prepareforchange--2019-03-26--Evidence for man-made global warming hits gold standard scientists claim

Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’: scientists claim

And the push for the agenda continues on…….who more trustworthy than Reuters…?…..  OSLO (Reuters) – Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.  They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.  Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.  Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.  “The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.”  Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.  U.S. President Donald Trump has often cast doubt on global warming and plans to pull out of the 197-nation Paris climate agreement which seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.  Sixty-two percent of Americans polled in 2018 believed that climate change has a human cause, up from 47 percent in 2013, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.  Monday’s findings, by researchers in the United States, Canada and Scotland, said evidence for global warming reached the five sigma level by 2005 in two of three sets of satellite data widely used by researchers, and in 2016 in the third.  Professor John Christy, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville which runs the third set of data, said there were still many gaps in understanding climate change. His data show a slower pace of warming than the other two sets.  “You may see a certain fingerprint that indicates human influence, but that the actual intensity of the influence is minor (as our satellite data indicate),” he told Reuters.  Separately in 2013, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is “extremely likely”, or at least 95 percent probable, that human activities have been the main cause of climate change since the 1950s.  Peter Stott of the British Met Office, who was among the scientists drawing that conclusion and was not involved in Monday’s study, said he would favor raising the probability one notch to “virtually certain”, or 99-100 percent.  “The alternative explanation of natural factors dominating has got even less likely,” he told Reuters.  The IPCC will next publish a formal assessment of the probabilities in 2021.  “I would be reluctant to raise to 99-100 percent, but there is no doubt there is more evidence of change in the global signals over a wider suite of ocean indices and atmospheric indices,” said Professor Nathan Bindoff, a climate scientist at the University of Tasmania.  Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.


prisonplanet--2019-04-24--Fifty Years Of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions And Why People Believe Them

Two of the most important problems that the so-called Green New Deal will attempt to solve at the cost of incalculable trillions are global warming and its consequences, including drought, famine, floods and massive starvation. You may recall that Obama in his 2015 State of the Union speech declared that the greatest threat facing us was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either. “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama.  His entire administration including Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry, frequently repeated the claim that climate change was the greatest threat facing the world. It was a sentiment Obama stressed again during an Earth Day trip to the Florida Everglades where he said, “This is not a problem for another generation. It has serious implications for the way we live right now”.  More recently, presidential hopefuls like Beto O’Rourke, along with most Democrat candidates, declared their zealous support for the Green New Deal in forecasting that the world will end in 12 years if nothing is done.  This leads to the question I pose in this brief, data-driven, essay: What kind of track record do the politicians and their experts have in their climate predictions? After all, some of these predictions were made 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. Can’t we now look back at their predictions and begin to hold them accountable?  As others have done, I have chosen to begin with the first Earth Day “Celebration” in 1970. Now who can be against Earth Day? It’s a charming idea, and I have been an enthusiastic supporter since my college days in Ann Arbor, when we celebrated the event on the campus of the University of Michigan.  Here’s what the experts were saying almost a half century ago on  :  I will focus my attention on the two most important predictions: Global Warming and Massive Starvation. If we return to the failed prediction of global cooling noted above, we can put the temperature data in a wider perspective. NASA data show that a period of warming in the 1920’s and 30’s was followed by two or three decades of cooling temperatures, from the 1940s to 1970. At that time many experts, including Carl Sagan, warned us of a possible ice age—only to have the climate change on them. From the 1970s to the late 1990s, scientists began to record slightly warmer temperatures. Curiously, as we look back at this period NASA sounded the alarm for global warming while a short time later the New York Times cited NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] data showing no warming over the past 100 years in the US.  Since then, group think and political correctness, plus rewards in government grants and university promotions, have created incentives for nearly everyone to jump onto the current bandwagon of projecting an escalating warming trend. Once again we came back to the doomsday scenario that characterized 1970’s.  Then, out of the blue, the darned climate changed again. Global temperature data has been roughly flat since about 1998, even cooling by .056 degrees C from February 2016 to February 2018, according to official NASA global temperature data. Of course, this is just a two-year trend.  You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.  This raises the question: How would an informed citizen make sense of our current predicament?  Without question there has been an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. A majority of scientists believe this to be the primary source of the global warming that has occurred.  Just how much warming has occurred?  The scientific consensus is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 0.4 °C over the past 100 years. This is far less than experts predicted. And therein lies the problem: scientists are better at observation than prediction.  A case in point: experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have now predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Notice the nearly 5-fold difference between the conservative and more liberal (one is tempted to say “progressive”) estimates. This strikes me as akin to meteorologists predicting tomorrow’s high as somewhere between 40 and 80 degrees. Not much of a forecast if you are trying to decide whether to head to the beach or not. The confidence interval seems pretty safe, but the precision leaves much to be desired. Just how much faith should one put in such projections, given the flawed models and track record of failed predictions?  Regarding the other staggering Earth Day forecast of widespread starvation into hundreds of millions, recent satellite data from NASA and NOAA offer a compelling explanation for the spectacular failure of these predictions.  Almost half of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the past 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions.  This greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States, or more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000’s. That increase represents an enormous amount of food to feed a hungry planet, which is one reason the Earth Day predictions of mass starvation never materialized.  Because the mainstream media refuses to report such important data as this is from NASA and NOAA that do not support their doomsday narrative, I have never actually met anyone who knew anything about this when I mention it. I only learned about this myself a few years ago because of Matt Ridley, whose excellent blog I recommend without reserve:  This is clearly the opposite of what you hear from the mainstream media, which loves to provide as much coverage as possible of one disaster after another. A more rational analysis would examine the average number of deaths per decade from 1920-1917. But this would show a “huuuge” decline in deaths caused by climate change, and we can’t have that now can we? The data below are from the most respected global database, the International Disaster Database.  In contrast to the dire Earth Day predictions of 1970, climate-related deaths have been declining strongly for 70 years. Notice that this decline in the absolute number deaths occurred while the global population increased four-fold. Thus, the individual risk of dying from climate-related disasters has declined almost 99% from the 1920s to the present day. Our increased wealth and technological capacity to respond to natural disasters has greatly reduced our collective human climate vulnerability – Good news for rational beings, bad news for Democrat candidates.  This article was posted: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 4:24 am


shareblue--2019-11-29--UN says immediate changes needed to stop global warming before it's 'locked in'

Countries need to begin making steep cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions immediately or risk missing the targets they’ve agreed for limiting global warming, with potentially dire consequences, senior United Nations officials said Tuesday.  A report by the U.N. Environment Program, published days before governments gather in Madrid for an annual meeting on climate change, showed the amount of planet-heating gases being pumped into the atmosphere hitting a new high last year, despite a near-global pledge to reduce them.  Man-made greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2018 to 55.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to the U.N.’s annual "emissions gap" report. While much of the increase came from emerging economies such as China and India, some of those emissions are the result of manufacturing outsourced from developed countries.  “We need quick wins to reduce emissions as much as possible in 2020,” said the agency’s chief, Inger Andersen. “We need to catch up on the years in which we procrastinated.”  To stop average global temperatures from increasing by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) this century compared with pre-industrial times, worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases will have to drop by 7.6% each year in the coming decade, the agency said. Scientists say the 1.5C target — contained in the 2015 Paris climate accord — would avert some of the more extreme changes in global weather patterns predicted if temperatures rise further.  “What we are looking at is really that emissions need to go down by 55 percent by 2030,” said John Christensen, lead author and director of the UNEP-Danish Technology Institute Partnership.  Even the less ambitious goal of capping global warming at 2C (3.6 F) would require annual emissions cuts of 2.7% between 2020 and 2030, UNEP said.  That currently seems unlikely.  At present, national pledges would leave the world 3.2 degrees Celsius (5.8 Fahrenheit) warmer by 2100 than pre-industrial times, with dramatic consequences for life on Earth, the U.N. agency said. Getting the world back on track to 1.5C would require a fivefold increase in measures pledged so far, it calculated.  Last week, UNEP published a separate report, which found that countries are planning to extract more than twice the amount of fossil fuels from the ground than can be burned in 2030 if the 1.5C target is to be met.  This includes countries such as Norway, which touts its green credentials while it continues to drill for oil in the North Sea.  Officials appealed to governments that have already laid out targets for reducing their emissions to see if they can do more, and insisted that industries like power, transport, building and shipping can find opportunities to lower their emissions too.  “As individuals, we have a choice about how we live, what we eat and how we go about our business ... and opportunities to live a lower-carbon life,” said Andersen.  Governments’ plans to reduce emissions haven’t been universally welcomed, however.  A $60-billion package of measures agreed by the German government recently has been criticized as a further burden on businesses, while environmentalists say it is too little, too late. Presenting a study Tuesday showing average surface air temperatures in the country have already risen by 1.5C since 1881, German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze insisted that Europe’s industrial powerhouse “is one of the countries that is doing a lot."  "There are other countries which are quitting climate accords," she added, without explicitly naming the United States, which under Donald Trump announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.  Experts agree that the longer countries continue burning fossil fuels, the more warming will be “locked in” as emissions stay in the atmosphere for years or even decades.  Conversely, the sooner countries take steps to wean themselves off gas, coal and oil — such as by ending government subsidies for fossil fuels — the more warming will be prevented in the long term.  “There has never been a more important time to listen to the science,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said of the UNEP report. “Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms and pollution.”


sputnik--2019-01-30--Researcher Arctic Domain is Shrinking in Response to Global Warming

Researcher: Arctic Domain is Shrinking in Response to Global Warming

Sputnik has discussed climate change with Dr Sigrid Lind, from the Institute of Marine Research and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway.  Dr Sigrid Lind: The Arctic is shrinking, the Arctic domain is shrinking in response to global warming. The northern Barents Sea has had an Arctic type of climate over the last 12,000 years, but it is now changing towards an Atlantic type of climate, and that's alarming.  Sputnik: Can you tell us the primary differences between an Atlantic type of climate and an Arctic type of climate? I know that an Arctic climate would have a layer of freshwater sea ice, and can you tell us perhaps how important that is?  US Still Not Intending to Participate in Paris Climate Deal Dr Sigrid Lind: The fresher layer protects the sea ice cover from the heat and you only have to cool down the upper part of the ocean before you start to produce sea ice in late autumn and winter, whereas in an Atlantic type of climate, you have Atlantic water which is warm and saline in the whole water column and then you have to cool down the whole water column to freezing point temperature before you start to freeze sea ice; that doesn't happen in the southern Barents Sea today, and it's likely that we will get this kind of climate also in the northern Barents Sea within one to two decades.  Sputnik: That's actually quite rapid, isn't it?  Dr Sigrid Lind: Yes, it's an example of a rapid climate shift that previously was known to have occurred during the last Ice Age that ended 12,000 years ago and lasted about 100,000 years before that, and during that time period there were warm climate periods and cold and it was shifting back-and-forth.  There was much bigger variability in global temperatures than there is now and we know that the Northern Sea was sea ice covered with an Arctic type of climate during the cold period and it rapidly shifted to an Atlantic type of climate without that freshwater cap and without sea ice, only Atlantic water. And it happened really fast, from paleoclimate studies, we can see that it happened within decades.  Sputnik: Now what's being said now is that the Barents Sea is at a tipping point. Is it too late in the game to tip it back in the right direction?  Dr Sigrid Lind: Well, if you would have large sea ice inflows for several years, you could probably rebuild the stratification that it used to have. There is still stratification there, but when the stratification breaks down and Atlantic water occupies the whole water column, then it's probably irreversible in the sense that you will need large sea ice inflows over several consecutive years to rebuild the fresh water reservoir once it's gone.  Sputnik: There's something called a feedback loop, which means the more the layers mix, the warmer water and the saline, the colder freshwater, the warmer the surface gets and the more the waters mix…  Dr Sigrid Lind: Yes, it's actually the more saline the upper, fresher layer becomes the more they mix, because they become more equal in density; so the density difference between the upper fresher layer that we call the Arctic and the Atlantic layer below, that density is important and as the layers mix, the density difference decreases.  Sputnik: Can you tell us about some of the impacts in terms of the species that would be most under threat as a result of these changes?  Dr Sigrid Lind: Well, the whole region has an Arctic ecosystem; the species there are adapted to the to the cold, stratified and sea ice covered Arctic type of climate, and it's clear that they're already under pressure because species are coming in from the southern part of the Barents Sea into the northern region in summer now, that was shown in 2015. The Arctic species are likely outcompeted when they have these southern species coming in into their region and the Arctic species have already withdrawn towards the north and east.  Sputnik: This past year we've seen these horrible images of polar bears that are dying because they hunt primarily on the ice caps and when they melt, they can't effectively hunt. Is this part of this problem?  Dr Sigrid Lind: Yes, it's part of it; they are using sea ice and the sea ice cover is diminishing; that makes it harder for them.  There's a lot of research ongoing on exactly how the polar bears are responding to this, but we know that also they probably have to find a new habitat and new sources for food — not only them, but also a lot of different sea species that are using sea ice, and other species that are connected to sea ice.  Views and opinions, expressed in the article are those of Dr Sigrid Lind and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik


sputnik--2019-02-03--Doing Their Part Pakistan to Plant 10 Billion Trees to Counter Global Warming

Doing Their Part: Pakistan to Plant 10 Billion Trees to Counter Global Warming

In addition to releasing more oxygen into the environment, the trees will safeguard the Pakistani landscape by decreasing the risk of floods from melting glaciers in the nation's famous mountain ranges.  Following his party's July victory in the National Assembly, Khan, who founded the centrist PTI [Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf] party in 1996, pledged that he would tackle unemployment, poverty and corruption in the country, as well as introduce police reforms and focus on health and educational issues, Sputnik previously reported.  Although the environment was not a significant election topic, Pakistan is the seventh-most vulnerable country to climate change, the Sustainable Development Policy institute, a Pakistani think tank, has reported.  According to Khan's PTI party, rising temperatures, flooding, droughts and unpredictable rainfall has cost Pakistan between $6 billion and $14 billion in relief aid and economic recovery, NBC said, citing a report published by the party.  "It is now imperative to tackle climate change and reverse environmental degradation as Pakistan's situation will only worsen as the economy grows," the party wrote.  Khan's party has taken steps previously to restore trees in the country. Between 2014-2017, Khan led a ‘Billion Tree' restoration project which planted some 865,000 acres in the Kyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.  "The project is naturally restoring a previously deforested landscape, which will assist in meeting present and future needs and offers multiple benefits for climate adaptation and mitigation in a very climate-vulnerable province," Muhammad Tehmasip, the project director for the Billion Tree Tsunami, said in 2017.  In June 2013, an estimated 300 volunteers planted about 847,275 trees in the city of Thatta during the course of a single day, setting a Guinness World Record for the most trees planted in a 24-hour period.  "We have been consumed for so long by so many other challenges such as the war on terror that has engulfed our cities, suicide bombings, public health, that kind of thing," Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, the founder and CEO of LEAD Pakistan, an environmental think tank, recently told NBC News.  "But it is extremely important also that we ensure we have enough fresh water and that our development does not destroy our own coastline. We have one of the largest deltas in the world, but it is dying because of climate change."


thedailycaller--2019-01-17--Study Stop Driving Flying Living A Modern Life For A Chance At Limiting Global Warming

Study: Stop Driving, Flying, Living A Modern Life For A Chance At Limiting Global Warming

A group of researchers laid out what they believe humanity will need to do in order to limit future global warming — immediately cease one’s modern lifestyle and give up fossil fuels.  That would mean “fossil fuel power plants, cars, aircraft, ships, and industrial infrastructure are replaced with zero carbon alternatives” over the next 40 years, according to the study.  And even all that would only give humanity a 64 percent chance of keeping future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the study found. But not even the study’s authors seem to really believe these actions will be taken.  “We do not seek to assess the practical feasibility of this transition, but merely to report on the consequences in the context of keeping global mean temperature rise below 1.5 [degrees Celsius],” reads the study, published in the journal Nature Tuesday.  “Delaying mitigation until 2030 considerably reduces the likelihood that 1.5 [degrees Celsius] would be attainable even if the rate of fossil fuel retirement was accelerated,” reads the study.  However, the world gets roughly 80 percent of its energy from fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil. Replacing all those is not only economically problematic, but it may not even be technically feasible.  It’s one thing to replace coal plants on an electric grid, but for other sectors there are no readily available substitutes to fossil fuels. Airplanes and cargo ships, for example, don’t really have any alternatives. (RELATED: Jeff Flake Backs Tax Redistribution Scheme To Cut CO2 Emissions)  “Maybe the solution here is flying less,” the study’s lead author Christopher Smith told The Guardian.  Interestingly enough, The Daily Caller News Foundation asked dozens of businesses, organizations and wealthy individuals that support the Paris climate accord if they’d support a ban on private jet. All but two companies ignored TheDCNF’s question.  Environmental economist Richard Tol wryly pointed out that simply lowering one’s standard of living or even letting billions of people die from a lack of fuel would curb global warming.  “Turn of your computer and fridge, stop trucks supplying supermarkets, end drinking water purification. Several billion dead would stop climate change alright,” Tol tweeted Wednesday.  However, Smith’s study is only the latest to warn of dangerous global warming without getting rid of fossil fuels. The United Nations released a report in October that kicked off the scare of temperature breaching 1.5 degrees Celsius — a goal of the Paris climate accord.  The U.N.’s report said societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” were needed to meet the Paris accord goals, which included between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion in zero-carbon energy investments by 2050.  “Although the challenges laid out by the Paris Agreement are daunting, we indicate 1.5 °C remains possible and is attainable with ambitious and immediate emission reduction across all sectors,” reads Smith’s study.  Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


theguardianuk--2019-01-07--Global warming of oceans equivalent to an atomic bomb per second

Global warming has heated the oceans by the equivalent of one atomic bomb explosion per second for the past 150 years, according to analysis of new research.  More than 90% of the heat trapped by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed by the seas, with just a few per cent heating the air, land and ice caps respectively. The vast amount of energy being added to the oceans drives sea-level rise and enables hurricanes and typhoons to become more intense.  Much of the heat has been stored in the ocean depths but measurements here only began in recent decades and existing estimates of the total heat the oceans have absorbed stretch back only to about 1950. The new work extends that back to 1871. Scientists have said that understanding past changes in ocean heat was critical for predicting the future impact of climate change.  A Guardian calculation found the average heating across that 150-year period was equivalent to about 1.5 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs per second. But the heating has accelerated over that time as carbon emissions have risen, and was now the equivalent of between three and six atomic bombs per second.  “I try not to make this type of calculation, simply because I find it worrisome,” said Prof Laure Zanna, at the University of Oxford, who led the new research. “We usually try to compare the heating to [human] energy use, to make it less scary.”  She added: “But obviously, we are putting a lot of excess energy into the climate system and a lot of that ends up in the ocean,. There is no doubt.” The total heat taken up by the oceans over the past 150 years was about 1,000 times the annual energy use of the entire global population.  The research has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and combined measurements of the surface temperature of the ocean since 1871 with computer models of ocean circulation.  Prof Samar Khatiwala, also at the University of Oxford and part of the team, said: “Our approach is akin to ‘painting’ different bits of the ocean surface with dyes of different colours and monitoring how they spread into the interior over time. If we know what the sea surface temperature anomaly was in 1871 in the North Atlantic Ocean we can figure out how much it contributes to the warming in, say, the deep Indian Ocean in 2018.”  Rising sea level has been among the most dangerous long-term impacts of climate change, threatening billions of people living in coastal cities, and estimating future rises is vital in preparing defences. Some of the rise comes from the melting of land-bound ice in Greenland and elsewhere, but another major factor has been the physical expansion of water as it gets warmer.  However, the seas do not warm uniformly as ocean currents transport heat around the world. Reconstructing the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans over the past 150 years is important as it provides a baseline. In the Atlantic, for example, the team found that half the rise seen since 1971 at low and middle latitudes resulted from heat transported into the region by currents.  The new work would help researchers make better predictions of sea-level rise for different regions in the future. “Future changes in ocean transport could have severe consequences for regional sea-level rise and the risk of coastal flooding,” the researchers said. “Understanding ocean heat change and the role of circulation in shaping the patterns of warming remain key to predicting global and regional climate change and sea-level rise.”  Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist who was not involved in the new research, said: “The ocean heating rate has increased as global warming has accelerated, and the value is somewhere between roughly three to six Hiroshima bombs per second in recent decades, depending on which dataset and which timeframe is used. This new study estimates the ocean heating rate at about three Hiroshima bombs per second for the period of 1990 to 2015, which is on the low end of other estimates.”


theindependent--2019-12-05--Global warming causing birds to shrink, scientists say

Birds are getting smaller, according to an analysis of migratory birds that died after colliding into buildings in Chicago and were collected as specimens for the Field Museum of Natural History.  David Willard, a Field Museum ornithologist, has measured the Windy City’s dead birds since 1978. Data from his calipers and scales reveal decades-long trends in bird bodies: Their legs, on average, are growing shorter. They have lost weight. Their wings are getting slightly longer.  These changes are present in nearly all of the species he measured, according to a study of 70,716 bird specimens from almost 40 years published in the journal Ecology Letters.  Morphing birds, Mr Willard and his colleagues say, reflect a changing climate.  “Warming temperatures seem to be having a pretty consistent and almost universal effect on a large number of different species, regardless of other aspects of their biology,” said study author Benjamin Winger, who studies the evolution and ecology of birds at the University of Michigan.  The basis for the study began after an acquaintance mentioned to Mr Willard birds often dashed into a glassy convention centre, McCormick Place, near the museum. (The convention centre, the biggest in North America, reduced its nighttime lights about 20 years ago; as a result, bird deaths there have dropped by about three-quarters, Mr Willard said. McCormick Place also recently installed a bird habitat over one of its underground parking garages.)  Climate change was not on his mind, Mr Willard said, when he started gathering the birds to add to the museum’s collection. He measured their beaks, legs, mass and wings – standard ornithological dimensions – because he was curious about seasonal trends.  As the years passed, Mr Willard was joined by other museum staff and a volunteer organisation, Chicago Bird Collision Monitors, which also collects birds harmed by windows. The volunteers rehabilitate injured birds and only donate the departed ones to the museum.  By 2016, Mr Willard had recorded the measurements of more than 70,000 birds, representing 52 species, in his ledgers.  Simon Griffith, an ecologist at Macquarie University in Australia who was not a member of the research team, said it was “just amazing” that a single scientist measured such an extensive collection.  “It reduces the noise in the data-set,” which he said was more standardised in methodology and geology than previous studies that suggest climate change influences bird size.  Fifteen species of common birds, including swamp sparrows and dark-eyed juncos, made up the majority of the specimens. But elusive birds ended up in Mr Willard’s ledgers of measurements, too, like a single yellow rail, a rarely seen marsh bird. Mr Willard said he identified Illinois’ first Brewer’s sparrow, a tiny bird that usually keeps to the western US.  From 1978 to 2016, birds on average lost 2.6 per cent of their mass and their legs shortened by 2.4 per cent. Their wings, meanwhile, lengthened by 1.3 per cent.  “The changes that are being documented are not something you could see with your eye,” Mr Willard said. But that they appear in such a large sample, and one involving diverse bird species, indicates the trends are real and widespread, he said.  Mr Winger said it was unclear whether small reductions harm the birds. “We don’t really know what the biological significance is, of this difference,” he said.  But this observation was potentially concerning to Mr Griffith, who compared this with other broad-scale patterns in birds, like the recent study reporting the 29 per cent decline in North American bird populations since 1970.  The study authors examined precipitation, vegetation and other factors that could contribute to bird size. They determined an increase in summer temperatures is the strongest predictor for smaller birds.  “In years when temperatures were a bit warmer, the bodies got smaller. In years when temperatures were a bit cooler, we saw an increase in body size, even though the long-term trend was to decline,” Mr Winger said. “So that leads us to believe that temperature is pretty important here.”  Smaller animals have larger surface-area-to-volume ratios, and this allows them to lose body heat more quickly. Mr Winger proposes that hotter temperatures could apply pressure on birds to become smaller to stay cooler.  Mr Griffith offered another possibility: His research, studying zebra finches and house sparrows in laboratories and in the wild, shows hot temperatures during the breeding season reduce the size of bird offspring. When young birds are stressed by the heat, they don’t grow large, he said.  The lengthening wings were unexpected, the scientists said. Flight requires the most energy of all the ways back-boned creatures move. The study authors hypothesise the wingspan changes could help the birds eke out an energetic edge. “Birds with longer and more pointed wings,” Mr Winger said, “might be more efficient fliers.”  Mr Willard, now retired, said he plans to continue measuring birds for as long as he can. On Tuesday, in the museum’s storage, 1,000 birds awaited his rulers. “When I’m done talking to you,” he said, “I’m going to do a few more.”


thesun--2019-04-18--Is climate change reversible is it the same as global warming and is it caused by humans

Is climate change reversible, is it the same as global warming and is it caused by humans?

CLIMATE change has been a touchy topic of conversation more than ever before, and unless tackled quickly, it can destroy the planet we live on.  But is climate change reversible and is it caused by humans? Here's what we know.  Last year, Sir David Attenborough warned that climate change will destroy civilisation unless it is tackled quickly.  His ominous message was delivered to world leaders at the United Nations’ environmental talks in Poland.  He warned: “Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon." Greenhouse gas emissions must be slashed by 45 per cent by 2030 to hit the target. The World Bank has pledged £157billion over five years to support countries taking action against climate change. Climate change can be reversed if immediate action is taken. Is it the same as global warming? Global warming describes a set of changes to the climate that is causing the Earth to heat up. This rising of the Earth's temperature is often talked about in the context of the "greenhouse effect" to explain the damage being wreaked on our planet. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler, and therefore unlivable. The effect allows gases in but keeps heat from escaping from the earth, like the glass walls of a greenhouse. Greenhouse gases are believed to be higher now than in the last 650,000 years Is it caused by humans? Over the past century humans have aggravated the greenhouse effect by dramatically increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Human sources of CO2 come from activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Since the Industrial Revolution the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has rocketed by a third. This rapid rise has had a direct impact on the Earth's average temperature, with potentially catastrophic consequences. In December 2018, a study "comprehensively disproved" the "myth" of a pause in global warming that took supposedly place between 1995 and 2013. This period – believed to have lasted a decade and a half – was held up as evidence that humans might not be causing significant climate change. Dr James Risbey, of CSIRO Australia, lead author on one of the studies, said: "Many studies over the past decade have claimed to find a pause or slowdown in global warming and have typically posited this as evidence that is inconsistent with our understanding of global warming." Last year, Sir David Attenborough warned that climate change will destroy civilisation unless it is tackled quickly What effect is it having on earth? The rise in the average global temperature has already had a demonstrable impact. Greenhouse gases are believed to be higher now than in the last 650,000 years. Melting glaciers, rising sea levels and dying cloud forests have all been directly linked to climate change. Humans too are already suffering directly - with deadly heatwaves and catastrophic flooding becoming a regular occurrence. David Attenborough's Climate Change: The Facts documentary airs tonight at 9pm on BBC1 Arrests as police clash with Extinction Rebellion climate change protesters on Waterloo Bridge


thetelegraph--2019-02-04--Oceans to turn bluer due to global warming

The sea will turn a brighter shade of blue due to global warming, a new study predicts.  Experts believe that changing ocean temperatures will alter the distribution of tiny organisms called phytoplankton, which play a crucial role in absorbing sunlight.  As a result, swathes of the subtropics and temperate regions such as the North Atlantic are likely to turn a more brilliant blue due to a diminution of the creatures.  Meanwhile colder waters near the north and south poles will become a deeper green as the algae increasingly flourish.  Published in the journal Nature Communications, the study relied on computer modelling of temperature-based phytoplankton quantities, combined with estimations of...


thinkprogress--2019-01-24--Heres how global warming leads to colder winters in the Northeast

Here’s how global warming leads to colder winters in the Northeast

The jet stream is the result of the difference in temperature between colder northern latitudes and temperate southern latitudes. Warm air from the equator is colliding with cold air from the Arctic, and a ribbon of powerful winds runs the length of the collision. Ushered along by the rotation of the Earth, this air current is moving west to east at speeds upwards of 200 miles per hour.  The jet stream is strongest in the winter months when the temperature difference between north and south is greatest. Cold air is denser than warm air, so when the difference in temperature is greater, the difference in density is also greater, and the barrier between cold air and warm air is firmer. Think of cold air and warm air like vinegar and oil, which are kept distinct by their different densities.  Climate change is weakening the jet stream by reducing the difference in temperature between cold, northern air and warm, southern air. As the Earth warms, it’s not warming evenly. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, meaning it is growing closer in temperature to more southern latitudes. As a result, the barrier between cold and warm air is growing weaker, and the jet stream is going wobbly.  Instead of forming an even ring around the Arctic, the jet stream is now twisting and contorting, allowing the polar vortex, the mass of cold, dense air over the north pole, to reach its tendrils further south, chilling large parts of the United States and Europe. Think of the jet stream as a fence around the polar vortex. Climate change is letting the polar vortex break out of the fence.  Just as changes to the jet stream are allowing cold, Arctic air to reach further south, they are also allowing warm equatorial air to reach further north, fueling more unusual weather across the globe, both hot and cold. Last February, for example, the mercury reached 76°F heat in New York City at the same time that it dipped to 35°F in Southern California, all thanks to a squishier, wavier, wobblier jet stream. As the planet warms, the problem is likely to get worse.  Once the polar vortex breaks out of its pen, it takes a while to get it back in. The current spate of unusually cold weather could last several weeks, meteorologists warn, chilling much of the Eastern United States. So bundle up. Winter is going to be around for a while.  Jeremy Deaton writes for Nexus Media, a syndicated newswire covering climate, energy, policy, art and culture. You can follow him @deaton_jeremy.


thinkprogress--2019-07-05--High temperatures break records in Alaska as climatologists warn of global warming

High temperatures break records in Alaska, as climatologists warn of global warming

Anchorage, Alaska, broke its own state record on the Fourth of July, recording a high of 90 degrees Fahrenheit — five degrees above the previous record of 85 degrees Fahrenheit, set in 1969.  The National Weather Service in Anchorage warned of high temperatures earlier this week, explaining that a building high-pressure ridge would blanket the state in a heat wave. Climate researchers have said the unprecedented high temperatures are “unusual.”  “It’s entirely possible that the warmest temperature ever recorded in Anchorage could be exceeded three to five days in a row,” Brian Brettschneider, a climate researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, told NBC News. “That’s the definition of unusual.”  The record-breaking day follows a string of extreme weather events for the state. Temperatures last month reached above average numbers, making it the warmest June on record. The state also saw growing reports of wildfires. These incidents are likely to continue occurring in July, experts say.  “These kind of extreme weather events become much more likely in a warming world,” Rick Thoman, a climatologist based in Fairbanks, Alaska, told NBC News. “Climate change is not causing it, but it is contributing to it. When other pieces line up like high pressure over the state and very warm sea surface temperatures, all the pieces fit together and make these extreme, or even unprecedented, events that much more likely.”  Across the Arctic, Alaska’s story is a familiar one. As ThinkProgress previously reported, high air temperatures in the past five years have caused Arctic sea ice has to rapidly disintegrate. That melting Arctic ice has fueled more extreme weather, faster increases in sea levels, and more rapid disintegration of the carbon-rich Arctic permafrost, which leads to faster global warming.


breitbart--2019-10-31--Academics Demand Sabbaticals to Save World from Climate Change

More than 1000 British professors have signed a letter requesting more time off from teaching so they can tackle climate change and “save all life on our planet.”  “Humanity stands at the brink of a precipice. If we do not urgently address climate breakdown and the ecological crisis, the very future of life on earth is in question,” begins the open letter published this week by the Times Higher Education magazine and addressed to vice-chancellors, Universities UK and UK Research and Innovation.  Some of the signers hail from the nation’s leading institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and Bristol universities, as well as the London School of Economics and Imperial College London.  The academics note that they are particularly well suited to the task of saving the world from global warming, given their expertise and prestige among the common people.  “Universities are the bastions of wisdom and knowledge that are urgently needed to combat the climate crisis,” they insist. “Now is the time to increase our efforts.”  Occasionally straying into hyperbole and remarkably unscientific language, the letter asserts that “the crisis is at our doorstep” and that humanity now faces “an even greater challenge” than going to the moon in the 1960s.  “We ask you to support scientists, academics and students to help address the climate emergency through a series of new programmes, fellowships, sabbaticals and voluntary placements to help the critical efforts needed to save all life on our planet,” the letter pleads.  To back up their request, the academics assert that the “impacts of climate change are being felt more rapidly than predicted, with Himalayan glaciers melting twice as fast as expected and the Arctic warming to a full 4°C above average.”  Moreover, thawing permafrost soil “is releasing unprecedented amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” they insist, and “2018 was the world’s fourth hottest year on record.”  Not only that, “climate crisis-related disasters are happening at a rate of one a week,” they assert, and “the risk we face is that impacts may soon run away from us with changes too swift and unpredictable to mitigate.”  Earlier this month, another group of academics published an essay urging institutions of higher learning to encourage climate scientists to cry in order to relieve some of the stress associated with climate trauma.  “Academic institutes must allow environmental scientists to grieve well and thus emerge stronger from traumatic experiences to discover new insights about our rapidly changing world,” wrote a team of British researchers in the journal Science.  “When you spend your life studying places like the Great Barrier Reef or the Arctic ice caps, and then watch them bleach into rubble fields or melt into the sea, it hits you really hard,” they stated.  In requesting space for climate scientists, the authors compare them to those who work in disaster relief and the military.  “In these fields, well defined organizational structures and active strategies exist for employees to anticipate and manage their emotional distress,” they declare.  As Breitbart News reported last month, a growing number of children in the UK are being treated for an overwhelming terror of “environmental doom” as climate alarmists spread fears of an impending climate disaster.  “Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a ‘tsunami’ of young people seeking help,” the Telegraph’s science correspondent reported.  “A lot of parents are coming into therapy asking for help with the children and it has escalated a lot this summer,” said psychotherapist Caroline Hickman of the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA), referring to the newly coined psychological phenomenon of “eco-anxiety.”


cbsnews--2019-05-20--Michael Bennet introduces climate change plan

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet unveiled the first policy of his presidential campaign Monday, a plan to address climate change. He promised that not only would his plan fight the effects of global warming, but it would also boost the economy. His plan was announced just after a weekend spent campaigning in Iowa, touring farms and areas affected by extreme flooding that some have blamed on climate change.  "We need bold action and enduring solutions," Bennet said in a press release. "Our plan will drive economic growth for the 21st century and create millions of high-paying jobs."  The plan is broken into five "principles" which contain plans to fight climate change through a mix of individual and corporate incentives, government reforms, and executive actions. His proposal includes an implementation timeline, too, that would begin on his first day in office as president.  Last October, a report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the world has twelve years to reverse the effects of climate change. Working off that timeline, Bennet proposed multiple policies that would take effect on or by 2030, including a "Climate Challenge" to states to "compete for federal infrastructure funding" by addressing climate threats and reducing emissions. The senator also plans to commit to conserve 30 percent of American's lands and seas by 2030.  Bennet would also require power providers to provide zero-emission energy plans to businesses and households. His so-called "Climate X Option" would, Bennet believes, empower Americans to more easily adopt clean energy practices.  If elected, he also says he'd call a global climate summit of world leaders within the first 100 days of his presidency. And he's proposing the creation of a "Climate Bank," a trust that would hold $10 trillion to be used by the private sector for "innovation and infrastructure that creates new markets for American businesses not just at home, but also around the world."  Bennet said that to institute his policies, he will work with Congress. However, if Congress cannot come together, he would use executive actions to authorize the Clean Air Act and other climate statutes. "This crisis is too important for us to wait any longer," he said.  Other 2020 Democratic candidates have introduced policies after spending time in Iowa. An aide to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders previously told CBS News that his agriculture policy came out of discussions with Iowans. Earlier this month, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke amended his climate change policy after meeting with people impacted by historic flooding and holding climate change roundtables in Iowa, according to a campaign aide.  On a call with reporters, Bennet said that flooding in rural Iowa has waterlogged land, making it difficult for farmers to preserve topsoil. Several Democratic strategists and officials have told CBS News that policy proposals following campaign swings are key ways for candidates to show voters they're listening to concerns.


cbsnews--2019-11-05--Can farmers sow their way out of climate change?

Nine percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are caused by agriculture. Those emissions are changing the earth's climate and amplifying savage weather conditions that have been taking a heavy toll on the nation's farmers over the past few years. They've been battling historically wet conditions over the past year, including massive floods last spring.  As a result, over 19 million acres of land were left unplanted in the U.S. in 2019. And that cost farmers an estimated $7 billion dollars in lost revenue, says Chad Hart, an Associate Professor of Economics at Iowa State University.  Recently, climate activists have begun a campaign to urge farmers to help reverse the warming trend. They say that farmers and ranchers have the capacity cut emissions produced by agricultural activity dramatically and could even offset them to make U.S. agriculture carbon neutral.  "I have a lot of confidence that if we invite farmers into this problem...they're going to innovate around it and figure it out," Matt Russell, a farmer and Executive Director of Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, a group that advocates for faith-based solutions to climate change.  Russell is quick to acknowledge that cost is a factor for farmers. "Part of that invitation is when you do this you get rewarded, like by being paid," he said.  The principle is simple, according to Russell: incentivize farmers and ranchers to reduce their carbon emission production and they'll see improved water quality and better soil health while capturing more carbon from the atmosphere.  In practice, though, it's still not an easy choice for farmers.  Russell makes the case that more farmers need to embrace practices like extended crop rotation, conservation tillage, which means farmers would rarely or never till soil, and keeping the soil covered with winter and perennial crops. He also says other agricultural methods would also have to be adopted, including putting livestock back on the land, practicing more rotational grazing, and generating green energy on farms.  Fighting global warming is a powerful incentive, but farmers are likely to need a financial boost, too, to make this a viable option for them.  If farmers and ranchers fully embrace these practices and control emissions from nitrogen fertilizer application, American agriculture could become carbon neutral within 10 years, says Emily Heaton, an associate professor in Iowa State University's Agronomy Department. She concedes these changes would require big shifts for the nation's farmers.  Soil is the largest terrestrial source of carbon and holds more of it than anything besides the oceans, according to the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When farmers and ranchers grow crops and protect their soil, they can help take carbon out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, a process known as carbon farming.  "By changing how farmers grow the crops they currently grow, we can reduce the amount that agriculture contributes to climate change," Heaton said. That includes using some of that recently removed carbon energy instead of fossil fuel energy and making some changes to crops that are grown.  Twenty million acres of cover crops — approximately five percent of U.S. cropland — can soak up enough carbon dioxide equivalent to offset emissions from 12.8 million passenger vehicles, according to the Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education program and the EPA.  For many farmers in Iowa, commodity crops are soybeans or corn. The cover crops that Russell and Heaton talk about are those that have positive environmental impacts, such as cereal rye or oats.  A big reason for farmers' reluctance to plant cover crops as part of their seasonal rotations is the cost, Russell said, even though they have benefit for farmers over time. The seed can cost about $30 per acre, and then it takes time and labor to plant it. If it's a crop like cereal rye, it won't die by the time farmers have to plant their commodity crops again. So, it'll cost the farmers again to kill the crop in the spring, since it's not being planted to be sold. Waiting for it to mature to harvest would mean they wouldn't be able to plant their commodity crops, which isn't an option.  Ray Gaesser farms 5,400 acres of corn and soybeans in Corning, Iowa. For the past 10 years, he's been planting about half of those acres with cover crops in between growing seasons. He says the practice has made his soil healthier and increased his crop yield.  Gaesser believes that more farmers are ready to be engaged in environmental practices to improve their carbon footprint, and more are doing things like planting cover crops. But, he says that many do not "because they can't see a return on that investment."  "They need to be able to see that they can do these practices and still feed their family," Gaesser said. "That's the bottom line. It's about making a living."  There are some federal programs, including the USDA's Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), that pay farmers for environmental and conservation services. However, the bulk of incentives, such as subsidies, crop insurance and emergency payments for lost crops, push farmers to grow as many commodity crops, like corn and soybeans, as possible, Russell says.  "Right now, the economics are that if I want to do high level conservation on my farm, I am bearing a lot of the risk," he said.  Shifting away from that incentive structure could have huge environmental impacts, said Heaton. She says land that only grows annual commodity crops leaves the soil bare for several months and causes it to absorb less carbon dioxide than it could. Planting cover crops and more perennial crops, which don't have to be replanted every year, can turn soil into a carbon sponge.  "Right now, agriculture is a net emitter of greenhouse gases," Heaton said. "We will require a change in the kind of crops we grow if we really want to be carbon-negative."  There are two main issues from getting more farmers involved in environmental practices, according to Heaton. There needs to be greater institutional infrastructure, like providing insurance for carbon farming crops, increasing cover crop seed availability and making sure more farmers understand how to do environmental practices. The other issue is removing economic barriers.  Russell has worked on getting farmers involved in combating climate change for several years, but it was only after he started holding conversations with farmers in church basements last year, he says the idea began to take off and presidential candidates latched on. Nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates have included farmers and ranchers as key players in their climate plans. Their proposals include increasing money for the CSP, expanding crop insurance programs, letting farmers participate in carbon markets, paying farmers directly for improving soil health and providing funding for farmers to improve carbon sequestration.  The idea is likely to resonate in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, where climate change is one of the top issues. Seventy-one percent of registered Iowa Democratic voters said climate change was "very important" in the latest CBS News Battleground Tracker poll, second only to healthcare.  Russell has worked with nearly every campaign on the issue. He has also hosted candidates on his farm including Senator Kamala Harris and former Representative Beto O'Rourke, who before he ended his presidential bid last week often made references to paying farmers to fight climate change on the trail.  Joe Biden's climate plan strives to ensure the American "agricultural sector is the first in the world to achieve net-zero emissions." Elizabeth Warren says farmers need to be paid for proven practices to help "decarbonize the agricultural sector." Bernie Sanders says incentives need to be directed at "conservation not over-production." Pete Buttigieg says farmers can be "leaders...in the fight against climate change by paying them to capture carbon."


cnsnews--2019-04-23--Are We Really Destroying our Environment with Climate Change

Are We Really Destroying our Environment with Climate Change?

Many people believe humans are making choices that will usher in climate doomsday.  Politicians say we have less than two decades to save our planet. School children protest deterioration of our planet’s climate. Environmental lobbies warn of dire consequences if we keep using coal, oil, and natural gas.  But are these claims true? How much does the consensus reflect reality? Most importantly, what can we do to help future generations enjoy a healthy environment?  The clarion call to save the environment is a good one. We need to be aware of changes in our ecosystems, especially from global phenomena like climate change.  If the world needs saving from doomsday, then it is imperative that we revamp our way of doing life. Our energy infrastructure, our choice of transportation, our way of using natural resources, and even our daily dietary habits need to undergo significant changes if those changes will really save our environment.  But is there really an imminent threat to the planet?  It’s true that we have damaged our environment in a variety of ways over the past two centuries. Yet economic progress has actually enabled many countries to tackle pollution and heal the environment.  This has been documented in developed countries. It is explained by the “environmental Kuznet’s curve,” a bell-shaped curve that illustrates how pollution rises early in economic development, peaks, and then declines as the country becomes better equipped (economically and technologically) to curb it.  Today, most people in developed countries enjoy clean air, clean water, and clean land. Developing countries, still in early stages of economic development, suffer from polluted air, water, and land. Yet the prospect of their rising out of poverty promises that they, too, have clean, healthful environments ahead of them.  But while most pollution is local, climate change is global in cause and effect. It is the number one obsession of our media, which now ties every little weather phenomenon to man-made global warming. So is climate change a serious problem created by the industrial era?  A few people deny that there has been any global warming or that it is caused by humans, but only a few. Call them deniers, if you must.  Many think global temperature has risen drastically, even dangerously. They blame the warming on carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal and other fossil fuels. Call them alarmists.  A third group of people are known as climate realists or skeptics. Unlike deniers, they don’t question the existence of warming but wonder about its magnitude. They’re also open to the possibility of natural causes for it.  Contrary to claims that “97 percent of climate scientists” are in the alarmist camp, most actually fall into this third category. And the greater consensus among paleoclimatologists—who study climate over long periods of time—is that recent warming is not unique.  In fact, paleoclimatology reveals that the world underwent similar warm periods during the 1st and 10th centuries A.D. These two periods are known as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.  If the current warming is similar to these periods, in which humanity thrived, why be alarmed? The answer lies in how the modern warm period is being sold to us.  Alarmists conveniently ignore the previous two warm periods, avoid mentioning when the Modern Warm Period began, and exclusively focus on temperature changes since about 1850.  As a result, a graph of global temperature appears steep and dangerous. There’s even a name for it: the hockey stick graph (long stable temperature followed by a sudden rise). But that was debunked.  The previous two warm periods occurred without significant carbon dioxide emissions from human activities. This suggests that humans played no role in them.  They also reveal that global temperature increased and then dropped without any intervention. One such severe drop was the famous Little Ice Age of the 17th century, which froze the River Thames.  The 18th century brought a steep increase in global temperature, long before industrialization brought carbon dioxide emissions high enough to have a measurable effect on it. And global temperature has continued to rise. Hence we call the period from the 18th century to now the Modern Warm Period.  So, yes there is warming! But when did it begin? Before we even began to emit huge quantities of carbon dioxide.      Have the emissions from fossil fuels contributed to the rise in temperatures? Yes, probably. But how much? Not enough to be dangerous to human, animal, and plant life.  Temperature measurements from the past two decades pose a serious problem to the claim that human carbon dioxide emissions contributed heavily to the Modern Warm Period. The previously steady warming seems to have stalled despite an exponential increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperature indicate that there has been no significant warming for the past 19 years.  This absence of significant warming is evident from the dramatic divergence of computer climate model forecasts from real-world temperature data. This is acknowledged by staunch alarmists like Dr. Michael Mann and skeptics like Dr. John Christy.  At the same time, while our carbon dioxide emissions have not contributed much warming, they have helped plant growth. This is documented scientifically and can be observed in the simple practice of greenhouse farming, in which farmers maintain high levels of carbon dioxide inside greenhouses to enhance plant growth.  If climate is stable, why do we hear about polar bears dying off and walruses supposedly committing suicide because of global warming? Polar bear populations have actually grown in the past two decades. And there is no scientific evidence to show that Netflix’s infamous walrus “suicide” was due to climate change.  Despite the coordinated call from celebrities, school children, politicians with vested interests, and even academicians, real-world temperatures have not shown any serious deviation from their two-centuries-long gradual warming phase.  In fact, we might be headed into a period of cooling. Scientists studying the sun have forecasted that the next two solar cycles will be the coolest in recent history. They could even make global temperature plunge lower than the 17th century Little Ice Age freeze.  Are we destroying our environment with carbon dioxide emissions? No. What will the future hold? Only time will tell, but we have no evidence to prove a warming apocalypse.  Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Chennai, India.


eveningstandard--2019-01-30--Greta Thunberg 5 things we can learn about climate change from a 16-year-old schoolgirl

Greta Thunberg: 5 things we can learn about climate change from a 16-year-old schoolgirl

Powerful world leaders who suited up and flocked to Davos to meet for the World Economic Forum were given a dressing-down by a 16-year-old pupil last week.  Greta Thunberg, an environmental activist from Sweden, declared “our house is on fire” during an impassioned and sobering speech about climate change.  And she has caused quite a stir around the world with her scathing attacks on the very people she was addressing.  But who is this determined teenager, and why should we be listening to her?  Greta Thunberg first made headlines in August 2018 when she started a school strike to picket outside the Swedish parliament (Rikstag) to raise awareness of global warming.  In fact, Greta missed about three weeks of school, and did not return until after the Swedish general election on September 9. Her demands were simple – that politicians reduced carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.  Since her first strike, she has become famous for her activism, and has even been invited to give her own TED talk.  In December 2018, the schoolgirl addressed the COP24 United Nations climate change summit and offered scathing words to the leaders she was addressing – accusing them of leaving the burden of climate change with future generations.  Although well-travelled, Greta refuses to fly, and travelled for 32 hours by train to get to Davos where she made her now viral speech to world leaders.  During her Davos speech, Greta said: “Yes, we are failing, but there is still time to turn everything around. We can still fix this.  "We still have everything in our own hands. But unless we recognise the overall failures of our current systems, we most probably don’t stand a chance.”  Greta has always been open about her Asperger’s syndrome, which she believes helps her commit to her cause and see things more simply.  Speaking to The New Yorker, Greta said:  “I see the world a bit different, from another perspective.  “I have a special interest. It’s very common that people on the autism spectrum have a special interest.”  Her outlook on climate change became clear in her speech at Davos, when she said: “You say nothing in life is black or white. But that is a lie. A very dangerous lie. Either we prevent 1.5C of warming or we don’t.”  Speaking to the BBC during her first school strike in September, Greta said she hoped her efforts would attract media attention.  The activist added she wanted people to “open their eyes, see the crisis and treat it like a crisis, and do something about it.”  When Greta first went on strike outside the Swedish parliament, she was moved on by police because protests on the premises are not allowed.  She later found another spot nearby to continue her protest but received further complaints.  Speaking to the BBC, she said she would probably be called to a hearing about her protesting, but added “I’m not bothered about it.”  During her speech to world leaders at the UN summit in December, she also accused them of “behaving like children.”  Words spoken by the climate activist herself at the UN summit in December prove that every little change one person makes will help protect our environment.  Since her strike action gained global attention, Greta has inspired students around the world to follow suit, in the School Strike 4 Climate Action.  In November, thousands of students halfway around the world in Australia took the day off school to attend protests calling on the government to take action on climate change.


eveningstandard--2019-04-18--Climate Change The Facts The shocking reality of climate change makes for grim but essential viewi

Climate Change, The Facts: The shocking reality of climate change makes for grim but essential viewing

Sir David Attenborough - who will be 93 next month - is the presenter we trust more than any other.  He has long lamented the impact of human life on the natural world, including the threat posed by rising populations, warning us that we are imperilling the planet’s future.  He used to be quite sceptical about climate change, though, he has admitted, he changed his mind when he heard a lecture on the subject in 2004. Since then he has made many campaigning programmes including The Truth about Climate Change in 2006 and How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? in 2009, as well as raising environmental issues in his wildlife documentaries.  Yet the environmental activist George Monbiot has still charged him with dangerously playing down the disaster we face.  In an article last year headlined “Attenborough has betrayed the living world he loves”, Monbiot argued that wildlife film-making of the kind he champions presents us with an increasingly false picture of the world. “It has created an impression of security and abundance even in places afflicted by ecological collapse. The cameras reassure us that there are vast tracts of wilderness in which wildlife continues to thrive. They cultivate complacency, not action.”  Climate Change — The Facts could have been devised to answer that charge. It is a grim account of just how severe a threat global warming now poses, composed mainly of footage of recent weather catastrophes intercut with analysis from expert talking heads. Attenborough narrates, mainly in voiceover but also speaking to camera, from a single site, an English field on a windy spring day.  Be warned, this is no ooh-aah wildlife jolly then. It is a thoroughly lowering and unsparing exposition of the plight we now find ourselves in. “What happens now and in these next few years will profoundly affect the next few thousand years,” Attenborough says with that ever precise diction. “What can be done to avert disaster and ensure the survival of our civilisations — and the natural world upon which we depend?” he asks.  The contention here is that not only can the facts about climate change no longer be doubted but that it is now happening so fast that “for the first time in history, people can actually see climate change” in the extreme weather events we’ve been experiencing. We are shown floods and raging wildfires, forests being logged and glaciers melting, and in one particularly upsetting sequence, thousands of flying foxes killed by the record-breaking heatwaves in Australia last year.  The difficulty this programme confronts is not in making its case that temperatures are already rising catastrophically but in avoiding creating such despair that we think there is nothing we can do and turn away. So Attenborough repeatedly assures us that we are not powerless and “what happens next is up to us all”.  People fend off urgency about climate change by relegating the worry to the supposedly unknown, still apparently distant future, as they do in contemplating their own deaths perhaps.  The programme closes with a section introducing the extraordinary 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg, who has made such an impact in less than a year. “I thought that nothing was happening and no one was doing anything, so then I have to do something,” she says.  “When I grow older I want to be able to look back and say I did what I could back then.” She says we still have time too, “but that short period of time isn’t going to last for long”.  Watching Climate Change - The Facts may just be the best use you can make of your time this evening.


eveningstandard--2019-08-21--Climate change fears gripping Britain Poll reveals 85 are worried about warming - the highest figu

Climate change fears gripping Britain: Poll reveals 85% are worried about warming - the highest figure on record

Fears in Britain about climate change have hit a record high, an exclusive poll for the Evening Standard reveals today.  The Ipsos MORI survey showed 85 per cent of adults are now concerned about global warming, the highest figure since the pollster started asking the question in 2005.  It comes at a time when concern for the natural world is being propelled by freakish weather and after the hottest July ever around the globe.  In Britain, a record temperature of 38.7C was set on July 25 at Cambridge Botanic Gardens . In contrast, the downpours that followed are set to make August the wettest ever , according to the Met Office.  The proportion of people who are “very concerned” about climate change has jumped to a record 52 per cent, up from just 18 per cent five years ago.  More than half of women, 55 per cent, now express such deep alarm, compared with 48 per cent of men.  Nearly three-quarters of Britons believe the country is already feeling the effects of climate change — up from 61 per cent in 2017, 55 per cent in 2014 and 41 per cent in 2010.  When asked about the recent hot weather, just over a quarter thought it was mainly caused by climate change due to human activity, 15 per cent said it was mainly down to natural weather processes, and 57 per cent believed that both factors were to blame.  One year ago Swedish activist Greta Thunberg started the School Strike for Climate movement, which called on children to walk out of classes in protest at government inaction on the issue.  Last week the 16-year-old set off on a zero-carbon yacht from Plymouth to New York, where she will address world leaders at a climate change summit.  In London, there have been a series of demonstrations by environmental group Extinction Rebellion, amid rising public demand for action.  Britain is already committed under the 2008 Climate Change Act to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Just weeks before she quit as prime minister, Theresa May unveiled plans to cut these climate-damaging emissions to “net zero” within the same timescale.  However, 55 per cent of Britons believe the Government should aim to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero more quickly, a belief held by 63 per cent of adults aged 18-34, as well as 70 per cent of Labour supporters, and 69 per cent of Liberal Democrat backers.  Antonia Dickman, head of environment research at Ipsos MORI, said: “In 2005-6 we saw a peak in concern about the environment, reflecting the prominence of media reporting around, for example, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, the Kyoto Protocol coming into effect and the Stern Report.  “But climate fatigue appeared to set in, particularly in the aftermath of the economic crash.  “Recently, though, concern has been creeping up again, after events such as Extinction Rebellion, the school strikes for climate, and climate emergencies being declared by local authorities.”  Ipsos MORI interviewed 1,007 adults by phone between July 26 and 30. Data are weighted.


eveningstandard--2019-08-22--Climate change has to be an issue we can grasp not the stuff of horror films

Climate change has to be an issue we can grasp, not the stuff of horror films

Unveiling a plaque to the demise of the Okjokull glacier, the first to expire in 200 years, Iceland’s prime minister Katrin Jakobsdóttir declared: “We know what’s happening, and what needs to be done. Help us keep the ice in Iceland.”  By the day now, in this hottest and rainiest of summers, we receive news of close and distant ecological and climate calamity; weird weather, flooded farmlands, creaking dams, arctic tundra fires, melting icecaps, a burning Amazon and trillions of tonnes of polar ice released into warming oceans. This month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported on land management and climate change, and suggested that 27 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from farming and food production.  According to some reports, the ice in Greenland is melting in a manner not expected for 70 years. Others suggest the disappearance of great inland glaciers, like the “Ok” in Iceland, are more serious than the crisis of the ocean ice. Arctic ice is going but so is Antarctic ice — concern is rising about the West (Antarctic) Shelf, the largest of all in the region.  Climate change and global warming cannot be kept off the agenda but they are yet to take centre stage in planning and policy and in serious media discussion. Each major development reported by the media is followed by silence. One day we were regaled by all channels that the IPCC land use and food report meant we should all have to become vegan — though it said nothing of the sort. And the following day, nothing.  There seems to be an outbreak of Chicken Licken syndrome —  in the folk tale, Licken covered his bets by yelling: “The sky’s falling in,” after being hit on the head by an acorn. Today we would call it “cognitive dissonance” — adopting inappropriate and outmoded reactions to new threats.  That is where we are on climate change — largely, it’s discussions about discussions. The subject is on the agenda in major forums, from the upcoming G7 in Biarritz to a special summit in Rio on the 2015 Paris Agreement. It features on the G20 programme, and later this year yet another UN panel, the Global Risk and Governance Commission, is set to be launched in South Asia. The UK Government’s quite sensible 25-Year Environment Plan, launched by Theresa May in the dying days of her premiership, proposes yet another national panel of oversight for climate change and its consequences.  The debate is bedevilled by complexity, time, an absence of practicality in implementation and communication. The denial lobby persists that nothing permanent is happening — as many believed the Earth to be flat, long after Columbus, Magellan and Drake.  “The whole subject is complex, and very diverse,” a former Government adviser on water stress explains. “We were projecting much of this 30 years ago but turning it into practical policy is difficult. There are so many vested interests.” Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, adds: “What was the distant future is now the present.”  Ice melts and ocean rises are accelerating; they throw into doubt the aim of the Paris Agreement that average temperature rises can be held to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for this century. The process is not linear but one of sudden shocks. Across central England, a month’s rainfall crashed down in a few hours this summer. Northern Europe was hit by a month’s drought, with temperatures above 40°C, driving starving mice to destroy dykes in Holland.  Climate change is toxic for most forms of democratic politics. Counter-measures, from resilience practices and insurance requirements to emission restrictions on cars and domestic heating, and even the need for compulsory movement orders from areas that are prone to flooding, have become vote losers. It’s particularly bad news in Australia, where the terms of the last six prime ministers have been damaged by climate change, carbon taxes and the wiles of the coal lobby.  Scott Morrison, the incumbent, is no exception. His promotion of the Carmichael mine in Queensland, to fuel a coal-fired electricity generation plant in India, may have helped win him the last election but it has got him into hot water with allies across the Pacific region. Ironically, the electricity from the Adani power station is destined for Bangladesh, one of the most vulnerable to ocean rises driven by carbon emissions.  Bangladesh is now working with Dutch consultants on a flood protection system for 2100. It is based on the Delta Works Scheme, underscoring Dutch expertise in the analysis, engineering and mitigation of coastal erosion and flood plain management. The scheme was drawn up after the Dutch storms of 1953, which breached the major sea dykes, flooding a 10th of all farmland and drowning around 2,000 people.  “The Dutch have had to adapt,” says Jaap Flikweert, leading flood risk adviser in the UK for Royal HaskoningDHV, currently banking millions of tonnes of sand to protect the Bacton Gas Terminal and neighbouring communities in Norfolk. “Decision-making has to be inclusive, involving adaptation, mitigation and preparedness to move if need be — and not be based on compensation. Legally it’s not possible now but we need to consider moving in this direction.”  Flikweert highlights the inclusive community approach to climate change and flood risk in Newcastle, Norwich and Bristol. “Resilience is inverse to risk,” he warns. “You have to make things work in practice — it can’t all be waffle.” People have to believe they can do something.  Robert Hall, of the consultancy Resilience First, believes small businesses, above all, need to grasp the problem. “It’s an extra cost against something they can’t see, but it should be worked through insurance. Multinationals do seem to understand, and are doing a lot of work on climate change resilience.”  The biggest gap is in the media agenda, perhaps. We have to put the issues in graphic and graspable terms — not the stuff of Hammer Horror movies. Being Dutch and born in a country that’s 27 per cent below sea level, Flikweert states the basics. “If the Dutch don’t sort it out, they know they’ll have to move to Germany in a couple of generations’ time.”


eveningstandard--2019-12-18--Boris Johnson must now meet climate change pledges, says Tory peer Lord Deben

Boris Johnson was today urged to “get on with it” and meet Tory commitments on climate change amid more signs of a warming planet with Australia baking in its hottest day on record.  Lord Deben, chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change which advises the Government, said it was not on track to meet its goals to combat global warming despite putting into law that the country would reach “net zero” harmful emissions by 2050.  “The world is changing and if we do not fight climate change over these next 10 years we will reach a tipping point when human beings will not be able to change the climate back to a level which makes living on this earth tolerable,” he told Radio 4’s Today.  “If the Government is going to fulfil its party manifesto, it has to get on with it at once.”  The manifesto says the UK has cut carbon emissions by more than any similar developed country, is the world leader in offshore wind and commits £9.2 billion for energy efficiency of homes, schools and hospitals. But it does not give a date for phasing out new petrol and diesel cars.  With the COP26 climate change summit taking place in Glasgow next year, Tory peer Lord Deben made clear that Mr Johnson’s leadership on global warming would come under scrutiny  Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology said that yesterday was the country’s hottest day on record, with a national average temperature of 40.9C, exceeding the previous record of 40.3C in 2013.  Oodnadatta, in the south of Australia, is forecast to hit highs of 47C today, making it one of the hottest places on earth. The country has been ravaged by fires for weeks with authorities in New South Wales saying there are currently 100 fires. Blazes have killed six people, destroyed more than 680 homes and burned huge swathes of bushland.  In England, official figures last week showed 113,348 deaths registered between July and September — 2,247 more than the five-year average. They also revealed a peak in the number of deaths per day on July 25, the hottest day of the year.  A spokesman for the Government said: “We will provide the policies needed to ensure we are on track to hit our world-leading climate targets and demonstrate our global leadership in advance of the crucial COP26 talks in Glasgow next year.”


foreignpolicy--2019-01-04--Brazil Was a Global Leader on Climate Change Now Its a Threat

Brazil Was a Global Leader on Climate Change. Now It’s a Threat.  This coming November, delegates from nearly every country had been scheduled to gather in Brazil to discuss climate change at the 25th United Nations Conference of the Parties. When the meeting was planned, Brazil seemed a logical choice to host it. Not anymore.  Brazil depends more on renewable energy sources (including biofuels) than any of the world’s other large energy consumers. And between 2005 and 2012, it also ran a successful campaign to reduce deforestation by about 80 percent. But the election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s president has thrown the country’s status as an environmental beacon into doubt.  In November 2018, Brazil withdrew its offer to host the climate conference, citing the government transition process and budgetary constraints. Bolsonaro, who took office Jan. 1, clearly believes that economic development is at odds with environmental protection and that considerations about the planet should not be allowed to inhibit industry, particularly Brazil’s huge agricultural sector. During the campaign Bolsonaro earned the support of Brazil’s agribusiness lobby, the ruralistas, which make up one of the country’s most powerful congressional blocs. While corporate campaign donations are illegal in Brazil, many wealthy ruralistas are able to self-fund their campaigns and get elected; as a result, they have become a powerful force in Congress, and Bolsonaro needs their backing.  The newly inaugurated president has grumbled that environmental policy is “suffocating” the economy. He has threatened to withdraw Brazil from the Paris agreement on climate change (although he recanted after an international backlash). His environment minister, Ricardo Salles, is a former legal director of the Brazilian Rural Society, an agricultural group, and was fined this past December for changing plans for an environmentally protected area to benefit businesses in the state of São Paulo when he was head of an environmental agency there. Bolsonaro has also promised to remove some protections for the Amazon rainforest, including by rolling back indigenous reserves, such as Raposa Serra do Sol—he has advocated for agriculture and mining exploration there and said the area is too large for its inhabitants. In one of his first acts as president he shifted the power to regulate and create indigenous reserves—which account for about 13 percent of Brazil’s territory, including vast swaths of rainforest—from the National Indian Foundation agency to the agriculture ministry. On the plus side, Bolsonaro does advocate expanding wind and solar energy and reducing dependence on coal and oil for power generation, but he has offered few details on how he plans to do so. He also supports ethanol incentives, popular with Brazil’s sugar cane lobby, but has expressed no plans to support other forms of clean transport.  Brazil already has one of the cleanest electricity portfolios in the world. Throughout 2018, about 65 percent of its electricity supply came from large hydropower projects, and more than 15 percent came from wind, solar, and biomass. Interest in large-scale hydropower development is waning, as most remaining potential projects are located in environmentally sensitive or indigenous areas. Meanwhile, auctions for wind and solar projects have generated bids to produce renewable power at some of the lowest prices in the world and attracted $6 billion of investment in 2017.  Even if large-scale hydropower development has reached a point of diminishing returns, there is still progress to be made on other renewable sources. For now, wind power accounts for nearly 8 percent of electricity supply. Solar makes up just 0.5 percent but is growing at an impressive clip. Bolsonaro’s campaign website proposed speeding up environmental licensing for small-scale hydroelectric plants and developing a local industry to produce, install, and maintain solar panels in the country’s impoverished northeast, which is home to abundant solar and wind resources. However, the new president himself has scarcely addressed the issue in public remarks, and it’s unclear that renewable energy will be a priority for his government.  Meanwhile, as the largest car market in Latin America—it accounts for over half the region’s vehicle sales—Brazil also needs to build on advances in reducing transport sector emissions. It is already the world’s second-largest biofuels producer, and it has the largest market of flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on pure ethanol. The RenovaBio program, launched by the government in 2017, aims to reduce the carbon intensity of gasoline by 10 percent by 2028. The program will do this by introducing carbon savings credits that incentivize fuel distributors to blend their products with more biofuels. The aim is to gradually increase the share of biofuels in Brazil’s total fuel supply from 20 percent to nearly 30 percent. Since the election last October, Bolsonaro has expressed his support for Brazil’s biofuels sector, a stance consistent with his close ties to agricultural interests. Thus biofuels are one point where agricultural and environmental interests converge, a political opportunity that Bolsonaro could seize.  The country also has a nascent but promising electric vehicles market. Electric vehicles improve local air quality and, when charged with renewable electricity, produce zero emissions—something biofuel cars cannot achieve. São Paulo and nearby Campinas have been regional leaders in launching public fleets of electric buses, which are estimated to be less expensive over their lifetime than conventional buses because of lower fuel and maintenance costs. There is potential for a new local industry, too. For now, few electric vehicles are made in Brazil. But in 2015, the Chinese car and bus manufacturer BYD opened its first Latin American factory in Campinas to make buses, and the company is expected to begin manufacturing electric vehicle battery cells in Amazonas state using locally sourced lithium by the end of the year. This development demonstrates how promoting clean transport policies can also create jobs and boost economic development, something that may well appeal to Bolsonaro.  But the most important contribution Brazil can make to global climate health is reducing deforestation.  But the most important contribution Brazil can make to global climate health is reducing deforestation. Under the Paris climate agreement, Brazil committed to eliminating illegal deforestation in the Amazon and reforesting 12 million hectares by 2030. The country’s efforts in this respect matter on a global scale: The Amazon is estimated to contain 10 percent of the world’s biomass, absorbing and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. In 2015, 46 percent of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions resulted from land use change, such as deforestation and increase in croplands, and the huge decline in Brazil’s emissions between 2005 and 2012 owed mostly to a reduction in deforestation. This suggests that progress is possible, but the rise in deforestation since 2012 means Brazil has to do more. Unfortunately, Bolsonaro has actively undermined forest protection efforts, foreshadowing dire results.  Policies to promote renewable power, clean transport, and conservation have made Brazil a global climate role model in recent decades, but Bolsonaro represents a serious threat to this progress and could lead to the tragic loss of a major world economy from the coalition fighting climate change.  Between now and 2027, the country’s power capacity is projected to grow by more than 30 percent, and renewables will account for only 71 percent of this growth. In other words, clean energy will not even keep pace with demand, much less increase as a share of power in the energy mix. Electricity regulators must oversee the upgrading of the grid to integrate more intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar and increase incentives for small-scale generation, such as rooftop solar panels. Tax exemptions, currently offered for solar panels and the like in more than 20 states, should be expanded.  In the transport sector, the expansion of biofuels should not come through clearing protected land for sugar cane production, but rather through land productivity gains, for example through more efficient and sustainable use of fertilizer. And although electric car battery prices continue to fall, the price of electric cars is still prohibitive for most Brazilians. New incentives (and an end to fuel subsidies, which, unfortunately, has proven highly unpopular in the very recent past) will be required to encourage their uptake.  Finally, Brazil must expand protected areas and safeguard existing ones, including indigenous reserves, from encroachment. It should improve deforestation monitoring and better enforce the forest code while also strengthening this set of regulations with more severe penalties. The country could explore an emissions trading scheme, something that is being tested by more than 30 major Brazilian companies. Such a scheme could allow for companies to offset carbon emissions with reforestation, which has a low average cost relative to other mitigation efforts. Although these policies run counter to many of Bolsonaro’s plans, they are critical to fighting global warming and would even yield economic benefits for Brazil.  In addition to preserving biodiversity and combating climate change, deforestation abatement has economic benefits, even for the agricultural industry that supports Bolsonaro. Precipitation regulation provided by the Amazon, through water absorbed through trees’ roots that later evaporates from their leaves, adds between $1 billion and $3 billion of value each year through increased rainfall and agricultural productivity, according to estimates.  If Bolsonaro makes good on his promises regarding renewable energy and biofuels, he could wind up helping the environment in some ways. But his government must still address other issues such as halting deforestation, a measure that is critical to environmental protection but not detrimental to the economy. Bolsonaro has expressed a desire to promote local industry and investment; now that he is at the helm, he must recognize that he has ample opportunity to promote policies that will benefit both the economy and the environment.