[✔️] May 6, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*May 6, 2022*/

/[  the future requires food ] /
*World Food Prize goes to former farmer who answers climate change 
question: 'So what?'*
May 5, 2022
JULIA SIMON
In the early days of climate science in the '80s, she was one of the 
first researchers making projections of how the changing climate would 
affect North American crops. Still, the researcher at NASA's Goddard 
Institute of Space Studies knew she needed to go further.

That's why years before her NASA colleague James Hansen gave key 1988 
Congressional testimony outlining the link between greenhouse gasses and 
climate change, Rosenzweig wrote him a note about climate change. She 
told him she wanted to expand her computer modeling to better understand 
its potential impact on global crops.
For the better part of the last four decades that's what Rosenzweig has 
done. She tells NPR that while her first climate modeling work may have 
started with her sitting at a computer, her more recent work means she's 
on farms around the world, engaging with stakeholders to determine how 
crops are already affected by the climate crisis and what can be done 
about it.
She's the founder of the "Agricultural Model Intercomparison and 
Improvement Project" or "AgMIP," a multi-disciplinary team of more than 
1,000 researchers worldwide working on climate modeling and agriculture. 
Now Rosenzweig has won the World Food Prize for her work helping the 
global community recognize and predict climate change's effect on food 
systems and her leadership to give countries new solutions to ease the 
impact.

In our interview, Rosenzweig, the head of the Climate Impacts Group at 
the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University, 
explains why tackling the climate crisis and food requires new 
approaches to research, fields a question from a worried farmer in 
Nigeria and tells how she keeps her own eco-anxiety at bay. The 
interview has been edited for length and clarity.

*You've been looking at climate change and farming since the 1980s. What 
in your work has surprised you?*

The surprise is that the extreme events have started to become more 
severe, longer duration, more frequent, earlier, I think, than we had 
anticipated. Starting around the turn into the 2000s, this increase in 
extreme events in agricultural regions around the world – that's been 
the surprise...
- -
*I feel like there are a lot of people who, when they think about crop 
failure, when they think about hunger, when they think about all the 
challenges we're tackling, there's eco-anxiety, there's this immense 
sadness. And that can be immobilizing and make people feel as if there's 
nothing to be done. It sounds like even in 1994, you weren't 
immobilized. How do you keep going? How do you combat those feelings?*

Because I've been so fortunate in my career to work with people all over 
the world, my fellow crop modelers, my wonderful climate scientists, the 
AgMIP community, to help their countries respond to climate change – it 
gives me hope. There is such an energy around helping save the planet.

That's why food is so important because everybody on the planet eats. 
The food system offers all these opportunities to roll up sleeves and 
work on solving climate change.

AgMIP models are verifying how farmers' practices such as no-till and 
cover crops are actually helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
AgMIP is holding a workshop this month on these activities. And it's 
real, the challenges are very real. But what I see is so many people in 
the food system collectively getting going on creating the solutions.

*So it sounds like you don't even consider the concept of failure.*

No, I don't. I don't. You know why? We cannot fail. We must solve it. We 
must solve it for the health of every single person on the planet.

You were enthusiastic from the get-go.

Yes, very much so. [Laughs.] You've known me for a half an hour, you can 
tell, that's how I am!

*Do you have a plan for what you plan to do with the $250,000 in prize 
money?*

Well, yes. Not an exact plan, but I'm going to donate it all to research 
on climate change and food. All of it.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/05/1096797684/world-food-prize-goes-to-former-farmer-who-answers-climate-change-question-so-wh
- -
[see also a few research papers ]
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/impacts/



[ aside from ethical satisfaction ]
*What rich countries gain by helping poor countries recover from climate 
disasters*
By Taylor Dimsdale | May 4, 2022
Developed countries have a moral imperative to support 
climate-vulnerable developing countries, says program director for risk 
and resilience at E3G, Taylor Dimsdale. "But it is also in the developed 
world’s self-interest to do so."
No country can claim to be prepared for the most likely warming 
scenarios outlined in the latest blockbuster international scientific 
assessment of the impacts of climate change. But it is the 
least-developed countries and small island states on the front line of 
the crisis. For them climate change is a one-two punch. Not only do 
these countries have less money and administrative capacity to cope, but 
their very vulnerability to climate change increases the costs for them 
to access global financial markets for funding.

 From 2008 to 2018, 20 of the most climate-vulnerable developing 
countries paid $40 billion to $62 billion more in interest payments on 
sovereign debt due to the risk of droughts, floods, and hurricanes. They 
continue to suffer each time a new disaster hits, and they lack the 
resources to build back better.

Developed countries have a moral imperative to support them. But it is 
also in the developed world’s self-interest to do so.

*Unavoidable impacts.* Scientists go out of their way to avoid 
exaggeration, but it is beyond question that hurricanes, droughts, heat 
waves, and floods are becoming more serious and more frequent. As a 
result, millions of people don’t have enough food and fresh water. All 
of these problems get catastrophically worse if average world 
temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and 
the world is already teetering toward a 1.1 degrees Celsius increase.

Security and intelligence agencies around the world have said for years 
that a volatile climate is a driver of conflict and instability. More 
recently, financial regulators and investors have warned that climate 
impacts threaten the global financial system. Without a fast-tracked 
global effort on the scale of the Apollo program to reduce carbon 
emissions and adapt to the changes that are already baked in, the world 
will be a more frightening place.

Developing countries have been aware of this problem for decades. The 
negotiating group of Small Island Developing States introduced the 
concept of loss and damage in the 1990s when it became clear that some 
amount of sea level rise would be unavoidable. There is no universally 
accepted definition of loss and damage, but generally it refers to the 
costs related to climate impacts that cannot be avoided through 
mitigation or adaptation measures.

*What can be done?* Loss and damage has since become one of the most 
hotly contested issues in global climate negotiations. Developed 
countries, including the United States and European Union member states, 
have pushed back against any debate on loss and damage out of concern 
that acknowledging the problem would quickly lead to claims of legal 
liability and compensation owed to developing countries.

While these concerns deserve most of the blame for sluggish progress on 
the loss/damage front, there is also an accounting problem. It is not 
clear how to calculate the cost of non-economic damages, like loss of 
cultural heritage or indeed of entire territories or livelihoods. There 
is the growing risk that irreversible tipping points might be 
breached—for example a change to the Gulf Stream or a dieback of the 
Amazon forests. Were either of those events to happen, the costs would 
be impossible to measure. There is the further complication that loss 
and damage is a domestic issue as well as an international one. Rich 
countries have vulnerable populations as well, and most are not being 
protected.

As a result, there has been bitter debate and only modest progress. The 
Warsaw International Mechanism was set up in 2013 to “promote the 
implementation of approaches to loss and damage,” but its mandate is 
vaguevague, and it lacks teeth. The landmark Paris Climate Agreement in 
2015 also recognized the importance of “averting, minimizing, and 
addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of 
climate change,” but didn’t offer any guidance on how to do that. The 
Santiago Expert Network was established in 2019 to catalyze technical 
assistance for developing countries, but so far it is just a website.

There are unanswered questions about how to measure loss and damage and 
how much new money is needed. But the fundamental problem is that the 
cost of climate impacts is beginning to exceed the ability of developing 
countries to pay, and this will only get worse. Adaptation efforts, 
while aimed at minimizing loss and damage, are growing but are clearly 
not enough; only about one quarter of climate finance currently goes to 
helping countries adapt and only a fraction of that reaches the least 
developed nations. Disaster risk finance and humanitarian response are 
part of the solution, but these are already falling short and needs are 
growing especially in light of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine. The Horn 
of Africa for example is facing the possibility of its worst food crisis 
in 30 years.

The politics of climate risk shifted at the most recent negotiations in 
Glasgow last year, and developed countries engaged more constructively 
on loss and damage. It was mentioned in the High Ambition Coalition 
leader’s statement, which was signed by the United States, Germany, 
Canada, and other developed countries, and a commitment was made to 
advance the Santiago Expert Network. This was partly due to the 
unprecedented levels of devastation seen around the world, but also to 
broader frustrations about inequalities in the global pandemic response 
and international development in general. However, while the largest 
negotiating bloc of developing countries called to raise new money to 
pay for loss and damage, developed countries resisted. The compromise 
was to launch a three-year “Glasgow Dialogue” to discuss financing 
options, but unsurprisingly developing countries were not satisfied. 
Their public frustration made clear that the negotiations could grind to 
a halt unless an agreement is reached.

*The benefits of effective action.* Major economies have a lot to gain 
from putting serious offers on the table. For a start, finance for loss 
and damage would have tangible security benefits. There is a significant 
overlap between countries that are most vulnerable to climate impacts 
and those that are at high risk of conflict. These include countries in 
Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean, where stability is a 
strategic interest for the world’s major powers. Instability can lead to 
price shocks for food and raw materials, which given interconnected 
supply chains would become an economic security problem for developed 
countries. As the US government has itself recognized, the lack of 
resources needed to manage climate disasters could also lead to sudden 
and large unplanned movements of people, which can increase geopolitical 
tensions. Food and water scarcity driven by climate change could be a 
factor behind increased support for extremist groups.

The fact that loss and damage has become a central negotiating ask for 
developing countries also means that finding a solution is now essential 
for maintaining faith in the multilateral process, which is already 
under threat given the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. Failure to meet 
developing countries’ expectations on loss and damage will reduce the 
incentives for cooperation on a wide range of issues, including trade 
and mitigation.

Developed countries can also learn from deeper cooperation with 
developing countries. No country in the world has an adequate set of 
policy responses to physical climate risk. The United States, for 
example, has been warned that it spends so much money recovering from 
disasters that its sovereign credit rating could eventually be at risk. 
After unprecedented flooding last summer, the German government’s only 
option was to approve a $32 billion reconstruction fund. Poor, highly 
vulnerable countries have been learning how to efficiently minimize the 
damage from disasters for decades, without the benefit of large public 
budgets. Lending financial and technical support could offer important 
lessons for providers as well.

Major economies need to think creatively about near-term solutions. To 
start, they should make clear that the aim of the Glasgow Dialogue is to 
rally significant finance by 2024, and they should consider establishing 
an international fund dedicated to loss and damage. Grants could come 
from a range of sources, including multilateral development banks and 
the private sector. There should be a roadmap for achieving that goal, 
agreement on a definition of what counts as loss and damage, and an 
assessment of existing needs and resources. The V20, a coalition of 
vulnerable nations, plan to pilot test a new funding facility that could 
provide a model.

In the meantime, the big emitters could give money and technical 
assistance directly to vulnerable countries through national funds like 
the mechanism being planned in Bangladesh. Money could be raised through 
a tax on fossil fuel producers or financial transactions. The 
International Monetary Fund is launching a Resilience and Sustainability 
Trust that could be a game-changer given its investment value of $50 
billion, but no one knows exactly what it will do yet. In the meantime, 
developed countries should continue to scale up their disaster response 
and humanitarian assistance, as well as improving insurance pooling and 
early warning systems.

Realistically, if the world does not get better at managing risks and 
building resilience, there will never be enough money for loss and 
damage. Solving the problem will ultimately require a new global 
framework for development and human security with climate change as a 
central pillar. That will have to be based on better climate risk 
assessments, climate-proof infrastructure, insurance mechanisms, and 
early warning systems, so that vulnerable communities everywhere are 
protected. But coming up with a short term offer on loss and damage 
finance will keep the window open for long-term fixes.

Developed countries are right to question why some major emitters that 
have seen breakneck economic growth in recent decades enabled by fossil 
fuels, like China, are not facing the same pressure to contribute. 
Fossil fuel exporters will increasingly argue that they deserve 
compensation for lost revenue. These issues need to be hashed out. But 
that should not prevent the G7 and other rich countries from acting, as 
they have much to gain from leadership. Climate change has hard security 
consequences but no hard security solutions. Throwing vulnerable 
countries a lifeline when disasters strike and helping them build 
resilience to future shocks is the only real option. It also happens to 
be a cost-effective investment in peace and stability at a time when the 
world is in desperate need of both.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/what-rich-countries-gain-by-helping-poor-countries-recover-from-climate-disasters/


/[   -  free Endnotes and Appendix  - ] /
*How to Prepare for Climate Change*
A Practical Guide to Surviving the Chaos
By David Pogue
End notes available
https://d1hbl61hovme3a.cloudfront.net/assets_us/how-to-prepare-for-climate-change-endnotes.pdf
Appendix
Your Carbon Footprint
*HOW TO PREPARE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE IS PRIMARILY ABOUT*
adaptation: changes we can make to accommodate the new climate
and its effects.
But there’s another response to the climate crisis: mitigation. That means
taking steps to minimize the worsening of the climate.
At this point, we need to adapt and mitigate, hard and fast. The more
mitigation humans do, the less we’ll have to adapt.
https://d1hbl61hovme3a.cloudfront.net/assets_us/your-carbon-footprint-1.28.21.pdf
https://www.simonandschuster.com/p/how-to-prepare-for-climate-change-bonus-files



/[  Beckwith in a sober cryo-science lesson ] /
*ANTARCTICA - THE LOOMING THREAT*
May 5, 2022
Facing Future
We used to consider #Antarctica as a stable place, but recent heat 
waves, with temperatures up to 70 degrees centigrade above normal, 
combined with atmospheric rivers, which increase both warmth and 
moisture, are threatening the stability of the continent, and 
challenging climate models.  Because of these phenomena, global sea 
level rise will likely be far higher than any of the models have so far 
predicted.

#PaulBeckwith explains to host Dale Walkonen that, as ice shelves, like 
Larsen A, B, and now C melt and fall into the ocean, they cease to hold 
back the ice sheets that lie on top of the land mass.  If these sheets 
collapse as well, many coastal cities, unable to hold back the ocean, 
will be inundated with sea water.  This loss of life and land can only 
be mitigated if #ClimateChange is seriously addressed within this decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OolVJK91AQ0



/[The news archive - looking back at significant moments]/
/*May 6, 2001*/
The New York Times reports on EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's 
/persona-non-grata /status in the George W. Bush administration:

    "Mrs. Whitman was greeted like a political star when she arrived
    here several months ago to run the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Not a single senator, not even her Democratic rivals, opposed her
    appointment.

    "But no sooner had the former New Jersey governor unpacked her bags
    than she found her authority undercut by the very man who had lured
    her to Washington, George W. Bush.

    "The most recent snub occurred when the White House openly
    contradicted a claim she made on national television two weeks ago
    that the administration might back away from its plans to open up
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling amid growing
    opposition in Congress.

    "Only weeks earlier, Mrs. Whitman declared that Mr. Bush intended to
    fulfill a campaign pledge to lower carbon dioxide emissions from
    power plants -- only to find that the president had decided against
    that policy without so much as telling his chief environmental overseer.

    "So it is not surprising that the public embarrassments Mrs. Whitman
    has had to endure at the hands of her new boss are giving rise to
    questions about her ability to lead the environmental agency, though
    she and the White House insist that there is no strife and that she
    is an important voice in the administration...

    "The recent setbacks also threaten to undermine the credibility of
    Mrs. Whitman, a politician whose plain-spoken manner and seemingly
    moderate political views had made her one of the nation's most
    prominent governors and at one point a potential vice presidential
    candidate.

    "Indeed, Mrs. Whitman's nomination to head the environmental agency
    cheered many people on the left -- despite her mixed record on the
    environment in New Jersey -- who were wary of the conservative
    Republican crowd that had moved into the White House. But those very
    same people are no longer so optimistic that her voice will be heard
    within the new administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/nyregion/hitting-ground-limping-for-whitman-chaos-her-wake-sharp-elbows-her-future.html?pagewanted=all


=======================================
*More daily summaries*
---------------------------------------
*Climate Nexus https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the 
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an 
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides 
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter 
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed.    5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief 
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of 
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours 
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our 
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*The Daily Climate   Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts, 
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.

Other newsletters  at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/

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

/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. This is a hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain 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.