Tag Archives: fossil fuels

Supply chains generate massive carbon emissions

When it comes to cutting carbon emissions, think global. Think multinational. Think Coca-Cola, or Total. But don’t fly.

LONDON, 25 September, 2020 – Chinese and European researchers have identified the source of almost one-fifth of all the world’s carbon emissions. They come from the supply chains of giant multinational companies.

Not only does global business export investment, it exports carbon dioxide emissions as well. And the big players play it really big.

The US business Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, with 11,500 stores in 28 countries, in 2016 generated more emissions abroad than the whole of Germany’s foreign-owned retail sector.

That year Coca-Cola’s global emissions matched those from the entire foreign food-and-drink industry in China. Total SA’s foreign affiliates generated more than a tenth of the total emissions of France. Altogether, the multinational giants accounted for 18.7% of global emissions.

By contrast, and to provide perspective, the entire global aviation industry contributes just 3.5% of the forces that drive climate change – and that includes the impact of condensation trails and soot and sulphur exhausts as well as carbon dioxide emissions.

“If the world’s leading companies exercised leadership on climate change they could have a transformative effect on global efforts to reduce emissions”

In fact, in eight decades, the aviation industry’s total carbon dioxide discharges add up to only 1.5% of all humankind’s total carbon emissions up to 2018, according to British researchers.

These two very different studies illuminate the great challenge of climate change: it’s not enough for a country to claim it has reduced its carbon footprint, if its big achievement has been to export the burden of emissions to a labour force somewhere else.

And it’s not enough to measure just carbon dioxide. Tomorrow’s planners, investors, economists, designers and engineers must also think about the whole package of anthropogenic change that has begun to raise the planetary temperature to dangerous levels. And in each case the message is the same: think of it as a transnational challenge.

“Multinational companies have enormous influence stretching far beyond national borders,” said Dabo Guan of University College London. “If the world’s leading companies exercised leadership on climate change – for instance by requiring energy efficiency in their supply chains – they could have a transformative effect on global efforts to reduce emissions.”

Outsourced responsibility

Professor Guan and colleagues from Beijing and Norway report in the journal Nature Climate Change that they looked for a new way to measure the impact of big business.

They followed the money. They found that when investment flowed from developed to developing countries, those businesses were also outsourcing the responsibility for carbon emissions. So a fair way of accounting carbon responsibility would be to return it to the investor nation.

For example in 2011, US investment in India resulted in emissions of more than 43 million tonnes. By 2016, this figure had passed more than 70 million tonnes. In 2011, emissions from multinational investment stood at 22% of all emissions worldwide. By 2016 this figure had fallen to 18.7% – partly because of improvements in energy efficiency, and partly because of a fall in foreign investment.

Although carbon dioxide emissions have become a standard measure for potential climate change, they are only part of the story. The climate damage from a jet flight is more than just the greenhouse gas from burning high-octane fuel.

New analysis in the journal Atmospheric Environment confirms that aviation’s biggest contribution to global warming is the effects on clouds: cirrus condensation trails formed by the almost-explosive growth in air traffic reflect and trap heat escaping from the atmosphere on a massive scale.

International flights exempted

The discharge of water vapour, soot and sulphate particles from the engines is also part of what the researchers call “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF.

And when these aspects are factored in, it seems that aviation on a global scale adds up to 3.5% of all human activities that drive climate change. The Paris Agreement on climate change – a global resolve to contain global heating by 2100 to “well below” 2°C above the norm for most of human history – includes domestic aviation within national targets to reduce emissions.

But it does not address international aviation, which adds up to 64% of all air traffic.

“The new study means that aviation’s impact on climate change can be compared with other sectors such as maritime shipping, ground transportation and energy generation, as it has a consistent set of ERF measurements,” said David Lee, of Manchester Metropolitan University, who led the research. – Climate News Network

When it comes to cutting carbon emissions, think global. Think multinational. Think Coca-Cola, or Total. But don’t fly.

LONDON, 25 September, 2020 – Chinese and European researchers have identified the source of almost one-fifth of all the world’s carbon emissions. They come from the supply chains of giant multinational companies.

Not only does global business export investment, it exports carbon dioxide emissions as well. And the big players play it really big.

The US business Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, with 11,500 stores in 28 countries, in 2016 generated more emissions abroad than the whole of Germany’s foreign-owned retail sector.

That year Coca-Cola’s global emissions matched those from the entire foreign food-and-drink industry in China. Total SA’s foreign affiliates generated more than a tenth of the total emissions of France. Altogether, the multinational giants accounted for 18.7% of global emissions.

By contrast, and to provide perspective, the entire global aviation industry contributes just 3.5% of the forces that drive climate change – and that includes the impact of condensation trails and soot and sulphur exhausts as well as carbon dioxide emissions.

“If the world’s leading companies exercised leadership on climate change they could have a transformative effect on global efforts to reduce emissions”

In fact, in eight decades, the aviation industry’s total carbon dioxide discharges add up to only 1.5% of all humankind’s total carbon emissions up to 2018, according to British researchers.

These two very different studies illuminate the great challenge of climate change: it’s not enough for a country to claim it has reduced its carbon footprint, if its big achievement has been to export the burden of emissions to a labour force somewhere else.

And it’s not enough to measure just carbon dioxide. Tomorrow’s planners, investors, economists, designers and engineers must also think about the whole package of anthropogenic change that has begun to raise the planetary temperature to dangerous levels. And in each case the message is the same: think of it as a transnational challenge.

“Multinational companies have enormous influence stretching far beyond national borders,” said Dabo Guan of University College London. “If the world’s leading companies exercised leadership on climate change – for instance by requiring energy efficiency in their supply chains – they could have a transformative effect on global efforts to reduce emissions.”

Outsourced responsibility

Professor Guan and colleagues from Beijing and Norway report in the journal Nature Climate Change that they looked for a new way to measure the impact of big business.

They followed the money. They found that when investment flowed from developed to developing countries, those businesses were also outsourcing the responsibility for carbon emissions. So a fair way of accounting carbon responsibility would be to return it to the investor nation.

For example in 2011, US investment in India resulted in emissions of more than 43 million tonnes. By 2016, this figure had passed more than 70 million tonnes. In 2011, emissions from multinational investment stood at 22% of all emissions worldwide. By 2016 this figure had fallen to 18.7% – partly because of improvements in energy efficiency, and partly because of a fall in foreign investment.

Although carbon dioxide emissions have become a standard measure for potential climate change, they are only part of the story. The climate damage from a jet flight is more than just the greenhouse gas from burning high-octane fuel.

New analysis in the journal Atmospheric Environment confirms that aviation’s biggest contribution to global warming is the effects on clouds: cirrus condensation trails formed by the almost-explosive growth in air traffic reflect and trap heat escaping from the atmosphere on a massive scale.

International flights exempted

The discharge of water vapour, soot and sulphate particles from the engines is also part of what the researchers call “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF.

And when these aspects are factored in, it seems that aviation on a global scale adds up to 3.5% of all human activities that drive climate change. The Paris Agreement on climate change – a global resolve to contain global heating by 2100 to “well below” 2°C above the norm for most of human history – includes domestic aviation within national targets to reduce emissions.

But it does not address international aviation, which adds up to 64% of all air traffic.

“The new study means that aviation’s impact on climate change can be compared with other sectors such as maritime shipping, ground transportation and energy generation, as it has a consistent set of ERF measurements,” said David Lee, of Manchester Metropolitan University, who led the research. – Climate News Network

Melting Arctic needs new name to match reality

Change in the far north is happening so fast that soon the melting Arctic won’t be arctic any more.

LONDON, 16 September, 2020 − The word Arctic may be up for redefinition. The conditions within the melting Arctic Circle are changing so fast that what was once a frozen seascape could now be entering a new climate regime in which nothing is predictable.

Even in an unusually cold year, the sea ice may not return to the summer limits normal in the last century. For some months of autumn and even winter, rain will fall instead of snow, US scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“The rate of change is remarkable,” said Laura Landrum, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, who led the study.

“It’s a period of such rapid change that observations of past weather patterns no longer show what you can expect next year. The Arctic is already entering a completely different climate than just a few decades ago.”

She and a colleague looked at four decades of satellite data and ground observations and hundreds of computer simulations to confirm that polar warming is happening at such a rate that any change year to year is no longer within the extremes of the past. Conditions that were once normally changeable are now abnormally so.

“The Arctic is already entering a completely different climate than just a few decades ago … We need to change our definition of what the Arctic is”

Climate in the northern hemisphere is moderated by temperature differences that vary with latitude: between them, a torrid equator and a frozen Arctic drive the prevailing winds and ocean currents and the mix of cloud, sunshine, rainfall, frost, windstorm, dry spells and seasonal flooding in which agriculture, industry and civilisation have evolved for the last 10,000 years.

But as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere soar in response to rapidly-increasing use of fossil fuels, the melting Arctic has been warming far more swiftly than the planet as a whole.

The extent of summer sea ice in each of the last 13 years has been lower than any minimum observed since 1979, when systematic observation began. Winters have been warmer, winter sea ice has been reduced, rain has been falling on snow ever earlier.

The climate scientists posed themselves the simple question: “While these changes appear extreme compared with the recent past, are they climate extremes in a statistical sense, or do they represent expected events in a new Arctic climate?”

New climate develops

The answer seems to be: yes. The researchers tested their statistical techniques on five different climate simulations. Each of these showed the sea ice retreating so dramatically that a new climate had emerged some time in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The finding fits a pattern of foreboding delivered by recent research. In the last two months, researchers have warned that ice loss in the Arctic regions has been so severe that the region’s most charismatic predator, the polar bear, may be gone by the century’s end.

Another group has warned that the Arctic ocean in late summer may be effectively ice-free within the next 15 years.

One group has concluded that ice loss from Greenland is now at such a rate as to be irreversible, and another has confirmed that the rate of ice melt from the northern hemisphere’s biggest reserve – enough to raise sea levels six or seven metres – last year reached new records.

And this month an international research team reported that the rate of change in the Arctic has exceeded the “worst-case” scenario proposed by climate researchers.

Unknown extremes ahead

Dr Landrum and her colleague report that − if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their present rate − some of their climate forecasts predict a mostly ice-free Arctic for between three and 10 months a year, every year, by the end of the century.

Air temperatures over the ocean in autumn and winter will become warmer before or by mid-century, and then start warming over land in the second half.

In a warmer world, more water will evaporate and fall again as rain. Over Alaska, northern Canada and northern Siberia there will be more rain rather than snow: by mid-century, perhaps an extra 20 to 60 days, and by 2100, perhaps from 60 to an extra 90 days. In some parts of the Arctic, by the century’s end, rain might fall in any month of the year.

“The Arctic is likely to experience extremes in sea ice, temperature and precipitation that are far outside anything we’ve experienced before,” Dr Landrum said. “We need to change our definition of what the Arctic is.” − Climate News Network

Change in the far north is happening so fast that soon the melting Arctic won’t be arctic any more.

LONDON, 16 September, 2020 − The word Arctic may be up for redefinition. The conditions within the melting Arctic Circle are changing so fast that what was once a frozen seascape could now be entering a new climate regime in which nothing is predictable.

Even in an unusually cold year, the sea ice may not return to the summer limits normal in the last century. For some months of autumn and even winter, rain will fall instead of snow, US scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“The rate of change is remarkable,” said Laura Landrum, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, who led the study.

“It’s a period of such rapid change that observations of past weather patterns no longer show what you can expect next year. The Arctic is already entering a completely different climate than just a few decades ago.”

She and a colleague looked at four decades of satellite data and ground observations and hundreds of computer simulations to confirm that polar warming is happening at such a rate that any change year to year is no longer within the extremes of the past. Conditions that were once normally changeable are now abnormally so.

“The Arctic is already entering a completely different climate than just a few decades ago … We need to change our definition of what the Arctic is”

Climate in the northern hemisphere is moderated by temperature differences that vary with latitude: between them, a torrid equator and a frozen Arctic drive the prevailing winds and ocean currents and the mix of cloud, sunshine, rainfall, frost, windstorm, dry spells and seasonal flooding in which agriculture, industry and civilisation have evolved for the last 10,000 years.

But as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere soar in response to rapidly-increasing use of fossil fuels, the melting Arctic has been warming far more swiftly than the planet as a whole.

The extent of summer sea ice in each of the last 13 years has been lower than any minimum observed since 1979, when systematic observation began. Winters have been warmer, winter sea ice has been reduced, rain has been falling on snow ever earlier.

The climate scientists posed themselves the simple question: “While these changes appear extreme compared with the recent past, are they climate extremes in a statistical sense, or do they represent expected events in a new Arctic climate?”

New climate develops

The answer seems to be: yes. The researchers tested their statistical techniques on five different climate simulations. Each of these showed the sea ice retreating so dramatically that a new climate had emerged some time in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The finding fits a pattern of foreboding delivered by recent research. In the last two months, researchers have warned that ice loss in the Arctic regions has been so severe that the region’s most charismatic predator, the polar bear, may be gone by the century’s end.

Another group has warned that the Arctic ocean in late summer may be effectively ice-free within the next 15 years.

One group has concluded that ice loss from Greenland is now at such a rate as to be irreversible, and another has confirmed that the rate of ice melt from the northern hemisphere’s biggest reserve – enough to raise sea levels six or seven metres – last year reached new records.

And this month an international research team reported that the rate of change in the Arctic has exceeded the “worst-case” scenario proposed by climate researchers.

Unknown extremes ahead

Dr Landrum and her colleague report that − if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their present rate − some of their climate forecasts predict a mostly ice-free Arctic for between three and 10 months a year, every year, by the end of the century.

Air temperatures over the ocean in autumn and winter will become warmer before or by mid-century, and then start warming over land in the second half.

In a warmer world, more water will evaporate and fall again as rain. Over Alaska, northern Canada and northern Siberia there will be more rain rather than snow: by mid-century, perhaps an extra 20 to 60 days, and by 2100, perhaps from 60 to an extra 90 days. In some parts of the Arctic, by the century’s end, rain might fall in any month of the year.

“The Arctic is likely to experience extremes in sea ice, temperature and precipitation that are far outside anything we’ve experienced before,” Dr Landrum said. “We need to change our definition of what the Arctic is.” − Climate News Network

Mass migration set to increase as world warms

Climate change is now driving mass migration, which will only worsen unless governments take global heating seriously.

LONDON, 15 September, 2020 −There is strong evidence that deteriorating environments caused by climate change are driving millions of people to resort to mass migration in their search for a better life, both within countries and across borders.

As temperatures rise these migrations will only increase, particularly in Latin America and India, which is predicted to overtake China as the country with the largest population by 2025.

An analysis of environment and migration, published in Nature Climate Change, of 30 studies of individual countries across the world shows that there is no one single factor that drives migration.

But most research has found that environmental hazards have a major influence. Rising temperature levels, changes in rainfall and single sudden events like hurricanes are all triggers.

Policies for improvement

The analysis, by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and research partners across Europe, was undertaken to try to inform policy makers about how to avert mass human migration.

It points out that two of the most high-profile mass migration episodes in recent times – the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 and the “migrant caravan” from Central America to the United States in 2018 – have been partly attributed to severe droughts in the countries concerned.

While some studies conclude that environmental factors were not the main driver of migration, most thought it was one of the primary causes. The analysis says governments should expect significantly higher migration flows in the future.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the publicity surrounding the issue, migrations were not centred on poor people trying to enter rich nations in Europe or North America. Instead, most movements were from the countryside to urban areas in the same country, particularly in agriculturally dependent countries, or from one middle-income country to another.

“The best way to protect those affected is to stabilise the global climate by rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels”

People with particularly low incomes normally stayed where they were,  despite environmental pressures, because they had no way of financing a move, while richer people had the means to adapt to new circumstances and so they also stayed put.

“Environmental factors can drive migration, but the size of the effects depends on the particular economic and socio-political conditions in the countries,” explains the lead author Roman Hoffmann, from Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

“In both low and high income countries, environmental impacts on migration are weaker – presumably because either people are too poor to leave and therefore essentially become trapped or, in wealthy countries, they have enough financial means to absorb the consequences. It is mainly in middle-income regions and those with a dependency on agriculture that we see strong effects.”

IIASA predicts future higher levels of environmental migration for countries in Central America, the Caribbean, Brazil and Argentina. In Africa it is the Sahel region south of the Sahara that is already drying out, and East Africa that has the highest potential for people migrating because of climate change.

Eyes on India

Perhaps the most disturbing prediction is that India, with 1.3 billion people and soon to be the most populous country in the world, is likely to see large migrations. The heat and floods in the country are already killing hundreds of people a year, and many millions who are still dependent on subsistence agriculture are struggling with changing climate conditions.

“Our research suggests that populations in Latin America and the Caribbean, several countries in sub-Saharan Africa – especially in the Sahel region and East Africa – as well as western, southern and south-east Asia, are particularly at risk,” says co-author Anna Dimitrova from the Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

While the report is aimed at preparing governments for migrations that will inevitably happen in the future, with difficult consequences for both the migrants and the host country, the research suggests the best way of averting the coming crisis is to tackle climate change and reduce further rises in temperatures.

“The best way to protect those affected is to stabilise the global climate by rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels as well as simultaneously to enhance adaptive capacity, such as through improving human capital,” says Jesus Crespo Cuaresma, a researcher with the IIASA World Population Program and professor of economics at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. − Climate News Network

Climate change is now driving mass migration, which will only worsen unless governments take global heating seriously.

LONDON, 15 September, 2020 −There is strong evidence that deteriorating environments caused by climate change are driving millions of people to resort to mass migration in their search for a better life, both within countries and across borders.

As temperatures rise these migrations will only increase, particularly in Latin America and India, which is predicted to overtake China as the country with the largest population by 2025.

An analysis of environment and migration, published in Nature Climate Change, of 30 studies of individual countries across the world shows that there is no one single factor that drives migration.

But most research has found that environmental hazards have a major influence. Rising temperature levels, changes in rainfall and single sudden events like hurricanes are all triggers.

Policies for improvement

The analysis, by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and research partners across Europe, was undertaken to try to inform policy makers about how to avert mass human migration.

It points out that two of the most high-profile mass migration episodes in recent times – the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 and the “migrant caravan” from Central America to the United States in 2018 – have been partly attributed to severe droughts in the countries concerned.

While some studies conclude that environmental factors were not the main driver of migration, most thought it was one of the primary causes. The analysis says governments should expect significantly higher migration flows in the future.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the publicity surrounding the issue, migrations were not centred on poor people trying to enter rich nations in Europe or North America. Instead, most movements were from the countryside to urban areas in the same country, particularly in agriculturally dependent countries, or from one middle-income country to another.

“The best way to protect those affected is to stabilise the global climate by rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels”

People with particularly low incomes normally stayed where they were,  despite environmental pressures, because they had no way of financing a move, while richer people had the means to adapt to new circumstances and so they also stayed put.

“Environmental factors can drive migration, but the size of the effects depends on the particular economic and socio-political conditions in the countries,” explains the lead author Roman Hoffmann, from Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

“In both low and high income countries, environmental impacts on migration are weaker – presumably because either people are too poor to leave and therefore essentially become trapped or, in wealthy countries, they have enough financial means to absorb the consequences. It is mainly in middle-income regions and those with a dependency on agriculture that we see strong effects.”

IIASA predicts future higher levels of environmental migration for countries in Central America, the Caribbean, Brazil and Argentina. In Africa it is the Sahel region south of the Sahara that is already drying out, and East Africa that has the highest potential for people migrating because of climate change.

Eyes on India

Perhaps the most disturbing prediction is that India, with 1.3 billion people and soon to be the most populous country in the world, is likely to see large migrations. The heat and floods in the country are already killing hundreds of people a year, and many millions who are still dependent on subsistence agriculture are struggling with changing climate conditions.

“Our research suggests that populations in Latin America and the Caribbean, several countries in sub-Saharan Africa – especially in the Sahel region and East Africa – as well as western, southern and south-east Asia, are particularly at risk,” says co-author Anna Dimitrova from the Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

While the report is aimed at preparing governments for migrations that will inevitably happen in the future, with difficult consequences for both the migrants and the host country, the research suggests the best way of averting the coming crisis is to tackle climate change and reduce further rises in temperatures.

“The best way to protect those affected is to stabilise the global climate by rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels as well as simultaneously to enhance adaptive capacity, such as through improving human capital,” says Jesus Crespo Cuaresma, a researcher with the IIASA World Population Program and professor of economics at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. − Climate News Network

Lethal price of climate inertia far exceeds action

Climate change will impose a lethal price if we do not all pay the far smaller cost of confronting it.

LONDON, 10 September, 2020 – In the hotter world of climate change, it won’t just be the glaciers that melt: national and regional economies, big business, government and even the multinationals will all pay a lethal price.

If the planet becomes 4°C warmer by 2100, then many regions could see a 10% fall in economic output. They’d be the lucky ones. In the tropics, the economic losses could be double that.

There are of course ways to limit losses and save lives. US researchers believe that if a quarter of all motorists in the US switched to electric vehicles, the nation could save $17bn a year in the costs of climate change and air pollution. If three fourths of drivers switched to cars fuelled by renewable electricity, savings could tip $70bn.

Both studies are specimens of the kind of economic reasoning – always arguable and often intensely-argued – that necessarily must make “what-if” calculations about the notional costs to society of carbon dioxide emissions and the notional value of human lives blighted by heat-related illnesses and air pollution a lifetime from now.

But both are just the latest in a long line of calculations that demonstrate, repeatedly, that the costs to the next generation of doing nothing about climate change far outweigh the costs now of shifting from fossil fuels to clean sources of energy.

“Rising temperatures make us less productive, which is relevant in particular for outdoor work in the construction industry or agriculture”

The latest exploration of the price of doing nothing is published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

German scientists report that they looked, in detail, at the possible consequences of a 4°C warning, not on national economies but on 1500 states, provinces, departments and other political subdivisions within 77 nations around the globe.

Their finding – that more intense global heating could cost all of them 10% of their output and those in the warmer regions more than 20% – is, they say, conservative.

That is because their calculations do not take into account the potential catastrophic damage from extreme weather events and sea level rise – both of which could be substantial.

“Climate damages hit our businesses and our jobs, not just polar bears and coral reefs,” said Leonie Wenz, of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Tangible value

“Rising temperatures make us less productive, which is relevant in particular for outdoor work in the construction industry or agriculture. They affect our harvests and they mean extra stress, and thus costs for our infrastructure.”

But, according to a study in the journal GeoHealth, even the purchase of a new car could soften the impact: providing the car is electric and the power for its batteries is delivered by wind or solar energy.

If electric vehicles replaced 25% of all cars on US roads, the country could save $17bn a year in the notional costs of climate change and health damage – asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and premature death – from choking exhausts. Triple that, and the savings would reach $70bn.

“The social cost of carbon and value of statistical life are much studied and much debated metrics,” said Daniel Horton, of Northwestern University in Illinois, one of the authors.

“But they are used regularly to make policy decisions. It helps to put a tangible value on the consequences of emitting largely intangible gases into the public sphere that is our shared atmosphere.” – Climate News Network

Climate change will impose a lethal price if we do not all pay the far smaller cost of confronting it.

LONDON, 10 September, 2020 – In the hotter world of climate change, it won’t just be the glaciers that melt: national and regional economies, big business, government and even the multinationals will all pay a lethal price.

If the planet becomes 4°C warmer by 2100, then many regions could see a 10% fall in economic output. They’d be the lucky ones. In the tropics, the economic losses could be double that.

There are of course ways to limit losses and save lives. US researchers believe that if a quarter of all motorists in the US switched to electric vehicles, the nation could save $17bn a year in the costs of climate change and air pollution. If three fourths of drivers switched to cars fuelled by renewable electricity, savings could tip $70bn.

Both studies are specimens of the kind of economic reasoning – always arguable and often intensely-argued – that necessarily must make “what-if” calculations about the notional costs to society of carbon dioxide emissions and the notional value of human lives blighted by heat-related illnesses and air pollution a lifetime from now.

But both are just the latest in a long line of calculations that demonstrate, repeatedly, that the costs to the next generation of doing nothing about climate change far outweigh the costs now of shifting from fossil fuels to clean sources of energy.

“Rising temperatures make us less productive, which is relevant in particular for outdoor work in the construction industry or agriculture”

The latest exploration of the price of doing nothing is published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

German scientists report that they looked, in detail, at the possible consequences of a 4°C warning, not on national economies but on 1500 states, provinces, departments and other political subdivisions within 77 nations around the globe.

Their finding – that more intense global heating could cost all of them 10% of their output and those in the warmer regions more than 20% – is, they say, conservative.

That is because their calculations do not take into account the potential catastrophic damage from extreme weather events and sea level rise – both of which could be substantial.

“Climate damages hit our businesses and our jobs, not just polar bears and coral reefs,” said Leonie Wenz, of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Tangible value

“Rising temperatures make us less productive, which is relevant in particular for outdoor work in the construction industry or agriculture. They affect our harvests and they mean extra stress, and thus costs for our infrastructure.”

But, according to a study in the journal GeoHealth, even the purchase of a new car could soften the impact: providing the car is electric and the power for its batteries is delivered by wind or solar energy.

If electric vehicles replaced 25% of all cars on US roads, the country could save $17bn a year in the notional costs of climate change and health damage – asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and premature death – from choking exhausts. Triple that, and the savings would reach $70bn.

“The social cost of carbon and value of statistical life are much studied and much debated metrics,” said Daniel Horton, of Northwestern University in Illinois, one of the authors.

“But they are used regularly to make policy decisions. It helps to put a tangible value on the consequences of emitting largely intangible gases into the public sphere that is our shared atmosphere.” – Climate News Network

‘Ban adverts for cars that damage the climate’

Tobacco advertisements are often banned these days. So why not ban adverts for gas-guzzling cars that damage the planet?

LONDON, 1 September, 2020 – Many countries now ban adverts for tobacco products and some now limit sales of junk food, to protect public health. All of them have reduced advertising, or ended it outright.

So, campaigners argue, why not do the same with adverts which promote high-carbon products and lifestyles, damaging people’s health and heating the planet?

There’s growing pressure for bans like that in the United Kingdom, with a focus on ending the promotion of highly-polluting cars, gas-guzzling 4x4s, also known as SUVs, an argument developed by a campaign called Badvertising.

The Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA) is a UK-based group which argues that humankind must undertake “widespread behaviour change to sustainable lifestyles … to live within planetary ecological boundaries and to limit global warming to below 1.5°C” (the more stringent limit set by the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change).

As part of its work to publicise how projects and communities can withstand the effects of climate heating, the Alliance too is supporting Badvertising, which it is convinced can succeed.

40-year resistance

The RTA argues that advertising bans have worked before, provided they have had three factors in their favour: strong evidence from trusted sources; clear campaigning; and a threat to public health, which policymakers take seriously.

Even so, it says, powerful moneyed interests will oppose changes that threaten their income. Advertising is one key way of driving consumption, encouraging us to “shop till we drop”. In 2020 world expenditure on advertising is expected to reach US$691.7 billion (£520bn), up by 7.0% from 2019, despite the Covid-19 pandemic.

That’s more than China’s infrastructure investment programme after the 2008 financial crisis, and over four times more than the $153bn provided to developing countries in 2018 by the 30 members of the OECD’s development assistance committee.

With tobacco, once its huge public health impact became clear – 100 million people died in the last century from its use, and the figure for this century is expected to be ten times greater – campaigners had to work tirelessly for another 40 years until its promotion was banned.

The tobacco industry meanwhile resisted fiercely, arguing, for example, that adverts didn’t increase smoking but merely encouraged people to switch brands, despite evidence to the contrary.

“Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power”

For climate and health campaigners today there are valuable lessons to be learned from the fight against tobacco, the RTA says. Both tobacco smoke and car exhausts contain similar toxins that directly threaten human health.

Underlying health conditions mean that poorer households are worse hit than richer ones by the effects of tobacco and air pollution from vehicles, and so are more vulnerable too to health crises like Covid-19.

Junk food is another target for campaigners against advertising, particularly where child obesity is an issue. In London a ban on unhealthy food advertising was introduced in 2018, to widespread public approval. The UK government is now set to implement stricter rules on how junk food is advertised and sold across the country.

This year the Mexican state of Oaxaca banned the sale of sugary drinks and high-calorie snack foods to children. Mexicans drink 163 litres of soft drinks a year per head – the world’s highest level – and they start young. About 73% of Mexicans are considered overweight, and related diseases such as diabetes are rife.

A survey by El Poder del Consumidor (in Spanish) – a Mexican consumer advocacy group and drinks industry critic – found 70% of schoolchildren in a poor region of Guerrero state reported having soft drinks for breakfast. “When you go to these communities, what you find is junk food. There’s no access to clean drinking water,” said Alejandro Calvillo, the group’s director.

Doubt-spreading

In 2006 a US district judge ruled that tobacco companies had “devised and executed a scheme to defraud consumers … about the hazards of cigarettes, hazards that their own internal company documents proved they had known about since the 1950s.” After four decades of delay, obfuscation and the spreading of doubt by the industry, the tobacco companies were found guilty.

In the UK the first calls to restrict advertising came in 1962 from the Royal College of Physicians. The general advertising of tobacco products was banned in stages from 2003. But concern at the damage that advertising can cause continues.

Communities in the UK city of Bristol recently acted against the bright LCD billboards which have proliferated there, causing light pollution and using huge amounts of energy to adverise a range of goods and services. A Bristol initiative to help residents object to planning applications for new digital advertising screens has now led to a wider network, Adfree Cities.

Advertising is part of the broader public relations industry. The RTA quotes an American citizen, often called the father of public relations, Edward Bernays, who worked for the US Committee on Public Information, a body for official propaganda during the first world war.

Bernays once wrote: “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power. We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.”

Doctors’ crucial intervention

One turning point in the battle against tobacco industry propaganda in the UK, the RTA says, was the involvement of the doctors’ trades union, the British Medical Association (BMA). This brought the people the public trusted most – their family doctors – into direct confrontation with the tobacco industry.

But the medical profession was to play another crucial part in protecting public health on a far wider front in 2017, when an article in the Lancet, the leading British medical journal, featured a major study, this time with evidence supporting the climatologists’ findings that climate change is a growing health hazard.

In response, Simon Dalby of Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada asks why we don’t use advertising restrictions for climate change in the same way that we have with other public health hazards like smoking.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world are already suffering because of climate change, he points out. Infectious diseases are spreading faster as the climate heats, hunger and malnutrition are worsening, allergy seasons are getting longer, and sometimes it’s simply too hot for farmers to tend their crops.

Professor Dalby’s suggestion? Not only should we restrict adverts for gas-guzzlers. We should treat climate change itself, not as an environmental problem, but as a health emergency. – Climate News Network

* * * * * * *

The Rapid Transition Alliance is coordinated by the New Weather Institute, the STEPS Centre at the Institute of  Development Studies, and the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. The Climate News Network is partnering with and supported by the Rapid Transition Alliance, and will be reporting regularly on its work. If you would like to see more stories of evidence-based hope for rapid transition, please sign up here.

Do you know a story of rapid transition? If so, we’d like to hear from you. Please send us a brief outline on info@climatenewsnetwork.net. Thank you.

Tobacco advertisements are often banned these days. So why not ban adverts for gas-guzzling cars that damage the planet?

LONDON, 1 September, 2020 – Many countries now ban adverts for tobacco products and some now limit sales of junk food, to protect public health. All of them have reduced advertising, or ended it outright.

So, campaigners argue, why not do the same with adverts which promote high-carbon products and lifestyles, damaging people’s health and heating the planet?

There’s growing pressure for bans like that in the United Kingdom, with a focus on ending the promotion of highly-polluting cars, gas-guzzling 4x4s, also known as SUVs, an argument developed by a campaign called Badvertising.

The Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA) is a UK-based group which argues that humankind must undertake “widespread behaviour change to sustainable lifestyles … to live within planetary ecological boundaries and to limit global warming to below 1.5°C” (the more stringent limit set by the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change).

As part of its work to publicise how projects and communities can withstand the effects of climate heating, the Alliance too is supporting Badvertising, which it is convinced can succeed.

40-year resistance

The RTA argues that advertising bans have worked before, provided they have had three factors in their favour: strong evidence from trusted sources; clear campaigning; and a threat to public health, which policymakers take seriously.

Even so, it says, powerful moneyed interests will oppose changes that threaten their income. Advertising is one key way of driving consumption, encouraging us to “shop till we drop”. In 2020 world expenditure on advertising is expected to reach US$691.7 billion (£520bn), up by 7.0% from 2019, despite the Covid-19 pandemic.

That’s more than China’s infrastructure investment programme after the 2008 financial crisis, and over four times more than the $153bn provided to developing countries in 2018 by the 30 members of the OECD’s development assistance committee.

With tobacco, once its huge public health impact became clear – 100 million people died in the last century from its use, and the figure for this century is expected to be ten times greater – campaigners had to work tirelessly for another 40 years until its promotion was banned.

The tobacco industry meanwhile resisted fiercely, arguing, for example, that adverts didn’t increase smoking but merely encouraged people to switch brands, despite evidence to the contrary.

“Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power”

For climate and health campaigners today there are valuable lessons to be learned from the fight against tobacco, the RTA says. Both tobacco smoke and car exhausts contain similar toxins that directly threaten human health.

Underlying health conditions mean that poorer households are worse hit than richer ones by the effects of tobacco and air pollution from vehicles, and so are more vulnerable too to health crises like Covid-19.

Junk food is another target for campaigners against advertising, particularly where child obesity is an issue. In London a ban on unhealthy food advertising was introduced in 2018, to widespread public approval. The UK government is now set to implement stricter rules on how junk food is advertised and sold across the country.

This year the Mexican state of Oaxaca banned the sale of sugary drinks and high-calorie snack foods to children. Mexicans drink 163 litres of soft drinks a year per head – the world’s highest level – and they start young. About 73% of Mexicans are considered overweight, and related diseases such as diabetes are rife.

A survey by El Poder del Consumidor (in Spanish) – a Mexican consumer advocacy group and drinks industry critic – found 70% of schoolchildren in a poor region of Guerrero state reported having soft drinks for breakfast. “When you go to these communities, what you find is junk food. There’s no access to clean drinking water,” said Alejandro Calvillo, the group’s director.

Doubt-spreading

In 2006 a US district judge ruled that tobacco companies had “devised and executed a scheme to defraud consumers … about the hazards of cigarettes, hazards that their own internal company documents proved they had known about since the 1950s.” After four decades of delay, obfuscation and the spreading of doubt by the industry, the tobacco companies were found guilty.

In the UK the first calls to restrict advertising came in 1962 from the Royal College of Physicians. The general advertising of tobacco products was banned in stages from 2003. But concern at the damage that advertising can cause continues.

Communities in the UK city of Bristol recently acted against the bright LCD billboards which have proliferated there, causing light pollution and using huge amounts of energy to adverise a range of goods and services. A Bristol initiative to help residents object to planning applications for new digital advertising screens has now led to a wider network, Adfree Cities.

Advertising is part of the broader public relations industry. The RTA quotes an American citizen, often called the father of public relations, Edward Bernays, who worked for the US Committee on Public Information, a body for official propaganda during the first world war.

Bernays once wrote: “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power. We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.”

Doctors’ crucial intervention

One turning point in the battle against tobacco industry propaganda in the UK, the RTA says, was the involvement of the doctors’ trades union, the British Medical Association (BMA). This brought the people the public trusted most – their family doctors – into direct confrontation with the tobacco industry.

But the medical profession was to play another crucial part in protecting public health on a far wider front in 2017, when an article in the Lancet, the leading British medical journal, featured a major study, this time with evidence supporting the climatologists’ findings that climate change is a growing health hazard.

In response, Simon Dalby of Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada asks why we don’t use advertising restrictions for climate change in the same way that we have with other public health hazards like smoking.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world are already suffering because of climate change, he points out. Infectious diseases are spreading faster as the climate heats, hunger and malnutrition are worsening, allergy seasons are getting longer, and sometimes it’s simply too hot for farmers to tend their crops.

Professor Dalby’s suggestion? Not only should we restrict adverts for gas-guzzlers. We should treat climate change itself, not as an environmental problem, but as a health emergency. – Climate News Network

* * * * * * *

The Rapid Transition Alliance is coordinated by the New Weather Institute, the STEPS Centre at the Institute of  Development Studies, and the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. The Climate News Network is partnering with and supported by the Rapid Transition Alliance, and will be reporting regularly on its work. If you would like to see more stories of evidence-based hope for rapid transition, please sign up here.

Do you know a story of rapid transition? If so, we’d like to hear from you. Please send us a brief outline on info@climatenewsnetwork.net. Thank you.

Fossil fuels face rapid defeat by UK’s wind and sun

The cost of UK energy from renewables like wind and sun continues to plunge, beating British official expectations.

LONDON, 31 August, 2020 – The costs of producing renewable electricity in the United Kingdom from wind and sun have dropped dramatically in the last four years and will continue to fall until 2040, according to the British government’s own estimates.

A report, Energy Generation Cost Projections, 2020, by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, shows that wind power, both on and offshore, and solar energy will produce electricity far more cheaply than any fossil fuel or nuclear competitor by 2025.

Costs have fallen so far and so fast that the department admits it got its 2016 calculations badly wrong, particularly on offshore wind farms. This was mainly because the turbines being developed were much larger than it had bargained for, and the size of the wind farms being developed was also much bigger, bringing economies of scale.

The new report avoids any comparison with the costs of nuclear power, leaving them out altogether and merely saying its cost assumptions have not changed since 2016.

Nuclear costs are a sensitive issue at the department because the cost estimates its report used for nuclear power in 2016 were optimistic, and although the report does not comment there have already been reports that they are expected to rise by 2025.

“For offshore wind, significant technological improvements (for example, large increases in individual turbine capacity) have driven down costs faster than other renewable technologies”

This is at a time when the government is yet to decide whether to continue its policy of encouraging French, Chinese and Japanese companies to build nuclear power stations in the UK, with their costs subsidised by a tax on electricity bills.

Although all the figures for renewable prices quoted are for British installations, they are internationally important because the UK is a well-advanced renewable market and a leader in the field of offshore wind, because of the large number of wind turbines already in operation.

The fact that large-scale solar power is cost-competitive with fossil fuels even in a not particularly sunny country means that the future looks bleak for both coal and gas generators across the world.

The prices quoted in the report are in pounds sterling per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced.

For offshore wind the department now expects the price to be £57 MWh in 2025, almost half its estimate of £106 for the same year made in 2016. It expects the price to drop to £47 in 2030, and £40 by 2040. Onshore wind, estimated to cost £65 MWh in 2016, is now said to be down to £46 in 2025 and still gradually falling after that.

Nuclear cost overruns

Large-scale solar, thought to cost £68 in 2016, is now expected to be £44 MWh in 2025, falling to £33 per MWh in 2040. The output of the latest H class gas turbines is estimated by the department to cost £115 a MWh in 2025, although this is a newish technology and may also come down in price.

The 2016 report says nuclear power will be at £95 MWh in 2025, and although this year’s report says the prices remain the same Hinkley Point C, the only nuclear power station currently under construction in the UK, has already reported cost overruns and delays that put its costs above that estimate.

The 2020 report says: “Since 2016, renewables’ costs have declined
compared to gas, particularly steeply in the case of offshore wind. Across the renewable technologies, increased deployment has led to decreased costs via learning, which then incentivised further deployment, and so on.

“For offshore wind, significant technological improvements (for example, large increases in individual turbine capacity) have driven down costs faster than other renewable technologies (and will continue to do so).”

By coincidence, on the day the report was released, it was reported that two of the UK’s largest wind farms, off the east coast in the North Sea, are to double in size.

Better storage available

The energy giant Equinor agreed to lease 196 square kilometres of the seabed for extensions to the Sheringham and Dudgeon wind farms to double their capacity to 1,400 megawatts, enough to power 1.5 million homes.

Since the BEIS published the 2016 report the arguments about renewables have changed. Although the report does not say so, the intermittent nature of renewables is less of an issue because large-scale batteries and other energy storage options are becoming more widespread and mainstream.

Also, both the European Union and the British government are investing in green hydrogen – hydrogen from renewable energy via electrolysis – which could be produced when supplies of green energy exceed demand, as they did in Britain during the Covid-19 lockdown earlier this year.

In future, instead of this excess power going to waste, it will be turned into green hydrogen to feed into the gas network, to power vehicles or to be held in tanks and burned to produce electricity at peak times.

According to analysis by the research firm Wood Mackenzie Ltd, reported in Energy Voice, the cost of green hydrogen will drop by 64% by 2040, making it competitive with fossil fuels for industry and transport. – Climate News Network

The cost of UK energy from renewables like wind and sun continues to plunge, beating British official expectations.

LONDON, 31 August, 2020 – The costs of producing renewable electricity in the United Kingdom from wind and sun have dropped dramatically in the last four years and will continue to fall until 2040, according to the British government’s own estimates.

A report, Energy Generation Cost Projections, 2020, by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, shows that wind power, both on and offshore, and solar energy will produce electricity far more cheaply than any fossil fuel or nuclear competitor by 2025.

Costs have fallen so far and so fast that the department admits it got its 2016 calculations badly wrong, particularly on offshore wind farms. This was mainly because the turbines being developed were much larger than it had bargained for, and the size of the wind farms being developed was also much bigger, bringing economies of scale.

The new report avoids any comparison with the costs of nuclear power, leaving them out altogether and merely saying its cost assumptions have not changed since 2016.

Nuclear costs are a sensitive issue at the department because the cost estimates its report used for nuclear power in 2016 were optimistic, and although the report does not comment there have already been reports that they are expected to rise by 2025.

“For offshore wind, significant technological improvements (for example, large increases in individual turbine capacity) have driven down costs faster than other renewable technologies”

This is at a time when the government is yet to decide whether to continue its policy of encouraging French, Chinese and Japanese companies to build nuclear power stations in the UK, with their costs subsidised by a tax on electricity bills.

Although all the figures for renewable prices quoted are for British installations, they are internationally important because the UK is a well-advanced renewable market and a leader in the field of offshore wind, because of the large number of wind turbines already in operation.

The fact that large-scale solar power is cost-competitive with fossil fuels even in a not particularly sunny country means that the future looks bleak for both coal and gas generators across the world.

The prices quoted in the report are in pounds sterling per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced.

For offshore wind the department now expects the price to be £57 MWh in 2025, almost half its estimate of £106 for the same year made in 2016. It expects the price to drop to £47 in 2030, and £40 by 2040. Onshore wind, estimated to cost £65 MWh in 2016, is now said to be down to £46 in 2025 and still gradually falling after that.

Nuclear cost overruns

Large-scale solar, thought to cost £68 in 2016, is now expected to be £44 MWh in 2025, falling to £33 per MWh in 2040. The output of the latest H class gas turbines is estimated by the department to cost £115 a MWh in 2025, although this is a newish technology and may also come down in price.

The 2016 report says nuclear power will be at £95 MWh in 2025, and although this year’s report says the prices remain the same Hinkley Point C, the only nuclear power station currently under construction in the UK, has already reported cost overruns and delays that put its costs above that estimate.

The 2020 report says: “Since 2016, renewables’ costs have declined
compared to gas, particularly steeply in the case of offshore wind. Across the renewable technologies, increased deployment has led to decreased costs via learning, which then incentivised further deployment, and so on.

“For offshore wind, significant technological improvements (for example, large increases in individual turbine capacity) have driven down costs faster than other renewable technologies (and will continue to do so).”

By coincidence, on the day the report was released, it was reported that two of the UK’s largest wind farms, off the east coast in the North Sea, are to double in size.

Better storage available

The energy giant Equinor agreed to lease 196 square kilometres of the seabed for extensions to the Sheringham and Dudgeon wind farms to double their capacity to 1,400 megawatts, enough to power 1.5 million homes.

Since the BEIS published the 2016 report the arguments about renewables have changed. Although the report does not say so, the intermittent nature of renewables is less of an issue because large-scale batteries and other energy storage options are becoming more widespread and mainstream.

Also, both the European Union and the British government are investing in green hydrogen – hydrogen from renewable energy via electrolysis – which could be produced when supplies of green energy exceed demand, as they did in Britain during the Covid-19 lockdown earlier this year.

In future, instead of this excess power going to waste, it will be turned into green hydrogen to feed into the gas network, to power vehicles or to be held in tanks and burned to produce electricity at peak times.

According to analysis by the research firm Wood Mackenzie Ltd, reported in Energy Voice, the cost of green hydrogen will drop by 64% by 2040, making it competitive with fossil fuels for industry and transport. – Climate News Network

Changing oceans reveal clear human thumbprint

Climate heating must have already begun to result in changing oceans. The next step is to confirm and monitor this change.

LONDON, 26 August, 2020 – Humankind has already begun to reshape the biggest available living space on the planet and to leave its mark in the changing oceans.

New research suggests that somewhere between 20% and 55% of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans now have temperatures and salt levels that should be measurably different because of climate change driven by profligate human combustion of fossil fuels.

And forecasts suggest that by mid-century the scale of human impact will only have increased – to between 40% and 60%. By 2080, human impact on the oceans will have begun to change between 55% and 80% of the blue planet.

Although the researchers – they report in the journal Nature Climate Change – have based their predictions on computer models, they are confident that the thumbprint of human-induced climate change began to leave its mark on the seas of the Southern Hemisphere as long ago as the 1980s.

“We have been detecting ocean temperature change at the surface due to climate change for several decades now,” said Eric Guilyardi, of the University of Reading in the UK and the Laboratory of Oceanography and Climate in Paris, France.

“Our results highlight the importance of maintaining and augmenting an ocean observing system capable of detecting and monitoring persistent anthropogenic changes”

“But changes in vast areas of the ocean, particularly deeper parts, are much more challenging to detect.”

The problem of measurement is simple: the ocean is enormous. It covers 70% of the planet to an average depth of 3.7 kms. It defines the planet.

It is almost certainly where life on Earth first emerged; it was life’s only home for the first three billion years.

And it is in a state of constant change, constantly evaporating, and continually replenished with freshwater from rainfall, river flow and melting polar ice. So temperature and salinity change naturally, and with the seasons, and with much longer cyclic swings driven by the atmosphere.

Scientists have been measuring surface conditions for many decades. The ocean at depth is a bit more of a challenge. The question the researchers put was a simple one: could temperature and salinity levels in parts of the ocean have risen or fallen higher or lower than they would in normal peaks and troughs?

Beyond natural variability

It’s not an easy question: oceanography is expensive, the ocean is huge, much of it has never been studied and the ways in which the ocean layers mix is still a bit of a puzzle.

So the scientists started with two models, with and without the impact of human action. They then worked on an analysis of salt levels and temperatures to detect significant change, and then tried to predict the dates at which this change ought to declare itself.

Their readings tell them that changes beyond natural variability in the northern hemisphere – all the seas from the Arctic Ocean to the equatorial waters – could have emerged between 2010 and 2030. That is, change is already happening.

Their simulations also predicted that whatever shifts occurred at depth in the temperature and chemistry of the southern oceans, these could have been identified up to 40 years ago, had researchers had the technology, the funding, the people and the ships and submersibles to do so.

“Our results highlight the importance of maintaining and augmenting an ocean observing system capable of detecting and monitoring persistent anthropogenic changes,” they report. – Climate News Network

Climate heating must have already begun to result in changing oceans. The next step is to confirm and monitor this change.

LONDON, 26 August, 2020 – Humankind has already begun to reshape the biggest available living space on the planet and to leave its mark in the changing oceans.

New research suggests that somewhere between 20% and 55% of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans now have temperatures and salt levels that should be measurably different because of climate change driven by profligate human combustion of fossil fuels.

And forecasts suggest that by mid-century the scale of human impact will only have increased – to between 40% and 60%. By 2080, human impact on the oceans will have begun to change between 55% and 80% of the blue planet.

Although the researchers – they report in the journal Nature Climate Change – have based their predictions on computer models, they are confident that the thumbprint of human-induced climate change began to leave its mark on the seas of the Southern Hemisphere as long ago as the 1980s.

“We have been detecting ocean temperature change at the surface due to climate change for several decades now,” said Eric Guilyardi, of the University of Reading in the UK and the Laboratory of Oceanography and Climate in Paris, France.

“Our results highlight the importance of maintaining and augmenting an ocean observing system capable of detecting and monitoring persistent anthropogenic changes”

“But changes in vast areas of the ocean, particularly deeper parts, are much more challenging to detect.”

The problem of measurement is simple: the ocean is enormous. It covers 70% of the planet to an average depth of 3.7 kms. It defines the planet.

It is almost certainly where life on Earth first emerged; it was life’s only home for the first three billion years.

And it is in a state of constant change, constantly evaporating, and continually replenished with freshwater from rainfall, river flow and melting polar ice. So temperature and salinity change naturally, and with the seasons, and with much longer cyclic swings driven by the atmosphere.

Scientists have been measuring surface conditions for many decades. The ocean at depth is a bit more of a challenge. The question the researchers put was a simple one: could temperature and salinity levels in parts of the ocean have risen or fallen higher or lower than they would in normal peaks and troughs?

Beyond natural variability

It’s not an easy question: oceanography is expensive, the ocean is huge, much of it has never been studied and the ways in which the ocean layers mix is still a bit of a puzzle.

So the scientists started with two models, with and without the impact of human action. They then worked on an analysis of salt levels and temperatures to detect significant change, and then tried to predict the dates at which this change ought to declare itself.

Their readings tell them that changes beyond natural variability in the northern hemisphere – all the seas from the Arctic Ocean to the equatorial waters – could have emerged between 2010 and 2030. That is, change is already happening.

Their simulations also predicted that whatever shifts occurred at depth in the temperature and chemistry of the southern oceans, these could have been identified up to 40 years ago, had researchers had the technology, the funding, the people and the ships and submersibles to do so.

“Our results highlight the importance of maintaining and augmenting an ocean observing system capable of detecting and monitoring persistent anthropogenic changes,” they report. – Climate News Network

In Arctic heat Greenland’s ice loss grows faster still

Greenland’s ice loss tipped a new record last year. This ominous milestone is just the latest in a run of alarming news.

LONDON, 24 August, 2020 – Its icecap is now smaller than at any time since measurements began: Greenland’s ice loss means it lost mass in 2019 at a record rate.

By the close of the year, thanks to high summer melt and low snowfall, the northern hemisphere’s biggest reservoir of ice had shed 532 billion tonnes into the sea – raising global sea levels by around 1.5mm in a year.

The previous record loss for Greenland was in 2012. In that year, the island lost 464 billion tonnes, according to studies of satellite data published by European scientists in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.

Greenland’s ice cap has been shrinking, if unsteadily, for many years. In 2017 and 2018, the losses continued, but only at around 100bn tonnes a year.

“After a two-year breather, the mass loss increased steeply and exceeded all annual losses since 1948, and probably for more than 100 years,” said Ingo Sasgen of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany, who led the study.

“There are increasingly frequent, stable high-pressure areas over the ice sheet, which promote the influx of warm air from the middle latitudes. We saw a similar pattern in the previous record year, 2012.”

“The ice sheet has lost ice every year for the past 20. If everyone’s alarm bells were not already ringing, they must be now”

He and colleagues made their calculations from data delivered by two Nasa satellites, GRACE and GRACE-FO, that measure changes in the surface gravity of the planet: a way of calculating the mass of water stored as ice, or in aquifers, and observing sea level change.

The finding is the latest in a succession of polar climate alarms. It follows closely on a warning from US scientists that ice loss from Greenland may  have reached the point of no return.

And it also follows a sober calculation of the alarming rate of planetary temperature rise in response to ever-higher use of fossil fuels that trigger ever-higher measures of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And that in turn followed a warning that the entire Arctic was now warming so swiftly that the Arctic sea ice might be all but gone in the summer of 2035.

And that was only days after another research team, looking at the big picture of climate change, warned that the scenario climate forecasters liked to use as an example of their “worst case” was now a simple description of what was already happening.

“It is devastating that 2019 was another record year of ice loss. In 2012, it had been about 150 years since the ice sheet had experienced similar melt extent, and then a further 600-plus years back to find another similar event,” said Twila Moon, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who was not involved in the research.

Damage off the scale

“We have now had record-breaking ice loss twice in less than 10 years, and the ice sheet has lost ice every year for the past 20. If everyone’s alarm bells were not already ringing, they must be now.”

The implications of continued loss of Greenland ice have been explored repeatedly: the run-off of fresh water from the ice cap to the sea is now so great that the North Atlantic is now “fresher” than at any time in the last 100 years.

And this change in water temperature and chemistry could – on the evidence of the distant past – possibly slow or switch off the circulation of the North Atlantic current, which for most of the history of human civilisation has kept the United Kingdom and north-western Europe from five to 10°C warmer than similar latitudes elsewhere.

“This tipping point in the climate system is one of the potential climate disasters facing us,” said Stuart Cunningham of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, commenting on the study.

“To transform the way we power, finance and run the world in the way we know we should is proving entirely beyond us,” said Chris Rapley, now a climate scientist at University College London, but once director of the British Antarctic Survey.

“Torpor, incompetence and indifference at the top may kill people in a health crisis, and torpedo the careers of young students in an education crisis; but the damage they are generating in the pipeline from climate change is on another scale.” – Climate News Network

Greenland’s ice loss tipped a new record last year. This ominous milestone is just the latest in a run of alarming news.

LONDON, 24 August, 2020 – Its icecap is now smaller than at any time since measurements began: Greenland’s ice loss means it lost mass in 2019 at a record rate.

By the close of the year, thanks to high summer melt and low snowfall, the northern hemisphere’s biggest reservoir of ice had shed 532 billion tonnes into the sea – raising global sea levels by around 1.5mm in a year.

The previous record loss for Greenland was in 2012. In that year, the island lost 464 billion tonnes, according to studies of satellite data published by European scientists in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.

Greenland’s ice cap has been shrinking, if unsteadily, for many years. In 2017 and 2018, the losses continued, but only at around 100bn tonnes a year.

“After a two-year breather, the mass loss increased steeply and exceeded all annual losses since 1948, and probably for more than 100 years,” said Ingo Sasgen of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany, who led the study.

“There are increasingly frequent, stable high-pressure areas over the ice sheet, which promote the influx of warm air from the middle latitudes. We saw a similar pattern in the previous record year, 2012.”

“The ice sheet has lost ice every year for the past 20. If everyone’s alarm bells were not already ringing, they must be now”

He and colleagues made their calculations from data delivered by two Nasa satellites, GRACE and GRACE-FO, that measure changes in the surface gravity of the planet: a way of calculating the mass of water stored as ice, or in aquifers, and observing sea level change.

The finding is the latest in a succession of polar climate alarms. It follows closely on a warning from US scientists that ice loss from Greenland may  have reached the point of no return.

And it also follows a sober calculation of the alarming rate of planetary temperature rise in response to ever-higher use of fossil fuels that trigger ever-higher measures of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And that in turn followed a warning that the entire Arctic was now warming so swiftly that the Arctic sea ice might be all but gone in the summer of 2035.

And that was only days after another research team, looking at the big picture of climate change, warned that the scenario climate forecasters liked to use as an example of their “worst case” was now a simple description of what was already happening.

“It is devastating that 2019 was another record year of ice loss. In 2012, it had been about 150 years since the ice sheet had experienced similar melt extent, and then a further 600-plus years back to find another similar event,” said Twila Moon, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who was not involved in the research.

Damage off the scale

“We have now had record-breaking ice loss twice in less than 10 years, and the ice sheet has lost ice every year for the past 20. If everyone’s alarm bells were not already ringing, they must be now.”

The implications of continued loss of Greenland ice have been explored repeatedly: the run-off of fresh water from the ice cap to the sea is now so great that the North Atlantic is now “fresher” than at any time in the last 100 years.

And this change in water temperature and chemistry could – on the evidence of the distant past – possibly slow or switch off the circulation of the North Atlantic current, which for most of the history of human civilisation has kept the United Kingdom and north-western Europe from five to 10°C warmer than similar latitudes elsewhere.

“This tipping point in the climate system is one of the potential climate disasters facing us,” said Stuart Cunningham of the Scottish Association for Marine Science, commenting on the study.

“To transform the way we power, finance and run the world in the way we know we should is proving entirely beyond us,” said Chris Rapley, now a climate scientist at University College London, but once director of the British Antarctic Survey.

“Torpor, incompetence and indifference at the top may kill people in a health crisis, and torpedo the careers of young students in an education crisis; but the damage they are generating in the pipeline from climate change is on another scale.” – Climate News Network

Annual planetary temperature continues to rise

More than 500 scientists from 61 countries have again measured the annual planetary temperature. The diagnosis is not good.

LONDON, 17 August, 2020 – Despite global promises to act on climate change, the Earth continues to warm. The annual planetary temperature confirms that the last 10 years were on average 0.2°C warmer than the first 10 years of this century. And each decade since 1980 has been warmer than the decade that preceded it.

The year 2019 was also one of the three warmest years since formal temperature records began in the 19th century. The only warmer years – in some datasets but not all – were 2016 and 2015. And all the years since 2013 have been warmer than all other years in the last 170.

The link with fossil fuel combustion remains unequivocal: carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 2.5 parts per million (ppm) in 2019 alone. These now stand at 409 ppm. The global average for most of human history has hovered around 285 ppm.

Two more greenhouse gases – nitrous oxide and methane, both of them more short-lived – also increased measurably.

“This millennium has been warmer than any comparable period since the Industrial Revolution”

The study, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is a sobering chronicle of the impact of climate change in the decade 2010-2019 and the year 2019 itself. It is the 30th such report, it is signed by 528 experts from 61 countries, and it is a catalogue of unwelcome records achieved and uncomfortable extremes surpassed.

July 2019 was the hottest month on record. Record high temperatures were measured in more than a dozen nations across Africa, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean. In North America, Alaska scored its hottest year on record.

The Arctic as a whole was warmer than in any year except 2016. Australia achieved a new nationally average daily temperature high of 41.9°C on 18 December, breaking the previous 2013 record by 1.6°C. But even Belgium and the Netherlands saw temperatures higher than 40°C.

For the 32nd consecutive year, the world’s alpine glaciers continued to get smaller and retreat further uphill. For the first time on record in inland Alaska, when measured at 26 sites, the active layer of permafrost failed to freeze completely. In September, sea ice around the Arctic reached a minimum that tied for the second lowest in the 41 years of satellite records.

Catalogue of extremes

Global sea levels set a new high for the eighth consecutive year and are now 87.6mm higher than the 1993 average, when satellite records began. At a depth of 700 metres, ocean temperatures reached new records, and the sea surface temperatures on average were the highest since 2016.

Drought conditions led to catastrophic wildfires in Australia, in Indonesia, Siberia and in the southern Amazon forests of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. And around the equator, meteorologists catalogued 96 named tropical storms: the average for 1981 to 2010 was 82. In the North Atlantic, just one storm, Hurricane Dorian, killed 70 people and caused $3.4bn (£2.6bn) in damage in the Bahamas.

“This millennium has been warmer than any comparable period since the Industrial Revolution. A number of extreme events, such as wildfires, heatwaves and droughts, have at least part of their root linked to the rise in global temperature,” said Robert Dunn, of the UK Met Office, one of the contributors.

“And of course the rise in global temperature is linked to another climate indicator, the ongoing rise in emissions in greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.” – Climate News Network

More than 500 scientists from 61 countries have again measured the annual planetary temperature. The diagnosis is not good.

LONDON, 17 August, 2020 – Despite global promises to act on climate change, the Earth continues to warm. The annual planetary temperature confirms that the last 10 years were on average 0.2°C warmer than the first 10 years of this century. And each decade since 1980 has been warmer than the decade that preceded it.

The year 2019 was also one of the three warmest years since formal temperature records began in the 19th century. The only warmer years – in some datasets but not all – were 2016 and 2015. And all the years since 2013 have been warmer than all other years in the last 170.

The link with fossil fuel combustion remains unequivocal: carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 2.5 parts per million (ppm) in 2019 alone. These now stand at 409 ppm. The global average for most of human history has hovered around 285 ppm.

Two more greenhouse gases – nitrous oxide and methane, both of them more short-lived – also increased measurably.

“This millennium has been warmer than any comparable period since the Industrial Revolution”

The study, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is a sobering chronicle of the impact of climate change in the decade 2010-2019 and the year 2019 itself. It is the 30th such report, it is signed by 528 experts from 61 countries, and it is a catalogue of unwelcome records achieved and uncomfortable extremes surpassed.

July 2019 was the hottest month on record. Record high temperatures were measured in more than a dozen nations across Africa, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean. In North America, Alaska scored its hottest year on record.

The Arctic as a whole was warmer than in any year except 2016. Australia achieved a new nationally average daily temperature high of 41.9°C on 18 December, breaking the previous 2013 record by 1.6°C. But even Belgium and the Netherlands saw temperatures higher than 40°C.

For the 32nd consecutive year, the world’s alpine glaciers continued to get smaller and retreat further uphill. For the first time on record in inland Alaska, when measured at 26 sites, the active layer of permafrost failed to freeze completely. In September, sea ice around the Arctic reached a minimum that tied for the second lowest in the 41 years of satellite records.

Catalogue of extremes

Global sea levels set a new high for the eighth consecutive year and are now 87.6mm higher than the 1993 average, when satellite records began. At a depth of 700 metres, ocean temperatures reached new records, and the sea surface temperatures on average were the highest since 2016.

Drought conditions led to catastrophic wildfires in Australia, in Indonesia, Siberia and in the southern Amazon forests of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. And around the equator, meteorologists catalogued 96 named tropical storms: the average for 1981 to 2010 was 82. In the North Atlantic, just one storm, Hurricane Dorian, killed 70 people and caused $3.4bn (£2.6bn) in damage in the Bahamas.

“This millennium has been warmer than any comparable period since the Industrial Revolution. A number of extreme events, such as wildfires, heatwaves and droughts, have at least part of their root linked to the rise in global temperature,” said Robert Dunn, of the UK Met Office, one of the contributors.

“And of course the rise in global temperature is linked to another climate indicator, the ongoing rise in emissions in greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.” – Climate News Network

Climate science’s worst case is today’s reality

Climate science’s worst case scenario isn’t just an awful warning. It describes what is already happening right now.

LONDON, 10 August, 2020 – A trio of US researchers has grim news for people worried about climate science’s worst case outcome. Forget about the other options. The worst case is already happening.

Christopher Schwalm and colleagues at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they took a closer look at the evidence for climate change in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and climate models.

This is the kind of research that assesses the future under a number of possible scenarios. These scenarios are based on mathematical models and global assumptions about economic growth, carbon budgets and land use changes, and they are couched in language arcane enough to make even committed followers of climate science reach for the aspirin.

The most optimistic of these is one in which the world makes a determined, drastic and concerted effort to contain global heating to well below 2°C above the average for most of human history. At the other end of the scale is one notoriously called “business as usual”, in which the nations of the world carry on burning ever more fossil fuels, while sea levels rise ever higher, and the thermometer readings get ever higher. It has been intended from the start as an awful warning rather than as a guide to what is most likely to happen.

“RCP8.5 has continued utility … if RCP8.5 did not exist, we’d have to create it”

Since 195 nations met in Paris in 2015 and vowed to take action to keep global heating if possible to well below 2°C, and ideally no higher than 1.5°C, there has been an assumption that the “worst case”, or “business as usual” scenario – known in climate science shorthand as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP8.5 – was no more than that: the worst case.

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, nations accepted commitments to plans to reduce emissions. Researchers have repeatedly warned that such plans as have been announced were not ambitious enough, and not being implemented fast enough.

The US has announced that it will abandon the Paris promise. Other nations have maintained their willingness to act, but have gone on opening coal mines and prospecting for more oil.

Even so, after Paris, it became clear there would surely be change. The world had been alerted, the worst could indeed be averted. The RCP8.5 scenario was, some said, of no great help. It has even been described as “extreme, alarmist and ‘misleading’.”

Implications for 2100

Sadly, it may not be. Dr Schwalm and his colleagues looked at cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2005. By 2020, the emissions matched the “business as usual” or RCP8.5 predictions very closely.

They then extended the trends to 2030, and to 2050, with the same outcome. That means that – by the end of the century – the planet could be 3.3°C to 5.4°C warmer than it was at the launch of the Industrial Revolution and the worldwide switch to fossil fuels. In which case, the worst-case scenario would remain on the table as a useful risk assessment tool.

“The implied probability of occurrence similar to RCP8.5 even at the end of the century is large enough to merit its continued use,” the scientists write.

“RCP8.5 has continued utility, both as an instrument to explore mean outcomes as well as risk. Indeed, if RCP8.5 did not exist, we’d have to create it.” – Climate News Network

Climate science’s worst case scenario isn’t just an awful warning. It describes what is already happening right now.

LONDON, 10 August, 2020 – A trio of US researchers has grim news for people worried about climate science’s worst case outcome. Forget about the other options. The worst case is already happening.

Christopher Schwalm and colleagues at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they took a closer look at the evidence for climate change in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and climate models.

This is the kind of research that assesses the future under a number of possible scenarios. These scenarios are based on mathematical models and global assumptions about economic growth, carbon budgets and land use changes, and they are couched in language arcane enough to make even committed followers of climate science reach for the aspirin.

The most optimistic of these is one in which the world makes a determined, drastic and concerted effort to contain global heating to well below 2°C above the average for most of human history. At the other end of the scale is one notoriously called “business as usual”, in which the nations of the world carry on burning ever more fossil fuels, while sea levels rise ever higher, and the thermometer readings get ever higher. It has been intended from the start as an awful warning rather than as a guide to what is most likely to happen.

“RCP8.5 has continued utility … if RCP8.5 did not exist, we’d have to create it”

Since 195 nations met in Paris in 2015 and vowed to take action to keep global heating if possible to well below 2°C, and ideally no higher than 1.5°C, there has been an assumption that the “worst case”, or “business as usual” scenario – known in climate science shorthand as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP8.5 – was no more than that: the worst case.

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, nations accepted commitments to plans to reduce emissions. Researchers have repeatedly warned that such plans as have been announced were not ambitious enough, and not being implemented fast enough.

The US has announced that it will abandon the Paris promise. Other nations have maintained their willingness to act, but have gone on opening coal mines and prospecting for more oil.

Even so, after Paris, it became clear there would surely be change. The world had been alerted, the worst could indeed be averted. The RCP8.5 scenario was, some said, of no great help. It has even been described as “extreme, alarmist and ‘misleading’.”

Implications for 2100

Sadly, it may not be. Dr Schwalm and his colleagues looked at cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2005. By 2020, the emissions matched the “business as usual” or RCP8.5 predictions very closely.

They then extended the trends to 2030, and to 2050, with the same outcome. That means that – by the end of the century – the planet could be 3.3°C to 5.4°C warmer than it was at the launch of the Industrial Revolution and the worldwide switch to fossil fuels. In which case, the worst-case scenario would remain on the table as a useful risk assessment tool.

“The implied probability of occurrence similar to RCP8.5 even at the end of the century is large enough to merit its continued use,” the scientists write.

“RCP8.5 has continued utility, both as an instrument to explore mean outcomes as well as risk. Indeed, if RCP8.5 did not exist, we’d have to create it.” – Climate News Network