# data[].attributes.headline
Key skills incorporated in to the lesson 

# data[].attributes.subject
Key skills incorporated in to the lesson 

# data[].attributes.headline
Peer review article about the struggle of getting people to believe scientific evidence about climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Peer review article about the struggle of getting people to believe scientific evidence about climate change

# data[].attributes.body
This article has been used in my planning as I am trying to get the students to create a poster that convinces the government and their peers to implement change. This article touches on the gateway belief model which is something the students will have to be aware of if they are going to successfully convince the government and others to implement the changes they are proposing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sander L. van der Linden,

Anthony A. Leiserowitz,

Geoffrey D. Feinberg,

Edward W. Maibach

Included in the Following Collection

Subject Areas

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Abstract

There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy. This paper extends this line of research by advancing and providing experimental evidence for a "gateway belief model" (GBM). Using national data (N = 1104) from a consensus-message experiment, we find that increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change.

Citation: van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2015) The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

Academic Editor: Kristie L. Ebi, University of Washington, UNITED STATES

Received: September 30, 2014; Accepted: January 18, 2015; Published: February 25, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 van der Linden et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: This research has been funded, in part, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) as well as by Lawrence Linden, Robert Litterman and Henry Paulson. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

INTRODUCTION

The scientific consensus that human activities are the primary driver of global climate change is now unequivocal. This consensus is found not only in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report [ 1], but also by several different studies, including surveys of experts [ 2] and comprehensive reviews of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change [ 3] [ 4] [ 5]. All of these methods converge on the same basic conclusion: at least 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening [ 6].

Yet, although a scientific consensus on this basic fact has been reached, much of the public remains largely unaware of this, both in the US as well as internationally [ 7, 8]. For example, only one in ten Americans (12%) correctly estimate scientific agreement at 90% or higher [ 7]. Moreover, influential ideological and politically-motivated actors, also known as "manufacturers of doubt", publicly dispute the existence of the scientific consensus [ 9, 10], including recent media articles such as the "Myth of the Climate Change 97%" [ 11]. These efforts to undermine public understanding of the scientific consensus have arguably been quite successful, with cascading effects on public understanding that climate change is happening, human caused, a serious threat, and in turn, support for climate change mitigation and adaptation policies.

In light of the growing ideological divide on the issue [ 12] (paired with people's tendency to selectively process information), some scholars have argued that merely educating the public about the scientific consensus is unlikely to be a helpful approach [ 13, 14]. To better understand how people think, process and respond to the scientific consensus message, this study investigates a "gateway belief model" (GBM) of public responses to climate change.

The Gateway Belief Model (GBM)

Perceived expert consensus plays an important role in the formation of public attitudes towards and the acceptance of general scientific principles, including climate change [ 15, 16]. In fact, misperceptions of the scientific consensus can be highly consequential, as even a small amount of perceived scientific dissent can undermine public support [ 17]. For example, a recent nationally representative study [ 18] found that the degree of perceived scientific agreement influences key beliefs about global warming, which in turn, drive public support for climate change policies. McCright, Dunlap & Xiao [ 19] successfully replicated these results in a recent independent study and similarly point to the robust role of perceived scientific agreement in generating public support for climate change policies.

Yet, past research in this area suffers from one major short-coming: the bulk of these findings are based on cross-sectional survey data and thus correlational in nature. To date, there have been no controlled representative experiments (or longitudinal studies) investigating the proposed causal relationship between public perceptions of the scientific consensus on climate change and support for public action. This study builds upon and extends prior research in a novel direction by directly testing the "gateway belief" model experimentally. We posit that belief or disbelief in the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change plays an important role in the formation of public opinion on the issue. This is consistent with prior research, which has found that highlighting scientific consensus increases belief in human-caused climate change [ 15]. More specifically, we posit perceived scientific agreement as a "gateway belief" that either supports or undermines other key beliefs about climate change, which in turn, influence support for public action. A schematic overview of the "gateway belief model" is presented in Fig. 1. Specifically, we hypothesize that an experimentally induced change in the level of perceived consensus is causally associated with a subsequent change in the belief that climate change is (a) happening, (b) human-caused, and (c) how much people worry about the issue ( H1). In turn, a change in these key beliefs is subsequently expected to lead to a change in respondents' support for societal action on climate change ( H2). Thus, while the model predicts that the perceived level of scientific agreement acts as a key psychological motivator, its effect on support for action is assumed to be fully mediated by key beliefs about climate change ( H3).

Method

Sample and Participants

This analysis draws upon results from a recent experiment that investigated how to effectively communicate the scientific consensus on climate change (full details of the experiment, sample and materials are available and described in van der Linden et al. [ 20]). The purpose of the experiment was to test the efficacy of different ways to communicate the consensus-message (e.g., descriptive text, a pie chart, metaphors etc.). In total, 11 different treatment conditions were administered. The experiment was conducted using an online national quota sample (N = 1104) obtained from a major vendor (Survey Sampling International). The study was approved by the Yale Institutional Review Boards for ethical research (Human Research Protection Program) and participants signed a consent form with the sampling company (SSI) through which they chose to participate. A descriptive overview of the sample characteristics is provided in Table 1.

Procedure and Materials

Subjects were asked to provide an estimate (0%-100%) of the perceived level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change at both the beginning (pre-test) and at the end of the survey (post-test). Respondents also answered a number of questions about whether they think climate change is happening, human-caused, how worried they are about climate change and whether they think people should be doing more or less about the issue. An overview of the key belief measures used in this study is also provided in Table 1. All the consensus messages tested led to significant gains in public understanding of the scientific consensus compared to the control group. The current study, however, analyzes the data for an entirely different purpose. This study investigates whether the effect-size of the treatment messages (i.e., the change in respondents' estimates of the scientific consensus) is causally associated with a pre-post change in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome problem that requires greater societal support. To test our hypotheses, all experimental consensus-message interventions were collapsed into a single "treatment" category and subsequently compared to the "control" group. The conceptual structure of the GBM ( Fig. 1) is assessed using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.

Results

The path (mediation) model was estimated using STATA's (StataCorp) SEM software. As recommended by Preacher and Hayes [ 21], significance of effects and model parameters was assessed using bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals (the data were resampled 1,000 times). Furthermore, according to Little's MCAR test, part of the data (approx. 8% of the sample) was missing, but not completely at random. As a result, the model was estimated using a Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) procedure [ 22] and adjusted for important covariates, including gender, education, age and political party. Using commonly accepted criteria for model evaluation [ 23], the fit of the overall model structure is considered acceptable; χ ² (6) = 27.38, p < 0.01, χ ² / df = 4.56, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI: 0.04-0.08). On average, being in one of the treatment groups (vs. the control group) significantly increases respondents' estimate of the scientific consensus (by 12.80%). Moreover, a change in a respondent's estimate of the scientific consensus significantly influences the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused, and the extent to which they worry about the issue (note that belief in climate change and human causation also directly influence level of "worry"). Changes in these factors, in turn, significantly predict support for public action on climate change. As hypothesized, the effect of the treatment (i.e. increased belief in the scientific consensus) on the expressed need for public action is fully mediated by the intervening variables (i.e., key beliefs about climate change). Similarly, the effect of the treatment on the key-belief measures is fully mediated by perceived scientific agreement.

While the model "controls" for the effect of political party, we also explicitly tested an alternative model specification that included an interaction-effect between the consensus-treatments and political party identification. Because the interaction term did not significantly improve model fit (nor change the significance of the coefficients), it was not represented in the final model (to preserve parsimony). Yet, it is important to note that the interaction itself was positive and significant (β = 3.25, SE = 0.88, t = 3.68, p < 0.001); suggesting that compared to Democrats, Republican subjects responded particularly well to the scientific consensus message. A visual depiction of the results is provided in Fig. 2 and a detailed overview of the effect sizes and model parameters is provided in Table 2.

Discussion

Previous research has suggested that perceptions of the scientific consensus play an important role in the formation of public beliefs and attitudes towards climate change and, moreover, that (mis)perceptions of the scientific consensus potentially decrease public support for climate change policies [ 15- 19]. This study constructively builds upon and extends this research by providing direct experimental evidence for the "gateway belief model" (GBM). Using pre and post measures from a national message test experiment, we found that all stated hypotheses were confirmed; increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus causes a significant increase in the belief that climate change is (a) happening, (b) human-caused and (c) a worrisome problem. In turn, changes in these key beliefs lead to increased support for public action. In sum, these findings provide the strongest evidence to date that public understanding of the scientific consensus is consequential.

It is important to note that the gateway belief model (GBM) describes a two-step cascading effect. First, the effect of consensus messaging on key beliefs about climate change is fully mediated by the perceived level of scientific agreement. Second, the effect of the induced increase in perceived scientific consensus is fully mediated onto support for public action via the key beliefs about climate change. In other words, belief in the scientific consensus functions as an initial "gateway" to changes in key beliefs about climate change, which in turn, influence support for public action. Thus, consistent with other recent research, this study found that when in doubt about scientific facts, people are likely to use consensus among domain experts as a heuristic to guide their beliefs and behavior [ 15].

These findings have important practical implications for science communication and stand in direct juxtaposition to the claim that "consensus-messaging" is not effective as a communication strategy [ 13, 14]. In particular, it is sometimes argued that (a) despite past public communication efforts, public understanding of the scientific consensus has not changed much in the last decade and hence the approach must not be very effective (i.e., "the stasis argument") [ 13] and (b) because people are predisposed to engage in protective motivated reasoning (i.e., people process information consistent with their ideological worldviews), consensus-messaging is likely to be unsuccessful or could even backfire [ 12, 14].

The present study finds no support for these claims. On the contrary, results of this study show that perceived scientific consensus acts as a key gateway belief for both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the consensus message had a larger influence on Republican respondents. It should be noted that this interaction might, to some extent, be attributable to a ceiling effect (i.e., there is relatively less upward adjustment potential in perceived scientific consensus for Democrats, although a significant gap in understanding persists even among Democrats). We do not dispute, however, that some people-especially those with strong ideological responses to the issue-selectively process information or engage in motivated reasoning [ 9, 14]. Yet, we find that consensus-messaging does not increase political polarization on the issue (perhaps partly due to the neutral scientific character of the message) and shifts the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans in directions consistent with the conclusions of climate science.

Furthermore, other recent research [ 24] has suggested that past campaigns have been unsuccessful (in both their reach and exposure), given that a substantial lack of awareness of the scientific consensus still persists ("information deficit") while at the same time, the spread of misinformation has vastly increased ("misinformation surplus"). Because people often encounter multiple and conflicting informational cues, the criticism might be raised that as a controlled experiment, this study may overstate the actual effect that consensus messaging would have in the real-world. While we agree with this view and see this as an important and open area for future research, this shortcoming does not, however, negate the structural validity of the GBM's causal mechanisms. It is also important to note that this study only used a single treatment, yet found that even a single, simple description of the scientific consensus significantly shifted public perceptions of the consensus and subsequent climate change beliefs and desire for action. A concerted campaign to inform the public about the scientific consensus would ideally involve numerous exposures to the key message, conveyed by a variety of trusted messengers [ 6, 20].

This is important because by strategically sowing seeds of doubt, organized opponents of climate change action have continually tried to undermine the validity of the scientific consensus argument [ 11]. As this research shows, such attempts could potentially decrease public engagement with climate change. Nonetheless, the present research also indicates the potential efficacy of consensus-messaging campaigns in mitigating such skepticism, as well as in generating support for public action on climate change. Particularly, repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the actual scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is a strategy likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the public. Effectively communicating the scientific consensus can also help move the issue of climate change forward on the public policy agenda [ 6] [ 15] [ 20] [ 24- 25].

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SLV AAL GDF EWM. Performed the experiments: SLV AAL GDF. Analyzed the data: SLV. Wrote the paper: SLV AAL GDF EWM.

References

1. 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, et al., editors. Cambridge, United Kingdom and NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Available: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/ uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf.

2. 7. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S (2014) Climate Change in the American Mind: American's Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2014. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climate-Change-American-Mind-April-2014.pdf

3. 8. World Public Opinion Poll (2009) Public attitudes toward climate change: Findings from a multi-country poll. University of Maryland. Available: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec09 Accessed 2014 Aug 20.

4. 9. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2011). Organized climate change denial. In Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. pp. 144-160

5. 10. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing.

6. 11. Bast J, Spencer R (2014) The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'. The Wall Street Journal.

7. 13. Kahan DM (in press) Climate science communication and the measurement problem. Adv Pol. Psych

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article about Earth Day written by a student

# data[].attributes.subject
Article about Earth Day written by a student

# data[].attributes.body
This should help motivate the students as it was written by a fellow student

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first Earth Day was held nearly 50 years ago in 1970 when 20 million Americans united to launch a modern environmental movement. Since then, many innovative laws have been

passed as a result of these annual mobilisations. Within a year, it lead to the formation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. Today, there is a lot of debate about the effectiveness of the laws, as many of the problems they were designed to solve have not got gone away. In fact, they've got worse.
What is Earth Day?
Earth Day is organised by the Earth Day Network, a group which connects more than 75,000 partner organisations in nearly 200 countries worldwide. This year, Earth Day is on the 22 nd of April, with the theme for 2019 being "Protect our Species". It is a worldwide celebration aiming to bring attention to our ecosystems and the methods with which we can create a better environment. This year, the spotlight is being put on raising awareness of the effects of the human population on the ecosystem. The goals are to: [2]

Educate and raise awareness about the accelerating rate of extinction of millions of species and the causes and consequences of this phenomenon.

Achieve major policy victories that protect broad groups of species as well as individual species and their habitats.

Build and activate a global movement that embraces nature and its values

Encourage individual actions such as adopting a plant-based diet and stopping pesticide and herbicide use.

The Impact of Climate Change
Planet Earth is going through the biggest extinction period in the last 60 million years. Usually, between one and five species will go extinct annually, yet, scientists estimate that we are now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the typical rate, with many extinctions every day.Habitat destruction, exploitation, and climate change are causing the loss of half of the world's wild animal population. climate change, where human activity influences the changes in the climate. At present, climate changes are happening rapidly with harmful effects, and we humans are exasperating natural climate change. These changes in the climate are primarily caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect (EGHE).[3] [3] Multiple species will disappear before we discover the wonders of them or the benefits they bring to our Earth . There are currently widespread concerns about the environment- plastic pollution, water pollution, air pollution, deforestation and species extinction, to name a few, all threaten Earth as we know it. Perhaps the greatest threat today, however, is climate change. It's made headlines around the world recently, but what exactly is it? Climate change is a long-term difference in average temperatures and weather patterns, and does- to some extent- happen naturally as the Earth goes through periods of heating and cooling. The term is often used to refer to [4] anthropogenic Although the Greenhouse Effect (not enhanced) naturally occurs and is critical to our survival, the enhanced greenhouse effect is of a magnitude that can be detrimental. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, are created naturally and trap warmth/infrared radiation in the planet's atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect (Figure 1). When fossil fuels are burned, these gases are also produced, resulting in increased concentrations of greenhouse gases entering the Earth's atmosphere. Although these gases have always been present in the atmosphere, their concentration is increasing as we continue to rely on the Earth's finite resources of fossil fuels like crude oil and coal. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases absorb more of solar radiation that is reflected back from the Earth's surface, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This retention of heat results in the overall warming of Earth's temperature. [5]

Climate change is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed to protect the diversity of life on Earth. It is expected that the impacts of climate change will be complex, including the direct loss of entire populations or habitats, and also indirectly, as species can no longer tolerate the new environmental conditions, are outcompeted as other species migrate to new habitats, and are impacted by the disruption of environmental cues.[6] When one species is affected by the changing climate, other species that interact and depend on it can be impacted too. Ecosystems have complex networks of interdependence meaning there could be a "domino effect" of species extinction, even impacting humans.
Surely we just need to plant some more trees?
The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. The Pliocene - Earth about three to five million years ago - was very different to the Earth we now inhabit. As Earth's carbon dioxide concentration rises - now over 400 parts per million[8] - climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're quickly headed now (Figure 2).

Planting more trees might seem like an easy solution to combat this increase since they absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. However, we cannot simply plant our way out of this crisis; trees cannot absorb the ever-increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to studies by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, carried out in 2017.
"Even if we were able to use productive plants such as poplar trees or switchgrass, and store 50% of the carbon contained in their biomass, in the business-as-usual scenario of continued, unconstrained fossil fuel use, the sheer size of the plantations for staying at or below 2°C of warming would cause devastating environmental consequences," says Lena Boysen, who led the study.
Hypothetically, if a sufficient number of trees were planted, those plantations would have to be enormous. In consequence, many natural ecosystems would be eliminated and food production would be reduced, especially if implemented as a last-minute option if all other possible ways to reduce emissions have been exhausted.

Boysen and colleagues[11] reported that several scenarios were explored to see whether, even in, theory, huge investment in tree planting could eradicate enough carbon dioxide from the environment. They found that even the smallest plantation needed would have extended over 1 billion hectares and used 96 million tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser every year. For context, one billion hectares (10 million square kilometres) is bigger than Canada, the second largest country by total area. Planting trees alone will not solve the climate crisis we currently find ourselves in.
Legislation to Protect our Species
Climate change isn't the only environmental threat, and many governments internationally have taken legislative action to attempt to protect Earth's species. By introducing the 2008 Climate Change Act, the UK government implemented long-term legislation to tackle climate change in multiple different sectors. Measures include the 5p plastic bag charge, rebates on council tax as incentives for waste reduction schemes, and carbon budgets set every five years until 2050. The 5p plastic bag charge (where the public are charged 5p for each plastic bag they use), was implemented to reduce plastic pollution. Plastics have recently been shown to be have been more pervasive than previously thought, according to results published after scientific experiments conducted in bodies of water in the UK, USA, China, and Spain. In the UK, microplastics were found in all ten lakes. Due to their small size, microplastics can easily evade water filtration systems and their effects on the ecosystem have yet to be fully explored. The 5p plastic bag charge has shown to be very effective in reducing waste, with bans in Ireland in 2002 having resulted in an approximate 95% decrease in plastic litter. However, a report published by BP warns that swapping out plastics for more recyclable materials may actually have unforeseen negative consequences, as the production of such alternatives requires increased energy expenditure. This would put more demand on carbon fuels, and result in higher emissions. It seems that an ideal solution to this problem is, as yet, undiscovered. [16]
What are scientists doing to tackle this problem?
Climate change is affected by different industries, resulting in many sector-specific solutions. The DrawDown Project summarised 100 of these solutions in a bestselling book in 2018, ranking them from most to least effective (Table 1).

Table 1: A list of the top ten most effective solutions tackling climate change[17]

As can be seen from Table 1, the solution that could give the greatest reduction in atmospheric CO 2 is by targeting chemical refrigerants involved in chilling the internal environment of air conditioners and fridges. Halogen-containing compounds called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned following the introduction of the now universally ratified Montreal Protocol in 1987, due to the damage inflicted on the Earth's ozone layer. Current replacements such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are able to avoid ozone layer damage, but still war,m the atmosphere to a greater extent than carbon dioxide. This year marks the first step in moving away from HFCs; as concluded by the Kigali Amendment after a 2016 deal negotiation reviewing the protocol, high-income countries will begin removing HFCs, followed by lower income countries in 2024. The effect of this, scientists estimate, is that global warming would be reduced by roughly one degree Fahrenheit[18] , although disposal of HFCs is crucial to ensure that no emissions are released at the end of its lifetime. The costs of this procedure are high, but over roughly 30 years, the containment of 87% of refrigerants would be equal to the removal of roughly 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide. This is the same amount removed by over 10.6 billion acres of forests in the US every year. [19]

One of the newest, and arguably most interesting, innovations was pioneered by Daniel Nocera, professor of energy science at Harvard University. His work involved a groundbreaking artificial leaf project based on the chemical processes underlying photosynthesis, engineering bacteria to generate fuel from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Ralstonia eutropha [22] This technology could be applied to lower-income countries where renewable energy sources have a wider impact.

There are a huge number of people working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics globally to counter the threats that face our environment. They're working to find new ways of doing things, so that the human impact on Earth can be lessened, and to try and reverse some of the damage we've already caused.
How do we raise awareness and what can we do?
Nowadays, news articles are constantly highlighting new data from current scientific research, bringing the climate change discussion to the forefront of the public eye. Most recently, Sir David Attenborough released a new BBC documentary, "Climate Change: the Facts", highlighting the current major issues associated with climate change, outlining the scientific proof, and warning the public of its consequences, some of which can already be observed today. As the documentary points out, the countries that will end up suffering the most are the ones that cannot afford to. Threats include the loss of many animal species as seen in bat species during the Australian heatwave and increased risk of extreme weather conditions such as the Californian wildfires of 2018.[23] [24][25]

Although solutions to major global problems such as this are not immediately straightforward, change can only be made with the support of increased public and political engagement. In an effort to tackle both of these, online petitions and climate change protests have become more common within current school communities in the UK. In March 2019, four school students from Oxford launched a petition aiming to introduce more content on the impact of climate change and its proposed solutions into the school curriculum. In an interview, the students explained that there has been a demand within the school community to raise awareness by educating young people, allowing them to understand and ultimately take action on the issue of climate change.[20] [26]

One example of student advocacy is Greta Thunberg (Figure 3), a 16-year-old activist from Sweden, who first

gained public attention through weekly strikes outside the Swedish Parliament building. This display of determination lead her to speak at COP24, the United Nations' conference for climate change. More recently, her voice was heard through a bold, impassioned TED Talk in which she urged fellow students to strike and show world leaders the importance of ensuring the participation of younger generations in the climate change discussion. Her movement, dubbed "#FridaysForFuture", has garnered global recognition, with 1.5 million people striking in the streets of over 120 countries. Her TED Talk has gained over 1.1 million views (and counting!) on YouTube, she has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and also recently acquired a spot on the TIME 100 Most Influential People of 2019 List.[28][29] Her earnest and persistent activism have influenced many young people into action, empowered by the knowledge that we are able to make an impact on climate change as individuals working towards a common goal. Thunberg has inspired scores of students to speak up and take action, proving that with courage and by raising our voices, even the youngest in society are able to spark change for the better.

"I don't want you to be hopeful, I want you to panic..."
- Greta Thunberg at the 2019 World Economic Forum.
Read more about the Earth Day Network and environmental issues at https://www.earthday.org/

1. "Earth Day 2019 - Protect Our Species", Earth Day Network, accessed April 16, 2019, https://www.earthday.org/campaigns/endangered-species/earthday2019/.

2. "Climate Change Causes: A Blanket Around The Earth", Climate Change: Vital Signs Of The Planet, NASA, last modified April 19, 2019, https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/.

3. "Species And Climate Change", IUCN, accessed April 22, 2019, https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/species-and-climate-change.

4. "Greenhouse Effect", accessed April 20, 2019 via Pixabay, https://pixabay.com/vectors/greenhouse-effect-ecology-scheme-146552/.

5. "Graphic: Carbon dioxide hits new high", Climate Change: Vital Signs Of The Planet, NASA, last modified April 19, 2019, https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/graphic-carbon-dioxide-hits-new-high/.

6. "Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide", Climate Change: Vital Signs Of The Planet, NASA, last modified April 19, 2019, https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/.

7. Lena R. Boysen, Wolfgang Lucht, Dieter Gerten, Vera Heck, Timothy M. Lenton and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, "The limits to global‐warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal", Earth's Future 5, no. 5 (May 2017): 463-474, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000469.

8. "Legal Duties on Climate Change", Committee on Climate Change, accessed March 31, 2019, https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/.

9. "Climate Change Act 2008: 2008 c. 27", The National Archives, accessed March 31, 2019, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents.

10. "Do Plastic Bag Bans Work?", Scientific American, accessed March 31, 2019, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plastic-bag-bans-work/.

11. "Solutions", Drawdown, accessed March 31, 2019, https://www.drawdown.org/solutions.

12. "The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer", U.S. Department of State, accessed April 22, 2019, https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htm.

13. "Materials: Refrigerant Management", Drawdown, accessed March 31, 2019, https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management.

14. "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator", United States Environmental Protection Agency, last modified December 2018, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.

15. Daniel Nocera, "Coming Attractions: Artificial Leaf", Drawdown, accessed April 20, 2019, https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/coming-attractions/artificial-leaf.

16. Alejandra Borunda, "See how a warmer world primed California for large fires", National Geographic, November 15, 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/climate-change-california-wildfire/.

17. " Climate change petition: Oxford students campaign for better teaching on subject ", March 26, 2019, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-oxfordshire-47709552/climate-change-petition-oxford-students-campaign-for-better-teaching-on-subject.

18. "Greta Thunberg", Anders Hellberg [CC BY-SA 4.0], accessed 22 April, 2019, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greta_Thunberg_4.jpg.

19. Chad Frischmann, "The Young Minds Solving Climate Change", BBC, March 29, 2019, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190327-the-young-minds-solving-climate-change.

20. Emma González, "Greta Thunberg", TIME, accessed April 19, 2019, http://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567758/greta-thunberg.

Omodolapo Bolinda, Amanda Amaeshi and Lucy Chen
Omodolapo(Dolapo) Bolinda, Amanda Amaeshi and Lucy Chen are all members of the Young Scientists Journal team. Dolapo is the Ambassador to England, Amanda is a blogs editor and Lucy is an editor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Omodolapo Bolinda, Amanda Amaeshi and Lucy Chen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first Earth Day was held nearly 50 years ago in 1970 when 20 million Americans united to launch a modern environmental movement. Since then, many innovative laws have been passed as a result of these annual mobilisations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Useful articles from "The Why Files" about fracking

# data[].attributes.subject
Useful articles from "The Why Files" about fracking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A climate of extremes?

Skeptical about global warming? 2010 has just tied 2005, making these the two hottest years on record. And nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

But temperature is only part of the story. After a year that saw epic floods in Pakistan and California, massive floods have swamped Brisbane, Australia, population 2 million. Russia was toasted by a record heat wave last summer. Europe and, of course, New York were smothered by giant snowstorms.

And we just read that 2010 had the heaviest precipitation on records that date to 1880.

So we have to ask: Is this normal weather, or is this climate change in action?
See the Classroom Activity Page for this story.
And as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, what will happen the day after tomorrow?

There is good theoretical reason to think that an accelerating greenhouse effect will affect weather: Add greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere, and they trap more heat. In hotter conditions, more water evaporates from the ocean, which eventually falls as precipitation. Heat is energy, and more energy in the ocean and atmosphere provides more power to drive intense storms.

If, as virtually all climatologists expect, global average temperatures will rise, what will happen to extremes like these:

* Daily record temperatures
* Precipitation
* Drought
* Hurricanes and other storms

These questions are devilishly difficult to answer. It's a big planet, and assessing conditions during the past few decades, and making projections for the future, is a gnarly task. Climate models are better at getting the big picture than making regional forecasts for future weather. Data records are incomplete, especially as we delve further in the past.

Nevertheless, let's ask our question about both recent weather data and future forecasts.

Record temperatures

As the climate warms, one easy prediction is that record warm days will become more common, and record colds will be less common. When Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, compared the number of record daily highs to the number of record daily lows in the U.S., he found they were roughly equal in the 1950s.

Today, he says, "for every two record highs, there is only one record low. If there was no warming going on, the ratio would be one to one, so we are shifting the odds toward having a better chance for setting a record high versus a record low."

Meehl says Australian data show the same thing.

Even though the climate has warmed by only about 0.6° C, he says, "This shows that even with a very small change in average temperature, about 1° Fahrenheit, we can get a pretty noticeable change in the extremes."

At some point, we may look fondly upon today's two-to-one ratio, as climate models suggest the ratio will reach 20 to 1 by year 2050 and 50 to 1 in 2100. Yet even then, when the U.S. average temperature may have risen by several degrees C, "We still get some daily record low temperatures," Meehl says. "We still get extremely cold weather, although it will happen much less frequently."

Change in very heavy precipitation over U.S.

Today, he notes, "When there's a cold snap, people ask, 'What happened to global warming?' But even with warming, it will still get cold, but not extremely cold, and not as often."

Precipitous rise in precipitation?

Rain and snow are two ways that the atmosphere feeds life on the planet. A hotter atmosphere has the ability to hold more moisture because more water evaporates from the ocean, and warmer air can also store more moisture.

Already, says Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the water-vapor contained in an imaginary cylinder stretching from Earth to space has been rising 1.3 percent per decade since the 1970s.

And so warming means more potential for precipitation.

"When we review change in the hydrological cycle," Trenberth says, "not just tropical cyclones [hurricanes and typhoons] but extra-tropical cyclones and individual thunderstorms, the evidence from around the world is that when it rains, it rains harder, when it snows, it snows harder. This is consistent with the understanding we have, the theory."

That is also happening in the United States, where days with intense rain and snow have been increasing, says Meehl. "When it rains, it pours, we see this in observations, and models show an increase in the future." For example, a summary published in 2007 found that, "Over the last century there was a 50% increase in the frequency of days with precipitation over 101.6 mm (four inches) in the upper Midwestern U.S."

However, land use plays a role in some observed precipitation changes, says James O'Brien, emeritus professor of meteorology and oceanography at Florida State University. "We studied heavy rainfall over 62 years in Orlando, Fla., and did a simple thing: We divided the time into two periods of 32 years each, and looked at the probability of one or more two-inch rainfalls."

Extreme floods: Any relation to global warming?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In the recent period, during almost all non-summer months, Orlando had a big increase in heavy rain, but Gainesville, 40 miles away, did not. "The cause in Orlando is absolutely clear," says O'Brien. "It's Disney World. It's all the roads, the concrete, which act as a heat sink. In winter, a cold fronts hits a bubble of heat caused by this heat island, and it kicks up a storm and you get more rain."

Heavy rain = heavy drought?

Even if total precipitation does not change, there are consequences to the newer "when-it-rains-it-pours" precip pattern. Heavy rain runs off rather than percolating into the soil, so instead of feeding plants, it can cause soil erosion and floods. If, as some models suggest, extreme precipitation increases in springtime, when the ground is still frozen, "that has a significantly different impact than extreme rainfall during summer," says Daniel Vimont, an assistant professor at the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, because the rain cannot enter the soil and must run off.

Heavy rain can also contribute to drought by drying the atmosphere, Meehl says. "We have to take into account the number of days between precipitation events. On a map of North America, almost everywhere intensity shows an increase to date, and a projected increase, but we also see dry days increasing, like in the southern tier of states and especially the Southwest. When it rains, it rains really hard, but there are more days between rainfalls. On average, you are getting less total precipitation, but the risk for floods has increased because of this intensity increase. Over long periods, we are seeing drier conditions, because the number of days between events is also increased."

Facing a wave of drought

A trend toward drought is already under way, according to a 2004 study by Aiguo Dai of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which found that the percentage of Earth's land area stricken by serious drought had more than doubled between the 1970s and the early 2000s.

The future seems no more benign. Last October, Dai published a review, based on 22 computer climate models, that projected a major expansion of drought over the next 30 years. The affected area includes the breadbasket regions of North and South America, most of Africa and Australia, and parts of China and neighboring countries.

A climate of drought?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

According to the study, the western two-thirds of the United States will be significantly drier in the 2030s, after which matters will only get worse.

In general, the only places that will see more precipitation are in the extreme north - Northern Russia, Scandinavia, Canada and Alaska.

So reindeer need raincoats...

But seriously, "We are facing the possibility of widespread drought in the coming decades, but this has yet to be fully recognized by both the public and the climate change research community," Dai says. "If the projections in this study come even close to being realized, the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous."

Cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes

In terms of extreme weather, nothing beats the tropical storms variously called typhoons, tropical cyclones or hurricanes - for their winds, high seas and astonishing rainfalls. So hurricanes are the natural focus of study on the past and future effects of global warming.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina played the starring role in a series of powerful hurricanes that pounded the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, and we reported that hurricanes were packing more power in a warmed planet.

Then came a counter-rebellion: scientists began questioning whether hurricanes were really more powerful, and noted that they were not getting more common (although everybody agrees that increasing population and development along the coasts both contribute to greater storm damage).

The chief hindrances to finding real trends in the tropical cyclones are their long-term, natural variation in strength and frequency, and the wobbly nature of data on older cyclones. In the North Atlantic, home of the best hurricane data, the quality of the data jumped when airplanes began flying into hurricanes in 1944, and again when satellite tracking began around 1970. Data on older Pacific and Indian Ocean storms are even more questionable.

To explore how global warming will affect tropical cyclones, the World Meteorological Organization set up a team under the leadership of Thomas Knutson, of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Knutson's group projected that hurricanes, globally, will become 6 percent to 34 percent less common by 2100, despite the warming trends.

The counterintuitive reduction may be due to wind. These storms need a warm ocean to provide energy, "but you also need an atmosphere that cooperates," explains Charles Conrad, an associate professor of geography at the University of North Carolina and director of the Southeast Regional Climate Center. Wind shear, a change in wind velocity with altitude, can blow a developing storm apart. "Some global climate models suggest that more wind shear over the tropical and sub-tropical Atlantic may inhibit cyclones, so when you put that together with higher sea-surface temperatures, this suggests that when a system can develop, it will be stronger."

A question of intensity

Given the rickety data on older storms, Knutson's group concluded that "it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes." According to team member Christopher Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, "Every single paper in the peer reviewed literature, looking at the theoretical side of hurricanes and global warming, or the climate model simulations, says the same thing. The changes today are very, very tiny, maybe 1 percent stronger, due to manmade global warming."

But another member of the team begs to disagree. "I think the evidence is fairly unequivocal that there has been an increase in intensity," says Kerry Emanuel, professor of tropical meteorology and climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. To gauge intensity, Emanuel used wind speed, measured at six-hour intervals, to calculate a "power dissipation index," fancy lingo for the amount of energy that enters the hurricane.

The index, he says, shows that recent hurricane intensity is "beautifully correlated with ocean temperature in the tropics," and those warm seas, in turn, result from accelerating greenhouse warming. Changing levels of greenhouse gases and reflective aerosols in the atmosphere "are the cleanest explanation for what happened with hurricanes," Emanuel says. "I think there is a strong [human-caused] signal in Atlantic hurricanes over the last 40 years."

Tower of power

And what of the future? The Knutson team projected that average maximum winds would increase 2 percent to 11 percent by 2100, so "a substantial increase in the frequency of the most intense storms is more likely than not globally, although this may not occur in all tropical regions."

Although the group wrote that intense tropical cyclones, "deserve particular attention, as these storms historically have accounted for an estimated 85 percent of U.S. hurricane damage," Landsea said, "That's a very small increase, a long ways in the future," and it could be offset by a decreasing frequency of storms.

In the world of climate, it's usually possible to find another voice, and last year, a modeling study projected that the number of category 4 and 5 storms will almost double by 2100. (Category 5 includes the strongest hurricanes.)

We asked James Kossin, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who has studied hurricanes since 1987, about those results, and he told us, "There is a lot of uncertainty in our understanding of how tropical cyclones respond to their environment and to changes in their environment."

The complicated connection between extreme weather and global change reflects some fundamental problems:

* Climate models can disagree.

* Climate models are best suited to global, not local, predictions. Small storms can easily "slip through the cracks" in models.

* Data can be surprisingly scarce. For example, hurricanes that did not reach land are likely missing from century-old data.

Linking changes in hurricanes to human-caused climate changes is "very challenging," said Kossin. "I have medium confidence that climate change could lead to the strongest storms getting stronger" globally.

Emanuel, however, says the creators of these models "freely admit they will not model intense hurricanes, they don't have the resolution. What does a 2 percent to 11 percent increase mean if the models are constitutionally incapable of having hurricanes? And this is what the models are telling us, but what does nature say? It tells us that hurricanes intensity is changing much more rapidly."

Emanuel reminds us that storm destruction equates to at least the cube of wind speed, and therefore, a small increase in maximum wind can mask a much larger increase in intensity and damage.

From here, gentle reader, the arguments devolve from murky to truly obscure. We promise to report back in a few years, but we're happy to note that this dispute, however contentious, is being fought in print by civil scientists who can cooperatively ponder on our climatic future.

Easy questions can be tough to answer

We'd love to know if warming is affecting wind, but the records do not support such a comparison, says Dan Vimont. In a study on climate change in Wisconsin, for example, "We started to look at wind, but there is not as much observational data. There are 200-odd temperature-precipitation gauges around Wisconsin reporting daily, but ... it's difficult to find a continuous record from a gauge that is monitored well."

The reality is that as much as we'd like to attribute particular events like the floods in Pakistan and Australia to climate change, we may never know. "For any given event, it's really hard to gauge how much climate change has contributed," says Claudia Tebaldi, a climate statistician with the non-profit Climate Central. "Even for heat waves, where it's obvious that as climate warms you would expect more intense heat waves, [you have to acknowledge that] a given heat wave may have happened anyway without climate change."

Terry Devitt, editor; S.V. Medaris, designer/illustrator; Jenny Seifert, project assistant; David J. Tenenbaum, feature writer; Amy Toburen, content development executive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
university of wisconsin madison uw-madison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A climate of extremes? Skeptical about global warming? 2010 has just tied 2005, making these the two hottest years on record. And nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. But temperature is only part of the story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fracking fracas

In New York and Pennsylvania, a technique that splits rock so natural gas can flow is pitting environmentalists against industry and neighbor against neighbor.

In areas distant from the surge of natural gas drilling that has swept western states over the past 20 years or so, high-pressure fracturing, or "fracking," has raised a fundamental question: Can a huge supply of deep natural gas be developed without harming rural landscapes and poisoning the groundwater that most people drink?

See the Classroom Activity Page for this story.

Nationwide, fracking is now used not only to liberate gas from shale, but also to boost production in the majority of oil and gas wells. In an era of energy shortages, it's difficult to dismiss a massive new supply of natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, and the gas industry is quick to position fracking as a key to jobs, prosperity and energy security.

According to an American Petroleum Institute website: Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is a proven and well-regulated technology. First used in the 1940s, hydraulic fracturing has unlocked massive new supplies of oil and clean-burning natural gas from dense deposits of shale - supplies that increase our country's energy security and improve our ability to generate electricity, heat homes and power vehicles for generations to come. Fracking has been used in more than one million U.S. wells, and has safely produced more than seven billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

But critics charge that fracking pollutes water and causes excess noise, truck traffic and health hazards. They reject the conversion of rural landscapes into what they call "industrial landscapes."

Update Dec. 9, 2011: On Dec. 8, the Associated Press reported on an Environmental Protection Agency finding "that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals." Despite the differences in geology and fracking technology between Wyoming and the eastern gas deposits, the finding adds fuel to the contention that fracking can harm groundwater. End update.

The middle ground on the fracking debate seems as lonely as the far side of moon. But could both sides have some valid arguments? And if so, where do we go from here?

Context for the contest

Natural gas was once flared off as junk at oil wells, but it began to enter the energy markets in the 1920s. By now, it's one of the big three sources of energy in the United States, alongside coal and oil.

Ten or 15 years ago, rising prices heralded a shortage of natural gas, a clean fossil fuel containing mostly methane that has become a major energy source for electricity and home heating over the past 50 years or so.

Those prices helped spark a two-legged technological revolution composed of fracking and horizontal drilling. Fracturing rock allows gas to flow. Horizontal drilling allows one well to tap a profitable volume of a thin, gas-rich wafer of deep shale.

The power of this combination is evident in the frenzy to lock up land above the Marcellus shale, a rock body that underlies parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia, and in the rising estimates for future gas production.

At the same time, "fracking" has become the "brand name" for more generalized opposition to gas drilling, and the debate is confused by the fact that many people use "fracking" as shorthand for new gas development rather than the process that breaks rock so gas can flow. This matters: Although fracking fluids can pose a hazard to groundwater, many gas wells contain other fluids that may carry radiation or other nasties that must be removed before the gas is shipped to its destination.

This "produced water" can be hazardous in its own right.

Down Pennsylvania way

Today, the biggest shale-gas development is in the Barnett Shale, around Fort Worth, Texas, site of more than 10,000 wells. But the hottest political debate concerns the Marcellus shale. The Marcellus was consolidated from mud about 390 million years ago into a fine-grained sedimentary rock that trapped methane produced during the decay of organic matter. The low-oxygen conditions protected the methane from oxidation.

The lay of the shale-gas play

World demand in the "Golden Age of Gas" scenario

The Marcellus shale lies an average of two kilometers deep, far below the groundwater that feeds home and municipal water wells. With an average thickness of about 30 meters, the Marcellus contains an estimated 295 to 2,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

If 10 percent of that gas can be recovered, this amounts to one to 10 years of supply for the United States, which used 21 trillion cubic feet in 2006.

Fracking has been dividing communities in the East, which has seen little of the vast energy development of the West. While some landowners and businesses profit from leases and economic activity related to gas development, others fear for the safety of their well water, streams and air.

Today, much of the concern about fracking focuses on drinking water. According to Food & Water Watch, toxic chemicals in fracking fluid can contaminate water via spills, accidents, improper disposal or poor well construction. Natural gas has entered drinking water, the group notes, during "more than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near drilling sites around the country."

In areas with many gas wells, groundwater pollution cannot easily be traced to a particular well, and it takes some effort to trace the pollution to gas drilling itself. But widespread groundwater pollution can also be virtually impossible to reverse.

One of the more notorious cases occurred in Dimock, a Marcellus-shale town in northeastern Pennsylvania. After drilling started in 2008, 18 private water wells became polluted with methane and other chemicals, turning dishes brown and, according to a press report, residents reported getting sick from drinking the water, or even showering under it.

On Dec. 15, 2010, Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. signed a consent agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection regarding 18 polluted water wells in Dimock. Cabot agreed to suspend drilling, plug and abandon three gas wells, supply drinking water to 18 houses, test home well water, and "comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations" when it resumed drilling and fracking in the area.

The Department concluded, but Cabot disputed, that the company had engaged in "unlawful conduct."

Let a thousand wells bloom!

New York City continues to oppose fracking in its prized watershed in the Catskill Mountains. And fracking opponents scored a victory on Nov. 18, when the Delaware River Basin Commission declined to move forward on a decision to allow fracking in the Basin. Opponents had warned that up to 20,000 gas wells in the area would threaten water supplies for millions.

Many billions are at stake in the debate over shale gas, which ConocoPhillips expects to account for almost half of U.S. natural gas production by 2035. The petroleum giant credits shale gas for a 110 percent rise in U.S. natural gas reserves and resources between 2000 and 2009.

What is fracking?

Hydrofracturing, or fracking, is a stage of "well completion" that follows drilling. Briefly, drillers bore through the surface, insert steel casing and concrete to seal the hole against groundwater, and drill deeper into the rock, repeatedly adding pipe and cement if needed to seal the well from the surrounding rock.

As the drill approaches the gas-bearing shale, it is "steered" into a horizontal direction, then forced through the source rock for hundreds of meters or more. Once the drilling is completed, holes are punched in the lower casing and millions of gallons of frack fluid are pumped into the well at roughly 1,000 times atmospheric pressure.

After some of that frack fluid is withdrawn, production can begin, as gas rises under the influence of the immense pressure belowground. At the surface, produced water and frack fluid are removed before the gas is piped to market.

The fracking process

Fracking in the history books?

The gas industry often meets questions about the environmental aspects of fracking by asking, essentially, "What's new?" "The history of fracturing technology's safe use in America extends all the way back to the Truman administration, with more than 1.2 million wells completed via the process since 1947," says the industry group Energy in Depth.

But fracking "was a rare process" at first, says Geoffrey Thyne of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute at the University of Wyoming. For 20 years it usually used water measured in the tens of thousands of gallons (not millions like today) and sometimes sand, says Thyne. But in the 1990s, drillers in Wyoming "did a giant frack. Suddenly the amount of [frack] fluid jumped 10 or 20 times, and suddenly a whole class of resources that was labeled unconventional became accessible."

Let's do the definitions:

Conventional gas and oil rise over the eons until being trapped under a "cap rock" that prevents further ascent. These deposits tend to be rich with hydrocarbons.

Unconventional gas is found in geological formations that do not allow such flow.

Nations with great shale gas potential

Thyne notes that in contrast to conventional gas, shale gas requires "a lot more development, more wells and infrastructure, to get the same bang for the buck, and that creates a lot of friction with landowners."

Jonah, an unconventional gas field in Wyoming "has a well on every 10 acres," says Thyne, who teaches petroleum geology and hydrogeology. "If you flew over it, it looks like a moonscape, there's an incredible amount of development. If you bring that into areas that have not had development, people are going to be put back on their heels: 'What the heck?'"

As the economic benefits of fracking were proven, it became the rule for oil and gas. Over the last 20 years, Thyne says, "we went from a period where one well in 100 would be fracked, maybe one time each, to now, where 90 percent of all gas and oil wells are fracked, and the number of frackings per well has gone from one to as many as 25, done over a period of several months."

But that growth is both normal and desirable, says Felmy. "Absolutely, it's been a wonderful development of technology, and like all technology, it takes time to ramp up. Fortunately, [as a result] a bright spot for consumers is the low price of natural gas today."

Let the debate begin

The impact of fracturing and horizontal drilling is evident in a new estimate from the U.S. Department of Energy, which places the national gas resource at 110 years of current consumption (although by definition not all of a fossil-fuel "resource" can be recovered).

"Proved natural gas reserves" are known to exist with reasonable certainty;

"Technically recoverable shale gas resources" includes discovered and undiscovered gas that can be recovered with existing technology, without regard to cost or profit. The U.S. quantity shown here includes about 827 trillion cubic feet of unproven shale gas.

U.S. Natural Gas Supply, 1990 - 2035

Projections about future production are inherently debatable because the economical amount of any energy resources depends on future prices. Internal emails from the U.S. Energy Information Administration have suggested that estimates of production and profit in the shale-gas boom exhibit signs of " irrational exuberance."

In 1996, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, used that to describe the " dot-com market bubble.

Natural gas has environmental benefits over coal and oil, including a reduced greenhouse-warming impact. To release the same amount of heat, oil and especially coal release more carbon dioxide than methane.

We have seen an April, 2011 study claiming heavy releases of heat-trapping methane from fracking and drilling make natural gas worse than coal for the climate. Although critics have questioned the study on the ground that the massive releases are both dangerous and uneconomical, methane is clearly entering the atmosphere at some gas operations.

Ozone, which damages the lungs and triggers asthma attacks, forms when sunlight strikes hydrocarbons released from a gas or oil well. The Environmental Protection Agency is studying ozone and smog at a gas field in Wyoming.

In a tight economy, jobs and taxes are big allures of gas drilling. Some landowners have profited mightily by leasing land to gas firms. In 2009, an industry-financed study reported that 622,000 people are directly involved in the discovery, extraction and distribution of natural gas in the United States, and the industry had an estimated, direct economic impact of $170 billion.

Concerns and open questions

There are plenty of concerns about the intensified gas extraction enabled by hydro-fracturing. Beyond the worries about noise, traffic, and the "industrial landscape," there are other concerns.

Seven hours after fracturing began, more than 50 shallow earthquakes occurred within 3.5 kilometers of a gas-drilling operation in Oklahoma, in January, 2011. According to the Oklahoma Geological Survey, "The strong correlation in time and space as well as a reasonable fit to a physical model suggest that there is a possibility these earthquakes were induced by hydraulic-fracturing," but added that this is "impossible to say with a high degree of certainty... "

Fluid chemistry

Frack fluid, the liquid used to pressurize and crack underground rocks, is a major concern about fracking. Water, an incompressible liquid, and sand, used to hold open the fractures created by the immense pressure, are said to comprise more than 99 percent of fracking fluid. But the fluid can also contain hundreds of other chemicals to fight bacteria or rust, or to change how the water flows.

Some of the additives are common and low-toxicity, but others, like diesel fuel, are poisonous.

And many are unknown, held as trade secrets. According to an April, 2011 report from Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, "Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products - not including water added at the well site - between 2005 and 2009."

The safer components of frack fluid included salt and citric acid, the Democrats wrote, but some components "were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead." Methanol, a hazardous air pollutant and human poison, was "the most widely used chemical ... used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products."

To counter suspicion about these chemicals, the industry recently established Frac Focus, a public database on chemicals used in particular wells. Participation is voluntary.

Wastewater disposal

Used fracking fluid needs safe disposal. "We are talking a substantial volume, millions of gallons per well," Thyne says, "and one-half to one-third of the fracking fluid comes back, and has to be disposed of."

Gas from many wells contains a second liquid, called "produced water," that also needs disposal.

"In classic, conventional petroleum, they can reinject everything back into the reservoir," says Thyne, "but they can't do that with unconventional gas [because the rock formation is not porous], so we have a sudden surge in material that has to be treated and disposed of; that's been a real challenge."

Some of the liquids have been trucked to municipal wastewater plants, which are designed to remove biological waste, not the components of frack fluid.

One of those components, naturally occurring radioactivity, has sparked a flurry of interest among Pennsylvania and federal environmental regulators. The source is radium in the deep rocks; the hazard occurs if this water is released into surface water or groundwater.

Yet as so often in the fracking fracas, much remains in dispute, including whether radioactivity is elevated in rivers that receive fracking wastewater.

Contaminated water emerging from gas wells is often stored in a wastewater pit near the well site, and these pits have been linked to groundwater pollution, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in June, 2011. "It gets put in these ginormous huge pools and sits there, and that is a source of contamination all by itself, and so we need to determine how to stop that from happening."

Wasted by the water

In some states, this wastewater can be spread on land, but a 2011 study demonstrated that the practice can kill plants.

When 303,000 liters of fracking fluid were spread on 0.2 hectares of experimental forest, tree leaves started to brown and curl within 10 days, and 56 percent of the trees were dead within two years. Every surviving tree was harmed.

The research suggested that high levels of salts - calcium and sodium chlorides - was causing the damage. Several states, including Colorado and West Virginia, permit land application, and the test application was below West Virginia's limits.

Industry is starting to recycle fracking fluid to reduce environmental contamination, but that's no panacea, Thyne says. "You can recycle to a certain extent, once or twice. By that time, you've got to treat the water to get it back to where it was before you put in new additive. Recycling buys you a little time, but it's not an end game."

Mad about methane

Although industry argues that not a single case of water contamination has been conclusively attributed to fracking, methane and other contaminants are appearing in drinking water and near-surface geology after the drill-and-frack sequence.

State investigators traced a house explosion in 2007 in Geauga County, Ohio, to a faulty cementing job on a nearby gas well. After the well was fractured, gas pressure built up inside it and nearby rock formations before being released into basements. One house was seriously damaged and 19 were evacuated, but there were no injuries.

In a 2011 study of 68 residential wells in Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and New York, Robert Jackson of the Center on Global Change at Duke University found, on average, more than 17 times as much methane in wells that were located within one kilometer of a natural-gas well.

As many as 1 million Pennsylvania households rely on private wells for water, the study noted, and in general, the wells are unregulated and untested.

Jackson says the study found no evidence that fracking fluid had contaminated the water wells. "But we see the gas as a warning sign. If methane is leaking, chances are that other things are leaking too."

The Jackson study was flawed by "a lack of baseline data," according to Reid Porter, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute. "Most critical: The authors don't have hard data to show how much methane surfaces on its own in northeastern Pennsylvania. They cite 'historical sources' but don't say how far back those sources go or exactly what the sources are. ... Without more data it's impossible to distinguish between methane emitted naturally and/or from coal mining and methane released by fracturing."

A baseline would be nice, but the Jackson study did succeed in finding a significant elevation in methane levels closer to gas wells, and isotopic analysis traced that methane to the Marcellus shale, rather than decay of biomass at shallow levels.

Finding a way

So how is methane reaching water wells from deep shale? It could be rising thousands of feet through existing or newly stimulated cracks in the rock, Jackson says, "but the most likely explanation is poor well construction, cementing or casing."

Petroleum expert Thyne agrees with that explanation, which "means it's a mechanical issue that can be dealt with."

Here, at least, API is in agreement. "The energy industry recognizes that well construction is key to community safety," Porter wrote us. "That's why API members have developed five documents that specifically and proactively address well construction and environmental protection practices during hydraulic fracturing."

When API maintains that fracking groundwater has never been polluted by fracturing fluid, it cites two studies:

a 1998 survey by the Groundwater Protection Council of state regulators on the use of hydraulic fracturing for extracting methane from coal deposits, not from shale. One complaint about groundwater quality surfaced in one state, and regulators could not confirm any relationship to fracturing.

a 2004 Environmental Protection Agency study that "confirmed no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater contamination." That study concerned the disposal of fracturing fluids in deep wells after fracturing was complete; it did not look at the fracturing process itself.

Industry is fond of quoting EPA administrator Jackson telling Congress that there has never been a documented case where fracking polluted drinking water, but she implied in June, 2011 that such certainty had not been possible: "There are chemicals in the frack water, and until recently, even today, companies don't have to disclose them, and we at EPA are exempt from regulating them, except for diesel."

Because gas wells are much deeper than shallow aquifers, Jackson said groundwater pollution can be prevented by attention to the details of drilling, casing, cementing and closing. "If you get a bad operator, someone who is not responsible, who is not seeing how important it is to get this right, they can contaminate an aquifer ... so there need to be some standards."

Is the enemy fracking, gas drilling - or neither?

The gas industry fears legislation that would ban fracking, says Felmy, and it also believes that some of the opposition comes from "anti-fossil-fuel folks who have discovered that a tenet of their opposition, that we are running out of fossil fuels, is suddenly not true. With the technology developments we have, we can produce a vast amount."

As the reports on water pollution add up, the gas industry has made some moves to address public concerns. Are they enough?

Yet behind all the protest and controversy, there is some constructive movement. Pennsylvania passed an improved well casing standard in February, 2011, so "it's quite possible that that will go a long way to fixing problems in newer wells," says Jackson of Duke. New York has not decided whether or how to allow hydraulic fracturing.

In November, the U.S. EPA announced plans for a study of any relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, with initial results due in 2012. That's in addition to ozone studies related to gas extraction.

Some changes are likely in the shale-gas industry, Thyne says. "It's got a lot of newcomers, it's very much a gold-rush mentality where the profit margins are low. As the industry matures, it will shake out and the big boys will tend to self-regulate both production and environmental standards."

Oil and gas are secretive industries, and the voluntary website listing chemicals in fracking fluid is a step toward openness. "The public said, 'If this is not a problem, why won't you tell us?'" says Thyne. "I sometimes feel the [energy] companies treat the public a bit like children: 'You don't want all these details, you just want to put gas into your car.' But when the well is in your backyard, you want that information. Half the problem will be going away if they are transparent."

Porter, of the American Petroleum Institute, says, "Disclosure is something we are very much in favor of."

In deep water?

Just 19 months ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11, releasing 4.9 million barrels of crude oil, and reminding us that fossil-fuel development can go horribly wrong. Stories from the gas fields remind us that polluted groundwater is difficult or impossible to clean up, even when money is available. Houses atop polluted aquifers are difficult or impossible to sell.

And so the choice is simple: ban fracking, and accept a rising price for energy, or do gas production right, even if that takes more time.

It's trite but true: Time is money when you are running a gas drilling rig, but haste makes waste. "The Deepwater accident happened because people were in a hurry," says Jackson of Duke. "I think there is tremendous pressure to move drilling rigs along in the Marcellus. There aren't enough drill rigs ... . The cause of problems here is likely the same as it was with BP: haste."

Best management practices and standards are important, says Jackson, "but people have to follow them day after day in the field, when they are in a hurry and when nobody is watching, and that does not always happen."

Terry Devitt, editor; S.V. Medaris, designer/illustrator; Jenny Seifert, project assistant; David J. Tenenbaum, feature writer; Amy Toburen, content development executive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fracking fracas In New York and Pennsylvania, a technique that splits rock so natural gas can flow is pitting environmentalists against industry and neighbor against neighbor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Starting Planning - Contextual Strands (CORRECT

# data[].attributes.headline
Short article about the impact climate change will have on Ireland

# data[].attributes.subject
Short article about the impact climate change will have on Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Impact will climate change have for Ireland? :: Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You are here: Home > Climate Change > Communicating Climate Science > What is climate change ? > What Impact will climate change have for Ireland?

# data[].attributes.body
Great way to make students aware of their carbon footprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Official education portal of the Department of Education and Skills in Ireland. Curriculum focused resources and support for primary and post primary teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Experiment students could do to test global warming

# data[].attributes.subject
Experiment students could do to test global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ireland has become only the second country in the world to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency.

The development came after a Fianna Fáil amendment to the Oireachtas report on Climate Action was accepted by both the Government and Opposition parties without a vote.

Chair of the Climate Action Committee, Fine Gael's Hildegarde Naughton, welcomed the outcome as "an important statement" but added "now we need action."

She said Minister for Climate Action Richard Bruton would speedily return to the Dáil with new proposals, and she looked forward to working "with all parties and none" to scrutinise them.

Green Party leader Eamon Ryan also welcomed the development, but warned that "declaring an emergency means absolutely nothing unless there is action to back it up. That means the Government having to do things they don't want to do".

Deputy Bríd Smith, of Solidarity/People Before Profit, said she was "delighted" with the declaration, but added it will be "interesting to see" if the Government will support her Climate Emergency Measures Bill next month, which seeks to to limit oil and gas exploration.

The Fianna Fáil amendment was moved by the party's climate action spokesman Timmy Dooley.

However, when the vote came before the House, it was put forward by Deputy Ryan as there were only six TDs in the chamber and none of them were from Fianna Fáil.

The Green Party leader observed: "We have declared a climate emergency in our own Irish way."

The issue of a biodiversity emergency is to be considered by a Citizens' Assembly.

The Oireachtas Climate Action report before the House tonight emanated from a Citizens' Assembly report.

In his speech, Sinn Féin's Brian Stanley had also called for a climate emergency to be declared, but there were no Sinn Féin TDs in the Dáil chamber when the amendments were put.

The 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg has warmly welcomed Ireland declaring a climate emergency.

She tweeted tonight: "Great news from Ireland!! Who is next?

And remember: #ClimateEmergency means leaving fossil fuels in the ground."

Great news from Ireland!! Who is next?
And remember:#ClimateEmergency means leaving fossil fuels in the ground. #ClimateBreakdown #EcologicalBreakdown https://t.co/GTkyhg7Sam
- Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) May 9, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ireland is second country to declare climate emergency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ireland has become only the second country in the world to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency. The development came after a Fianna Fáil amendment to the Oireachtas report on Climate Action was accepted by both the Government and Opposition parties without a vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
david attenborough netflix speech - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

# data[].attributes.headline
Link to seai.ie which includes other useful resources and information about sustainable energy

# data[].attributes.subject
Link to seai.ie which includes other useful resources and information about sustainable energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Junior Cycle students

Energy in Action is a collection of online activities and ideas. We designed it to support the teaching and learning of energy and sustainability in the Junior Cycle. It is suitable for students of Science, CSPE, Geography and Home Economics.

An inquiry approach to energy and sustainability

These resources have been developed for use with an inquiry approach to education. They aim to enhance students' scientific knowledge, skills and competencies. The focus is on providing students with opportunities to consider and tackle problems that the future holds, e.g. sustainable practices in schools, homes and beyond.

A range of topics linked to our daily lives

It will develop young peoples' knowledge across a range of topics such as, energy sources, efficiency, conservation, climate change and global warming. These concepts will then be linked to students' daily lives.

Programme development

The programme was developed by the SEAI in collaboration with Junior Cycle teachers and CASTeL at Dublin City University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Energy in Action is a collection of online activities and ideas. We designed it to support the teaching and learning of energy and sustainability in the Junior Cycle. It is suitable for students of Science, CSPE, Geography and Home Economics. These resources have been developed for use with an inquiry approach to education.

# data[].attributes.headline
Articles of a manageable reading standard for the students

# data[].attributes.subject
Articles of a manageable reading standard for the students

# data[].attributes.headline
Articles about fracking and the positive and negative impact it has on the environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Articles about fracking and the positive and negative impact it has on the environment

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Change Ted Talk by Greta Thunberg

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change Ted Talk by Greta Thunberg

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A&t=9s

# data[].attributes.headline
Some ideas about activities to teach about climate change and renewable energy from seai.ie

# data[].attributes.subject
Some ideas about activities to teach about climate change and renewable energy from seai.ie

# data[].attributes.body
Nos8: Students will use videos and other types of media in order to build up information about climate change. they will also look at the impact Greta Thunberg has had which is current affairs at the moment
NoS9: Students will have to research scientific data in order to back up their poster with evidence. they will also face the same task scientist do when they try and get the general public to take on board what they have found as they will be trying to convince the government in the poster.
CW10: The students will be talking about the recycling of materals and the impact humans have on the climate which is closely related to the lesson
PW8: The students will write about how electricity is acquired in this counrty and the need to change our reliance on fossil fuels