[TheClimate.Vote] January 15, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*January 15, 2021*/

[Paper posted]
*Global Temperature in 2020*
14 January 2021
James Hansena, Makiko Satoa, Reto Ruedyb,c, Gavin Schmidtc,
Ken Lob,c, Michael Hendricksonb,c
Abstract.  Global surface temperature in 2020 was in a virtual dead-heat 
with 2016 for warmest year in the period of instrumental data in the 
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The rate of global 
warming has accelerated in the past several years.  The 2020 global 
temperature was +1.3°C (~2.3°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base 
period; global temperature in that base period is a reasonable estimate 
of ‘pre-industrial’ temperature.  The six warmest years in the GISS 
record all occur in the past six years, and the 10 warmest years are all 
in the 21st century.  Growth rates of the greenhouse gases driving 
global warming are increasing, not declining.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210114_Temperature2020.pdf


[audio of climate scientists including Gavin Schmidt]
*2019 Was The 2nd-Hottest Year On Record, According To NASA And NOAA*
SCHMIDT: The warming up until now, you know, since the 1970s, has been 
quite close to linear. If you kind of extrapolate that forward, you 
would imagine that we would cross 1.5 in around 2035. But of course, 
that depends on what we do with emissions.

HERSHER: Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the overwhelming driver 
of global warming. And right now, global emissions are rising. The U.S. 
has admitted the most total CO2 of any country. The data released today 
also illustrate how different regions are being affected. The Arctic is 
warming three times faster than the rest of the planet. Hot ocean water 
helped power dangerous cyclones and disrupted fisheries. In the 
continental U.S., rain patterns are changing. Deke Arndt works on 
forecasting at NOAA. He says hotter temperatures are making droughts 
more severe.

DEKE ARNDT: A warmer atmosphere is a thirstier atmosphere.

HERSHER: Sucking up moisture and then dumping rain all at once.

ARNDT: We're seeing the largest events getting larger.

HERSHER: That means more flood risk. For example, in 2019, big rainfall 
events drove record-breaking floods along the Mississippi River and its 
tributaries. And as the Earth keeps getting hotter, all of these trends 
will keep getting more pronounced.

Rebecca Hersher, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR,
https://www.kpcw.org/post/2019-was-2nd-hottest-year-record-according-nasa-and-noaa#stream/0

- -

[research recently published ]
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Daniel T. Blumstein, Paul Ehrlich,,,
*Worried about Earth’s future? Well, the outlook is worse than even 
scientists can grasp*
January 13, 2021

Anyone with even a passing interest in the global environment knows all 
is not well. But just how bad is the situation? Our new paper shows the 
outlook for life on Earth is more dire than is generally understood.

The research published today reviews more than 150 studies to produce a 
stark summary of the state of the natural world. We outline the likely 
future trends in biodiversity decline, mass extinction, climate 
disruption and planetary toxification. We clarify the gravity of the 
human predicament and provide a timely snapshot of the crises that must 
be addressed now.

The problems, all tied to human consumption and population growth, will 
almost certainly worsen over coming decades. The damage will be felt for 
centuries and threatens the survival of all species, including our own.

Our paper was authored by 17 leading scientists, including those from 
Flinders University, Stanford University and the University of 
California, Los Angeles. Our message might not be popular, and indeed is 
frightening. But scientists must be candid and accurate if humanity is 
to understand the enormity of the challenges we face...
- -
*Getting to grips with the problem*
First, we reviewed the extent to which experts grasp the scale of the 
threats to the biosphere and its lifeforms, including humanity. 
Alarmingly, the research shows future environmental conditions will be 
far more dangerous than experts currently believe.

This is largely because academics tend to specialise in one discipline, 
which means they’re in many cases unfamiliar with the complex system in 
which planetary-scale problems — and their potential solutions — exist.

What’s more, positive change can be impeded by governments rejecting or 
ignoring scientific advice, and ignorance of human behaviour by both 
technical experts and policymakers.

More broadly, the human optimism bias – thinking bad things are more 
likely to befall others than yourself – means many people underestimate 
the environmental crisis.

*Numbers don’t lie*
Our research also reviewed the current state of the global environment. 
While the problems are too numerous to cover in full here, they include:

    -- a halving of vegetation biomass since the agricultural revolution
    around 11,000 years ago. Overall, humans have altered almost
    two-thirds of Earth’s land surface

    -- About 1,300 documented species extinctions over the past 500
    years, with many more unrecorded. More broadly, population sizes of
    animal species have declined by more than two-thirds over the last
    50 years, suggesting more extinctions are imminent

    -- about one million plant and animal species globally threatened
    with extinction. The combined mass of wild mammals today is less
    than one-quarter the mass before humans started colonising the
    planet. Insects are also disappearing rapidly in many regions

    --85% of the global wetland area lost in 300 years, and more than
    65% of the oceans compromised to some extent by humans

    -- a halving of live coral cover on reefs in less than 200 years and
    a decrease in seagrass extent by 10% per decade over the last
    century. About 40% of kelp forests have declined in abundance, and
    the number of large predatory fishes is fewer than 30% of that a
    century ago.

*A bad situation only getting worse*
The human population has reached 7.8 billion – double what it was in 
1970 – and is set to reach about 10 billion by 2050. More people equals 
more food insecurity, soil degradation, plastic pollution and 
biodiversity loss.

High population densities make pandemics more likely. They also drive 
overcrowding, unemployment, housing shortages and deteriorating 
infrastructure, and can spark conflicts leading to insurrections, 
terrorism, and war.

Essentially, humans have created an ecological Ponzi scheme. 
Consumption, as a percentage of Earth’s capacity to regenerate itself, 
has grown from 73% in 1960 to more than 170% today.

High-consuming countries like Australia, Canada and the US use multiple 
units of fossil-fuel energy to produce one energy unit of food. Energy 
consumption will therefore increase in the near future, especially as 
the global middle class grows.

Then there’s climate change. Humanity has already exceeded global 
warming of 1°C this century, and will almost assuredly exceed 1.5 °C 
between 2030 and 2052. Even if all nations party to the Paris Agreement 
ratify their commitments, warming would still reach between 2.6°C and 
3.1°C by 2100.
*The danger of political impotence*
Our paper found global policymaking falls far short of addressing these 
existential threats. Securing Earth’s future requires prudent, long-term 
decisions. However this is impeded by short-term interests, and an 
economic system that concentrates wealth among a few individuals.

Right-wing populist leaders with anti-environment agendas are on the 
rise, and in many countries, environmental protest groups have been 
labelled “terrorists”. Environmentalism has become weaponised as a 
political ideology, rather than properly viewed as a universal mode of 
self-preservation.

Financed disinformation campaigns against climate action and forest 
protection, for example, protect short-term profits and claim meaningful 
environmental action is too costly – while ignoring the broader cost of 
not acting. By and large, it appears unlikely business investments will 
shift at sufficient scale to avoid environmental catastrophe.

*Changing course*
Fundamental change is required to avoid this ghastly future. 
Specifically, we and many others suggest:

    -- abolishing the goal of perpetual economic growth
    -- revealing the true cost of products and activities by forcing
    those who damage the environment to pay for its restoration, such as
    through carbon pricing
    -- rapidly eliminating fossil fuels
    -- regulating markets by curtailing monopolisation and limiting
    undue corporate influence on policy
    -- reigning in corporate lobbying of political representatives
    -- educating and empowering women across the globe, including giving
    them control over family planning.

*Don’t look away*
Many organisations and individuals are devoted to achieving these aims. 
However their messages have not sufficiently penetrated the policy, 
economic, political and academic realms to make much difference.

Failing to acknowledge the magnitude and gravity of problems facing 
humanity is not just naïve, it’s dangerous. And science has a big role 
to play here.

Scientists must not sugarcoat the overwhelming challenges ahead. 
Instead, they should tell it like it is. Anything else is at best 
misleading, and at worst potentially lethal for the human enterprise.
https://theconversation.com/worried-about-earths-future-well-the-outlook-is-worse-than-even-scientists-can-grasp-153091 


- -

[Sourced - Frontiers in Conservation Science]
PERSPECTIVE ARTICLE
Front. Conserv. Sci., 13 January 2021 | 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419
*Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future*
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Paul R. Ehrlich, Andrew Beattie, Gerardo Ceballos, 
Eileen Crist, Joan Diamond, Rodolfo Dirzo, Anne H. Ehrlich, John Harte, 
Mary Ellen Harte, Graham Pyke, Peter H. Raven, William J. Ripple, 
Frédérik Saltré, Christine Turnbull, Mathis Wackernagel and Daniel T. 
Blumstein

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have 
received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review 
the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more 
dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the 
biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great 
that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we 
ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to 
handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, 
this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists 
to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, 
business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of 
appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable 
future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will 
perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of 
ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying 
these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully 
appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity 
of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest 
sustainability goals.
*Introduction*
Humanity is causing a rapid loss of biodiversity and, with it, Earth's 
ability to support complex life. But the mainstream is having difficulty 
grasping the magnitude of this loss, despite the steady erosion of the 
fabric of human civilization (Ceballos et al., 2015; IPBES, 2019; 
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020; WWF, 2020). While suggested 
solutions abound (Díaz et al., 2019), the current scale of their 
implementation does not match the relentless progression of biodiversity 
loss (Cumming et al., 2006) and other existential threats tied to the 
continuous expansion of the human enterprise (Rees, 2020). Time delays 
between ecological deterioration and socio-economic penalties, as with 
climate disruption for example (IPCC, 2014), impede recognition of the 
magnitude of the challenge and timely counteraction needed. In addition, 
disciplinary specialization and insularity encourage unfamiliarity with 
the complex adaptive systems (Levin, 1999) in which problems and their 
potential solutions are embedded (Selby, 2006; Brand and Karvonen, 
2007). Widespread ignorance of human behavior (Van Bavel et al., 2020) 
and the incremental nature of socio-political processes that plan and 
implement solutions further delay effective action (Shanley and López, 
2009; King, 2016).

We summarize the state of the natural world in stark form here to help 
clarify the gravity of the human predicament. We also outline likely 
future trends in biodiversity decline (Díaz et al., 2019), climate 
disruption (Ripple et al., 2020), and human consumption and population 
growth to demonstrate the near certainty that these problems will worsen 
over the coming decades, with negative impacts for centuries to come. 
Finally, we discuss the ineffectiveness of current and planned actions 
that are attempting to address the ominous erosion of Earth's 
life-support system. Ours is not a call to surrender—we aim to provide 
leaders with a realistic “cold shower” of the state of the planet that 
is essential for planning to avoid a ghastly future.
- -
*Conclusions*
We have summarized predictions of a ghastly future of mass extinction, 
declining health, and climate-disruption upheavals (including looming 
massive migrations) and resource conflicts this century. Yet, our goal 
is not to present a fatalist perspective, because there are many 
examples of successful interventions to prevent extinctions, restore 
ecosystems, and encourage more sustainable economic activity at both 
local and regional scales. Instead, we contend that only a realistic 
appreciation of the colossal challenges facing the international 
community might allow it to chart a less-ravaged future. While there 
have been more recent calls for the scientific community in particular 
to be more vocal about their warnings to humanity (Ripple et al., 2017; 
Cavicchioli et al., 2019; Gardner and Wordley, 2019), these have been 
insufficiently foreboding to match the scale of the crisis. Given the 
existence of a human “optimism bias” that triggers some to underestimate 
the severity of a crisis and ignore expert warnings, a good 
communication strategy must ideally undercut this bias without inducing 
disproportionate feelings of fear and despair (Pyke, 2017; Van Bavel et 
al., 2020). It is therefore incumbent on experts in any discipline that 
deals with the future of the biosphere and human well-being to eschew 
reticence, avoid sugar-coating the overwhelming challenges ahead and 
“tell it like it is.” Anything else is misleading at best, or negligent 
and potentially lethal for the human enterprise at worst.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full


[Sins of the Fathers are Visited upon the Daughters]

*Amy Coney Barrett Should Recuse Herself from Big Oil’s Supreme Court Case*
The Justice’s father, who was an attorney for Shell for decades, could 
have direct knowledge of how the company managed climate threats

By Bill McKibben

January 13, 2021

January 19th, the day before Joe Biden’s Inauguration, is one of those 
moments when past, present, and future will collide, this time in the 
halls of the Supreme Court. The Justices will hear a case (BP P.L.C. v. 
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore), and the most interesting question 
is: How many Justices will there be? Because, as new research makes 
clear, Amy Coney Barrett, the junior member of that august bench, should 
recuse herself.

The case before the Supreme Court hinges on a narrow procedural 
question, but the underlying lawsuit is one of almost two dozen brought 
by cities and states that want the oil companies to compensate them for 
the damages—the rising seas and the gathering winds—caused by the 
fossil-fuel industry’s products. They contend, and the record leaves 
little doubt, that the industry knew for decades that it was triggering 
dangerous climate change. These were the biggest lies that companies 
have ever told: if Philip Morris killed us one smoker at a time, BP and 
ExxonMobil and the rest are taking out the entire planet, as the new 
record that the world set for billion-dollar “natural” disasters in 2020 
makes clear. That list of duplicitous companies includes Shell, which is 
where Barrett comes in: her father, Michael, was an attorney for Shell 
for almost three decades. During her Senate-confirmation hearings, 
Barrett provided a recusal list that she’d used during her years as an 
appeals-court judge—it included four Shell subsidiaries, but not Shell 
Offshore, Inc., even though her father represented that Shell entity in 
court and administrative forums for at least thirteen years. He also 
worked for the American Petroleum Institute for two decades, chairing 
its subcommittee on exploration and production law. And those two roles 
could be crucial to the case before the Supreme Court: as Lee Wasserman, 
the director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has played a key role 
in the fight to hold oil companies responsible, points out, Barrett père 
could be called for a deposition. “Justice Barrett’s father potentially 
has direct knowledge of and operational involvement in how Shell managed 
climate threats. He also faces reputational risk from his association 
with colleagues engaged in decades of corporate deception.”

For instance, in 1988—the year that the nasa scientist James Hansen made 
the greenhouse effect a public issue—Royal Dutch Shell produced a 
confidential internal memo after five years of internal reviews. The 
memo, which was uncovered in 2018 by the Dutch journalist Jelmer 
Mommers, notes that climate impacts could include “significant changes 
in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional 
temperature and weather.” It observes that changes would impact “the 
human environment, future living standards and food supplies, and could 
have major social, economic and political consequences.” These 
environmental and socioeconomic changes might be the “greatest in 
recorded history.” The memo includes this jarring observation: “By the 
time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take 
effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the 
situation.” The document also calculated how much Shell was on the hook 
for in all this; it concluded that the company could be tied to four per 
cent of all the carbon dioxide that humans, as of 1984, had spewed into 
the atmosphere. And Shell’s executives took the warning seriously—among 
other things, they quickly redesigned a natural-gas platform to raise 
its height and protect against sea-level rise and intensifying storms. 
As Wasserman says, “There is almost no chance that a person as senior as 
Mr. Coney, who worked principally in the ‘offshore OCS [Outer 
Continental Shelf] exploration and production area,’ would have been 
unaware of the issue.” ...

Shell, instead of admitting the damage it had caused, joined with other 
fossil-fuel companies to form the Global Climate Coalition, which ran a 
huge (and hugely successful) decade-long campaign to confuse the public. 
There’s no way to take that back now—it’s water under (and, 
increasingly, over) the bridge. But there can still be justice, in this 
case for the taxpayers of cities like Baltimore, who, despite not being 
at fault for the damage wrought by fossil-fuel companies, have to pay 
for the protection that their homes now require. That justice depends on 
taking the past seriously, which isn’t easy for any of us. It will be 
interesting to see how Justice Barrett responds...

more at 
-https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/amy-coney-barrett-should-recuse-herself-from-big-oils-supreme-court-case 




[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - January 15, 2009 *

January 15, 2009: Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduces HR 594, the Save Our 
Climate Act (a carbon-tax bill).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr594/text



/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes. 
Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20210115/8868162d/attachment.html>