# data[].attributes.body
Check out our key concepts here, which will help you to apply a critical thinking lens to this topic, and articulate your ideas about it. These concepts are highlighted.

# data[].attributes.body
A mini-lesson based on a NPR interview with author Zoë Schlanger, about her recent exploration of intelligence and agency in plants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AGENCY AND INTELLIGENCE | ACT mini-lessons (Middle)

# data[].attributes.body
A mini-lesson based on a Vox podcast and article, looking at why the ‘much ridiculed’ Gaia hypothesis, which claims the earth is a living entity, should be taken seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IS THE EARTH ALIVE? | ACT mini-lessons (Middle)

# data[].attributes.headline
A Guardian article, written by Christina Figueros, former head of the UN climate change convention, in which she argues that being ‘stubbornly optimistic’ is our only option.  

# data[].attributes.subject
A Guardian article, written by Christina Figueros, former head of the UN climate change convention, in which she argues that being ‘stubbornly optimistic’ is our only option.  

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Do we all have a responsibility to be ‘stubbornly optimistic’ about the climate crisis? How should we balance this with an obligation to remain objective about what’s going on?

KEY TERMS Stubborn optimism, Feelings of despair, Doubt, Pervasive, Sense of agency, Mis- and disinformation, Sowing uncertainty, Responsibility, Perspective of possibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Hopeless and broken": that is how a top scientist interviewed by the Guardian described feeling as she and hundreds of other climate experts shared harrowing predictions of the future of the planet this week.

I resonate with her feelings of despair. Even as the former head of the UN climate change convention that achieved the Paris agreement in 2015, I, like many, can succumb to believing in the worst possible outcome. Just after I assumed the role of UN climate chief in 2010, I said to a room full of reporters that I didn't believe a global agreement on climate would be possible in my lifetime.

Now, scientists say we are on track to shoot through the 1.5C temperature ceiling enshrined in the Paris agreement, leading to a dystopian world plagued with famine, conflict and unbearable heat. Climate impacts have hit so fast that worst-case scenarios predicted by scientists are in some cases already coming true.

This isn't scaremongering: these climate scientists are doing their job. They are telling us where we are, but now it's up to the rest of us to decide what this moment requires of us and to radically change the direction of travel.

Collective doubt in our ability to respond to the climate crisis is by now dangerously pervasive. Beyond climate scientists, it's shared by politicians and some young people. It's also shared by some philanthropists who fund climate NGOs, and by many who work in those NGOs. It is shared by some financiers, and some of those who work in companies struggling to reduce their emissions.

Christiana Figueres, left, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, French foreign secretary Laurent Fabius and French president François Hollande celebrate at the Paris UN climate conference in 2015. Photograph: Stéphane Mahé/Reuters

A sense of despair is understandable, but it robs us of our agency, makes us vulnerable to mis- and disinformation, and prevents the radical collaboration we need. Doubt holds us back from taking bold action, which is why it is strategically seized upon by incumbents, who have invested millions of dollars (probably much more) in sowing uncertainty around the climate crisis and its solutions among the general public.

We all have a right to grieve the loss of a future free from the climate crisis. It is a deep, hard loss. And it's particularly painful, because those of us who read these reports bear a great responsibility in passing an unsafe planet on to our children and future generations. But grief that stops at despair is an ending that I and many others, most notably those on the frontlines, are not prepared to accept.

We also have the responsibility - and the opportunity - to shape the future differently. We must take stock of the science, triple down on our efforts and deploy the perspective of possibility.

For example, what has been achieved in transforming the energy system to this point, pushing against a fossil fuel industry deliberately intent on delaying progress, and within a lacklustre policy environment, is extraordinary.

We also learned this week that we have just reached a crucial turning point towards powering our world with clean energy. Last year saw a record absolute increase in solar generation. With renewables in the energy mix now at 30%, fossil fuel generation is expected to fall this year and then decline rapidly in the near future. Solar, in particular, is accelerating faster than anyone thought possible: last year it was the fastest growing source of electricity generation for the 19th year in a row. This really is the beginning of a different kind of future. Not enough, by itself, of course, but it shows a reality that is exponentially changing day by day.

While we grapple with the current lack of political will, and the abhorrent inequities of the climate crisis, we can take some comfort that so many of those who are key to designing our future have heard climate scientists' urgent warnings and are channelling their spirit by taking positive action in response: think of the engineers reforming our grids, the architects, the social entrepreneurs, the regenerative farmers restoring our soil, the legal advocates, and the millions of people everywhere who are advancing new systems of care, repair and regeneration.

It will take much more courageous collective action to turn the seemingly impossible into the new normal. But we are on the brink of positive societal tipping points. I believe that the children of children born this year will be the first fossil-fuel-free generation in modern history. Their generation, just a few years from now, will benefit from development and smart climate adaptation based on the certainty of abundant, homegrown and distributed clean energy. It doesn't mean they will live in a utopian future - we know too much climate change is already baked into the system - but enormous positive change is coming.

I mentioned earlier telling the press that I didn't believe a global agreement on climate was possible back in 2010. What I didn't share is that I immediately afterwards had to change my attitude. And that made all the difference. It was a candle in the darkness that I used to light a spark in many others. I am still using the candle of stubborn optimism today - and I'm not the only one.

A world in which we pass 1.5C is not set in stone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I understand climate scientists' despair - but stubborn optimism may be our only hope | Christiana Figueres

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fighting spirit helped us achieve the Paris accords in 2015 - and we need it now, says climate expert Christiana Figueres

# data[].attributes.headline
A Vox podcast and article, looking at why the ‘much ridiculed’ Gaia hypothesis, which claims that the earth is a living entity, should be taken seriously. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Vox podcast and article, looking at why the ‘much ridiculed’ Gaia hypothesis, which claims that the earth is a living entity, should be taken seriously. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE What is the Gaia hypothesis, and why was it mocked by many members of the mainstream scientific community? What are Ferris Jabr’s four arguments for the Earth being ‘alive’? How widely accepted are they? How does seeing the Earth as a living organism impact on the moral urgency of the climate crisis? To wrap up: “I think open-mindedness is fundamental to any scientific thinking or scientific process. And we have to be open to the idea that a century from now, or even sooner, all of this will be wrong.” How does the Gaia hypothesis illustrate this approach to knowledge?

KEY TERMS Hypothesis, Fringe, Mainstream, Open-mindedness, Moral urgency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the Earth itself a giant living creature?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An old, much-ridiculed hypothesis said yes. It’s time to take it seriously.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Conversation article, looking at the role the novel Dune played in helping kickstart the global environmental movement.

# data[].attributes.subject
A Conversation article, looking at the role the novel Dune played in helping kickstart the global environmental movement.

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE What message did Frank Herbert want to transmit when wrote Dune in 1963, and what social and political events made this so urgent? What state was the field of ecology at this time? How did indigenous figures such as Wilbur Ternyik and Howard Hansen contribute to the story of Dune? How was Herbert Inspired by the history of Peruvian guano? To wrap up: “The highest function of science is to give us an understanding of consequences.” How does the writing of the book Dune demonstrate how the arts can help science achieve this?

KEY TERMS Envision the future, Rallying flag, New science, Popular audience, Metaphor, Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" Dune," widely considered one of the best sci-fi novels of all time, continues to influence how writers, artists and inventors envision the future.

Of course, there are Denis Villeneuve's visually stunning films, " Dune: Part One" (2021) and " Dune: Part Two " (2024).

But Frank Herbert's masterpiece also helped Afrofuturist novelist Octavia Butler imagine a future of conflict amid environmental catastrophe; it inspired Elon Musk to build SpaceX and Tesla and push humanity toward the stars and a greener future; and it's hard not to see parallels in George Lucas' "Star Wars" franchise, especially their fascination with desert planets and giant worms.

And yet when Herbert sat down in 1963 to start writing "Dune," he wasn't thinking about how to leave Earth behind. He was thinking about how to save it.

Herbert wanted to tell a story about the environmental crisis on our own planet, a world driven to the edge of ecological catastrophe. Technologies that had been inconceivable just 50 years prior had put the world at the edge of nuclear war and the environment on the brink of collapse; massive industries were sucking wealth from the ground and spewing toxic fumes into the sky.

When the book was published, these themes were front and center for readers, too. After all, they were living in the wake of both the Cuban missile crisis and the publication of " Silent Spring," conservationist Rachel Carson's landmark study of pollution and its threat to the environment and human health.

"Dune" soon became a beacon for the fledgling environmental movement and a rallying flag for the new science of ecology.

Indigenous wisdoms

Though the term "ecology" had been coined almost a century earlier, the first textbook on ecology was not written until 1953, and the field was rarely mentioned in newspapers or magazines at the time. Few readers had heard of the emerging science, and even fewer knew what it suggested about the future of our planet.

While studying "Dune" for a book I'm writing on the history of ecology, I was surprised to learn that Herbert didn't learn about ecology as a student or as a journalist.

Instead, he was inspired to explore ecology by the conservation practices of the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. He learned about them from two friends in particular.

The first was Wilbur Ternyik, a descendant of Chief Coboway, the Clatsop leader who welcomed explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark when their expedition reached the West Coast in 1805. The second, Howard Hansen, was an art teacher and oral historian of the Quileute tribe.

Ternyik, who was also an expert field ecologist, took Herbert on a tour of Oregon's dunes in 1958. There, he explained his work to build massive dunes of sand using beach grasses and other deep-rooted plants in order to prevent the sands from blowing into the nearby town of Florence - a terraforming technology described at length in "Dune."

As Ternyik explains in a handbook he wrote for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, his work in Oregon was part of an effort to heal landscapes scarred by European colonization, especially the large river jetties built by early settlers.

These structures disturbed coastal currents and created vast expanses of sand, turning stretches of the lush Pacific Northwest landscape into desert. This scenario is echoed in "Dune," where the novel's setting, the planet Arrakis, was similarly laid to waste by its first colonizers.

Hansen, who became the godfather to Herbert's son, had closely studied the equally drastic impact logging had on the homelands of the Quileute people in coastal Washington. He encouraged Herbert to examine ecology carefully, giving him a copy of Paul B. Sears' " Where There is Life," from which Herbert gathered one of his favorite quotes: "The highest function of science is to give us an understanding of consequences."

The Fremen of "Dune," who live in the deserts of Arrakis and carefully manage its ecosystem and wildlife, embody these teachings. In the fight to save their world, they expertly blend ecological science and Indigenous practices.

Treasures hidden in the sand

But the work that had the most profound impact on "Dune" was Leslie Reid's 1962 ecological study " The Sociology of Nature."

In it, Reid explained ecology and ecosystem science for a popular audience, illustrating the complex interdependence of all creatures within the environment.

"The more deeply ecology is studied," Reid writes, "the clearer does it become that mutual dependence is a governing principle, that animals are bound to one another by unbreakable ties of dependence."

In the pages of Reid's book, Herbert found a model for the ecosystem of Arrakis in a surprising place: the guano islands of Peru. As Reid explains, the accumulated bird droppings found on these islands was an ideal fertilizer. Home to mountains of manure described as a new " white gold " and one of the most valuable substances on Earth, the guano islands became in the late 1800s ground zero for a series of resource wars between Spain and several of its former colonies, including Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador.

At the heart of the plot of "Dune" is a battle for control of the "spice," a priceless resource. Harvested from the sands of the desert planet, it's both a luxurious flavoring for food and a hallucinogenic drug that allows some people to bend space, making interstellar travel possible.

There is some irony in the fact that Herbert cooked up the idea of spice from bird droppings. But he was fascinated by Reid's careful account of the unique and efficient ecosystem that produced a valuable - albeit noxious - commodity.

As the ecologist explains, frigid currents in the Pacific Ocean push nutrients to the surface of nearby waters, helping photosynthetic plankton thrive. These support an astounding population of fish that feed hordes of birds, along with whales.

In early drafts of "Dune," Herbert combined all of these stages into the life cycle of the giant sandworms, football field-sized monsters that prowl the desert sands and devour everything in their path.

Herbert imagines each of these terrifying creatures beginning as small, photosynthetic plants that grow into larger "sand trout." Eventually, they become immense sandworms that churn the desert sands, spewing spice onto the surface.

In both the book and "Dune: Part One," soldier Gurney Halleck recites a cryptic verse that comments on this inversion of marine life and arid regimes of extraction: "For they shall suck of the abundance of the seas and of the treasure hid in the sand."

'Dune' revolutions

After "Dune" was published in 1965, the environmental movement eagerly embraced it.

Herbert spoke at Philadelphia's first Earth Day in 1970, and in the first edition of the Whole Earth Catalog - a famous DIY manual and bulletin for environmental activists - "Dune" was advertised with the tagline: "The metaphor is ecology. The theme revolution."

In the opening of Denis Villeneuve's first adaptation, "Dune," Chani, an indigenous Fremen played by Zendaya, asks a question that anticipates the violent conclusion of the second film: "Who will our next oppressors be?"

The immediate cut to a sleeping Paul Atreides, the white protagonist who's played by Timothée Chalamet, drives the pointed anti-colonial message home like a knife. In fact, both of Villeneuve's movies expertly elaborate upon the anti-colonial themes of Herbert's novels.

Unfortunately, the edge of their environmental critique is blunted. But Villeneuve has suggested that he might also adapt " Dune Messiah " for his next film in the series - a novel in which the ecological damage to Arrakis is glaringly obvious.

I hope Herbert's prescient ecological warning, which resonated so powerfully with readers back in the 1960s, will be unsheathed in "Dune 3."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How 'Dune' became a beacon for the fledgling environmental movement − and a rallying cry for the new science of ecology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Frank Herbert sat down in 1963 to start writing 'Dune,' he wasn't thinking about how to leave Earth behind. He was thinking about how to save it.

# data[].attributes.headline
An FT article, which questions whether adding carbon food labels would change the way people shop.

# data[].attributes.subject
An FT article, which questions whether adding carbon food labels would change the way people shop.

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE What is ‘transparent labelling’ on food, and what impact is this designed to have? From the information in the article, do their food habits have a negative impact on the environment? How important is it to base transparent labelling on reliable data - and how easy is it to gather this? Overall, how prepared do they think people will be to change their behaviour when presented with evidence that it is damaging the environment?

Key terms Transparent labelling, Reliable data

We're proud to work in partnership with the FT, to promote their free FT for Schools programme. Follow this link to sign up your school, and access this and other articles.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Conversation article, looking at what the world can learn about conservation and trust from indigenous societies.

# data[].attributes.subject
A Conversation article, looking at what the world can learn about conservation and trust from indigenous societies.

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Focus on ‘TEK’, and what its three elements mean. What does the article say are the key differences between indigenous and industrialized approaches to resource management? What can be learned from it? How should we balance avoiding stereotypical views of indigenous societies as being ‘at one with nature’, with a willingness to learn from them? Overall, how important is it to be willing to learn from other societies and cultures about the world - and what happens if we are not?

KEY TERMS Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Stereotypes, Framework to understand, Trust, Deference, Respectful, Accountable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A family in northern Siberia watches - but decides not to hunt - a musk ox that wandered into the area where they live. John Ziker, Author provided

Twenty-five years ago, when I was a young anthropologist working in northern Siberia, the Indigenous hunters, fishers and trappers I lived with would often stop and solemnly offer something to the tundra. It was usually small, such as coins, buttons or unlit matches. But it was considered essential. Before departing on a hunting or fishing trip, I'd be asked if I had some change in my outer coat. If I didn't, someone would get me some so it was handy. We left other gifts, too, such as fat from wild reindeer to be fed to the fire.

I was intrigued. Why do these things? Their answers were usually along the lines of, "We are the children of the tundra," or "we make these sacrifices so that tundra will give us more animals to hunt next year."

These practices are part of what I and other anthropologists call " traditional ecological knowledge." Beliefs and traditions about the natural world are central in many Indigenous cultures around the world, bringing together what industrialized cultures think of as science, medicine, philosophy and religion.

Many academic studies have debated whether Indigenous economies and societies are more oriented than others toward conservation or ecology. Certainly the idealized stereotypes many people hold about Indigenous groups' being "one with nature" are simplistic and potentially damaging to the groups themselves.

However, recent studies have underscored that conservationists can learn a lot from TEK about successful resource management. Some experts argue that traditional knowledge needs a role in global climate planning, because it fosters strategies that are "cost-effective, participatory and sustainable."

Part of TEK's success stems from how it fosters trust. This comes in many different forms: trust between community members, between people and nature, and between generations.

Defining TEK

Looking more closely at the components of TEK, the first, "tradition," is something learned from ancestors. It's handed down.

"Ecological" refers to relationships between living organisms and their environment. It comes from the ancient Greek word for "house," or "dwelling."

Finally, the earliest uses of the term "knowledge" in English refer to acknowledging or owning something, confessing something and sometimes recognizing a person's position or title. These now-obsolete meanings emphasize relationships - an important aspect of knowledge that modern usage often overlooks but that is especially important in the context of tradition and ecology.

Combining these three definitions helps to generate a framework to understand Indigenous TEK: a strategy that encourages deference for ancestral ways of dwelling. It is not necessarily strict "laws" or "doctrine," or simply observation of the environment.

TEK is a way of looking at the world that can help people connect the land they live on, their behavior and the behavior of the people they are connected to. Indigenous land practices are based on generations of careful and insightful observations about the environment and help define and promote "virtuous" behavior in it.

As an American suburbanite living in a remote community in Siberia, I was always learning about what was "proper" or "improper." Numerous times people would tell me that what I or someone else had just done was a "sin" in respect to TEK. When someone's aunt died one year, for example, community members said it happened because their nephew had killed too many wolves the previous winter.

Similarly, after stopping to assess the freshness of some reindeer tracks on the tundra, one hunter told me, "We let these local wild reindeer roam in midwinter so they will return next year and for future generations." Here, TEK spells out the potential environmental impacts of greed - which, in this case, would mean overhunting.

Concepts like these are not isolated to Siberia. Much work has been done examining the parallels among ancestral systems of deference in Siberia, Amazonia, North America and other regions.

Trust and tradition

These examples illustrate how TEK is a set of systems that promote trust through encouraging deference for ancestral ways of dwelling in the world.

Moderation of self-interested behaviors requires such trust. And confidence that the environment will provide - caribou to hunt, say, or ptarmigan birds to trap - depends on the idea that people will treat the environment in a respectful manner.

Previously, I've studied prosociality - behavior that benefits others - in northern Siberian practices of food-sharing, child care and use of hunting lands.

These aspects of life depend on the idea that the "real" owners of the natural resources are ancestors and that they punish and reward the behaviors of the living. Such ideas are encouraged by elders and leaders, who commend virtuous and prosocial behavior while connecting negative outcomes with selfishness.

Trust is an essential component of reciprocity - exchange for mutual benefit - and prosociality. Without trust, it does not make sense to take risks in our dealings with other people. Without trust we cannot cooperate or behave in nonexploitative ways, such as protecting the environment. This is why it is advantageous for societies to monitor and punish noncooperators.

Put another way, minimizing one's resource use today to make tomorrow better requires trust and mechanisms to enforce it. This is also true in larger social formations, even between nations. Groups must trust that others will not use the resources they themselves have protected or overuse their own resources.

Lessons from TEK

Today, many environmental experts are interested in incorporating learnings from Indigenous societies into climate policies. In part, this is because recent studies have shown that environmental outcomes, such as forest cover, for example, are better in Indigenous protected areas.

It also stems from growing awareness of the need to protect Indigenous peoples' rights and sovereignty. TEK cannot be "extracted." Outsiders need to show deference to knowledge-holders and respectfully request their perspective.

One idea societies can adopt as they combat climate change is the importance of trust - which can feel hard to come by these days. Young activist Greta Thunberg's " Fridays for Future " initiative, for example, highlights the ethical issues of trust and responsibility between generations.

Many outdoor enthusiasts and sustainability organizations emphasize "leaving no trace." In fact, people always leave traces, no matter how small - a fact recognized in Siberian TEK. Even footsteps compact the soil and affect plant and animal life, no matter how careful we are.

A more TEK-like - and accurate - maxim might say, "Be accountable to your descendants for the traces you leave behind."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the world has a lot to learn about conservation - and trust - from Indigenous societies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twenty-five years ago, when I was a young anthropologist working in northern Siberia, the Indigenous hunters, fishers and trappers I lived with would often stop and solemnly offer something to the tundra. It was usually small, such as coins, buttons or unlit matches. But it was considered essential.

# data[].attributes.headline
A BBC article that examines the relationship with cognitive biases, and our ability to tackle challenges such as climate change.

# data[].attributes.subject
A BBC article that examines the relationship with cognitive biases, and our ability to tackle challenges such as climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE How do our biases help or hinder our navigation of the world?

KEY TERMS Cognitive biases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We know that climate change is happening. We also know that it's the result of increased carbon emissions from human activities like land degradation and the burning of fossil fuels. And we know that it's urgent.

A recent report from international climate experts tells us that we are likely to reach 1.5C of average global warming in as little as 11 years. At that point we can expect "increased risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth". These experts also found that temperature rise has already altered human and natural systems in profound ways, resulting in more extreme weather, the melting polar ice caps, sea level rise, droughts, floods and biodiversity loss.

But that information hasn't been enough to change our behaviours on a scale great enough to stop climate change. And a big part of the reason is our own evolution. The same behaviours that once helped us survive are, today, working against us.

It's important to remember one thing, however. It's true that no other species has evolved to create such a large-scale problem - but no other species has evolved with such an extraordinary capacity to solve it, either.

You might also like:
* Ten simple ways to act on climate change
* The perils of 'short-termism': Humanity's greatest threat
* The wrong images to show climate change
Brain biases
We lack the collective will to address climate change because of the way our brains have evolved over the last two million years.

"Humans are very bad at understanding statistical trends and long-term changes," says political psychologist Conor Seyle, director of research at One Earth Future Foundation, a programme incubator that focuses on fostering peace long-term.

"We have evolved to pay attention to immediate threats. We overestimate threats that are less likely but easier to remember, like terrorism, and underestimate more complex threats, like climate change."

In early phases of human existence we faced an onslaught of daily challenges to our survival and ability to reproduce - from predators to natural disasters. Too much information can confuse our brains, leading us to inaction or poor choices that can place us in harm's way.

As a result, our brains evolved to filter information rapidly and focus on what is most immediately essential to our survival and reproduction. We also evolved to remember both threats, so that they could be avoided in the future, and opportunities, so we could easily recall where to find sources of food and shelter.

These biological evolutions ensured our capacity to reproduce and survive by saving our brains time and energy when dealing with vast amounts of information. However, these same functions are less useful in our modern reality and cause errors in rational decision-making, known as cognitive biases. "Cognitive biases that ensured our initial survival make it difficult to address complex, long-term challenges that now threaten our existence, like climate change," says Seyle.

Psychologists have identified more than 150 cognitive biases we all share. Of these, a few are particularly important in explaining why we lack the will to act on climate change.

Hyperbolic discounting. This is our perception that the present is more important than the future. Throughout most of our evolution it was more advantageous to focus on what might kill us or eat us now, not later. This bias now impedes our ability to take action to address more distant-feeling, slower and complex challenges.

Our lack of concern for future generations. Evolutionary theory suggests that we care most about just a few generations of family members: our great-grandparents to great-grandchildren. While we may understand what needs to be done to address climate change, it's hard for us to see how the sacrifices required for generations existing beyond this short time span are worth it.

The bystander effect. We tend to believe that someone else will deal with a crisis. This developed for good reason: if a threatening wild animal is lurking at the edge of our hunter-gatherer group, it's a waste of effort for every single member to spring into action - not to mention could needlessly put more people into danger. In smaller groups, it was usually pretty clearly delineated who would step up for which threats, so this worked. Today, however, this leads us to assume (often wrongly) that our leaders must be doing something about the crisis of climate change. And the larger the group, the stronger this bias becomes.

The sunk-cost fallacy. We are biased towards staying the course even in the face of negative outcomes. The more we've invested time, energy or resources into that course, the more likely we are to stick with it - even if it no longer seems optimal. This helps explain, for example, our continued reliance on fossil fuels as a primary source of energy in the face of decades of evidence that we both can and should transition to clean energy and a carbon neutral future.

These cognitive biases evolved for good reason. But they're now hamstringing our ability to respond to what could be the largest crisis humanity has ever created or had to face.
Evolutionary upside
The good news is that our biological evolution hasn't just hindered us from addressing the challenge of climate change. It's also equipped us with capacities to overcome them.

Take our capacity for mental "time travel". Compared to other animals, we are arguably unique in the degree to which we can recall past events and anticipate future scenarios.

We can imagine and predict multiple, complex outcomes and identify actions needed in the present to achieve desired outcomes in the future. And individually we often prove able to act on these plans. We invest in retirement accounts and buy insurance, for example, as ways to counter our short-term interests over the long-term.

Unfortunately, this capacity to plan to ensure a future outcome breaks down when large-scale collective action is needed - as is the case with climate change. As individuals, we know what we can do about climate change. But addressing the issue also requires collective action on a scale that exceeds our evolutionary capacities. The larger the group, the more challenging it gets. Remember the bystander effect?

But in small groups, it's a different story.

As primates, we evolved to work cooperatively to defend territory and sustainably harvest food and resources for the group, all while ensuring enough genetic diversity to procreate. Anthropological experiments show us that, on average, any one individual can maintain stable relationships with 150 other people - a phenomenon known as "Dunbar's number". Beyond that social relationships begin to break down, undermining an individual's ability to trust and rely on the actions of others to achieve collective long-term goals.

Recognising the power of small groups, Exposure Labs, the film company behind Chasing Ice and Chasing Coral, is using its films to mobilise communities to take local action on climate change. For example, in South Carolina, a US state rife with leaders who deny climate change, Exposure Labs shows a film to get a conversation started, inviting people from various interest groups - like the agricultural, fisheries, and tourism industries - to talk about how climate change affects them personally. They then work these small groups to identify practical actions that can be taken immediately at the local level to make an impact - something that helps generate the political pressure necessary to compel lawmakers to pass relevant local or state-wide legislation. When local communities shape the narrative around individual interests, people are less likely to succumb to the bystander effect and more likely to engage.

These approaches use a couple of other psychological strategies, too. First, when small groups are involved in coming up with solutions themselves, they experience the endowment effect: when we own something (even an idea), we tend to value it more. Second, social comparison: we tend to evaluate ourselves by looking at others. If we're surrounded by other people in a group who are taking action on climate change, we're more likely to do the same. This is also the impetus behind programmes like comparing energy consumption from household to household in a community. Research shows that when people compare their energy use with their neighbours' via statements on their energy bills they are more likely to reduce energy consumption.

Of all our cognitive biases, however, the framing effect is one of the strongest affecting our decision-making processes. Humans are more likely to change behaviour when challenges are framed positively, instead of negatively. In other words, how we communicate about climate change influences how we respond. People are more likely to act in relation to a positive frame ("a clean energy future will save X number of lives") versus a negative statement ("we're going to go extinct due to climate change").

"Most people believe that climate change is real, but feel powerless to do something about it in the face of consequences that feel far away from home," says Exposure Labs managing director Samantha Wright. "So to get people to act, we need to make the issue feel direct and personal by focusing the issue locally, pointing both to local impacts and local solutions: like moving one's city to 100% renewable energy."

Similarly, behaviour change must be incentivised at the local level. One nation leading the way has been Costa Rica, which put in place an innovative carbon tax on fuel back in 1997. To emphasise the connection for taxpayers between fuel use and benefits to their own communities, part of the revenue goes to pay farmers and indigenous communities to protect and regrow Costa Rica's tropical forests. Costa Rica's system "now generates $33 million annually for these groups and has helped the country reverse their forest loss while growing and transforming their economy," says Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Costa Rica's Minister of Environment and Energy. In 2018, 98% of electricity used in the country came from renewable energy sources.

Rodriguez says the country is going even further; they've announced a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050, an effort which will include a bus fleet that is 70% electric by 2035 and cutting the number of cars used in cities in half by 2040. The key has been having a large-scale, organised effort - but one supported and understood by hundreds of smaller groups and communities.

At a larger scale, the Paris Agreement and the EU's 2050 carbon neutrality plan play a similar role, creating a common climate change action framework for countries, cities, towns and the private sector. "The EU's 2050 carbon neutral plan is what's needed at the global level to generate enough momentum, awareness and action, more importantly, it sets an example that can be matched and replicated by others," says Patricia Zurita, CEO of BirdLife International, a global partnership of bird conservation organisations.

Above all, the most helpful trait we've evolved to have is our ability to innovate. In the past, we used this skill to discover fire, invent the wheel or plant the first fields. Today, it may look more like solar panels, wind farms, electric vehicles and carbon pricing. Along with innovation, we've evolved to have the communication and technology to pass these innovations on, allowing a single idea or invention to spread far beyond our own family or town.

From mental time travel to cooperative social behavior to our abilities to innovate, teach and learn, all of these evolutionary consequences always have helped us secure our own survival, and they will continue to do so - albeit in the face of a very different threat than we had in our hunter-gatherer days.

We have evolved to be able to stop human-induced climate change. Now we must act.
Join 900,000+ Future fans by liking us on , or follow us on or . If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We know that climate change is happening. We also know that it's the result of increased carbon emissions from human activities like land degradation and the burning of fossil fuels. And we know that it's urgent. A recent report from international climate experts tells us that we are likely to reach 1.5C of average global warming in as little as 11 years.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Forbes article, demonstrating how the labelling of a phenomenon (climate change) as an ‘emergency’ changes the way we perceive that phenomenon.

# data[].attributes.subject
A Forbes article, demonstrating how the labelling of a phenomenon (climate change) as an ‘emergency’ changes the way we perceive that phenomenon.

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Whilst few experts doubt the link between human activity and climate change, persuading people who are not familiar with the scientific data (or are not persuaded by it) is another matter. How has language (specifically, the word ‘emergency’) helped to change perceptions of this issue? Thinking more widely, what is the role of language in helping to communicate scientific understanding? What are the pros and cons of using words and phrases that are emotive?

KEY TERMS Political language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do places like Shropshire (United Kingdom), Hawkes Bay (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia), New York (USA), and Krakow (Poland) have in common?

They are just some of the (and counting) cities, councils and jurisdictions worldwide to have declared a climate emergency. With record temperatures gripping Europe, widespread in South America, and ever-decreasing ice coverage in Greenland, the effects of climate change are being felt globally. As some nations drag their feet on enacting environmental policies or are slowed down by , some cities worldwide are taking matters in their own hands.
See also: One Small Step Renewable Energy Provides Growing Source Of Skilled Jobs For Africa And Asia
By declaring a climate emergency, cities are adopting more powers to help curb the effects of climate change . In New York, the city council has set new carbon reduction for its major buildings, Sydney have added climate considerations in any new policy or infrastructure decisions, while Shropshire Council, a rural district in the English Midlands, has to being carbon-neutral by 2030. In each case, these local governments have also used their declarations as a means to exert pressure on national decision-makers. There is no single definition of a climate emergency declaration, but many see it as a drive for carbon neutrality and a mandate for further political action.

France has declared #ClimateEmergency. This gained near zero attention..
Action surely matters more than words and so far the words have meant nothing. But how can we hold politicians accountable to this if no one even knows an emergency has been declared? https://t.co/YLEQmIv5zC

- Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) July 3, 2019

See also: Mini-Grids Are Ready To Change The World (Again) Deal Or No Deal
Bristol councilor Carla Denyer, who helped her city pass one of the United Kingdom's first local climate emergency declarations in November 2018 : "We are acknowledging we are in an emergency situation. The national government needs to declare an emergency and put resources in place to enable councils to help reduce carbon emissions . It's the first step to radical action." Six months after Bristol made its initial declaration, the United Kingdom became the first country to a climate emergency and pledged to dedicate more resources towards mitigating climate change.
See also: New Zealand Ditches GDP For Happiness And Wellbeing
In many cases, smaller political structures and more power over local policy have enabled cities to make more ambitious goals for themselves than national governments. The town of Chico in California declared a climate emergency after witnessing the most destructive wildfire in state history. Chico has pledged to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030 and intends to adopt many of the resolutions outlined in the Green New Deal. Rocked by a heatwave that sent temperatures soaring to 47 degrees, Paris is the major city to declare a climate emergency. With emission reduction projects already in place in the French capital, the city council has expanded its environmental plans by announcing it will open a " climate academy " geared to educating the public about the risks of climate change.
See also: 16-Year-Old Activist Demands EU Parliament Act On Climate Change As Quickly As Notre-Dame
Despite a vast array of pledges and policy changes, many declarations have been made in a more symbolic way. Pope Francis recently a worldwide climate emergency and urged nations to do more to tackle the issue head-on. Meanwhile, the declaration made in Krakow was led by local environmental groups with the support of councilor members and was made in a bid to apply on Poland's conservative government. Progressive lawmakers believe the government should increase budget allocations towards fighting climate change, while the ruling party advocate private businesses finding their own, for-profit solutions.

While hundreds of cities and regions are declaring climate emergencies and pledging various levels of commitments, who will be monitoring their progress? Answer: the citizens. With environmental watchdogs such as Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( ) continually monitoring government policies, and demonstrations worldwide by movements such as Extinction Rebellion demanding more , the stage is set for more accountability from decision-makers.

A large proportion of declarations are made as a result of public pressure, with citizens intent of seeing action done to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. These declarations are part of a much larger movement that has been spurred by a younger generation that feels by the lack of action taken by governments worldwide. Climate change has been listed as one of the major by younger generations, and they are determined to ensure that their is not compromised by short-term decision-making. From 16-year-old Greta Thunberg's at the United Nations to mass mobilizations in capital cities around the globe, the threat of a climate crisis has pushed most governments towards making stronger environmental pledges.

The 822 jurisdictions who have declared a climate emergency thus far contain over 136 million people and those numbers are expected to rise as governments begin to recognize the real threat posed by climate change. An IPCC report dated from last year stressed that the world may only have until 2030 to climate change before it reaches a more dangerous level. With more opportunities behind a transition towards a low-carbon than ever before and time running out to implement it, cities declaring a climate emergency are helping to raise awareness and drive the changes needed to safeguard the planet. However, these declarations mean nothing without real, concrete action to support them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Emergency Declarations: How Cities Are Leading The Charge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do places like Shropshire (United Kingdom), Hawkes Bay (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia), New York (USA), and Krakow (Poland) have in common? They are just some of the (and counting) cities, councils and jurisdictions worldwide to have declared a climate emergency.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Vox article, considering what the shocking recent WWF statistical report on biodiversity decline does - and does not - tell us. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Vox article, considering what the shocking recent WWF statistical report on biodiversity decline does - and does not - tell us. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Focus on the paragraph beginning “That figure is broadly helpful…” Were they misled by the ‘headline figure’? How much statistical interpretation is required in order for us to gain genuine insight? What are the shortcomings of reports such as this? Why might purely negative statistics fail to engage people? Overall, how important is it to “look beyond headline figures” in order to gain a full understanding of the state of the natural world? How should we do this?

KEY TERMS Index, Big numbers, Headline figures, Misinterpreted, Evidence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of a group of stories called

The biodiversity crisis, explained

One of the planet's largest conservation groups, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), just published a frightening statistic: Populations of most major animal groups, including mammals, birds, and fish, have declined by an average of 69 percent in the last half-century.

It's worse for animals in certain habitats and regions. Communities of freshwater species, such as fish and frogs, have declined by an average of 83 percent, globally, whereas populations of all major vertebrate groups found in Latin America have fallen by an average of 94 percent during the same period.

WWF and the Zoological Society of London, another nonprofit, calculated these stunning figures using a popular metric called the Living Planet Index (LPI). The index is designed to measure how animal populations, on the whole, are changing through time. The idea is that this figure can provide an early warning that ecosystems are in peril, according to Rebecca Shaw, the chief scientist at WWF.

"What we care about is ecosystem health," she told Vox. "That's what underpins a stable climate, healthy food production, healthy water production, and, really, human health."

Big numbers (i.e. "a 69 percent decline") tend to make headlines for a few obvious reasons. For one, they appear simple. They're also extreme. And for many decades, environmental groups have relied on negative numbers to raise money for conservation.

These headline figures are undoubtedly important; they highlight a very real and very severe crisis of biodiversity loss. The problem is that they're confusing and often misinterpreted in a big way. Even when they're not, there's a lot that these headline numbers leave out, including the more hopeful data and stories that demonstrate how conservation can actually work.

What the Living Planet Index is and what it isn't

A day in the life of an ecologist often includes counting animals. They tally up bug splats on car windshields, fly drones over colonies of waterbirds, and strap camouflaged cameras to trees that snap photos when animals stroll by.

Over time, these counts reveal how wildlife populations are changing. If a group of manatees in Florida, for example, runs out of food one year, a later survey may find fewer of them, revealing a population decline, often expressed as a negative percentage.

The Living Planet Index is built upon all of this counting.

To come up with the global LPI, scientists first calculate how individual populations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have changed between 1970 and 2018 (the data always lags behind a few years). A population of, say, 1,000 manatees that has lost 500 has decreased by 50 percent. The same is true for a population of 10 that has lost just five.

Then they average up all of those changes, be they increases or decreases, to produce one number. That means the index is an average of changes in population sizes, not the average of the number of creatures lost. (Our World In Data has a very helpful explanation if you want to learn more.)

But let's turn back to the headline figure from WWF's report: 69 percent. That number suggests that if you average all the changes in wildlife populations, globally, since 1970 - a population of frogs is down, a community of gorillas is up, and so on- you'll get a decrease of 69 percent.

That figure is broadly helpful. It helps us understand that a lotof animal populations are in decline. But - and this is crucial - that figure does not mean there are two-thirds fewer animals today compared to 50 years ago. Again, it's not counting all the animals lost in each group and adding that up; it's measuring the relative size of the decline in each population and averaging it.

It's this distinction that is confusing and most often misinterpreted. Two year ago, when WWF published the last edition of the report, which revealed a similar result - an average decline of 68 percent globally - several news outlets ran stories like " The world lost two-thirds of its wildlife in 50 years." That's wrong. Similar headlines appeared after WWF published its latest report.

The global index is "constantly being interpreted as we've lost 69 percent or 68 percent of the abundance of animals worldwide," said Brian Leung, an associate professor of ecology at McGill University. "It's not that. It's not just that everything is in decline."

WWF has tried to get ahead of misleading headlines, explaining in the report that a 69 percent decline doesn't mean that 69 percent of individual animals have been lost. It also presents a ton of other information in the report, including other metrics that often get overlooked. "We're going overboard this time to be really clear about what this indicator is and what it's not," Shaw said of the LPI. "We can't really control the interpretations in the media."

Even if all the media reports take pains to represent the LPI statistics accurately, there's still a lot these figures leave out. That's not a knock on WWF or ZSL - the global Living Planet Index is an impressive analysis. But on its own, it's just not the whole picture.

No single metric is perfect

In recent years, scientists have pointed out other shortcomings of the LPI, such as that extreme outliers - namely, wildlife populations that have declined massively since 1970 - can bring the overall average down. Research by Leung showed that if you remove these outliers, the overall trend of the global LPI is much less dramatic (you can read the responses to that paper here; WWF addresses outliers in the supplementary information for the report). Other studies have pointed out that some statistical methods used to calculate the LPI also seem to favor a negative trend.

Then again, consider what the LPI is trying to do: summarize global biodiversity loss in a single number. That's not easy, said Hannah Ritchie, the head of research at Our World In Data, who has written a lot about LPI. As she told Vox over email, any metric on that scale is going to have some important caveats. That's why scientists I spoke to tended to direct their criticisms at the idea of summarizing biodiversity loss in general, not at the LPI per se.

"There's no such thing as a perfect indicator," said Falko Buschke, an ecologist and freelance researcher, who led a study last year that looked at how random fluctuations in animal populations affect the LPI. These headline figures are useful for advocacy, he added, but from a science perspective they're often confusing and can raise more questions than they answer.

In the race to reverse wildlife declines, metrics matter

"It's a noble endeavor but also a difficult endeavor," Andrew Rypel, a professor and fish ecologist at the University of California Davis, said of big summary statistics. "You want the number to be accurate but you're also trying to distill down a lot of complicated data." An added challenge, he said, is that there isn't great data for a large number of species, including those that inhabit freshwater (where LPI registered some of the largest average declines).

This might all sound a bit ... pedantic. Why are we fussing over how to measure biodiversity loss when the news is bad by any metric?

In the race to reverse wildlife declines, metrics matter. They help dictate how government officials, scientists, and environmental advocates divvy up a limited conservation budget. They can also inform public policy. Researchers used LPI, for example, to measure progress against several biodiversity conservation targets under a major UN convention.

There is more, though, that policymakers can mine from this data, and they could also highlight some of the better news.

The case for good news

Headline figures like the global LPI tend to obscure the fact that populations of plants and animals are changing in vastly different ways. On the whole, yes, those changes are negative and represent declines - and there's some evidence that readers pay more attention to bad news. But many wildlife populations are stable or even increasing. In fact, half of all vertebrate populations in the report show an increasing trend.

WWF points this out plainly in the report. The number of loggerhead sea turtles nests increased by 500 percent in Chrysochou Bay, Cyprus, between 1999 and 2015, the group writes. That's thanks to deliberate conservation activities such as relocating nests that were close to human developments.

Meanwhile, the report reveals that populations of mountain gorillas in Central Africa's Virunga Mountains have grown from 480 individuals in 2010 to more than 600 today - again, thanks largely to conservation.

There are hundreds of examples like these (check out the Wildlife Comeback Report) and these are important stories to tell. People are tired of seeing the same negative figures that haven't changed much in the last decade. "I feel the reticence of people to take in new information like this," Shaw of WWF said. This data shows what's working: that wildlife populations can recover, and that decades of conservation work haven't been fruitless.

Indicators that clump populations together have value; they indicate, in simple terms, that ecosystems continue to trend in the wrong direction. And LPI is one of many featured in WWF's report (there's also metrics like "biodiversity intactness" and "mean species abundance"). But it's important to look beyond headline figures to see what's actually happening to individual populations.

"Of course, that doesn't give us a snappy headline figure," Ritchie said. "But it does give us essential insights into what populations are doing well, what ones are struggling, and what we need to do to restore them back to health."

The Living Planet Index has a data portal that allows you to do this. It includes tens of thousands of animal populations that you can click into to see how they're changing over time.

The new report also focuses on howto curb the decline of wildlife, offering many examples of what seems to work. This is critical, Shaw of WWF says, because more people than ever are aware that there's a crisis. They want solutions.

"The old-school way of talking about this is to pound on the negative numbers just to get anybody to listen," Shaw said. "But people are listening now."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There's a frightening new report about wildlife declines. But many are getting the story wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WWF just published a grim report card for global biodiversity. Here's what it does - and does not - tell us.

# data[].attributes.headline
A New Statesman article, exploring potential negative impacts the Ukraine war will have on the fight against global warming.

# data[].attributes.subject
A New Statesman article, exploring potential negative impacts the Ukraine war will have on the fight against global warming.

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Start by understanding how the Ukraine invasion will affect the way we try to tackle the climate crisis; thinking more widely, what is the link between climate change and political conflict? Then think about the possible ethical clashes: how can we decide which problem takes precedence - the need for short-term security in Europe, or the longer term issue of safeguarding the environment, and ensuring that future generations have a better chance of survival? Do the ideas of Paul Bloom on empathy and ethics help or hinder us in solving this ethical quandary (see our Saving the Chickens lesson)?

KEY TERMS Cascading risks, Short-term measure, Compound threats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo by Natalia Kolesnikova/AFP Via Getty Images

The terrible consequences of Russia's assault on Ukraine are already in motion. Not only are death tolls starting to climb, but thousands of refugees are pouring across Ukraine's borders. Meanwhile, in both Russia and the rest of Europe, it won't be long before the two-way pain of economic sanctions hits already soaring living costs.

Yet even as these grim events play out, the underlying threat posed by climate change continues to build, begging the question: will confronting the environmental crisis be downgraded in the face of war's more acute threat?

In the immediate term, addressing eastern Europe's unfolding humanitarian and diplomatic disaster will inevitably be a priority. No one, for instance, could fail to sympathise with the Ukrainian scientists who withdrew this week from an approval session for the crucial UN climate report, citing the need to think about the "safety of our families" and their inability to concentrate on the wording of the summary.
[See also: Why Putin invaded Ukraine]
The effect on climate action, however, could also be more lasting. In light of the need to transition away from Russian gas, the UK's Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has pressed the case for expanding " both" renewable capacity and North Sea oil and gas production. Without carbon capture and storage, the latter would be at odds with the government's own commitment to reaching net-zero emissions and lock the UK into the volatile global gas market for longer.

Equally, if prolonged a war and sanctions require major expense from Nato countries, then the current cost-of-living crisis is likely to continue. This may in turn give succour to those who argue that slashed budgets for foreign aid and international climate finance can be used to make up the difference.

Others, however, are adamant that such watering-down of climate ambition should not be allowed to happen. Climate change is a threat multiplier, and failing to support other vulnerable nations facing environmental and social breakdown will only store up future shocks.

Content from our partners

"The last 48 hours have shown the devastating impacts of an unstable world," warns Neil Morisetti, an associate fellow of the Chatham House think tank and a former commander of UK maritime forces. Deferring spending on climate issues would therefore "be a foolhardy, short-term measure which will impact on our long-term security".

The links between climate change, supply chains and conflict have become increasingly clear. In 2010, a heat wave in wheat-producing Russia and Ukraine reduced yields and pushed up the global price of bread - leading to an increase in poverty and civil unrest in places such as Egypt and Mozambique. Similarly, in 2007, the destabilising influence of an intense drought led the then UN secretary general to describe the conflict in Sudan and Darfur as the "first climate war".

Such cascading risks are only likely to worsen. A certain amount of further warming is inevitable and numerous countries are already at the edge of their resilience. "If no help is received, there is going to be a catastrophe in Somalia," which is witnessing the third consecutive season of failed rains, warns Walter Mawere from the NGO CARE International. "We are going to see a repeat of 2011, where we lost a quarter of a million people."

Providing the financial support that vulnerable countries require will not be an easy case to make. It has been much easier for the UN to raise aid for acute disasters, such as flooding or conflict, as opposed to slower, "boiling frog" catastrophes such as drought, says Clare Shakya, a director at the International Institute for Environment and Development. Private investors also have little interest in the kind of small and least-developed nations which are often the hardest hit by the impacts of rising seas and increasingly extreme weather, she adds.

But it can be done. As Fionna Smyth, Christian Aid's head of global policy and advocacy, points out, supplying climate finance is primarily a question of political will. "The $100bn [international] climate finance commitment, which rich countries had 12 years to come up with between them, is less than the expected budget of [the high-speed railway] HS2, which the UK alone is funding," she notes.

Meanwhile, the need to avoid reliance on dictatorial petro-states will help justify the transition to net zero. "It is clear from the last 24 hours that fossil fuels are a threat multiplier too," says Bernice Lee, Chatham House's distinguished fellow for sustainability. "If rich countries fail to support vulnerable countries in tackling climate impacts and in their clean energy transition, it will only fuel a spiral of instability."

Michael Liebreich, the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, similarly calls for an increase in investment in clean energy: "Fossil fuel investment has dropped in recent years but there has not been an increase in the clean stuff."

And climate aid spending can be beneficial for the trading interests and security of donor nations too. Helping north African nations to develop solar power could boost their own economies (and the migrants fleeing from further south), as well as provide energy to Europe via undersea cables, Morisetti suggests.

The need for such positive narratives will only grow with the release of next week's UN climate report by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The document will offer a harrowing catalogue of the impacts that lie ahead in a warming world, and discussions over its wording have been fraught.

The US is reportedly keen to avoid terms such as "losses and damages" in the text, since it could help shape negotiations at the COP27 climate conference later this year and put wealthy nations on the hook for providing further funding abroad.

Yet in a world facing the compound threats of climate change and geopolitical instability, ensuring that developing nations feel supported by rich democratic countries has perhaps never been needed more.
[See also: London's response to Vladimir Putin is pathetically inadequate]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Russia's war push back action on climate change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The terrible consequences of Russia's assault on Ukraine are already in motion. Not only are death tolls starting to climb, but thousands of refugees are pouring across Ukraine's borders. Meanwhile, in both Russia and the rest of Europe, it won't be long before the two-way pain of economic sanctions hits already soaring living costs.

# data[].attributes.headline
An FT article, considering the difficulties of linking extreme weather to climate change, in the wake of the fires and floods that have recently affected countries around the world. 

# data[].attributes.subject
An FT article, considering the difficulties of linking extreme weather to climate change, in the wake of the fires and floods that have recently affected countries around the world. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE This is a fabulous article for TOK, which covers multiple key concepts, could be used to support the exploration of various exhibition prompts, and, of course, is very much in the news today. Get students to begin by thinking about why many knowers would intuitively link the recent natural disasters around the world with climate change. Then think about why this is insufficient for scientists (and politicians), and their need for more certainty. Why is it so hard to establish a direct causal link? How is technology being used to try to do so? Why is there a difference of opinion about attribution science? Loads to unpack and explore!

KEY TERMS Direct causal link, Attribution science, Predictions, Truth, Models, Certainty, Evidence

We're proud to work in partnership with the FT, to promote their free FT for Schools programme. Follow this link to sign up your school, and access this and other articles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cookies on FT Sites

We use cookies and other data for a number of reasons, such as keeping FT Sites reliable and secure, personalising content and ads, providing social media features and to analyse how our Sites are used.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The flurry of natural disasters has focused attention on the complex work towards establishing a direct link to global warming

# data[].attributes.headline
A Grist article, arguing that the best forest managers are indigenous people

# data[].attributes.subject
A Grist article, arguing that the best forest managers are indigenous people

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE How important is immediacy when it comes to the management of the environment?

KEY TERMS Locally focused, Rights-based, Transfer of power, Restoration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New research from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences has identified a key to successful forest restoration: long-term, local governance by Indigenous peoples or local communities. The more formalized the land tenure rights, the better the outcomes. Research shows that Indigenous and rural communities are the best stewards of the forests they live in, but the study's novel finding is that community-managed forests yield better, more positive results for both environmental and social outcomes.

"Where people depend upon forest resources for a range of livelihood benefits, like firewood, timber, food, various things, they often have an incentive to take care of those forests. It's really quite simple," said lead author Harry Fischer. "When you give communities the opportunity to manage in those ways, you will often see better outcomes."

Forest restoration is a critical tool for global climate change mitigation, and is particularly important to the 1.8 billion people living in, and relying on, forests for their livelihoods. Restoration projects have historically prioritized environmental outcomes like planting trees to improve biodiversity, or monetizing carbon sequestration through carbon credit schemes. But typically, those interests take precedence over the interests of local communities. The authors argue that a locally focused, rights-based approach means that those interests don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The study analyzed data collected by the International Forestry Resources and Institutions over three decades, from 314 community-managed forests, across 15 nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Researchers wanted to understand what the best forests had in common in order to better inform future restoration efforts. The study focused on tropical ecosystems because of the high prevalence of forest restoration efforts in these regions, like the Trillion Trees project and other tree-planting initiatives. Common measures of successful forest restoration include healthy biodiversity, like planting trees or stopping deforestation, climate change mitigation services, like carbon sequestration and carbon credits, and improved livelihoods for local communities in the form of access to forests for food and housing. But the forests with the best results across all three measures were the ones where local communities determined the rules for forest management.

Fischer and the other researchers' critique of those efforts is that they are target-based. Forest projects focused on planting trees or selling carbon credits saw benefits concentrated in those areas, but poor performance in other areas, particularly when it comes to improving the livelihoods of local peoples. That means that while those projects may be good on paper for international conservation groups or investors, they don't provide positive spillover effects to the people that live there.

"What we're saying in our study is, 'OK, planting trees is not bad,'" Fischer said. "Giving power to local people is going to be more effective over the long term. If they have power, the interventions are going to be more legitimate. They're going to have more local buy-in for that."

But that transfer of power isn't being applied. Additional reports show that the world remains off track from reversing forest degradation and meeting decarbonization goals - in part due to a failure to work with Indigenous peoples or local communities, or recognize their rights. A study earlier this month from the Forest Declaration Assessment, a nonprofit that tracks forest conservation efforts, analyzed the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans of 27 countries with substantial forest ecosystems and Indigenous populations. According to the study, those plans to establish national conservation efforts had gaps where Indigenous peoples were performatively included or completely left out. Less than a third of those countries engaged Indigenous peoples when developing their plans.

Levi Sucre Romero, coordinator of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests and co-chair to the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, says this low rate of inclusion is one of the critical issues on the table at COP28 in Dubai.

"This implies that decisions are still being made from desks, from cities, for an issue as crucial as forests and those of us who are living and protecting those forests are not taken into account," Romero said. "The world's rulers must hear that they can no longer continue making promises about the problem of climate change if they are not going to fulfill them."

Fischer says that a forest restoration approach that prioritizes local livelihoods instead of making them a secondary benefit will take time - but on average will generate the best results for both environmental and social concerns.

"If we're going to have participation, let's do it in a way that really sort of redistributes power over a long, long period," Fischer said. "[Then], people are able to really manage and get practice, and these practices get institutionalized over time."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The best forest managers? Indigenous peoples, study says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists suggest that long term, local governance is the best way to save forests.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Conversation article, focusing on the struggle of native Americans for control over their sacred land. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Conversation article, focusing on the struggle of native Americans for control over their sacred land. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE What is the policy of ‘co-management’, and why are some states introducing it? How do indigenous beliefs determine the relationship indigenous peoples have with the natural world? Why is this at odds with the way the US government views both ‘sacred land’ and indigenous religion? Overall, why is it important to build in multiple outlooks and perspectives when we try to understand and manage the environment?

Key terms Origin narrative, Truly religious, Culturally important

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Native Americans’ decadeslong struggle for control over sacred lands is making progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Native Hawaiians see Mauna Kea mountain as sacred. Scientists use its summit for research. A new policy called co-management may help resolve this land conflict and similar ones across the US.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Freethink video, looking at how a group of ‘techno-optimists’ are tracking and reporting on human changes to Amazonian ecosystems. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Freethink video, looking at how a group of ‘techno-optimists’ are tracking and reporting on human changes to Amazonian ecosystems. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE How are open source maps being used to track changes in the Amazon, and what advantages do they offer to traditional maps? Why is it crucial that the technology behind MapBiomas is applied alongside human input? Overall, does the effectiveness of science depend on the number of people who are involved in its application?

Key terms Paradigm shift, Actionable, Open, Available, Shared science, Sustainably

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On its own, the mighty Amazon jungle could capture around 600 million tons of CO2 per year, says Tasso Azevedo, one of Brazil's leading environmental advocates. But human activity threatens to destroy not only the Amazon, but a variety of unique ecosystems, leaving in their place farms, gold mines and pasture lands.

All of this is happening as the world faces a changing climate - the warmer and drier weather raising fire risks and making ecosystems less resilient.

But a coalition of NGOs, universities, and tech companies, are harnessing technology to help track land use across the vastness and diversity of Brazil. The collaborative project, called MapBiomas, uses satellite imagery to track and report human changes to ecosystems. With all of its data available publicly, MapBiomas is fighting not only climate change and environmental destruction, but crime, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Open-source maps are saving the rainforest-and the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On its own, the mighty Amazon jungle could capture around 600 million tons of CO2 per year, says Tasso Azevedo, one of Brazil's leading environmental advocates. But human activity threatens to destroy not only the Amazon, but a variety of unique ecosystems, leaving in their place farms, gold mines and pasture lands.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Big Think video, looking at the importance of ‘long term thinking’ in order to safeguard civilization. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Big Think video, looking at the importance of ‘long term thinking’ in order to safeguard civilization. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE First, students should understand exactly what thinking in a long term way means. Are they long term thinkers? Do they agree that thinking in this way is essential to our survival? Then think about our responsibilities as knowers: is it our responsibility to think in a certain way? Or does this impinge on freedom of expression and belief? Are certain political outlooks more and less conducive to long term thinking?

KEY TERMS Legacies, Marshmallow vs. acorn brain, Long-term thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following is adapted from Dorie Clark's The Long Game: How to Be a Long-Term Thinker in a Short-Term World (Harvard Business Review Press, September 2021) and is reprinted with permission of the author.
Almost everyone agrees that strategic thinking is important: a full 97% of senior executives in a 10,000-person study said that being strategic was critical to their organization's future success.

But in practice, actually doing it - carving out time for long-term thinking amidst the urgent, and dealing with blowback from stakeholders that want faster, short-term results - is profoundly difficult.

In fact, Jeff Bezos - architect of such massively profitable long-term innovations such as Amazon Web Services and Amazon Prime - noted that much of Amazon's success comes from the fact that its competitors operate on a much shorter timeframe than they do. "If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon," he told Wired magazine in 2011, "then you're competing against a lot of people. But if you're willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you're now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that. Just by lengthening the time horizon, you can engage in endeavors that you could never otherwise pursue."

As it happens, the same principle that holds true in business applies to our own lives and careers - a prospect I examined in my new book The Long Game: How to Be a Long-Term Thinker in a Short-Term World.

Most of us, truth be told, aren't ambitious enough. Sure, we may spout wild dreams - I have multiple friends who've announced that "I want to be Oprah one day!" But when it comes to making concrete plans to actualize that, we get timid. We also live in terror that our plans may change. What if I'm wrong? What if it doesn't work out?

The truth is, none of us has perfect information. Over time and through experience, you may well learn new things about yourself and your skills and preferences, or about the business. You certainly don't have to hew to the same plan for seven years, no matter what. But engaging in long-term planning enables you to think big, and adapt where necessary.

"I decided about five years ago that when I retire, I want to live in a cabin on a lake in a nice town and do part-time coaching," Samantha Fowlds told me. She's a Canadian executive and a member of the Recognized Expert course and community I run for professionals who are looking to grow their platform and make a bigger impact. "I realized that if I want that dream to come true in 20 years, then I have to start now so I will have a solid foundation. So three years ago, I earned my professional coaching designation and now I take clients from time to time as I pursue my day job."

Unlike Samantha, most people never think that far ahead. They want something now, and get angry or frustrated when it doesn't immediately manifest. But the good things, of course, are ones you have to plan for - and work for.

At the end of the day, what becoming a long-term thinker most requires is character.

It's the courage to carve your own path, without the reassurance of doing exactly what everyone else in the crowd is.

It's the willingness to look like a failure - sometimes for long periods - because it takes time for results to show.

And it's the strength to endure and persist, even when you yourself aren't sure how it's going to turn out.

Three habits to master long-term thinking

There are three habits of mind especially worth cultivating on your journey as a long-term thinker.

Independence. At its heart, long-term thinking is about staying true to yourself and your vision. In our society, there's so much pressure toward short-term people-pleasing: saying yes to one more commitment because you don't want to let someone down, or taking the "great job" that everyone else admires, but that leaves you feeling dead inside.

When you act for the long term, it can be quite a while before that pays off - and if you're looking outside for validation, the wait can be devastating. Instead, to become fearless long-term thinkers, we need an internal compass that says: I'm willing to place my bet regardless of what others think, and I'm willing to do the work.

Curiosity. Some people are content to live their lives according to the roadmap that others have laid out for them, never questioning or pondering alternatives. But for many of us, a lifetime of coloring inside the lines can feel hollow - especially if our interests don't align perfectly with what society valorizes. We may not know the exact right path for ourselves (who does, at first?), but one quality that can lead us to it is curiosity. By watching closely how we choose to spend our free time and understanding whom and what we find most fascinating, we can pick up clues about what lights us up - and where, eventually, we can begin to make our contribution.

Resilience. Doing something new, something unique, is by definition experimental. You have no idea if it'll work or not - and oftentimes, it won't. Too many of us experience rejection or failure and immediately recoil, assuming that the editor who turned us down was the definitive arbiter of taste, or that the university that rejected us obviously knew what they were doing. But that's simply not true.

Chance, luck, and random individual preference play a massive role in how situations play out.

If 100 people reject your work, that's a pretty clear message.

But one or two or 10? You haven't even gotten started.

Becoming a long-term thinker requires a substratum of resilience, because it's rare that anything works out the first time, or in the way you originally envisioned it.

You need to have a Plan B (or C, or D, or E, or F) in your back pocket, and the resilience to say: "Well, that didn't work - so let's try something else." The number of at-bats is the crucial variable in your success.

We all have the capability to hone our skills, develop new techniques, and become better long-term thinkers.

In the short term, what gets you accolades - from family, from peers, from social media - is doing what's predictable. The stable job, the beach vacation, the nice new car.

It's easy to get swept along.
We have to be willing to be patient.
No one ever gives you credit for doing what's slow and hard and invisible. Sweating out that book chapter, doing that colleague a favor, writing that newsletter.

But we can't just optimize for the short-term and assume that will automatically translate into long-term success. We have to be willing to do hard, laborious, ungratifying things today - the kind of things that make little sense in the short term - so we can enjoy exponential results in the future.

Not patient in a passive, "let things happen to you" way, but actively and vigorously patient: willing to deny yourself the easy path so you can do what's meaningful.

The results won't be visible tomorrow, when the difference may be imperceptible.

But it will be in five or ten or 30 years, when you've created the future you've always wanted. Big goals often seem - and frankly, are - impossible in the short term. But with small, methodical steps, almost anything is attainable.

Dorie Clark is a marketing strategy consultant who teaches at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and has been named one of the Top 50 business thinkers in the world by Thinkers50. She is the author of The Long Game, Entrepreneurial You, Reinventing You, and Stand Out. You can receive her free Long Game strategic thinking self-assessment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three habits to master long-term thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following is adapted from Dorie Clark's The Long Game: How to Be a Long-Term Thinker in a Short-Term World (Harvard Business Review Press, September 2021) and is reprinted with permission of the author. Almost everyone agrees that strategic thinking is important: a full 97% of senior executives in a 10,000-person study said that being strategic was critical to their organization's future success.

# data[].attributes.headline
This Guardian article explores how indigenous stewardship of land offers a better way to manage carbon emissions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This Guardian article explores how indigenous stewardship of land offers a better way to manage carbon emissions. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE What are the differences between smaller-scale, indigenous societies, and larger-scale, industrialized society in terms of the way we produce and use our knowledge about the natural world? Can our values ever support the responsible stewardship of the environment?

Key terms Stewardship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ecosystems will continue to collapse around the world unless humanity listens to the expertise of indigenous communities on how to live alongside nature, a prominent Amazon leader has warned.

Tuntiak Katan of the Ecuadorian Shuar people, who is vice-president of the pan-Amazon organisation representing communities in the river basin, said governments were spending millions of dollars on environmental consultants while largely ignoring the land management skills of the planet's indigenous people that could help combat the climate crisis and biodiversity loss.

Speaking to the Guardian from the Ecuadorian Amazon, Katan, who became the first indigenous representative at a UN climate action summit last year, said environmental "catastrophes" such as the fires that devastated the world's largest rainforest in 2019 would continue unless the contributions and human rights of indigenous people were respected.

Indigenous communities support around 80% of the planet's biodiversity despite accounting for less than one twentieth of the human population, according to the World Bank.

Katan's warning came as a new study revealed that parts of the Amazon rainforest under the stewardship of indigenous peoples sequester carbon better than areas with little protection, leading to less deforestation and degradation.

"We are the defenders of nature, of the life of the forests, of our territories," said Katan, vice-president of Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin ( Coica). "The world is investing lots of money to implement public policy to combat climate change, help conservation and restoration. But these policies are made in offices by technical experts with little or no knowledge of the Earth."

Biodiversity loss was named as the third biggest risk to the world in terms of likelihood and severity this year by the World Economic Forum, ahead of terror attacks, infectious diseases and interstate conflict.

Children from the Huni Kuin tribe on land ravaged by the 2019 Amazon fires. Photograph: David Tesinsky/Mediadrumimages

Despite the concerns expressed by the global elite in Davos, there was no indigenous representation at last week's forum in the Swiss ski resort, according to Katan. He said he would welcome the opportunity to attend next year's forum to outline an indigenous economic model based on maintaining the health of the world's soils, rivers and the forest.

"If the proposals, knowledge and management practices of indigenous people are not listened to, there will be more big catastrophes. The issue of fires in the Amazon will continue, the degradation of forests and water will continue, deforestation will continue," Katan added.

This month, the UN unveiled the draft of a Paris-style agreement on nature calling for a commitment to protect at least 30% of the planet, dramatically reduce pollution and promote the participation and practices of indigenous people.

Katan said: "We are well-coordinated with our brothers and sisters from Indonesia, the Congo, communities in the Arctic and from the Pacific. We've been discussing issues with our brothers and sisters from all parts of the world.

"In Indonesia, for example, they also have a lot of knowledge about how to manage tropical forests. But the same story is being repeated here as in other parts of the world: the lack of recognition of their knowledge and the lack of respect for the human rights of indigenous populations."

Anti-indigenous sentiment is increasing in some parts of the planet. This month activists said they would sue Brazil's far-right president Jair Bolsonaro for his latest racist comments in which he questioned the humanity of indigenous communities.

In one of his weekly Facebook broadcasts, Bolsonaro declared: "Indians are undoubtedly changing ... They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us."

A person holds cardboard crosses that read 'indigenous land' during a protest against budget cuts on public education by President Jair Bolsonaro's government. Photograph: Silvia Izquierdo/AP

The new study from the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts, found that between 2003 and 2016, 90% of net emissions came from outside protected lands in the Amazon.

Scientist and lead author Wayne Walker said: "Our work shows that forests under the stewardship of indigenous peoples and local communities continue to have better carbon outcomes than lands lacking protection, meaning that their role is critical and must be strengthened if Amazon basin countries are to succeed in maintaining this globally important resource, while also achieving their commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement."

The findings add weight to the recommendations of a report on land use and the climate crisis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found that areas held or managed by indigenous peoples had much less human impact on the environment.

The report also highlighted the lack of consideration of indigenous views and knowledge in understanding large regions and ecosystems.
Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trust our expertise or face catastrophe, Amazon peoples warn on environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indigenous leader urges focus on native knowledge as study shows rainforest areas under tribal stewardship manage carbon better

# data[].attributes.headline
A France24 article, analyzing whether Doha’s claim to be the first ever carbon-neutral World Cup stands up to scrutiny. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A France24 article, analyzing whether Doha’s claim to be the first ever carbon-neutral World Cup stands up to scrutiny. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE What claims is the Qatari government making about the World Cup? Why do some experts feel these promises are “absolutely not credible”? What examples does the article provide to support this view? What does this indicate about the difficulties evaluating whether organizations are really carbon neutral - or just greenwashing? Overall, to what extent should we accept the environmental credentials claimed by governments, businesses, and other organizations? What evidence should we use to evaluate these?

Key terms Greenwashing, Credible, Transparency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Greenwashing’ mars Qatar’s carbon-neutral World Cup promise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Qatar was awarded hosting duties for the biggest event in football, the Gulf nation promised to host “the first carbon neutral World Cup”. While organisers have introduced several green initiatives,…

# data[].attributes.headline
This Conversation article discusses the relationship between indigenous languages, and knowledge about the natural world, arguing that the decline in the former affects the way we understand “ecosystems, conservation methods, plant life, animal behavior and many other aspects of the natural world.”

# data[].attributes.subject
This Conversation article discusses the relationship between indigenous languages, and knowledge about the natural world, arguing that the decline in the former affects the way we understand “ecosystems, conservation methods, plant life, animal behavior and many other aspects of the natural world.”

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE This relatively short article contains a lot of ideas. First, look at what it indicates about language and knowledge in general – do different languages support different types of understanding? Second, more specifically, what knowledge do indigenous languages in particular possess? Additionally, consider the empirical nature of indigenous knowledge via the video on the Ojibwe language. What does this reveal about the way indigenous people produce knowledge about the world, and the way their language supports this? Finally, consider the implications of the final thoughts of the article – “Once a language is gone, the traditional knowledge it carries also gets erased from society.” Do indigenous languages give us access to specific knowledge about the natural world? Does language determine knowledge?

KEY TERMS Linguistic emergency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alaska has a "linguistic emergency," according to the Alaskan Gov. Bill Walker. A report warned earlier this year that all of the state's 20 Native American languages might cease to exist by the end of this century, if the state did not act.

American policies, particularly in the six decades between the 1870s and 1930s, suppressed Native American languages and culture. It was only after years of activism by indigenous leaders that the Native American Languages Act was passed in 1990, which allowed for the preservation and protection of indigenous languages. Nonetheless, many Native American languages have been on the verge of extinction for the past many years.

Languages carry deep cultural knowledge and insights. So, what does the loss of these languages mean in terms of our understanding of the world.

Environmental knowledge

Embedded in indigenous languages, in particular, is knowledge about ecosystems, conservation methods, plant life, animal behavior and many other aspects of the natural world.

In Hawaiian traditions and belief systems, for example, the tree snails were connected to "the realm of the gods." Hawaiian royalty revered them, which protected them from overharvesting.

The Bishop Museum in Honolulu holds a shell necklace, or lei, of Queen Lili'uokalani, the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is made from tree snail shells, which signifies the high rank of female royalty. Wearing a shell was believed to provide "mana," or spiritual power and a way to understand ancestral knowledge.

Many of these snails are now extinct and those remaining are threatened with extinction. Scientists are working with Hawaiian language experts to learn about the belief systems that once helped protect them and their habitats.

A tool for doctors

Words in indigenous languages can have cultural meanings, that can be lost during translation. Understanding the subtle differences can often shift one's perspective about how indigenous people thought about the natural world.

For example, as an indigenous scholar of the environment, I led a team some years ago of language experts, elders and scholars from Montana and Alberta, Canada, to create a list of Blackfeet words, called a lexicon, of museum objects. The elders I worked with noted that the English word "herb," which was used to describe most plant specimens within museums, did not have the same meaning in Blackfeet.

In English, the word "herb" can have numerous meanings, including a seasoning for food. The closest English word to herb in Blackfeet is "aapíínima'tsis." The elders explained this word means "a tool that doctors use."

The hope is that the lexicon and audio files recorded in the Blackfeet language that our research helped create, might assist future scholars access the embedded meanings in languages.

Saving vanishing languages

Many Native American communities in the United States are now working to save these cultural insights and revitalize their languages.

In Wisconsin, an Ojibwe language school called "Waadookodaading," translated literally as "a place where people help each other," immerses its students in the environmental knowledge embedded in the language.

The Ojibwe believe that theirs is a language of action. And the best way for children to learn is by doing and observing the natural world. Each spring, for example, the students go into the woods to gather maple sap from trees, which is processed into maple syrup and sugar. These students learn about indigenous knowledge of plants, their habitats and uses.

Language loss can be considered as extreme as the extinction of a plant or an animal. Once a language is gone, the traditional knowledge it carries also gets erased from society.

Efforts are now underway worldwide to remind people of this reality. The United Nations has designated 2019 as the " International Year of Indigenous Languages " in order to raise awareness of indigenous languages as holders of "complex systems of knowledge" and encourage nation states to work toward their revitalization.

The loss of indigenous languages is not Alaska's concern alone. It affects all of us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the loss of Native American languages affects our understanding of the natural world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many Native languages are dying, and their loss has deep and profound implications for our world.

# data[].attributes.headline
This Guardian interview with Katharine Hayhoe discusses the nature of scientific knowledge, and why people are skeptical of the work of climate scientists. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This Guardian interview with Katharine Hayhoe discusses the nature of scientific knowledge, and why people are skeptical of the work of climate scientists. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Hayhoe’s key point is that 'A thermometer is not liberal or conservative'. What do students think she means by that, and is it always true? Secondly, why does Hayhoe believe many people are unwilling to accept the idea that human activity is the reason for the changes in the earth’s climate? Assuming she’s right, how can this be resolved?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She has contributed to more than 125 scientific papers and won numerous prizes for her science communication work. In 2018 she was a contributor to the US National Climate Assessment and was awarded the Stephen H Schneider award for outstanding climate science communication.

In 2018, we have seen forest fires in the Arctic circle; record high temperatures in parts of Australia, Africa and the US; floods in India; and devastating droughts in South Africa and Argentina. Is this a turning point?
This year has hit home how climate change loads the dice against us by taking naturally occurring weather events and amplifying them. We now have attribution studies that show how much more likely or stronger extreme weather events have become as a result of human emissions. For example, wildfires in the western US now burn nearly twice the area they would without climate change, and almost 40% more rain fell during Hurricane Harvey than would have otherwise. So we are really feeling the impacts and know how much humanity is responsible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its 1.5C report in October. A month later, the US federal government's climate assessment - to which you contribut ed - came out. How did these two massive studies move our understanding along?
These assessments are important because there is a Schrödinger's Cat element to studying climate impacts. The act of observing affects the outcome. If people aren't aware of what is happening, why would anyone change? Assessments like these provide us with a vision of the future if we continue on our current pathway, and by doing so they address the most widespread and dangerous myth that the largest number of us have bought into: not that the science isn't real, but rather that climate change doesn't matter to me personally.

Compared to past studies, how much media attention did these reports receive?
There was significant coverage but a lot of media survive by generating controversy so they bring on opposing voices rather than explaining the scientific facts. Climate change shouldn't be fodder for commentators who represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry by muddying the science. As a human and a scientist, this focus on controversy is frustrating. A thermometer is not liberal or conservative.

Fossil fuels have brought us many benefits ... but the solution to our current crisis is to stop using them. That is scary

Are there any signs that public opinion is shifting in the US and elsewhere?
We haven't yet reached the tipping point to motivate sufficient action. But there has been a change. Ten years ago, few people felt personally affected by climate change. It seemed very distant. Today, most people can point to a specific way climate affects their daily lives. This is important because the three key steps to action are accepting that climate change is real, recognising it affects us, and being motivated to do something to fix it. Opinion polls in the US show 70% of people agree the climate is changing, but a majority still say it won't affect them.

Trump was dismissive of these reports and has repeatedly tried to deny any link between climate change and extreme weather. What are the politics behind this denial?
It's a vicious cycle. The more doom-filled reports the scientists release, the stronger the pushback from politicians whose power, ideology and funding depends on maintaining the status quo, and who are supported by those who fear the solutions to climate change more than they fear its impacts. Opposition to climate change is a symptom of a society that is politically polarised between those who cling to the past and those who recognise the need for a better future. Fossil fuels have brought us many benefits - and I'm grateful for their contribution to my life - but the solution to our current crisis is to stop using them. That change can be scary, especially for those with most to lose financially from this shift. If you feel threatened, the instinctive reaction is to push back.

Progress of sorts was made at the UN climate talks in Poland, though many scientists say global society is not moving fast enough. What is your take?
Progress was made in Poland as the world agreed on a rule book to implement the Paris agreement. The agreement is like a global pot luck in which every nation brings something different to the party. For some it's soil conservation, for another wind power or carbon pricing. Poland gave us an agreed common standard on how to measure these contributions. That was progress. As scientists, we are like physicians for the planet who have been monitoring its rising fever for 80 years. We know that our lifestyle, specifically our dependence on fossil fuels is the cause of a problem that is rapidly becoming serious and in some cases even dangerous. So when we see the world dragging its heels and carbon emissions continuing to grow, we become concerned, anxious, and even frustrated. We know we aren't changing fast enough.

On current trends, if you had to give a percentage breakdown of the likelihood of the following three outcomes by 2100, what would you give: a) keeping to 1.5C; b) keeping to 2C; c) rising above 3C; and d) overshooting 4C?
I'd put my money on a gradual bend away from a higher scenario, which is where we are now, until accumulating and worsening climate disasters eventually lead to a collective "oh shit!" moment, when people finally realise climate impacts do pose a far greater threat than the solutions. At that point, I would hope the world would suddenly ramp up its carbon reduction to the scale of a Manhattan Project or a moon race and we would finally be able to make serious progress. The multitrillion-dollar question is simply when that tipping point in opinion will come, and whether it will be too late for civilisation as we know it. I hope with all my heart that we stay under 1.5C, but my cynical brain says 3C. Perhaps the reality will be somewhere between my head and my heart at 2C.

Extinction Rebellion marching with other groups through London in December last year. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock

What is the best way out of the climate crisis? What policies would make a difference?
The most important thing is to accelerate the realisation that we have to act. This means connecting the dots to show that the impacts are not distant any more: they are here and they affect our lives. It also means talking about solutions. The technology and knowledge are there. The economics already make sense. In Texas, where I live, the biggest military base, Fort Hood, switched last year to renewables because they were cheaper than natural gas. And finally, it means weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, which is challenged by the fact that the majority of the world's richest companies have made their money from the fossil fuel economy - so the majority of the wealth and power remains in their hands.

Are there any climate engineering schemes or trials that have potential?
One solution being discussed is the idea of deliberately geoengineering the planet to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or cool the planet. I believe it is important to discuss and study these technologies very thoroughly, because implementing some of them, like solar radiation management [spraying particles into the air to simulate a volcanic eruption and block some of the sunlight reaching Earth], is extremely risky. It would be like giving an experimental drug to every human on the planet before it had been tested. I'm more hopeful about smaller scale, less risky geoengineering projects that suck carbon dioxide out of the air, such as those being trialled by Climeworks to turn carbon into stone or fuel: or even massive tree-planting efforts, as in Bhutan.

What's the role of global finance? Can money managers, shareholders and multinationals exert pressure and take positive action in ways that short-termist, vote-hungry politicians seem unable to do?
Yes! In the world we live in, money speaks loudly. Thanks to the growing divestment movement, we have seen cities, universities and entire countries, in the case of Ireland, withdrawing investments from fossil fuel assets. This isn't only happening for ethical reasons but for practical ones as well. As clean energy continues to expand, those assets could become stranded. When money talks the world listens.

Firefighters watch as flames climb a hillside in Guinda, California, July last year. Photograph: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

What are the most positive developments you have seen in the past year in the climate field?
I'm asked what gives me hope on a daily basis, and my answer is, I don't find hope in my science, I find it in people. Over the last few years, the number of people who want to talk about and do something about climate has increased exponentially. Then, there is the unexpected leadership of organisations such as Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, RepublicEN, the Iron and Earth group - young professionals in the oil and construction industries who want to be part of the move from fossil fuels; and the take-up of renewables even in conservative states like Texas, which now gets 20% of its energy from wind and solar power.

Finally, there's the encouraging news such as solar being the fastest-growing power source around the world, clean energy jobs growing from India to the US, and new technology being developed every year that drops the price and increases the accessibility of fossil fuel alternatives.

This year has also seen the rise of disruptive campaigning, for example Extinction Rebellion in the UK; the student strikes led by ; and direct action in the US and Canada against oil pipelines. Is there a point when scientists also have to speak out more forcefully?
We are moving in that direction. Scientists are not just disembodied brains floating in a glass jar, we are humans who want the same thing every other human wants, a safe place to live on this planet we call home. So while our work must continue to be unbiased and objective, increasingly we are raising our voices, adding to the clear message that climate change is real and humans are responsible, the impacts are serious and we must act now, if we want to avoid the worst of them.

What are the key political moments in 2019 for climate policy in the US and the world?
International talks are important but we should be looking at subnational actors because there is a lot going on at the city and corporate level. Across the US a hundred cities have committed to going 100% clean energy. Companies like Apple have already achieved that goal. In the US there's a new climate bill with bipartisan sponsors, which is essential for legislation to succeed long-term.

Are we likely to get any respite from climate change?
(Sighs.) Climate change is a long-term trend superimposed over natural variability. There'll be good and bad years, just like there are for a patient with a long-term illness, but it isn't going away. To stabilise climate change, we have to eliminate our carbon emissions. And we're still a long way away from that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Katharine Hayhoe: 'A thermometer is not liberal or conservative'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She has contributed to more than 125 scientific papers and won numerous prizes for her science communication work. In 2018 she was a contributor to the US National Climate Assessment and was awarded the Stephen H Schneider award for outstanding climate science communication.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Conversation article, looking at what the world can learn about conservation and trust from indigenous societies. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Conversation article, looking at what the world can learn about conservation and trust from indigenous societies. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Focus on ‘TEK’, and what its three elements mean. What does the article say are the key differences between indigenous and industrialized approaches to resource management? What can be learned from it? How should we balance avoiding stereotypical views of indigenous societies as being ‘at one with nature’, with a willingness to learn from them? Overall, how important is it to be willing to learn from other societies and cultures about the world - and what happens if we are not?

Key terms Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Stereotypes, Framework to understand, Trust, Deference, Respectful, Accountable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A family in northern Siberia watches - but decides not to hunt - a musk ox that wandered into the area where they live. John Ziker, Author provided

Twenty-five years ago, when I was a young anthropologist working in northern Siberia, the Indigenous hunters, fishers and trappers I lived with would often stop and solemnly offer something to the tundra. It was usually small, such as coins, buttons or unlit matches. But it was considered essential. Before departing on a hunting or fishing trip, I'd be asked if I had some change in my outer coat. If I didn't, someone would get me some so it was handy. We left other gifts, too, such as fat from wild reindeer to be fed to the fire.

I was intrigued. Why do these things? Their answers were usually along the lines of, "We are the children of the tundra," or "we make these sacrifices so that tundra will give us more animals to hunt next year."

These practices are part of what I and other anthropologists call " traditional ecological knowledge." Beliefs and traditions about the natural world are central in many Indigenous cultures around the world, bringing together what industrialized cultures think of as science, medicine, philosophy and religion.

Many academic studies have debated whether Indigenous economies and societies are more oriented than others toward conservation or ecology. Certainly the idealized stereotypes many people hold about Indigenous groups' being "one with nature" are simplistic and potentially damaging to the groups themselves.

However, recent studies have underscored that conservationists can learn a lot from TEK about successful resource management. Some experts argue that traditional knowledge needs a role in global climate planning, because it fosters strategies that are "cost-effective, participatory and sustainable."

Part of TEK's success stems from how it fosters trust. This comes in many different forms: trust between community members, between people and nature, and between generations.

Defining TEK

Looking more closely at the components of TEK, the first, "tradition," is something learned from ancestors. It's handed down.

"Ecological" refers to relationships between living organisms and their environment. It comes from the ancient Greek word for "house," or "dwelling."

Finally, the earliest uses of the term "knowledge" in English refer to acknowledging or owning something, confessing something and sometimes recognizing a person's position or title. These now-obsolete meanings emphasize relationships - an important aspect of knowledge that modern usage often overlooks but that is especially important in the context of tradition and ecology.

Combining these three definitions helps to generate a framework to understand Indigenous TEK: a strategy that encourages deference for ancestral ways of dwelling. It is not necessarily strict "laws" or "doctrine," or simply observation of the environment.

TEK is a way of looking at the world that can help people connect the land they live on, their behavior and the behavior of the people they are connected to. Indigenous land practices are based on generations of careful and insightful observations about the environment and help define and promote "virtuous" behavior in it.

As an American suburbanite living in a remote community in Siberia, I was always learning about what was "proper" or "improper." Numerous times people would tell me that what I or someone else had just done was a "sin" in respect to TEK. When someone's aunt died one year, for example, community members said it happened because their nephew had killed too many wolves the previous winter.

Similarly, after stopping to assess the freshness of some reindeer tracks on the tundra, one hunter told me, "We let these local wild reindeer roam in midwinter so they will return next year and for future generations." Here, TEK spells out the potential environmental impacts of greed - which, in this case, would mean overhunting.

Concepts like these are not isolated to Siberia. Much work has been done examining the parallels among ancestral systems of deference in Siberia, Amazonia, North America and other regions.

Trust and tradition

These examples illustrate how TEK is a set of systems that promote trust through encouraging deference for ancestral ways of dwelling in the world.

Moderation of self-interested behaviors requires such trust. And confidence that the environment will provide - caribou to hunt, say, or ptarmigan birds to trap - depends on the idea that people will treat the environment in a respectful manner.

Previously, I've studied prosociality - behavior that benefits others - in northern Siberian practices of food-sharing, child care and use of hunting lands.

These aspects of life depend on the idea that the "real" owners of the natural resources are ancestors and that they punish and reward the behaviors of the living. Such ideas are encouraged by elders and leaders, who commend virtuous and prosocial behavior while connecting negative outcomes with selfishness.

Trust is an essential component of reciprocity - exchange for mutual benefit - and prosociality. Without trust, it does not make sense to take risks in our dealings with other people. Without trust we cannot cooperate or behave in nonexploitative ways, such as protecting the environment. This is why it is advantageous for societies to monitor and punish noncooperators.

Put another way, minimizing one's resource use today to make tomorrow better requires trust and mechanisms to enforce it. This is also true in larger social formations, even between nations. Groups must trust that others will not use the resources they themselves have protected or overuse their own resources.

Lessons from TEK

Today, many environmental experts are interested in incorporating learnings from Indigenous societies into climate policies. In part, this is because recent studies have shown that environmental outcomes, such as forest cover, for example, are better in Indigenous protected areas.

It also stems from growing awareness of the need to protect Indigenous peoples' rights and sovereignty. TEK cannot be "extracted." Outsiders need to show deference to knowledge-holders and respectfully request their perspective.

One idea societies can adopt as they combat climate change is the importance of trust - which can feel hard to come by these days. Young activist Greta Thunberg's " Fridays for Future " initiative, for example, highlights the ethical issues of trust and responsibility between generations.

Many outdoor enthusiasts and sustainability organizations emphasize "leaving no trace." In fact, people always leave traces, no matter how small - a fact recognized in Siberian TEK. Even footsteps compact the soil and affect plant and animal life, no matter how careful we are.

A more TEK-like - and accurate - maxim might say, "Be accountable to your descendants for the traces you leave behind."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the world has a lot to learn about conservation - and trust - from Indigenous societies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twenty-five years ago, when I was a young anthropologist working in northern Siberia, the Indigenous hunters, fishers and trappers I lived with would often stop and solemnly offer something to the tundra. It was usually small, such as coins, buttons or unlit matches. But it was considered essential.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Recode interview, which explores the claim made by a group of biologists and ecologists that social media is threatening humanity. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Recode interview, which explores the claim made by a group of biologists and ecologists that social media is threatening humanity. 

# data[].attributes.body
UNPACKING THE SOURCE Why is Joe Bak-Coleman and the other authors of the paper so worried about what’s happening? Then think about their suggestion of treating social media as a ‘crisis discipline’. What does this mean, and how does it shift our understanding of social media? What are the challenges of exploring the effects of social media? Are they right about its risks? Finally, what do students think are our individual and collective responsibilities as knowers when it comes to using social media?

KEY TERMS Crisis discipline, Information ecosystem