# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why Endangered Species Matter

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was established in 1973 to protect "imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" and help them recover.

The Trump administration has put forth a number of proposals that would weaken the ESA. These include measures to allow for the consideration of economic impacts when enforcing the ESA, ending the practice of automatically giving threatened species the same protection as endangered species, and making it easier to remove species from the endangered list.

In a way, this is nothing new because the ESA has been under attack for decades from construction, development, logging, water management, fossil fuel extraction and other industries that contend the act stifles economic development. But between 2016 and 2018 alone, there were almost 150 attempts to undercut the ESA; and last year, from July 8 to 22, Republicans in Congress or the Trump administration introduced 24 such measures and spending bill riders.

These bills included efforts to remove the gray wolf's protected status in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes; a plan to remove from the endangered list the American burying beetle that lives on oil-rich land; and a strategy to roll back protection of the sage-grouse, which also inhabits oil-rich land in the West and whose numbers have declined 90 percent since the West was first settled. The Trump Administration recently opened up nine million acres of sage-grouse habitat to drilling and mining.

Endangered species, if not protected, could eventually become extinct-and extinction has a myriad of implications for our food, water, environment and even health.
Extinction rates are accelerating
Ninety-nine percent of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct over the course of five mass extinctions, which, in the past, were largely a result of natural causes such as volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. Today, the rate of extinction is occurring 1,000 to 10,000 times faster because of human activity. The main modern causes of extinction are the loss and degradation of habitat (mainly deforestation), over exploitation (hunting, overfishing), invasive species, climate change, and nitrogen pollution.

There are also other threats to species such as the pervasive plastic pollution in the ocean-a recent study found that 100 percent of sea turtles had plastic or microplastic in their systems.

Emerging diseases affecting more and more wildlife species such as bats, frogs and salamanders are the result of an increase in travel and trade, which allows pests and pathogens to hitch rides to new locations, and warming temperatures that enable more pests to survive and spread. Wildlife trafficking also continues to be a big problem because for some species, the fewer members there are, the more valuable they become to poachers and hunters.
How many species are endangered?
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species, over 26,500 species are in danger of extinction. This includes 40 percent of amphibians, 34 percent of conifers, 33 percent of reef-building corals, 25 percent of mammals and 14 percent of birds. In the U.S., over 1,600 species are listed as threatened or endangered.

A 2018 report by the Endangered Species Coalition found that ten species in particular are "imperiled" by the Trump administration's proposals: California condor, giraffe, Hellbender salamander, Humboldt marten, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, red wolf, rusty patched bumble bee,

San Bernardino kangaroo rat, West Indian manatee, and Western yellow-billed cuckoo.
The web of life
While it may seem unimportant if we lose one salamander or rat species, it matters because all species are connected through their interactions in a web of life. A balanced and biodiverse ecosystem is one in which each species plays an important role and relies on the services provided by other species to survive. Healthy ecosystems are more productive and resistant to disruptions.

A recent study found that extreme environmental change could trigger an "extinction domino effect." One of the study's authors said, "Because all species are connected in the web of life, our paper demonstrates that even the most tolerant species ultimately succumb to extinction when the less-tolerant species on which they depend disappear." So saving one species means saving its habitat and the other species that live there too.

"When you lose one species, it affects the ecosystem and everything around it gets a little bit more fragile while it adapts to change," said Kelsey Wooddell, assistant director of the Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability. "Even if it's not a keystone species [a species that others in an ecosystem depend on], its loss will weaken the functionality of the entire ecosystem, which just makes it easier for that ecosystem to stop working."
What are the consequences of extinction? Altering ecosystems through cascading effects
If a species has a unique function in its ecosystem, its loss can prompt cascading effects through the food chain (a "trophic cascade"), impacting other species and the ecosystem itself.

An often-cited example is the impact of the wolves in Yellowstone Park, which were hunted to near extinction by 1930. Without them, the elk and deer they had preyed upon thrived, and their grazing decimated streamside willows and aspens, which had provided habitat for songbirds. This left the stream banks susceptible to erosion, and a decline in songbirds allowed mosquitoes and other insects the birds would have eaten to multiply. When the wolves were reintroduced to the park in 1995, they once again preyed on the elk; plant life returned to the stream banks and along with it, birds, beavers, fish and other animals. (Note: David Bernhardt, acting secretary of the Department of the Interior, just announced a proposal to strip gray wolves of their endangered status in the Lower 48 states.)

Kelp forests are another classic example. They play an important role in coastal ecosystems because they provide habitat for other species, protect the coastline from storm surges and absorb carbon dioxide.

Yet kelp forests are rapidly getting mowed down by exploding numbers of purple sea urchin. California sea otters eat the purple sea urchins that feed on giant kelp. These otters used to number in the hundreds of thousands to millions, but their population has been reduced to about 3,000 as a result of unchecked hunting in the 19th century and pollution. Moreover, in 2013 the sunflower starfish, which also eats purple sea urchins, began dying because of a virus that was likely exacerbated by warmer waters. Without the sea otter and the sunflower starfish predators, the purple sea urchin began feasting on the kelp forests, which declined 93 percent between 2013 and 2018. (A new study found that kelp forests are now also threatened by ocean heat waves.) The explosion of sea urchins not only damaged the kelp ecosystem, it also had serious impacts on Northern California's red urchins that are valued for sushi. Fish that need the kelp forests for spawning, such as sculpin, rock cod and red snapper may become vulnerable in the future as well.

As another example, Wooddell explained that on Guam, after the invasive brown tree snake was accidentally introduced to the island in the 1950s, 10 of the island's 12 endemic bird species went extinct. "Typically birds eat seeds and spread seeds elsewhere on the island but that is no longer a functioning ecosystem," she said. "So the forest and the trees have decreased a lot. And Guam is covered in spiders because the birds are not there to eat them."
Losing apex species has multiple effects
Eliminating the large predators at the top of the food chain, the "apex species," may be humans' most serious impact on nature, according to one study. These large species are more vulnerable because they live longer, reproduce more slowly, have small populations, and need more food and a greater habitat area. Scientists say their loss has played a role in pandemics, fires, the decline of valued species and the rise of invasive ones, the reduction of ecosystem services, and decreased carbon sequestration.

Elephants are an apex species that may go extinct in our lifetime, as a result of tourism, habitat loss and poaching for ivory. This could dramatically change ecosystems in Africa and Asia. Through consumption and digestion, elephants disperse more seeds farther than any other animals; this fosters the growth of plants and trees that birds, bats and other animals depend upon for food and shelter.

Elephants also dig water holes that all animals share, and they fertilize the soil with their rich dung, which provides food for other animals.

The loss of apex species can also affect wildfires. After rinderpest, an infectious virus, wiped out many plant-eating wildebeest and buffalo in East Africa in the late 1800s, plants flourished. During the dry season, this over-abundance of vegetation spurred an increase in wildfires. In the 1960s, after rinderpest was eliminated through vaccinations, the wildebeest and buffalo returned. The ecosystem went from shrubbery to grasslands again, decreasing the amount of combustible vegetation, and the wildfires decreased.
Jeopardizing pollination
Seventy-five percent of the world's food crops are partially or completely pollinated by insects and other animals, and practically all flowering plants in the tropical rainforest are pollinated by animals. The loss of pollinators could result in a decrease in seed and fruit production, leading ultimately to the extinction of many important plants.

Flying foxes, also known as fruit bats, are the only pollinators of some rainforest plants. They have been over-hunted in tropical forests with several species going extinct. One study noted that 289 plant species, including eucalyptus and agave, rely on flying foxes to reproduce; in turn, these plants were responsible for producing 448 valuable products.

Bees pollinate over 250,000 species of plants, including most of the 87 crops that humans rely on for food, such as almonds, apples and cucumbers.

But in recent years, large populations of bees have been wiped out by the mysterious "colony collapse disorder" wherein adult honeybees disappear from their hive, likely in response to numerous stressors.

Over the last 20 years in the U.S., monarch butterflies, which pollinate many wildflowers, have decreased 90 percent. The rusty-patched bumble bee, another important pollinator and the first bee species to be put on the endangered list, now only occupies one percent of its former range.

Insect populations overall are declining due to climate change, habitat degradation, herbicides and pesticides. A 2014 review of insect studies found that most monitored species had decreased by about 45 percent. And a German study found 75 percent fewer flying insects after just 27 years. As insect populations are reduced, the small animals, fish and birds that rely on them for food are being affected, and eventually the predators of fish and birds will feel the impacts as well. One entomologist who had studied insects in the rainforest in the 1970s returned in 2010 to find an up to 60-fold reduction. His study reported "a bottom-up trophic cascade and consequent collapse of the forest food web."
Endangering the food chain
Plankton, tiny plant and animal organisms that live in the ocean or fresh water, make up the foundation of the marine food chain. Phytoplankton are critical to the health of oceans and the planet because they consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen during photosynthesis.

In 2010, researchers found that phytoplankton had decreased 40 percent globally since 1950, and attributed the decline to rising sea surface temperatures. The scientists speculated that the warming surface waters did not mix well with the cooler, deeper waters rich in nutrients that phytoplankton need. In addition, zooplankton are very sensitive to slight changes in the amount of oxygen in the ocean, and may be unable to adapt as areas of low oxygen expand due to climate change.

The quantity and quality of plankton also affects the nutrition of other creatures further up the food chain. In the Mediterranean Sea, the biomass of sardines and anchovies declined by one-third in just ten years. One scientist speculated that this is because the sardines' and anchovies' normal plankton had disappeared, so they had to resort to eating a less nutritious species of plankton with fewer calories. Changes in plankton quality could be a result of water temperature, pollution or lack of nutrients, but scientists are not exactly sure why the plankton makeup in some places is changing. If it is due to global warming and pollution, some say the situation could worsen.

However, Sonya Dyhrman, a professor in Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences who studies phytoplankton with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, is more sanguine about the future. "Microbes like phytoplankton can adapt, can acclimate, and can evolve, so I worry less about lineages of phytoplankton going extinct and more about how phytoplankton community composition will change in the future ocean," said Dyhrman.

A different community composition of phytoplankton could change the food web structure, but Dyhrman is not really worried about the total collapse of fisheries. She is concerned, however, that "there could be changes in ocean ecosystems and we don't really know what those changes will be. What will the architecture of that ecosystem look like in the future? The problem is, the ocean is already changing and we don't understand the architecture of the ecosystem right now well enough to predict what will happen in the future."
Losing nature's therapeutic riches
More than a quarter of prescription medications contain chemicals that were discovered through plants or animals. Penicillin was derived from a fungus. Scientists are studying the venom of some tarantulas to see if one of its compounds could help cure diseases such as Parkinson's. One molecule from a rare marine bacterium could be the basis of a new way to treat to melanoma.

Scientists have so far identified about 1.7 million different types of organisms, but between 10 and 50 million species are thought to exist on Earth.

Who knows what substances or capabilities some of these species might possess that could help treat diseases and make human lives easier?
Destroying livelihoods
According to a study for the U.N., the continued loss of species could cost the world 18 percent of global economic output by 2050.

Already, a number of industries have been economically impacted by species loss. The collapse of bee populations has hurt many in the $50 billion-a-year global honey industry. Atlantic cod in the waters off of Newfoundland formed the basis of the local economy since the 15 th century - until overfishing the cod destroyed the livelihoods of local fishermen.
What you can do about extinction
Extinction is hard to see. We may not realize how much of the natural world has been lost because the "baseline" shifts with every generation. Past generations would regard what we see as natural today as terribly damaged, and what we see as damaged today, our children will view as natural.

Wooddell believes the most important thing one can do is to put pressure on Congress and elected leaders to create land management, pollution and other sustainable policies that will protect biodiversity and the environment. However, because it's unlikely that these kinds of top-down policies will be instituted in the current political climate, she recommends mobilizing grassroots community groups to create "bottom-up" policies.

Here are some other things you can do to protect endangered species and prevent extinction:

Eat less meat. Soybean production is one of the main causes of deforestation, and most soybean meal is used for animal feed.

Buy organic food because organic farmers use only non-synthetic or natural pesticides on their crops. Synthetic pesticides may be toxic for other organisms.

Choose sustainable seafood. The Marine Stewardship Council provides a list of certified sustainable fish for responsible eating.

Compost food waste. In New York City, the compost is used for urban farming and gardening, which provide habitat for pollinators.

Buy wood and paper products certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, to ensure they're harvested from responsibly managed forests.

Don't buy products made from endangered or threatened species, such as tortoise shell, ivory, coral, some animal skins, and "traditional" medicines.

Be aware of the source of palm oil used in countless food and cosmetic products. Many tropical forests are being razed for palm oil plantations. If a product contains palm oil, make sure it's from a deforestation-free plantation.

Reduce your use of plastic.

If you have a garden, plant native shrubs and flowers that attract butterflies and other pollinators. Milkweed is particularly helpful for monarch butterflies.

Set up a beehive.

Diversify your diet. Eating these 50 foods will promote biodiversity and a healthier plant.

Support and get involved with organizations that are helping endangered animals.

Join the Center for Biological Diversity and use their Take-Action Toolboxes.

Correction: This post was updated on April 3, 2019 to remove a sentence about cownose rays devastating scallop populations off of North Carolina. It turns out that other studies have challenged those findings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Endangered Species Act is under attack. If we don't protect endangered species, their extinction will impact our food, water, environment and health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wind turbines next to Argo Blockchain's new facility in Dickens County, Texas. The site would be fueled mostly by wind and solar energy. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

Facing intense criticism, the crypto mining industry is trying to change the view that its energy-guzzling computers are harmful to the climate.

Wind turbines next to Argo Blockchain's new facility in Dickens County, Texas. The site would be fueled mostly by wind and solar energy. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

Along a dirt-covered road deep in Texas farm country, the cryptocurrency company Argo Blockchain is building a power plant for the internet age: a crypto "mining" site stocked with computers that generate new Bitcoins.

But unlike other Bitcoin mining operations, which consume large quantities of fossil fuels and produce carbon emissions, Argo claims it's trying to do something environmentally responsible. As Peter Wall, Argo's chief executive, led a tour of the 126,000-square-foot construction site one morning this month, he pointed to a row of wind turbines a few miles down the road, their white spokes shining in the sunlight.

The new facility, an hour outside Lubbock, would be fueled mostly by wind and solar energy, he declared. "This is Bitcoin mining nirvana," Mr. Wall said. "You look off into the distance and you've got your renewable power."

Facing criticism from politicians and environmentalists, the cryptocurrency mining industry has embarked on a rebranding effort to challenge the prevailing view that its electricity-guzzling computers are harmful to the climate. All five of the largest publicly traded crypto mining companies say they are building or already operating plants powered by renewable energy, and industry executives have started arguing that demand from crypto miners will create opportunities for wind and solar companies to open facilities of their own.

The effort - partly a public-relations exercise, partly a genuine attempt to make the industry more sustainable - has intensified since last spring, when China began a crackdown on crypto mining, forcing some mining operations to relocate to the United States. A trade group called the Bitcoin Mining Council also formed last year, partly to tackle climate issues, after Elon Musk criticized the industry for using fossil fuels.

Image

Peter Wall, Argo's chief executive, at the new 126,000-square-foot facility in West Texas. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

Crypto mining does not involve any picks or shovels. Instead, the term refers to a verification and currency creation process that is essential to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Powerful computers race one another to process transactions, solving complex mathematical problems that require quintillions of numerical guesses a second. As a reward for this authentication service, miners receive new coins, providing a financial incentive to keep the computers running.

In Bitcoin's early years, a crypto enthusiast could mine coins by running software on a laptop. But as digital assets have become more popular, the amount of power necessary to generate Bitcoin has soared. A single Bitcoin transaction now requires more than 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, or enough energy to power the average American household for 73 days, researchers estimate.

To achieve that, some miners are reviving broken-down coal plants, or using low-cost natural gas to power their computers. Last month, a study in the journal Joule found that Bitcoin mining worldwide may be responsible for about 65 megatons of carbon dioxide a year, comparable to the emissions of Greece.

According to the study, the Bitcoin network's use of green energy sources also dropped to an average of 25 percent in August 2021 from 42 percent in 2020. (The industry has argued that its average renewable use is closer to 60 percent.) That's partly a result of China's crackdown, which cut off a source of cheap hydropower. But it reflects fundamental economic incentives, too, said Alex de Vries, one of the authors of the Joule study. Renewable energy is an intermittent power source - the sun shines only part of the day, and wind speeds fluctuate considerably.

"What a miner is going to do if they want to maximize the profit is put their machine wherever it can run the entire day," Mr. de Vries said.

Texas has become a hot spot for crypto mining, attracting more than two dozen companies, partly because of an unusual incentive structure with its power grid. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

Bitcoin's ballooning energy use has long outraged environmentalists. But the criticism that made the strongest impression came from Mr. Musk, a longtime Bitcoin booster, who said on Twitter in May that Tesla, his electric car company, would no longer accept cryptocurrency payments because of the "increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions."

His tweet sent the mining industry into crisis mode. Michael Saylor, the chief executive of the software company MicroStrategy, which invests heavily in Bitcoin, got in touch with Mr. Musk to discuss the climate issue. A group of mining executives, including Mr. Saylor and Mr. Wall, later met with Mr. Musk over Zoom.

"He wanted to make sure that the industry is on the side of sustainability, and he gave us some coaching," Mr. Saylor recalled. "His encouragement was: 'Find out how clean is the energy, how sustainable is the energy. Figure out how much you're using.'" (Mr. Musk did not respond to a request for comment.)

After the call, Mr. Saylor set up the Bitcoin Mining Council, a forum for the industry to share ideas and coordinate environmental strategy. One member, TeraWulf, has pledged to run cryptocurrency mines using more than 90 percent zero-carbon energy. It has two projects in the works - a retired coal plant in upstate New York fueled by hydropower, and a nuclear-powered facility in Pennsylvania.

"Everyone I talk to now is talking about carbon neutrality," said Paul Prager, the chief executive of TeraWulf. "The language has absolutely changed."

But financial priorities and technological barriers in the crypto mining industry, which includes more than a dozen publicly traded companies like Argo, are preventing a complete shift to renewable power. In late 2020, Marathon, one of the largest publicly traded mining companies, started mining Bitcoin at a coal-powered plant in Montana, citing the easy access to cheap energy.

Containers filled with dialectric coolant for the mining computers. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

Hoses used to run dialectric coolant to the mining computers. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

In Illinois, the cryptocurrency mining company Sangha Systems has repurposed an old steel mill in the town of Hennepin. Sangha is run by a former lawyer, Spencer Marr, who says he founded the company to promote clean energy. But about half the Hennepin operation's power comes from fossil fuels.

"It was a compromise we had to make," Mr. Marr said. "It was a means to an end that allowed us to establish ourselves as a company."

A Guide to Cryptocurrency

Card 1 of 7

In recent months, Texas has become a hot spot for crypto mining, attracting more than two dozen companies. The state has an unusual incentive structure that's well suited to the nascent industry: the Texas grid operator offers what amounts to a discount to companies that can quickly unplug when electricity demand spikes statewide, allowing energy to flow to ordinary homeowners. Many crypto mines can turn on or off in seconds, allowing them to take advantage of the incentive with minimal inconvenience.

That deal was part of the attraction for Argo, a London-based company founded in 2017 that runs two other mines in Quebec, using mostly hydropower. Mr. Wall said Argo was also drawn to the ample green energy in West Texas. The facility outside Lubbock will be connected to the western sector of the Texas energy grid, where about 85 percent of electricity comes from wind and solar infrastructure, including a set of turbines that sit practically next door to the Argo construction site.

But Mr. Wall can't guarantee that Argo's new center will have no carbon footprint. That would require bypassing the grid and buying energy directly from a renewable power company.

Electrical distribution panels at the Argo facility that is under construction. Credit... Carter Johnston for The New York Times

"A lot of those renewable energy producers are still a little bit skeptical of cryptocurrency," he said. "The crypto miners don't have the credit profiles to sign 10- or 15-year deals."

In the future, he said, Argo plans to build its own solar panels on site in Texas and broker deals with local renewables companies to buy energy directly.

The broader cryptocurrency community is divided over whether cleaning up the mining sector is the best path to environmental sustainability. The energy-intensive authentication system that underlies Bitcoin is known as "proof of work"; some in the industry are pushing to build new cryptocurrencies on a different system called "proof of stake," which uses as little as 0.01 percent of the energy consumed in the mining process.

Mr. Wall said he had no objections to experimentation with an alternative system. Still, he said, he believes in the long-term potential of Bitcoin to transform finance, though he wishes that miners were called something that sounded less extractive, like "validators."

That's a battle he's unlikely to win. But even in the face of backlash, he said, companies will keep mining Bitcoin.

"It's just going to happen. It's a reality," he said. "We need to do it in an environmentally friendly way."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bitcoin Miners Want to Recast Themselves as Eco-Friendly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facing intense criticism, the crypto mining industry is trying to change the view that its energy-guzzling computers are harmful to the climate. Wind turbines next to Argo Blockchain's new facility in Dickens County, Texas. The site would be fueled mostly by wind and solar energy. Credit...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ten per cent of the oxygen we breathe comes from just one kind of bacteria in the ocean. Now laboratory tests have shown that these bacteria are susceptible to plastic pollution, according to a study published in Communications Biology.

"We found that exposure to chemicals leaching from plastic pollution interfered with the growth, photosynthesis and oxygen production of Prochlorococcus, the ocean's most abundant photosynthetic bacteria," says lead author and Macquarie University researcher Dr Sasha Tetu.

"Now we'd like to explore if plastic pollution is having the same impact on these microbes in the ocean."

Plastic pollution has been estimated to cause more than US$13 billion in economic damage to marine ecosystems each year, and the problem is only getting worse with marine plastic pollution estimated to outweigh fish by 2050.

"This pollution can leach a variety of chemical additives into marine environments, but unlike the threats posed by animals ingesting or getting entangled in plastic debris the threat these leachates pose to marine life has received relatively little attention," says Dr Lisa Moore, a co-author on the paper.

In the first study of its kind, the researchers looked at the effects these chemicals have on the smallest life in our oceans, photosynthetic marine bacteria.

"We looked at a group of tiny, green bacteria called Prochlorococcus which is the most abundant photosynthetic organism on Earth, with a global population of around three octillion (~1027) individuals," says Sasha.

These microbes are heavy lifters when it comes to carbohydrate and oxygen production in the ocean via photosynthesis.

"These tiny microorganisms are critical to the marine food web, contribute to carbon cycling and are thought to be responsible for up to 10 per cent of the total global oxygen production," says Lisa, explaining the fundamental importance of these microbes to ocean health.

"So one in every ten breaths of oxygen you breathe in is thanks to these little guys, yet almost nothing is known about how marine bacteria, such as Prochlorococcus respond to human pollutants."

In the lab, the team exposed two strains of Prochlorococcus found at different depths in the ocean to chemicals leached from two common plastic products -- grey plastic grocery bags (made from high-density polyethylene) and PVC matting.

They found that exposure to these chemicals impaired the growth and function of these microbes -- including the amount of oxygen they produce -- as well as altering the expression of a large number of their genes.

"Our data shows that plastic pollution may have widespread ecosystem impacts beyond the known effects on macro-organisms, such as seabirds and turtles," says Sasha.

"If we truly want to understand the full impact of plastic pollution in the marine environment and find ways to mitigate it, we need to consider its impact on key microbial groups, including photosynthetic microbes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
marine biology; fish; extreme survival; sea life; pollution; environmental awareness; air quality; environmental issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution harms the bacteria that help produce the oxygen we breathe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ten per cent of the oxygen we breathe comes from just one kind of bacteria in the ocean. Now laboratory tests have shown that these bacteria are susceptible to plastic pollution, according to a study published in Communications Biology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's well known that ocean plastics harm marine life, but could the eight million metric tons of plastic that enters the seas each year also make it harder for us to breathe?

That's the troubling implication of a new study published in Communications Biology Tuesday, which found that plastic pollution can have negative impacts on the ocean bacteria that produces 10 percent of Earth's oxygen.

"We found that exposure to chemicals leaching from plastic pollution interfered with the growth, photosynthesis and oxygen production of Prochlorococcus, the ocean's most abundant photosynthetic bacteria," lead study author and Macquarie University researcher Dr. Sasha Tetu said in a Macquarie University press release.

The tests were done in a laboratory setting, which means the researchers do not yet know if plastics are currently harming the bacteria in the environment.

"Now we'd like to explore if plastic pollution is having the same impact on these microbes in the ocean," Tetu said.

The study is the first of its kind to look at the potential impacts of plastic on this vital bacteria, which, in addition to producing oxygen, are an essential part of the marine food web. Researchers assessed two strains of Prochlorococcus common at different depths of the ocean. They exposed the strains to chemicals leached from plastic bags and PCV matting. The chemicals had a noted impact on the bacteria, impairing their growth and the amount of oxygen they produced, as well as altering their gene expression.

"This study revealed a new and unanticipated danger of plastic pollution," paper co-author and Macquarie University Research Fellow Lisa Moore told The Independent.

The researchers pointed to the importance of better understanding how plastic pollution impacts smaller organisms at the base of the food web.

"Our data shows that plastic pollution may have widespread ecosystem impacts beyond the known effects on macro-organisms, such as seabirds and turtles," Tetu said in the university press release. "If we truly want to understand the full impact of plastic pollution in the marine environment and find ways to mitigate it, we need to consider its impact on key microbial groups, including photosynthetic microbes."

Moore told The Independent how plastic might impact these microbes and the environment that depends on them going forward:

"If management of plastic waste is left unattended, prochlorococcus populations could decrease in some locations, which could affect the other organisms that depend on prochlorococcus for food," Dr. Moore said.

"It is possible that some prochlorococcus are already affected when in close proximity to plastics.

"However, it would be decades before enough plastics build up in the oceans to affect prochlorococcus populations on a global scale."

If the current rate of plastic pollution continues unchecked, there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.

Related Articles Around the Web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Pollution Harms Ocean Bacteria That Produce 10 Percent of Earth's Oxygen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's well known that ocean plastics harm marine life, but could the eight million metric tons of plastic that enters the seas each year also make it harder for us to breathe? That's the troubling implication of a new study published in Communications Biology Tuesday, which found that plastic pollution can have negative impacts on...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic is polluting oceans, freshwater lakes and rivers, food and us - but it's also a major contributor to global climate change, warns a new report.

Scientists, policymakers and consumers are increasingly aware of the threat plastic pollution poses to oceans and water, wildlife, food and people. However, often lost in calculating plastics' environmental harm is its contributions to climate change.

"I don't feel the petrochemical buildout is being considered as part of climate change discussions at any level in our state [Pennsylvania]," Michele Fetting, program manager at the Breathe Project, a coalition of 24 environmental organizations, told EHN.

Petrochemical facilities, such as cracker plants, take fuels like natural gas and convert them to chemical products, which are most often used to make plastics. Shell is building a massive petrochemical complex in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, as part of a broader effort to put such facilities in multiple spots along the Ohio River Valley.

Each step in the life of a piece of plastic - production, transportation and managing waste - uses fossil fuels and emits greenhouse gases and, as petrochemical and plastic production continues to ramp up, these impacts must be considered, according to the report released today by the Center for International Environmental Law, the Environmental Integrity Project, FracTracker Alliance, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, 5Gyres, and #BreakFreeFromPlastic.

The organizations say putting a stop to increases in petrochemical and plastic production "is a critical element in addressing the climate crisis."

"Nothing short of stopping the expansion of petrochemical and plastic production and keeping fossil fuels in the ground will create the surest and most effective reductions in the climate impacts from the plastic lifecycle," the authors wrote.

The report included stark numbers:

In 2019, producing and incinerating plastic will emit an estimated 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, the equivalent of 189 coal-fired power plants.

If production continues on the same trajectory, by 2030 plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions will reach 1.34 gigatons per year, which is roughly the emissions released by 295 coal plants.

By 2050, the annual greenhouse gas emissions from plastics will reach an estimated 2.8 gigatons per year - the equivalent of about 615 coal plants.

Carroll Muffett, president & CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, told EHN the report is "underestimating the climate impacts of plastics production."

"If you look, for instance, at fracking, there are uncalculated emissions with land disturbance, or shipment of water to fracking wells, or massive ongoing leakage from natural gas pipelines," he said. "All will dramatically increase with upstream feedstocks for plastics."

Entire lifecycle

The report calculates the climate costs of plastic by looking at each step in the life of plastic: extraction and transport of fossil fuels; refining and manufacturing; managing waste; and plastic pollution in the environment.

Fossil fuels are a critical component in producing plastic. Extraction and transport, the report estimates, contributed about 9.5 million to 10.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2015 - that's just in the U.S. Another estimated 108 million metric tons was emitted outside the U.S.

"If growth trends continue, plastic will account for 20 percent of global oil consumption by 2050," according to the report.

Globally, refining and manufacturing plastics contributed roughly 184 million to 213 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2015. This is the equivalent of about 45 million vehicles driven for a year.

Managing plastic waste, mostly via incineration, contributed about 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2015.

​Curbing ocean carbon capacity

What about all that plastic that ends up in our oceans?

Scientists have yet to quantify the climate impact of such pollution, but nascent research suggests it may continually release greenhouse gases and could interfere with the "ocean's capacity to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide," the authors wrote.

This early research suggests microplastics are toxic to phytoplankton, which take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and ocean water and produce carbohydrates via photosynthesis, and zooplankton - microscopic creatures that transport carbon deep into the ocean.

"Without this critical step in the process, the CO2 fixed by the phytoplankton would quickly re-enter the surface waters and the atmosphere," the authors of the new report wrote.

"This is deeply troubling," Muffett said. "There's potential that microplastics are interfering with climate not just by release methane, but by interfering with the ocean's ability to serve as natural carbon sink."

"The Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory of plastics"

​Pennsylvania Governor Wolf tours the Shell Cracker Plant Site in Beaver County, PA. (Credit: Governor Tom Wolf)

Despite growing awareness of plastic pollution, there is an ongoing expansion of petrochemical and plastic production happening in the United States, as well as in China, the Middle East, Europe and South America.

In the fall of 2017, the American Chemistry Council estimated $164 billion in investment for 260 new or expanded petrochemical facilities in the U.S. Just one year later, that estimate was blown away - the Council reported investments of more than $200 billion in more than 330 new or bolstered facilities. "In the space of a year, both the planned investments and the number of new or expanded facilities grew by more than 25 percent," the new report said.

Muffett said to a "great extent the production of plastics is driven not by demand but by supply."

"Plastics' feedstock is 99 percent fossil fuels," he said. "Plastics are effectively a byproduct, taking what would be a waste stream from oil and gas. The fracking boom is resulting in a massive buildout of new infrastructure for plastics production."

Roughly 70 percent of petrochemicals in the U.S. become plastic resins, synthetic rubber, or fibers, Muffett and colleagues wrote in the new report.

A lot of the expanded production is centered around the Ohio River Valley, spanning from Pennsylvania to Illinois.

Fetting agrees that supply is driving the bolstered production. In Pennsylvania, there is "frack sand, cheap gas, water supplies and infrastructure," she said. "Industry sees this as the perfect location to build this ... the Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory of plastics."

Fetting said local media has just recently caught on to the story that this buildout will forever alter the region. And, while direct human health impacts from emissions are a huge concern, she said nobody is talking about the climate change impacts.

"For every cracker plant built, we'll need to frack about a thousand wells every two to three years to provide feedstock. That's a lot of climate pollution," she said. "And we haven't heard any of our elected officials talk about this as part of a climate discussion."

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates natural gas production in the Appalachian region will see an "increase of more than 350 percent from 2013 to 2040," according to the new report. "Production is projected to increase [more than]700 percent by 2023 compared to 2013 figures."

The region's petrochemical expansion will require an estimated 583 billion gallons of freshwater and 380 million tons of sand.

When it comes to the petrochemical expansion, at least in Pennsylvania communities, "people still don't understand what's happening," Fetting said.

But that's starting to change.

"When people see they're turning our region into another cancer alley, it makes people sit up and say 'what have we done?' 'What are we doing'?"

Shell did not return requests for comment on the new report.

Stopping single-use, reducing fossil fuels

The authors lay out a roadmap to reduce plastic's climate impact including: stop making and using single-use plastics; stopping the buildout of new oil, gas and petrochemical infrastructure; moving communities to zero-waste; forcing producers of plastic goods to accept responsibility for the environmental impacts; and putting in place more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals (that take plastic impacts into account.)

"The underlying drivers of climate change and the plastic crises are closely linked - so the solutions are closely linked," Muffett said. While some of the solutions may seem political nonstarters, he said tackling single use plastics and curbing fossil fuel use are a great first step.

"One of the best ways to respond to the plastics crisis is to keep fossil fuels in the ground in the first place," he said. "And the overwhelming proportion of plastics in our lives are unrequested and completely unavoidable."

Related Articles Around the Web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From making it to managing it, plastic is a major contributor to climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic is polluting oceans, freshwater lakes and rivers, food and us - but it's also a major contributor to global climate change, warns a new report. Scientists, policymakers and consumers are increasingly aware of the threat plastic pollution poses to oceans and water, wildlife, food and people.

# data[].attributes.body
Arctic Meltdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since the 1970s, the eastern Arctic Ocean has become less stratified, particularly in recent years, the Science study found. During recent winters, the cap of cold water has completely broken down, bringing warmer Atlantic waters to the surface and limiting sea ice growth.

While the changes in the Arctic have been rapid and widespread, many scientists believe there is still time to slow the pace of Arctic warming -- or eventually reverse course altogether.

The Arctic serves as an alarm bell on climate change, warning the rest of the world what is about to happen elsewhere as global warming continues.

"From a personal view, I see these changes in the Arctic as a harbinger of what is to come for the rest of the planet," said Walt Meier, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. "The Arctic, because much of it is on the cusp of freezing/melting, is particularly sensitive to warming. It is where global warming happens first," he said in an email.

A March 6 study in Nature Climate Change found that if the world meets the temperature target in the Paris Climate Agreement, then the Arctic Ocean has less than a 50 percent chance of being ice-free during the summer.

More warming, though, would bring much greater odds of all the sea ice melting in the summer, causing the Arctic to be an open ocean during the season. There's a 73 percent probability of such a scenario occurring if global warming reaches 3 degrees Celsius, or 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels, the study said.

"We are at a critical point where decisions to slow greenhouse gas emissions ... will have important effects to future Arctic climate change," said Zack Labe, a graduate student at the University of California, Irvine, who specialized in Arctic climate change.

"Essentially, there is no reason to suggest all hope is lost in the Arctic. And there hasn't necessarily been a tipping point," he said. "However, it remains crucial that we focus on new alternative forms of energy and seek solutions and a better understanding of adaptation and mitigation of climate change."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can we still save Arctic ice? NASA photos show what's at stake

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the 1970s, the eastern Arctic Ocean has become less stratified, particularly in recent years, the Science study found. During recent winters, the cap of cold water has completely broken down, bringing warmer Atlantic waters to the surface and limiting sea ice growth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Pacific Garbage Patch | Description, Causes, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Great Pacific Garbage Patch, zone in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii that has a high concentration of plastic waste. Ocean currents carry plastic debris into a subtropical gyre, where it remains trapped.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An elaborate plan masterminded by a college dropout to help rid the Pacific Ocean of a Texas-sized island of garbage will kick off next month.

While it sounds promising, some experts have expressed concern about the impact it could have on marine life - as well as the message it's sending.

Dutch inventor Boyan Slat, the 24-year-old CEO of The Ocean Cleanup, is spearheading the multi-million dollar project to clear a "floating" island of trash dubbed the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which now stretches 600,000 square miles between California and Hawaii. The group will start conducting tests on Sept. 8.
GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH, FLOATING 'ISLAND' OF TRASH IN OCEAN, IS NOW TWICE THE SIZE OF TEXAS
Slat's plan involves a 2,000-foot-long, U-shaped contraption that will float on top of the water, using a screen attached below to collect plastic and other debris. The floating barrier will then concentrate the plastic garbage at a central point where it can be fished out of the water and shipped back to dry land for recycling.

"The screen is impenetrable, the current will flow underneath the screen, guiding with it organisms that can't actively move, while the plastic (which floats) remains inside the system," The Ocean Cleanup explains on its website.

Eben Schwartz, marine debris program manager for the California Coastal Commission, said he believes the organization has the "best intentions" but they're only tackling a small percentage of overall plastic entering the oceans each year.

"Eight million metric tons [of trash] are entering the world's oceans every single year," Schwartz told Fox News. "Their project could be wildly successful cleaning the surface, but they're only tackling a minuscule percentage."

Schwartz, who has met with members of The Ocean Cleanup and toured their test facility, clarified that he hopes the project is a "huge success." However, he has concerns with some of the rhetoric the group is spreading.
SPERM WHALE SWALLOWS 64 POUNDS OF TRASH, DIES OF 'GASTRIC SHOCK'
The Ocean Cleanup estimates they will be able to get rid of roughly 90 percent of ocean plastic from every ocean gyre - huge parts of the ocean where swirling currents concentrate the trash - by 2040.

This staggering statistic concerned some experts, like Schwartz.

"My biggest concern isn't the project itself, it's the messaging that's coming out," Schwartz explained. "They're cleaning only what's on the surface. We see plastic throughout water columns, on the ocean floor, deposited in polar ice caps. The problem is much, much much larger than the messaging suggests."

Instead of skimming the surface, Schwartz suggested tackling the root of the problem and educating the public about what they cando to help prevent trash from escaping into the environment.

Richard Thompson, head of the International Marine Litter Research Unit at the University of Plymouth in the U.K., echoed Schwartz's advice.

"The way the ocean works I think it would be near impossible for there to be zero impacts to marine wildlife from this device trapping everything at the surface."
- Eben Schwartz

"If we consider cleanup to be a center stage solution, then we accept it is OK to contaminate the oceans and that our children and our children's children will continue to clean up the mess," Halden told USA Today.

However, The Ocean Cleanup says it has never condoned the message that it's "OK" to litter, adding that they don't believe their method is the only solution to the problem either.

"The Ocean Cleanup strongly supports efforts to stop plastic waste entering the ocean but in no way does The Ocean Cleanup think cleaning up makes it 'OK to litter.' While cleaning up persistent floating ocean plastic is only one part of the equation, it is the only solution to an existing problem. Even if we stop all plastic from entering the oceans, we have to face the fact there are huge amounts of plastic in the ocean that needs to be cleaned up before it breaks down into smaller parts," the organization told Fox News via email.

Schwartz said many volunteers get to see first-hand the negative impact single-use disposable plastics make during California Coastal Cleanup Day, the state's largest annual volunteer event which is taking place this year on September 15.
PLASTIC CONTAINERS POSE HEALTH RISKS FOR CHILDREN, PEDIATRICIANS WARN

"We see dramatic increases in people's knowledge of the causes of marine debris impacts by the end of the cleanup," said Schwartz, adding that The Ocean Cleanup should consider hosting similar educational events.

The Ocean Cleanup claims it has not diminished the problem of pollution plaguing our oceans - and adds it simply wants to tackle the issue before things get worse. It has also helped educate the public by sharing its research findings.

"Ocean Cleanup has never underestimated the problem and always said the ocean plastic problem is huge: if all the plastic is left in the ocean, it will eventually break down into microplastics, which are all the more difficult (if not impossible) to catch and all the more easy to ingest by marine life," The Ocean Cleanup said.

Schwartz then voiced concerns about the impact The Ocean Cleanup's project will have on marine life. The cleanup vessel, which is made up of a set of connected pipes, will hang a 9-foot-long net below it to help trap garbage.

"The way the ocean works I think it would be near impossible for there to be zero impacts to marine wildlife from this device trapping everything at the surface," Schwartz explained. "It'll be trapping krill, plankton ... which makes it a potential feeding ground for animals."

Ocean Cleanup, however, has defended its model and argues there are several systems put in place to protect marine life.

The vessel's slow speed, impenetrable screen and people checking for signs of marine life as the screen is lifted from the water will help avoid any casualties, Ocean Cleanup states.

"We have also conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) through an independent agency, CSA Ocean Sciences, which did not identify any major risks of our method to the environment," the group added.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plan to clear Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Texas-sized 'island' of trash in ocean, draws concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An elaborate plan masterminded by a college dropout to help rid the Pacific Ocean of a Texas-sized island of garbage will kick off next month. While it sounds promising, some experts have expressed concern about the impact it could have on marine life - as well as the message it's sending.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the broad expanse of the northern Pacific Ocean, there exists the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, a slowly moving, clockwise spiral of currents created by a high-pressure system of air currents. The area is an oceanic desert, filled with tiny phytoplankton but few big fish or mammals. Due to its lack of large fish and gentle breezes, fishermen and sailors rarely travel through the gyre. But the area is filled with something besides plankton: trash, millions of pounds of it, most of it plastic. It's the largest landfill in the world, and it floats in the middle of the ocean.

The gyre has actually given birth to two large masses of ever-accumulating trash, known as the Western and Eastern Pacific Garbage Patches, sometimes collectively called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The Eastern Garbage Patch floats between Hawaii and California; scientists estimate its size as two times bigger than Texas [source: LA Times]. The Western Garbage Patch forms east of Japan and west of Hawaii. Each swirling mass of refuse is massive and collects trash from all over the world. The patches are connected by a thin 6,000-mile long current called the Subtropical Convergence Zone. Research flights showed that significant amounts of trash also accumulate in the Convergence Zone.

The garbage patches present numerous hazards to marine life, fishing and tourism. But before we discuss those, it's important to look at the role of plastic. Plastic constitutes 90 percent of all trash floating in the world's oceans [source: LA Times]. The United Nations Environment Program estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean hosts 46,000 pieces of floating plastic [source: UN Environment Program]. In some areas, the amount of plastic outweighs the amount of plankton by a ratio of six to one. Of the more than 200 billion pounds of plastic the world produces each year, about 10 percent ends up in the ocean [source: Greenpeace]. Seventy percent of that eventually sinks, damaging life on the ocean floor [source: Greenpeace]. The rest floats; much of it ends up in gyres and the massive garbage patches that form there, with some plastic eventually washing up on a distant shore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is the world's biggest landfill in the Pacific Ocean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In t­he broad expanse of the northern Pacific Ocean, there exists the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, a slowly moving, clockwise spiral of currents created by a high-pressure system of air currents. The area is an oceanic desert, filled with tiny phytoplankton but few big fish or mammals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | If you drop plastic in the ocean, where does it end up?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Greenhouse Effect

Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20 th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" ¹ - warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light energy reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and radiated in the form of infrared heat. About 90% of this heat is then absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-radiated, slowing heat loss to space.

Gases that Contribute

The Role of Humans

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO ₂). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO ₂. To a lesser extent, clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

How do we know what greenhouse gas and temperature levels were in the distant past?

Ice cores are scientists' best source for historical climate data. Other tools for learning about Earth's ancient atmosphere include growth rings in trees, which keep a rough record of each growing season's temperature, moisture and cloudiness going back about 2,000 years. Corals also form growth rings that provide information about temperature and nutrients in the tropical ocean. Other proxies, such as benthic cores, extend our knowledge of past climate back about a billion years.

detailed answer

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750 ². This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.

In its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientific experts from countries all over the world, concluded thatit is unequivocal that the increase of CO ₂, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

"Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The panel's AR6 Working Group I (WGI) Summary for Policymakers report is online at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.

Is the Sun to Blame?

Evidence Shows That Current Global Warming Cannot Be Explained by Solar Irradiance

Scientists use a metric called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to measure the changes in energy the Earth receives from the Sun. TSI incorporates the 11-year solar cycle and solar flares/storms from the Sun's surface.

Studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with increased volcanic activity helped trigger the Little Ice Age.

The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since 1880. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy from the Sun either remained constant or decreased slightly³.

If a more active Sun caused the warming, scientists would expect warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are slowing heat loss from the lower atmosphere.

Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
References
References

1. IPCC 6 th Assessment Report, WG1, Summary for Policy Makers, Sections A, " The Current State of the Climate "

IPCC 6 th Assessment Report, WG1, Technical Summary, Sections TS.1.2, TS.2.1 and TS.3.1

2. P. Friedlingstein, et al., 2022: "Global Carbon Budget 2022", Earth System Science Data ( 11 Nov 2022): 4811-4900. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

3. IPCC 6 th Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, " Solar and Orbital Forcing"

IPCC 6 th Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 7, Sections 7.3.4.4, 7.3.5.2, Figure 7.6, " Solar"

M. Lockwood and W.T. Ball, Placing limits on long-term variations in quiet-Sun irradiance and their contribution to total solar irradiance and solar radiative forcing of climate," Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476, issue 2228 (24 June 2020): https://doi 10.1098/rspa.2020.0077

Header image credit: Pixabay/stevepb

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. What is the "greenhouse effect"? What is causing it? Are humans to blame? What does solar irradiance have to do with it? Answers here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era - and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth's orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun's energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists - 97 percent - agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

detailed answer

Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.

Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century. Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.

References

References
Header image shows clouds imitating mountains as the sun sets after midnight as seen from Denali's backcountry Unit 13 on June 14, 2019. Credit: NPS/Emily Mesner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. How do we know it's happening? Here's the evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The New York Times photographer Josh Haner has spent the past four years capturing the effects of climate change around the world and under water.

Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

Give this article Give this article Give this article

Felix Condori, 31, the mayor of Llapallapani and a former fisherman, next to a boat in the dry bed that was once Bolivia's second-largest lake. He now must travel to find construction jobs as a means to make money now that the lake that defined their culture and livelihood disappeared. May 2016. Credit... Josh Haner/The New York Times

Over the last four years, The New York Times staff photographer Josh Haner has been documenting with stills and video the effects of climate change around the world. A selection of his work about climate migration and Unesco World Heritage Sites affected by climate change is Q: What have been the biggest challenges in doing this work on climate change? on display at Photo London at the Somerset House from May 16-19. Many of the images were taken by drone, but his most recent work in the Galápagos compelled him to work underwater as well. He spoke with James Estrin about his coverage. The conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
A: The effects of climate change happen on such a slow time scale that it is often difficult to document visually. As a result, I believe a lot of the climate change imagery we have become accustomed to has focused on polar bears floating on pieces of sea ice, or on calving glaciers. That type of repetitive imagery has made people numb to a lot of the important stories about how our changing climate is affecting people and places around the world.

There's a lot of research happening around climate change and we tend to do our stories based on the scientific evidence coming out of those reports. But it's difficult to make dynamic imagery of scientists in the wild. So we're looking for projects that are important and have visual appeal.

I've been documenting climate change with drones around the world for the last four years, and in that time I've seen increased regulations on drone use globally that has made it a lot more complicated to bring dynamic aerial imagery to our viewership.

Now, the majority of my time is spent filling out permit requests and license applications to get permission to use drones around some of the most fragile places in the world like Easter Island and the Galápagos Islands. First, I have to research each country's unique drone laws. Then I work with lawyers, governments, airspace regulators, customs officials and sometimes the country's air force to be able to use drones to make these photos and footage.

Q: You were in the Galápagos late last year.
A: We realized that the Galápagos Islands were important for our series on how climate change is affecting natural and cultural heritage sites around the world. As we started looking into research that's being done there, it became apparent that the majority of the effects were happening underwater. So I realized quite quickly that I would need to take a lot of underwater footage and photography.
Q: So flying a drone underwater was the solution?
A: Well we did consider using tethered unmanned submarine type vehicles mounted with cameras, but because of the tether cord, they're not allowed near the animals in the Galápagos. So that meant I needed to learn how to scuba dive. It had always seemed scary to me. I had drawn the line at snorkeling, which I love.

I spent my weekends over a couple of months learning how to dive off the coast of California in the Monterey Bay. I was lucky to have an instructor who was also an underwater photographer, because there are a whole host of unique issues around maintaining your equipment, preventing water leaks and dealing with sun flare and exposure.

Additionally, after months of discussions we were also granted the permission to fly drones in the Galápagos. One of the stipulations was that I had to be accompanied by a national park ranger the whole time while we were above land and in the water - just to make sure that none of our recording negatively impacted the animals in their natural habitat. The rangers were looking at any effect on animal behavior and also were making sure we limited our impact on these very fragile lands.

All of our equipment and clothing had to be quarantined before we went onto these islands, many of which are off limits to visitors. We had to bring different clothes, including new shoes and hats for each island. The reporter, Nicholas Casey, and I had to strip down and put all of our belongings into plastic bags so that they could then be taken directly to quarantine when we were taken back to the main island.

Q: What did it feel like to be on these historic islands, some of which almost no one goes on?
A: Being on these islands was an unbelievable experience.

We had to commit to our itinerary in advance and just hoped that the weather would cooperate. Because there were so many restrictions on visiting these sites, we had to stick to our itinerary, which is difficult when you've never been to the places before.

Very few people have visited these locations and many of the bays don't have real names on maps, so it's very hard to Google. Trying to do preliminary research was almost impossible and we just had to trust our contacts there.

What's really unique about the Galápagos is that there are very few apex predators there. So the animals are usually not surprised by your presence. As long as you maintain a very calm demeanor they don't change their behavior.

That's also why they limit access to these places - they don't want animals to become too accustomed to human visitors.

Q: What's the effect of climate change on the Galápagos?
A: There is so much going on. It is in the cross hairs of three different currents. El Niño and La Niña swings really affect it the hardest. We were looking at the ripple effect from warming temperatures affecting coral, which affects the smaller fish like sardines, which then affects the sea lions and birds that depend on them.

Q: How is photographing underwater different, and what are the challenges?
A: Dexterity becomes a problem underwater because you're wearing gloves and you're trying to manipulate small buttons on a giant plastic housing that holds your precious camera. And when you go to the Galápagos you're not taking a ton of backup gear with you because you have to be nimble as you move between land and sea and change islands.

You have to plan how deep underwater you're going to go, and choose your housing accordingly. Some only work a few feet deep and others can go much farther than that.

So you have to really commit to your focal length before you dive because there's no easy way to change lenses underwater. This is always a challenge especially when you're not quite sure what you're going to see in each location.

If you planned wrongly, you would have to surface, then flush out your equipment with fresh water, wait for it to dry, change your lenses, re-lubricate the rubber seals that go between the different pieces of your housing and then put it all back together and clean off any sand residue as well. That's just to change lenses, batteries or memory cards.

It takes a lot of planning and practice to decide how you're going to approach different situations. I was really learning as I went.

Q: So, is it quiet when you're diving? It would seem to me that while you have to be aware of everything, there's also, in some ways, fewer distractions.
A: I'm not sure that there are fewer distractions. The main challenge when I'm scuba diving is that my visual field is limited, because you're wearing a mask where you can't see far to the left or right.

Nick and I were always together - along with the ranger - so that when somebody saw something outside of the peripheral vision of another person we would tap each other's leg. We also had slates that we could write on underwater so that we didn't have to surface to talk and then spend time re-acclimating as we dove down.

A lot of the places we were diving were close to shore, so you would have some waves crashing against the coastline. But there were very few motorized vehicles around, and so it was very silent underwater. The loudest noise was that of the air bubbles from our regulator as you exhaled.

Q: How is it different than other environments you've photographed in?
A: There is limited visibility underwater, and animals are often camouflaged so you're doing a lot of searching for the animals and the plant life you're looking to document. It's a bit like a scavenger hunt but with a time pressure because you have limited amounts of air when you're underwater.
Q: How long does your air supply last underwater?
A: We had somewhere between 30 and 40 minutes of air and on one of the dives, a lot of our time was spent just trying to find a marine iguana underwater during the short amount of time they spend feeding on algae. They're camouflaged and difficult to see!

Q: Did you use a strobe?
A: I was not strobing because I was shooting video, but I did have some underwater LED lights. And that's just one more thing to manipulate when you're underwater. So besides focus, exposure, switching between stills and video, you then have to adjust the intensity and directionality of your lights that are on these articulating arms above the camera, and do all this when there are currents.

Q: What is the next challenge?
A: Some combination of drone imagery with maybe 3D modeling and interactive graphics so that you can use the movement of the drone to create narrative in the piece. That's what I'd like to experiment with more in the future.

I also tried time-lapse work in Yellowstone because drones were off limits in United States national parks. I became really enthralled by time-lapse imagery and I hope to use that a lot more in the coming years.
Q: You have always been a lover of the outdoors?
A: My dad was a lover of the outdoors and my parents each worked part time when I was growing up. When my dad was taking care of me we would often head into nature for hikes, and it became imprinted in me at an early age - the importance of being in the outdoors. And I've continued doing that. I made some of my first photographs in forests around San Francisco and in the mountains of Yosemite.

Every summer I take long backpacking trips. I really feel the most at home when I'm away from all technology and sitting by a lake in the Sierra.

One of the major reasons that my wife and I recently chose to move to Northern California was to be closer to nature and closer to the places that I've backpacked and camped in as a child. We really want to share that with our daughter as she grows up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Documenting Climate Change by Air, Land and Sea (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New York Times photographer Josh Haner has spent the past four years capturing the effects of climate change around the world and under water. Send any friend a story As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Ocean Pollution Awareness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Hannah Ritchie and Veronika Samborska and Max Roser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much plastic ends up in the ocean? Where does it come from?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How Can We Solve Plastic Pollution?

We need to tackle the problem of marine debris head on. It's not just an issue for environmentally conscious, it is an issue that ultimately affects human health. Man is a top predator that feeds on a variety of ocean fish, shellfish, and other marine species. We face the same risks as the killer whale and polar bear.

While any plastic or polystyrene pellets that may have been clogging the gut of the fish that is nicely presented on our dinner plate have been long removed, the toxic contaminants originating from that debris remain stored in the flesh we are about to eat. Food for thought indeed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Pollution Guide - Ocean Pollution Facts & Figures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We need to tackle the problem of marine debris head on. It's not just an issue for environmentally conscious, it is an issue that ultimately affects human health. Man is a top predator that feeds on a variety of ocean fish, shellfish, and other marine species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are dying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It has become clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

We often call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. While many people think of global warming and climate change as synonyms, scientists use "climate change" when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet's weather and climate systems-in part because some areas actually get cooler in the short term.

Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. All of those changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely on.

What will we do-what can we do-to slow this human-caused warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the fate of the Earth as we know it-coasts, forests, farms, and snow-capped mountains-hangs in the balance.

Understanding the greenhouse effect

The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse, hence the name.

Sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where the energy is absorbed and then radiate back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, greenhouse gas molecules trap some of the heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases concentrate in the atmosphere, the more heat gets locked up in the molecules.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This natural greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) cooler.

In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.

Levels of greenhouse gases have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they had been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures had also stayed fairly constant over that time- until the past 150 years. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other activities that have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly over the past few decades, humans are now enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth significantly, and in ways that promise many effects, scientists warn.

Aren't temperature changes natural?

Human activity isn't the only factor that affects Earth's climate. Volcanic eruptions and variations in solar radiation from sunspots, solar wind, and the Earth's position relative to the sun also play a role. So do large-scale weather patterns such as El Niño.

But climate models that scientists use to monitor Earth's temperatures take those factors into account. Changes in solar radiation levels as well as minute particles suspended in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, for example, have contributed only about two percent to the recent warming effect. The balance comes from greenhouse gases and other human-caused factors, such as land use change.

The short timescale of this recent warming is singular as well. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But their effect lasts just a few years. Events like El Niño also work on fairly short and predictable cycles. On the other hand, the types of global temperature fluctuations that have contributed to ice ages occur on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years.

For thousands of years now, emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere have been balanced out by greenhouse gases that are naturally absorbed. As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures have been fairly stable, which has allowed human civilization to flourish within a consistent climate.

Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Changes that have historically taken thousands of years are now happening over the course of decades.

Why does this matter?

The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it's changing the climate faster than some living things can adapt to. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough to cover much of North America and Europe with ice. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius), and the swings have tended to happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

But with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica are starting to melt too. That extra water could raise sea levels significantly, and quickly. By 2050, sea levels are predicted to rise between one and 2.3 feet as glaciers melt.

As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts-a challenge for growing crops-changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace.