# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking at much of the media reporting ahead of this week's climate conference in Glasgow, you'd think the world was subject to biblical plagues-blasted by fires, floods, hurricanes, drought and disease. But as Bjorn Lomborg has explained recently in these pages, while global warming does pose problems, it is hardly the unmitigated disaster often portrayed. At times, the solutions activists propose can be far worse than what they're trying to prevent.

Humanity has solved much more dangerous problems than climate change over the past century, Mr. Lomborg argues. Even if policy makers do little to slow the rise of global temperatures, it will cost only 2.8% of global gross domestic product a year-a small price compared to that of air pollution, the least of the other major problems mankind has tackled since 1900.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Real Risks of Global Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking at much of the media reporting ahead of this week's climate conference in Glasgow, you'd think the world was subject to biblical plagues-blasted by fires, floods, hurricanes, drought and disease. But as Bjorn Lomborg has explained recently in these pages, while global warming does pose problems, it is hardly the unmitigated disaster often portrayed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ROME (AP) - Leaders of the world's biggest economies were set to tackle climate change Sunday, the final day of a weekend summit in Rome that is widely expected to set the tone for a major conference on the same issue taking place in Glasgow, Scotland, over the next two weeks.

The Group of 20 countries, which represent more than three-quarters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, are looking for common ground on how to reduce emissions while helping poor countries deal with the impact of rising temperatures.

If the G-20 summit ends with only weak commitments, momentum could be lost for the larger annual talks in Glasgow, where countries from around the globe will be represented including poor ones most vulnerable to rising seas, desertification and other effects.

The future of coal, a key source of greenhouse gas emissions, has been one of the hardest things for the G-20 to agree on. However, the U.S. and other countries are hoping to get a commitment to end overseas financing of coal-fired power generation, said a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to preview President Joe Biden's plans.

Western countries have moved away from financing coal projects in developing countries, and major Asian economies are now doing the same: Chinese President Xi Jinping announced at the U.N. General Assembly last month that Beijing would stop funding such projects, and Japan and South Korea made similar commitments earlier in the year.

China has not set an end date for building domestic coal plants at home, however. Coal is still China's main source of power generation, and both China and India have resisted attempts for a G-20 declaration on phasing out domestic coal consumption.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said before the Rome summit that he tried but could not get a commitment on a coal phase-out from Xi, who did not travel to the gathering.

In Glasgow, Johnson said, "we want these leaders ... to focus on the commitments they can make, moving away from the use of fossil fuels, moving away from coal-fired power stations domestically."

Climate campaigners were hoping that rich G-20 countries would take steps to meet a long-standing but yet-to-be-fulfilled commitment to raise $100 billion annually to help developing countries move toward greener economies and adapt to the changing climate.

Prince Charles, a long-time environmentalist, was set to address the G-20 on Sunday.

G-20 leaders also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic and the uneven distribution of vaccines in the world. On Saturday they endorsed a global minimum tax on corporations, a linchpin of new international tax rules aimed at blunting fiscal paradises amid skyrocketing profits of some multinationals.

And after a meeting on the sidelines about Iran's nuclear program, Biden, Johnson, Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron made a joint statement expressing their "determination to ensure that Iran can never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon."

They also voiced concern that Tehran "has accelerated the pace of provocative nuclear steps" after halting negotiations on a return to the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

___ Associated Press writers Jill Lawless, Josh Boak, Zeke Miller and David McHugh in Rome contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G-20 leaders turn to climate change on last day of summit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ROME (AP) - Leaders of the world's biggest economies were set to tackle climate change Sunday, the final day of a weekend summit in Rome that is widely expected to set the tone for a major conference on the same issue taking place in Glasgow, Scotland, over the next two weeks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The costs of doing nothing vastly outweigh the costs of decarbonising a global economy which, since the Industrial Revolution, has been powered by fossil fuels. That may seem self-evident today, when catastrophic fires and floods offer daily reminders of how expensive continued inaction on climate change is. But 15 years ago, that insight was ground-breaking.

The 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, for which I was a senior economist, was the first time a G7 government had used economic analysis to spell out the case for urgently reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A decade and a half on, its conclusions and recommendations are as valid as ever.

The review also exposed the limitations of using conventional economic modelling to answer transformational questions. It prompted an unhealthy race among economists to insert their own cost presumptions to derive contradictory results.

This points to a lingering problem in economics. Conventional models assume economists know beforehand what the costs of new technologies, preferences and behaviour will be in the future. These are the things that will determine the cost of any green transition. In other words, our estimates of the things we are most interested in are predetermined by assumptions that may not be accurate.

The fact is that the technique known as "static cost benefit analysis", the workhorse of economic modelling, was simply not designed to evaluate the large risks and transitions involved in tackling climate change. This matters because conventional approaches have consistently understated the risks from unmitigated climate change and overstated the costs of a low-carbon transition, thereby delaying policy action.

Forecasting the cost of a systemic transition is fiendishly complex. Adopting new, clean technologies early induces creativity and innovation across the whole economy and generates new learning and experience along the way.

It unleashes economies of scale in discovery and production, as businesses make and distribute things more cleverly and efficiently, dramatically lowering costs. This in turn makes deploying new technologies even more attractive, generating a virtuous cycle of innovation, investment and falling costs.

The cost of generating electricity with solar panels and the cost of storing it in lithium-ion batteries has fallen more than 80% over the last decade. Regardless of the need to decarbonise, people are now set to benefit from cheaper electricity and better performing cars than they otherwise would have. Economists never predicted it and the markets alone would never have delivered it.

Climate Change Committee/IRENA (2020) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019.

What happened was that renewable energy generation capacity grew faster than anyone expected, because the costs of installing and running renewables fell sharply. And costs fell sharply because capacity grew faster than anyone expected.

Conventional economic models cannot cope with the destabilising dynamics generated by these amplifying feedbacks, so they miss them entirely, together with the rapid cost cutting they entail. As a result, standard economic and energy forecasting models have been demonstrably wrong for decades.

A self-fulfilling prophecy

No cost benefit analysis can adequately answer the question "What will it cost to decarbonise in the long run?" The answer depends on the choices and actions taken today and in the future.

Once a tipping point is reached, such reinforcing feedbacks make the transition to new technology networks a self-sustaining process. If people expect the low-carbon transition will be cost-effective, they will invest in it.

In this way, expectations of rapid transformation become self-fulfilling. This makes credible and predictable government policy vital to provide investors and companies with confidence that a low-carbon future will be a profitable one.

Ambitious policy to generate a clean energy transition could ultimately be costless. After initial investment costs, it would likely generate considerable savings.

And once the clean innovation machine has been switched on and is running, it has the potential to become more efficient, innovative and productive than the conventional alternative. By driving prices for disruptive technologies extremely low, growth in new sectors will have a positive impact on productivity growth.

Rather than embarking on a fruitless attempt to predict the future using the wrong economic tools, our interests are better served trying to steer and design it. The economics profession is in a better position to cope with the risk and uncertainty this entails. Fifteen years on from the Stern Review, we can say with great confidence that the risks of action are far lower than the risks of inaction. More than that, those risks are in our gift to tame.

The global community has it in its power to make a cleaner, more secure and sustainable but also more efficient, innovative and productive economy a self-fulfilling prophecy. As world leaders gather in Glasgow for the latest UN climate summit, the call for action has never been more urgent.

This story is part of The Conversation's coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.
Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: how economists underestimated benefits of action for decades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The costs of doing nothing vastly outweigh the costs of decarbonising a global economy which, since the Industrial Revolution, has been powered by fossil fuels. That may seem self-evident today, when catastrophic fires and floods offer daily reminders of how expensive continued inaction on climate change is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your morning cup may depend on solving issues with a crop that both contributes to and is deeply affected by the changing climate.

A cupping session at Los Papales, a coffee farm in Jinotega, Nicaragua. Credit... Inti Ocon/Agence France-Presse, via Getty Images

This article is part of a special report on Climate Solutions, which looks at efforts around the world to make a difference.

Wilston Vilchez, a third-generation coffee farmer in the mountains of Nicaragua, has witnessed drastic climatic changes on his 25-acre coffee and cacao farm for years, but when two hurricanes hit within 15 days last year, many other farmers he knows realized they needed to be part of the solution.

"They might be small farmers, but they believe in doing something different that will benefit them all," he said.

Mr. Vilchez, who also manages an agricultural cooperative of about 300 farmers, said that the effects of climate change - rising temperatures, less predictable rainfall, wild swings from drought to flooding, new pests and more - were making it more and more difficult to earn a living from coffee, an experience felt by farmers around the world.

Various organizations and companies are seeking solutions to these challenges. They are helping farmers to improve production and efficiency, developing new strains of beans or farming wild species, and even growing coffee in labs. Producing coffee makes a significant environmental impact - estimates vary, but about 39 gallons of water are needed for one cup, according to UNESCO's Institute for Water Education.

However, people interviewed at these organizations and companies, and experts in the field, said that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be the best way to ensure the future of coffee as we know it (or something close to what we know) and of the planet.

According to a 2014 study, under modest declines of greenhouse gas emissions, about 50 percent of the land with conditions suitable for growing the two main species of coffee, arabica and robusta, which account for 99 percent of commercial supply, "could disappear by 2050." Brazil and Vietnam, major producing countries, would be especially hard hit.

Denis Leonel, the manager of the farm Coqueiro, inspecting coffee crops that were affected by frosts in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais in July. Credit... Roosevelt Cassio/Reuters

To the billions of people around the world who rely on drinking coffee (to put it mildly), that forebodes many difficult mornings and possibly rising prices. To the 100 million or so coffee farmers, to say nothing of the tens of millions more who work in transporting, packaging, distributing, selling and brewing coffee, the effects of climate change are making an already precarious existence even more so.

On his farm and across the co-op, Mr. Vilchez works with Blue Harvest, a program from Catholic Relief Services (C.R.S.), started in 2014, which helps Central American coffee farmers restore and protect their water resources, for their benefit and for others who share the watershed downstream.

The program, which built on the organization's earlier work, began as Central America was in the grips of a coffee leaf rust epidemic about a decade ago. Coffee leaf rust is a fungus that decimates coffee plants, often leaving farmers with few choices: cut down their crop and replant, plant something else, or give up the farm. Some have linked the spread of the fungus to climate change because it thrives in warmer conditions with more variable precipitation.

Since climate change is making droughts both more frequent and intense, said Kristin Rosenow, an expert in agricultural development for C.R.S., using water more efficiently and preventing pollution of existing sources are crucially important.

Mr. Vilchez has worked with C.R.S. to restore his soil by planting cover crops. He has also helped other farmers to retain more soil moisture by planting shade trees, a traditional practice, and to employ other low-tech solutions, he said, speaking in Spanish translated by a C.R.S. staff member.

Ms. Rosenow said that these sorts of techniques, among others, like more targeted fertilizer use, had led to an increase of 24 percent in their yields for the farmers, and a 28 percent rise in income, some of which can be attributed to these techniques and some to access to new markets.

Another tactic is planting different varieties that can better withstand both the leaf rust and other climate stressors, according to Hanna Neuschwander, the director of strategy and communications at World Coffee Research.

Next year, World Coffee Research will start a global breeding network, which aims to introduce modern breeding techniques and new varieties in coffee-producing countries to help farmers dealing with new climatic conditions. Based on the information that is obtained, the organization will evaluate how new species perform in different environments around the world, a sort of real-time lab trial.

But there are challenges. When a farmer plants a coffee tree, it takes several years for it to make money. And because coffee trees can live for several decades, a tree that suits today's climate may be completely unsuited to future conditions, said Vern Long, the chief executive of World Coffee Research.

Sacks of coffee in the Zona de los Santos area of Costa Rica. Credit... Jeffrey Arguedas/EPA, via Shutterstock

One possible upside, Ms. Long added: Coffee farmers would not have to expand or move to higher altitudes that may be more suitable in the future but could be heavily forested and biodiverse, leading to loss of carbon sequestration potential and animal and plant habitat.

At the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in London, Aaron Davis, a coffee scientist who also specializes in climate change, is working on a different solution to ensure sustainability: introducing farmers to wild coffee species, which have not been widely cultivated previously, or at all, but are more tolerant of high temperatures and drought.

"Being a botanist and having done work in climatology, I can't emphasize enough that traditionally used species will not be enough," he said. "If you look at climate change models and projections, we need robust resilience and step change, not incremental change."

Maricel Saenz is also interested in step change, but in a different direction. She is the founder and chief executive of Compound Foods, a "beanless" coffee company that aims to produce coffee in a laboratory environment.

A coffee plant in Sierra Leone. Credit... Agence France-Presse, via Royal Botanical Gardens

Ms. Saenz, 29, is from Costa Rica, so naturally coffee and its future are important to her, she said. "It's a really complex situation, because coffee is one of the main victims and contributors to climate change," she said, citing the energy and water required to grow, transport and brew a cup of coffee.

Compound Foods does not grow any coffee - at least, not in the traditional sense. Instead, the company replicates the microbes from actual coffee cherries, which give a cup of coffee its flavor and aroma, Ms. Saenz said. The microbes are grown on their plant-based formula in bioreactors, a fermentation process similar to what happens naturally at a coffee farm.

At the moment, this makes a cold-brew style extract that mimics the flavor, color and smell of real coffee, but with much less energy and water. They plan to distribute this first product through coffee shops next year and, later, to create coffee grounds that can be brewed at home.

When asked about how her company might affect smallholder farmers who grow most of the world's coffee and often struggle to make a living, Ms. Saenz said that she was hoping to compete with the big industrial farmers and to find ways to support the farmers she grew up knowing.

In both the long and short term, that may mean addressing the root cause itself: greenhouse gas emissions.

As Vincent Amodoi, a project coordinator in Uganda for Farm Africa, a British charity that works with farmers, pastoralists and forest communities in East Africa, including coffee growers, said, "For me, climate change should be one of the major focuses for all governments in the world, and that is just not happening."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coffee and Climate Have a Complicated Relationship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your morning cup may depend on solving issues with a crop that both contributes to and is deeply affected by the changing climate. This article is part of a special report on Climate Solutions, which looks at efforts around the world to make a difference.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6226778

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A key goal of COP26 is to keep the goal of limiting global warming to an increase of 1.5 C 'within reach'

Posted: October 28, 2021
Last Updated: October 31, 2021

High school students advocate for the lower of two UN climate targets, 1.5 C, during a climate protest in Montreal in 2019. Some environmental experts say keeping global warming to 1.5 C would lead to less extremes of heat, rainfall and drought than the original target of 2 C. (Louise Gravel/Radio-Canada)

Our planet is changing. So is our journalism. This story is part of a CBC News initiative entitled "" to show and explain the effects of climate change and what is being done about it.
Keeping a 1.5 C limit on global warming "within reach" is one of the key goals of the ongoing United Nations climate conference, COP26. That's the lower of two targets in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. But why are there two targets? What's the difference between them in terms of impacts? Are they both reachable? Here's a closer look.

What are the official targets to limit global warming?

Article 2.1.a of the Paris Agreement names a key goal as: "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change."

Have questions about COP26 or climate science, policy or politics? Email us: ask@cbc.ca. Your input helps inform our coverage.

One of the key goals of COP26, which opens on Oct. 31 in Glasgow, is to "Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach."

Net zero means we are no longer adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases might still be emitted, but they would be "cancelled out" by the removal of an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases. (This is very similar to carbon neutrality, but includes more than just CO2.)

So far, the world has warmed 1.1 C above pre-industrial temperatures, the United Nations reports.
WATCH | Inaction and inequity key concerns ahead of COP26 climate summit
The Conference of Parties (COP), as it's known, meets every year and is the global decision-making body set up to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in the early 1990s, and subsequent climate agreements.

Why are there two targets in the Paris Agreement?

UN negotiations had been looking at a target of 2 C for a long time. But in 2010, there was an agreement to review by 2015 whether the science suggested that goal needed to be strengthened. That included consideration of a 1.5 C goal, which had been called for by some groups representing developing countries. Among them was the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), which represents many vulnerable countries in UN climate negotiations.

"That process concluded that the globally agreed goal of two degrees as a kind of guardrail was not safe ... for the most vulnerable," said Frances Fuller, the advisor on mitigation and science for AOSIS.
WATCH | What half a degree of warming could mean for climate change
The group and its peers pushed hard during Paris negotiations, and eventually the 1.5 C target was added as one to work toward in the longer-term.

What is the difference between the climate impacts of 1.5 C and 2 C?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a special report looking into the difference between 1.5 C and 2 C of warming in 2018.

Compared to 1.5 C of warming, an extra half a degree of warming would lead to more intense and frequent extremes of heat, heavy rainfall and drought, the report found.

"Every bit of global warming matters and makes things worse," said Kirsten Zickfeld, professor of climate science at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C., who was one of the report's lead authors.

In some cases, that worsening is proportional to the amount of warming.

But in other cases, it isn't. Feedback loops amplify the impacts more and more as the temperature increases. That's the case for sea ice loss in the Arctic. The melting of white ice exposes water, which is dark and absorbs more heat, causing the sea ice to melt faster, exposing more water and so on.

That's one of the reasons Canada, and especially its Arctic region, is warming much faster than the world average - and will continue to do so.
WATCH | Arctic nations discuss mitigating impact of climate change
"If we talk about 1.5 degrees warming [on average globally], it may actually mean five degrees warming in some regions of the Arctic," said Zickfeld. Meanwhile, an average of 2 C of warming globally might translate to 7 C of warming in parts of the Arctic.

Scientists are also concerned about tipping points or thresholds that lead to irreversible processes, such as the melting of the Greenland or East Antarctic ice sheets.

Zickfeld said that particular tipping point is estimated to be at around 2 C of warming.

"The likelihood that we will trigger any of these tipping points at 1.5 is less than at two degrees," she said.

What could the difference mean to humans?

The report showed that a half-degree difference in global temperature could make a dramatic difference in the number of people exposed to risks to their health, safety and livelihoods.

"The global population exposed to increased water shortages would be 50 per cent less under 1.5 C than 2 C," Zickfeld said.

Similarly, impacts on yields of maize, rice, wheat and marine fisheries aren't proportional to the amount of warming - with serious consequences for food security.

"Several hundred million fewer people would be exposed to climate-related risks by 2050 and be susceptible to poverty if we limit warming to 1.5 as opposed to 2 C," Zickfeld said.

Impact on severe heat exposure, maize harvest, sea-level rise, decline in marine fisheries (CBC News)

By 2100, the sea level will be 10 centimetres higher with 2 C of warming than with 1.5 C. While that doesn't sound like a lot, it exposes an extra 10 million people to risks of deadly and damaging flooding from sea level rise.

Fuller said the difference is dire for many of the countries AOSIS represents.

Above 1.5 C, sea level rise will "engulf entire nations," she said. "We cannot let go of the 1.5 goal, and to go beyond that would be accepting the decimation of our communities, livelihoods, nations, culture."
WATCH | 'We're beyond urgency,' says Marshall Islands climate envoy
If residents of such countries are forced to flee, the losses go beyond health, safety and economic losses, Fuller said. "You've lost your national identity, you've lost your country," she said. "That's not something we're willing to accept."

What could happen to other living things on Earth?

Local extinctions of plants, animals, insects and coral reefs are expected to increase much more with 2 C of warming compared to 1.5 C, with the higher limit potentially leading to the near extinction of coral reefs.

Impact on vertebrates, insects, plants, corals, shifts in ecosystems (CBC News)

Fuller said the destruction of coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems would also have huge impacts on people.
WATCH | An impassioned marine biologist on a mission to save the world's reefs
"Tourism is almost entirely dependent on our coastal ecosystems," she said. "And with that type of sea-level rise, it would mean decimation of entire economies."

What does 'keep 1.5 C within reach' mean?

IPCC modelling shows all simple paths that keep warming below 1.5 C require the world to cut emissions to 45 per cent below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero around 2050.

Fuller said that means short-term action and targets in the next 10 years is "really, really important" to ensure the world doesn't blow past 1.5 C.

Currently, countries' pledges to 2030 are on track for to 2.6 C or 2.7 C, while pledges to get to net-zero, mostly by 2050, would reduce that to 2.2 C of warming if fully implemented.

Is that possible?

Zickfeld believes so. "We know what we need to do and we have the means - the technological and economic means - to do it," she said. "We can do it if political leaders really step up and the global community is committed to achieving this."

Fuller said she heads to COP26 with "cautious optimism."

"I think that there is a lot of momentum at the moment to make some transformational change," she said. "However, we do need to see more."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How shaving half a degree off global warming targets could lessen the effects of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted: October 28, 2021 Last Updated: October 31, 2021 Our planet is changing. So is our journalism. This story is part of a CBC News initiative entitled " " to show and explain the effects of climate change and what is being done about it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/31/politics/g20-climate-communique/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G20 agrees on key climate goals around global warming limits and coal financing, but lacks firm commitments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Group of 20’s leaders’ summit ended Sunday with an agreement on climate that commits its member nations to end coal financing by the end of the year and to aim to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59050953.amp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Sabrina Lee & Geraint Thomas

Weather Presenter

To play this content, please enable JavaScript, or try a different browser

Video caption,
From the catwalk to the side of a Tesla, the lines graphic has become a symbol of our warming planet

The man behind a global warming stripe graphic said he's going to need more colours to represent future years in a warmer world.

From London Fashion Week to BBC News branding, Prof Ed Hawkins' visualisation has become an international symbol of climate change.

Each line represents the average temperature for a year - blue for colder years and red for warmer.

Colours will just get darker, he said.

Prof Hawkins said choices made at COP26, the climate summit in Glasgow, will determine how dark the colours get.

The graphic was first used by the Reading University academic at the Hay Festival in 2018.

He said: "I was looking for a way of very simply communicating the fact that our planet is warming and so I made a set of stripes for Hay.

"I could instantly see that members of the audience realised that something was happening and they could instantly visualise the fact that the planet was warming and that was affecting Hay itself."

Image caption,

Wales' warming stripe graphic shows a gradual change to it's hottest days in the least 30 years

Using the sequence for Wales from 1884 to present day, the colours gradually change from blues, to oranges, to dark reds.

The hottest years were in the past 30 years.

"This is a signal of our warming world," said Prof Hawkins.

"This data is critical for policy-makers making decisions. It tells us that Wales has warmed about one-and-a-half times faster than the global average.

"So for every two degrees [Celsius] that the global temperature increases, Wales will increase by about three degrees in temperature."

The stripes' climate history plays a key role in working out what's next for global warming.

Image caption,

Prof of paleoclimatology Joy Singarayer said it's humans causing the changes

Professor of paleoclimatology, Joy Singarayer, said studying the past is important to understanding the future.

So, as temperatures and CO2 levels have been higher historically, why are there concerns this time around?

She said: "It's not due to natural variations in our orbits, in solar cycles or in volcanic eruptions and so on."

Prof Singarayer said it's humans causing the changes.

"In Wales for example we can see evidence of that, from glacial valleys that have been scoured out by ice sheets to other evidence on the landscape of as warm, or warmer than present temperatures," she said.

Fall Bay, on the Gower, near Swansea, shows evidence higher temperatures in the past.

Image caption,

Raised rocks on the beach on Gower is evidence of where sea levels would have been

The shells of sea creatures and pebbles shows the sea level from 125,000 years ago - up to nine metres higher than it currently is.

Prof Singarayer says an extreme series of circumstances could result in water raising to similar levels in the future.

"We think we might see half a metre or a metre sea level rise by the end of the century, depending on our carbon emissions and most of that currently is due to ocean thermal expansion so as the world is getting warmer, the oceans are also getting warmer and so the volume of those is increasing," she said.

"But there's potential for ice melts in the future, from Greenland and Antarctica in particular and that will contribute to rising sea levels.

"We think that happened in the past. So that is part of the reason why we see those raised beaches there.

"In a kind of drastic climate change scenario where we don't reduce our carbon emissions, something like that may well be possible in several 100 years' time. And the difference from that past scenario is that climate change is undeniably being caused by us now."

There is a limited time to act if the world is to stave off the worst effects of global warming, she said.

Interpreting the past plays a crucial role as we live through what could be a turning point in the future of the climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change graphic 'needs more colours' - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Sabrina Lee & Geraint Thomas Weather Presenter The man behind a global warming stripe graphic said he's going to need more colours to represent future years in a warmer world. From London Fashion Week to BBC News branding, Prof Ed Hawkins' visualisation has become an international symbol of climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
g20 agrees on key climate goals around global warming limits and coal financing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
but lacks firm commitments - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G20 agrees on key climate goals around global warming limits and coal financing, but lacks firm commitments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Group of 20's leaders' summit ended Sunday with an agreement on climate that commits its member nations to end coal financing by the end of the year and to aim to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the World Will Look in 2050 if We Don’t Tackle Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If we don’t take rapid action, life on earth will rapidly deteriorate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blue Green Yellow Illustrated Global Warming Social Media Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Warming Is Turning Antarctica Green, Study Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A study is saying parts of Antarctica are starting to see more greenery as temperatures rise

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/climate-change-health-threat-who/#app

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new report released by the World Health Organization on Monday warns that climate change is the "single biggest health threat facing humanity."

The report points out that climate change is already impacting the lives and health of millions of people in various ways, and that while "no one is safe from these risks," people in low-income communities are most vulnerable.

The threats include harm or death from increasingly frequent extreme weather events such as , storms and floods, as well as the disruption of food systems, the spread of diseases from animal populations, food- and water-borne illnesses, related mental health issues and more.

#ClimateCrisis harms our health!#ClimateCrisis harms our health!#ClimateCrisis harms our health!

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C isn't only the right thing to do but also a shared responsibility for health.

🆕 WHO #COP26 Special Report explains why 👉 https://t.co/WXMdMgPSWv pic.twitter.com/r8NFs1oI37
- World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) October 11, 2021

"The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the intimate and delicate links between humans, animals and our environment," WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a news release. "The same unsustainable choices that are killing our planet are killing people."

Over 150 organizations and 400 experts and health professionals were consulted on the report's list of 10 recommendations for governments to help address the climate crisis and its impact on health. These include reimagining urban environments and transit systems; promoting "healthy, sustainable, and resilient" food supply systems; and committing to a "healthy, green, and just recovery" from COVID-19 that includes global access to vaccines and steps to help prevent future pandemics.

The unsustainable choices that are killing our planet are killing people. @WHO calls on all countries to commit to decisive action at #COP26 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. #ClimateAction is not just the right thing to do, it's in our own interest. https://t.co/z5y7dFjN9r pic.twitter.com/ozRS3eJUK5
- Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) October 11, 2021

In September, WHO tightened its global air quality guidelines in its first revision since 2005. The organization said air pollution is one of the "biggest environmental threats to human health."

The findings come ahead of the U.N.'s major international conference on climate change, known as COP26, which gets underway October 31 in Glasgow, Scotland.

Read the full report below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change is "single biggest health threat facing humanity," WHO says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report released by the World Health Organization on Monday warns that climate change is the "single biggest health threat facing humanity." The report points out that climate change is already impacting the lives and health of millions of people in various ways, and that while "no one is safe from these risks," people in low-income communities are most vulnerable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A severe water shortage continues to handicap residents of Masalani town, Ijara Sub-County of Garissa County due to disconnection of electricity supply by Kenya Power company.

According to the residents, the water shortage has gone on for a whole week due to an accumulated electricity bill and failure to pay for the last two months by the water supply agency.

Residents blame Masalani Water Supply for the water shortage and have called for the clearance of the bill while at the same time appealing to the Kenya Power management to give the supplier some grace period to streamline the financial flow from Garissa County government.

Youth Chairman, Abdullahi Abdi and former Council Chairman Mohamed Gure said the two entities should work together to ensure service delivery is enhanced to the public.

The duo said residents are held up for many hours in long queues due to the water scarcity, some even go back home with empty jerricans. A 5, 000-litre bowser drawing water from Tana River, sells the commodity at Sh1000, leaving only a few who can afford to buy the commodity, disadvantaging those who cannot afford.

Contacted for comment, Ijara Water Services Coordinator, Mr James Ombaso, said he was unwell and was not adequately briefed since he had been out of station for treatment in Nairobi.

When contacted by KNA on phone, Garissa County Executive member for Water Services, Mr Ahmed Abdirahman said the matter has been addressed by Garissa County government and water will be available as soon as possible.

Abdirahman asked residents who have not paid their water bills to do so for efficient service delivery.
By Mohamed Dahir

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Severe water shortage hits Masalani town

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A severe water shortage continues to handicap residents of Masalani town, Ijara Sub-County of Garissa County due to disconnection of electricity supply by Kenya Power company. According to the residents, the water shortage has gone on for a whole week due to an accumulated electricity bill and failure to pay for the last two months by the water supply agency.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/18/world/single-use-plastics-scli-intl/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
half of single-use plastic waste produced by just 20 companies - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Half of single-use plastic waste produced by just 20 companies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Production of single-use plastics is set to grow 30% in the next five years, fueling their contribution to global warming and ocean pollution, researchers said Tuesday as they published a list of companies that manufacture and fund throwaway plastic.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/zahrahirji/global-warming-3-degrees-celsius-impact

# data[].attributes.body
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1104472

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencealert.com/oceans-will-rise-for-centuries-even-if-global-warming-ends-scientists-warn/amp

# data[].attributes.body
https://amp.dw.com/en/cop26-paris-agreement-solutions-climate/a-59681099

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COP26: How to plug the emissions gap and stop global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are clear pathways for world leaders to honor their pledges to stop global heating at the UN climate summit this week.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/diu/story/cop26-summit-climate-change-where-do-biggest-polluters-stand-china-1872161-2021-11-01

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In terms of per capita carbon emission, the contribution of US is nearly three times the global average and seven times that of India. (Photo: AP)

Every second the world emits 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), almost 70 times higher than the pre-industrial era of 1850-1900. CO2 is responsible for nearly three-quarters of global warming.

In absolute terms, China is the biggest polluter, followed by the United States. China, US and European Union (excluding the United Kingdom) at present emit over half of the world's 36.44 gigatons of CO2. India with around 17 per cent of the world population contributes only 7 per cent.

Total carbon emissions by the countries alone do not show the complete picture about the biggest polluters and their contribution to global warming. Carbon emission per capita is the more appropriate metric.

In terms of per capita carbon emission, the contribution of US is nearly three times the global average and seven times that of India. On this parameter, countries such as Canada, Qatar, Kuwait, South Korea and Russia also exceed the global average by quite a distance.

As world leaders sit down to discuss limiting global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, drastic cut in carbon emission is the key.

Apart from CO2, six other greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, perfluorinated compounds, hydrofluorocarbon and nitrobenzotrifluoride - are responsible for about one-fourth of the planet's rising temperature.

One of the stated goals of the ongoing United Nations Climate Change Conference is to achieve net zero emission by 2050. That is the only way to achieve the 1.5 degree Celsius target.

According to reliable estimates, limiting global warming is possible only if the existing level of carbon emission is cut by 40 to 50 per cent by 2030 and net addition is brought to zero level by 2050.

While many countries have agreed on achieving net zero emission level by 2050, there is a disagreement on how to reduce the existing level of emission and also regarding financing of the switch.

Way back in 2009, rich countries had pledged to raise $100 billion each year by 2020 to help developing countries finance the switch towards environment-friendly technologies. The level of cut in emission level will depend a great deal on how that pans out.

According to data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States, the earth's temperature has risen by 0.08 degree Celsius per decade since 1880. The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice that - 0.18 degree Celsius per decade.

Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels stopped growing from 2014 to 2016, suggesting that the level may be close to peaking. Increases have resumed since, despite a temporary drop-off during 2020 pandemic quarantines. These emissions need to fall to half of their 2010 level by 2030 to keep alive the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to below 1.5 degree Celsius.

ALSO READ | UK's Boris Johnson warns of 'doomsday' as climate summit begins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COP26 brings focus on climate change again, but where do the biggest polluters stand?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In terms of per capita carbon emission, the contribution of US is nearly three times the global average and seven times that of India. (Photo: AP) Every second the world emits 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), almost 70 times higher than the pre-industrial era of 1850-1900.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/2208147/china-increases-coal-production-as-climate-warming-talks-begin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China increases coal production as climate warming talks begin

Barges carry coal along the Grand Canal to the Jiangsu Huadian Yangzhou Power Station at Yangzhou, in China's eastern Jiangsu province.

BEIJING: China said it has increased daily coal production by over one million tonnes, easing its energy shortage as world leaders gather in Britain for climate talks billed as one of the last chances to avert catastrophic global warming.

The world's biggest coal importer has battled widespread power cuts in recent months that have disrupted supply chains, due to strict emissions targets and record prices for the fossil fuel.

But the crisis is now winding down thanks to a boost in domestic coal output, according to a statement from China's top economic planning body late Monday.

The National Development and Reform Commission said average daily coal production has risen to above 11.5 million tonnes since the middle of October, up by 1.1 million tonnes compared with the end of September.

The production surge comes as world leaders -- but not Chinese president Xi Jinping -- convene in Glasgow for COP26 talks to secure more ambitious global greenhouse gas emissions.

Xi, whose country is the world's largest emitter of planet-heating gases, has instead submitted a written statement to the summit.

In recent months, several Chinese factories were forced to halt operations due to power outages, raising concern about global supply chains.

The squeeze had also been exacerbated by Beijing's zero-tolerance Covid-19 policy that saw it all but close its borders to the outside world, hindering shipments of raw materials from overseas.

A trade tiff with Australia also heightened the drop in coal imports.

But at one point in late October daily output hit 11.72 million tonnes, a record in recent years.

Spot prices for the fuel are also "falling fast" with the main contract for thermal coal halving to 970 yuan per tonne over the previous eight days.

"Levels of coal storage ... have also risen rapidly with the gradual improvement of the supply-demand situation," the agency said.

China generates about 60 percent of its energy from burning coal.

Beijing submitted a renewed climate plan to the United Nations days before the COP26 climate summit, confirming its goal to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060 and slash its emissions intensity -- the amount of emissions per unit of economic output -- by more than 65 percent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China increases coal production as climate warming talks begin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China increases coal production as climate warming talks begin Barges carry coal along the Grand Canal to the Jiangsu Huadian Yangzhou Power Station at Yangzhou, in China's eastern Jiangsu province. BEIJING: China said it has increased daily coal production by over one million tonnes, easing its energy shortage as world leaders gather in Britain for climate talks billed as one of the last chances to avert catastrophic global warming.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/climate/cop26-deforestation.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The landmark agreement reflects a growing recognition of nature's role in helping to address global warming. Still, critics said it wasn't ambitious enough.

Deforestation next to a palm oil plantation after fires in South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, in 2019. Land clearing is a major source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a driver of global warming. Credit... Willy Kurniawan/Reuters

Leaders of more than 100 countries, including Brazil, China, Russia and the United States, vowed at climate talks in Glasgow to end deforestation by 2030, in a landmark agreement that encompasses some 85 percent of the world's forests.

"These great teeming ecosystems - these cathedrals of nature - are the lungs of our planet," Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain said in describing the pact on Tuesday at an event attended by President Biden and the president of Indonesia, Joko Widodo.

The pledge will demand "transformative further action," the declaration said, to preserve forests crucial to absorbing carbon dioxide and slowing the pace of global warming. But while it was accompanied by several measures intended to help put it into effect, some advocacy groups criticized the agreement as lacking teeth, saying it would allow deforestation to continue and noting that similar efforts have failed in the past.

At the heart of the plan is the effort to reduce the lucrative financial incentives to cut down forests. Much of the world's deforestation is driven by the world's demand for food, driving people to fell trees to make room for cattle, soy, cocoa and palm oil.

The agreement brings together countries including Brazil, where deforestation in the Amazon and elsewhere has spiked in recent years. But as often happens in diplomatic negotiations, securing widespread buy-in that entices the most critical countries to join comes with potential weaknesses.

"It allows another decade of forest destruction, and isn't binding," said Carolina Pasquali, executive director of Greenpeace Brazil. "Meanwhile, the Amazon is already on the brink and can't survive years more deforestation."

Nevertheless the pledge underscores a growing awareness of the role of nature in tackling the climate crisis, something Britain has sought to highlight at the climate summit, known as COP26. Intact forests and peatlands are natural storehouses of carbon, keeping it sealed away from the atmosphere, where as carbon dioxide it speeds warming by trapping the sun's heat. But when these areas are logged, burned or drained, the ecosystems switch to releasing greenhouse gases.

If tropical deforestation were a country, it would be the third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, according to the World Resources Institute. Only China and the United States emit more.

Twelve governments committed $12 billion, and private companies pledged $7 billion, to protect and restore forests in a variety of ways, including $1.7 billion for Indigenous peoples. More than 30 financial institutions also vowed to stop investing in companies responsible for deforestation. And a new set of guidelines offers a path toward eliminating deforestation from supply chains.

President Biden said he would work with Congress to deploy up to $9 billion to the global effort through 2030. "Preserving forests and other ecosystems can and should play an important role in meeting our ambitious climate goals," he said.

While that number fell short of a campaign trail promise of $20 billion for the Amazon, it represents a vast increase on past efforts from the United States. Any money related to climate change, though, would likely face opposition from Republicans.

Several policy experts called the suite of measures an important step forward, while emphasizing that far more is needed. "The financial announcements we've heard in Glasgow are welcome but remain small compared to the enormous private and public flows - often in the sense of subsidies - that drive deforestation," said Frances Seymour of the World Resources Institute, a research group.

Previous efforts to protect forests have struggled or failed.

One program recognized in the Paris climate accord, the agreement among nations to work together in an effort to fight climate change, seeks to pay forested nations for reducing tree loss. But progress stalled. In 2014, an international pact known as the New York Declaration on Forests aimed to end deforestation by 2030, and a United Nations plan announced three years later, built on that pledge, yet deforestation continued.

Supporters of the new agreement point out that it expands the number of countries and comes with specific steps to save forests.

"What we're doing here is trying to change the economics on the ground to make forests worth more alive than dead," said Eron Bloomgarden, whose group, Emergent, helps match public and private investors with forested countries and provinces looking to receive payments for reducing deforestation.

Understand U.S.-China Relations

Card 1 of 6

The participating governments promised "support for smallholders, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who depend on forests for their livelihoods and have a key role in their stewardship."

A growing body of research shows that nature is healthier on the more than quarter of the world's lands that Indigenous people manage or own. But they receive less than one percent of the climate funding aimed at reducing deforestation in tropical countries, according to Rainforest Foundation Norway.

Tuntiak Katan, the general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities and a member of the Shuar people in Amazonian Ecuador, praised the support for Indigenous and local communities but questioned throwing money at a system he sees as broken. "If this financing doesn't work directly, and shoulder to shoulder, with Indigenous peoples, it's not going to have the necessary impact," he said.

The value of healthy forests goes far beyond their ability to store away carbon. They filter water, cool the air and even make rain, supporting agriculture elsewhere. They are also fundamental to sustaining biodiversity, which is suffering its own crisis as extinction rates climb. This year, though, scientists found that parts of the Amazon have begun emitting more carbon than they absorb, as drier conditions and increased deforestation led to more fires and a degraded ecosystem.

China is one of the biggest signatories to the deforest declaration, but the country's top leader, Xi Jinping, did not attend the climate negotiations in Glasgow. China suffered heavy forest losses as its population and industry grew over the past decades, though more recently, it has pledged to regrow forests and to expand sustainable tree farming.

By China's estimate, forests now cover about 23 percent of its land mass, up from 17 percent in 1990, according to the World Bank. Though some research has questioned the scale and the quality of that expanded tree cover, the government has made expanded reforestation a pillar of its climate policies, and many areas of the country are notably greener than they were a couple of decades ago.

Still, China's participation in the new pledge may also test its dependence on timber imported from Russia, Southeast Asia and African countries, including large amounts of illegally felled trees.

In tropical forest countries like Brazil and Indonesia, the deal will test a different kind of economic development. The United States and Europe grew wealthy in part by cutting down their forests generations ago. But now, with the world facing the climate crisis and biodiversity loss, they need to persuade developing countries to not follow in their footsteps - despite the powerful financial incentives.

"Can we develop without deforestation first?" asked Ana Toni, executive director of Brazil's Institute of Climate and Society, a climate advocacy group. "This is the big challenge. That's why we need to have an international effort."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Leaders Pledge to End Deforestation by 2030

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The landmark agreement reflects a growing recognition of nature's role in helping to address global warming. Still, critics said it wasn't ambitious enough. Leaders of more than 100 countries, including Brazil, China, Russia and the United States, vowed at climate talks in Glasgow to end deforestation by 2030, in a landmark agreement that encompasses some 85 percent of the world's forests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The water shortage crisis is set to be one of the greatest challenges presented by climate change. And while the shortage is getting worse in developing countries, those who live in rich nations must not be complacent. We are not immune, and our water supplies are far from guaranteed.

We need to act now, and fundamentally change the way we value this scarce resource. That means locally recycling it properly, efficiently and crucially. We need to value water as highly as oil or gold, and create effective marketplaces for it.

The water shortage crisis has been well documented in the developing world, with 1 out of 10 people in the world living without clean water. But water shortages are becoming more common in rich countries too.

Take the example of Flint, Mich. In 2014, the city switched its water supply from Detroit's system to the Flint River in order to save public funds. Inadequate treatment of the water resulted in a series of major health issues for residents, including rashes, hair loss and itchy skin. In some cases, the incident led to a doubling of blood lead levels in the city's children.

Flint is not a one-off. The U.S. government has recently declared a water shortage on the Colorado River, which is a source of clean water for millions of people across the Southwest.

The same problem is occurring in the U.K. The chair of the Environment Agency has warned that the U.K. could face water shortages by 2050 if immediate action is not taken to preserve supplies. An additional 12 million people in 2050 could increase demand on a potentially diminished water supply.

As temperatures rise, so does the need for water. Higher temperatures increase the use of domestic water as people water their gardens and fill their paddling pools. If we don't figure out how to recycle our water, cities like London or New York could find themselves in the same position as Flint, where the only drinking water available poisons our children. Water shortage is neither a global north nor a global south problem, it is simply a global problem.

This is not a problem that we need to solve in 2050, we need to solve it now. We already figured out that single-use plastics were damaging the environment so we started recycling. Similarly, the U.K. government offers Feed-in Tariffs for those with solar panel roofs, promoting a decentralized approach to energy. It's time we took the same approach with water.

We don't take the same attitude to water because we assume it is infinite; it isn't. Other essential resources like oil go up in price when there is scarcity, just look at the rise of oil prices in the Gulf after fears of gasoline shortages in the U.S. With water, however, it seems the penny is yet to drop, and by the time the metal hits the ground it may well be too late.

Less than three tenths of 1 percent of total water use across the United States involves water recycling. This stands in stark contrast with Israel, who mandated that water be recycled, meaning that up to 90 percent of its water supply is recycled.

It's time to change our approach. At the moment, most cities in America and the U.K. rely on centralized water systems. Waste water is collected from waste water producers like households, industrial areas and institutions, and transported to centralized water treatment systems though expensive, energy intensive piping.

Not only is this wasteful, it means that municipal services are responsible for water treatment. Funding is scarce, and there is often little political will to reform water treatment systems. While President Joe Biden's historic proposal for $111 billion into water infrastructure investment is impressive, there is no mention of the level of investment in decentralized water treatment supplies, meaning that the problem of low water recycling will remain intact, but just with cleaner pipes.

The water treatment system is broken. If we are to tackle this water shortage crisis, the responsibility for waste treatment needs to lie with the producers of waste water, not the councils and governments who funnel it away. That's why it's time to decentralize water treatment.

By building cheap, localized, low energy water treatment plants close to the sources of wastewater themselves, we can eliminate the news of expensive pipelining to distant plants.

Long pipelines leading to distant plants often result in leakage. In 2017, England and Wales lost 3.1 billion liters of water per day from leaky pipes

Similarly, decentralized water shortage treatment centers are more portable than traditional plants, reducing the risk of white elephants, or plants that become obsolete before they are finished.

Decentralized water treatment infrastructure is the key to boosting our water recycling, and buffering ourselves against the impact of water shortage. It is by the right investments now that we can make sure that our children, and their children, have safe water to drink. The future of water treatment needs to be decentralized.
Riggs Eckelberry is the founding CEO of OriginClear The views expressed in this article are the writer's own. , which aims to create "Airbnb for water" through "decentralized water wealth."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water shortages are coming. Why aren't we prepared? | Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The water shortage crisis is set to be one of the greatest challenges presented by climate change. And while the shortage is getting worse in developing countries, those who live in rich nations must not be complacent. We are not immune, and our water supplies are far from guaranteed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water stress drives investor interest to address supply shortage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Concerns about resource scarcity are attracting speculators into trading on water stocks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Arroyo Grande residents officially have to work harder at conserving water or pay fines up to $200.

The Arroyo Grande City Council unanimously declared a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency at its Oct. 12 meeting due to the statewide drought and resulting low water levels at Lopez Lake, which provides drinking water to the Five Cities communities including Arroyo Grande.

The city was already taking a reduction in water deliveries from Lopez at the time of the emergency declaration. Arroyo Grande officials were hopeful when San Luis Obispo County dipped a toe into the wet season with a two-day rainfall starting Oct. 24, but they want more of it.

click to enlarge

File Photo Courtesy Of Lopez Lake Marina Facebook Page

"It is encouraging that a good storm has come early in the rain year; however, we estimate that seven or eight more good storms are needed to see needed improvements at Lake Lopez," City Manager Whitney McDonald said.

Arroyo Grande needs 30 inches of rain before the emergency order can be lifted, McDonald said. The Lopez Lake Reservoir accumulated almost 3 inches of rain after the showers on Oct. 24 to 25, according to SLO County Public Works rain data.

Public Works Deputy Director Kate Ballantyne said that nailing down an exact amount of required rain is complicated because the pre-existing moisture content of the soil layer impacts runoff.

"A general rule of thumb would be that we need upwards of 10 inches of rain before the creeks start flowing and filling reservoirs," she said. "Of course, the length of time between storms and the ability for the soil to dry would affect the amount of rain necessary to generate runoff in the creeks."

City officials are doubling down on saving water with the help of a tiered reduction system for residential customers. Residents will have to reduce bi-monthly water consumption by a certain percentage compared to the same billing period in 2020, which is the baseline. Tier 1 customers using zero to nine units of water are exempt from reduction. Tier 2 customers using 10 to 18 units have to reduce consumption by 7 percent. Tier 3 with 19 or more units has to cut back by 14 percent. Commercial and institutional customers with separate irrigation meter accounts have to lower usage by 25 percent.

The city announced that customers would receive letters about their respective baselines by Dec. 1. They will also receive warning letters with their February and March 2022 billing.

"Mandatory financial penalties will be levied on all water users who fail to reduce consumption in the percentages required, starting with a written notice of violation and increasing incrementally to a $200 fine," according to the city.

Alternatively, defaulting customers can also attend a two-hour Water School class in place of paying the initial $50 penalty. The class will provide tools and strategies for how to stay within assigned baseline water allotments. But this option is only available once.

City Manager McDonald said that customers choosing to attend Water School at a later date after paying their fines would receive a $50 credit to their next bill. She added that the emergency plan is here to stay for a while.

"The Stage 1 Water Shortage Declaration will stay in effect throughout the wet season because it will take time for the region and the state to get out of the drought," McDonald said. Δ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arroyo Grande declares water shortage emergency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arroyo Grande residents officially have to work harder at conserving water or pay fines up to $200. The Arroyo Grande City Council unanimously declared a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency at its Oct. 12 meeting due to the statewide drought and resulting low water levels at Lopez Lake, which provides drinking water to the Five Cities communities including Arroyo Grande.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
파란색과 초록색 삽화 어스 아워 인스타그램 게시물

# data[].attributes.body
New study ties global warming to recent year heat  http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120805000071

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
파스텔톤 파란색 분홍색 및 노란색 편안한 그라데이션 힘을 주는 동료 인스타그램 게시물

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/curbing-air-pollution-could-prevent-millions-of-deaths-in-north-america-over-next-50-years-1.6232730

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China and the United States are the world's two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, so any attempt to address the climate crisis will need to involve deep emissions cuts from these two powerhouse nations.

China's emissions are more than double those of the US, but historically, the US has emitted more than any other country in the world.

There are many factors to consider when judging a country's climate credentials, and as leaders gather in Glasgow, Scotland for COP26 from Sunday, the US' and China's plans will be in the spotlight.

Here's how the two stack up against each other.

In 2006, China overtook the US as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) - the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

In 2019, the last year before the pandemic hit, China's greenhouse gas emissions were nearly 2.5 times that of the US', and more than all the world's developed countries combined, according to an analysis from Rhodium Group.

In terms of CO2-equivalent - which is a way of measuring all greenhouse gases as if they were CO2 - China emitted 14.1 billion metric tons in 2019. That's more than a quarter of the world's total emissions.

By contrast, the US was responsible for 5.7 billion tons, 11% of total emissions, followed by India (6.6%) and the European Union (6.4%).

When scientists measure greenhouse gas emissions, they look at the total emissions that a country pumps into the air on their own land every year. Those emissions come from anything powered by fossil-fuels, including driving cars that run on gasoline, flying, heating and lighting buildings with power generated from coal, natural gas or oil, as well as from powering industry. Other sources, like emissions from deforestation, are included too.

No country in the world has put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the United States. And by a long way.

While China is by far the biggest emitter today, it hasn't always been. And that's important because emissions released even hundreds of years ago have contributed to global warming today. The world has already warmed by 1.2 degrees Celsius since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and scientists say we need to keep it to 1.5 degrees to stave off worsening impacts of the climate crisis.

China's CO2 emissions began accelerating in the 2000s as the country rapidly developed. Advanced countries, like the US, UK and many in Europe, have been industrializing - and emitting climate-altering gases in the process - for around 200 years. A lot of the comforts of living in a developed country have come at the cost of the climate.

Since 1850, China has emitted 284 billion tons of CO2, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief, a UK-based organization covering climate, energy and policy.

The US, on the other hand, industrialized decades earlier and has released 509 billion tons of CO2 - twice as much.

China is a huge country of 1.4 billion people, so it makes sense it would emit more than smaller nations overall. But when you look at emissions per capita, the average Chinese person emits quite a bit less than the average American.

In 2019, China's per capita emissions reached 10.1 tons. By comparison, the US reached 17.6 tons, according to the Rhodium Group.

This in part comes down to lifestyle. Americans earn more money, they ownmore gas-guzzling cars, and they fly more than the average Chinese person, according to Climate Transparency's 2021 report, citing independent energy research company Enerdata.

That's not to say China shouldn't be slashing emissions. China's per capita carbon footprint is rapidly catching up with those of wealthier nations - in the past 20 years, it's nearly tripled.

In 2020, fossil fuels made up 87% of China's domestic energy mix, with 60% from coal, 20% from oil and 8% from natural gas, according to Enerdata.

In the US, 80% of the energy mix comes from fossil fuels. Of that, 33% is from oil, 36% from natural gas, and 11% from coal, Enerdata figures showed.

Natural gas produces fewer emissions than coal, but it is still harmful to the climate, and there are growing concerns that the US and other parts of the world are investing too heavily in gas instead of renewables.

China is the world's biggest user and producer of coal, consuming more than half the world's supply. That's in part because China produces so many products and materials for the world, which is why it's sometimes referred to as "the world's factory."

China produces more than half of the world's steel and cement, which is made from burning coking coal. Alternative fuels for these heavy industries, like green hydrogen, are in development but are not widely available yet at scale. The emissions from just those two industries in China are higher than the European Union's total CO2 emissions, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

To reach net zero by 2050, 90% of global electricity generation should come from renewable sources, with solar and wind accounting for nearly 70%, according to the IEA.

While China is the world's biggest emitter and still relies heavily on coal, it is producing huge amounts of renewable energy as well.

In terms of energy mix, China and the US are around the same. Wind, solar, hydro-power, geothermal, as well as biomass and waste, make up 10% of China's energy consumption.

The US was not far off, at 9%. But nearly half of that is from biomass, which is energy derives from substance that were recently alive, like wood from trees, algae or animal waste. Some experts and scientists argue isn't always truly renewable.

But because China uses much more power overall, it has produced more renewable energy than the US in real terms. In 2020, China produced 745,000 gigawatt-hours of energy from wind and solar, according to Enerdata. The US produced 485,000 gigawatt-hours.

In terms of capacity, however, China was the global leader in 2020, when it built nearly half of all the world's renewables installations, according to the Renewables 2021 Global Status Report. It nearly doubled its capacity from 2019.

China has built vast solar and wind farms - producing more solar PVs and wind turbines than any other nation. It also has the biggest electric vehicle market, taking 38.9% of the global share of electric car sales, while the US took 9.9%, the renewables report said.

So, what's the verdict?

Looking ahead, the US' climate plans are more ambitious than China's - US President Joe Biden has pledged to at least halve US emissions by 2030, from 2005 levels - but China is at a different stage of development, so that should be a factor in working out what the country's fair share of climate action should be. China is also ahead of the US on renewables.

It's also yet to be seen how much of the US Democrats' cornerstone climate policy can make it through Congress.

China expresses its commitments in terms of "carbon intensity" which allows for more emissions the more its GDP rises, which makes it difficult to compare to the US'. It submitted its new emissions plan to the UN on Thursday, but made only a modest improvement.

Climate Action Tracker, which synthesizes countries' targets, rates the US' domestic policies as better than China's, almost on track to contain global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. When adjusted to consider what would be each country's fair share, they both get a 'highly insufficient" rating.

In other words, neither country is cutting enough carbon or making the transition to renewables fast enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
human resources and personnel management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Helen Regan,Carlotta Dotto,CNN Graphics by Natalie Croker,Marco Chacon,Henrik Pettersson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US vs. China: How the world's two biggest emitters stack up on climate | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China and the United States are the world's two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, so any attempt to address the climate crisis will need to involve deep emissions cuts from these two powerhouse nations. China's emissions are more than double those of the US, but historically, the US has emitted more than any other country in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211025/Air-pollution-reduces-sperm-count-by-causing-brain-inflammation-mice-study-shows.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
https://wlos.com/news/local/new-air-pollution-report-points-to-health-problems-in-the-mountains

# data[].attributes.body
https://news.yahoo.com/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect-and-how-does-it-lead-to-global-warming-155442397.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Earth's average global temperature is 1.2 degrees Celsius (around 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than in preindustrial times, causing shifts in weather patterns and more frequent and severe extreme weather events such as storms and droughts.

This global warming, also known as climate change, is the result of humans filling the air with gases that intensify a process called the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect occurs when the sun's rays reach the Earth's atmosphere and the majority of the radiation bounces back out into space. When this happens, a small portion is absorbed by chemicals in our atmosphere. These are known as greenhouse gases.

By looking at air bubbles from hundreds of thousands of years ago until today, scientists have found that temperatures go up or down in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

Human activity has started to change the delicate balance of chemicals in our atmosphere.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, humans have been burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas for energy. When these substances are burned, they emit excess greenhouse gases, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide.

According to measurements taken in February and March from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now reaching levels 50 percent higher than in the preindustrial period. More greenhouse gases means more heat trapped in the atmosphere and, over time, a warmer planet.

When the average temperature of the Earth is raised, even by just a few degrees, we see some pretty dramatic effects. For example, it can cause a rise in ocean temperatures that can lead to more extreme storms and flooding.

Klaus Jacob, a special research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, explained one consequence of warmer oceans.

"As the ocean gets warmer, it expands," Jacob said. "So as sea level rises, you need only smaller and smaller storms to reach the same elevation in New Orleans, or New York City, or anywhere else where we have storms. ... And so you get much more frequent flooding."

At the same time, some areas are dealing with long droughts because warmer temperatures cause more evaporation and dry out the land and vegetation, which leads to problems like crop shortages and widespread forest fires.

The severe current, and potential future, consequences of climate change were laid out in a landmark report conducted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was released in August.

The assessment found that if the world follows the scenario of very low greenhouse gas emissions, it's plausible that warming of greater than 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures can be avoided.

But if that scenario - which involves very drastic, rapid and sustained cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, enforced by governments and businesses - is not followed, the world could be heading toward being 3 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100.

In all cases, there will be more extreme events like hurricanes and heat waves that cause flooding, wildfires and droughts. It's only a question of how severe we allow the situation to become.

When it was published, the report was described as "a code red for humanity" by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.

The U.N. timed the report's release to lead into the U.N. Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, in Glasgow, Scotland. The ongoing fight to limit global warming and to deal with its effects hinges on successful talks between world leaders at the conference, which will take place in early November.

____
Read more from Yahoo News:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the greenhouse effect and how does it lead to global warming?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Earth's average global temperature is 1.2 degrees Celsius (around 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than in preindustrial times, causing shifts in weather patterns and more frequent and severe extreme weather events such as storms and droughts. This global warming, also known as climate change, is the result of humans filling the air with gases that intensify a process called the greenhouse effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
california drought: this sumer was the most extreme on record - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The drought in California this summer was the worst on record

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The West's historic, multi-year drought is threatening water supply, food production and electricity generation. It has drained reservoirs at incredible rates and fueled one of the most extreme wildfire seasons the region has ever experienced.

# data[].attributes.body
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/576426-air-pollution-is-a-major-global-health-threat-why-dont-we-treat-it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
opinion: 'i have trouble envisioning the future beyond a year' - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: 'I have trouble envisioning the future beyond a year'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britt Wray outlines new research showing the scope of climate anxiety's devastating toll on young people and urges leaders to be aware of this at COP26, to move beyond performing good grace at the summit. Nothing less than the future sanity of our species depends on it, Wray writes.

# data[].attributes.body
http://sdg.iisd.org/news/unep-publishes-scientific-assessment-of-plastic-pollution/

# data[].attributes.body
U.N. report warns environment is at tipping point  http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20120607000451

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/31/data-shows-global-warming-effects/?news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World leaders have been meeting for 29 years to try to curb global warming, and in that time Earth has become a much hotter planet.

Trillions of tons of ice has disappeared over that period, the burning of fossil fuels has spewed billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the air, and hundreds of thousands of people have died from heat and other weather disasters stoked by climate change, statistics show.

When more than 100 world leaders descended on Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for an Earth Summit to discuss global warming and other environmental issues, there was "a huge feeling of well-being, of being able to do something. There was hope really," said Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Turtle Clan of the Onondaga Nation, one of the representatives for Native Americans at the summit.

Now, the 91-year-old activist said, that hope has been smothered: "The ice is melting. ... Everything is bad. ... Thirty years of degradation."

Data analyzed by The Associated Press from government figures and scientific reports shows "how much we did lose Earth," said former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William K. Reilly, who led the American delegation three decades ago.

That Earth Summit set up the process of international climate negotiations that culminated in the 2015 Paris accord and resumes today in Glasgow, Scotland, where leaders will try to ramp up efforts to cut carbon pollution.

Back in 1992, it was clear that climate change was a problem "with major implications for lives and livelihoods in the future," U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said this month. "That future is here, and we are out of time."

World leaders have hammered out two agreements to curb climate change.

In Kyoto in 1997, a protocol set carbon pollution cuts for developed countries but not poorer nations. That did not go into effect until 2005 because of ratification requirements. In 2015, the Paris agreement made every nation set its own emission goals.

In both cases, the United States, a top-polluting country, helped negotiate the deals but later pulled out of the process when a Republican president took office. The U.S. has since rejoined the Paris agreement.

The yearly global temperature has increased almost 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit since 1992, based on multiyear averaging, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Earth has warmed more in the past 29 years than in the previous 110. Since 1992, the world has broken the annual global high temperature record eight times.

In Alaska, the average temperature has increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1992, according to NOAA. The Arctic had been warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole, but it now has jumped to three times faster in some seasons, according to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program.

That heat is melting Earth's ice.

Since 1992, Earth has lost 36 trillion tons of ice, according to calculations by climate scientist Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds. That includes sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic that melts now more in the summer than it used to, the shrinking of giant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and melting glaciers.

And Michael Zemp, who runs the World Glacier Monitoring Service, said Shepherd's numbers may be a little low. He calculates that since 1992, the glaciers of the world have lost nearly 9.5 trillion tons of ice, about a trillion tons more than Shepherd's figures.

With more ice melt in the ocean and water expanding as it warms, the world's average sea level has risen about 3.7 inches since 1992, according to the University of Colorado. That may not sound like much, but it is enough to cover the United States in water to a depth of 11 feet, University of Colorado sea level researcher Steve Nerem calculated.

Wildfires in the United States have more than doubled in how much they have burned. From 1983-92, wildfires consumed an average of 2.7 million acres a year. From 2011-20, the average was up to 7.5 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

"The unhealthy choices that are killing our planet are killing our people as well," said Dr. Maria Neira, director of the World Heath Organization's environment, climate change and health program.

The United States has had 265 weather disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damage -- adjusted to 2021 dollars -- since 1992, including 18 so far this year. Those disasters have caused 11,991 deaths and cost $1.8 trillion. From 1980-92, the U.S. averaged three of those billion-dollar weather disasters a year. Since 1993, the country has averaged nine a year.

Worldwide there have been nearly 8,000 climate, water and weather disasters, killing 563,735, according to the International Disaster Database. Those figures are probably missing a lot of disasters and deaths, said the Debarati Guha-Sapir, who oversees the database for the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at the University of Louvain School of Public Health in Brussels.

Medical researchers earlier this year looked at 732 cities worldwide and calculated how many deaths were from climate change-caused extra heat. They found that on average since 1991, there have been 9,702 heat deaths from global warming a year just in those studied cities, which adds up to 281,000 climate-caused heat deaths since 1992.

But that's a small proportion of what really is happening, said study author Ana Vicedo-Cabrera, an epidemiologist at the Institute of Social and Preventative Medicine at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Using those cities, researchers calculated that during the four hottest months of the year, the added heat from climate change is responsible for 0.58% of the globe's deaths. That comes to about 100,000 heat deaths caused by climate change a year for 29 years, she said.

WHO officials said those figures make sense and calculate the annual death toll from climate change will rise to 250,000 a year in the 2030s.

Scientists say this is happening because of heat-trapping gases. Carbon dioxide levels have increased 17% from 353 parts per million in September 1992 to 413 in September 2021, according to NOAA. The agency's annual greenhouse gas index, which charts six gases and weights them according to how much heat they trap, rose almost 20% since 1992.

From 1993 to 2019, the world put more than 885 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the air from the burning of fossil fuels and making of cement, according to the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who track emissions.

A pessimistic Lyons, the Native American activist, said, "I would say this meeting in Glasgow is the last shot."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World leaders have been meeting for 29 years to try to curb global warming, and in that time Earth has become a much hotter planet. Trillions of tons of ice has disappeared over that period, the burning of fossil fuels has spewed billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the air, and hundreds of thousands of people have died from heat and other weather disasters stoked by climate change, statistics show.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-farmers-and-seaweed-can-help-tackle-ocean-pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A UN report finds that richer countries have agreed to reduce emissions by 12% in 2030, but they need to make a cut of 45% or global warming will rise to 2.7°

According to research by the UN, existing agreements on carbon emissions will still mean a rise of 2.7°.

The IPCC Report, which documents all available climate science, says that there is a 50% chance of humanity going past 1.5° warming in the next 20 years. Now, the UN report confirms that the number could be as high as 2.7°.

The world has eight years to hit targets

With the latest analysis, it seems that there is a 66% chance of the Earth warming by 2.7° by the end of the century. If warming reaches this height, it will become extremely difficult for the poorest communities in the world to survive.

To be able to meet the Paris Agreement and keep global warming under 1.5°, countries need to halve annual greenhouse gas emissions in the next eight years.

This is a huge feat, as many countries have delayed the beginning of their climate strategies to 2030. Others cling to the concept of Carbon Capture and Storage - an experimental method for removing carbon as fossil fuel is extracted. However, the CCS method has issues - in that it can't create nearly as effective a change as renewable energy sources can.

However, some countries are yet to double-down on fossil fuel policy. For instance, while the UK is hosting COP26, the country has some policy holes in how it endorses the use of fossil fuel abroad.

The UN Report predicting 2.7° is a grim statistic, but puts a fresh set of timelines on them.

113 countries responsible for 49% of global emissions

Currently, around 113 countries are responsible for 49% of global emissions. Among them, the European Union and the United States. These countries, as their climate promises currently stand, expect to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions by 12% for 2030.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), are national climate action plans. The new report is a review of NDCs submitted by the 191 countries which have signed the Paris Agreement.

Out of those 113 countries, 70 said they would aim for carbon neutrality by 2050. If this happens, then emissions will be reduced by 26% by 2030.

UN Secretary General António Guterres, said: "We need a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, to reach carbon neutrality by mid-century. It is clear that everyone must assume their responsibilities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN report finds that global warming will rise by 2.7°

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to research by the UN, existing agreements on carbon emissions will still mean a rise of 2.7°. The IPCC Report, which documents all available climate science, says that there is a 50% chance of humanity going past 1.5° warming in the next 20 years.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.earth.com/news/the-mediterranean-sea-is-a-hotspot-for-plastic-pollution/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Researchers thought shifts in wind and pressure patterns had caused sea ice to steadily increase, however now the ice is decreasing, scientists are scratching their heads as to whether it has happened naturally or because of a long-term global warming problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global warming: Melting Antarctic sea ice at record low

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After decades of getting bigger, Antarctic sea ice is now shrinking.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.co.kr/amp/s/www.wbtw.com/news/grand-strand/it-would-have-probably-died-local-federal-researchers-fight-plastic-pollution-impacts/amp/

# data[].attributes.body
Climate change downsizing fauna, flora: study  http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20111017000702

# data[].attributes.body
https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-global-warming-greenhouse-gas-levels-in-atmosphere-hit-record-high-12444113

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Global-warming greenhouse gas levels in atmosphere hit record high

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If emissions continue to increase, so will global temperatures and weather extremes such as intense heat and rainfall, ice melt, sea-level rise and ocean acidification, UN scientists have warned.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/asia/india-net-zero-target-intl/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
india rejects net zero carbon emissions target

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
India, the world's third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, rejects net zero emissions target

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India on Wednesday rejected calls to announce a net zero carbon emissions target and said it was more important for the world to lay out a pathway to reduce such emissions and avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/27/world/unesco-world-heritage-sites-carbon-emissions-climate/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These World Heritage Forests have gone from removing carbon from the atmosphere to emitting it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human activity and climate change-fueled disasters have turned 10 World Heritage sites from carbon sinks into carbon emitters.

# data[].attributes.body
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/25/world/emissions-climate-greenhouse-gas-bulletin-wmo-intl/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
carbon dioxide levels in 2020 reached a 3-million year high - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached a 3 million-year high in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The findings add to a sense of urgency ahead of the COP26 climate talks, which begin in Glasgow, Scotland on Sunday. There are expectations for some G20 nations that have not increased their ambitions since Paris to do so ahead of COP26.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sustainabilitymag.com/top10/top-10-causes-global-warming

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59105963

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Extreme weather events - including powerful heat waves and devastating floods - are now the new normal, says the World Meteorological Organisation.

The State of the Climate report for 2021 highlights a world that is "changing before our eyes."

The 20-year temperature average from 2002 is on course to exceed 1C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

And global sea levels rose to a new high in 2021, according to the study.

These latest figures for 2021 are being released early by the WMO to coincide with the start of the UN climate conference in Glasgow known as COP26.

The State of the Climate report provides a snapshot of climate indicators including temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rises and ocean conditions.

The study finds that the past seven years including this one are likely to be the warmest on record as greenhouse gases reached record concentrations in the atmosphere.

The accompanying rise in temperatures is propelling the planet into "uncharted territory" says the report, with increasing impacts across the planet.

"Extreme events are the new norm," said WMO's Prof Petteri Taalas. "There is mounting scientific evidence that some of these bear the footprint of human-induced climate change."

Prof Taalas detailed some of the extreme events that have been experienced around the world this year.

It rained - rather than snowed - for the first time on record at the peak of the Greenland ice sheet

A heat wave in Canada and adjacent parts of the USA pushed temperatures to nearly 50C in a village in British Columbia

Death Valley, California reached 54.4C during one of multiple heat waves in the south-western USA

Months' worth of rainfall fell in the space of hours in an area of China

Parts of Europe saw severe flooding, leading to dozens of casualties and billions in economic losses

A second successive year of drought in sub-tropical South America reduced the flow of river basins and hit agriculture, transport and energy production

Another worrying development, according to the WMO study, has been the rise in global sea levels.

Since they were first measured by precise satellite-based systems in the early 1990s, sea levels went up by 2.1mm per year between 1993 and 2002.

But from 2013 to 2021 the rise has more than doubled to 4.4mm, mostly as a result of accelerated ice loss from glaciers and ice sheets.

"Sea levels are rising faster now than at any other time in the last two millennia," said Prof Jonathan Bomber, Director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre.

"If we continue on our current trajectory, that rise could exceed 2m by 2100 displacing some 630 million people worldwide. The consequences of that are unimaginable."

In temperature terms, 2021 will likely be the sixth or seventh warmest on record.

That's because the early months of this year were impacted by a La Niña event, a naturally occurring weather phenomenon that tends to cool global temperatures.

But the report also shows that the global temperature record is on course to breach 1C for the first time over a 20 year period.

"The fact that the 20-year average has reached more than 1.0C above pre-industrial levels will focus the minds of delegates at COP26 aspiring to keep global temperature rise to within the limits agreed in Paris six years ago," said Prof Stephen Belcher, chief scientist at the UK Met Office, which contributed to the report.

Commenting on the analysis, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, said the planet was changing before our eyes.

"From the ocean depths to mountain tops, from melting glaciers to relentless extreme weather events, ecosystems and communities around the globe are being devastated," he said.

"COP26 must be a turning point for people and planet," said Mr Guterres.

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Extreme weather events are 'the new norm'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme weather events - including powerful heat waves and devastating floods - are now the new normal, says the World Meteorological Organisation. The State of the Climate report for 2021 highlights a world that is "changing before our eyes." The 20-year temperature average from 2002 is on course to exceed 1C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last year's long hot summer pushed air pollution from ozone to its highest level for a decade, according to the government's annual air quality report.

Ozone is an irritant gas that triggers asthma attacks and causes lung disease. It forms on hot, sunny days when emissions from vehicles, power stations, industrial boilers and chemical plants react in sunlight. It is harmful at ground level but beneficial in the upper atmosphere, where it provides a protective layer that shields us from the sun's ultraviolet rays.

The number of hours when ozone in urban areas rose above the level that poses a significant health risk increased from 27 in 2017 to 119 last year - the highest number since 2008, the report by the Department for Environment,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hot summer led to record air pollution from ozone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last year's long hot summer pushed air pollution from ozone to its highest level for a decade, according to the government's annual air quality report.Ozone is an irritant gas that triggers asthma attacks and causes lung disease. It forms on hot, sunny days when emissions from vehicles, power stati

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/big-oil-climate-change-hearing-10-28-21/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What we covered here

The heads of six oil companies and major lobbying groups testified before the House Oversight Committee about climate disinformation and their organizations' role in it.

The committee's chair announced she plans to subpoena oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

Today's hearing was part of the panel's investigation into the fossil fuel industry and was held just days before the crucial international climate talks of world leaders at the UN's COP26 summit in Scotland.

Our live coverage of the hearing has ended. Read the posts below to see how it unfolded.

House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, announced at the end of Thursday's hearing that she plans to subpoena oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

"We are at code red for climate and I committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children," Maloney said during her closing remarks. "We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry's disinformation campaign and with these subpoenas we will."

The New York Democrat said she sees "no choice" but to continue the investigation and issue subpoenas because the companies and entities have not disclosed the documents requested voluntarily.

"Unfortunately, none of the six entities have produced a substantial portion of the key documents the committee requested," Maloney said. "Instead, they produced reams of other documents, many of which were publicly available."

The six entities that voluntarily appeared at the hearing were: ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Specifically, Maloney said the oil companies have not produced "detailed funding information" the lawmakers requested to understand their "payments to shadow groups," public relations firms and others.

Other documents requested include corporate strategies around climate change and internal documents and communications from senior executives about their companies' role in the climate crisis.

"I have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily, but the oil companies employ the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy: delay and obstruction," Maloney said.

Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri used her time to highlight the role the fossil fuel industry has played in causing disproportionate harm toward historically marginalized communities.

"Is an oil refinery more likely to be situated in a Black community or White community?" Bush asked Big Oil executives. "It's Black," she answered after a delay in response from witnesses.

According to a 2017 report from the NAACP and the Clean Air Task Force, which Bush cited, Black Americans are 75% more likely than other Americans to live in what's called "fenceline communities," which are areas located near industrial facilities and hazardous waste sites.

Researchers also found that Black people breathe 56% more pollution than they cause, while White people breathe 17% less pollution than they generate.

For instance, the Black communities situated along Louisiana's "Cancer Alley," the 85-mile stretch between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that's home to more than 150 chemical plants and oil refineries, have for decades blamed the fossil fuel industry for causing the growing rate of cancer and respiratory illnesses in the area.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2019 environmental justice data, eight of the nation's top 14 block groups - census areas that typically contain 600 to 3,000 people - with the country's estimated highest cancer risks are in St. John Parish in "Cancer Alley."

"For years, you all have continued to promote fossil fuels despite knowing that promoting means promoting environmental racism and violence in Black and brown communities," Bush told the fossil fuel executives. "You want to continue promoting and selling fossil fuels that are killing millions of people."

"This is a striking example of White supremacy," she added. "Your profit driven choices threaten my life and my family, my neighbors and our communities every single day."

The Biden administration and Democrats are trying to cut potent greenhouse gas methane through a number of means - including executive and legislative action.

The US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to soon announce new regulations on methane, limiting the amount of leaks oil and gas producers can emit into the atmosphere.

Additionally, Biden's just-released Build Back Better Act framework includes a gradually increasing methane fee levied on oil and gas companies, as well as $775 million of incentives to help the companies comply.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schutz of Florida said while many oil and gas companies are supportive of the forthcoming federal regulations, they oppose the methane fee.

"Here's a bewildering example of hypocrisy," Wasserman-Schultz said. "The Build Back Better Act contains provisions to tackle methane pollution from oil and natural gas production, which API claims to support. Yet API and its front group Energy Citizens have carried out a seven-figure TV and ad campaign to defeat the Build Back Better methane emissions fee."

Wasserman Schultz asked API CEO Mike Sommers how he reconciled those two positions.

"In fact, the American Petroleum Institute supports the federal regulation of methane for both new and existing sources," Sommers responded. "We expect the new regulation to come out soon from the Biden administration, and we've been working with them on making sure that that regulation makes sense, and that it's reducing methane emissions over time."

Methane - the main component of natural gas - is invisible and odorless, and has 80 times more warming power in the near-term than carbon dioxide.

With Earth rapidly approaching the 1.5-degree-Celsius threshold above preindustrial levels, scientists tell CNN that methane emissions need to be reduced fast.

"The fastest way that we might mitigate some of the climate change that we're seeing already in the short term is by reducing methane," Charles Koven, a lead author on August's IPCC report, told CNN. "If we were to reduce methane emissions, it would act to offset one of these sources of warming."

If the world stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, Koven said, global temperatures wouldn't begin to cool for many years because of how long the gas stays in the atmosphere. Reducing methane is the easiest knob to turn to change the path of global temperature in the next 10 years, he said.

Methane is in the gas we use to fuel our stoves and heat our homes, but it can also be produced in nature from volcanoes and decomposing plant matter. But it is also pumped into the atmosphere in much larger amounts by landfills, livestock and the oil and gas industry.
Scientists say this invisible gas could seal our fate on climate change

Republican Rep. Pat Fallon used a portion of his time to say that the "dire predictions" of the climate crisis haven't and won't come true.

"But of course, you know, crying that the sky is going to fall by 2028 - these dire predictions won't come true. And then, in 2030, they won't come true, just like so many have," Fallon said.

But in August, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered a clear message: Human-caused climate change is undoubtedly intensifying extreme weather events around the planet.

Earth is now 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels and is rapidly barreling toward the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees, the report concludes, which countries in the Paris Agreement agreed was the ideal limit to stave off the worst impacts of the crisis.

Global scientists concluded that only by making deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from burning fossil fuels, while also removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, can we halt the precipitous trend.

This summer, the United States has been battered by large wildfires, deadly flooding events from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast and a historic, multi-year drought that has impacted water supply, food production and electricity generation across the Western states.

In June, an unprecedented heat wave in the Northwest United States killed hundreds of people and shattered records in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Scientists at World Weather Attribution concluded the heat wave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-caused climate change.

Now more than ever, scientists are able to quantify the connection between the climate crisis and deadly extreme weather.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called out oil executives for fighting legislation aimed at saving the planet from the climate crisis.

"Some of us have to actually live in the future that you all are setting on fire for us," Ocasio-Cortez told oil company executives.

The New York Democrat cited lobbying reports that indicate the oil industry spent more than $55 million in lobbying over the last 10 months.

She also pointed to comments made by American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers to CNN about attempts to fight climate provisions in Democrats' sweeping climate and social spending bill.

"We're leaving everything on the field here in terms of our opposition to anti-energy provisions," Sommers said earlier this month.

Ocasio-Cortez told Sommers: "I appreciate your candor because most lobbying organizations are not as forthright and transparent about their efforts."

To prove her point, Ocasio-Cortez pointed to a covertly filmed job interview that emerged over the summer where Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy likened lobbying to fishing, where the company tries to "kind of reel them in."

McCoy said he talked to Sen. Joe Manchin's office every week. (Manchin has since opposed key climate provisions in the spending bill).

ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods denied being aware of weekly calls with members of Congress, though he conceded having calls with lawmakers. He said political donations are not discussed during the calls.

"We do not have the privilege or the luxury of lobbying spin," Ocasio-Cortez said.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib went after oil executives for using front groups to fight environmental rules.

The Democrat from Michigan said major oil companies and trade groups funded One Alaska, Colorado Rising and other groups that opposed tougher regulation.

"When you look at these ads, they don't say the name Exxon, BP, Chevron anywhere," Tlaib said. "Y'all hide and you deceive the public."

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth noted that his company did not own Noble Energy at the time Tlaib says Noble was funding the Colorado group.

"You've been provided with some inaccurate information," Wirth said.

Tlaib accused Chevron of owing $50 billion for committing 70 serious cases of environmental abuse in 31 countries.

"When are you going to cut the $50 billion check you owe? It went through the courts!" Tlaib said.

Wirth said he has "no understanding" of where Tlaib came up with those figures but offered to get back to her.

"You made what, $29 million last year poisoning the planet," Tlaib said.

The Michigan Democrat pointed out the recent sentencing of an environmental activist who won a $9.5 billion settlement against Chevron.

"Mr Wirth, you can't arrest us all," Tlaib said. "There are more of us than there are of you. You can poison the planet so you can make money, but we're going to defend the planet so we can live. And we will win."

Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana - whose constituents face some of the highest flooding risk in the country - delivered an impassioned defense of oil executives on Thursday.

"It's abhorrent my colleagues across the aisle have called a so-called hearing today to demonize American industry whose products make modern life possible," Higgins said. "Petroleum products are in everything: The clothes on our backs, the wiring in our computers, our computers themselves, our phones, all the equipment used by the military, all medical supplies and equipment - paint, curtains, fabrics and appliances in our homes, fishing rods, lures, tents used by sportsmen, all sports products."

Higgins continued:

"It's insane what my colleagues across the aisle are putting these good American men and women through and attacking American workers as our country dissolves around us. You push patriots too far; you've gone a bridge too far. We won't take it anymore."

Higgins represents an area very vulnerable to climate change impacts. Cameron Parish in southwest Louisiana - which is part of Higgins' district - is the most vulnerable county in the US to flood risk, according to a recent nationwide flooding analysis by nonprofit research and technology group First Street.

First Street's report found more than 94% of all critical infrastructure in Cameron Parish - including police and fire stations - are at risk of being knocked offline due to flooding.

Rep. Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas, apologized to the fossil fuel executives for what he called "intimidation" from Democrats on the committee.

"As a chairman of the Rules Committee for six years, I've never witnessed nor would have allowed this kind of intimidation that has taken place on people who we invited to come and provide open answers," Sessions said. "I apologize to our witnesses and want to thank them as energy company executives to make sure that America has a sound supply of energy."

What we covered here

The heads of six oil companies and major lobbying groups testified before the House Oversight Committee about climate disinformation and their organizations' role in it.

The committee's chair announced she plans to subpoena oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

Today's hearing was part of the panel's investigation into the fossil fuel industry and was held just days before the crucial international climate talks of world leaders at the UN's COP26 summit in Scotland.

Our live coverage of the hearing has ended. Read the posts below to see how it unfolded.

House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, announced at the end of Thursday's hearing that she plans to subpoena oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

"We are at code red for climate and I committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children," Maloney said during her closing remarks. "We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry's disinformation campaign and with these subpoenas we will."

The New York Democrat said she sees "no choice" but to continue the investigation and issue subpoenas because the companies and entities have not disclosed the documents requested voluntarily.

"Unfortunately, none of the six entities have produced a substantial portion of the key documents the committee requested," Maloney said. "Instead, they produced reams of other documents, many of which were publicly available."

The six entities that voluntarily appeared at the hearing were: ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Specifically, Maloney said the oil companies have not produced "detailed funding information" the lawmakers requested to understand their "payments to shadow groups," public relations firms and others.

Other documents requested include corporate strategies around climate change and internal documents and communications from senior executives about their companies' role in the climate crisis.

"I have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily, but the oil companies employ the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy: delay and obstruction," Maloney said.

Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri used her time to highlight the role the fossil fuel industry has played in causing disproportionate harm toward historically marginalized communities.

"Is an oil refinery more likely to be situated in a Black community or White community?" Bush asked Big Oil executives. "It's Black," she answered after a delay in response from witnesses.

According to a 2017 report from the NAACP and the Clean Air Task Force, which Bush cited, Black Americans are 75% more likely than other Americans to live in what's called "fenceline communities," which are areas located near industrial facilities and hazardous waste sites.

Researchers also found that Black people breathe 56% more pollution than they cause, while White people breathe 17% less pollution than they generate.

For instance, the Black communities situated along Louisiana's "Cancer Alley," the 85-mile stretch between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that's home to more than 150 chemical plants and oil refineries, have for decades blamed the fossil fuel industry for causing the growing rate of cancer and respiratory illnesses in the area.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2019 environmental justice data, eight of the nation's top 14 block groups - census areas that typically contain 600 to 3,000 people - with the country's estimated highest cancer risks are in St. John Parish in "Cancer Alley."

"For years, you all have continued to promote fossil fuels despite knowing that promoting means promoting environmental racism and violence in Black and brown communities," Bush told the fossil fuel executives. "You want to continue promoting and selling fossil fuels that are killing millions of people."

"This is a striking example of White supremacy," she added. "Your profit driven choices threaten my life and my family, my neighbors and our communities every single day."

The Biden administration and Democrats are trying to cut potent greenhouse gas methane through a number of means - including executive and legislative action.

The US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to soon announce new regulations on methane, limiting the amount of leaks oil and gas producers can emit into the atmosphere.

Additionally, Biden's just-released Build Back Better Act framework includes a gradually increasing methane fee levied on oil and gas companies, as well as $775 million of incentives to help the companies comply.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schutz of Florida said while many oil and gas companies are supportive of the forthcoming federal regulations, they oppose the methane fee.

"Here's a bewildering example of hypocrisy," Wasserman-Schultz said. "The Build Back Better Act contains provisions to tackle methane pollution from oil and natural gas production, which API claims to support. Yet API and its front group Energy Citizens have carried out a seven-figure TV and ad campaign to defeat the Build Back Better methane emissions fee."

Wasserman Schultz asked API CEO Mike Sommers how he reconciled those two positions.

"In fact, the American Petroleum Institute supports the federal regulation of methane for both new and existing sources," Sommers responded. "We expect the new regulation to come out soon from the Biden administration, and we've been working with them on making sure that that regulation makes sense, and that it's reducing methane emissions over time."

Methane - the main component of natural gas - is invisible and odorless, and has 80 times more warming power in the near-term than carbon dioxide.

With Earth rapidly approaching the 1.5-degree-Celsius threshold above preindustrial levels, scientists tell CNN that methane emissions need to be reduced fast.

"The fastest way that we might mitigate some of the climate change that we're seeing already in the short term is by reducing methane," Charles Koven, a lead author on August's IPCC report, told CNN. "If we were to reduce methane emissions, it would act to offset one of these sources of warming."

If the world stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, Koven said, global temperatures wouldn't begin to cool for many years because of how long the gas stays in the atmosphere. Reducing methane is the easiest knob to turn to change the path of global temperature in the next 10 years, he said.

Methane is in the gas we use to fuel our stoves and heat our homes, but it can also be produced in nature from volcanoes and decomposing plant matter. But it is also pumped into the atmosphere in much larger amounts by landfills, livestock and the oil and gas industry.
Scientists say this invisible gas could seal our fate on climate change

Republican Rep. Pat Fallon used a portion of his time to say that the "dire predictions" of the climate crisis haven't and won't come true.

"But of course, you know, crying that the sky is going to fall by 2028 - these dire predictions won't come true. And then, in 2030, they won't come true, just like so many have," Fallon said.

But in August, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered a clear message: Human-caused climate change is undoubtedly intensifying extreme weather events around the planet.

Earth is now 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels and is rapidly barreling toward the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees, the report concludes, which countries in the Paris Agreement agreed was the ideal limit to stave off the worst impacts of the crisis.

Global scientists concluded that only by making deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from burning fossil fuels, while also removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, can we halt the precipitous trend.

This summer, the United States has been battered by large wildfires, deadly flooding events from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast and a historic, multi-year drought that has impacted water supply, food production and electricity generation across the Western states.

In June, an unprecedented heat wave in the Northwest United States killed hundreds of people and shattered records in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Scientists at World Weather Attribution concluded the heat wave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-caused climate change.

Now more than ever, scientists are able to quantify the connection between the climate crisis and deadly extreme weather.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called out oil executives for fighting legislation aimed at saving the planet from the climate crisis.

"Some of us have to actually live in the future that you all are setting on fire for us," Ocasio-Cortez told oil company executives.

The New York Democrat cited lobbying reports that indicate the oil industry spent more than $55 million in lobbying over the last 10 months.

She also pointed to comments made by American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers to CNN about attempts to fight climate provisions in Democrats' sweeping climate and social spending bill.

"We're leaving everything on the field here in terms of our opposition to anti-energy provisions," Sommers said earlier this month.

Ocasio-Cortez told Sommers: "I appreciate your candor because most lobbying organizations are not as forthright and transparent about their efforts."

To prove her point, Ocasio-Cortez pointed to a covertly filmed job interview that emerged over the summer where Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy likened lobbying to fishing, where the company tries to "kind of reel them in."

McCoy said he talked to Sen. Joe Manchin's office every week. (Manchin has since opposed key climate provisions in the spending bill).

ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods denied being aware of weekly calls with members of Congress, though he conceded having calls with lawmakers. He said political donations are not discussed during the calls.

"We do not have the privilege or the luxury of lobbying spin," Ocasio-Cortez said.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib went after oil executives for using front groups to fight environmental rules.

The Democrat from Michigan said major oil companies and trade groups funded One Alaska, Colorado Rising and other groups that opposed tougher regulation.

"When you look at these ads, they don't say the name Exxon, BP, Chevron anywhere," Tlaib said. "Y'all hide and you deceive the public."

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth noted that his company did not own Noble Energy at the time Tlaib says Noble was funding the Colorado group.

"You've been provided with some inaccurate information," Wirth said.

Tlaib accused Chevron of owing $50 billion for committing 70 serious cases of environmental abuse in 31 countries.

"When are you going to cut the $50 billion check you owe? It went through the courts!" Tlaib said.

Wirth said he has "no understanding" of where Tlaib came up with those figures but offered to get back to her.

"You made what, $29 million last year poisoning the planet," Tlaib said.

The Michigan Democrat pointed out the recent sentencing of an environmental activist who won a $9.5 billion settlement against Chevron.

"Mr Wirth, you can't arrest us all," Tlaib said. "There are more of us than there are of you. You can poison the planet so you can make money, but we're going to defend the planet so we can live. And we will win."

Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana - whose constituents face some of the highest flooding risk in the country - delivered an impassioned defense of oil executives on Thursday.

"It's abhorrent my colleagues across the aisle have called a so-called hearing today to demonize American industry whose products make modern life possible," Higgins said. "Petroleum products are in everything: The clothes on our backs, the wiring in our computers, our computers themselves, our phones, all the equipment used by the military, all medical supplies and equipment - paint, curtains, fabrics and appliances in our homes, fishing rods, lures, tents used by sportsmen, all sports products."

Higgins continued:

"It's insane what my colleagues across the aisle are putting these good American men and women through and attacking American workers as our country dissolves around us. You push patriots too far; you've gone a bridge too far. We won't take it anymore."

Higgins represents an area very vulnerable to climate change impacts. Cameron Parish in southwest Louisiana - which is part of Higgins' district - is the most vulnerable county in the US to flood risk, according to a recent nationwide flooding analysis by nonprofit research and technology group First Street.

First Street's report found more than 94% of all critical infrastructure in Cameron Parish - including police and fire stations - are at risk of being knocked offline due to flooding.

Rep. Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas, apologized to the fossil fuel executives for what he called "intimidation" from Democrats on the committee.

"As a chairman of the Rules Committee for six years, I've never witnessed nor would have allowed this kind of intimidation that has taken place on people who we invited to come and provide open answers," Sessions said. "I apologize to our witnesses and want to thank them as energy company executives to make sure that America has a sound supply of energy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
oil executives testify on climate crisis: live updates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Ella Nilsen, Aditi Sangal, Angela Fritz, Meg Wagner and Adrienne Vogt, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oil executives testify on climate crisis: Live updates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What we covered here The heads of six oil companies and major lobbying groups testified before the House Oversight Committee about climate disinformation and their organizations' role in it. The committee's chair announced she plans to subpoena oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ecofriendlyhabits.com/paper-wastage-facts/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We may seem to have made progress ditching paper for the digital world, but if paper wastage facts are anything to go by, it is still very much a part of our lives.

Paper is still convenient, but that convenience comes with a lot of environmental effects. Paper accounts for about 26% of total waste at landfills, it causes deforestation, air pollution, and waste problems.

Paper Wastage Facts

Let's look at some paper wastage facts:

1. You can save 17 trees if you recycle one ton of paper

Recycling paper facts show that recycling a ton of paper saves 17 trees, 7,000 gallons of water, three cubic yards of landfill space, 60 pounds of air pollutants, and saves enough energy to power an average home for six months.

2. Only half the amount of paper produced is recycled

Only about 200 million metric tons of paper produced each year is recycled. This is about half the amount of the total amount of paper produced.

3. Deforestation us worse than transportation

Deforestation causes more climate change emissions than global transport.

4. 6 trees per family

According to paper consumption facts, the average family uses 6 trees worth of paper each year.

5. Paper wastage accounts for 16% of landfill solid waste

Paper waste statistics show that paper waste makes up 16% of landfill solid waste (26 million metric tons).

Related article: Zero Waste Lifestyle

6. Paper production is the third most energy-intensive process

Making a ton of paper from wood requires 98 000 kilograms of other resources. This makes paper production the third most energy-intensive of all manufacturing industries.

7. Paper is one of the biggest polluters

30% - 40% percent of municipal waste is paper while 50% of office waste landing in landfills is paper.

8. Americans and Europeans use the most paper

North Americans and Europeans use more than 200 kg of paper each per year.

9. 7% of office paper waste is recyclable

The average American office worker uses 10,000 sheets of copy paper every year. 77% of this office paper waste is recyclable.

Related article: Electronic Waste Statistics

10. Recycling a piece of paper only causes 5% of the pollution

Paper pollution facts reveal that only 5% of pollution is caused when recycling a piece of paper and saves about 50% of the amount of energy that is needed to create a new paper.

11. The junk mail industry destroys about 100 million trees annually

Every year, the junk mail industry destroys approximately 100 million trees. Every year, American households receive a total of 104.7 billion pieces of junk mail, which requires 6.5 million metric tons of paper.

12. Too much paper wasted over the holidays

Paper waste facts show that an estimated 2.6 billion holiday cards are sold each year in the U.S. These cards can fill a football field 10 stories high.

Related article: 10 Shocking Facts About Waste to Inspire You to Live More Sustainably

13. 500,000 trees are required to produce each week's Sunday newspapers

To produce each week's Sunday newspapers, 500,000 trees must be cut down. If we were to recycle all our newspaper about 250,000,000 trees could be saved each year!

14. A supermarket uses 6 million paper bags per year

Paper wastage statistics indicate that a single supermarket can use over 6 million paper bags each year.

15. High-grade paper is the most wasted type of paper

High-grade paper is of very good quality and would be quite useful if recycled. However, it is often thrown straight into the trash instead of the recycling box.

16. You can't recycle receipts

Receipts are not recyclable or compostable because they are coated with BPA. don't ask for a receipt if you don't need one.

17. You cannot recycle parchment paper

Parchment paper cannot be recycled but it can be reused which is even better than recycling it.

18. Paper production requires LOTS of water

The pulp and paper industry is the largest industrial consumer of water. To produce a single A4-sheet of paper, you need 10 liters of water.

19. 4th largest greenhouse emitter

The paper and pulp industry is the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the manufacturing sector. Paper also produces one of the most potent greenhouse gases, methane, as it decomposes in a landfill. Methane is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

20. 13,000 paper thrown away per household

The average household trashes 13,000 separate pieces of paper each year. Most is packaging and junk mail.

More Paper Wastage Facts & Statistics

How much paper is recycled each year?

About 44.2 million tons of paper are recycled each year.

How much paper is wasted each year?

Paper wastage facts show that 85 million tons of paper waste are created each year. This is about 680 pounds of paper waste per person.

How many trees are cut down each year for paper?

Nearly 4 billion trees worldwide are cut down each year for paper.

How does paper affect the environment?

Paper causes deforestation, uses enormous amounts of energy and water to produce, causes air pollution and waste problems. Paper also accounts for around 26% of total waste at landfills.

Conclusion

It's difficult to cut paper off completely in your life. However, you can reduce your paper waste by simply using only what you need the most and by reusing as much paper as possible. This will go a long way to make these paper wastage facts take a positive trend.
Sources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paper Wastage Facts: Statistics About Paper Waste You Must Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We may seem to have made progress ditching paper for the digital world, but if paper wastage facts are anything to go by, it is still very much a part of our lives. Paper is still convenient, but that convenience comes with a lot of environmental effects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global warming is contributing to more and extended heat waves, a tripling of droughts, a quadrupling of storms, and a tenfold increase in flooding in Africa since the 1970s-exacerbating security threats on the continent.

More Frequent and Longer Lasting Heat Waves

Other Extreme Weather Events

Global Warming is Expected to Amplify Multiple Security Risks in Africa
Reduced Food Production Land Pressure and Displacement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Global Warming Threatens Human Security in Africa - Africa Center for Strategic Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global warming is contributing to more and extended heat waves, a tripling of droughts, a quadrupling of storms, and a tenfold increase in flooding in Africa since the 1970s-exacerbating security threats on the continent. More Frequent and Longer Lasting Heat Waves Reduced Food Production Land Pressure and Displacement

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.stopwaste.org/at-work/reduce-and-reuse/reduce-paper-use/the-impact-of-paper-waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Financial Costs

The costs of using paper inefficiently in the workplace are too significant to be ignored. The expenses from supplies such as toner and paper, as well as equipment maintenance can add up fast. Perhaps more significant than these costs is all the staff time wasted adjusting printers and copiers, filing documents, and then trying to find them again-often just to throw them away. Some findings from productivity research studies:

Inefficient use of printers, copiers, and fax machines can waste between 1 and 3 percent of company revenue annually [1].

For every dollar spent on copying, companies incur another $6 in handling and distribution, and half of all documents printed are thrown away within 24 hours [2].

An average of 17% of everything printed is considered waste [3].

Environmental Costs

Using less paper can save your organization money and can also help with several environmental problems. Of all trees harvested for industrial use, 42% go to making paper. Unfortunately, the degradation of forests is only part of the story. The pulp and paper industry is also the largest industrial user of water, the biggest water polluter, and the third largest emitter of global warming pollution in most industrialized nations [ 4].

Get Started

Paperless Express: This comprehensive and easy to follow guide provides tips and tools for office workers and managers in business, government, and other organizations. You will find steps to reduce paper at your desk, in the mail room, by using new technologies, and in many other ways.

References

[1] Gartner Group. (2001). Rightsizing Output Fleets: The Hidden Goldmine.

[2] Hesseldahl, A. (2008, May 27). The New Push to Get Rid of Paper. BusinessWeek .

[3] Lexmark International. (2006). Retail Topped European League of Paper Wasters.

[4] NRDC. (2006). Smart Paper Policies Are Good for Business. Natural Resources Defense Council's Website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Financial Costs The costs of using paper inefficiently in the workplace are too significant to be ignored. The expenses from supplies such as toner and paper, as well as equipment maintenance can add up fast. Perhaps more significant than these costs is all the staff time wasted adjusting printers and copiers, filing documents, and then trying to find them again-often just to throw them away.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://physicsworld.com/a/climate-change-in-a-

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/waste-paper/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mills

In the UK the three main types of mills are those producing tissue products, cardboard and newsprint. There are two newsprint mills: Palm Paper in Norfolk and UPM in north Wales (converting to cardboard in the autumn of 2021). Both use 100% recycled fibre, mainly newspapers and magazines. The cardboard sector includes: DS Smith with a mill at Kemsley in Kent; SAICA at Partington; Smurfit Kappa with a mill in Birmingham and in Kent; and northern mills including Sonoco. Tissue mills use recovered paper and/or virgin pulp to produce tissue. The main source of recycled material for this sector is office waste paper. Mills in this sector include Essity, Kimberly Clark and Northwood.

Price indicators

Waste paper prices - 'recovered paper' or 'paper for recycling' prices - are shown using the above links, as indicators of prices that may be achieved for material, ex works usually baled or supplied to a mill specification. Merchant prices are for delivered in. Prices can vary regionally. Contractual arrangements may differ. Price indicator guides are compiled by letsrecycle.com and are not guaranteed. letsrecycle.com started publishing export prices in 2004. We welcome feedback, email: news@letsrecycle.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the UK the three main types of mills are those producing tissue products, cardboard and newsprint. There are two newsprint mills: Palm Paper in Norfolk and UPM in north Wales (converting to cardboard in the autumn of 2021). Both use 100% recycled fibre, mainly newspapers and magazines.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sciencing.com/negative-effects-of-paper-wastes-13658050.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The next time you throw your Sunday newspaper in the trash, stop and think about what would happen if every household in America did the same thing. In 1995 the California Department of Conservation reported that 26 million trees per year could be saved if every Sunday newspaper were recycled. In 2011, the effects of paper waste are being felt worldwide.

Conservation of our forests is important. Our forests are disappearing at alarming rates. While many companies are adapting eco-friendly paper manufacturing processes, tissue paper companies are still cutting our Northern boreal forests. These forests are ecosystems for hundreds of species that face extinction with the disappearance of the forest habitat. Forests also contain C2O levels and produce oxygen. Tree plantations are being planted in the southeastern states to replace natural wood ecosystems. By 2040 the plantations are expected to cover 52 million acres. While providing wood, these artificial forests are not life supporting ecosystems.

According to statistics from Green Student U, 35 of every 100 pounds of waste that goes to landfills is paper. This makes paper our No. 1 waste product. Transport for waste costs money. The more waste, the more the cost to transport it. As landfill volume increases, more and more land is needed for waste containment. Wastes often need to be burned, causing air pollution. Paper contains many toxins that leak into the soil from open and covered landfills and into soil, where it causes ecological damage.

Paper constitutes over a third of all litter. It costs states as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in clean up annually. Areas with litter problems are unattractive to tourists and businesses. Littered areas breed bacteria and attract insects and rodents, which spread the bacteria and cause illness. Paper contains toxins that seep into soil as the paper decomposes. These toxins are carried into waterways via storm water. Animals eat litter and become ill or die. Pedestrians, unsecured trucks and poorly covered trash bins are the main causes of litter.

Recycling paper saves oil and energy and cuts air and water pollution. It is also an important method to save our forest ecosystems. Recycling on its own is not enough, though. Reusing paper grocery bags or using natural fiber bags instead saves trees and cuts waste and pollution. You can help control waste further by cutting down on the use of disposable paper products. Use cloth napkins instead of paper. Use edible or reusable dishes instead of paper plates or cups. Start or join cleanup and education efforts in your community. Report litterers and press for enforcement of litter laws. Each person who makes an effort to stop the waste of paper helps to save trees and ecosystems we need for survival.

About the Author

An honor graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in English and linguistics, Sally Taylor has contracted research and writing services since 1986. She has worked with organizations such as US West AT, and SW Bell Silver Pages.

Photo Credits

Aidon/Lifesize/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The next time you throw your Sunday newspaper in the trash, stop and think about what would happen if every household in America did the same thing. In 1995 the California Department of Conservation reported that 26 million trees per year could be saved if every Sunday newspaper were recycled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Tiny forest planted in Caerphilly park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The trees will be planted in a town park as part of efforts to reduce air pollution and flood risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ozone layer is recovering over Antarctica but thinning over highly populated areas, potentially exposing more than a billion people to harmful radiation, researchers have warned.

The hole in the protective layer has been closing over Antarctica since ozone-damaging chemicals were banned by the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty, in 1987, but scientists have found that it is thinning in the lower stratosphere above more densely populated parts of the globe.

Researchers have said that, overall, the total amount of ozone in the stratosphere has not improved since the 1990s, with rises at higher altitudes in Antarctica offset by falls elsewhere, but the causes for this are unclear. The study was conducted by 22 scientists at research centres in the US and Europe.

"It means

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ozone layer is thinning over densely populated areas, scientists say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ozone layer is recovering over Antarctica but thinning over highly populated areas, potentially exposing more than a billion people to harmful radiation, researchers have warned. The hole in the protective layer has been closing over Antarctica since ozone-damaging chemicals were banned by the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty, in 1987, but scientists have found that it is thinning in the lower stratosphere above more densely populated parts of the globe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Air pollution: Even worse than we thought - WHO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The WHO is slashing recommended maximum limits of key pollutants as evidence of danger mounts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The impact of the sea-level rise is concentrated in Asia, with China the most at risk, followed by India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia.

At least 43 million people in India currently occupy land above high tide lines and are most at risk for future global warming-induced sea-level rise, according to a study by Climate Central, a non-profit climate science organisation.

The study Unprecedented threats to cities from multi-century sea-level rise published in Environmental Research Letters lists India as one of the nations at high risk to future sea-level rise. It projects that 93 million lives will be in danger if the Earth warms at 3 degrees Celsius (°C).

Kolkata and Mumbai feature in the list of cities with at least 7 million and 11 million people, respectively, living in regions prone to future sea-level rise.

The study also released a set of dystopic images of the future of iconic places at various warming levels. Mumbai's Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya in Mumbai, also known as the Prince of Wales Museum , features in the display:

The data - made available from their and visualised by coastal risk dashboard Down To Earth for two regions in India - shows future sea level rise spanning over a time period of 100 years.

The data visualised above shows regions most at risk of sea level rise at a more local level. But it should be used as a screening tool for identifying places for deeper investigation since the dashboard uses extensive 'big datasets'.

The carbon "already in our atmosphere is warming the planet (at) 1.1°C - enough for global mean sea level to rise about 1.9 meters (6.2 feet) over the coming centuries, even with no net global emissions after 2020".

In the present warming scenario, the report states that at least 5 per cent of the global population will be experiencing a higher rise in water during high tides.

The impact of the sea-level rise is more concentrated in Asia, with China the most at risk, followed by India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia.

In 2019, another by the same organisation had reported that 20 crore people globally would be experiencing chronic flooding and by 2100, 30 crore people would be permanently below the high tide line.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global warming: How Kolkata, Mumbai are most at risk from high tides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impact of the sea-level rise is concentrated in Asia, with China the most at risk, followed by India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia. At least 43 million people in India currently occupy land above high tide lines and are most at risk for future global warming-induced sea-level rise, according to a study by Climate Central, a non-profit climate science organisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Study conducted by team of scientists from University of Technology Sydney provides energy-related carbon budgets for industries, which will help achieve the goal set by the Paris Agreement by 2050

Representational image | Photo: Getty

New Delhi: Representatives of nearly 200 countries are meeting at the ongoing COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, to pledge to strengthen action under the 2015 Paris Agreement, wherein it had been decided to keep the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial times.

A recent study conducted by a team of scientists from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has provided energy-related carbon budgets for industries, which will help achieve the goal set by the Paris Agreement by 2050.

The scientists have defined a global carbon budget for the aluminium, chemical, cement, steel and textile and leather industries, power and gas utilities, agriculture, forestry, the aviation and shipping industry, road transport and the real estate and building industry.

These represent the 12 main industry and service sectors of the world.

The scientists have also included greenhouse gas emissions in the carbon budgets.

They hope the global carbon budget will limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, and will help implement the Paris Climate Agreement.

Timely climate action by the energy-intensive industries is necessary to achieve the goal, while reliable and long-term government policies, and sufficient funding by the finance sector are also extremely important, according to the scientists.

The UTS researchers stated in the study that a rapid phase-out of coal and internal combustion engines for cars is the most important measure to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Other important measures include generation of electricity from renewable energy sources in sufficient amounts for energy-intensive industries and electric vehicles.

Contributions Of Different Industries To Global Carbon Budget

The research shows that the goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius can be achieved with 67 per cent certainty, if the global carbon budget is 400 gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide (GtCO2) until 2050.

Nineteen gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide will be released by the steel industry, 9 gigatonnes by the cement industry, and 6 gigatonnes by the aluminium industry. These account for 5 per cent, 2.4 per cent, and 1.6 per cent of the entire budget, respectively.

Buildings and road transport will be responsible for the largest carbon budgets.

Due to climatisation (air conditioning and heating) and electricity, buildings are expected to release around 88 gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide until 2050, as per the new budget.

Road transport will release around 82 gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide.

According to Even Teske, the lead author of the study, a science-based budget for specific industries is important to provide them with directions on how to implement climate targets for all parts of those industries.

The researchers explained that power utilities have the greatest responsibility, as they will have to provide enough renewable electricity for the energy-intensive chemical, steel, cement and aluminum industries, and for electric vehicles.

The One Earth Climate Model (OECM), developed by the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at UTS, has been used to formulate the industry-specific emission budgets.

The budgets are expected to help countries achieve 1.5 degrees Celsius compatible climate and energy pathways. The Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, an international group of 60 institutional investors, is supporting further development of the OECM, in order to send a strong signal to the ongoing COP26 negotiations. The alliance is also applying the latest findings by the UTS team in order to achieve the target of net-zero emissions by 2050.

Recommendations To Limit Global Warming To 1.5 Degrees Celsius

Investments in new oil, coal and gas projects must be stopped in order to achieve the Paris Agreement goal.

Countries affiliated to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) must ensure a coal phaseout by 2030. OECD, based in Paris, is an international organisation of 36 countries committed to democracy and the market economy.

Between 2030 and 2040, all regions should phase out coal.

By 2030, companies should stop manufacturing passenger cars with oil-fuelled internal combustion engines.

Governments should provide detailed transition plans to net zero.

Investments must be settled and implemented carefully.

Portfolios must be decarbonised in a way such that they are in line with '1.5 degrees Celsius no or limited overshoot', which means the global temperature must not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, and even if it does go beyond the threshold value, the increase should be minimal. Decarbonisation describes the process of reducing and removing the greenhouse gas emissions produced as a by-product of the functioning of an economy. Decarbonising a portfolio refers to the process of transitioning a portfolio to align with a low-carbon future.

Companies should disclose climate mitigation strategies and their implementation.

There must be transparency on engagement activities as well as investments in renewable energies and climate solutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Limit Global Warming To 1.5 Degrees Celsius? New Study Suggests Possible Ways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Representational image | Photo: Getty New Delhi: Representatives of nearly 200 countries are meeting at the ongoing COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, to pledge to strengthen action under the 2015 Paris Agreement, wherein it had been decided to keep the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial times.