[✔️] May 28, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri May 28 09:40:02 EDT 2021
/*May 28, 2021*/
[Mother Jones]
*Nature Will Help Protect Us From Climate Doom—If We Let It*
Earth’s ability to sock away carbon is a powerful tool to slow rising
temperatures.
The biggest hint nature ever gave humanity was when it sequestered
fossil fuels underground, locking their carbon away from the atmosphere.
Only rarely, like when a massive volcano fires a layer of coal into the
sky, does that carbon escape its confines to dramatically warm the planet.
But such catastrophes hint at a powerful weapon for fighting climate
change: Let nature do its carbon-sequestering thing. By restoring
forests and wetlands, humanity can bolster the natural processes that
trap atmospheric carbon in vegetation. As long as it all doesn’t catch
on fire (or a volcano doesn’t blow it up), such “nature-based
solutions,” as climate scientists call them, can help slow global warming...
- -
“People get the impression ‘don’t worry folks, nature will save us,’”
says Ellis. “That’s the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. First
of all, we are nature, and we need to work in concert with it. But we
need to put the pedal to the metal and fire on all cylinders if we’re
going to pull ourselves as humans, and our fellow passengers on
Spaceship Earth, out of this predicament we’ve put ourselves in.”
The hotter the planet gets, the harder it will be for these ecosystems
to bounce back. Plant species have thermal limits for their survival.
Longer, more intense droughts could cancel an ecosystem’s comeback.
Ever-more-ferocious wildfires no longer naturally reset forest
ecosystems by clearing out dead brush—they obliterate whole landscapes.
And in the meantime, we’re feeding this cycle by pumping 40 billion tons
of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
“If we don’t reduce our emissions by decarbonizing our economy,”
Girardin says, “the goose is cooked, and none of this matters.”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/05/nature-based-solutions-climate-change-carbon-sequestration/
*
*
[30 million displaced - eventually a third of all humanity}*
**The Great Climate Migration Has Begun | Amanpour and Company*
May 24, 2021
Amanpour and Company
The climate crisis is forcing thousands around the world to flee as
their homes become increasingly uninhabitable. Abrahm Lustgarten is a
Pulitzer Prize-winning environmental reporter and has spent years
looking at how climate migration will reshape the world. He speaks with
Hari Sreenivasan about his latest project.
Originally aired on May 24, 2021.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaI9nxSKAw
[SSPs are Shared Socioeconomic Pathways -- scenarios of projected
socioeconomic global changes -- used to derive greenhouse gas emissions
scenarios with different climate policies. Up to the year 2100 -
predictions]
*ICONICS webinar - 25 May 2021 - Societal and climate change*
May 25, 2021 -- ICONICS SSP
Dr. Kris Ebi from UW Global Change presents the consensus study on the
US Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031.
Dr. Jana Sillmann from CICERO speaks about how event-based storylines
can be used to better communicate risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ts5d6-t-Vk
- -
[Download the report]
*Advice for the U.S. Global Change Research Program*
The Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP
or Program) provides ongoing and focused advice to the USGCRP by
convening key thought leaders and decision makers at semiannual
meetings, providing strategic advice, reviewing draft plans for the
Program, and serving as a portal to relevant activities from across the
National Academies.
2021
*Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031*
The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a collection of 13
Federal entities charged by law to assist the United States and the
world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and
natural processes of global change. Global Change Research Needs and
Opportunities for 2022-2031 advises the USGCRP on how best to meet its
mandate in light of climate change impacts happening today and projected
into the future. This report identifies critical climate change risks,
research needed to support decision-making relevant to managing these
risks, and opportunities for the USGCRP's participating agencies and
other partners to advance these research priorities over the next decade.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/advice-for-the-us-global-change-research-program
- -
[Consensus Report 4 pages]
FOCUS FIRST ON URGENT RISKS TO AMERICAN WELL-BEING
"Climate model projections indicate that each additional unit of
warming will further increase risks
for nearly all impacts of climate change. New research and
coordination are needed to understand and communicate complex
interactions among changes in the physical climate system,
ecosystems, and human
systems, with particular focus on urgent risks to the well-being of
Americans today and over the coming
decades—including to health, food, energy, water,and economic security."
https://www.nap.edu/resource/26055/USGCRP%204-Pager.pdf
- -
[for example]
*What will a future high-impact extreme event look like in Norway?*
Oct 29, 2020
CICERO klima
Are we prepared?
Together with Melanie Burford and Silvereye Pictures we have made a
short film telling the story about future weather on the West Coast of
Norway. The film is showcasing the results from the CICERO led research
project TWEX Translating Weather Extremes into the Future that offer
local and regional decision-makers a more realistic picture of what
future weather extremes might look like, hence facilitating adaptation
planning and implementation.
Read more here: https://cicero.oslo.no/en/Twex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyxq5UBdk0c
https://news.trust.org/item/20210526120959-puazp
*From suicide to 'eco-anxiety', climate change spurs mental health crisis*
by Laurie Goering | @lauriegoering | Thomson Reuters Foundation
26 May 2021
Mental stresses are growing for families hit by more extreme heat,
flooded homes and worries about a hotter planet - but the impacts are
little measured so far
By Laurie Goering
LONDON, May 26 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Intensifying climate
change impacts, from fiercer heatwaves to more flooded homes, are
driving a growing mental health crisis around the world whose costs are
so far underestimated and poorly understood, researchers said on Wednesday.
From more heat-linked suicides in Mexico and the United States to
rising "eco-anxiety" among young people worried about their future,
large numbers are being affected, said Emma Lawrance, a mental health
specialist with the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial
College London.
The effects of planetary heating are hitting the poorest and most
vulnerable particularly hard, and could widen existing inequities,
warned Lawrance, lead author of a new briefing published by the British
university.
"When we talk about climate change as a health crisis and exacerbating
inequalities, I think the mental health piece of the puzzle has been
left behind, and it's important we tackle that," she told the Thomson
Reuters Foundation.
Early efforts to address the problem range from Australia's decision to
allocate public funds for mental health support after devastating
bushfires in 2019-2020 to groups like the Good Grief Network, which
helps people anxious about climate change learn to cope, partly by
encouraging personal or political action.
Aid agencies such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies also are training workers to recognise and offer
assistance for mental as well as physical distress caused by
weather-related crises.
But as climate change impacts - from stronger storms to scarcer food and
water in some countries - bring more post-traumatic stress disorder,
depression and other mental health concerns, action needs to be stepped
up, Lawrance said.
"The gap between knowing the impacts and being able to quantify the
impacts ... is holding us back," she said.
Across the board, mental health disorders already cost the global
economy at least $2.5 trillion a year including through knock-on effects
like lost productivity and lower growth, researchers said.
"The deterioration in mental health caused by climate change will carry
a significant cost, which is currently not being considered," the
briefing paper noted.
The financial burden is already rising in richer nations as well as
poorer and more climate-vulnerable parts of the world.
People in Britain whose homes are damaged by floods and storms are 50%
more likely to suffer problems such as depression or anxiety - even if
they don't have to move out temporarily, found a 2019 study by the
National Centre for Social Research.
Fortunately, Lawrance said, rising spending to curb climate-changing
emissions could also protect mental health, giving a double benefit.
Planting more carbon-absorbing trees, for instance, can reduce peoples'
exposure to severe heat, while better insulating houses can cut both
emissions and discomfort, she said.
She warned against dismissing anxiety over climate change as a mental
health disorder, arguing that those struggling with it needed help to
find practical ways to deal with the issue.
"We don't want to pathologise strong emotional responses to what's
happening," Lawrance said. "Taking action is good for the climate - and
also for people."
Related stories:
For survivors of Fiji's deadly cyclone, mental scars linger
Mental health at risk as California wildfire threat grows
Children suffering 'eco-anxiety' over climate change, psychologists say
Spotlight: Mental health and climate change
(Reporting by Laurie Goering @lauriegoering; editing by Megan Rowling.
Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of
Thomson Reuters. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate)
https://news.trust.org/item/20210526120959-puazp
[big changes]
*Shell, Exxon and Chevron stunned by courts and shareholders in climate
blitz*
Ketan Joshi -27 May 2021 6
Three of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies have suffered
significant blows in quick succession, with a collection of court
rulings and shareholder votes sending shockwaves through an industry
rattled by accelerating climate action and the impacts of the COVID19
pandemic.
Overnight, a Dutch court found that Shell is required to reduce its
total emissions, including those from operation but also those from the
use of the products it sells (“scope 3” emissions) by 45% of 2019 levels
by the year 2030, to align with global climate goals.
This was found on the grounds that climate impacts would breach the
human rights of residents of the Netherlands, and the Wadden region. The
case was brought in April 2019 by seven climate activist groups and led
by Dutch environmental group Milieudefensie, and the findings were
announced on Wednesday night, Europe time.
The court’s ruling found that Shell is directly culpable for the climate
impacts created by the normal usage of the products it sells, namely oil
and gas. It rejected the company’s arguments that not selling these
products would result in others selling the same, or that the
responsibility lies with consumers rather than fossil fuel companies.
The ruling sets the 45% emissions reductions target, and highlights that
“[Shell] is free to decide not to make new investments in explorations
and fossil fuels, and to change the energy package offered by the Shell
group, such as the reduction pathways require…through the energy package
offered by the Shell group, [Royal Dutch Shell] controls and influences
the Scope 3 emissions of the end-users of the products produced and sold
by the Shell group”.
Today, Australia’s Federal Court is set to rule on a similar case,
asserting that the harm caused by coal extracted from a planned mine
expansion in Whitehaven, NSW, is a breach of the rights of young
Australians. “If the Court agrees that the Minister’s duty of care to
protect young people from the harms of burning coal prevents her from
approving the Vickery Extension Project there could be huge flow on
effects for the approval of new, harmful fossil fuel projects in
Australia”, write the group that brought the case forward.
Chevron also suffered a major blow, with a stunning 61% of investors
backing a proposal from shareholder activist firm FollowThis calling on
Chevron to substantially reduce its scope 3 emissions by selling a lower
quantity of fossil fuels. And activist shareholder organisation Engine
No. 1 succeeded in the election of two climate-focused shareholders to
the board of ExxonMobil. “The result is one the biggest activist upsets
in recent years and an embarrassment for Exxon”, wrote Bloomberg
Climate. “It’s also unprecedented in the rarefied world of Big Oil, and
a sign that institutional investors are increasingly willing to force
corporate America to tackle climate change”.
This triplet of major, historically significant findings and shareholder
votes comes during a period of frequently unprecedented announcements.
Only last week, the International Energy Agency, once derided as
renewable-skeptics and oil and gas champions, released a report calling
for a total cessation of exploration for new fossil fuels and a stop to
new fossil fuel infrastructure, along with the retirement of all
coal-fired power stations in advanced economics by 2030, and across the
world by 2040. And another court action win focusing on the human rights
impacts of fossil fuels resulted in a direct and extremely significant
change to Germany’s federal climate targets.
Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron were responsible for 5% of total global
scope 1 and 3 emissions between 1988 and 2015, according to a 2017
Carbon Disclosure Project report. These changes indicate a major shift
for global oil and gas companies away from expanding and growing their
operations and towards either struggling to maintain their sales or
attempting to slow the inevitable decline of sales.
The stream of news across the world signifying major shifts in the
direction of fossil fuel industries are in stark contrast to the actions
of Australia’s government, which has been increasing its spending on
fossil fuel subsidies and attempts to prop up the industry.
Yesterday, the International Energy Agency appointed Australia’s Energy
and Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor to the Vice Chair
position for the 2022 ‘ministerial meeting, along with Tinne Van der
Straeten of Belgium and Dan Jørgensen of Denmark. Conspicuously, Van der
Straeten mentioned both the US and Danish ministers, but did not mention
Australia, in her tweeted response. It is only May, with the G7 meeting
in late June and the COP26 meeting in November yet to come – already,
the world’s fossil fuel industries are shifting far more quickly than
Australia’s leadership was prepared for.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/shell-exxon-and-chevron-stunned-by-courts-and-shareholders-in-climate-blitz/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming May 28, 2003
*
The New York Times reports on ExxonMobil's crucial role in the
climate-denial industry.
*Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming*
By Jennifer 8. Lee
May 28, 2003
Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming
over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations
for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research.
At the same time, the company, the world's largest oil and gas
concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups
that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming
and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide
emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.
Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations,
which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of
Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for
Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American
Legislative Exchange Council.
The organizations are modest in size but have been outspoken in the
global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest corporate
donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than 10 percent of
their annual budgets. While a few of the groups say they also
receive some money from other oil companies, it is only a small
fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.
''We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the
debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,'' said Tom
Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. ''There is this whole issue that
no one should question the science of global climate change that is
ludicrous. That's the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a
lot of trouble.'' He also noted, ''These are not single-agenda groups.''
The organizations emphasize that while their views align with
Exxon's, the company's money does not influence their policy
conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought out
in part because of their credibility. ''They've determined that we
are effective at what we do,'' said George C. Landrith, president of
Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that maintains that human
activities are not responsible for global warming. He says Exxon
essentially takes the attitude, ''We like to make it possible to do
more of that.''
Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget,
received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001,
according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth was
not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually spread over
three years.
The increase corresponds with a rising level of public debate since
the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, some of the
groups said. After President Bush rejected the protocol, a treaty
requiring nations to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, many
corporations shifted their attention to Washington, where the debate
has centered on proposals for domestic curbs on the emissions.
''Firefighters' budgets go up when fires go up,'' said Fred L.
Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron
Ebell, an analyst from the institute, spoke at last year's Exxon
shareholders' meeting, where he criticized a renewable energy
resolution proposed by a group of shareholders.
Exxon's backing of third-party groups is a marked contrast to its
more public role in the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group
formed in 1989 to challenge the science around global warming. The
group eventually disbanded when oil and auto companies started to
withdraw. As companies were left to walk their own path, Exxon
shifted money toward independent policy groups.
''Now it's come down to a few of these groups to be the good foot
soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,'' said Kert
Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which has tried to
organize an international boycott of Exxon.
Exxon's publicly disclosed documents reveal that donations to many
of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent from 2000
to 2002. And money to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a
conservative group that works with state legislators, has almost
tripled, as the policy debate has moved to the state level.
The gifts are minuscule compared with the $100 million, 10-year
scientific grant to Stanford, which is establishing a research
center that will focus on technologies that could provide energy
without adding to greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global
warming. Nevertheless, the donations in the tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of dollars are significant for groups with
budgets ranging from $700,000 to $4 million.
Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the
debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much of the
industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward the reality of
global warming. As Exxon has become isolated from its peers, it has
faced increasing pressure from shareholders and environmentalists.
BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco have developed strategies that
incorporate renewable energy, carbon trading and emissions reductions.
Among the initiatives that Exxon's money has helped is the Center
for Science and Public Policy. The two-month-old center is a one-man
operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill on two issues:
global warming and the health effects of mercury.
''We don't lobby, we educate,'' said Bob Ferguson, head of the
center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican Congressional
staff member. ''We try to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan and
nonideological.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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/20210528/effb7345/attachment.htm>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list