COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial By Rachel Schraer & Kayleen Devlin BBC Reality Check

 

As world leaders met at the COP26 summit to debate how to tackle climate change, misleading claims and falsehoods about the climate spiralled on social media.

Scientists say climate change denial is now more likely to focus on the causes and effects of warming, or how to tackle it, than to outright deny it exists.

The 'd-words' v the planet

We've looked at some of the most viral claims of the past year, and what the evidence really says.

The claim: A 'Grand Solar Minimum' will halt global warming

People have long claimed, incorrectly, that the past century's temperature changes are just part of the Earth's natural cycle, rather than the result of human behaviour.

In recent months, we've seen a new version of this argument.

Thousands of posts on social media, reaching hundreds of thousands of people over the past year, claim a "Grand Solar Minimum" will lead to a natural fall in temperatures, without human intervention.

But this is not what the evidence shows.

A grand solar minimum is a real phenomenon when the Sun gives off less energy as part of its natural cycle.

Studies suggest the Sun may well go through a weaker phase sometime this century, but that this would lead, at most, to a temporary 0.1 - 0.2C cooling of the planet.

That's not nearly enough to offset human activity, which has already warmed the planet by about 1.2C over the past 200 years and will continue to rise, possibly topping 2.4C by the end of the century.

• A simple guide to climate change

We know recent temperature rises weren't caused by the changes in the Sun's natural cycle because the layer of atmosphere nearest the earth is warming, while the layer of atmosphere closest to the Sun - the stratosphere - is cooling.

Heat which would normally be released into the stratosphere is being trapped by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from people burning fuel.

If temperature changes on Earth were being caused by the Sun, we would expect the whole atmosphere to warm (or cool) at the same time.

The claim: Global warming is good

Various posts circulating online claim global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable, and that cold kills more people than heat does.

These arguments often cherry-pick favourable facts while ignoring any that contradict them.

For example, it's true that some inhospitably cold parts of the world could become easier to live in for a time.

But in these same places warming could also lead to extreme rainfall, affecting living conditions and the ability to grow crops,

At the same time, other parts of the world would become uninhabitable as a result of temperature increases and rising sea levels, like the world's lowest-lying country, the Maldives.

We face climate extinction, at-risk nations say

There may be fewer cold-related deaths. According to a study published in the Lancet, between 2000 and 2019, more people died as a result of cold weather than hot.

However, a rise in heat-related deaths is expected to cancel out any lives saved.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says overall, "climate-related risks to health [and] livelihoods...are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5 degrees". Any small local benefits from fewer cold days are expected to be outweighed by the risks of more frequent spells of extreme heat.

The claim: Climate change action will make people poorer

A common claim made by those against efforts to tackle climate change is that fossil fuels have been essential to driving economic growth.

So limiting their use, the argument goes, will inevitably stunt this growth and increase the cost of living, hurting the poorest.

But this isn't the whole picture.

Fossil fuels have powered vehicles, factories and technology, allowing humans over the past century to make things at a scale and speed which would previously have been impossible. This enabled people to make, sell and buy more things, and become richer.

But stopping using coal doesn't mean returning to the days of ox-drawn carts and hand-cranked machines - we now have other technologies that can do a similar job.

In many places, renewable electricity - powered by wind or solar energy for example - is now cheaper than electricity powered by coal, oil or gas.

On the other hand, studies predict that if we don't act on climate change by 2050, the global economy could shrink by 18% because of the damage caused by natural disasters and extreme temperatures to buildings, lives, businesses and food supplies.

Such damage would hit the world's poorest the hardest.

The claim: Renewable energy is dangerously unreliable

Misleading posts claiming renewable energy failures led to blackouts went viral earlier in the year, when a massive electricity grid failure left millions of Texans in the dark and cold.

These posts, which were taken up by a number of conservative media outlets in the US, wrongly blamed the blackout on wind turbines.

• Are frozen wind turbines to blame for Texas power failures?

"Blackouts are an artefact of poor electricity generation and distribution management," says John Gluyas, executive director of the Durham Energy Institute.

He says the claim that renewable energy causes blackouts is "nonsensical.... Venezuela has oodles of oil and frequent blackouts".

According to Jennie King from the think tank ISD Global, this discrediting of renewable energies is a "key line of attack for those keen to preserve reliance on, and subsidies for, oil and gas".

• Is Putin right about wind turbines and birds?

Critics of renewable energy schemes also claim the technology kills birds and bats, ignoring the studies that estimate that fossil fuel-powered plants kill many times more animals.

There's no doubt some wildlife, including birds, are killed by wind turbines.

But according to the LSE's Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment: "The benefits for wildlife of mitigating climate change are considered by conservation charities... to outweigh the risks, provided that the right planning safeguards are put in place, including careful site selection.

I find these reports quite helpful in the way that if anyone talks such nonsense to me at least I can reply with some useful information!  There is too much information floating about these days, sometimes it is very confusing, I suppose that is why people put it online!  Some of the theories are really quite something,the imagination used to think them up is quite incredible, the problem is that these theories sometimes gather pace and take away the momentum gained by genuine people who are really trying to make a change.

The blog song for today is; " Waterloo Sunset" by the Kinks

TTFN

 

 

The Observer view on the Cop26 agreement -no sugar coating on this report!

OpinionCop26

The Observer view on the Cop26 agreement

Observer editorial

Countries still lack the radical ambition to avert disaster – this accord goes nowhere near far enough

Greenpeace demonstrators raise a banner at Cop26, but the geopolitical context always made it unlikely sufficient progress would be made. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

Sat 13 Nov 2021 23.35 GMT

Last modified on Sun 14 Nov 2021 08.25 GMT 

On Glasgow Green, there lies a stone that commemorates the spot where the engineer James Watt in 1765 conceived the idea for a separate condenser for the steam engine. It is Watt’s invention, which revolutionised the efficiency of the steam engine, that means Glasgow can lay claim to be the place from which the Industrial Revolution sprang.

Just over a quarter of a millennium later, delegates from all over the world meeting in the same city have agreed the text of a critical international agreement to try to bind countries into the action required to slow the catastrophic global heating that the Industrial Revolution set in train.

It does not go anywhere near far enough. In recent years, scientists have warned that the goal in the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global temperature rises to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels is not sufficiently ambitious.

The implications of the world heating beyond 1.5C are much worse than previously thought. Even 1.5C would still result in significantly more extreme weather events – and some irreversible changes such as sea level rises, the melting of Arctic ice and the warming and acidification of the oceans – but those impacts will be more manageable.

The challenges going into Cop26 in Glasgow were immense. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1.1C, and global emissions of CO₂ continue to rise. In order to limit heating to 1.5C, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next four years, and coal- and gas-fired plants must close within the next decade.

This requires a huge shift in global commitments: before Glasgow, the non-binding commitments countries have signed up to put the world on course to warm up by 2.7C, according to the UN – a level of overheating that would result in tens of millions of people dying as a result of drought, and large swaths of the planet becoming completely uninhabitable.

The geopolitical context always made it unlikely sufficient progress would be made at Glasgow to inspire confidence that a limit of 1.5C of warming will be achieved. Xi Jinping, president of China – the world’s largest emitter – did not attend in person.

Wealthier countries have failed to honour commitments made 12 years ago that developing countries would receive $100bn a year to help them adapt, and the UK’s cuts to international aid have eroded its moral standing as host of the conference.

Countries’ competing objectives – the desire of some states to keep drilling for oil even as others’ continuing existence is dependent on imminently halting the extraction of fossil fuels – were always going to make for a difficult set of negotiations, but the pandemic has sharpened the divide between richer and poorer nations, as some countries have vaccinated virtually all their citizens while others have barely started.

It is widely acknowledged that the UK went into the conference underprepared, as the government’s diplomatic efforts have been primarily focused on Brexit in recent years, rather than on laying the ground for the negotiations of the past two weeks.

At the 11th hour, the already-weak resolution on the phasing-out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies was watered down

The best that can be said about Cop26 is that it has kept the possibility of limiting global heating to 1.5C alive, if only by a thread. The worst outcome of this conference would have been if countries had agreed to next reopen their commitments to reduce emissions only in five years’ time, as was agreed in Paris in 2015. This would have been nothing short of a disaster.

It would have firmly put the world on the path to catastrophic and irreversible overheating – involving the deaths of tens of millions of people and the total obliteration of some countries as a result of rising sea levels. It would have thrown away humanity’s last chance of avoiding this fate.

Instead, countries have agreed to come back to revisit their commitments in a year’s time, and every year after that. Something radical will need to shift in the next year or two in order to achieve the commitments that are urgently needed to limit warming to 1.5C.

Take the UK’s net zero strategy, for example, which falls far short of what is needed in order for it to achieve its stated goal of net zero emissions by 2050. It has been estimated we need to be investing about 1% of GDP to meet this; but the government has committed just a fraction of that, and the strategy is further undermined by the government reneging on its own policy commitments, including its recent scrapping of the green homes schemes and the delay in the phase-out of gas boilers.

The UK’s strategy is far from the worst in terms of its failure to be powered by strong government commitments, which serves only to convey the scale of what is still needed from countries across the world.

However, the US-China bilateral agreement, if thin in terms of commitments, is a real sign of diplomatic progress. More than 100 countries have committed to end deforestation by 2030; five of the richest countries have pledged $1.7bn to support the conservation efforts of indigenous people; and the US and EU have signed up to an initiative to cut methane emissions.

But it is not enough. There are too many gaps, too few commitments, insufficient willpower. At the 11th hour, the already-weak resolution on the phasing-out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies was watered down even further so as to make it virtually meaningless.

Countries pleaded in the final plenary sessions that they can go no further, but go further they must. Disaster is not yet certain; but humanity’s “code red” is still blaring. The cost of ignoring it is unthinkable.

No need to say any more, this is what a lot of people are thinking, however we have to go with what we have and this is it, for now.  

Th blog song for today is: "American Pie" by Don Mclean.TTFN

The outcome document, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, calls on 197 countries to report their progress towards more climate ambition next year, at COP27, set to take place in Egypt.

 

After extending the COP26 climate negotiations an extra day, nearly 200 countries meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, adopted on Saturday an outcome document that, according to the UN Secretary-General, “reflects the interests, the contradictions, and the state of political will in the world today”.

The outcome document, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, calls on 197 countries to report their progress towards more climate ambition next year, at COP27, set to take place in Egypt.

The outcome also firms up the global agreement to accelerate action on climate this decade.

However, COP26 President Alok Sharma struggled to hold back tears following the announcement of a last-minute change to the pact, by China and India, softening language circulated in an earlier draft about “the phase-out of unabated coal power and of inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels”. As adopted on Saturday, that language was revised to “phase down” coal use.

Mr. Sharma apologized for “the way the process has unfolded” and added that he understood some delegations would be “deeply disappointed” that the stronger language had not made it into the final agreement.

By other terms of the wide-ranging set of decisions, resolutions and statements that make up the outcome of COP26, governments were, among other things, asked to provide tighter deadlines for updating their plans to reduce emissions.

On the thorny question of financing from developed countries in support of climate action in developing countries, the text emphasizes the need to mobilize climate finance “from all sources to reach the level needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, including significantly increasing support for developing country Parties, beyond $100 billion per year”.

 Other key COP26 achievements

Beyond the political negotiations and the Leaders’ Summit, COP26 brought together about 50,000 participants online and in-person to share innovative ideas, solutions, attend cultural events and build partnerships and coalitions.

The conference heard many encouraging announcements. One of the biggest was that leaders from over 120 countries, representing about 90 per cent of the world’s forests, pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030,  the date by which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to curb poverty and secure the planet’s future are supposed to have been achieved.

There was also a methane pledge, led by the United States and the European Union, by which more than 100 countries agreed to cut emissions of this greenhouse gas by 2030.

Meanwhile, more than 40 countries – including major coal-users such as Poland, Vietnam and Chile – agreed to shift away from coal, one of the biggest generators CO2 emissions.

The private sector also showed strong engagement with nearly 500 global financial services firms agreeing to align $130 trillion – some 40 per cent of the world’s financial assets – with the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Also, in a surprise for many, the United States and China pledged to boost climate cooperation over the next decade. In a joint declaration they said they had agreed to take steps on a range of issues, including methane emissions, transition to clean energy and decarbonization. They also reiterated their commitment to keep the 1.5C goal alive.

Regarding green transport, more than 100 national governments, cities, states and major car companies signed the Glasgow Declaration on Zero-Emission Cars and Vans to end the sale of internal combustion engines by 2035 in leading markets, and by 2040 worldwide.  At least 13 nations also committed to end the sale of fossil fuel powered heavy duty vehicles by 2040.

Many ‘smaller’ but equally inspiring commitments were made over the past two weeks, including one by 11 countries which created the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA). Ireland, France, Denmark, and Costa Rica among others, as well as some subnational governments, launched this first-of-its kind alliance to set an end date for national oil and gas exploration and extraction.

A quick refresher on how we got here

To keep it simple, COP26 was the latest and one of the most important steps in the decades long, UN-facilitated effort to help stave off what has been called a looming climate emergency.

In 1992, the UN organized a major event in Rio de Janeiro called the Earth Summit, in which the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted.

In this treaty, nations agreed to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” to prevent dangerous interference from human activity on the climate system. Today, the treaty has 197 signatories.

Since 1994, when the treaty entered into force, every year the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits or “COPs”, which stands for ‘Conference of the Parties’

I must admit that I was a bit dismayed that more was not achieved at this crucial summit, but we have to take what we can get, at least we are moving a bit forward.  As long as they carry out their pledges and not try to swerve and delay, we are at least going in the right direction.  Everyone will be watching these countries and businesses alike to make sure that they do what they say they will be going to do.

It is also down to ordinary people like us to continue to do our part, becoming aware of the damage that we as indiduals are doing and taking steps to change our habits.  I admit that sometimes the information is overwhelming, but when it starts to become a bit too much, I stop and take stock of the small differences that I have made over the last year, it appears that I have done so much more that I thought!

We have to keep on pushing, trying to nudge (gently of course) people away from polluting and destroying our beautiful home to caring for and saving it. 

The blog song for today is: " Nostradamus" by Al Stewart

TTFN

What is 'marine snow' and how does it help the ocean to store carbon?

Here is a report from the World Economic Forum

 

• Research has shown that oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through microscopic algae, that carry out photosynthesis and then sink when they die.
• These sinking algae, along with the excretions of microscopic creatures that feed on them, are known as 'marine snow'.
• Marine snow transports carbon into the oceans depths in a process known as a biological pump.
• By improving their understanding of this biological pump, scientists can better predict how the ocean will respond to climate change in future.

New research sheds light on how oceans absorb carbon dioxide.

Oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through microscopic algae that carry out photosynthesis and then sink to the deep sea when they die. This sinking enhances the degradation processes, researchers have now discovered.

Oceans play a key role in the global carbon dioxide balance. This is because billions of tiny algae live there, absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and incorporating it into their biomass. When these algae die, they trickle down—along with the excretions of microscopic creatures that feed on them—as “marine snow” into deeper zones. About 1% of their carbon dioxide then lies buried in the seafloor for thousands of years.

Because this constant rain of marine snowflakes transports carbon into the ocean’s depths, experts call it a biological pump. It is driven by two opposing processes: the sinking of the organic flakes and their degradation by bacteria. Sinking flakes increase the flux of carbon to the depths, while bacteria decrease this flux by removing carbon from the particles.

Current ocean models assume speed of sinking and rate of degradation to be independent of each other. “But we’ve now shown that the degradation processes are enhanced by sinking,” says Uria Alcolombri from the Institute of Environmental Engineering at ETH Zurich, first author of the new study.

For their investigations, the researchers used a clever method: instead of tracking sinking particles in the sea, they put individual millimeter-sized alginate particles into a microfluidic chamber and then pumped artificial seawater through it. “In our experiments, the marine snow didn’t move through the sea; rather the sea washed around the marine snow. But the relative speed is the same,” says Alcolombri.

The researchers colonised the alginate particles with genetically modified, green-glowing bacteria. These broke down the particles much faster when water flowed through the chamber; the breakdown takes about 10 times longer in still water. This is because the flowing water washes away the degradation products, leaving the bacteria’s enzymes to get to work directly on the particles, without having to spend time on decomposing molecules 

Drawing on these observations, Alcolombri and his colleague François Peaudecerf have designed a new model of the biological carbon pump that considers how the sinking influences the degradation of the marine snowflakes. The model calculations suggest two things: Firstly, that the enhancement of particle degradation due to sinking reduces the theoretical transport efficiency of the carbon pump twofold. And secondly, that much of the dead algae is decomposed in the uppermost layers of the ocean—which is consistent with measurements of real carbon flux in the sea.

The team’s research was not aimed at boosting the performance of the biological carbon pump: “We’re interested in gleaning a fundamental understanding of natural processes; we wanted to know how the biological pump works,” says Alcolombri. “For this is essential if we’re to predict more accurately how our oceans will respond to climate change”.

It turned out that the degradation rate of marine snow—and indirectly, the global carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere—is determined by microscopic transport dynamics. Which shows, once again, how even the tiniest things in the environment affect the big picture.

What a very interesting and different theme from the normal stuff! It´s really good to see science working!

The blog song for today is: "  All right now" by Free

TTFN