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

 

 

 

 

 

This is how oil spills damage our environment

• Huntington Beach, California has been undergoing a clean-up operation after a major oil spill. The effects will be long-lasting.
• Oil can kill surface-dwelling animals and birds by poisoning or suffocation, as well as affecting buoyancy and natural waterproofing.
• Contaminated food supplies mean animals may become malnourished or poisoned over time.
• Research on previous oil spills shows that toxic chemicals remain in the ocean for years, often sinking down to the seafloor and poisoning the sediment.

For many, Huntington Beach, California is better known as Surf City. But in early October, there wasn’t a wetsuit in sight, as miles of beaches were closed by a major oil slick just off the coast.

An oil pipeline leak left toxic crude oil along beaches and contaminated critical marsh and wetland habitats. Dead fish and birds washed up on the sand, with the local mayor calling the slick an “environmental catastrophe”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A harbor seal pup rescued at Refugio Beach oil spill. (June 2015 - Refugio Beach, California)

Image: USFWS

The California Department of Justice is investigating the spill, which, in the worst-case scenario, is estimated to have been more than 131,000 gallons, according to CNN.

Beaches reopened on 11 October, only after the clean-up operation could produce tests showing “non-detectable amounts of oil-associated toxins” in the ocean water.

It is too early to tell the full extent of the oil spill’s impact, although the Oiled Wildlife Care Network have already reported 45 dead birds and nine dead fish.

Environmental experts are warning that the damage will be long-term, and in some cases possibly irreparable.

So, why are oil spills so bad for the environment?

Sea life in danger

In the immediate aftermath of an oil disaster, the effects on fish, sea birds, and other marine animals are often very visible. Coated in oil, animals can be killed by poisoning or suffocation.

Those living close to or on the surface, like sea birds and otters, or those who come to the surface to breathe or feed, like whales, dolphins and turtles, can be among those most affected.

Oil-drenched feathers and fur can adversely affect animals’ ability to regulate their body temperatures. It can also affect natural buoyancy, causing animals to drown. And because birds like to preen themselves, they are highly likely to ingest the oil, potentially causing damage to their gastrointestinal tract, as well as organ damage.

Fumes from more volatile petroleum products like kerosene or jet fuel can be harmful to lungs when inhaled, while also causing burns, eye irritation and neurological issues.

Have you read?

• This 100% natural material is being used to mop up ocean pollution
• Oil-eating microbes found in the deepest part of the ocean could help clean up man-made oil spills
• Why ocean pollution is a clear danger to human health

Disrupting ecosystems

Oil can also affect food sources for sealife, making it less available or of poorer quality, so even animals that survive the initial environmental hazards may still suffer in the weeks and months following the leak.

Moreover, oil impacts breeding and reproduction, for example contaminating bird or turtle nests on shore, affecting viability, and suffocating unhatched chicks. Females affected by oil may lay eggs with thinner shells, more prone to breaking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oil can affect marine animals throughout their lifecycle.

Image: Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

The recovery from the Huntington spill is likely to be uneven, fisheries biologist and marine ecologist Steve Murawski told the Guardian.

Alongside birds and marine mammals which will be harmed - especially those that live along southern California’s offshore islands or coastal wetlands - populations of smaller creatures like plankton are also likely to be hit.

Because of their fast lifecycle, plankton are likely to bounce back quicker than “the longer alive and the slower growing things, like abalone and other things that can’t get out of the way”.

The long-term effects

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon slick in the Gulf of Mexico became the largest ever marine oil spill in US history, with more than 134 million gallons of oil spilling into the ocean. More than a decade on, scientists have shown the impact is far longer lasting than many expected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Deepwater Horizon disaster was the biggest oil spill to affect US waters

Image: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

In the summer after the slick, oil levels along the miles of affected coastline were found to be 100 times higher than background levels. But eight years on, levels in the sediments in the surrounding marshland were still 10 times higher than prior to the accident.

Research shows that droplets continued to sink to the seabed even a year after the spill ended. It affected sedimentation rates - a crucial food source and habitat for some animals. For many deep sea creatures, living among the sediment surface, recovery could take decades.

A study on bottlenose dolphins exposed during the Deepwater Horizon event has shown that the oil may have had an effect on their immune system that spanned generations, making it harder for them to fight off infection and disease.

What's the World Economic Forum doing about the ocean?

Our ocean covers 70% of the world’s surface and accounts for 80% of the planet’s biodiversity. We can't have a healthy future without a healthy ocean - but it's more vulnerable than ever because of climate change and pollution.

Tackling the grave threats to our ocean means working with leaders across sectors, from business to government to academia.

The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with the World Resources Institute, convenes the Friends of Ocean Action, a coalition of leaders working together to protect the seas. From a programme with the Indonesian government to cut plastic waste entering the sea to a global plan to track illegal fishing, the Friends are pushing for new solutions.

Climate change is an inextricable part of the threat to our oceans, with rising temperatures and acidification disrupting fragile ecosystems. The Forum runs a number of initiatives to support the shift to a low-carbon economy, including hosting the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, who have cut emissions in their companies by 9%.

Restoration is a time-consuming and costly process, but ensures that ecosystems are protected.

In September, the Deepwater Horizon Regionwide Trustee Implementation Group finalized an almost $100 million restoration plan, which includes 11 projects to restore sea turtles, marine mammals, oysters, and birds across the Gulf states and offshore waters

Hopefully, the pressure put on governments by us the people and many action groups is starting to pay off and change will happen.  I am pleased to know some wonderful people who, every day are trying to make a difference for good.  Whether they are volunteering to help animals in a sanctuary, cleaning up beaches, tidying up their local area, despite many people not giving a damn.  Sometimes I do wonder why I do the things I do and lose heart once in a while, but then I think about the difference I as one person has made, then shake off the negativity and carry on.

The blog song for today is: "Ant Music" by Adam and the Ants

TTFN

 

 

VR can encourage people to save our oceans. Here's why from the World Economic Forum

 

• We know comparatively little about the ocean, but problems such as climate change and overfishing mean it's under serious threat.
• Experts believe if we could help people empathize with the ocean and the marine life within, they would try harder to protect it.
• Research shows that empathy can be nurtured - and a particularly effective way to achieve this is through virtual reality.
• One of the first studies of its kind showed that VR can more specifically be used to foster ocean empathy.

Hundreds of kilometres from shore, and covering two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, the high seas are a world that few of us will ever see. After more than a year in the field, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ian Urbina concluded: “There are few remaining frontiers on our planet. Perhaps the wildest, and the least understood, are the world’s oceans.”

Governed by no single country or authority, the high seas represent a literal and figurative final frontier. And in this age of information — where we can access livestreams from Mars, for example — we know shockingly little about the ocean.

The race for oceanic resources

Despite being inaccessible to many, the world’s oceans are under an extraordinary set of pressures. Climate change and industrial overfishing remain the most critical threats — they undermine the oceans’ capacity to provide nutritious food and fulfilling livelihoods for hundreds of millions of people.

At the same time, new players are turning towards the oceans as a source of economic growth. The ocean economy is projected to double from US$1.5 trillion in 2010 to US$3 trillion by 2030.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ocean helps our world in many ways.

Image: NOAA

Have you read?

• This is how to speed up ocean-climate ambition towards COP26
• Why sharks matter to ocean ecosystems: an expert explains
• Our oceans are in crisis – here are 5 things we can do to save them

The global rush to develop the “blue economy” risks harming the marine environment and, in turn, affecting human well-being and exacerbating inequalities. For example, a recent study found that 10 wealthy countries own 98 per cent of patents involving marine organisms. Similarly, a small group of rich nations, who subsidize their fishing fleets, dominate global fishing efforts. And just 10 powerful corporations generate almost half — 45 per cent — of the wealth from the ocean economy.

Scientists have coined this race for ocean food, material and space as the “blue acceleration.”

Ocean empathy

These converging threats have led scientists to argue that fostering empathy is required to repair the relationships between people and nature. In a recent interview with National Geographic, climate activist Greta Thunberg observed that “we live in a post-truth society … we don’t care … we have lost empathy.”

As Thunberg suggests, our collective loss of empathy for the planet and for each other is one of our greatest challenges.

Getting people to care about the oceans — which are out of sight and out of mind for many — can be particularly challenging. A recent survey of 3,500 global leaders found that they consider UN Sustainable Development Goal 14, Life Below Water, to be the least important goal.

The world’s oceans are in urgent need of protection. But ocean stewardship is impossible without empathy for marine ecosystems and the communities who depend on them. In this context, an important research question becomes how can researchers foster empathy for nature?

Fostering empathy through virtual reality

Fortunately, an emerging body of research suggests that empathy can be nurtured. In particular, research suggests that virtual reality can be a powerful medium to trigger empathy.

This field of research is based on the premise that the immersive nature of virtual reality sets it apart from other media when it comes to stimulating empathy. Research is demonstrating the potential of virtual reality to stimulate users’ capacity to imagine and pursue more sustainable futures and to encourage pro-environmental behaviour.

What's the World Economic Forum doing about the ocean?

Our ocean covers 70% of the world’s surface and accounts for 80% of the planet’s biodiversity. We can't have a healthy future without a healthy ocean - but it's more vulnerable than ever because of climate change and pollution.

Tackling the grave threats to our ocean means working with leaders across sectors, from business to government to academia.

The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with the World Resources Institute, convenes the Friends of Ocean Action, a coalition of leaders working together to protect the seas. From a programme with the Indonesian government to cut plastic waste entering the sea to a global plan to track illegal fishing, the Friends are pushing for new solutions.

Climate change is an inextricable part of the threat to our oceans, with rising temperatures and acidification disrupting fragile ecosystems. The Forum runs a number of initiatives to support the shift to a low-carbon economy, including hosting the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, who have cut emissions in their companies by 9%.

Is your organization interested in working with the World Economic Forum? Find out more here.

Building on this work, we asked whether experiencing the oceans in a virtual reality environment could make someone care about them and take action?

We found that the experience did foster empathy. We also found that research participants cared more after experiencing the pessimistic scenario in comparison to the optimistic scenario. As one of the first studies to demonstrate the influence of virtual reality to build ocean empathy, this research makes important contributions to advancing research on novel methods for supporting ocean sustainability.

While virtual reality is far from being an everyday technology for the masses, research is informing how scientists can use it to communicate.

The oceans are at once vast and fragile, remote and central. Ocean literacy and #oceanoptimism are needed now more than ever. As marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco has argued, the oceans connect, feed and heal us — and are too important to leave behind.

This to me was very informative and I can see that technology can help in the battle ahead.  It´s brilliant  that Greta was saying the same thing at the COP26 about lack of empathy, this is a view shared by many people at the moment.  We seem to be in an era where people are divided and this is not good for us in general, because we need numbers to move on.

The blog song for today is: "The man who sold the world" by David Bowie

TTFN

The blog song for today is:

 

 

Nine things to do on climate right now- Useful information from :www.wearepossible.org

 

          

You’ve probably seen that governments from around the world are in Glasgow discussing how they are going to take action on the climate crisis.

Whether you’re feeling inspired, anxious, optimistic or overwhelmed, a great way to deal with those feelings is to take practical action in your life right now and inspire others around you to do so too. 

Here are nine ideas on where to get started:

1. Get in touch with your MP

As your representative in parliament, your MP is key to delivering climate action here in the UK. Too often, politicians say that they want to do more on climate, but don’t feel that it matters to their voters. That’s why it’s so important to reach out.

Not sure where to start? We’re running training to get you tooled up and confident in talking to your MP about climate change. Here is a web site to show you how to get started. 

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk

2. Switch to green energy

The recent gas crisis was a timely reminder of how important it is to get off dirty fossil fuels for good.

You can start in your home. Earth Day Switch have created a handy tool for assessing different energy providers. 

3. Move your money

Even if your home is powered by 100% clean energy (if so, nice work!) you might be inadvertently financing fossil fuels through your bank, pension or other investments. 

Don’t worry - there are ethical options out there, you just need to know where to look. We’ve got some tips, ( go here https://www.wearepossible.org/actions-blog/put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is) but if you’re looking for more detailed reports, check out Bank Track. (https://www.banktrack.org/)

4. Plant some trees 

We need to be planting millions more trees here in the UK, because they draw down carbon back into the soil while helping local nature to flourish.

This winter, we’ll be planting hundreds of trees with the help of volunteers all over the country. Whether you already manage your own little forest, or if you’ve no idea which end of a spade is which - we’d love for you to join us. (visit their website for more info)

5. Get on your bike 

If you have a bicycle that you haven’t been using as much as you’d like, this could be the time to change that. 

Global Cycling Network’s YouTube account has some handy videos on how to mend common bike problems (from fixing punctures, to replacing brake pads). And if you’re feeling really inspired, check out our Car Free Cities campaign

6. Curl up with a good book

Climate literature deepens our understanding of the situation we are in, and allows us to imagine a different future. It’s also a great way to get talking to other people about this critical issue.

As the nights are drawing in, curl up with a good book on climate. Here’s some ideas to get you started. (https://ocean.exacteditions.com/)

7. Draft proof your home for winter

Making your home more energy efficient is a great way to cut carbon, especially if you have a gas boiler. It’ll also cut your bills and keep you warmer.

Drafts are one of the commonest ways our homes leak energy but there are some simple solutions that can plug these gaps (https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/advice/draught-proofing/)such as adding some weather strips round the edges of your windows and doors to seal them. 

8. Don’t give a lump of coal this Christmas

The festive period is coming up, and it’s a great time to gift your way into climate conversations with your friends and family.

Rather than buying new gifts from the shops this Christmas, why not craft your own, upcycle some clothes or furniture, or make your own chutneys or jams. Aside from being lower carbon, they’re packed with far more love. 

9. Make climate friendly travel a thing in 2022

Flying less is one of the most powerful actions we can take to cut carbon, but time is often a key barrier to people being able to choose more climate friendly travel.

This is where Climate Perks comes in (https://www.climateperks.com/). Employers who sign-up to the scheme offer their workers paid ‘journey days’ to staff who travel on holiday by train, coach or boat instead of flying.

 There are some interesting and very easy things to do, even one of them makes a difference.

As you may realise a lot of my information comes from the UK but as far as I can see this problem is global and wherever we are in the world the problems are still the same. The planet is in crisis and we humans are the cause. The richer nations are the ones that are causing problems for the poorer ones, so we should help them. 

As for the COP26, from what I can gather from all the different news sources is that there have been more delegates from the fossil fuel industry than anywhere else. How has that been allowed to happen? Unless of course, they are there to put forward their timetable for change? I really hope so. Unfortunately, I have serious concerns about their motives. 

We as people can and must reduce our own carbon footprint by trying some of the things mentioned above. Consumerism is the thing that needs to be reduced. Buy only what we need, not want. Bit by bit.

I will be giving some information and reports from my trusted people on the actual actions that will be taken and have started. 

The blog song for today is: "Poker Face" by Lady Gaga

TTFN 

 

 

 

 

 

The far-reaching benefits of tiger sharks for the climate

 Here is a report from the BBC website:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Worldwide, shark populations are on the decline. Boosting their numbers could have a cascade effect to help sink carbon and make the oceans more resilient to climate change.

On the westernmost tip of Australia in the aptly named Shark Bay, at least 28 species of shark swim through the clear waters and undulating seagrass meadows – the largest in the world. Tiger sharks in particular are common frequenters of the jagged inlets of Shark Bay. These mammoth predatory fish brush their 15-ft-long (4.5m) bodies through the seagrass, occasionally snatching a majestic grazing sea cow for a meal. While the presence of tiger sharks is a threat to their prey, these predators are crucial to the health of the marine ecosystem that supports both species.

In fact, despite sharks' notorious reputation among humans, they could also be a powerful ally in curbing climate change.

It all comes back to the wispy strands of seagrass that sway with the waves in the shallows of Shark Bay. This seagrass is food for the sea cows, or dugongs, who each graze on roughly 40kg (88lb) of seagrass a day – as well as for manatees and green sea turtles.

Off Australia's north-east coast of Queensland, tiger sharks are estimated to have fallen by at least 71%

Dugongs, which can weigh as much as 500kg (1,100lb), are a rich source of food for tiger sharks. By keeping the sea cow population in check, tiger sharks in Shark Bay help the seagrass meadows thrive. A flourishing seagrass meadow stores twice as much CO2 per square mile as forests typically do on land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shark Bay experienced an intense heatwave in 2011, causing waters to rise by up to 5C for two months (Credit: Getty Images)

But globally, tiger shark numbers are declining, including some populations in Australia. Off Australia's north-east coast of Queensland, tiger sharks are estimated to have fallen by at least 71%, largely due to overfishing and bycatch. A reduction in tiger sharks means more seagrass grazing by herbivores, which means less carbon is sequestered in sea vegetation. In the Caribbean and Indonesia where shark populations have dwindled, overgrazing by herbivores like sea turtles is already a profound threat to seagrass habitats, and has led to a 90 to 100% loss of seagrass.

As well as meaning less carbon is absorbed, the loss of seagrass also makes the habitat less able to recover from extreme, climate change-driven weather events, such as heatwaves.

Shrinking shark numbers

There is clear evidence that shark populations are     declining the world over, and humans are largely to blame. A recent reassessment by the IUCN Red List found that 37.5% of all shark and ray species are now threatened with extinction. Catherine Macdonald, marine conservation biologist and a lecturer at the University of Miami, points out that oceanic sharks and rays have declined in abundance by 71% since 1970.
Overfishing is their biggest threat, but loss of coastal habitats, prey loss and declines in water quality are also contributing factors.

One of Western Australia's worst heatwaves hit in 2011, with ocean temperatures rising by 5C for two months. The heatwave was catastrophic for the bay's dominant species of seagrass, Amphibolis antarctica, which forms rich, dense meadows that hold sediments and provide food for grazers. More than 90% of the Amphibolis antarctica was lost, the largest loss known across the bay.

This loss of seagrass was, perversely, a treat for the bay's sea cows, who love a smaller and harder-to-find type of tropical seagrass that was ordinarily shielded from access by the tall, dense Amphibolis antarctica. When tropical seagrass is more accessible, sea cows in their enthusiasm are known to forage for it in a destructive way known as "excavation foraging", digging up the rhizomes of their preferred seagrass, and making it harder for dense Amphibolis antarctica beds to reform.

In Shark Bay, the tiger sharks were somewhat able to restore the balance by keeping sea cow numbers down, and not all the bay's seagrass was lost. But it begged the question: What if sharks were absent from the bay – would the Amphibolis antarctica dominated ecosystem survive?

To find out, researchers led by Rob Nowicki of Florida International University, spent time in Eastern Australia, where shark numbers were lower and sea cows grazed largely undisturbed. There, divers went down and plucked the seagrass, simulating the sea cows' grazing when there are no predators to stop them – the enthusiastic, destructive excavation foraging. Sure enough, they observed a rapid loss in seagrass coverage, particularly of Amphibolis antarctica, and the ecosystem began to shift to a more tropical picture dominated by tropical seagrass.

"We learned that when unchecked, dugong grazing can rapidly destroy wide areas of seagrass when they perform excavation foraging," says Nowicki. These changes can be long-lasting. “When the seagrass recovers, the seagrass community looks different, with different species dominating than before."

Those findings underlined the role that sharks were playing in Shark Bay. "Without tiger sharks keeping the dugongs in check, the bay would likely convert to mostly tropical seagrasses," says Nowicki.

Let´s hope that the world wakes up properly and not just drowsily like it is now and really take a long hard look and make changes.  I am not talking just about companies and  governments  but about all of us. Everyone alive today has some part to play in making changes, even really small ones to help put the brakes on.

Here on Menorca we have measures in place to preserve the poseidon grass that protects our ocean around the island.  Unfortunately this year we had a ridiculous amount of boats around the coastline, which did nothing to help.  It is not a problem if they realise their part in the maintenance and destruction of this vital sea grass,but many of them have no idea, as they turn up on their massive boats, without a care in the world and because they have nothing to do with the day to day running of it, don´t even think about where all the waste is going.  There is a campaign to limit the amount of boats but obviously this needs to be controlled and Menorca must do this if we are to keep this island of biosphere status.

The blog song for today is: " Seven Seas of Rye" by Queen

TTFN

The blog song for today is

 

 

 

Fossil fuel subsidy explainer- more ammunition for us!

 

fossil fuel subsidy explainer

By Jake Coleman

Most of us know little of the murky world of government funded business, but it is often the things that happen behind closed doors in private offices that cause the most damage. In the case of fossil fuel subsidies, the funds that are funnelled to companies by financial manoeuvres and tweaking tax tariffs lie behind a veil of secrecy that has only recently begun to be lifted.

The fossil fuel industry has grown to such a scale that the economy as a whole has become deeply entangled with the success and continued growth of fossil fuel companies. Globally, there’s a web of intricate and opaque measures designed specifically to directly and indirectly support these companies, making the overlap between fossil fuel interests and governments’ interests a grey zone that’s hard to navigate and unknot.

Subsidies can be divided into two main categories: producer subsidies and consumer subsidies.

Consumer subsidies are defined as when a government controls the price of fuel for consumers in their economy. Low fuel prices drive up consumption of fuel and fuel products, boosting the economy in the short term. Governments often justify these cost controls by saying they reduce transport costs, household electricity bills and general living costs. But these ostensible ‘social benefits’ come at a cost. Price controls are often applied to products only the relatively rich can afford at quantity, such as petrol, which further advantages the ability of the rich to accelerate their own wealth as those who are still priced out fall further behind. So effectively, price controls of this kind often function as a money transfer from the average taxpayer to the 1%, further increasing societal inequalities.

Producer subsidies are far more complex matter, as they can be awarded to companies in a variety of more indirect ways. Direct budgetary transfers are government stimuluses for the industry, which can be spent in any way companies choose, from helping to improve the efficiency of their operations — to handing out gigantic bonuses to their CEOs. Tax breaks on capital investment allow oil companies huge tax breaks on investments in machinery and the construction of new power plants. Having a lower share of profits given as tax means fossil fuel company profits are taxed at a lower rate than standard companies, if they are seen to be developing a resource such as a new oil source. Investment by state owned enterprises often isn’t counted as a subsidy at all — meaning that organisations that are owned by, but not a specific branch of, the government (including banks like NatWest Group), can invest in fossil fuel companies without their considerable support even being accounted for as a government subsidy. Finally, tax breaks manifest themselves even in lower VAT rates — while the UK’s VAT rate is 20%, the fossil fuel industry gets a generously discounted 5%.

For years, governments relied on the fact that it takes a team of diligent accountants to find all the ways subsidies benefit fossil fuel companies. But more and more people are starting to understand, if not all the ways subsidies are transferred, then at least the eye-watering amounts of money involved and how destructive their effects are.

how fossil fuel companies use government money

Fossil fuel companies use most of the money from these massive tax breaks and handouts to secure their dominant position at the heart of society. Large fossil fuel companies, like Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries, have funnelled funds into climate denial institutions — Exxon Mobil paid $686,500 to the Heartland Institute, a vocal anti-climate action policy think tank, between 1997 and 2006 — to discredit climate change science and protect their profits. Exxon also fund political campaigns that pledge to guarantee the future of fossil fuels in a certain region — Texas governor Greg Abbott recently exonerated fossil fuel companies from blame for the Texas power outages after receiving $26m in campaign donations from fossil fuel companies in the past 6 years.

BP and Shell also used the money to fund advertising campaigns to greenwash their products and reduce negative publicity around crises like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Fossil fuel companies are delaying decisive action from being taken by painting themselves as “rethinking the future of energy” - using cosmetic brand gestures like adding green colour to their logos and using vague, eco-friendly slogans to obscure the damage they are doing to the planet. This must end now. Government-backed methods of controlling public perception can only be combatted with an engaged popular movement that fights for policies that impose significant fines on companies who use greenwash in their advertisements.

 

 Greenwashing ads like the above BP example disguise the fact that companies like Exxon mobil are using government money to finance climate denial.

This is something that affects us all, even the families of those people running and working for those companies.  Let us hope that the long awaited COP 26 taking place from tomorrow really does address all these issues and not brush them aside for the next generation to deal with. 

The blog song for today is : " No quarter" by Led Zeppelin

TTFN

 

Update on the NZ deep sea mining moratorium from Greenpeace

 

Here is a message from Greenpeace, I have been following what has been happening over the world and New Zealand is one of the many countries involved in this horrible way of mining.  Greenpeace over there have been battling on to get things changed but it is slow going.  I really believed that New Zealand was one of the better countries regarding the environment but I was very saddened to read what happened when they had the chance to do the right thing.  You willl read it below.

Kia ora, Kei te pēhea koe? (How are you?) The last few weeks have been challenging for many across Aotearoa New Zealand so I hope you and your loved ones are keeping well wherever you are across the country. I wanted to share some exciting national and international news on the issue of deep sea mining. You may have heard recently about the overwhelming support from delegates at the IUCN World Conservation Congress who voted in support of a global moratorium on deep sea mining. This is great news! However, the New Zealand Government who is represented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress by the Department of Conservation (DOC), abstained from voting! I am so disappointed to see the New Zealand Government opt out of supporting the deep sea mining moratorium [1]. Deep sea mining is one of the greatest threats our oceans face at the moment, especially in the Pacific. We don’t have time anymore to simply abstain from voting. We need the Government to take a leadership position on deep sea mining by supporting the moratorium especially when we are a Pacific country. The relevance of the moratorium’s support is even more important following a decision by Nauru to trigger the “two-year rule” which means the International Seabed Authority is required to allow seabed mining company “Nauru Ocean Resources Ltd (NORI)” to begin mining in two years’ time under whatever regulations have been established by then. We’ve been calling on the New Zealand Government to ban all seabed mining - more than 22,000 people have signed the petition but we urgently need your support too!

SIGN THE PETITION >> at Greenpeace

Well my friend, if you are in level 2, may you reconnect with family, friends and neighbours. If you’re in level 4 still like I am, kia kaha, kia manawanui. Be strong, let’s persevere together. 

Ngā mihi,

 

I hope that you can spare some time to sign the petition, it does not matter where you live in the world, it is all about support and putting pressure on governments.

 

Keep up the great work Greenpeace and everyone in our world who are trying to make the world a better place for future generations.

The blog song for today is : "Jennifer Juniper" by Donovan

 

TTFN