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous communities that are directly in the pipeline's route. Right now, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Squamish Nation, and Coldwater Indian Band are <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/trans-mountain-tmx-first-nations-supreme-court-1.5525266" target="_blank">actively engaged in legal challenges</a> on the project, and <a href="http://tinyhousewarriors.com/" target="_blank">land defenders</a> are asserting their rights and title along the route. </p><p>Furthermore, pushing forward this project flies in the face of Canada's commitment to cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. To keep global warming under 1.5ºC, we must stop expanding tar sands — and all fossil fuels — and instead invest in a just transition to phase out existing operations. </p>
<p>In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the government and corporations are doubling down on their destructive plans to build new fossil fuel projects. Bulldozers that are laying the initial pipe on Trans Mountain have not quieted, even though this construction poses <a href="http://www.tinyhousewarriors.com/2020/04/shut-down-the-man-camps/" target="_blank">major risks</a> to Indigenous and rural communities in its path, as well as workers that are housed together in close quarters. In Alberta, <a href="https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/05/13/news/alberta-didnt-contain-it-covid-19-outbreak-oilsands-camp-has-spread-across-country" target="_blank">viral outbreaks</a> have been linked to<a href="http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/un-special-rapporteur-oil-gas-mining-operations-brings-increased-sexual-violence/" target="_blank"> man camps </a>at tar sands extraction sites, and yet the province's energy minister <a href="https://www.coastmountainnews.com/news/gathering-limits-make-it-a-great-time-to-be-building-a-pipeline-alberta-minister/" target="_blank">proclaimed</a> that now is a great time to construct a pipeline, due to social distancing protocols that limit public protest. </p><p>The risks of these pipelines are so great that under federal law, the current pipeline and its expansion are not able to transport any oil without insurance. So if we can stop the flow of insurance money, we can stop the flow of oil.</p><p>We're ramping up the pressure on the insurance companies that are providing critical financial support.</p>
Who’s insuring the pipeline? (2019-2020)
<p>Here's the list of insurance companies that are providing coverage from August 2019 through August 2020:</p><ol><li>Zurich (Switzerland)</li><li>Lloyd's (UK) </li><li>Liberty Mutual (US)</li><li>Chubb (US)</li><li>AIG (US)</li><li>WR Berkley (US)</li><li>Starr (US)</li><li>Stewart Specialty Risk Underwriting (Canada)</li><li>Energy Insurance Mutual (US) </li><li>Temple Insurance (Germany), a Canadian member of the Munich Re group</li><li>HDI (Germany), which is owned by Talanx / Hannover Re</li></ol><p>These insurance policies are being arranged by the biggest insurance broker in the world: Marsh. Fun fact: Marsh is also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/04/worlds-largest-insurance-broker-under-pressure-over-support-for-adani-and-other-coal-projects" target="_blank">currently under fire</a> for facilitating insurance for the Adani Carmicheal coal mine in Australia.</p><p>Trans Mountain's insurance policy is up at the end of August, so we are urgently calling on these companies to:</p><ul><li>Publicly commit to not renew their insurance policy for Trans Mountain for 2020-21;<br></li><li>Moving forward, rule out insurance for all tar sands extraction and transport projects and companies;<br></li><li>Adopt a policy to ensure that projects and companies they insure have obtained the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of impacted communities.</li></ul><p>We've made some progress. In late June, <a href="https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/environmental/talanx-group-dropping-support-for-trans-mountain-pipeline-226532.aspx" target="_blank">Talanx indicated</a> that it already dropped the pipeline, and Munich Re signaled that it will not renew its policy. These two German insurers recently adopted policies restricting tar sands business. </p><p>A global coalition of environmental NGOs, First Nations, and insurance campaigners is demanding that the rest of Trans Mountain's insurers follow suit and stop being complicit in the violation of Indigenous rights, spread of COVID-19, and the desecration of sacred waterways and the global climate.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/author/elana-sulakshana" target="_blank">Elana Sulakshana</a> leads <a href="https://www.ran.org/" target="_blank">Rainforest Action Network</a>'s campaign pressuring the U.S. insurance industry to stop making the climate crisis worse. She has been active in the climate justice movement for the last eight years, most recently organizing for just and equitable climate policy in Washington State, fighting fracking in the U.K., and campaigning for universities to divest from fossil fuels and reinvest in communities.</em></p><p><em></em><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/04/whos-insuring-trans-mountain-pipeline" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trudeau Government Approves Trans Mountain Expansion a Day ... ›
- Trans Mountain Pipeline Spills up to 50,000 Gallons of Oil on ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Billions worth of valuable metals such as gold, silver and copper were dumped or burned last year as electronic waste produced globally jumped to a record 53.6 million tons. Curtis Palmer / CC by 2.0
By Ashutosh Pandey
Billions worth of valuable metals such as gold, silver and copper were dumped or burned last year as electronic waste produced globally jumped to a record 53.6 million tons (Mt), or 7.3 kilogram per person, a UN report showed on Thursday.
<p>Growing demand for electronic gadgets, mostly with short life cycles and few options for repair, has caused <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-e-waste/a-47210118" target="_blank">e-waste — discarded products with a battery or plug —</a> to surge by more than a fifth in the past 5 years, according to the joint study by the United Nations University, the UN Institute for Training and Research, the International Telecommunication Union and the International Solid Waste Association. The report forecasts the amount of e-waste generated to top 74 Mt by 2030.</p><p>"We are seeing a growing middle class in many countries around the world, which a few years ago were really typical developing countries. And there is a very large backlog demand here," Rüdiger Kühr, director of the Sustainable Cycles Program at the United Nations University (UNU) and a co-author of the report, told DW, adding that a growing trend of things like cars and bicycles being electrified was also contributing to the menace.</p>
<p>The weight of e-waste produced in 2019 was equivalent to 350 cruise ships the size of the Queen Mary 2, one of the largest cruise ships in the world, the authors of the report said.</p><p>Less than a fifth of the scrap — which the authors referred to as "urban mine" — was known to have been properly collected and recycled, which means a vast bulk of the $57 billion (€50 billion) worth of valuable metals such as gold, copper and iron and other recoverable materials were dumped or burned rather than being collected for treatment and reuse.</p><p>"E-waste quantities are rising three times faster than the world's population and 13% faster than the world's GDP during the last five years," said Antonis Mavropoulos, president of the International Solid Waste Association. "This sharp rise creates substantial environmental and health pressures and demonstrates the urgency to combine the fourth industrial revolution with circular economy."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzNDI5MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzYzOTk3NX0.RQbf3EJ7KbW6wPMpQmnieMQtjgtOAa2g2RiGc6Wfou4/img.png?width=980" id="fafc2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f641bb3f6f0662dd7d22920805d103a0" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Environmental and Health Hazard
<p>Experts say e-waste, which is now the world's fastest-growing domestic waste stream, poses serious environmental and health risks.</p><p>Simply throwing away electronic items without ensuring they get properly recycled leads to the loss of key materials such as iron, copper and gold, which can otherwise be recovered and used as primary raw materials to make new equipment, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions from extraction and refinement of raw materials.</p><p>Refrigerants found in electronic equipment such as fridge and air conditioners also contribute to global warming. A total of 98 Mt of CO2-equivalents, or about 0.3% of global energy-related emissions, were released into the atmosphere in 2019 from discarded refrigerators and ACs that were not recycled properly, the report said.</p><p>E-waste contains several toxic additives or hazardous substances, such as mercury and brominated flame retardants (BFR), and simply burning it or throwing it away could lead to serious health issues. Several studies have linked unregulated recycling of e-waste to adverse birth outcomes like stillbirth and premature birth, damages to the human brain or nervous system and in some cases hearing loss and heart troubles.</p><p>"Informal and improper e-waste recycling is a major emerging hazard silently affecting our health and that of future generations. One in four children are dying from avoidable environmental exposures," said Maria Neira, director of the Environment, Climate Change and Health Department at the World Health Organization. "One in four children could be saved, if we take action to protect their health and ensure a safe environment."</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzNDI5MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTY4NjA4OH0.qYGeyLvLk-elu3ZJcG9sTyEtVLbMGk0J8n0_MBFunNQ/img.png?width=980" id="78310" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1392b4823e7058c3bed4598e3ee30134" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Europe Leads the Way
<p>While most of the e-waste was generated in Asia (24.9 Mt) in 2019, Europe led the charts on a per person basis with 16.2 kg per capita, the report said.</p><p>But the continent also recorded the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/the-eu-declares-war-on-e-waste/a-51108790" target="_blank">highest documented formal e-waste collection and recycling</a> rate at 42.5%, still below its target of 65%. Europe was well ahead of the others on this front. Asia ranked second with 11.7%.</p><p>The authors said while more that 70% of the world's population was covered by some form of e-waste policy or laws, not much was being done toward implementation and enforcement of the regulations to encourage the take-up of a collection and recycling infrastructure due to lack of investment and political motivation.</p><p>"You have to think about new economic systems," said Kühr.</p><p>One approach could be that consumers no longer buy the products, but only the service they offer. The device would remain the property of the maker, who would then have an interest in offering his customers the best service and the necessary equipment. The maker would also be interested in designing his products in such a way that they are easier to repair and easier to recycle, Kühr said.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Dangerous Chemicals From E-Waste Found in Black Plastics From ... ›
- Electronic Waste Study Finds $65 Billion in Raw Materials ... ›
- Electronic Waste: New EU Rules Target Throwaway Culture ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A diver swims with sharpfin barracuda, one of the many ocean species under threat from global warming, in Australia, Queensland, Great Barrier Reef. Pete Atkinson / The Image Bank / Getty Images Plus
The oceans could look much emptier by 2100, according to a new study that found that most fish species would not be able to survive in their current habitat if average global temperatures rise 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, as The Guardian reported.
<p>The researchers of the new paper said that 60 percent of fish species face a grave threat from global heating if temperatures approach that worst-case scenario level. The species under threat include many <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/seafood" target="_self">common fish found in grocery stores</a>, including staples like Atlantic cod, Alaska pollock and sockeye <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/salmon" target="_self">salmon</a>, and sport fishing favorites like swordfish, barracuda and brown trout, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/weather/fish-vulnerable-ocean-warming-climate-change-scn/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>The new study, published in the journal <em><a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6499/65" target="_blank">Science</a></em>, looked at how nearly 700 fresh and saltwater fish species respond to warming ocean temperatures. The problem for most fish is that as ocean temperatures rise, the oxygen level goes down, which makes it extremely challenging for embryos to survive.</p>
<p>"A 1.5C increase is already a challenge to some, and if we let global warming persist, it can get much worse," said Hans-Otto Pörtner, a co-author on the paper and a climatologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Germany, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/fish-species-survival-climate-warming-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>That 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold would result in 10 percent of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine species</a> suffering over the next 80 years, including the aforementioned grocery staples.</p><p>However, even a 10 percent decline in fish species has a large ripple effect on ecosystems as one species being pushed out effects the food supply and the habits of many other species that have evolved to be interdependent.</p>
<p>Since we are already 1 degree warmer than the pre-industrial level and emissions are starting to rise around the world as countries reopen, it seems highly unlikely that the world will not blow past that lowest benchmark. In fact, we are currently on pace for a 3 degree increase over the pre-industrial level, as The Guardian noted.</p><p>"More than half of the species potentially at risk is quite astonishing, so we really emphasize that it's important to take action and follow the political commitments to reduce climate change and protect marine habitats," said Dr. Flemming Dahlke, a marine biologist at Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute and one of the authors of the study, as CNN reported.</p>
<p>The declining oxygen levels threaten fish because adult fish preparing to mate fill up their bodies with either eggs or sperm, which strains their hearts as they pump more blood to supply their reproductive organs with enough oxygen, according to the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8484103/Rising-water-temperatures-endanger-matings-fish.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail</a>.</p><p>Also, fish embryos inside eggs could also die since they don't have gills — meaning they will be unable to get enough oxygen to survive.</p><p>"There's a difference in the tolerable temperature range of almost 20 degrees on average between embryos and adults," Dahlke said, as CNN reported. "This of course makes a big difference when you want to look at the sensitivity of species to global warming."</p>
<p>The rapid increase in temperatures could force fish to adapt in an unprecedented way or to move toward cooler water closer to the poles. Freshwater fish living in lakes and ponds have a bleak outlook since they cannot move towards cooler waters.</p><p>"Some species might successfully manage this change," said Dahlke, as the Daily Mail reported. "But if you consider the fact that fish have adapted their mating patterns to specific habitats over extremely long time frames, and have tailored their mating cycles to specific ocean currents and available food sources, it has to be assumed that being forced to abandon their normal spawning areas will mean major problems for them."</p><p>A lot of this is a conservative estimate since the study did not take into account pollution or the increased acidity of the ocean, which could present additional challenges to sensitive species, as The Guardian noted.</p><p>"Some tropical fish are already living in zones at their uppermost tolerance, their areas are already 40C," Pörtner said. "Humankind is pushing the planet outside of a comfortable temperature range and we are starting to lose suitable habitat. It's worth investing in the 1.5C goal."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Oceans Are Sending Us so Many Warning Signals': New UN ... ›
- Record-Warm Oceans: How Worried Should We Be? - EcoWatch ›
- Fish and Fishermen Already Moving to Survive Climate Change ... ›
- Fish Are Losing Their Sense of Smell - EcoWatch ›
- Global Fisheries Have Declined Due to Ocean Warming ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Koala populations across parts of Australia are on track to become extinct before 2050 unless "urgent government intervention" occurs. Mathias Appel / Flickr
Koala populations across parts of Australia are on track to become extinct before 2050 unless "urgent government intervention" occurs, warns a year-long inquiry into Australia's "most loved animal." The report published by the Parliament of New South Wales (NSW) paints a "stark and depressing snapshot" of koalas in Australia's southeastern state.
<p>"Even before the devastating 2019-2020 bushfires, it was clear that the koala in NSW, already a threatened species, was in significant trouble," says the <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2536/Koala%20populations%20and%20habitat%20in%20New%20South%20Wales%20-%20Report%203.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>, adding that previous population estimates counting 36,000 individuals were "outdated and unreliable."</p><p>"Then came the fires. With at least 5,000 koalas lost in the fires, potentially many more, it was deeply distressing but extremely important for committee members to agree to the finding that koalas will become extinct in NSW before 2050 without urgent government intervention."</p>
<p>At least 5,000 animals were lost in the 2019 bushfires responsible for killing more than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/australia-wildfire-deaths-2644394434.html" target="_self">1 billion animals</a>. Conservation groups <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/koalas-extinction-wildfires-australia-2645408622.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">warned</a> of the possible extinction in March after projections that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires">wildfires</a> resulted in the loss of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/koala-rescue-fire-australia-2641408117.html" target="_self">80 percent of habitat</a>, forcing the charismatic marsupials into "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/koalas-functionally-extinct-fires-2641450078.html" target="_self">functional extinction</a>."</p><p>Endemic only to the eucalyptus forests in the southeastern and eastern parts of the continent, koalas rely on the trees for both habitat and food, according to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/k/koala/#:~:text=Koalas%20live%20in%20the%20eucalyptus%20forests%20of%20southeastern%20and%20eastern%20Australia." target="_blank">National Geographic</a>. They are threatened by the destruction of habitat through the clearing and fragmentation of their unique habitat, which is further exacerbated by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a> and ongoing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought">drought</a> conditions that have plagued the region for years.</p>
<p>As part of their analysis, the independent committee received more than 5,700 responses and 300 submissions, in addition to nine public hearings and site visitations across several locations. Philip Spark, a wildlife ecologist, warned in the report that successive extreme events in the past had reduced one koala population by as much as half and pushed another to local extinction.</p><p>"With the trees dying and the streams drying there is a recipe for disaster. Koalas are really on the brink of not surviving," said Spark. "A crisis can happen with very little warning."</p>
<p>Citing a report published by the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>, Sparks added that by 2050, one in 100-year events are expected to occur every year with 50-degree Celsius heatwaves in the next 20 years. The committee further found that climate change has a severe impact on koalas and not only affects the quality of their food and habitat, but also compounds the "severity and threats of other impacts, such as <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought">drought</a> and bushfires."</p>
<p>The committee made 42 recommendations to ensure the future of the koala, including prioritizing the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation">conservation</a> of koala habitat, establishing more thorough approaches to monitoring koala numbers, and allocating additional resources and funding to conservation projects by calling on the government to protect and restore koala habitat on both public and private land. The report also notes that officials should investigate "without delay" the establishment of the <a href="https://koalapark.org.au/" target="_blank">Great Koala National Park</a>, a proposed public conservation area dedicated to protecting the species. An interim report on Australia's national environmental laws is expected this week and is expected to consider the findings that Australia's iconic species is in need of assistance, reports <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/30/koalas-will-be-driven-to-extinction-by-2050-in-nsw-major-inquiry-finds" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- First Koalas Rescued From Bushfires Returned to the Wild - EcoWatch ›
- Koalas Found 'Massacred' at Logging Site - EcoWatch ›
- Koalas Become 'Functionally Extinct' in Australia With Just 80000 Left ›
- Koalas Face Extinction Threat After Wildfires: New Report - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
NASA is advancing tools like this supercomputer model that created this simulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to better understand what will happen to Earth's climate if the land and ocean can no longer absorb nearly half of all climate-warming CO2 emissions. NASA/GSFC
By Jeff Berardelli
For the past year, some of the most up-to-date computer models from the world's top climate modeling groups have been "running hot" – projecting that global warming may be even more extreme than earlier thought. Data from some of the model runs has been confounding scientists because it challenges decades of consistent projections.
<p>"It is concerning, as it increases the risk of more severe climate change impacts," explains Dr. Andrew Gettelman, a cloud microphysics scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado.</p><p>As a result, there's been a real urgency to answer this important question in climate science: Are there processes in some new models that need correcting, or is this enhanced warming a real threat?</p><p>After months of contemplation and study after study, the picture is becoming much more clear, and providing something of a breather. Along with those studies, an unprecedented international research mission, led by NOAA and named ATOMIC, aims to provide climate science with the most sophisticated insights yet into why some models point to more warming.</p>
International Effort to Evaluate Climate Models
<p>For the past 25 years the international community has been evaluating and comparing the world's most sophisticated climate models produced by various teams at universities, research centers, and government agencies. The effort is organized by the World Climate Research Programme under the United Nations World Meteorological Organization.</p><p>Climate models are complicated computer programs composed of millions of lines of code that calculate the physical properties and interactions between the main climate forces like the atmosphere, oceans, and solar input. But models also go a lot further, incorporating other systems like ice sheets, forests, and the biosphere, to name a few. The models are then used to simulate the real-world climate system and project how certain changes, like added pollution or land-use changes, will alter the climate.</p><p>Every few years there is a new comprehensive international evaluation called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). In the sixth such effort, known as CMIP6 and now under way, experts are reviewing about 100 models.</p><p>Information gleaned from this effort will act as a scientific foundation for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next major assessment report, scheduled for release in 2021. The goal of the report – the sixth in 30 years – is to inform the international community about how much the climate has changed, and, importantly, how much change can be expected in coming decades.</p>A Conundrum Emerges
<p>Over the past year, the CMIP6 collection of models being reviewed threw researchers an unexpected curveball: a significant number of the climate model runs showed substantially more global warming than previous model versions had projected. If accurate, the international climate goals would be nearly impossible to achieve, and there would be significantly more extreme impacts worldwide.</p><p>A foundational experiment in every report addresses "sensitivity": If you double levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) that were in the air before the Industrial Revolution, how much warming do the models show? This doubling is not expected for a few more decades, but it is a quick way to communicate the critical role of greenhouse gases in changing the climate.</p><p>The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35% since the 1800s because of the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, global temperatures have already increased by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit.</p><p>In the first IPCC assessment report, published in 1990, the answer to that question about the impact of doubling carbon dioxide gave a fairly wide range of results – between 2.7-8 degrees F of global warming. Since then, four more assessments issued six to seven years apart reached nearly the exact same conclusion on sensitivity.</p><p>But that sensitivity may, for the first time, change significantly in next year's assessment. Why? Because starting last year, numerous models in the CMIP6 collection displayed even bigger spikes in temperature upon doubling of CO2 concentrations. We're in serious trouble if the climate sensitivity falls in the mid or upper range of the previous assessments. But if the new, higher estimates are correct, the impacts on civilization would be catastrophic.</p><div id="63b84" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1b4b41ed87aff999ca43394f9847f1eb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1255967704135217153" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">What's the latest on climate sensitivity in the latest climate models? Working from the latest compilation, it's...… https://t.co/bDT2GvuM2j</div> — Gavin Schmidt (@Gavin Schmidt)<a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/statuses/1255967704135217153">1588281010.0</a></blockquote></div><p>According to the highly regarded climate site Carbon Brief, which did an independent evaluation of the model suite, <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained" target="_blank">30% of models</a> showed a significant increase in their sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzMTY0MC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTA4MDAwOX0.mNhMDAJpLupwtoosUG26MLkswhuoZ3oj9GvK1wnDcNs/img.png?width=980" id="18335" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e628f9b66a9b44a64e549f621d5adfa6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
In the above CarbonBrief interactive visualization, the bars offer a comparison in the range of sensitivity in the CMIP5 models (gray) and CMIP6 models (blue).
New and Encouraging Evidence Is Emerging
<p>At first, scientists were uncertain whether the new model runs were on to something, so the international modeling community dug in to produce multiple studies. The results are not yet conclusive, but a gradual collective sigh of relief seems to be materializing.</p><p>"Evidence is emerging from multiple directions that the models which show the greatest warming in the CMIP6 ensemble are likely too warm," explains Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.</p><p>For example, <a href="https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2020-23/" target="_blank">a study</a> released April 28 evaluated the past performance of the models making up the CMIP6 ensemble. The team assigned weights to each model based upon historical performance of their warming projections, weighing the poorer performing models less. By doing so, both the mean warming and the range of warming scenarios in the CMIP6 ensemble decreased, meaning the warmest models were the ones with weaker historical performance. This result supports a finding that a subset of the models are too warm.</p><p>That conclusion is supported by another new study evaluating one particular model – the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) – that showed greater warming. Using that model, the researchers simulated the climate in the early Eocene era, about 50 million years ago, when rainforests thrived in the Arctic and Antarctic. The CESM2 simulated a historical climate that seems way too warm compared with what is known about that era from geological data, indicating that the model is likely also too warm in its future projections.</p><p>Two other recent studies of the CMIP6 models being evaluated use clever analysis methods to <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2019-86/&sa=D&ust=1589209938203000&usg=AFQjCNHYwFB-1KqndGfJ4sXdrrm9DpbLaQ" target="_blank">narrow the range</a> of future warming projections and also <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/12/eaaz9549&sa=D&ust=1589209938203000&usg=AFQjCNEhKY1YZ19qgjSZ_hJM14JmzqXOXw" target="_blank">reduce the projected warming</a> of the CMIP6 models by 10 to 15%.</p><p>Through the intensive research spurred by the CMIP6 climate-sensitivity curveball, scientists have been able to turn a confounding challenge into a confidence builder, providing even greater certainty than they had before in both the abilities of the climate science community and in the computer models used. Moreover, the experience has helped unearth uncertainties remaining in the modeling process.</p><p>Experts conclude much of this uncertainty probably lies in the complexity of clouds. "We have been looking as a community at why the models with greater warming are doing what they are doing – and it's tied to cloud feedbacks in the southern mid-latitudes mostly," explains Schmidt.</p><p>In fact, <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/26/eaba1981" target="_blank">a new study</a> addressing the increased sensitivity was published in Science Advances stating, "Cloud feedbacks and cloud-aerosol interactions are the most likely contributors to the high values and increased range of ECS [sensitivity] in CMIP6."</p>Understanding the Complexity of Clouds
<p>It's long been known in climate modeling circles that cloud processes and interactions are a potential weak link for climate modeling. That reality has been brought front and center by the urgent challenges posed during this CMIP6 evaluation period, but the current evaluation of models also provides an opportunity for discovery and improvement.</p><p>Cloud complexity comes from the reality that clouds have a multitude of sizes, altitudes, and textures. Some clouds cool Earth by providing shade, reflecting sunlight back into space. Others act like a blanket, trapping heat and warming the world.</p><p>Given that about <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/icesat_light.html" target="_blank">70% of the globe</a> is covered by clouds at any given time, it's no surprise that they play an integral role in regulating the climate. The challenge is to figure out which types of clouds will increase, which will decrease, and what the net effect will be on cooling or warming as the climate changes.</p><p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1" target="_blank">One study</a> last year reached an alarming conclusion: Left unchecked, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere may lead to a tipping point where shallow low clouds disappear – leading to runaway, catastrophic warming of nearly 15 degrees F. While scientists see that outcome as only a remote possibility, it drives home the urgent need to better understand clouds.</p><p>"We have a saying at NOAA: It isn't rocket science – it's much, much harder than that," quips Dr. Chris Fairall, ATOMIC's lead investigator. "One of the major problems for modeling is there is not clean separation of scales." The photo below is one that Fairall took from the NOAA P-3 aircraft.</p><p>"Think about trying to code up a model that can produce this," Fairall muses. "Huge cloud systems are made up of a spectrum of clouds from the size of Kansas to ones that fit in the trunk of your Volkswagen."</p><p>In the real world and the simulated model world, cloud formation depends partially on how moisture interacts with aerosols, tiny floating particles in the air. Aerosols are fine particles like smoke, sea spray, and pollutants. These tiny dust-like particles act as condensation nuclei, allowing gaseous water vapor to turn into cloud droplets.</p><p>The interplay between clouds, aerosols, and a warming climate in a model affects how much of a cooling or warming influence that model calculates.</p><p>Recently a <a href="https://news.ucar.edu/132678/ncars-new-climate-model-running-hot" target="_blank">new international dataset of emissions</a> – including changes in the concentrations of aerosols – has been introduced into some climate models with improved cloud physics. As a result, some scientists conclude, the changes have affected cloud dynamics in these models, leading to additional warming.</p><p>But despite the increased confidence that a subset of the CMIP6 models are likely overdoing warming projections, Gettelman believes there is at least some merit to the warmer projections because this generation of models has more sophisticated cloud physics.</p><p>So in order to get to the bottom of cloud complexity and improve these vital model projections, the international community is collaborating on a massive research project.</p>
Investigating the Secrets of Clouds
<p>To address the urgent question about the dynamics and role of clouds in a warming world, NOAA and European partners launched their ongoing research effort unprecedented in scale. The U.S. contribution, ATOMIC – short for Atlantic Tradewind Ocean-Atmosphere Mesoscale Interaction Campaign – is an international science mission that was featured recently on "<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/video/study-aims-to-examine-links-between-climate-change-and-clouds/" target="_blank">CBS This Morning: Saturday</a>."</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzMTY3Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTkxMzE4NX0.KipK5ToH8BNyOLqIduVwDNxTkFSZ4NkPXUj80jwip3U/img.jpg?width=980" id="71223" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7583cf9e20b249877e26b76b9679d491" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>"The research that originally motivated this project was <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-017-9428-0" target="_blank">an analysis</a> that showed that the single biggest factor that separated the CMIP models into big warming and not so big warming was treatment of shallow convective clouds," Fairall explains.</p><p>The best places to find shallow convective clouds are tropical waters. So in February, a group of scientists from more than 40 partner institutions from countries including the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K. painstakingly probed hundreds of miles of tropical air and sea near the island of Barbados. They used every tool in their arsenals: five research aircraft, four large fact-finding vessels, buoys, radar and futuristic air and ocean drones to examine the makeup of these complicated and crucial clouds.</p><p>Scientists expect that the vast, concurrent and diverse types of observations captured in ATOMIC will allow them to improve how clouds are represented in climate models, enabling them to make more precise predictions of future climate and impacts.</p><p>Fairall says the data from ATOMIC is ideal for such assessments, and he expects the findings will inform the upcoming 2021 comprehensive IPCC report. With the data from ATOMIC still being analyzed, scientists have not yet reached conclusions.</p><p>On the whole, however, these unprecedented research efforts to troubleshoot discrepancies in the latest models have already borne critical fruit. They are providing scientists with more insights, illustrating the crucial value of the scientific method, lending credibility to the capability of climate models, and helping build more confidence within the climate science community.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/some-new-climate-models-are-projecting-extreme-warming-are-they-correct/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- New Climate Study: Most Severe Warming Projections Are Now the ... ›
- 7 of the Best New Documentaries About Global Warming - EcoWatch ›
- What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change in the Eyes ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A child stands in what is left of his house in Utuado, Puerto Rico, which was almost completely destroyed by Hurricane Maria, on Oct. 12, 2017. U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer 1st Class Jon-Paul Rios. Flickr, CC by 2.0
By Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope
To hear many journalists tell it, the spring of 2020 has brought a series of extraordinary revelations. Look at what the nation has learned: That our health-care system was not remotely up to the challenge of a deadly pandemic. That our economic safety net was largely nonexistent. That our vulnerability to disease and death was directly tied to our race and where we live. That our political leadership sowed misinformation that left people dead. That systemic racism and the killing of Black people by police is undiminished, despite decades of protest and so many Black lives lost.
To hear many journalists tell it, the spring of 2020 has brought a series of extraordinary revelations. Look at what the nation has learned: That our health-care system was not remotely up to the challenge of a deadly pandemic. That our economic safety net was largely nonexistent. That our vulnerability to disease and death was directly tied to our race and where we live. That our political leadership sowed misinformation that left people dead. That systemic racism and the killing of Black people by police is undiminished, despite decades of protest and so many Black lives lost.
<h2></h2>
<p>Journalism is now engaged in explaining and contextualizing this moment, a frenzy of feature writing prompted by the filling of morgues and the throngs of people in the streets. Some of these pieces will be impressive; a few will win our most prestigious journalism prizes. We'll look back at the spring of 2020 and congratulate ourselves on the central role played by professional reporters, who helped the nation navigate these crises.</p><p>But let's save the self-congratulations. While it is true that the virus and the uprising in the streets have exposed deep injustices and inequities in our nation, none of them are new.</p><p>This summer and fall, all of these stories will crash together as Americans vote in an election that is also a decisive turning point in the overarching story of our time—the onrushing climate emergency. This summer, scientists say, will bring heat waves, wildfires, <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/coronavirus-hurricanes/" target="_blank">and "one of the most active" hurricane seasons on records</a>. Protests against racial injustice may well rise along with temperatures, no doubt fueled by more videos of pain and death. In the fall, our health crisis may well increase, as the COVID-19 pandemic collides with the seasonal flu, all while the US economy continues to experience Great Depression levels of unemployment. It is to the shame of journalism if we don't get to the root of why all of this is happening so that voters can make informed choices in November.</p>
<p>It's worth remembering the media hand-wringing that followed the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Mainstream news outlets, out of touch and understaffed, reported largely from inside their own establishment bubbles, and few in those confined spaces believed Trump had a shot at winning the presidency. So the press missed the story. It didn't understand the stirring of disaffection in the country; it underestimated the racism and economic fear that would drive white people to support Trump; it misread polling and cherry-picked data to convince itself that a Trump loss was inevitable.</p><p>In a presidential election, the media's job is to understand the electorate, not predict the outcome before voters have cast ballots. Four years ago, reporters and editors became too obsessed with political gamesmanship, personality, and trivia to do the media's primary job. The result was a humiliating defeat for journalism and an acceleration of the mistrust of the press that already existed.</p><p>At the start of the 2020 election year, despite pledges by newsroom leaders to do better, the same tendencies showed. Trump was defining the narrative. Structural chasms in the country were ignored. The Democratic field was reduced to caricature.</p><p>Then came the coronavirus and the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, among too many others. Exactly none of what we as journalists learned about our nation in the past three months should have come as a surprise. We have known, or should have known, that the public health system in the US is overpriced and unequal. We have known, or should have known, that Americans are not equipped to withstand an economic downturn. We have known, or should have known, that racial injustice is pervasive in our country (and in our media) and that Black people continue to die, be incarcerated, and suffer economically at tragically disproportionate rates.</p>
<p>The fact that it took a pandemic, police killings, and mass protests to focus mainstream journalistic attention on these issues is damning, and must prompt a reappraisal of how we work. Why weren't newsrooms obsessing about these issues before the world imploded this spring? Why must we always be reactive to injustice, instead of proactively highlighting it? Isn't it the job of journalism to ferret out wrongdoing even if people in power want it to remain hidden? Why aren't we advocating for our audiences and their lives?</p><p>Which brings us to the climate crisis. This summer, wildfires will ravage the American west. Deadly heat will pound the global south. Hurricanes will march up the Atlantic coast. Homes, and perhaps whole communities, will be lost. Crops and people will die.</p><p>If the journalistic status quo holds, news organizations will respond by going into disaster-coverage mode, mobilizing their dwindling staffs to cover the crisis as it unfolds. They'll take astonishing pictures of the destruction and hear heroic stories from survivors and rescue workers. They'll tally up the economic costs and run heartbreaking profiles of families who died in their swimming pools while trying to escape the fire or children who were washed out to sea. And then, only after the work of covering the disaster is done, will they perhaps take a moment to examine why all this is happening—why these disasters are occurring, again and again, all over the world, with increased frequency and ferocity.</p><p>There's a pattern here. The news business waits for news to happen when, in fact, we shouldn't need another Black person to be shot to start reporting on racism in the police force. Nor should we need yet another Category Five hurricane to flatten yet another community before we sound the alarm that the planet is on the brink of climate collapse.</p><p><span></span>These are deep, structural stories that are all linked. Novel viruses like COVID-19 often begin in wild animals, many of which are coming into closer contact with humans because their habitats are being destroyed by deforestation, mining, and <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/coronavirus-habitat-loss/" target="_blank">other extractive activities</a>. The first line of infection is often among disadvantaged communities. The heat waves, droughts, storms, and other effects of rising temperatures almost always punish the poor and people of color first and worst.</p>
<p>Where we are in covering the climate-emergency story? Not remotely close to where we should be. The <em>Columbia Journalism Review</em> and <em>The Nation</em>, in partnership with the <em>Guardian</em>, co-founded Covering Climate Now a year ago because we were convinced that most newsrooms were not doing enough to tell the climate story. Over the past year, we have made impressive progress. <a href="https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/partners/" target="_blank">Our partners</a> now include more than 400 news outlets representing more than 50 countries, with a combined audience of roughly 2 billion people. Our collaboration has done weeks of joint coverage that yielded thousands of additional climate stories. During our first week of joint coverage, last September, Google searches for the term "climate change" <a href="https://grist.org/article/google-searches-for-climate-change-finally-beat-out-game-of-thrones/" target="_blank">were the highest in history</a>. And some news outlets that are not Covering Climate Now partners also have upped their game, hiring dedicated climate editors, adding and deepening climate coverage, and including climate among the key issues in the 2020 elections.</p><p>And yet. And yet. And yet.</p><p>While we have been heartened (and grateful) to see so many of our colleagues join this effort, we still don't sense the urgency that the climate emergency demands, especially as the 2020 election approaches. Our window to prevent catastrophe is closing fast. In some respects, it has already shut: at least three feet of sea level rise is inevitable by 2100, and possibly much sooner, scientists say, compelling the relocation of millions of people and trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/08/sea-levels-could-rise-more-than-a-metre-by-2100-experts-say" target="_blank">around the world</a>.</p>
<p>The public sees the urgency and actually wants more climate news. Even during the peak of coronavirus coverage in April, some of the world's biggest news organizations told us that their audiences had little appetite for stories that weren't about the virus, with one exception: climate change, which continued to generate significant traffic.</p><p>Journalism now has a window of opportunity to get these interconnected stories right. Editorially, we are urging our partners—and journalists everywhere—to play the climate story bigger. It's not enough to do one story on one candidate's position on climate change and be done with it. Climate change should be a continuing part of the narrative about any candidate's campaign, just as the candidate's positions on COVID-19, the economy, and health care are. The word "climate" should be included in headlines and broadcast scripts often enough that the public can't miss it.</p><p>Above all, we hope newsrooms will remember the big picture and cover the real horserace. It's easy for campaign coverage to get mired in minutia. The contest between Republicans and Democrats is of great interest, of course, and the outcome couldn't matter more. But the horserace that matters most is humanity's collective race to defuse the climate emergency, which means strong action must begin now, not four years from now. What's ultimately being decided in these elections is nothing less than whether all of us are going to have a livable planet 20 years from now and beyond. If the press is most comfortable chasing fires and sending reporters into disaster zones, so be it. But newsrooms should know: the disaster is here. It is raging now. Our job is to cover it with the urgency it deserves.</p>
<p class=""><em>This story originally appeared in </em><a href="https://www.cjr.org/" target="_blank">Columbia Journalism Review</a><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646313949#/" target="_self"></a> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Climate Crisis Brings India's Worst Locust Invasion in Decades ... ›
- Climate Crisis Made Australia's Historic Wildfires at Least 30% More ... ›
- 4 Climate Crisis Solutions No One Is Talking About - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
President Trump's claim last September that Hurricane Dorian was headed for Alabama's gulf coast was quickly refuted by employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). An independent investigation found that NOAA's chief violated the agency's ethics when he backed Trump's warning and doctored map that used a Sharpie to alter the storm's path, as EcoWatch reported.
<p><br/></p>
<p>Questions linger as to why NOAA officials decided to support Trump's inaccurate warnings. Apparently, the U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, does not want the public to know. The Commerce Department has impeded an inspector general's investigation into whether or not the administration coerced officials into supporting a false narrative and is blocking a release of the report, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/climate/trump-dorian-noaa-investigation.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2020-07-01_IG_Memorandum_to_Secretary_Ross_re_OIG-20-031-I_%28SECURED%29.pdf" target="_blank">memo </a>from Inspector General Peggy Gustafson to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, she takes the rare step of publicly airing a dispute between an agency inspector general and a cabinet secretary, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/07/02/commerce-ig-sharpiegate-dispute/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. In the memo, she claims that Ross' office "thwarted" the publication of her report. She claims that the Commerce Department has claimed that portions of the report cannot be made public, but they have not specified which portions, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/climate/trump-dorian-noaa-investigation.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>The department's refusal to cooperate with the release of the investigation "appears to be directly linked to the content of our report and the findings of responsibility of the high-level individuals involved," Gustafson wrote, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/climate/trump-dorian-noaa-investigation.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>The full report has not been released, but on Monday, a <a href="https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/OIG-20-032-I.pdf" target="_blank">summary</a> was posted that said that the department led a "flawed process that discounted NOAA participation," and also "required NOAA to issue a Statement that did not further NOAA's or [National Weather Service's (NWS)] interests," as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/505246-commerce-department-led-flawed-process-on-sharpiegate-watchdog" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p><p>That summary also said that NOAA "failed to account for the public safety intent of the NWS Birmingham tweet and the distinction between physical science and social science messaging."</p><p>That failure to account for public safety came from NOAA's officials walking back a tweet from the NWS Birmingham's office that said "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama."</p>
<p>It turns out the unsigned statement that contradicted NWS Birmingham's tweet was the result of pressure from the White House on Secretary Ross, who oversees NOAA and who threatened to fire the political staff at NOAA unless the contradiction of Mr. Trump was addressed, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>The full report was supposed to be released on Tuesday, but it has yet to be released, which prompted the unusual memo from Gustafson. As The Washington Post reported, Senator Maria Cantwell, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said: "This situation has gone from bad to worse. Secretary Ross must immediately cease this campaign to keep the public in the dark. The Inspector General is doing their job and the public deserves to see the report. Release the report now, Mr. Secretary."</p>
<p>The Washington Post also noted that this year NOAA's credibility is particularly important as forecasters are predicting an active <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricanes">hurricane</a> season amidst the coronavirus pandemic, which is seeing a surge in vulnerable states like Florida and Texas. The need to social distance will pose unprecedented challenges for storm preparation, evacuation and response. That means NOAA's forecasts and advice need to have ironclad credibility since they are integral to public safety.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Top Government Scientist Transferred After Questioning Trump ... ›
- Trump Admin Manipulated Wildfire Science to Encourage Logging ... ›
- NOAA Officials Backed Trump's False Dorian Claims Under Threat ... ›
- Coronavirus and the Terrifying Muzzling of Public Health Experts ... ›
- 'Science Under Siege' From Trump Admin: New Report Warns We ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
People relax in Victoria Gardens with the Houses of Parliament in the background in central London, as a heatwave hit the continent with temperatures touching 40 degrees Celsius on June 25, 2020. NIKLAS HALLE'N / AFP via Getty Images
The chance that UK summer days could hit the 40 degree Celsius mark on the thermometer is on the rise, a new study from the country's Met Office Hadley Centre has found.
<p>British summers currently only reach 40 degrees every 100 to 300 years. But the study, published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16834-0" target="_blank"><em>Nature Communications</em></a> Tuesday, found that such temperatures could occur every 3.5 years if nothing is done to reduce <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/greenhouse-gases" target="_self">greenhouse gas</a> emissions and curb the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"Climate change has already influenced the likelihood of temperature extremes in the UK. The chances of seeing 40°C days in the UK could be as much as 10 times more likely in the current climate than under a natural climate unaffected by human influence," lead author Dr. Nikolaos Christidis said in a <a href="https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/chances-of-40c-days-in-the-uk-increasing-due-to-human-influence" target="_blank">Met Office press release</a>. "The likelihood of exceeding 40°C anywhere in the UK in a given year has also been rapidly increasing, and, without curbing of greenhouse gas emissions, such extremes could be taking place every few years in the climate of 2100."</p>
<div id="f49f9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="548418422f9dfc779c1082b8d99bfcca"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1277980676583600134" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New research published today shows the chances of 40°C days in the UK are increasing rapidly due to #GlobalWarming… https://t.co/gNwrqnYPMA</div> — Met Office (@Met Office)<a href="https://twitter.com/metoffice/statuses/1277980676583600134">1593529311.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>To reach their conclusions, the researchers combined temperature measurements across the country with 16 different climate models, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/30/likelihood-of-40c-temperatures-in-uk-is-rapidly-accelerating" target="_blank">The Guardian explained</a>. They found that reducing emissions made a big difference in lowering future temperatures. Under a medium-emissions scenario, in which emissions are reduced but not enough to honor the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a> goal of limiting global warming to below two degrees, 40 degree days would occur every 15 years.</p><p>"This research shows human-caused climate change has set us on a course to see temperature extremes in the UK that would be highly unlikely under a 'natural' climate, although urgent action to reduce emissions now can significantly reduce the occurrence of extreme high temperatures in the UK in the future," coauthor and head of the Met Office National Climate Information Centre Dr. Mark McCarthy said in the press release.</p>
<p>The study also looked at the likelihood of other temperature extremes. Days 35 degrees or higher currently occur every five years on average but could happen nearly every other year by 2100 under a high-emissions scenario. The 40 and 35 degree days would be most common in the Southeast, but the North could see 30 degree days once per decade by 2100. They are now extremely rare in that region.</p><p>UK summers are already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. The summer of 2018 was the joint hottest on record, and the country saw its highest recorded temperature of 38.7 in Cambridge during July 2019, The Guardian reported. The climate crisis has made <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/heat-wave" target="_self">heat waves</a> in the country 30 more likely, and temperature extremes caused 3,400 early deaths between 2016 and 2019. These impacts will only worsen as temperatures rise, which is a big reason why the Met Office conducted the study, Christidis told <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/20200630-uk-increasingly-likely-to-see-40c-temperatures" target="_blank">AFP</a>. He said he wanted to help the country plan better for extremes.</p>
<p>"Exceeding extreme temperature thresholds like the 40C in the UK would be accompanied by severe impacts — on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, transport infrastructure," he told AFP.</p><p>However, on a global scale, the UK won't be feeling the heat as intensely as other places.</p><p>"Heatwaves are a real risk to life in the UK, especially if we do not begin modifying our homes, workplaces and hospitals to manage their expected overheating," University of Leeds professor Piers Forster, who was not involved in the study, told The Guardian. "However, we should note that in terms of heatwaves, the UK will get off lightly compared with most other nations. Heatwaves in the major crop-growing regions of the world could have more profound effects, both globally and for the UK."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- As Extreme Weather Turns Deadly in the UK, Climate Activists Are ... ›
- UK Parliament First in World to Declare Climate Emergency ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A Chesapeake Energy drilling rig is located on farmland near Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, on March 20, 2012. Melanie Stetson Freeman / The Christian Science Monitor / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
Climate advocates pointed to news Sunday that fracking giant Chesapeake Energy was filing for bankruptcy as further evidence that the fossil fuel industry's collapse is being hastened by the coronavirus pandemic and called for the government to stop propping up businesses in the field.
<p>"Fracking giant Chesapeake Energy just declared bankruptcy thanks to its massive $9 billion debt," <a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/status/1277644540866965505" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Friends of the Earth. "Meanwhile the Trump administration continues to try and bail out this garbage fire industry with our tax dollars—despite clear risks."</p>
<div id="e5f24" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6e7171f8e2904f47ed8066a7a21bd48a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1277573943340171264" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The poster company for US fracking has fallen. https://t.co/n1MWs3sszT</div> — Andrew Thaler (@Andrew Thaler)<a href="https://twitter.com/DrAndrewThaler/statuses/1277573943340171264">1593432338.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The company, which at its peak in 2008 was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/28/chesapeake-energy-once-power-gas-business-files-bankruptcy" target="_blank">valued</a> at $37 billion, had a market capitalization of just $115 million on Friday.</p><p>"The debt bubble made it unable for Chesapeake to maneuver when the pandemic ruined demand for energy," David Dayen <a href="https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-medicare-for-coronavirus/" target="_blank">wrote</a> of the bankruptcy for <em>The American Prospect</em>.</p><p>News reports put most of the blame for the bankruptcy on former CEO Aubrey McClendon, who bought up leases and rights around the country as the fracking industry boomed. </p><p>As <em>Forbes</em> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/06/29/chesapeake-energy-finally-succumbs-with-chapter-11-filing/#52549bb56b58" target="_blank">reported</a>, a number of bad business decisions and moves left Chesapeake in bad condition even before gas prices collapsed due to the slowed demand from the pandemic.</p>
<p>According to <em>Forbes</em>:</p><blockquote>As natural gas prices <a title="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm" href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm" target="_blank">collapsed in the late 2000s</a>, McClendon next turned to sales of his own company's assets or portions of working interests in big play areas as a means of continuing to finance and pay down that debt. He sold shares of the company's working interests in the Barnett, the Eagle Ford, the Marcellus and the Haynesville to various other players, like <a title="https://bp.com" href="https://bp.com/" target="_blank">BP</a> and <a title="https://cnooc.com" href="https://cnooc.com/" target="_blank">CNOOC</a>, but every sale also meant less and less cash flow coming into the company itself. Many in the business during that time joked about it being a sort of a pyramid scheme in which the debts would ultimately end up outstripping the company's income and ability to pay.<br><br>McClendon also made the decision in 2010-11 to shift Chesapeake's gas-heavy asset mix to one more heavy in liquids. That strategic decision certainly helped during a time of $100 oil prices, but the bust of 2015-16 and the current COVID-19-related price collapse ultimately proved to heavy a burden for current CEO Doug Lawler—who was brought on board in 2013—and his management team to navigate. A company that once had a market cap of over $37 billion at one point in May saw its market cap drop as low as $200 million. A company that once employed over 8,000 individuals today employs around 2,300.</blockquote>
<p>John Thieroff, a senior analyst at Moody's Investors Service, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/31f35631-7b7d-4fa1-8eef-6255bf18cf88?segmentId=b0d7e653-3467-12ab-c0f0-77e4424cdb4c" target="_blank">told</a> the <em>Financial Times</em> Sunday he expected other companies to follow suit.</p><p>"There will no doubt be others to file for bankruptcy in the near term as the sector looks to get out from under the copious amount of debt it took on during the boom," said Thieroff.</p><p>President Donald Trump has weighed bailing out the fossil fuel industry as part of a coronavirus pandemic recovery plan. The plans have been met with stiff resistance from environmental groups like Western Values Project, which <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/05/19/trump-admin-punishes-renewables-while-bailing-out-oil-and-gas" target="_blank">said</a> in May that the move was an example of the White House "using a public health crisis as an excuse to bail out the president's corporate cronies while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/29/poster-company-us-fracking-has-fallen-chesapeake-energy-files-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Fracking Industry's Propaganda Hypes Shale Gas Production and ... ›
- Another Blow to the Fracking Industry—Chesapeake Energy's ... ›
- Former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon Is Back to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Coronavirus and Climate Change: Collective Action Is the Only Way Forward
01 July
Insights + Opinion
Youth participate in the Global Climate Strike in Providence, Rhode Island on September 20, 2019. Gabriel Civita Ramirez / CC by 2.0
By Neil King and Gabriel Borrud
Human beings all over the world agreed to strict limitations to their rights when governments made the decision to enter lockdown during the COVID-19 crisis. Many have done it willingly on behalf of the collective. So why can't this same attitude be seen when tackling climate change?
<p>Stephen Reicher is a social psychologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, where he researches collective behavior and social identity. DW spoke to him for <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-green-fence/id1474805073" target="_blank">the second season</a> of the environmental podcast <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/environment-podcast-on-the-green-fence/a-48670967" target="_blank">On The Green Fence</a>. </p><p><em>DW: We've watched the collective move very fast in response to this crisis. Were you amazed by that?</em></p><p>Stephen Reicher: At one level, I wasn't. If you look at the literature on what happens in emergencies, the traditional literature plays into this notion of the public as a problem — the idea that human beings are always psychologically frail and they always have difficulty in dealing with complex information. And under a crisis, they crack, they panic. You would never have a Hollywood disaster film without people running, screaming, waving their hands in the air and blocking the exits.</p><p>But actually, that isn't what happens in disasters. When people come together, when they have a sense that others will support them, especially in situations of difficulty, then it makes them better able to cope and more psychologically resilient. Collectivity is the resource that allows us to cope practically, but also psychologically, to get through these times.</p>
<p><em>Why was the response to the coronavirus seemingly so easy, particularly when compared to the far more existential threat of climate change? What is the difference between these two?</em></p><p>The temporality of the issue, the fact that it is immediate, the ways in which it is tangible and the way in which it is unarguable.</p><p>If you are talking about the events that are happening now due to climate change and that are killing people, it is probabilistic that climate change was critical to them. The probabilities are very, very high. But it is not immediately self-evident in the same way that it's evident that somebody is dying from coronavirus. These things become arguable.</p><p>And that's where the second factor comes in, which is the political factor. In some places it has been consensual, and it has been pretty positive. And that's because politicians have not tried to argue or mobilize against compliance with medically necessary measures. In other places, that's not true — in the United States, for instance, where Trump has been supporting those in various states who have been calling it a "lockdown tyranny." And in Brazil, and in India.</p><p>The other absolutely obvious point differentiating coronavirus from climate change are the political differences and the differences in terms of political leadership — in terms of a) how we understand what's going on, and b) how we should respond to what's going on.</p>
<p><em>If I understood you correctly, if there were general consensus and a general realization that we are facing an existential threat and everybody really believed the science, the collective would be moved to action. Is it really that simple or is something else holding us back?</em></p><p>At the moment we are acting collectively towards members of our community who are currently alive, and we can see whether they will live or die. It is much more abstract in the sense of climate change because we are acting for many of those who are not yet born — they might be our children or grandchildren.</p><p>It's the articulation of the psychological and lived experience with the ideological way in which we make sense of it and explain it and are told how to behave. The reason why the political, in many ways, is more powerful in undermining action on climate change is because it is much more abstract. It is a much less direct experience.</p>
<p><em>Do we need role models to catalyze change? And if so, what kind of role models? If Greta Thunberg, for instance, can't pull it off, then who could?</em></p><p>We need leadership. I don't think it's entirely coincidental that some of the countries where coronavirus is raging most dangerously are those with toxic leadership, as in the United States, as in Brazil. Whereas in some of those countries which are doing well — like New Zealand — the leadership takes a very different form indeed.</p><p>Leadership can take many forms. It doesn't have to be traditional. It doesn't have to be hierarchical. It doesn't have to be a single individual. It can be distributed. But you need voices which, firstly, serve to create a sense of community and communal responsibility. Secondly, they need to form a relationship with the public. A leader needs to be seen in many ways as one of us, as acting for us, and as achieving for us, in order to be effective.</p><p><span></span>Leadership is effective to the extent that we believe that a leader is representative of us, understands who we are and what we value. More than ever, we do need good, inclusive leadership that engages with the public rather than imposes on the public.</p>
<p><em>On a personal level, Steve, if you as a social psychologist could mold the change that we'd need to achieve for a sustainable world, how would you go about putting the collective on the right track?</em></p><p>The group is always going to be part of the solution. Groups can do awful things and groups can do magnificent things. The problem doesn't lie in group psychology, per se. It depends on the specific ideologies and cultures that define the groups we belong to. How inclusive or exclusive are they? What are the norms and values that define the nature of our community? Are they values of compassion or are they values of strength and domination? Not all groups are good, but that depends upon the group culture.</p><p>The thing that is absolutely clear, however, is that if you get rid of groups, then you get rid of the one vehicle of change that we've actually got. If you get rid of groups, you freeze the status quo. The power of the powerless lies in their combination. I think we can wield that power for good rather than for ill.</p>
<p><em>Do you think we're going to pull this off? If the science is right, we are running out of time. When it comes to the changes that have to be made, are we going to be magnificent? Are we going to be horrible?</em></p><p>There is a problem with the debate that's going on at the moment. Some people are telling us that coronavirus is going to change the world for the good — we're going to realize that collectivity is terrible, we're going to realize that precarity is destructive and that inequalities kill. And other people are saying, no, no, no, it's going to be completely awful — we're all going to be divided, we're going have a recession which will pit us against each other.</p><p>The danger of making predictions in those forms is that it gives rise to fatalism. Either you believe it's going be awful so there is nothing you can do about it, or you believe it's going to happen anyway and therefore you don't need to do anything about it. Those were the critiques, for instance, of mechanical forms of Marxism.</p><p>I don't think there is any inevitable outcome. I'm not a prophet. If we want to move forward progressively, we've got to harness the power of the collective. We've got to understand how it's within the collective that we become agents who can actually make and change our own world.</p><p>To predict is to be counterproductive. It pacifies people. It says "the future will be like this," rather than to say "we need to fight for the future."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-and-climate-change-collective-action-is-the-only-way-forward/a-53595386" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646306339#/" target="_self"></a></p>From Your Site Articles
- The Crunch Question on Climate: How Can I Help? - EcoWatch ›
- The Power of Collective Action Gangnam Style - EcoWatch ›
- Scientist Finds Remarkable Way to Connect People Emotionally ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less