Some locations are at extreme temperatures worldwide

From an Article by Fiona Harvey in UK, Ashifa Kassam in Madrid, Nina Lakhani in Phoenix, and Amrit Dhillon in New Delhi, The Guardian UK, June 18, 2022

In March, the north and south poles had record temperatures. In May in Delhi, it hit 49C (120F). Last week in Madrid, 40C (104F). Experts say the worst effects of the climate emergency cannot be avoided if emissions continue to rise.

When the temperature readings started to come through from Antarctic weather stations in early March, scientists at first thought there might have been some mistake. Temperatures, which should have been cooling rapidly as the south pole’s brief summer faded, were soaring – at the Vostok station, about 800 miles from the geographic south pole, thermometers recorded a massive 15C hotter than the previous all-time record, while at Terra Nova coastal base the water hovered above freezing, unheard of for the time of year.

“Wow. I have never seen anything like this,” ice scientist Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado, told the Associated Press.

But that was not all. At the north pole, similarly unusual temperatures were also being recorded, astonishing for the time of year when the Arctic should be slowly emerging from its winter deep freeze. The region was more than 3C warmer than its long-term average, researchers said.
To induce a heatwave at one pole may be regarded as a warning; heatwaves at both poles at once start to look a lot like climate catastrophe.

Since then, weather stations around the world have seen their mercury rising like a global Mexican wave.

A heatwave struck India and Pakistan in March, bringing the highest temperatures in that month since records began 122 years ago. Scorching weather has continued across the subcontinent, wreaking disaster for millions. Spring was more like midsummer in the US, with soaring temperatures across the country in May. Spain saw the mercury hit 40C in early June as a heatwave swept across Europe, hitting the UK last week.

Scientists have been able quickly to prove that these record-breaking temperatures are no natural occurrence. A study published last month showed that the south Asian heatwave was made 30 times more likely to happen by human influence on the climate.

Vikki Thompson, climate scientist at the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute, explained: “Climate change is making heatwaves hotter and last longer around the world. Scientists have shown that many specific heatwaves are more intense because of human-induced climate change. The climate change signal is even detectable in the number of deaths attributed to heatwaves.”

Friederike Otto, senior lecturer in climate science at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said heatwaves in Europe alone had increased in frequency by a factor of 100 or more, caused by human actions in pouring greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. “Climate change is a real game changer when it comes to heatwaves: they have increased in frequency, intensity and duration across the world,” she said.

This type of heat poses a serious threat to human health, directly as it puts stress on our bodies, and indirectly as it damages crops, causes wildfires and even harms our built environment, such as roads and buildings. Poor people suffer most, as they are the ones out in fields or in factories, or on the street without shelter in the midst of the heat, and they lack the luxury of air-conditioning when they get home.

Air-conditioning itself is a further facet of the problem: its growing use and massive energy consumption threatens to accelerate greenhouse gas emissions, just as we need urgently to bring them down. Radhika Khosla, associate professor at the Smith School at the University of Oxford, said: “The global community must commit to sustainable cooling, or risk locking the world into a deadly feedback loop, where demand for cooling energy drives further greenhouse gas emissions and results in even more global warming.”

There are ways to reduce the impacts for individuals, and to adapt our cities. Painting roofs white in hot countries to reflect the sun’s rays, growing ivy on walls in more temperate regions, planting trees for shade, fountains and more green areas in cities can all help. More heavy-duty adaptation measures include changing the materials we use for buildings, transport networks and other vital infrastructure, to stop windows falling out of their frames, roads from melting in the heat and rails from buckling.

But these measures can only ever be a sticking plaster – only drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will prevent climate chaos. The current heatwaves are happening as the earth has warmed by about 1.2C above pre-industrial levels – nations agreed, at the Cop26 UN climate summit last November, to try not to let them rise by more than 1.5C. Beyond that, the changes to the climate will be too great to overcome with shady trees or white roofs, and at 2C an estimated 1 billion people will suffer extreme heat. “We cannot adapt our way out of the climate crisis,” Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy, told the Observer. “If we continue with business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions, there is no adaptation that is possible. You just can’t.”

UNITED NATIONS has assembled the best scientists for long range studies

Essay by Randi Pokladnik, Environmental Scientist, Tappan Lake, OH, April 4, 2022

Dr. Svitlana Krakovska, a Ukrainian climate scientist and member of the International Panel on Climate Change recently said, “Human induced climate change and the war on Ukraine have the same roots, fossil fuels, and our dependence on them.” Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels from Russia is “funding the war” in Ukraine. Russia, the second largest producer of natural gas, has been accused of using the resource in a geopolitical way against European countries dependent on its gas.

Europe views the worsening situation in Ukraine as justification to double up its investments in renewable energy. The IEA and EU leaders announced a proposed series of steps to accelerate clean energy: fast-tracking permitting for wind and solar projects, revisiting decisions to phase out nuclear energy, and doubling the rate of conversions from natural gas boilers to electric heat pumps in buildings.” All of these would cut European natural gas demand.

However, oil and gas companies in the US, along with many politicians including Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are using the war to rationalize more drilling and fracking in the US. Manchin recently said, “Russia has weaponized energy and the thing I know about an adversary or a bullyis if they have a weapon, you better have one that will match it or be better than theirs”. However, Natural Resource Chair Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) said in a recent op-ed, “Doubling down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place,” saying it is time to “cut the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin.”

The newly released UN Climate Report clearly shows we are losing the battle against climate change. UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteras said “the evidence detailed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unlike anything he has ever seen, it is an “atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.”

Damaging effects from human-induced (anthropogenic) climate change are happening at a much faster rate than previous modeling had predicted. At least 40% of the world’s population is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, and these impacts will be felt most in areas that have contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions. The report stresses that the window to act in a meaningful way and avoid major destruction will close by the end of this decade.

The “David and Goliath” battle environmental activists (especially activists in the Appalachian region) have waged against the fossil fuel industry often feels like a war. The Appalachian region has become a resource colony, the residents have become collateral damage, and the landscape often looks like a war zone after the extraction of coal, oil, and gas.

At one time, it was said that McDowell County, WV exported more coal than any other county in the USA. However, it now sits in poverty with the less than 20,000 residents who still call it home. Harry Caudill’s “Night Comes to the Cumberlands” details the story of broken miners living in a broken land as coal mining destroyed the landscape as well as the bodies of the miners.

Mountaintop coal removal (MTR) replaced long-wall mining in the 1970s. Often referred to as “strip mining on steroids,” this technique uses monstrous machinery rather than miners. Millions of pounds of explosives are used to blast off up to 1000 feet or more of the mountains’ elevation. Peaks that took millions of years to form are gone in a matter of days. Thousands of miles of streams are buried under the mine spoils, and what remains of the once diverse mesophytic forest ecosystem is a flattened sterile moonscape. MTR has destroyed over 500 mountains and flattened an area equivalent to Delaware.

John McQuaid, a writer for the Smithsonian Magazine, once said of MTR, “I’ve reported on devastation around the world, from natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, to wars in Central America and the Middle East, to coastlines in Asia degraded by fish farming. But in the sheer audacity of its destruction, mountaintop coal removal is the most shocking thing I’ve ever seen.”

As the coal industry slowly dies in the area, local, state, and federal politicians are touting new ways to extract wealth from the region: petrochemicals and plastics. Both require hydrocarbon gases obtained by using high pressure hydraulic fracking. This technique forces hydrocarbons from shale deposits under the region, and is as destructive and polluting as coal mining. It requires millions of gallons of freshwater, produces millions of gallons of toxic radioactive brine, releases volatile organic compounds and methane gas, and contaminates surface and ground water.

A study by Yale Public Health found that of the hundreds of chemicals used in fracking, over 80 percent have never been reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Of the 119 that have been reviewed by IARC, 55 were found to be carcinogenic. Among the chemicals most frequently used in fracking, 24 are known to block hormone receptors in humans (according to a 2017 study published in Science Direct).

Make no mistake, we all are witnessing a war; a war waged on our planet by the fossil fuel industry and those who benefit financially from these industries.

Like most wars, money is needed to fund this endeavor. Federal taxpayer-funded grants, subsidies, and tax incentives help fuel the climate crisis by providing financial incentives for continued extraction. Pennsylvania lawmakers offered Royal Dutch Shell nearly $1.7 billion over 25 years to construct the plastics-making Shell Cracker Plant in Monaca, Pa.

“Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year, with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.”

Just like a conventional war, propaganda and lies are used to mold public opinion. “The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion dollar disinformation propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis and its solutions.”

The residents of Appalachia have learned that when it comes to extractive industries, rules and regulations for human health and the environment are more often than not watered down, ignored, unenforced, or non-existent. The oil and gas industries are exempt or excluded from certain sections of these federal environmental laws: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to Know Act.

It is difficult to win a war when the cards are stacked against you, but the war for a livable planet is one we cannot afford to lose. We will have to make sacrifices but the people of Appalachia have sacrificed their health, lives, and land for decades to fuel the nation. It is time to demand renewable energy. It is time to stop subsidizing the companies responsible for the destruction of our planet. No more wars for fossil fuels.

As Dr. Svitlana Krakovska of Ukraine said, “We will not surrender in Ukraine, and we hope the world will not surrender in building a climate-resilient future.” Bill McKibben recently said that if the USA cannot choose renewable energy while watching the incredible courage of the people in Ukraine, then “I don’t know if we’re ever going to do it.”

>>> Dr. Randi Pokladnik was born and raised in Ohio. She earned an associate degree in Environmental Engineering, a BA in Chemistry, MA and PhD in Environmental Studies. She is certified in hazardous materials regulations and holds a teaching license in science and math. She worked as a research chemist for 12 years and now resides near Tappan Lake in Ohio’s Harrison County, near the Marcellus & Utica shale developments.

UN Secretary General at Public Briefing

From a News Update from Democracy Now! on October 27, 2021

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued yet another stark warning just days ahead of the COP26 global climate summit.

Secretary-General António Guterres: “Less than one week before COP26 in Glasgow, we are still on track for climate catastrophe, even with the last announcements that were made. The 2021 Emissions Gap Report shows that with the present nationally determined contributions and other firm commitments of countries around the world, we are indeed on track for a catastrophic global temperature rise of around 2.7 degrees Celsius. Now, even if the announcements of the last few days will materialize, we would still be on track to clearly more than 2 degrees Celsius.”

In more encouraging climate news, a new report highlights the power of the grassroots divestment movement, as some 1,500 institutions and other investors have committed to divesting $40 trillion in assets from fossil fuels over the past decade.

>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

SEE ALSO ~ EU’s Biggest Pension Fund to Dump $17 Billion in Fossil Fuel Investments, Alastair Marsh, Bloomberg Green News, October 26, 2021

ABP — Netherlands to Divest $17 Billion in Fossil Fuel Assets

Europe’s biggest pension fund, ABP of the Netherlands, has joined a growing number of investment managers blacklisting fossil fuels as the finance industry gives in to pressure from activists and customers alarmed at the prospect of a climate catastrophe caused by carbon emissions.

ABP said Tuesday it will divest 15 billion euros ($17.4 billion) worth of fossil-fuel assets by early 2023. The fund said it doesn’t expect the decision to hurt long-term returns and added that the move will allow it to unveil a more ambitious CO2 reduction goal next year. The announcement underpins the speed with which the investment industry is turning its back on oil, gas and coal, with 1,500 asset managers overseeing a combined $39.2 trillion now committed to offloading such holdings, DivestInvest said in a separate release.

The development marks a huge shift over the past seven years. Back in 2014, when DivestInvest first tallied such commitments, funds turning their backs on fossil fuels represented just $52 billion. So far in 2021, the $16 billion Ford Foundation, started by the son of Henry Ford and now ranked among the world’s largest private foundations, said it will cease to invest in fossil fuels. Harvard University’s $42 billion endowment made a similar pledge and Maine became the first U.S. state to order its public pension fund to sell off fossil-fuel holdings.

New York City’s pension funds have announced plans to divest about $4 billion worth of fossil fuel-related investments and Canada’s second-largest pension manager, Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, has said it will sell billions of dollars worth of oil assets, including large equity stakes in Canada’s top crude producers, as part of a new strategy that aims to dramatically cut the emissions from its investments. Fidelity International unveiled plans Tuesday to halve the carbon footprint of its investment portfolio by 2030.

Katharine Hayhoe, Barack Obama and Leona Di Caprio discuss climate change

From an Article by Madeleine Cuff, i-News (Environment), UK, October 25, 2021

Backbench MPs in England are railing against the government’s plan to cut UK emissions to net zero by 2050, warning the policy will leave British citizens “poorer and colder”.

Most insist they do not deny the science of climate change and are merely questioning the policy costs and wisdom of targeting ‘net zero’ in the UK. But renowned climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe suspects otherwise.

Professor Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist, professor of political science at Texas Tech University, and chief scientist at the US Nature Conservancy. She is also one of the world’s leading communicators of climate science and has experienced her fair share of climate sceptics.

In her eyes, there are five clear stages of climate denial: arguing (1) that climate change is not real, (2) that humans are not to blame, (3) that climate change will be a positive force, (4) that it will be too expensive to fix, and (5) arguing it will be too late to tackle it.

“What do all these stages have in common?” Prof Hayhoe asked. “They all accomplish the same goal. The goal is the important thing – it doesn’t matter what you say, it is the goal that matters. And what is their goal? No climate action.”

“We often see politicians cycling through these stages,” she told i-News. As the climate science has become ever more robust, those arguing against action have had to adapt, she argued. “No wonder the sceptics have shifted,” she said. “They are very clever. They have their eyes fixed on their goal.”

“[Yet] the reality is, what is at stake is civilization as we know it,” she stressed. “What’s at risk is so large that the question is not ‘how can we afford action’, the question is ‘how can we not afford to act’.”

To counter these arguments there needs to be a more honest and open dialogue among the public about what climate action looks like, Professor Hayhoe said. “Why those arguments are so successful is because the rest of us remain paralysed,” she argued.

“We don’t know what to do. And it’s easier, if someone is arguing for inaction and we don’t know what to do, to say ‘maybe let’s wait and study some more’. We don’t have time for that. We need to act as soon as possible.”

The right conversation can go a long way towards spurring action, Prof. Hayhoe insisted. “The secret is begin the conversation with something you agree with the other person on, not disagree,” she said. “That establishes common ground and mutual respect.”

“Then – and this addresses the fear – always bring up a positive, constructive solution to the problem in hand,” Professor Hayhoe said. For example, if the conversation is about cars the solution could be talking about how many people are already switching to EVs. “The solution can be at any level, but it has to be something that person can get on board with,” Professor Hayhoe said.

She hopes the COP26 climate summit, which starts next week in Glasgow (31 Oct. to 12 Nov.), will spark more conversations about climate change across the UK. “It gives us a great opportunity to start a discussion,” she said.

NEW BOOK ~ ‘Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World’ by Katharine Hayhoe, Simon and Schuster UK, £20

The United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC) was established at the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP-26) is set for Glasgow in November 2021

From an Article by Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Magazine, January – February, 2021

Finally, we engaged millions of people in the work for climate justice. Let’s be clear: None of this was easy. As we sit here in 2030, the clean and just energy future that we’ve built together has been the result of millions of people stepping up in their own states and communities.

I know all this seemed impossible back in 2020, when it felt as if everything was falling apart and our climate might be doomed. But everything we did mattered. All of it.

We now know that we’re going to keep global temperature rise below the dangerous tipping points that climate scientists warned us about a decade ago.

We can look our kids in the eye and tell them that we didn’t let them down. Now we can watch their dreams unfold.

As all our great spiritual traditions have taught us, new beginnings are often born during our most difficult days. We created something beautiful out of those hard days in 2020.

Of course we have more work to do. But we’re doing that work from a foundation we built together. I can’t wait to see what we’ll do next.

££ This concludes this Article series here on FrackCheckWV.net.

This Article appeared in the January/February edition of SIERRA with the headline “A Love Letter From the Clean Energy Future.”

#####. #####. #####. #####. #####.

See also: Paris Climate Agreement Q&A | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions …. What happens next?

The negotiations on the Paris rulebook at COP 24 proved in some ways more challenging than those leading to the Paris Agreement as parties faced a mix of technical and political challenges and, in some respects, higher stakes in seeking to elaborate the agreement’s broad provisions through detailed guidance. Delegates adopted rules and procedures on mitigation, transparency, adaptation, finance, periodic stocktakes, and other Paris provisions. But they were unable to agree on rules for Article 6, which provides for voluntary cooperation among parties in implementing their NDCs, including through the use of market-based approaches.

Instead, parties deferred those decisions to COP 25.

In September 2019, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres convened a climate summit in New York to rally countries to higher ambition in 2020. The world’s largest emitters failed to present substantive plans for greater emissions reductions but 65 countries expressed their intention to enhance their NDCs by the end of 2020. With the launch of a “Climate Ambition Alliance,” 66 countries announced their intention to develop plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

A marathon COP 25 was held in Madrid, Spain, from December 2 to December 15, 2019, with Chile retaining the presidency. Governments reaffirmed a prior call for parties to reflect “their highest possible ambition” when presenting a new round of NDCs in 2020, but they failed again to adopt rules for international carbon trading under Article 6, the last major piece of the “rulebook” for implementing the Paris Agreement. Additionally, vulnerable developing countries expressed growing exasperation at the scarce resources available to them to cope with worsening climate impacts.

Due to the impacts of the global novel coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the UNFCCC postponed most of its major climate meetings until 2021, including COP 26. The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected countries’ efforts to put forward the new or enhanced NDCs due in 2020.

On December 12, 2020, the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the UN, France, and the UK, co-hosted a virtual global climate summit, the Climate Ambition Summit.

The UK currently plans to host COP 26 from November 1-12, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland.

SPECIAL REPORT of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, October 8, 2018

CURWOOD: Steve Curwood, the host of LOE on Public Radio International (PRI)

At the beginning of December UN negotiators will move to advance the Paris Climate Agreement in a meeting that was hastily shifted to Madrid, Spain in the face of civil unrest in its originally planned site, Santiago, Chile. Earlier this month President Trump officially set in motion the withdrawal of the United States from the accord, though it won’t take effect until the day after the 2020 US presidential elections. And though every other nation is still in the Paris agreement, less than a handful have made pledges that would have a chance of keeping the planet from catastrophically overheating. Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and Policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, is here to explain. Welcome back to Living on Earth, Alden!

MEYER: Good to be with you again, Steve.

CURWOOD: In October 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Its dire warnings drew the world’s attention.

Alden, I keep hearing that the Paris process is far behind what’s needed. What exactly are the numbers at this point, what have nations committed to and what’s the gap for what many would say is necessary?

MEYER: Well, basically, you’ll recall that leaders set a goal of keeping the temperature increase above pre-industrial levels well below two degrees Celsius, that’s 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit for those keeping score at home, and trying to get as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible. Analyses vary a little bit, but they tend to say that we’re on track for around three degrees Celsius or more. That may not seem like a huge difference, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last year on 1.5 degrees show that there’s a huge difference even between 1.5 and two degrees Celsius. Every 10th of a degree matters.

And to get on track to stay below two degrees analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme and others show that we would need to basically triple the level of ambition of commitments that countries have made under Paris. To have a chance of getting anywhere close to limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, we would need to quintuple, in other words increase by five fold, the level of ambition in Paris. So what’s needed here is not incremental changes around the margins. It’s really a wholesale transformation, getting on the path to cutting emissions nearly in half by 2030 globally, and to net zero emissions no later than 2050. It basically involves remaking almost every sector of the modern economy.

CURWOOD: And, of course, the process, the UN negotiation process continues; the Conference of the Parties, the UN umbrella for the Paris accord, on December 2, the annual meeting of that starts in Madrid, what needs to be done at that session?

MEYER: Well, there’s a few issues on the formal negotiating table that have to be resolved. The one unfinished piece of business from the last climate summit in Poland last fall was completing the part of the Paris Agreement calling for collaborative approaches to emission reductions: emissions trading, cooperation between developed and developing countries. It’s the so-called Article Six of the Paris Agreement. It’s both a very political issue and very technical, and you put those two factors together, it makes it difficult for countries to resolve their differences.

The other major issue on the table is what’s known as loss and damage, which is the unavoidable impacts now of climate change on vulnerable countries around the world. After they’ve done everything they can to reduce their emissions, everything they can to build in resilience measures to their economy, there are still going to be sudden impacts such as typhoons and hurricanes and floods and what’s called slow-onset impacts such as sea level rise, desertification, drought, etc. They need help dealing with that. And the deal in Paris was to set up a program to help countries cope with those now unavoidable impacts. The missing piece so far has been any substantially ramped up finance and capacity-building support for those countries, that will be the issue debated in Madrid, whether there should be an effort to look at innovative sources of finance above and beyond the famous $100 billion pledge the developed countries made a decade ago in Copenhagen for developing country action.

Those are the two big negotiating issues. There’s some other ones on the table. But looming over it all is this gap that we talked about earlier between the commitments that countries have made under Paris to constrain their emissions, and what’s needed to meet the science-based temperature limitation targets. And that will be permeating the conversation; there will be a number of high level ministerial meetings, not just the usual environment ministers that come together at these things, but the Chileans are also convening meetings of science ministers, energy ministers, finance ministers, agriculture ministers, because this is going to take everyone in every sector of the economy pulling together. And they want to stimulate a race to the top and in terms of increasing ambition.

So that’ll be the sort of subtext of this meeting. And all of this is laying the groundwork for the climate summit next November, just after the US elections that the United Kingdom will be hosting in Glasgow, Scotland, which is the real deadline under Paris for countries to say, Is this your final answer? What you put forward five years ago in Paris and in terms of your level of ambition, or can you do more? That’s the real political deadline for countries to decide what to do on the ambition front. So in a sense, this COP in Madrid will just be sort of setting the table for that much deeper, more intense conversation over the course of 2020.

CURWOOD: So to what extent is the upcoming meeting providing a reality check to the world about the amount of money that is going to be required to make the kind of transformations that will, you know, keep the planet from becoming relatively uninhabitable?

MEYER: Well, that’s definitely part of the conversation. And as you know, huge sums of money are involved here, not only the public sector money, such as the hundred billion dollar commitment that was made, starting in 2020 per year from developed to developing countries, but the much larger trillions of dollars of investment per year that are being made in the private sector.

And there’s a whole movement called Shifting the Trillions, which says we have to redirect the money that’s now going into fossil fuel investments and coal and oil and natural gas infrastructure around the world, redirect that into efficiency, into renewable energy, into nature-based solutions like agriculture and wetlands and forest solutions if we’re going to have any hope of getting ahead of this curve.

The good news, of course, is that it’s much less costly to do that, than to sit by idly and watch climate impacts mount. I think it’s coming home to people that the cost of climate inaction is really the threat to well-being and global prosperity, not the cost of climate action.

CURWOOD: And remind us, Alden, of the We’re Still In movement in the United States that the governors, leaders of cities, and a number of companies have come together to come to the international meeting to say that, despite the reluctance of the White House to engage, that there are many other jurisdictions in the US that are.

MEYER: Well, this is a movement that was launched in the wake of the elections in 2016, actually had its origins in the Marrakech Climate Summit, which took place during the US elections. And as you said, a number of governors, mayors, business leaders, university presidents, investment leaders and others have come together to say to the world that President Trump does not equal America when it comes to climate change. That there are substantial elements of the US political system, US economy, that are committed to Paris, committed to do our share of reducing emissions.

With the election of a number of new governors last November, there are now, I believe, 25 or 26 states in the US climate Alliance, which is the state-based component of We Are Still In. And collectively the states and cities that are in the We Are Still In movement represent about two thirds of the American economy and the American population. So this is a big coalition of folks; they will have a presence in Madrid, there will be a US Climate Action Center, which will feature side events and press briefings, and exhibitions and talks by these leaders from around the United States, trying to show the rest of the world that despite what President Trump is doing, formally starting the withdrawal process from Paris, that most Americans and most sub-national leaders remain committed.

And of course they have the public behind their back, because all the public opinion polling shows a very substantial majority, not just of all Americans, but of Republicans as well support the US staying in Paris, support us being a leader on climate. So in a sense, they’re just trying to demonstrate that President Trump is an aberration.

CURWOOD: Alden Meyer is Director of Strategy and Policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thanks so much, Alden.

MEYER: I enjoyed being with you, Steve.

#########################

Twenty hottest years in past 22 years! OMG!

From an Article by Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch.com, November 29, 2018

This year 2018 will likely be the fourth hottest year on record, according to the United Nations’ authoritative voice for weather and climate. The three years that were warmer? 2016, 2015 and 2017.

Furthermore, the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said Thursday in its 2018 State of the Climate report.

The new report, based on five independently maintained global temperature data sets, adds ever more proof that global warming is unequivocal—and we’d better act now to reverse this alarming trend.

Unfortunately, the current pace of international government action is “insufficient” to limit warming, the UN Environment Programme warned yesterday in its 2018 Emissions Gap Report. In fact, the annual assessment found that after a three-year decline, heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions actually increased to “historic levels” of 53.5 billion tonnes in 2017, with no signs of peaking.

“We are not on track to meet climate change targets and rein in temperature increases,” WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said today in a press release. “Greenhouse gas concentrations are once again at record levels and if the current trend continues we may see temperature increases 3-5°C by the end of the century.”

Taalas stressed that exploitation of fossil fuels will push temperature rise “considerably higher.”

“It is worth repeating once again that we are the first generation to fully understand climate change and the last generation to be able to do something about it,” he said.

Scientists have already warned that 2019 could be an unusually warm year due to a forecasted El Niño, which could cause extreme weather and temperature spikes.

The new State of the Climate report shows that temperatures for the first ten months of 2018 were nearly 1°C above the pre-industrial baseline from 1850-1900.

Last month’s widely disseminated climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed that average global temperatures between 2006-2015 were 0.86°C above the pre-industrial baseline. In the last five years, 2014-2018, it was 1.04°C above the pre-industrial baseline.

“These are more than just numbers,” said WMO Deputy Secretary-General Elena Manaenkova in today’s press release.

“Every fraction of a degree of warming makes a difference to human health and access to food and fresh water, to the extinction of animals and plants, to the survival of coral reefs and marine life,” she added. “It makes a difference to economic productivity, food security, and to the resilience of our infrastructure and cities. It makes a difference to the speed of glacier melt and water supplies, and the future of low-lying islands and coastal communities. Every extra bit matters.”

The WMO report comes just days before the critical climate summit COP24 in Katowice, Poland, where delegates from roughly 200 countries will create a “rulebook” on how to implement the 2015 Paris agreement to avoid disastrous climate change.

The Paris accord aims to keep global temperature rise this century to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and has a more aspirational target to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.

The Paris Accord is needed to protect our Earth

From an Article by Brian Bienkowski, The Daily Climate, December 11, 2017

A new United Nations report from the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction released today finds that in order to keep the Paris Climate Agreement goals on track, the construction industry needs to improve energy efficiency per square meter (about 10 square feet) by 30 percent by 2030.

Why it matters

The doubling of buildings over the next 40 years would be like adding the floor area of all of Japan’s buildings to the planet every single year to 2060, or a new Paris every five days over the same amount of time.

This means much more climate warming gases. The building industry of course isn’t the only cause of climate change but it does account for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 emissions from buildings and construction increased by about 1 percent annually between 2010 and 2016.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels. If the agreement falls apart, at current emission levels the planet would warm roughly 4.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. This would make some places uninhabitable, trigger sea level rise that would inundate some major cities, and would create real challenges in trying to feed a growing population.

Is there any hope?

Maybe—in order to reach the 30 percent energy efficiency increase, “near-zero energy, zero-emissions buildings need to become the construction standard globally within the next decade,” the report found. Also the rate of retrofitting older buildings to become more energy efficient would have to improve from the current 1 to 2 percent per year to more than 3 percent per year.

There’s reason for optimism: 132 countries mention the buildings industry in their greenhouse gas reduction plans submitted to the UN. And the new report found that investments in current energy efficiency and low-carbon health and cooling technology could reduce buildings’ energy demand by 25 percent.

What experts are saying:

“Similar to many areas linked to the Paris Agreement, the building sector is seeing some progress in cutting its emissions, but it is too little, too slowly. Realizing the potential of the buildings and construction sector needs all hands on deck – in particular to address rapid growth in inefficient and carbon-intensive building investments.” -Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment

See the full report, which was led by the International Energy Agency.

The Impact of Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals

United Nations Environment Programme World Health Organization, February 19, 2013

Many synthetic chemicals, untested for their disrupting effects on the hormone system, could have significant health implications according to the State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, a new report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Health Organization (WHO).

The joint study calls for more research to understand fully the associations between endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)—found in many household and industrial products—and specific diseases and disorders. The report notes that with more comprehensive assessments and better testing methods, potential disease risks could be reduced, with substantial savings to public health.

Human health depends on a well-functioning endocrine system to regulate the release of certain hormones that are essential for functions such as metabolism, growth and development, sleep and mood. Some substances known as endocrine disruptors can change the function(s) of this hormonal system increasing the risk of adverse health effects. Some EDCs occur naturally, while synthetic varieties can be found in pesticides, electronics, personal care products and cosmetics. They can also be found as additives or contaminants in food.

The UN study, which is the most comprehensive report on EDCs to date, highlights some associations between exposure to EDCs and health problems including the potential for such chemicals to contribute to the development of non-descended testes in young males, breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, developmental effects on the nervous system in children, attention deficit /hyperactivity in children and thyroid cancer.

EDCs can enter the environment mainly through industrial and urban discharges, agricultural run-off and the burning and release of waste. Human exposure can occur via the ingestion of food, dust and water, inhalation of gases and particles in the air, and skin contact.

“Chemical products are increasingly part of modern life and support many national economies, but the unsound management of chemicals challenges the achievement of key development goals, and sustainable development for all,” said UN Under Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.  “Investing in new testing methods and research can enhance understanding of the costs of exposure to EDCs, and assist in reducing risks, maximizing benefits and spotlighting more intelligent options and alternatives that reflect a transition to a green economy,” added Steiner.

In addition to chemical exposure, other environmental and non-genetic factors such as age and nutrition could be among the reasons for any observed increases in disease and disorders. But pinpointing exact causes and effects is extremely difficult due to wide gaps in knowledge.

“We urgently need more research to obtain a fuller picture of the health and environment impacts of endocrine disruptors,” said Dr. Maria Neira, WHO’s Director for Public Health and Environment. “The latest science shows that communities across the globe are being exposed to EDCs, and their associated risks. WHO will work with partners to establish research priorities to investigate links to EDCs and human health impacts in order to mitigate the risks. We all have a responsibility to protect future generations.”

The report also raises similar concerns on the impact of EDCs on wildlife. In Alaska in the U.S., exposure to such chemicals may contribute to reproductive defects, infertility and antler malformation in some deer populations. Population declines in species of otters and sea lions may also be partially due to their exposure to diverse mixtures of PCBs, the insecticide DDT, other persistent organic pollutants and metals such as mercury. Meanwhile, bans and restrictions on the use of EDCs have been associated with the recovery of wildlife populations and a reduction in health problems.

The study makes a number of recommendations to improve global knowledge of these chemicals, reduce potential disease risks, and cut related costs. These include:

• Testing: known EDCs are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and more comprehensive testing methods are required to identify other possible endocrine disruptors, their sources and routes of exposure.
• Research: more scientific evidence is needed to identify the effects of mixtures of EDCs on humans and wildlife (mainly from industrial by-products) to which humans and wildlife are increasingly exposed.
• Reporting: many sources of EDCs are not known because of insufficient reporting and information on chemicals in products, materials and goods.
• Collaboration: more data sharing between scientists and between countries can fill gaps in data, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies.

“Research has made great strides in the last ten years showing endocrine disruption to be far more extensive and complicated than realized a decade ago,” said Professor Åke Bergman of Stockholm University and Chief Editor of the report.

“As science continues to advance, it is time for both management of endocrine disrupting chemicals and further research on exposure and effects of these chemicals in wildlife and humans.”

Visit EcoWatch’s BIODIVERSITY page for more related news on this topic.