Tag Archives: Political action

Iceland put people first to save melting economy

Faced in 2008 with a melting economy, Iceland acted fast to avoid total collapse. Icelanders’ own needs were its priority.

LONDON, 27 November, 2019 − What can you do if you’re a smallish island in the North Atlantic with a lot of snow and a melting economy? Quite a lot, it turns out, if you’re prepared to put local people’s needs first.

Iceland was hailed recently for erecting a memorial plaque to one of its most striking features, Okjökull, which shrank so drastically because of climate breakdown that it lost its status as a glacier. It was the first in Iceland to do so, and is now known, fittingly, by a diminutive, as Ok.

Barely 10 years ago, when the country was in the grip of a different crisis, the pace of its far from glacial response showed how quickly rapid changes of government policy can turn a crisis around.

Iceland was at the heart of the global financial crisis in late 2008 and was nearly destroyed by it; 97% of its banking sector collapsed in just three days. its three largest banks − Glitnir, Kaupthing and Landsbankinn − had accumulated a debt of $85 billion (£66bn), equivalent to 10 times the country’s national income (GDP), or 20 times the national budget.

These losses amounted to $330,000 for every man, woman and child on the island, whose stock market then collapsed, with huge numbers of businesses going bankrupt. Iceland approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency aid − the first western country to do so since 1976 − and obtained a loan of $2.1bn (£1.4bn).

“It is possible that the Icelandic way of governing also played a part. Was their natural reflex to protect the many, rather than the few?”

So how did it manage to survive? First, it allowed a default on the $85bn in debt accumulated by the banks. A new national mood set in, creating lasting conditions for change and the desire for new economic approaches.

Other countries had largely let banks off the hook, but in 2015 Iceland’s Supreme Court upheld convictions against bankers at the heart of the crisis. Finance is now so sensitive that when the Prime Minister was caught up in revelations from the release of the so-called Panama Papers, he was forced from office.

The debts are now largely paid off, but most multinational businesses have left Iceland, for fear of the capital controls. A huge expansion in tourism has rescued the nation’s economy, though average wages are now much lower.

The government protected Icelanders’ bank deposits and forgave debts for a quarter of the population. As Bloomberg News reported in 2012, “Iceland’s approach to dealing with the meltdown has put the needs of its population ahead of the markets at every turn.”

The Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA), a global initiative which aims to learn from rapid change to address urgent environmental problems, believes Iceland’s way of extricating itself quickly from the global crisis has lessons for other countries, some of which are still paying a heavy price for the events of 2008 and the way they reacted.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that individual countries cannot independently follow radically different economic policy and control capital flows, says the RTA, Iceland shows they can, and quickly;

Radical change can usher in a virtuous circle, by becoming a habit: once you’ve started, new opportunities may open up for yet more change;

And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the Alliance says, it is possible to put people before the demands of financial markets and still run a successful economy. Citizen engagement and economic reform can go hand in hand.

Iceland’s economy had thrived on speculative finance but, after the meltdown, rather than making the public pay for the crisis, as the Nobel economist Paul Krugman points out, Iceland “let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net”. Instead of placating financial markets, it introduced temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to manoeuvre.

Following this, a “pots and pans” revolution kick-started a process that led to a new citizen-drafted constitution, which succeeded in engaging half the electorate.

The constitutional exercise proposed a new approach to the ownership of natural resources for the public good, which has had a lasting effect on the country’s choices: all its electricity and heat today comes from renewable sources, and transparency has become a central part of Icelandic public life.

The RTA thinks there were several key factors that enabled such rapid and fundamental change: the extent to which the economic system was irreparably damaged; the decision by the government to respond to the people’s demands and not to those of the banks; and the decision to punish those at fault and start anew.

It concludes: “It is possible that the Icelandic way of governing also played a part, because they have a longstanding history of deeply embedded democracy and a culture that discourages hierarchy. Was their natural reflex to protect the many, rather than the few?” − 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.

Faced in 2008 with a melting economy, Iceland acted fast to avoid total collapse. Icelanders’ own needs were its priority.

LONDON, 27 November, 2019 − What can you do if you’re a smallish island in the North Atlantic with a lot of snow and a melting economy? Quite a lot, it turns out, if you’re prepared to put local people’s needs first.

Iceland was hailed recently for erecting a memorial plaque to one of its most striking features, Okjökull, which shrank so drastically because of climate breakdown that it lost its status as a glacier. It was the first in Iceland to do so, and is now known, fittingly, by a diminutive, as Ok.

Barely 10 years ago, when the country was in the grip of a different crisis, the pace of its far from glacial response showed how quickly rapid changes of government policy can turn a crisis around.

Iceland was at the heart of the global financial crisis in late 2008 and was nearly destroyed by it; 97% of its banking sector collapsed in just three days. its three largest banks − Glitnir, Kaupthing and Landsbankinn − had accumulated a debt of $85 billion (£66bn), equivalent to 10 times the country’s national income (GDP), or 20 times the national budget.

These losses amounted to $330,000 for every man, woman and child on the island, whose stock market then collapsed, with huge numbers of businesses going bankrupt. Iceland approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency aid − the first western country to do so since 1976 − and obtained a loan of $2.1bn (£1.4bn).

“It is possible that the Icelandic way of governing also played a part. Was their natural reflex to protect the many, rather than the few?”

So how did it manage to survive? First, it allowed a default on the $85bn in debt accumulated by the banks. A new national mood set in, creating lasting conditions for change and the desire for new economic approaches.

Other countries had largely let banks off the hook, but in 2015 Iceland’s Supreme Court upheld convictions against bankers at the heart of the crisis. Finance is now so sensitive that when the Prime Minister was caught up in revelations from the release of the so-called Panama Papers, he was forced from office.

The debts are now largely paid off, but most multinational businesses have left Iceland, for fear of the capital controls. A huge expansion in tourism has rescued the nation’s economy, though average wages are now much lower.

The government protected Icelanders’ bank deposits and forgave debts for a quarter of the population. As Bloomberg News reported in 2012, “Iceland’s approach to dealing with the meltdown has put the needs of its population ahead of the markets at every turn.”

The Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA), a global initiative which aims to learn from rapid change to address urgent environmental problems, believes Iceland’s way of extricating itself quickly from the global crisis has lessons for other countries, some of which are still paying a heavy price for the events of 2008 and the way they reacted.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that individual countries cannot independently follow radically different economic policy and control capital flows, says the RTA, Iceland shows they can, and quickly;

Radical change can usher in a virtuous circle, by becoming a habit: once you’ve started, new opportunities may open up for yet more change;

And, perhaps most surprisingly of all, the Alliance says, it is possible to put people before the demands of financial markets and still run a successful economy. Citizen engagement and economic reform can go hand in hand.

Iceland’s economy had thrived on speculative finance but, after the meltdown, rather than making the public pay for the crisis, as the Nobel economist Paul Krugman points out, Iceland “let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net”. Instead of placating financial markets, it introduced temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to manoeuvre.

Following this, a “pots and pans” revolution kick-started a process that led to a new citizen-drafted constitution, which succeeded in engaging half the electorate.

The constitutional exercise proposed a new approach to the ownership of natural resources for the public good, which has had a lasting effect on the country’s choices: all its electricity and heat today comes from renewable sources, and transparency has become a central part of Icelandic public life.

The RTA thinks there were several key factors that enabled such rapid and fundamental change: the extent to which the economic system was irreparably damaged; the decision by the government to respond to the people’s demands and not to those of the banks; and the decision to punish those at fault and start anew.

It concludes: “It is possible that the Icelandic way of governing also played a part, because they have a longstanding history of deeply embedded democracy and a culture that discourages hierarchy. Was their natural reflex to protect the many, rather than the few?” − 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.

Scientists’ climate gap is narrowing

A poll shows scientists’ climate gap is shrinking − between their work on climate change and their own response to it..

LONDON, 18 November, 2019 − There’s evidence that a scientists’ climate gap − a hesitation to reflect their findings in their personal lives − is diminishing, with significant changes under way in individuals’ behaviour.

The world’s climate scientists spend their working lives establishing what is happening as the world heats up. They tell the rest of us the facts they discover so that we can decide how to respond. But how they respond themselves is a telling indicator of how concerned they are − and how worried we should be.

A poll of scientists − many working in fields related to the climate emergency – reveals a gap between awareness of international climate goals, and action to change lifestyles so as to reflect them. But there are signs that science professionals are starting to make radical shifts in their behaviour.

The poll, detailed in a new briefing, Scientists Behaving Responsibly, was published to mark a conference on 16 November in London, Scientists behaving responsibly: should science walk the talk on climate breakdown?, organised by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)..

SGR acknowledges that it was a small exercise, a straw poll disseminated to specialist scientific audiences including its own membership and those who follow the international climate negotiations. There were 153 responses.

“Be alarmed; be very alarmed. But don’t let alarm feed inertia. Use it instead to galvanise action. For your children’s and their children’s sake, stand up and do something about it”

The poll found that nearly one in three respondents are choosing not to have children. More than one in three already reject flying, with that number pledged to increase to nearly half (48%).

While 87% of respondents said they had considered the implications of the climate goals for their own lives, only around half (52%), thought their lives were aligned with the goals. 71% thought the response of the sector in which they work on the climate emergency was either unsatisfactory, or highly unsatisfactory

Over one in three (38%) do not own a car and rarely use one, and the number planning to take “very serious” steps to reduce the impact of their car use is rising “dramatically”.

Nearly three-quarters (72%) say they are adopting largely plant-based diets, and 13% are vegans. 76% say they are turning their backs on new consumer goods, choosing fewer items and second-hand ones and long-term repair options instead.

Systemic change needed

“Meeting agreed international emissions targets and preventing climate breakdown needs systemic and behavioural change”, says Andrew Simms, assistant director of SGR. “Nearly two-thirds of the changes needed to meet the UK national zero carbon target have been officially recognised as involving societal and behavioural change.

“This poll shows scientists starting to make big life changes to walk the talk on climate breakdown, including getting involved in protest.

“Research on behaviour change shows that seeing people act differently matters. It is hugely influential in persuading others to make changes, creating a positive ‘social contagion’ effect.

“However, many behaviour changes are shaped by the energy, food and transport systems we live within, and the lack of easily available low carbon alternatives was cited as the biggest obstacle to change.”

Lobbyists’ billions

One of the speakers at the London conference was Farhana Yamin, an international climate change lawyer. She tweeted: “So many climate initiatives fail because of the vast lobbying power of vested interests. The oil majors spent US$1billion since the Paris climate talks [in 2015] on greenwash and lobbying. That’s why I broke the law and glued myself to Shell.”

Another speaker was Bill McGuire, Professor Emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at University College London. In a recent blog, An alarmist’s guide to climate change, he called for “some healthy and realistic alarmism”.

He ended: “Be alarmed; be very alarmed. But don’t let alarm feed inertia. Use it instead to galvanise action. For your children’s and their children’s sake, stand up and do something about it.

”Drastically change your lifestyle; become an activist; vote into power a government that will walk the walk on climate change, not just talk the talk. Or – preferably – all three.” − Climate News Network

A poll shows scientists’ climate gap is shrinking − between their work on climate change and their own response to it..

LONDON, 18 November, 2019 − There’s evidence that a scientists’ climate gap − a hesitation to reflect their findings in their personal lives − is diminishing, with significant changes under way in individuals’ behaviour.

The world’s climate scientists spend their working lives establishing what is happening as the world heats up. They tell the rest of us the facts they discover so that we can decide how to respond. But how they respond themselves is a telling indicator of how concerned they are − and how worried we should be.

A poll of scientists − many working in fields related to the climate emergency – reveals a gap between awareness of international climate goals, and action to change lifestyles so as to reflect them. But there are signs that science professionals are starting to make radical shifts in their behaviour.

The poll, detailed in a new briefing, Scientists Behaving Responsibly, was published to mark a conference on 16 November in London, Scientists behaving responsibly: should science walk the talk on climate breakdown?, organised by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)..

SGR acknowledges that it was a small exercise, a straw poll disseminated to specialist scientific audiences including its own membership and those who follow the international climate negotiations. There were 153 responses.

“Be alarmed; be very alarmed. But don’t let alarm feed inertia. Use it instead to galvanise action. For your children’s and their children’s sake, stand up and do something about it”

The poll found that nearly one in three respondents are choosing not to have children. More than one in three already reject flying, with that number pledged to increase to nearly half (48%).

While 87% of respondents said they had considered the implications of the climate goals for their own lives, only around half (52%), thought their lives were aligned with the goals. 71% thought the response of the sector in which they work on the climate emergency was either unsatisfactory, or highly unsatisfactory

Over one in three (38%) do not own a car and rarely use one, and the number planning to take “very serious” steps to reduce the impact of their car use is rising “dramatically”.

Nearly three-quarters (72%) say they are adopting largely plant-based diets, and 13% are vegans. 76% say they are turning their backs on new consumer goods, choosing fewer items and second-hand ones and long-term repair options instead.

Systemic change needed

“Meeting agreed international emissions targets and preventing climate breakdown needs systemic and behavioural change”, says Andrew Simms, assistant director of SGR. “Nearly two-thirds of the changes needed to meet the UK national zero carbon target have been officially recognised as involving societal and behavioural change.

“This poll shows scientists starting to make big life changes to walk the talk on climate breakdown, including getting involved in protest.

“Research on behaviour change shows that seeing people act differently matters. It is hugely influential in persuading others to make changes, creating a positive ‘social contagion’ effect.

“However, many behaviour changes are shaped by the energy, food and transport systems we live within, and the lack of easily available low carbon alternatives was cited as the biggest obstacle to change.”

Lobbyists’ billions

One of the speakers at the London conference was Farhana Yamin, an international climate change lawyer. She tweeted: “So many climate initiatives fail because of the vast lobbying power of vested interests. The oil majors spent US$1billion since the Paris climate talks [in 2015] on greenwash and lobbying. That’s why I broke the law and glued myself to Shell.”

Another speaker was Bill McGuire, Professor Emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at University College London. In a recent blog, An alarmist’s guide to climate change, he called for “some healthy and realistic alarmism”.

He ended: “Be alarmed; be very alarmed. But don’t let alarm feed inertia. Use it instead to galvanise action. For your children’s and their children’s sake, stand up and do something about it.

”Drastically change your lifestyle; become an activist; vote into power a government that will walk the walk on climate change, not just talk the talk. Or – preferably – all three.” − Climate News Network

New-borns face multiple climate health risks

Multiple climate health risks threaten today’s babies. They may grow up hungrier, more diseased and facing more pollution and danger. But there’s hope.

LONDON,15 November, 2018 – Today’s world is not a welcoming place for babies, who – across the globe – face multiple climate health risks.

On present trends, any new-born today is likely to live in a world 4°C hotter than it has been all through human history.

On present trends, climate change will affect infant health by reducing the yield and nutritional value of maize, wheat, soybean and rice, to stunt growth and weaken immune systems.

Older children will be at increasing risk from climate-related diseases such as cholera and dengue fever, and adolescents will be at increasing risk from toxic air, driven by fossil fuel combustion and ever-higher temperatures.

And then throughout their lives, today’s newly-borns will be at hazard from increasingly severe floods, prolonged droughts and wildfires.

“This year, the accelerating impacts of climate change have become clearer than ever,” said Hugh Montgomery, who directs the Institute for Human Health and Performance at University College London.

“The world has yet to see a response from governments that matches the unprecedented scale of the challenge facing the next generation”

“The highest recorded temperatures in Western Europe and wildfires in Siberia, Queensland and California triggered asthma, respiratory infections and heat stroke. Sea levels are now rising at an ever-concerning rate. Our children recognise this climate emergency and demand action to protect them. We must listen, and respond.”

Professor Montgomery is a co-chair of the Lancet Countdown, which has assessed research from 120 experts in 35 global institutions on health damage from climate change and the lifelong health consequences of rising temperatures.

The Lancet is one of the world’s oldest and most distinguished medical journals and has already published three important studies of the  challenge of climate change in terms of nutrition, diet and the effect of extreme temperatures on human health.

The latest study compares a world in which governments everywhere fulfil a promise made in Paris in 2015 and contain global heating by the century’s end to a rise of “well below” 2°C, or follow the notorious “business as usual” scenario in which developing economies burn ever more fossil fuels and ratchet up global temperatures to potentially catastrophic levels.

The new study looks at the available indicators and warns that climate change driven by global heating is already damaging the health of the world’s children and will shape the wellbeing of an entire generation unless the Paris targets are met.

Targets receding

Right now, average planetary temperatures have already risen by 1°C in the last century and the latest analysis of national plans to reduce fossil fuel use suggest that the Paris targets will not be met.

And climate change has begun to take its toll. In the last 30 years the average global yield potential of maize has shrunk by 4%, of winter wheat by 6%, of soybean by 3% and rice by 4%: this alone makes more infants vulnerable to malnutrition and rising food prices.

Eight of the ten hottest years ever recorded have happened in the last decade, and this heating has been driven by fossil fuel use: every second the world burns 171,000 kg of coal, 186,000 litres of oil and 11,600,000 litres of gas.

Nine of the 10 most suitable years for the transmission of dengue fever – carried by the mosquito – have happened since the turn of the century. Last year was the second most suitable year on record for the spread of the bacteria that cause diarrhoeal disease and wound infection.

In 2016, deaths from outdoor air pollution were set at around 2.9 million; of these, 440,000 were from coal alone. The share of global energy from coal actually rose by 1.7% between 2016 and 2018.

Better future possible

And the journal also records a rise in extreme weather events: out of 196 countries, 152 experienced an increase in citizens exposed to wildfires since the first four years of the century; and a record 220 million more citizens over the age of 65 were exposed to heatwaves in 2018, compared with 2000. This is an increase of 63m just on 2017.

In 2018, compared with 2000, heat extremes cost the world’s economies a potential 45 billion hours of additional work: in the hottest month, outdoor agricultural workers and construction teams lost as much as 20% of potential daylight working hours.

But, the Lancet Countdown experts say, if the world did fulfil its Paris Agreement promise, then any child born today would grow up on a planet that had reached net zero carbon emissions by their 31st birthday: there would be a healthier future for coming generations.

“The climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to the health of humanity today, but the world has yet to see a response from governments that matches the unprecedented scale of the challenge facing the next generation,” said Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet.

“With the full force of the Paris Agreement due to be implemented, we can’t afford this level of disengagement. The clinical, global health and research community needs to come together now and challenge our leaders.” – Climate News Network

Multiple climate health risks threaten today’s babies. They may grow up hungrier, more diseased and facing more pollution and danger. But there’s hope.

LONDON,15 November, 2018 – Today’s world is not a welcoming place for babies, who – across the globe – face multiple climate health risks.

On present trends, any new-born today is likely to live in a world 4°C hotter than it has been all through human history.

On present trends, climate change will affect infant health by reducing the yield and nutritional value of maize, wheat, soybean and rice, to stunt growth and weaken immune systems.

Older children will be at increasing risk from climate-related diseases such as cholera and dengue fever, and adolescents will be at increasing risk from toxic air, driven by fossil fuel combustion and ever-higher temperatures.

And then throughout their lives, today’s newly-borns will be at hazard from increasingly severe floods, prolonged droughts and wildfires.

“This year, the accelerating impacts of climate change have become clearer than ever,” said Hugh Montgomery, who directs the Institute for Human Health and Performance at University College London.

“The world has yet to see a response from governments that matches the unprecedented scale of the challenge facing the next generation”

“The highest recorded temperatures in Western Europe and wildfires in Siberia, Queensland and California triggered asthma, respiratory infections and heat stroke. Sea levels are now rising at an ever-concerning rate. Our children recognise this climate emergency and demand action to protect them. We must listen, and respond.”

Professor Montgomery is a co-chair of the Lancet Countdown, which has assessed research from 120 experts in 35 global institutions on health damage from climate change and the lifelong health consequences of rising temperatures.

The Lancet is one of the world’s oldest and most distinguished medical journals and has already published three important studies of the  challenge of climate change in terms of nutrition, diet and the effect of extreme temperatures on human health.

The latest study compares a world in which governments everywhere fulfil a promise made in Paris in 2015 and contain global heating by the century’s end to a rise of “well below” 2°C, or follow the notorious “business as usual” scenario in which developing economies burn ever more fossil fuels and ratchet up global temperatures to potentially catastrophic levels.

The new study looks at the available indicators and warns that climate change driven by global heating is already damaging the health of the world’s children and will shape the wellbeing of an entire generation unless the Paris targets are met.

Targets receding

Right now, average planetary temperatures have already risen by 1°C in the last century and the latest analysis of national plans to reduce fossil fuel use suggest that the Paris targets will not be met.

And climate change has begun to take its toll. In the last 30 years the average global yield potential of maize has shrunk by 4%, of winter wheat by 6%, of soybean by 3% and rice by 4%: this alone makes more infants vulnerable to malnutrition and rising food prices.

Eight of the ten hottest years ever recorded have happened in the last decade, and this heating has been driven by fossil fuel use: every second the world burns 171,000 kg of coal, 186,000 litres of oil and 11,600,000 litres of gas.

Nine of the 10 most suitable years for the transmission of dengue fever – carried by the mosquito – have happened since the turn of the century. Last year was the second most suitable year on record for the spread of the bacteria that cause diarrhoeal disease and wound infection.

In 2016, deaths from outdoor air pollution were set at around 2.9 million; of these, 440,000 were from coal alone. The share of global energy from coal actually rose by 1.7% between 2016 and 2018.

Better future possible

And the journal also records a rise in extreme weather events: out of 196 countries, 152 experienced an increase in citizens exposed to wildfires since the first four years of the century; and a record 220 million more citizens over the age of 65 were exposed to heatwaves in 2018, compared with 2000. This is an increase of 63m just on 2017.

In 2018, compared with 2000, heat extremes cost the world’s economies a potential 45 billion hours of additional work: in the hottest month, outdoor agricultural workers and construction teams lost as much as 20% of potential daylight working hours.

But, the Lancet Countdown experts say, if the world did fulfil its Paris Agreement promise, then any child born today would grow up on a planet that had reached net zero carbon emissions by their 31st birthday: there would be a healthier future for coming generations.

“The climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to the health of humanity today, but the world has yet to see a response from governments that matches the unprecedented scale of the challenge facing the next generation,” said Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet.

“With the full force of the Paris Agreement due to be implemented, we can’t afford this level of disengagement. The clinical, global health and research community needs to come together now and challenge our leaders.” – Climate News Network

Rebellion grows against climate emergency

Global protestors disrupt traffic and target government buildings to protest at the lack of action to halt the climate emergency.

LONDON, 8 October, 2019 − This city yesterday re-echoed to the sound of dozens of drums beating outside Downing Street, the prime minister’s official residence, as thousands of protestors closed down London to warn the UK government it faces rebellion over the climate emergency and the plight of the natural world.

In 23 major cities across the planet the global movement known as Extinction Rebellion has begun two weeks of disruption intended to show governments that citizens are not satisfied with their actions to curb climate change and to protect wild species.

An extraordinary range of people with a variety of causes all linked to climate change crowded into London’s Trafalgar Square and other streets around Parliament.

Watched by bemused Chinese tourists attempting to take in London’s attractions, key road junctions and bridges were blockaded at 10 am by protestors sitting in the road. The Metropolitan Police arrested 280 demonstrators in the course of the day, although in most places they made no attempt to intervene.

With thousands of protestors trained in non-violent direct action and preparing to be arrested, the police clearly decided not to try to stop them. Instead they stood in front of the entrance to prime minister Boris Johnson’s house in Downing Street and protected the entrances to nearby government buildings.

“A lot of the time it felt like banging your head on a brick wall – now, after 40 years, it is so nice to see something is happening, something that could not be ignored”

Handing out leaflets entitled: “It’s time to tell the truth”, the protestors stressed their key message: “We are in trouble. Sea levels are rising. Heatwaves are killing crops. The Arctic is melting, and Africa and the Amazon are on fire.”

Although the atmosphere was friendly there was no doubt about the determination of those taking part. There were young mothers with children. Italian Monia Salvini, in Trafalgar Square, was carrying her six-month-old daughter Delia.

She had travelled from her home in east London and said she was there because she feared for her daughter’s future − “but I am not doing it just for her, I am doing it for everybody.”

She had first learned about the climate crisis a year ago, and the more she read the more she realised how urgent it was and how little governments were doing about it. “I thought as soon as my pregnancy is over I must do something.”

There were many homemade placards: “Choose Extinction or Rebellion”, “We can’t eat money, we can’t drink oil”, “Mars for the Privileged, Earth for the Poor”, and “We must rise before the tides.”

Next generation

Sarah, who did not want to give her surname, had travelled overnight by train from Edinburgh with her eight-month-old son and carried a notice reading: “Failure to Grasp Science is not an argument against it.” She said that, while the US and Brazilian governments were a disgrace, the United Kingdom led by Boris Johnson was just as bad “because after his government declared a climate emergency he has taken no action to do anything about it.”

There was a hearse across the road blocking the entrance to Whitehall. It held a coffin covered in flowers, and protestors dressed as undertakers. Trained protestors, ready for arrest, lay in the road beside it, but rather than attempt to move them police directed traffic to turn round.

Most drivers were good-humoured about the disruption to their day even though some were caught in traffic jams for over an hour. More vocal were some taxi drivers who shouted expletives at both the protestors and the police.

Outside Downing Street was a large number of people demanding a Citizen’s Assembly, an idea already being tried in Ireland, France, and in some English cities like Oxford.

A key demand of Extinction Rebellion, the idea is to recruit a cross-section of the population, “ordinary people selected at random”, to learn about climate change from experts and then decide together what should be done about it.

Destined to grow

The assemblies, which would undertake to have “no party politics, no short-term election thinking and no hidden money”, would recommend to governments the best way to get out of the climate crisis.

Among the protestors was 66-year-old Steve Morton, from High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, “hardly a hotbed of the revolution.” A veteran environmental campaigner for Friends of the Earth for nearly 40 years, he said he had been trying “official channels” for all that time to get action on climate change.

“A lot of the time it felt like banging your head on a brick wall – now, after 40 years, it is so nice to see something is happening, something that could not be ignored.” He was particularly pleased to see that the vast majority of protestors were young people.

So far the police have made no comment on how long they will stand by while central London traffic is halted by the protests. It is not known either whether they have enough cells to hold the hundreds of demonstrators said to be ready for arrest.

What is clear is that the demonstrations are larger than the last set of disruptions in London in April, and better organised and financed. Like the school strikes begun by the Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, they seem destined to grow. − Climate News Network

Global protestors disrupt traffic and target government buildings to protest at the lack of action to halt the climate emergency.

LONDON, 8 October, 2019 − This city yesterday re-echoed to the sound of dozens of drums beating outside Downing Street, the prime minister’s official residence, as thousands of protestors closed down London to warn the UK government it faces rebellion over the climate emergency and the plight of the natural world.

In 23 major cities across the planet the global movement known as Extinction Rebellion has begun two weeks of disruption intended to show governments that citizens are not satisfied with their actions to curb climate change and to protect wild species.

An extraordinary range of people with a variety of causes all linked to climate change crowded into London’s Trafalgar Square and other streets around Parliament.

Watched by bemused Chinese tourists attempting to take in London’s attractions, key road junctions and bridges were blockaded at 10 am by protestors sitting in the road. The Metropolitan Police arrested 280 demonstrators in the course of the day, although in most places they made no attempt to intervene.

With thousands of protestors trained in non-violent direct action and preparing to be arrested, the police clearly decided not to try to stop them. Instead they stood in front of the entrance to prime minister Boris Johnson’s house in Downing Street and protected the entrances to nearby government buildings.

“A lot of the time it felt like banging your head on a brick wall – now, after 40 years, it is so nice to see something is happening, something that could not be ignored”

Handing out leaflets entitled: “It’s time to tell the truth”, the protestors stressed their key message: “We are in trouble. Sea levels are rising. Heatwaves are killing crops. The Arctic is melting, and Africa and the Amazon are on fire.”

Although the atmosphere was friendly there was no doubt about the determination of those taking part. There were young mothers with children. Italian Monia Salvini, in Trafalgar Square, was carrying her six-month-old daughter Delia.

She had travelled from her home in east London and said she was there because she feared for her daughter’s future − “but I am not doing it just for her, I am doing it for everybody.”

She had first learned about the climate crisis a year ago, and the more she read the more she realised how urgent it was and how little governments were doing about it. “I thought as soon as my pregnancy is over I must do something.”

There were many homemade placards: “Choose Extinction or Rebellion”, “We can’t eat money, we can’t drink oil”, “Mars for the Privileged, Earth for the Poor”, and “We must rise before the tides.”

Next generation

Sarah, who did not want to give her surname, had travelled overnight by train from Edinburgh with her eight-month-old son and carried a notice reading: “Failure to Grasp Science is not an argument against it.” She said that, while the US and Brazilian governments were a disgrace, the United Kingdom led by Boris Johnson was just as bad “because after his government declared a climate emergency he has taken no action to do anything about it.”

There was a hearse across the road blocking the entrance to Whitehall. It held a coffin covered in flowers, and protestors dressed as undertakers. Trained protestors, ready for arrest, lay in the road beside it, but rather than attempt to move them police directed traffic to turn round.

Most drivers were good-humoured about the disruption to their day even though some were caught in traffic jams for over an hour. More vocal were some taxi drivers who shouted expletives at both the protestors and the police.

Outside Downing Street was a large number of people demanding a Citizen’s Assembly, an idea already being tried in Ireland, France, and in some English cities like Oxford.

A key demand of Extinction Rebellion, the idea is to recruit a cross-section of the population, “ordinary people selected at random”, to learn about climate change from experts and then decide together what should be done about it.

Destined to grow

The assemblies, which would undertake to have “no party politics, no short-term election thinking and no hidden money”, would recommend to governments the best way to get out of the climate crisis.

Among the protestors was 66-year-old Steve Morton, from High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, “hardly a hotbed of the revolution.” A veteran environmental campaigner for Friends of the Earth for nearly 40 years, he said he had been trying “official channels” for all that time to get action on climate change.

“A lot of the time it felt like banging your head on a brick wall – now, after 40 years, it is so nice to see something is happening, something that could not be ignored.” He was particularly pleased to see that the vast majority of protestors were young people.

So far the police have made no comment on how long they will stand by while central London traffic is halted by the protests. It is not known either whether they have enough cells to hold the hundreds of demonstrators said to be ready for arrest.

What is clear is that the demonstrations are larger than the last set of disruptions in London in April, and better organised and financed. Like the school strikes begun by the Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, they seem destined to grow. − Climate News Network

Nuclear war could ruin Earth and leave only losers

As the potential for nuclear war in Asia hots up, scientists have chilling news for those far from the battleground: we will all suffer.

LONDON, 3 October, 2019 − Nobody can emerge from a nuclear war as a winner, says a US team of scientists, and the planet they inherit may be ravaged by mass starvation.

Their scenario is stark. The year is 2025, they suggest. A dangerous tension has grown more dangerous with the years and suddenly India and Pakistan begin a nuclear exchange. The outcome? More people will die almost immediately than were killed in the entire Second World War.

And the global climate inevitably will feel the heat of the exchange. Up to 36 million tonnes of smoke and soot from subcontinental cities incinerated by even modest nuclear warheads will be blasted high into the upper atmosphere, spread around the globe and darken the skies.

Planetary average temperatures will drop by at least 2°C and by as much as 5°C, and for the next 10 years regional temperatures could plummet to levels characteristic of the last Ice Age. Rainfall will diminish by 15% to 30%, and so will the productivity of the oceans, terrestrial forests, grasslands and croplands.

Rapid build-up

This would be enough to trigger mass starvation around the rest of the globe, according to the scientists’ study, published in the journal Science Advances.

“Nine countries have nuclear weapons, but Pakistan and India are the only ones rapidly increasing their arsenals,” said Alan Robock, of Rutgers University in the US. “Because of the continuing unrest between these two nuclear-armed countries, particularly over Kashmir, it is important to understand the consequences of nuclear war.”

The world’s nuclear arsenal totals around 13,900 weapons: nine-tenths of them held by Russia and the United States. But Britain, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan are thought to have between 100 and 300 each, and none of these states is bound by treaties that require them to reveal the number of launchers or the number of warheads carried by missiles.

Of these states, Pakistan and India have a long history of military tension – including four conventional wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999, and a long history of claim and counter-claim to the territory of Kashmir.

“Nuclear weapons cannot be used in any rational scenario but could be used by accident or as a result of hacking, panic or deranged world leaders. The only way to prevent this is to eliminate them”

Professor Robock and nine other scientists, led by Owen Brian Toon of the University of Colorado at Boulder, consulted military and policy experts to develop a simple scenario of how a nuclear war might happen, and then made estimates of the likely yield of 250 weapons that might be used by both nations in the first week of conflict.

India has 400 cities with more than 100,000 people, and by 2025 Pakistan could have an arsenal big enough to attack two-thirds of them; Pakistan has about 60 such dense conurbations and India could react and hit all of them with two weapons each. The expected almost-immediate death toll would be between 50 million and 125 million.

The scientists examined accounts of the only time nuclear weapons were used in anger – over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945 – and made calculations of the impact of nuclear weaponry on brick and steel, cement and stone, pitch and tile, concluding that between 16 and 36 million tonnes of black carbon would rise into the upper atmosphere, spread around the planet and screen the sunlight, for up to a decade, to set up the conditions for poor harvests or no harvests, and severe food shortages.

“An India-Pakistan war could double the normal death rate in the world,” Professor Toon said. “This is a war that would have no precedent in human experience.”

Lesson from wildfires

This is not the first such study: in 2017 a group of scientists revived concerns about a potential “nuclear autumn” with deadly consequences that would follow a nuclear exchange.

In August this year Professor Robock and colleagues looked at the smoke from devastating Canadian wildfires in 2017 and used these as a lesson for the conflagration and clouds of smoke that would follow thermonuclear strikes on cities, with, once again, deadly consequences for parts of the world far from the conflict zone.

And Professor Toon was part of the team of scientists that – in 1983, around the most tense months of the Cold War – first developed the theory of “nuclear winter” that might follow all-out global thermonuclear war, to propose that there could be no winners, and no safe neutral zones, in such a conflict.

“Nuclear weapons cannot be used in any rational scenario but could be used by accident or as a result of hacking, panic or deranged world leaders,” Professor Robock said. “The only way to prevent this is to eliminate them.” − Climate News Network

As the potential for nuclear war in Asia hots up, scientists have chilling news for those far from the battleground: we will all suffer.

LONDON, 3 October, 2019 − Nobody can emerge from a nuclear war as a winner, says a US team of scientists, and the planet they inherit may be ravaged by mass starvation.

Their scenario is stark. The year is 2025, they suggest. A dangerous tension has grown more dangerous with the years and suddenly India and Pakistan begin a nuclear exchange. The outcome? More people will die almost immediately than were killed in the entire Second World War.

And the global climate inevitably will feel the heat of the exchange. Up to 36 million tonnes of smoke and soot from subcontinental cities incinerated by even modest nuclear warheads will be blasted high into the upper atmosphere, spread around the globe and darken the skies.

Planetary average temperatures will drop by at least 2°C and by as much as 5°C, and for the next 10 years regional temperatures could plummet to levels characteristic of the last Ice Age. Rainfall will diminish by 15% to 30%, and so will the productivity of the oceans, terrestrial forests, grasslands and croplands.

Rapid build-up

This would be enough to trigger mass starvation around the rest of the globe, according to the scientists’ study, published in the journal Science Advances.

“Nine countries have nuclear weapons, but Pakistan and India are the only ones rapidly increasing their arsenals,” said Alan Robock, of Rutgers University in the US. “Because of the continuing unrest between these two nuclear-armed countries, particularly over Kashmir, it is important to understand the consequences of nuclear war.”

The world’s nuclear arsenal totals around 13,900 weapons: nine-tenths of them held by Russia and the United States. But Britain, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan are thought to have between 100 and 300 each, and none of these states is bound by treaties that require them to reveal the number of launchers or the number of warheads carried by missiles.

Of these states, Pakistan and India have a long history of military tension – including four conventional wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999, and a long history of claim and counter-claim to the territory of Kashmir.

“Nuclear weapons cannot be used in any rational scenario but could be used by accident or as a result of hacking, panic or deranged world leaders. The only way to prevent this is to eliminate them”

Professor Robock and nine other scientists, led by Owen Brian Toon of the University of Colorado at Boulder, consulted military and policy experts to develop a simple scenario of how a nuclear war might happen, and then made estimates of the likely yield of 250 weapons that might be used by both nations in the first week of conflict.

India has 400 cities with more than 100,000 people, and by 2025 Pakistan could have an arsenal big enough to attack two-thirds of them; Pakistan has about 60 such dense conurbations and India could react and hit all of them with two weapons each. The expected almost-immediate death toll would be between 50 million and 125 million.

The scientists examined accounts of the only time nuclear weapons were used in anger – over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945 – and made calculations of the impact of nuclear weaponry on brick and steel, cement and stone, pitch and tile, concluding that between 16 and 36 million tonnes of black carbon would rise into the upper atmosphere, spread around the planet and screen the sunlight, for up to a decade, to set up the conditions for poor harvests or no harvests, and severe food shortages.

“An India-Pakistan war could double the normal death rate in the world,” Professor Toon said. “This is a war that would have no precedent in human experience.”

Lesson from wildfires

This is not the first such study: in 2017 a group of scientists revived concerns about a potential “nuclear autumn” with deadly consequences that would follow a nuclear exchange.

In August this year Professor Robock and colleagues looked at the smoke from devastating Canadian wildfires in 2017 and used these as a lesson for the conflagration and clouds of smoke that would follow thermonuclear strikes on cities, with, once again, deadly consequences for parts of the world far from the conflict zone.

And Professor Toon was part of the team of scientists that – in 1983, around the most tense months of the Cold War – first developed the theory of “nuclear winter” that might follow all-out global thermonuclear war, to propose that there could be no winners, and no safe neutral zones, in such a conflict.

“Nuclear weapons cannot be used in any rational scenario but could be used by accident or as a result of hacking, panic or deranged world leaders,” Professor Robock said. “The only way to prevent this is to eliminate them.” − Climate News Network

Scientists need to learn from the young

Global climate strike meets global scientific hero Alexander von Humboldt – and this time scientists must start to learn from the young.

BERLIN, 23 September, 2019 − The first global climate strike has begun: a strike inspired by Greta Thunberg and led by pupils and students, with scholars, lecturers and researchers trailing in their wake − and recognising their need to learn from the young.

Global youth demands social and environmental justice, a future worth living and decisive political action instead of more hot air. “What is the point of school,” they say, “if we have no future planet?”

Their simple, clear and true message, delivered with cool detachment, is that politicians should finally take science and its findings on climate change and the destruction of nature seriously and gear up their actions accordingly.

At the same time we celebrate Alexander von Humboldt. Born 250 years ago, he was the first globally networked, politically active German natural scientist. In his time he was revered in the Americas, Russia, the UK, France and elsewhere in Europe.

We celebrate because he was a remarkable, enlightened, far-sighted and highly intelligent interdisciplinary scientist. In the early 19th century he warned of the dangers of man-made climate change. He had observed the effect of the destruction of nature and the resulting climate shift first-hand while exploring in South America.

“All is interaction,” he wrote in his 1803 Mexican travel diary. Within the space of a few days we have celebrated von Humboldt’s 250th birthday (he was born in Berlin on 14 September 1769), the German Federal Government has announced sweeping climate action, and we have witnessed the first global climate strike.

“Our direct dialogue with tens of thousands of visitors gives me hope − that society will go along with the science. The time for deep change is now”

Praise, rage, disappointment, street demonstrations and heated parliamentary discourse are to be expected. Governmental power meets street protest, and scientific findings are the driver.

“Climate crisis is the greatest-ever threat to human rights,” the UN warns,  and the climate and biodiversity reports by UN bodies such as the IPCC and IPBES all paint a clear picture – we are endangering civilization, we need deep political change, we cannot economically discount nature any longer.

We urgently need political decisions in line with scientific findings. Otherwise I fear the street protests by Europe’s youth are just the beginning.

Science needs to change in three ways: to become open, to engage with society and to think across the disciplines. Why has its voice not been heard? Why does it need a 16-year-old Swedish girl as a champion? Science likes to focus on excellence. Now dialogue, impact and relevance are to be added.

Science must learn to listen, open up and again become part of the community. Science needs to be democratised, in the spirit of Darwin and Humboldt. Such a transformation of science will cost time and money, including the restructuring of the incentive systems in science itself.

Open and Citizen Science must be strengthened nationally and globally. Knowledge-based solutions can succeed only in cooperation with society, and science urgently has to re-invent itself in line with the Open Science Agenda of the European Union.

Science must change

But leaving the ivory tower will not be enough; science needs to break its self-imposed barriers and become more interdisciplinary. Glaciologists and botanists, oceanographers and atmospheric physicists, meteorologists and ichthyologists − all confront the same global emergency.

Climate research without the biodiversity and ecosystem factor makes almost no sense. Comprehensive earth–biosphere systems research, in the spirit of Darwin and Humboldt, can help us to manage our planet in a sustainable manner.

Science, society and policy must develop positive perspectives and ideas for a common future. We cannot afford to leave the discourse to a small group of committed climate change deniers, and we cannot surrender our planet and our democracy by clinging to “business as usual”.

A strong reduction in climate-damaging greenhouse gases must be coupled with honest public dialogue in order to achieve the broadest possible support. Environmental and climate-damaging subsidies, deeply embedded in agriculture, energy and transport policies, must come to an end. This money (estimated at some €30 billion annually − £26.6bn − in Germany alone) should be earmarked for investment in research, innovation, dialogue and the sharing of climate-friendly technologies.

Europe can rise to these challenges, can become the global green
market leader, can strengthen the democratic knowledge society and can live up to the pioneering role it developed during the Enlightenment.

Society needs to be involved in decision-making, and in open and transparent knowledge generation processes. If openness, in-depth dialogue and transparency are guaranteed, this will also be politically possible.

Opening the doors

As a research institute and public space/museum, we play our part. Since March 2019, every Friday afternoon and after the demonstrations, the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin becomes a much-appreciated forum for pupils and students to talk to scientists about climate change, biodiversity and possible solutions.

Science, art and dialogue also meet the exhibition Artefacts, developed together with the Joint Research Centre of the EU and the photo artist Henry Fair.

“Follow the science” is the simple message that links Alexander von Humboldt, the global scientific community, Greta Thunberg and the global climate action youth movement, I believe.

“Our direct dialogue with tens of thousands of visitors to the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin gives me hope − that society will go along with the science. The time for deep change is now.” − Climate News Network

* * * * * * *

Johannes Vogel is director general of the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Research, and Professor of Biodiversity and Public Science at Humboldt University in Berlin.

Global climate strike meets global scientific hero Alexander von Humboldt – and this time scientists must start to learn from the young.

BERLIN, 23 September, 2019 − The first global climate strike has begun: a strike inspired by Greta Thunberg and led by pupils and students, with scholars, lecturers and researchers trailing in their wake − and recognising their need to learn from the young.

Global youth demands social and environmental justice, a future worth living and decisive political action instead of more hot air. “What is the point of school,” they say, “if we have no future planet?”

Their simple, clear and true message, delivered with cool detachment, is that politicians should finally take science and its findings on climate change and the destruction of nature seriously and gear up their actions accordingly.

At the same time we celebrate Alexander von Humboldt. Born 250 years ago, he was the first globally networked, politically active German natural scientist. In his time he was revered in the Americas, Russia, the UK, France and elsewhere in Europe.

We celebrate because he was a remarkable, enlightened, far-sighted and highly intelligent interdisciplinary scientist. In the early 19th century he warned of the dangers of man-made climate change. He had observed the effect of the destruction of nature and the resulting climate shift first-hand while exploring in South America.

“All is interaction,” he wrote in his 1803 Mexican travel diary. Within the space of a few days we have celebrated von Humboldt’s 250th birthday (he was born in Berlin on 14 September 1769), the German Federal Government has announced sweeping climate action, and we have witnessed the first global climate strike.

“Our direct dialogue with tens of thousands of visitors gives me hope − that society will go along with the science. The time for deep change is now”

Praise, rage, disappointment, street demonstrations and heated parliamentary discourse are to be expected. Governmental power meets street protest, and scientific findings are the driver.

“Climate crisis is the greatest-ever threat to human rights,” the UN warns,  and the climate and biodiversity reports by UN bodies such as the IPCC and IPBES all paint a clear picture – we are endangering civilization, we need deep political change, we cannot economically discount nature any longer.

We urgently need political decisions in line with scientific findings. Otherwise I fear the street protests by Europe’s youth are just the beginning.

Science needs to change in three ways: to become open, to engage with society and to think across the disciplines. Why has its voice not been heard? Why does it need a 16-year-old Swedish girl as a champion? Science likes to focus on excellence. Now dialogue, impact and relevance are to be added.

Science must learn to listen, open up and again become part of the community. Science needs to be democratised, in the spirit of Darwin and Humboldt. Such a transformation of science will cost time and money, including the restructuring of the incentive systems in science itself.

Open and Citizen Science must be strengthened nationally and globally. Knowledge-based solutions can succeed only in cooperation with society, and science urgently has to re-invent itself in line with the Open Science Agenda of the European Union.

Science must change

But leaving the ivory tower will not be enough; science needs to break its self-imposed barriers and become more interdisciplinary. Glaciologists and botanists, oceanographers and atmospheric physicists, meteorologists and ichthyologists − all confront the same global emergency.

Climate research without the biodiversity and ecosystem factor makes almost no sense. Comprehensive earth–biosphere systems research, in the spirit of Darwin and Humboldt, can help us to manage our planet in a sustainable manner.

Science, society and policy must develop positive perspectives and ideas for a common future. We cannot afford to leave the discourse to a small group of committed climate change deniers, and we cannot surrender our planet and our democracy by clinging to “business as usual”.

A strong reduction in climate-damaging greenhouse gases must be coupled with honest public dialogue in order to achieve the broadest possible support. Environmental and climate-damaging subsidies, deeply embedded in agriculture, energy and transport policies, must come to an end. This money (estimated at some €30 billion annually − £26.6bn − in Germany alone) should be earmarked for investment in research, innovation, dialogue and the sharing of climate-friendly technologies.

Europe can rise to these challenges, can become the global green
market leader, can strengthen the democratic knowledge society and can live up to the pioneering role it developed during the Enlightenment.

Society needs to be involved in decision-making, and in open and transparent knowledge generation processes. If openness, in-depth dialogue and transparency are guaranteed, this will also be politically possible.

Opening the doors

As a research institute and public space/museum, we play our part. Since March 2019, every Friday afternoon and after the demonstrations, the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin becomes a much-appreciated forum for pupils and students to talk to scientists about climate change, biodiversity and possible solutions.

Science, art and dialogue also meet the exhibition Artefacts, developed together with the Joint Research Centre of the EU and the photo artist Henry Fair.

“Follow the science” is the simple message that links Alexander von Humboldt, the global scientific community, Greta Thunberg and the global climate action youth movement, I believe.

“Our direct dialogue with tens of thousands of visitors to the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin gives me hope − that society will go along with the science. The time for deep change is now.” − Climate News Network

* * * * * * *

Johannes Vogel is director general of the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Research, and Professor of Biodiversity and Public Science at Humboldt University in Berlin.

Scientists back global climate strike

20 September sees the start of a week-long youth-led global climate strike. Students will be voicing their demands for action − backed by many scientists.

LONDON, 20 September, 2019 − Leading scientists have declared their support for the global climate strike which starts today.

In a statement published by the Earth League, headed Humanity is Tipping the Scales of the World, 20 respected scientists throw their weight into the argument. Among a stellar company, they number Lord Nicholas Stern, Johan Rockström from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, its founder.

The world is approaching a dual tipping point of social and environmental systems that will arguably determine the future of life-support systems on Earth, they say.

On the one hand, young people across the world are struggling to tip the social scale towards swift and concerted climate action.

“If that tipping towards sustainability does not happen quickly, we risk crossing different kinds of tipping points – those in the Earth System that may threaten the stability of life on our planet.

“Humanity is tipping the scales of our planet’s future”

“Tropical coral reef systems and the Arctic summer ice are at risk already at 1.5°C warming and we now know that there is a likely tipping point for the destabilisation of the Greenland Ice sheet, which may be as low as 2°C.”

Much of the factual material they explain is by now all too well-known; many of their specific warnings, however acutely they present them, echo with leaden but still necessary familiarity. But there is a new note to what they have to tell the world: that time really is running out.

“Humanity may tend to take the benign conditions of the past 10,000 years for granted, but we are already experiencing the highest global mean temperature on Earth since the last Ice Age”, they write.

“If anything, there is a growing understanding that expert assessments, which are usually conservative in the best sense of the word, have contributed to allow decision-makers to underestimate – not overestimate – the risks of climate impacts. Now it is apparent that impacts are happening much sooner and more severely than expected.

“In each report since 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has corrected its assessments of the so-called ‘reasons for concern’ upwards, i.e., to higher levels of worry.

Irreversible change

“The world is following a path which even at a conservative assessment will result in more than 3°C of warming – with definite irreversible tipping points – by the end of this century. Last time we had this level of warming on Earth was 4-5 million years ago.”

The scientists echo the call of the young strikers: “This is not a single-generation issue”, they say. “Humanity is tipping the scales of our planet’s future.”

Serious scientists are usually cautious people, unwilling to stick their necks out and speak out on something about which they are not absolutely certain. But today’s statement is not like that − and it is not the first of its kind.

Three other experts, all renowned in their fields, last April urged support for the school strikers, declaring: “The world’s youth have begun to persistently demonstrate for the protection of the climate and other foundations of human well-being … Their concerns are justified and supported by the best available science. The current measures for protecting the climate and biosphere are deeply inadequate.”

They attracted the support of more than 6,000 of their colleagues. When scientists are prepared to voice their fears as openly as they are now doing, where does that leave the rest of us? − Climate News Network

20 September sees the start of a week-long youth-led global climate strike. Students will be voicing their demands for action − backed by many scientists.

LONDON, 20 September, 2019 − Leading scientists have declared their support for the global climate strike which starts today.

In a statement published by the Earth League, headed Humanity is Tipping the Scales of the World, 20 respected scientists throw their weight into the argument. Among a stellar company, they number Lord Nicholas Stern, Johan Rockström from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, its founder.

The world is approaching a dual tipping point of social and environmental systems that will arguably determine the future of life-support systems on Earth, they say.

On the one hand, young people across the world are struggling to tip the social scale towards swift and concerted climate action.

“If that tipping towards sustainability does not happen quickly, we risk crossing different kinds of tipping points – those in the Earth System that may threaten the stability of life on our planet.

“Humanity is tipping the scales of our planet’s future”

“Tropical coral reef systems and the Arctic summer ice are at risk already at 1.5°C warming and we now know that there is a likely tipping point for the destabilisation of the Greenland Ice sheet, which may be as low as 2°C.”

Much of the factual material they explain is by now all too well-known; many of their specific warnings, however acutely they present them, echo with leaden but still necessary familiarity. But there is a new note to what they have to tell the world: that time really is running out.

“Humanity may tend to take the benign conditions of the past 10,000 years for granted, but we are already experiencing the highest global mean temperature on Earth since the last Ice Age”, they write.

“If anything, there is a growing understanding that expert assessments, which are usually conservative in the best sense of the word, have contributed to allow decision-makers to underestimate – not overestimate – the risks of climate impacts. Now it is apparent that impacts are happening much sooner and more severely than expected.

“In each report since 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has corrected its assessments of the so-called ‘reasons for concern’ upwards, i.e., to higher levels of worry.

Irreversible change

“The world is following a path which even at a conservative assessment will result in more than 3°C of warming – with definite irreversible tipping points – by the end of this century. Last time we had this level of warming on Earth was 4-5 million years ago.”

The scientists echo the call of the young strikers: “This is not a single-generation issue”, they say. “Humanity is tipping the scales of our planet’s future.”

Serious scientists are usually cautious people, unwilling to stick their necks out and speak out on something about which they are not absolutely certain. But today’s statement is not like that − and it is not the first of its kind.

Three other experts, all renowned in their fields, last April urged support for the school strikers, declaring: “The world’s youth have begun to persistently demonstrate for the protection of the climate and other foundations of human well-being … Their concerns are justified and supported by the best available science. The current measures for protecting the climate and biosphere are deeply inadequate.”

They attracted the support of more than 6,000 of their colleagues. When scientists are prepared to voice their fears as openly as they are now doing, where does that leave the rest of us? − Climate News Network

Climate change underlies Europe’s rapid warming

From the edge of the Arctic to almost the Tropic of Cancer, Europe’s rapid warming is evidenced by hotter summers − and winters.

LONDON, 5 September, 2019 − Europe’s rapid warming means the world’s hottest property could now be on the continent. It has seen the strongest intensification of heat waves anywhere in the world in the last 70 years. The hottest of hot summers are now 2.3°C hotter than they used to be.

And winter extremes of cold are dwindling. The number of extremely cold days has fallen twofold or even threefold, and the coldest days are now 3°C milder than they used to be, according to readings from 94% of the continent’s weather stations.

This, say Swiss scientists, adds up to “a climate change signal that cannot be explained by internal variability.”

That is, thanks to a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases driven by ever-increasing use of fossil fuels, Europe is warming even faster than global climate models predict.

“In at least one region of the globe, global heating is already happening, and at a rate faster than predicted”

“Even at this regional scale over Europe we can see that these trends are much larger than what we would expect from natural variability,” said Ruth Lorenz, a researcher from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, also known as ETH Zurich. “That’s really a signal from climate change.”

She and colleagues report in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that they looked at observations and measurements from around 1,000 weather stations between 1950 and 2018 and then analysed the top 1% of the highest extremes of heat and humidity, and the top 1% of coldest days during the same timespan.

Since 1950, the number of days of extreme heat in Europe has tripled. The number of extreme cold days has been reduced, twofold in some places, and by a factor of three in others.

Accelerating change

For years, researchers have been predicting ever-greater extremes for Europe. They have warned that rising temperatures will hit the continent both economically and in health terms, and that as the thermometer rises so will the hazards of fire and drought.

Researchers have even checked the changes in land use in the last three decades to find that political changes – the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of the 28-state European Union – helped damp down what still proved one of the worst heat waves ever recorded, in 2003.

But research has largely focused on what could happen if global heating continues, and fossil fuel use continues to grow. What the latest study demonstrates is that in at least one region of the globe, global heating is already happening, and at a rate faster than predicted.

And the rate of change is accelerating. The number of extreme hot days overall has trebled since 1950, but the frequency of these has doubled just between 1996 and 2018. − Climate News Network

From the edge of the Arctic to almost the Tropic of Cancer, Europe’s rapid warming is evidenced by hotter summers − and winters.

LONDON, 5 September, 2019 − Europe’s rapid warming means the world’s hottest property could now be on the continent. It has seen the strongest intensification of heat waves anywhere in the world in the last 70 years. The hottest of hot summers are now 2.3°C hotter than they used to be.

And winter extremes of cold are dwindling. The number of extremely cold days has fallen twofold or even threefold, and the coldest days are now 3°C milder than they used to be, according to readings from 94% of the continent’s weather stations.

This, say Swiss scientists, adds up to “a climate change signal that cannot be explained by internal variability.”

That is, thanks to a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases driven by ever-increasing use of fossil fuels, Europe is warming even faster than global climate models predict.

“In at least one region of the globe, global heating is already happening, and at a rate faster than predicted”

“Even at this regional scale over Europe we can see that these trends are much larger than what we would expect from natural variability,” said Ruth Lorenz, a researcher from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, also known as ETH Zurich. “That’s really a signal from climate change.”

She and colleagues report in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that they looked at observations and measurements from around 1,000 weather stations between 1950 and 2018 and then analysed the top 1% of the highest extremes of heat and humidity, and the top 1% of coldest days during the same timespan.

Since 1950, the number of days of extreme heat in Europe has tripled. The number of extreme cold days has been reduced, twofold in some places, and by a factor of three in others.

Accelerating change

For years, researchers have been predicting ever-greater extremes for Europe. They have warned that rising temperatures will hit the continent both economically and in health terms, and that as the thermometer rises so will the hazards of fire and drought.

Researchers have even checked the changes in land use in the last three decades to find that political changes – the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of the 28-state European Union – helped damp down what still proved one of the worst heat waves ever recorded, in 2003.

But research has largely focused on what could happen if global heating continues, and fossil fuel use continues to grow. What the latest study demonstrates is that in at least one region of the globe, global heating is already happening, and at a rate faster than predicted.

And the rate of change is accelerating. The number of extreme hot days overall has trebled since 1950, but the frequency of these has doubled just between 1996 and 2018. − Climate News Network

Worse US Atlantic floods need planned retreat

Its coasts are at ever-greater risk from rising seas, and US Atlantic floods will soon force people to move. Why not start planning now?

LONDON, 3 September, 2019 − What are now considered once-in-a-hundred-years floods are on the increase in the US. Later this century, they could happen to northern coastal states every year.

And even in the more fortunate cities along the south-east Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico coasts, the once-in-a-century floods will happen a lot more often: somewhere between every 30 years and every year.

In a second study, a team of distinguished scientists argues that the US should face the inevitable and begin to plan for a managed, strategic retreat from its own coasts.

At the heart of both studies is a set of new realities imposed by a rapidly-heating ocean and higher air temperatures worldwide. As the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica melt, and as the glaciers of Canada and Alaska retreat, so sea levels have begun to rise inexorably.

But as the oceans increase in average temperature, thanks to an ever-warmer atmosphere driven by greenhouse gases from profligate combustion of fossil fuels, so the oceans have begun to expand: warmer waters are less dense, and thus higher.

“We need to stop picturing our relationship with nature as a war. We’re not winning or losing, we’re adjusting to changes in nature”

And there is a third factor. With warmer seas there will be more frequent and more violent hurricanes and windstorms, more damaging storm surges and yet more torrential rainfall.

Researchers from Princeton University report in the journal Nature Communications that they considered all three factors to create a flood hazard map of the US. Simply because of rising waters, New England states can expect to see what were once rare events almost every year.

“For the Gulf of Mexico, we found the effect of storm surge is compatible with or more significant than the effect of sea level rise for 40% of counties,” said Ning Lin, a Princeton engineer.

“So if we neglect the effects of storm climatology change, we would significantly underestimate the impact of climate change for these regions.”

Growing Atlantic danger

Exercises of this kind are about planning for the worst: were the Princeton research the only such study, city chiefs could afford to relax. But it is not.

For years climate scientists and oceanographers have been warning of ever-greater hazard to Atlantic America. They have warned of ever more torrential rains and the hazards of ever more damaging floods even in disparate cities such as Charleston and Seattle; they have even warned of high tide floods on a daily basis in some cities, and they have proposed that an estimated 13 million Americans could become climate refugees, driven by the advancing seas from their own homes.

All of which is why a trio of researchers argue for the need to accept the inevitable and step back from the sea, and they say so in the journal Science. They argue that the US should start to prepare for retreat by limiting development in the areas most at risk.

“Fighting the ocean is a losing battle,” said A R Siders of Harvard and the University of Delaware. “The only way to win against water is not to fight. We need to stop picturing our relationship with nature as a war. We’re not winning or losing, we’re adjusting to changes in nature.” − Climate News Network

Its coasts are at ever-greater risk from rising seas, and US Atlantic floods will soon force people to move. Why not start planning now?

LONDON, 3 September, 2019 − What are now considered once-in-a-hundred-years floods are on the increase in the US. Later this century, they could happen to northern coastal states every year.

And even in the more fortunate cities along the south-east Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico coasts, the once-in-a-century floods will happen a lot more often: somewhere between every 30 years and every year.

In a second study, a team of distinguished scientists argues that the US should face the inevitable and begin to plan for a managed, strategic retreat from its own coasts.

At the heart of both studies is a set of new realities imposed by a rapidly-heating ocean and higher air temperatures worldwide. As the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica melt, and as the glaciers of Canada and Alaska retreat, so sea levels have begun to rise inexorably.

But as the oceans increase in average temperature, thanks to an ever-warmer atmosphere driven by greenhouse gases from profligate combustion of fossil fuels, so the oceans have begun to expand: warmer waters are less dense, and thus higher.

“We need to stop picturing our relationship with nature as a war. We’re not winning or losing, we’re adjusting to changes in nature”

And there is a third factor. With warmer seas there will be more frequent and more violent hurricanes and windstorms, more damaging storm surges and yet more torrential rainfall.

Researchers from Princeton University report in the journal Nature Communications that they considered all three factors to create a flood hazard map of the US. Simply because of rising waters, New England states can expect to see what were once rare events almost every year.

“For the Gulf of Mexico, we found the effect of storm surge is compatible with or more significant than the effect of sea level rise for 40% of counties,” said Ning Lin, a Princeton engineer.

“So if we neglect the effects of storm climatology change, we would significantly underestimate the impact of climate change for these regions.”

Growing Atlantic danger

Exercises of this kind are about planning for the worst: were the Princeton research the only such study, city chiefs could afford to relax. But it is not.

For years climate scientists and oceanographers have been warning of ever-greater hazard to Atlantic America. They have warned of ever more torrential rains and the hazards of ever more damaging floods even in disparate cities such as Charleston and Seattle; they have even warned of high tide floods on a daily basis in some cities, and they have proposed that an estimated 13 million Americans could become climate refugees, driven by the advancing seas from their own homes.

All of which is why a trio of researchers argue for the need to accept the inevitable and step back from the sea, and they say so in the journal Science. They argue that the US should start to prepare for retreat by limiting development in the areas most at risk.

“Fighting the ocean is a losing battle,” said A R Siders of Harvard and the University of Delaware. “The only way to win against water is not to fight. We need to stop picturing our relationship with nature as a war. We’re not winning or losing, we’re adjusting to changes in nature.” − Climate News Network

Paris climate accord awaits Russian backing

Reports from Moscow suggest that Russia will announce its support for the Paris climate accord before the end of 2019.

LONDON, 30 August, 2019 − Officials in Moscow say the Russian government plans, after several years’ hesitation, to ratify the global agreement, the Paris climate accord, within the next few months.

Enough countries had completed the ratification process for the Agreement to enter into force in 2016, so Russia’s long-awaited move will make little practical difference to efforts to strengthen progress through the Paris Agreement towards a net zero economy.

But Russia is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases to have failed so far to ratify the Agreement, signed by 195 countries in December 2015, so its move may have some effect in spurring on other laggards. Ratification defines the international act by which a country agrees to be bound by an accord like the Paris Agreement.

Angelina Davydova, a Russian journalist who works for the Thomson Reuters Foundation, told the Clean Energy Wire (CLEW) journalism network that a Russian announcement is expected before the end of 2019.

Urgency missed

It will probably come either during the United Nations Secretary-General’s climate summit in New York on 23 September or during the next annual UN climate conference (COP-25) in Chile in December, she said.

Probably more remarkable than the ratification itself is what it will say about the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, which already faces widespread criticism for its slow progress towards achieving greenhouse gas emissions cuts that reflect the growing urgency of the climate crisis.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) is an independent scientific analysis produced by three research organisations which have been tracking climate action since 2009. It checks progress towards the globally agreed aim of holding warming to well below 2°C, and trying to limit it to 1.5°C.

It says Russia’s present course on cutting emissions is “critically insufficient”, CAT’s lowest rating. If all governments’ targets for cuts matched Russia’s, it says, the world would be committed to warming by more than 4°C − over twice the upper limit agreed in Paris, and likely to prove catastrophic for much of the world.

“The vast majority of countries have targets that are woefully inadequate and, collectively, have no chance of meeting the 1.5°C temperature goal … most governments are nowhere near taking the radical steps required”

In its Mid-Year Update, published last June, CAT provides a wider perspective, setting Russia’s lacklustre performance in a global context. It says: “2018 saw energy-related emissions reach yet another historic high after significant net greenhouse gas increases, 85% of which came from the US, India and China.

“Coal reversed its recent decline and was responsible for over a third of CO2 emissions. At the same time there was a huge 4.6% surge in natural gas CO2 emissions and an associated rise in atmospheric methane.

“This, plus a stagnation in the number of renewable energy installations, make it clear that governments must do a lot more to address the climate crisis…

“…the vast majority of countries have targets that are woefully inadequate and, collectively, have no chance of meeting the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement … most governments are nowhere near taking the radical steps required, especially given that global emissions need to halve by 2030 in order to keep the goal of 1.5°C alive.”

Lack of ambition

Davydova sees progress in Russia, but recognises that it is slow. She said the country’s coal and steel lobby was more or less persuaded that it was “not that threatened” by the ratification. “Russia still has very unambitious climate goals (the target is actually below what we have now)”, she said.

“But overall, climate change is becoming more of an important topic on the political and public agenda. There is increasing concern about climate change, mainly in the form of estimations of risks and need for adaptation.”

President Vladimir Putin acknowledged recently that climate change is dangerous for Russia. “But he also said renewables (solar and wind in particular) might not be that beneficial for Russia, since the country has so much oil and gas and needs to make use of [them]”.

Davydova added. “Russia is far less of a climate sceptic than it used to be … we even have a youth climate movement now, and there are Fridays for Future demonstrations running in Moscow and a number of other cities.” − Climate News Network

Reports from Moscow suggest that Russia will announce its support for the Paris climate accord before the end of 2019.

LONDON, 30 August, 2019 − Officials in Moscow say the Russian government plans, after several years’ hesitation, to ratify the global agreement, the Paris climate accord, within the next few months.

Enough countries had completed the ratification process for the Agreement to enter into force in 2016, so Russia’s long-awaited move will make little practical difference to efforts to strengthen progress through the Paris Agreement towards a net zero economy.

But Russia is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases to have failed so far to ratify the Agreement, signed by 195 countries in December 2015, so its move may have some effect in spurring on other laggards. Ratification defines the international act by which a country agrees to be bound by an accord like the Paris Agreement.

Angelina Davydova, a Russian journalist who works for the Thomson Reuters Foundation, told the Clean Energy Wire (CLEW) journalism network that a Russian announcement is expected before the end of 2019.

Urgency missed

It will probably come either during the United Nations Secretary-General’s climate summit in New York on 23 September or during the next annual UN climate conference (COP-25) in Chile in December, she said.

Probably more remarkable than the ratification itself is what it will say about the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, which already faces widespread criticism for its slow progress towards achieving greenhouse gas emissions cuts that reflect the growing urgency of the climate crisis.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) is an independent scientific analysis produced by three research organisations which have been tracking climate action since 2009. It checks progress towards the globally agreed aim of holding warming to well below 2°C, and trying to limit it to 1.5°C.

It says Russia’s present course on cutting emissions is “critically insufficient”, CAT’s lowest rating. If all governments’ targets for cuts matched Russia’s, it says, the world would be committed to warming by more than 4°C − over twice the upper limit agreed in Paris, and likely to prove catastrophic for much of the world.

“The vast majority of countries have targets that are woefully inadequate and, collectively, have no chance of meeting the 1.5°C temperature goal … most governments are nowhere near taking the radical steps required”

In its Mid-Year Update, published last June, CAT provides a wider perspective, setting Russia’s lacklustre performance in a global context. It says: “2018 saw energy-related emissions reach yet another historic high after significant net greenhouse gas increases, 85% of which came from the US, India and China.

“Coal reversed its recent decline and was responsible for over a third of CO2 emissions. At the same time there was a huge 4.6% surge in natural gas CO2 emissions and an associated rise in atmospheric methane.

“This, plus a stagnation in the number of renewable energy installations, make it clear that governments must do a lot more to address the climate crisis…

“…the vast majority of countries have targets that are woefully inadequate and, collectively, have no chance of meeting the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement … most governments are nowhere near taking the radical steps required, especially given that global emissions need to halve by 2030 in order to keep the goal of 1.5°C alive.”

Lack of ambition

Davydova sees progress in Russia, but recognises that it is slow. She said the country’s coal and steel lobby was more or less persuaded that it was “not that threatened” by the ratification. “Russia still has very unambitious climate goals (the target is actually below what we have now)”, she said.

“But overall, climate change is becoming more of an important topic on the political and public agenda. There is increasing concern about climate change, mainly in the form of estimations of risks and need for adaptation.”

President Vladimir Putin acknowledged recently that climate change is dangerous for Russia. “But he also said renewables (solar and wind in particular) might not be that beneficial for Russia, since the country has so much oil and gas and needs to make use of [them]”.

Davydova added. “Russia is far less of a climate sceptic than it used to be … we even have a youth climate movement now, and there are Fridays for Future demonstrations running in Moscow and a number of other cities.” − Climate News Network