A summary of COP26 by Greenpeace UK

 

If you want to know if something has succeeded, you should start by asking the people with the most to lose. In this case, that’s those who are already being hit hardest by climate change, and they’ve given a clear answer:

What is balanced and pragmatic to other parties will not help the Maldives adapt in time. For us, this is a matter of survival. We recognise the foundations that this outcome provides, but it does not bring hope to our hearts. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us.
Shauna Aminath, minister of environment for The Maldives

The climate emergency has already arrived in our territories. And we are very worried about all these announcements, and deals that are being signed here without considering or respecting the rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples.
Sônia Guajajara, Brazilian Indigenous leader

I’m hugely disappointed and hugely let down by COP. Coming from Chad, millions of my people are suffering but nobody is listening to our cries, our tears. It’s our planet, and it’s time to stop messing about with our future.
Safia Hasan, 15, climate activist from Chad

These groups are suffering the most from climate change, even though they did nearly nothing to cause it. But their reasonable demands for help protecting themselves against climate impacts, and compensation from the damage it’s already done, were downplayed and sidelined in the talks.

And while the COP26 deal doesn’t put the 1.5C goal completely out of reach, the governments and companies that obstruct bold action on climate change are knowingly endangering whole communities and cultures for their own short-term profits or political convenience. History won’t judge them kindly for this.

It’s important to be honest about this situation. But it’s also important to remember how much we still have to fight for. There’s no single moment when it’s ‘too late’ to act on climate change; no cut-off point where we can’t choose a better path.

Every ray of hope and inch of progress at COP26 was won through relentless pressure from activists, campaigners and diplomats, especially those on the front lines of the crisis. It’s always been this way, and always will.

So for all the missed opportunities, it’s still worth asking: did COP26 make things better than they were before? Did it create some good foundations to build on? Or did it create new problems that will need to be untangled later?

What was decided at COP26?

Global climate talks have two main strands. You have the formal (and often technical) UN negotiations, which produce a final ‘decision text’ that every country signs.

Alongside that, you often have what’s essentially a giant trade show, where everyone who’s working on climate change comes to boast about what they’re doing. The UK government’s love of good green PR meant we saw even more of these shiny ‘side deals’ at this COP than normal.

This second strand can feel like a bit of a circus, but positive news here can build goodwill and momentum that feed into the formal negotiations.

Let’s run through the big decisions and announcements, starting with what was in the official agreement:

Climate justice

What happened? Governments wrangled over funding and wider support to help poorer countries protect themselves against climate impacts, and compensate them for loss and damage they suffer as a result of emissions from the rich world.

Verdict: you break it, you pay for it. Climate change is already putting a huge financial burden on poorer countries who did almost nothing to cause this crisis. Over a decade ago, governments promised $100bn a year, but they’re still not paying up in full.

There was a tiny bit of progress here, thanks to activists and delegates from climate-vulnerable countries piling on the pressure. But rich governments still didn’t go nearly far enough. While this huge injustice continues, it’ll be hard to build the trust we need for real progress.

A nail in the coffin for coal

What happened? It only took 26 years, but the world’s governments finally officially acknowledged that tackling climate change means moving away from one of the biggest causes of climate change. The final COP26 agreement explicitly talks about ‘phasing down’ coal-burning.

Verdict: bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough. A major theme of COP26 was sending a signal to the wider world that fossil fuels are on their way out. Lots of the wrangling over the text was really about how strong that signal should be. And while fossil fuel execs certainly won’t be celebrating, the negotiations fell far short of the decisive ‘time’s up’ message we needed. As Greenpeace’s exec director Jennifer Morgan put it, COP26 was bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough.

A better timetable for tougher targets

What happened? Countries’ existing climate targets aren’t anywhere near enough to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees. So they agreed to return with stronger targets in 2022, rather than leaving the normal five-year gap between new commitments.

Verdict: essential urgency. This tougher deadline will put pressure on countries to bring their targets into line with the 1.5C goal. It’s also more in line with the overall urgency of the climate crisis.

Carbon offsetting

What happened? A new official agreement paved the way for countries to trade emissions cuts, paying others – often in the Global South – to ‘offset’ the climate pollution they generate rather than reducing it directly.

Verdict: a license to pollute? COP26 opened the gates for much more carbon offsetting. This is almost certainly bad news, because carbon offsetting is almost certainly a colossal scam that will delay real action on climate change.

Many of the rules and safeguards that could have made the system even vaguely useful were left out, and the resulting loopholes put Indigenous Peoples at even more risk, as their lands will be in demand for new offsetting schemes.

Greenpeace activists raise a banner reading “NOT FOR SALE” against the iconic giant globe

 at the centre of the COP26 conference hall in Glasgow, as talks enter their final hours. 

© Emily Macinnes / Greenpeace

The side deals

Forests deal

What happened? Over 100 governments signed a voluntary side agreement that promised to end deforestation and protect indigenous rights.

Verdict: blah blah blah. There was no sign of actual policies to actually deliver on these promises, and there are major question marks surrounding the new funding. Greenpeace Brazil’s Carolina Pasquali said: “There’s a very good reason [Brazil’s forest-destroying president] Bolsonaro felt comfortable signing on to this new deal. It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn’t binding.”

And to top it all off, this deal looks suspiciously similar to another agreement from back in 2014, which did literally nothing to slow deforestation. World leaders have a long track record here, and it’s not good.

Fossil fuel funding

What happened? A group of over 20 governments and financial institutions agreed to stop funding new overseas fossil fuel projects with public money by the end of 2022. The group includes some major players in energy financing, including Canada, the US, and the UK. This was possibly the most important side agreement at COP26.

Verdict: beginning of the end. Historically, governments have been keen to invest in building fossil-fueled power plants outside their borders. But despite some technical loopholes, this agreement starts to bring that era to an end.

It’ll become much harder to build new dirty energy infrastructure, as companies will have to rely on private banks or domestic government funding. It’s vital that overseas energy funding is redirected into renewable projects instead, and that this ambition is extended to end all new fossil fuel projects immediately.

India’s net zero target

What happened? India pledged to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2070. The pledge was part of a new set of measures including a strengthened renewable energy target.

Verdict: better than expected. These measures move India’s climate policy more in the right direction, but there’s still a long way to go. The average person in India creates much less climate pollution than people in Europe or the US. But the size of its population means India’s government has huge influence over the climate. If they meet this goal, analysts say it’ll reduce global temperature rise by around 0.2C.

But 2070 is nearly half a century away, and the whole world needs to be ‘net zero’ by 2050 if we want to stay under 1.5 degrees. The next 10 years will be a good test of whether the government is taking climate change seriously. Greenpeace India’s Avinash Kumar Chanchal said the government “must start reducing emissions at source, as fast and as much as possible”.

Cutting methane

What happened? Over 100 countries joined a side pledge to slash methane 30% by 2030. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that mostly comes from rubbish dumps, industrial farms and leaky oil and gas wells. The pledge mainly focuses on the oil and gas element.

Verdict: not methane accomplished. There’s some good stuff here, but some big gaps too. The commitment failed to rule out new fossil fuels, and didn’t tackle industrial meat and dairy agriculture. Also, some of the world’s biggest emitters – including China, Russia and India haven’t signed up.

US-China deal

What happened? China and the US agreed to work together on ‘enhancing climate action’ through the 2020s, with collaboration on the technical nuts and bolts of cutting emissions.

Verdict: something to build on. Many feared that the terrible state of the US-China relationship could seriously hurt global carbon cutting efforts. So this step towards cooperation between the world’s two biggest emitters is a good sign. Their joint statement says a lot of the right things, but this won’t be a real breakthrough until they can back it up with some real actions.

Posters featuring portraits of climate impacted people and activists and their messages to world 

leaders to tackle the climate and nature crisis. © Marie Jacquemin / Greenpeace

What does this all mean for global temperature rises?

You might have seen headlines talking about the world being headed for a particular amount of warming following the new pledges at COP26.

CAT global update: Glasgow has a credibility gap between talk and action. If all govts met their 2030 targets, we would have 2.4˚C of warming in 2100. But right now, current policies put us at 2.7˚C.
 

— ClimateActionTracker (@climateactiontr) November 9, 2021

There were a few different projections floating around, but importantly, they all see us going way past the 1.5 degree limit, beyond which some countries and regions will simply disappear from the map.

Where exactly we land mainly comes down to whether countries follow through on all their carbon-cutting commitments.

And that’s a big if. Given their track record on climate, it’s bold to assume countries like Australia and Saudi Arabia will reach net zero by 2050 simply because they’ve said they will – especially when their funding and policies to actually get there are seriously lacking.

It’ll be up to citizens, campaigners and forward-thinking politicians to make sure governments set more ambitious goals and stick to them. But until that happens, we should only trust those projections as much as we trust ultra-polluting governments to stop polluting.

What’s next for climate action globally?

The COP bandwagon rolls on, and the UK’s Alok Sharma is still COP president until next year. It’s up to him and the government to make sure countries build on the more positive things that were agreed in Glasgow, and patch up the holes in the agreement.

Rich countries’ reluctance to pay what they owe poor countries is also causing serious problems, slowing progress and undermining much-needed trust in the negotiations. Sharma needs to make this a priority – including getting the UK to make a more substantial contribution.

COP27 will happen in Egypt in 2022, with the UAE playing host the year after. As home to some of the world’s biggest oil producers and many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, the Middle East will play a major part in deciding what happens to our climate.

But all the diplomatic wrangling won’t mean much if governments don’t actually stick to their climate commitments, and so far their track record isn’t exactly inspiring.

Delivering the actual emissions cuts to match the targets is a world away from the big-picture grandstanding at COP. It’s the work of imaginative civil servants and brave local councillors; committed businesses and active citizens. Success will be the sum of millions of good choices, supported by good government policies that make those choices possible.

And what’s next for climate action in the UK?

As the global spotlight shifts away from the UK after COP, there’s an immediate risk that the government will quietly green-light a bunch of high-carbon projects, including the Cambo oil field and Cumbria coal mine.

Beyond that, there are still some big gaps in the UK’s climate plans that need fixing. The government still hasn’t come up with enough money or policies needed to get the country’s emissions down in line with its targets. And they’re still not taking seriously the need for a just transition, which means ordinary workers in polluting industries risk losing out as we move to clean technology.

If you take away one thing from the story of COP26, please let it be this: there is power in our collective voice. There is a beacon of hope in the brilliant words and leadership of the four MAPA youth activists that sailed on the Rainbow Warrior to the steps of COP26. There is strength in the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest in the rain. There is a guiding light from Indigenous Peoples, who have reminded us that failure is not an option.

 I have been looking forward to reading the greenpeace report on COP26 and was not disappointed, as usual it is informative and to the point.

The blog song for today is: " Iron Man" by Black Sabbath

TTFN

The Problem With That Wood Smoke Smell - a report from earth911.com

 

The Problem With That Wood Smoke Smell

ByGemma Alexander

Nov 23, 2021 campfire, fireplace, wood smoke, wood-smoke-problem

Nearly everyone loves the smell of wood smoke. It evokes carefree summer nights under the stars and cozy winter evenings relaxing in front of the fireplace. But the smoke storms caused by extreme wildfire seasons in recent years have been a stark reminder that there can be too much of a good thing.

In the case of wood smoke, it doesn’t take a wildfire to be unhealthy for people and the environment. Wood smoke might smell better than car exhaust, but it is also an environmental pollutant that contributes to serious health impacts. In fact, an old wood stove can emit as much air pollution as five diesel trucks.

Wood Smoke

Smoke, regardless of what material is burning, contains fine particles, including dust and soot. Called particle pollution or particulate matter, these particles range in size from visible to microscopic. Fine particles that are 2.5 µm (micrometers) in diameter or smaller are not visible like dust or soot, but they can become lodged in the respiratory tract. When you look up your local air quality, this fine particulate matter is usually the primary statistic, reported as “PM2.5.”

Particulate matter can damage the lungs, triggering asthma, heart attacks, stroke, irregular heart rhythms, and even heart failure in people who are already at risk for these conditions. Even people who are not at-risk will experience eye and sinus irritation from particle pollution. When pollution is severe, it can lead to bronchitis and other respiratory ailments.

Image source: EPA.gov

The smoke from burning wood also includes several toxic chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, acrolein, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are found in soot and tar, and are among the same chemicals that make cigarettes so harmful. Incomplete combustion of wood releases more of these toxic chemicals, as well as carbon monoxide. More than 150 people die annually from carbon monoxide poisoning related to home heating.

Burn Less

In developed countries, the simplest way to avoid pollution from wood smoke is to stop burning wood. But psychological and economic forces make it unlikely that we will abandon burning wood completely. Even so, we can be more judicious about when and how much we burn wood. If you have a fireplace or woodstove at home, avoid using it during seasons when warmer temperatures allow smoke to settle around the house.

Many people have a hard time imagining camping without a campfire. Cooking over an open fire, making s’mores, and sitting around the fire under the stars are all iconic camping experiences. But nowadays many areas institute burn bans throughout much of the year. Complying with burn bans is not optional – campfires have caused more than 11,000 wildfires in the U.S. since 2006.

It might not be as picturesque, but a propane camp stove is much safer than a campfire. And if you want to avoid an open flame altogether, consider a solar oven.

Campfires have caused more than 11,000 wildfires in the U.S. since 2006. Image by skeeze on Pixabay

Burn Cleaner

In parts of the world where people depend on wood fires for cooking, traditional cookstoves are a greater health risk factor than poor water, sanitation, and other environmental hazards. In these places, people need cleaner cookstoves to replace open fires.

Incomplete burning releases more smoke and toxic chemicals. For complete combustion, only use dry, seasoned wood or cleaner-burning manufactured fire logs; learn how to build a fire that catches quickly, and always put out your fire completely. A smoldering fire also releases more smoke and harmful chemicals. And never burn garbage, treated lumber, or plastics.

Standard fireplaces put out 28 times as much particulate matter as a new wood stove, and a pellet stove releases about half of what a new wood stove puts out. Both wood and gas-burning fireplace inserts generate less smoke and provide the same amount of heat with less fuel than an open fireplace. If you have a wood-burning fireplace, have it inspected annually by a chimney sweep certified by the Chimney Safety Institute of America to make sure it’s operating properly.

Wood stoves should also be inspected annually for safety and efficiency. Older woodstoves release 15 to 30 grams of smoke per hour. New, EPA-certified stoves produce 4.5 grams per hour or less. When you’re ready to upgrade your stove, check the current list of EPA-certified wood heaters or consider switching your home to a cleaner heating system. And no matter what heat source you use, make sure you heat your home as efficiently as possible.

This article was originally published on October 12, 2020.

You can tell the difference when a household is burning bad wood, the colour of the smoke is a tell tale sign and the smell is horrendous.  Hopefully someone will read this blog and follow some of the tips mentioned in it.  I pass some houses near where I live and they have a fire burning during the day and through the night, they must burn a tremendous amount of wood!  It is difficult what to do for the best, use electric heaters more or follow the advice above and burn wood, or a little bit of both? I find it best to heat the area we are using at the time, to heat the whole house is impossible and also a waste of energy! Because the electric prices here in Spain have increased so much, and also to try and reduce the amount we use, I don´t put the water heater on in the day and try to use any appliances in the low or cheap time bands.  Unfortunately not everyone is able to do this and they are paying an awful lot for their electricity. 

It is tricky sometimes to do what is right, because of the factors of everyday life and circumstances, but I just focus on what I know that I can do and go for it.  If I try to follow all the recommendations from all the different sources, I will drive myself nuts!

The blog song for today is: "Tangled up in Blue"by Bob Dylan

TTFN

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day To Consume Less All Year! An alternative to Black Friday from the Earth911.com website!

 

Celebrate Buy Nothing Day To Consume Less All Year

ByGemma Alexander Earth911.com

Nov 18, 2021 black friday, buy, buy nothing day, buy-nothing, consumerism

The pandemic makes Black Friday crowds even scarier than usual (not to mention leaving lots of folks flat broke). The good news? More people than ever may be ready to participate in Buy Nothing Day.

Lying somewhere between a protest and an alternative holiday, Buy Nothing Day was invented by Canadian artist Ted Dave as a challenge to find out what it feels like to step completely outside of consumer culture for just one day. If you’re up for the challenge, here are a few socially distant Black Friday alternatives that could even put you on the path to buying less all year long.

This year, Buy Nothing Day is Friday, November 26. (Poster above is from Buy Nothing Day 2019.) Image: adbusters.org

DIY Gifts

Gift-giving can be one of the most meaningful parts of the holiday season. But the average American racks up more than $1,000 of holiday credit card debt each year, and fewer than half of them will pay it off before Easter.

So instead of shopping, why not make gifts for your loved ones? Handmade holiday gifts are more meaningful, and can be more environmentally friendly, too. You can use essential oils, Mason jars, old books, and even your cut-up credit cards to make eco-chic gifts like handmade beauty products. You can use the skills to make thoughtful homemade gifts year-round for birthdays and other special events.

Go Outside

You can get a lot of exercise walking around the mall but carrying all those shopping bags will help your wallet lose as much weight as you do.

Try getting outside instead. Outdoor exercise boosts your mood and immune health as well as your metabolism. Kids benefit as much as – or more than – adults. So take them on a winter nature scavenger hunt. You can even find nature in the city if you know where to look. Follow the Scandinavian’s example and get outside in all kinds of weather.

Once you’ve gotten used to winter biking, hiking, or just playing outside, keeping up the healthy habit in summer will be easy.

Read a Book

Even if you enjoy shopping, odds are that cozying up with a good book is more relaxing. Take advantage of the long weekend to catch up on your TBR list. You could dig into the roots of environmental nonfiction or explore its contemporary branches. Maybe you will change your shopping habits for good after reading books to counter consumerism.

Make reading a family affair this Buy Nothing Day with captivating picture books about recycling, Green Earth Awards-winning children’s books, or books that expertly teach kids about the environment.

Garden

You don’t have to put the garden to bed in the fall.

The long weekend is the perfect time to replant, build a cold frame, go vertical, and mulch to keep your garden going all winter. You can even get the kids involved. But if it’s really too cold for a winter garden outside, consider starting an indoor garden or using your garden leftovers inside. If you do it right, growing your own food is good economics year-round, and a little extra work in the fall will give your garden the best start next spring.

Originally published on November 23, 2020, this article was updated in November 2021.

I love the idea behind this, I have posted before about how black friday turned  into blackmonth, and ti be honest there are not so many good deals about!  It is just another ploy to get us to part with our money for things that we really don´t need!  I can understand if the purchase was on the list, but some of the stuff that ends up being bought on a whim just ends up in a cupboard somewhere!Everything looks great until you stop to think and ask yourself "do I really need another bag/pair of shoes/party dress, etc..?  Normally the answer is no!  I like to buy clothes from our local charity shop, it´s shopping with a clear conscience! but even then I only buy if I need it!  So happy "buy nothing day" we can be really stingy and know that it is for a good cause!

The blog song for today is: "Sweet emotion" by Aerosmith

TTFN

Getting a Greener Clean: soaps - A report from earth911.com

Soap, by definition, is clean. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s environmentally friendly, or even that it’s free from harmful chemicals. That’s discouraging news about a product that you coat your entire body in daily, like body wash or shower gel. But you can’t just skip the shower if you want to continue living in human society. There are lots of ways to make your hygiene routine more sustainable, and some soap choices are clearly better than others.

Soap vs. Detergent

You might be surprised to find out that most people don’t shower with soap. Body washes, bath gels, and even some bar soaps are technically detergents. The difference is more than just semantics; soaps and detergents are chemically different, and as a result, their environmental impacts are, too.

Every cleanser contains surfactants to dissolve water and wash away dirt and oil. The surfactants in soap come from the reaction between a strong base, such as sodium hydroxide, and a fatty acid or triglycerides from vegetable oils or animal fats. In contrast, shower gels and body washes contain surfactants that are usually derived from petroleum. The most common plant-based surfactants are sodium laureth sulfate or sodium cocoamphoacetate from palm or coconut oil.

Soaps and synthetic detergents are regulated differently. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates true soaps. But the U.S. Food & Drug Administration regulates soaps containing moisturizers or perfumes as cosmetics. The FDA also regulates medicated soaps and soaps that are marketed as non-prescription drugs to treat acne or other skin conditions. Unfortunately, none of these sets of regulations is particularly strong. When it comes to cleansers, it’s buyer beware.

 

Choose Soap

Soap is usually better than detergent, which is almost always petroleum-based. There are plant-based detergents. But if you’re shopping for plant-based body washes, beware that unsustainable palm oil is a common ingredient.

Soap is also less likely to contain sodium laureth sulfate, one of the Suzuki Foundation’s Dirty Dozen cosmetic chemicals to avoid. However, many soaps contain animal products such as goat’s milk or even tallow. The Leaping Bunny app identifies companies that do not perform or employ animal testing, and there are numerous vegan certifications. Soaps like Kiss My Face and Hugo Naturals do not contain animal products or byproducts and have not been tested on animals.

Liquid vs. Bar

Liquid cleansers require five times more energy to manufacture and have 10 times the carbon footprint of bar soaps. Liquids are also packaged in plastic that is not always recyclable and contributes to ocean pollution. One life cycle analysis also found that solid soaps contain fewer ingredients harmful to human health and the environment than liquid soaps. The British website Ethical Consumer confirms that bar soaps are less likely to contain petroleum, use less plastic packaging, and have lower emissions from transportation than liquid soap.

Toxicity

Cleansers of all kinds can contain untested chemicals (or worse, known carcinogens and toxins). The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database provides detailed information about individual products. Verified products are those with the fewest toxicity concerns, like Codex Beauty’s BIA bar and Bravo Sierra.

Antibacterial Soaps

The FDA encourages consumers to avoid antibacterial soaps. Antibacterial soaps do not provide any added protection against viruses like COVID-19, nor is there any evidence that their ingredients are safe and effective. The overuse of antibiotics contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

Microbeads

Because water treatment systems cannot effectively filter out microbeads, they end up as microplastic pollution. The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 prohibits the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads. However, many product formulae still contain plastics under the names acrylate copolymer and polypropylene. Or, use regular soap with a renewable loofah sponge (you can even grow your own).

Use

Multiple LCAs note that the way we use soap contributes significantly to its footprint. One found that consumers use more than six times more liquid soap than bar soap per wash. Use this knowledge to either switch from body wash to bar soap or become more mindful of how much liquid soap you squeeze out of the bottle. When you switch to bar soap, try to store it dry so it doesn’t dissolve between uses.

Also, be sure to set your water heater to 120F degrees and use a low-flow showerhead. Be mindful of how much time you spend in the shower. Even an efficient showerhead uses more than a gallon of water per minute. In the end, the water and energy you use washing have a much bigger impact on your personal carbon footprint than your choice of soap.

 

This is the very reason why I decided to make my own soap.  If you are interested visit my website:

www.suubio.org (copy this address or use the link below!)

suubio

The blog song for today is: " Waterfalls" by TLC

TTFN

 

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: