# data[].attributes.headline
HSH112 Local and Global Environments for Health

# data[].attributes.subject
HSH112 Local and Global Environments for Health

# data[].attributes.body
Welcome to our Class Connection Padlet!

The purpose of this Padlet is to create a space for connection between myself and you, post updates, interesting links, videos and pictures related to weekly content will be provided. This space also provides the opportunity for you to comment, react and share!
Please check in here at least weekly and keep up to date with the latest information and news.  Tell me if you find news items and comment on the ones I post.
Looking forward to your opinions and views.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you think it will get 4 degrees hotter?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you think it will get 4 degrees hotter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In cities around the world, temperatures could rise by more than 4℃ by 2100 under a high-emissions climate change scenario, suggests research published this week in Nature Climate Change.

It comes as the Bureau of Meteorology's annual climate statement, released today, shows 2020 was Australia's fourth-warmest year on record, despite being an "La Niña" year, which usually leads to cooler temperatures.

Cities occupy just 3% of Earth's surface. As this portion of land is so small, they've typically been left out of most climate models, which generally make projections on global scales.

Yet more than half the world's population live in urban environments (set to jump to 70% by 2050). This is why the researchers call for "multi-model projections" of local climates for cities.

In the study, the researchers say their predictions on climate will give "urban planners and decision-makers in any city [...] access to city-specific projections for any planning horizon they need".

It's important these planning horizons include the cooling and shading provided by green infrastructure - the network of green spaces such as street trees and green walls - in urban areas.

Read more: Here's how green infrastructure can easily be added to the urban planning toolkit

For Australia, this means getting a national green infrastructure policy that provides for green spaces within our cities, open spaces and buildings to help with increasing density and rising global temperatures.

What the research found

Heat events, such as heatwaves, pose a significant health risk and can hit people harder in cities.

Cities are hotter than in surrounding regional areas due to " the urban heat island " effect, a result of heat created by all the densely packed people, vehicles and industries, and the heat retained among buildings and other infrastructure.

Despite having the highest population density, the researchers point out that urban areas aren't often represented in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This project is important because it informs the global authority on climate change (the International Panel on Climate Change).

So the research authors built a statistical model emulating a complex climate model with urban regions. And they estimate that, by the end of the century, average warming across global cities will increase by 1.9℃ under an intermediate emissions scenario, and 4.4℃ with high emissions.

Urban warming would most affect mid-to-northern parts of the United States, southern Canada, Europe, the Middle East, northern Central Asia and northwestern China.

Read more: Smart urban design could save lives in future heatwaves

They also predict that the heat index would increase faster than air temperature alone over almost all cities. "Heat index" refers to how hot the human body actually feels, a combination of relative humidity and air temperature. This would mean urban residents would experience higher heat stress.

What does this mean for Australia?

While the research found most urban warming would occur in the northern hemisphere, Australian cities are also projected to continue to warm. But we need only look to the recent record-breaking years to realise climate change will result in more extremely hot days here.

2019 was Australia's hottest (and driest) year on record. And today's annual climate statement from the Bureau of Meteorology shows the highest temperature ever recorded in the Sydney Basin, at a whopping 48.9℃, occurred in 2020, on January 4. It also found the average national temperature for 2020 was 1.15℃ higher than normal.

These are nationwide findings, but how Australia manages climate in urban areas is particularly important as around 80% of population growth occurs in capital cities.

In fact, 2020 research found we're increasingly facing more frequent and prolonged heatwaves that intensify urban heat islands in places such as Sydney, by raising inland temperatures by as much as 10℃ more than in coastal zones.

Keeping cities cool

The best way to ensure our cities are kept cool is through greening urban spaces. Green spaces can be developed by planting trees in streets, yards and parks for shade, recreation and relief from the heat. This will create cooler urban "microclimates" for social interaction and natural retreats from city life.

Read more: The world endured 2 extra heatwave days per decade since 1950 - but the worst is yet to come

Greater Sydney, for example, has a welcome new policy to ensure five million more trees are planted by 2030. This is an important long-term goal as 2016 research from Canada found tree cover in daytime reduced air temperature by up to 4℃ in Montreal city.

The design of buildings and their immediate surroundings are also important to help manage increasing heat in our cities.

Our open spaces are places of exercise, retreat, relaxation and, in a new COVID world, socially distant interactions. The pandemic has allowed us to rediscover the importance of our community and local connections in these spaces.

Multi-storey buildings also provide opportunity for vertical greening. The Victorian government, for example, is seeking to increase the amount of green infrastructure in our urban areas to help us cope with predicted warmer conditions.

Australia needs a national planning policy

Urban planning and greening urban spaces is largely a local government responsibility, usually overseen by state and territory governments.

And there is national recognition of the importance of green cities through the federal government's Smart Cities Plan. It states:

Green, sustainable cities [...] improve the quality of air and water, reduce the heat island effect, protect biological diversity and threatened species, and enhance general amenity.

But what's needed, urgently, is a national planning framework of green city principles so no regions get left behind. Climate change is a national issue, and all urban residents from all socioeconomic backgrounds should benefit from green cities.

Read more: Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month

This national planning policy would describe how our cities across the nation should develop appropriately spaced trees and other vegetation, to better manage and prepare for increasing density and greater activity as climate change brings hotter weather.

And importantly, more research is needed to better inform climate models. We need more information into the ways our climates will change within different land areas - whether rural, suburban or in cities - so we can develop better national plans for how we will live and work in the future.

Read more: In a heatwave, the leafy suburbs are even more advantaged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cities could get more than 4°C hotter by 2100. To keep cool in Australia, we urgently need a national planning policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In cities around the world, temperatures could rise by more than 4℃ by 2100 under a high-emissions climate change scenario, suggests research published this week in Nature Climate Change. It comes as the Bureau of Meteorology's annual climate statement, released today, shows 2020 was Australia's fourth-warmest year on record, despite being an "La Niña" year, which usually leads to cooler temperatures.

# data[].attributes.body
Are there any terms we use or words you read you are not sure of the meaning of?  Add them here and I can update the Glossary section as a resource for all of us.

# data[].attributes.body
Even if Scott Morrison gets the

Nationals on board, hold the applause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Resurrected Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce is back in the saddle, facing backwards. His determination to prevent the Morrison government from adopting a target of net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 will again delay the renovation of Australia's climate policy.

The Nationals' leadership spill reportedly followed growing disquiet about Morrison's slow pivot towards a net-zero by 2050 goal. Many Nationals MPs have indicated they don't back the target, and Joyce says he will be "guided by the party room" on the issue.

If Morrison eventually gets the 2050 target past Joyce and passed by the joint party room, there will be little cause for celebration. In fact, the achievement will be as exciting as watching a vaudeville magician wrench an old rabbit out of a moth-eaten hat.

Australia's premiers will yawn in unison. Every state and territory in the country has already adopted this target, or better. Yet at the end of the day, net-zero by 2050 is a risky and inadequate goal, especially for wealthy nations such as Australia.

A target is nothing without a plan to get there

All G7 states and 11 G20 members are aiming for net-zero emissions by mid-century. These include the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, the Republic of Korea, Italy, the European Union, Argentina and the United States. China, the world's largest emitter, has committed to net-zero by 2060.

However, as international environment law expert Professor Lavanya Rajamani has argued, net-zero targets should not automatically be applauded. First, they should be checked for their credibility, accountability and fairness. On these measures, a net-zero by 2050 target for Australia is nothing to cheer.

Why? First, because a target is nothing without an effective strategy to get there - something Australia is sorely lacking.

To successfully achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, tough short- and medium-term targets are essential to staying on track. Victoria, for example, has pledged to halve carbon emissions by 2030. The UK is aiming for a 78% reduction by 2035, reflecting its confidence in existing and emerging technologies.

Read more: 'Failure is not an option': after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance

The Morrison government's 2030 target - a 26-28% reduction below 2005 emissions levels - is not credible. Experts say a 2030 target of between 50% and 74% is needed to put Australia in line with keeping warming below 2℃ and 1.5℃ respectively - the goals of the Paris Agreement.

So what about Australia's actual emissions-reduction measures? The Morrison government's technology-first approach falls short of what's needed to drive quick and deep emissions cuts.

Reaching net-zero requires substantial government funding and tax relief for investors in renewable technologies. Morrison's announcement of an additional A$540 million for new technologies is insufficient and partly misdirected.

For instance, the government is investing in carbon capture and storage. As others have argued, the technology is increasingly commercially unviable and encourages further fossil fuel use.

In the meantime, the government is failing to assist the uptake of proven technologies such as electric vehicles, despite transport being Australia's third-worst sector for emissions.

2050 goal is risky business

Even if Australia adopted a goal of net-zero by 2050, and measures to get there comfortably, the target is risky.

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the potentially catastrophic impacts of exceeding 1.5℃ global warming. In the same report it established the idea of "net zero" as a global aim, saying achieving the target by 2050 was needed to stay below that warming threshold.

The IPCC described the emissions-reduction pathways required, but failed to emphasise crucial assumptions underlying them. Most depended on "negative emissions" - drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.

Many of those presumed drawdown measures involve land use measures that potentially threaten biodiversity or food security, for instance by requiring farmland and virgin forests to be used for growing "carbon crops". Others involve geo-engineeering technologies which are yet to be tested or proven safe at scale.

It's a risky strategy to avoid rapid, substantial and real emissions cuts in favour of gradual mitigation pathways that rely on such future carbon drawdown. It locks us into technologies which are problematic or don't yet exist. To limit these risks, Australia must aim for net-zero well before 2050, predominantly via actual emissions cuts.

Read more: Even without new fossil fuel projects, global warming will still exceed 1.5℃. But renewables might make it possible

A matter of fairness

The matter of equity is another where policymakers have been inattentive to nuance. The undifferentiated call for net-zero by 2050 shifts the burden and costs of effort onto poorer countries. No wonder so many developed countries have been happy to adopt it!

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement each require developed countries to cut emissions faster than poorer countries - and to assist poorer countries in their efforts. This recognises the fact developed nations are largely responsible for global warming, and have the wealth and technological capacities to act.

Developing nations such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as those in Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and Africa, are mostly below global average wealth. Forcing them to meet the same net-zero timeframe as rich nations is patently unfair.

And for the international community to achieve even the 2050 goal, China - a global emissions giant - must increase its ambition to at least net-zero by 2050 (rather than its current 2060 timeframe).

Morrison's bind

It's clear that rich developed countries must both aim for net-zero emissions well before 2050, and provide climate finance to assist poorer countries to do the same. Anything less will almost certainly guarantee Earth overshoots an already risky target.

Australia, given its wealth and technological means, must certainly aim for net-zero well before 2050. A report in April this year suggested reaching net-zero in 2035, to make a "fair and achievable contribution to the global task" and given our vulnerability to extreme weather.

The issue of climate finance was on the agenda at this month's G7 summit, but critics say the final commitment - meeting an overdue spending pledge of US$100 billion a year - is inadequate considering the urgency of the task.

Just months out from a crucial UN climate summit in Glasgow in November, Scott Morrison is caught in a bind. On the global stage, he's under increasing pressure to commit to a net-zero emissions target or face carbon tariffs. At home, he's forced to assuage a minor coalition partner now led by a man who will reportedly push for a new coal-fired power station, and for agriculture - and potentially mining - to be exempt from emissions targets.

The looming general election will test whether rural voters are prepared to endure Joyce's climate antics or will swing to savvy independents. And it remains to be seen whether urban voters will tolerate a prime minister whose transactional politics leaves Australia increasingly exposed at home and abroad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Net zero by 2050? Even if Scott Morrison gets the Nationals on board, hold the applause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Resurrected Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce is back in the saddle, facing backwards. His determination to prevent the Morrison government from adopting a target of net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 will again delay the renovation of Australia's climate policy. The Nationals' leadership spill reportedly followed growing disquiet about Morrison's slow pivot towards a net-zero by 2050 goal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cramming cities full of electric vehicles means we’re still depending on cars

# data[].attributes.subject
Cramming cities full of electric vehicles means we’re still depending on cars

# data[].attributes.body
and that’s a huge problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week, the NSW government announced almost A$500 million towards boosting the uptake of electric vehicles. In its new electric vehicle strategy, the government will waive stamp duty for cars under $78,000, develop more charging infrastructure, offer rebates to 25,000 drivers, and more.

Given the transport sector is Australia's second-largest polluter, it's a good thing Australian governments are starting to plan for a transition to electric vehicles (EVs).

But transitioning from cities full of petrol-guzzling vehicles to cities full of electric ones won't address all of the environmental and social problems associated with car dependence and mass manufacturing.

So, let's look at these problems in more detail, and why public transport really is the best way forward.

Mounting disadvantage and health issues

EVs do have environmental advantages over conventional vehicles. In particular, they generate less carbon emissions during their lifetime. Of course, much of the emissions reductions will depend on how much electricity comes from renewable sources.

But carbon emissions are only one of the many problems associated with the dominance of private cars as a form of mobility in cities.

Let's start with a few of the social issues. This includes the huge amount of space devoted to car driving and parking in our neighbourhoods. This can crowd out other forms of land use, including other more sustainable forms of mobility such as walking and cycling.

There are the financial and mental health costs of congestion, as well, with Australian city workers spending, on average, 66 minutes getting to and from work each day. Injuries and fatalities on roads are also increasing, and inactivity and isolation associated with driving can impact our physical health.

Car-dependent cities also contribute to disadvantage for people who don't have access to cars, and uneven financial vulnerability associated with the high costs of car ownership and use.

Indeed, some of these problems could be made worse - for instance, subsidies for EVs could end up favouring wealthier people who can afford new cars.

Read more: Top economists call for measures to speed the switch to electric cars

Mining for resources

A mass global uptake of EVs will generate major environmental problems, too. Most concerning of these is the use of finite mineral resources required for their construction, and the environmental and labour conditions of their extraction.

This was recently highlighted in a recent report by the International Energy Agency. As the agency's executive director Fatih Birol said, there's a

looming mismatch between the world's strengthened climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals that are essential to realising those ambitions.

Minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper are key ingredients required to make EVs.

As the report noted, EVs use double the amount of copper than conventional vehicles. EVs also require considerable amounts of lithium, cobalt and graphite that are hardly required at all for conventional vehicles. And it expects demand for lithium to grow 40-fold between 2020 and 2040, driven by EV production to meet climate targets.

There is considerable discussion of Australia's natural advantage as a supplier of some of these minerals, as we have large reserves of lithium and rare-earth metals beneath parts of the continent.

But before governments and mining bodies rush to exploit these reserves, they need to ensure much more is done to avoid the injustices perpetrated against Traditional Owners and their lands and heritage. The recent appalling destruction at Juukan Gorge by Rio Tinto's iron ore operation is just one example of this.

Read more: Rio Tinto just blasted away an ancient Aboriginal site. Here's why that was allowed

Mining also has its own environmental problems, such as land clearing and associated biodiversity loss, the pollution and contaminants it produces, and intensive water use.

The conditions of extracting these critical minerals in other parts of the world are dire. There's the oppressive working conditions in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the conflict over Indigenous rights in Chile's lithium mining areas, and environmental destruction associated with mining rare earth minerals in China.

Broadening ideas about transport

To focus on these problems is not to suggest the new policies on electric vehicles are unimportant, or that they don't stand to have some positive environmental impact.

The point is private EVs are not a solution to the combined challenges of reducing our urban environmental footprints and making better cities for all, and they have their own problems.

Instead, we should develop a good mass public transport system with extensive and frequent coverage. Alongside urban development with a more even distribution of jobs, services and opportunities, investing in better public transport could reduce car dependence in our cities.

This would have a range of environmental and social benefits: making more space available for people instead of machines, extending the benefits of mobility to people who can't or don't drive, and reducing demand for finite minerals.

Even fossil-fuelled public transport has fewer emissions than conventional car travel. Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows the most fuel-efficient buses and trains generate less than half the carbon emissions per passenger kilometre of fuel-efficient cars. Of course, public transport powered by renewables will be even better.

But as things stand, we are far from having such a city. The benefits of good public transport and public services are unevenly distributed across our cities.

In Sydney, for example, there are significant investments in new public transport infrastructure in some parts of the city, such as Metro West and the recently completed North West Metro. There are welcome commitments to reduce emissions in that sector, too.

But we're a long way from planning new developments and redevelopments to make public transport a viable alternative to cars. The lack of public transport infrastructure in newly constructed, master-planned estates on Sydney's urban fringe is the most glaring example.

Read more: Climate explained: the environmental footprint of electric versus fossil cars

Ultimately, it's important that a transition to electric vehicles doesn't dominate the discussion we need to have about urban transport.

Our challenge is to simultaneously reduce the carbon footprint of different forms of transport, while also thinking much more broadly about the sustainability and justice of the system of mobility that's so central to daily life in our cities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cramming cities full of electric vehicles means we're still depending on cars - and that's a huge problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, the NSW government announced almost A$500 million towards boosting the uptake of electric vehicles. In its new electric vehicle strategy, the government will waive stamp duty for cars under $78,000, develop more charging infrastructure, offer rebates to 25,000 drivers, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
That’s the reality facing thousands of Victorians, and it will happen again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week’s storm system wreaked havoc across Victoria. Some 220,000 households and businesses lost power, and residents in the hills on Melbourne’s fringe were warned yesterday it might not be restored for three weeks.

The extreme weather severely damaged the poles and powerlines that distribute electricity, particularly in the Mount Dandenong area. Senior AusNet official Steven Neave said of the region this week, “we basically have no network left, the overhead infrastructure is pretty much gone. It requires a complete rebuild”.

That leaves about 3,000 customers without electricity for weeks, in the heart of winter. The loss of power also cut mobile phone and internet services and reportedly allowed untreated water to enter drinking supplies.

So, could this disaster have been avoided? And under climate change, how can we prepare for more events like this?

Fallen trees brought down power lines across Melbourne. Daniel Pockett/AAP

An uncertain future

The Mount Dandenong area is heavily forested, and the chance of above-ground power infrastructure being hit by falling trees is obviously high.

Without electricity, people cannot turn on lights, refrigerate food or medications, cook on electric stoves or use electric heaters. Electronic banking, schooling and business activities are also badly disrupted. For vulnerable residents, in particular, the implications are profound.

Such disruptions are hard to avoid, at least while the electricity network is above ground. Good management, however, can prevent some trees coming down in storms.

The more pertinent question is: how can we prepare for such an event in the future?

Scientists warn such extreme weather will increase in both frequency and severity as climate change accelerates. The Australian Energy Market Operator is acutely aware of this, warning climate change poses “material risks to individual assets, the integrated energy system, and society”.

However, it’s challenging to predict exactly how future heatwaves, storms, bushfires and floods will affect the power network. As AEMO notes, many climate models related to storms and cyclones involve an element of unpredictability. So, plans to make the electricity system more resilient must address this uncertainty.

As researchers have noted, there is no “one future” to prepare for – we must be ready for many potential eventualities.

Read more: Victoria's wild storms show how easily disasters can threaten our water supply

Under climate change, extreme weather is predicted to become more severe. Daniel Pockett/AAP

Yallourn – the bigger problem?

Meanwhile, in Victoria’s LaTrobe Valley, a situation at the Yallourn coal-fired power station which may have even greater consequences for electricity supplies.

A coal mine wall adjacent to the station is at risk of collapse after flooding in the Morwell River caused it to crack. If the wall is breached and the mine is flooded, as happened in 2012, there will be no coal to power the station and almost a quarter of Victoria’s power supply could be out for months.

Victoria’s energy needs are increasingly supplied by renewables. However, losing Yallourn’s generation capacity would reduce the capacity of the network to adapt to other possible disruptions.

If further disruptions seem unlikely, it’s worth noting the Callide Power Station in Queensland is still operating at reduced capacity after a recent fire.

Read more: An act of God, or just bad management? Why trees fall and how to prevent it

A wall adjacent to the Yallourn power plant may collapse. Julian Smith/AAP

Look beyond the immediate crisis

The Victorian government has offered up to A$1,680 per week, for up to three weeks, to help families without power buy supplies and find alternative accommodation.

Welfare groups say the assistance could be improved. They have called for changes to make it quicker and easier for people to access money, cash injections to frontline charities and more temporary accommodation facilities for displaced people and their pets.

While no doubt needed, these are all reactive responses targeted at those without electricity. When any system is disrupted, however, the effects can be widespread and felt long after the initial problem has been addressed.

Take dairy farmers in Gippsland, for example, who could not milk their cows without electricity. Cows must be milked regularly or else they stop producing milk – they cannot be “switched back on” when electricity is restored. Longer-term assistance may well be required for farmers facing such ripple effects.

And as welfare groups have noted, power companies should support affected customers over the long-term, with electricity discounts, deferrals and payment plans.

Read more: No food, no fuel, no phones: bushfires showed we're only ever one step from system collapse

Relief centres offer affected residents a hot shower and electricity access, but longer-term solutions are also needed. Daniel Pockett/AAP

A call for backup

So, what else can be done to prepare for future power disruptions? Those with backup options, such as portable fuel-powered generators, or off-grid household batteries connected to solar panels, will undoubtedly be more resilient in such events.

These are examples of “system redundancy”, providing alternative electricity until the network is restored.

But it costs money to invest in household batteries or a generator that may never be used. Resilience is often a function of wealth, and the less well-off risk being left behind.

Certainly, governments can act to make society as a whole more resilient to power outages. For example, mobile phone towers have backup battery life of just 24 hours. As Victoria’s Emergency Management Commissioner Andrew Crisp said this week, extending that is something authorities “need to look at”.

Power and communications infrastructure could be moved underground to protect it from storms. While such a move would be expensive, it has been argued not doing so will lead to greater long-term costs under a changing climate.

The recent challenges at Yallourn and Callide show the risks inherent in a centralised electricity network dominated by coal.

Certainly, integrating renewable energy sources into the power network comes with its own challenges. However, expanding energy storage such as batteries, or shifting to small, community-level microgrids will go a long way to improving the resilience of the system.

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation. Find the series here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three weeks without electricity? That’s the reality facing thousands of Victorians, and it will happen again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Could this disaster have been avoided? And under climate change, how can we prepare for more events like this?

# data[].attributes.body
https://rais.ornl.gov/index.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207883/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You are here:  NPI Home » NPI data » Search NPI data » Browse Search

Browse

Search by Map

Search by Form

Browse search enables you to find NPI data by following links based on data categories.

Click on a View data link to view NPI data for the corresponding reporting year.

Click on the on the reporting year value to find NPI data by Company, Industry, Location, or Substance.

23 items found, displaying all items.

Browse reporting year by company/location/substance/industry | View data
2020/2021 | View data
2019/2020 | View data
2018/2019 | View data
2017/2018 | View data
2016/2017 | View data
2015/2016 | View data
2014/2015 | View data
2013/2014 | View data
2012/2013 | View data
2011/2012 | View data
2010/2011 | View data
2009/2010 | View data
2008/2009 | View data
2007/2008 | View data
2006/2007 | View data
2005/2006 | View data
2004/2005 | View data
2003/2004 | View data
2002/2003 | View data
2001/2002 | View data
2000/2001 | View data
1999/2000 | View data
1998/1999 | View data

23 items found, displaying all items.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You are here: NPI Home »
NPI data »
Search NPI data » Browse Search

# data[].attributes.body
Please post additional links you find this post by adding comments below

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
© 2005 - 2023 American Chemistry Council, Inc. The ACC mark, Responsible Care®, the hands logo mark, CHEMTREC®, TRANSCAER®, and americanchemistry.com are registered service marks of the American Chemistry Council, Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
© 2005 - 2023 American Chemistry Council, Inc. The ACC mark, Responsible Care®, the hands logo mark, CHEMTREC®, TRANSCAER®, and americanchemistry.com are registered service marks of the American Chemistry Council, Inc.

# data[].attributes.body
Earlier in the year, Nature asked 119 scientific experts around the globe about whether they thought the coronavirus would become endemic, meaning it settles into the human population like the flu.Almost 90% of them said this was likely or very likely. Given the virus isn’t going away any time soon, Max De Courten and Rosemary Calder argue Australia’s elimination strategy is probably not viable in the long-term, and that we can’t keep locking down forever.They say as we vaccinate more and more, and transition through the phases of our four-step plan to return to pre-COVID normality, Australia’s approach should move away from anxiety-inducing daily press conferences and new case announcements.Instead, in the long-term they propose we focus on reducing fear, improving vaccination rates and investing in better treatments, as we do with other diseases we can’t eradicate or fully protect against, like the flu.They quote three Singaporean ministers, writing in The Straits Times ahead of Singapore’s gradual move towards living with COVID as a recurring disease:“The bad news is that COVID-19 may never go away. The good news is that it is possible to live normally with it in our midst.”
Liam Petterson
Deputy Editor, Health + Medicine

# data[].attributes.headline
Have you listened to AT1 'How to Guide" recording?

# data[].attributes.subject
Have you listened to AT1 'How to Guide" recording?

# data[].attributes.body
Pass code: zK*!vnM1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done.

# data[].attributes.body
What environments does this relate to (that we covered weeks 3 & 4).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
India is the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and its transition to a low-carbon economy is crucial to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. But unfortunately, the nation is still clinging firmly to coal.

Our new research considered this problem, drawing on a case study in the Angul district, India's largest coal reserve in the eastern state of Odisha.

We found three main factors slowing the energy transition: strong political and community support for coal, a lack of alternative economic activities, and deep ties between coal and other industries such as rail.

India must step away from coal, while maintaining economic growth and not leaving millions of people in coal-mining regions worse off. Our research probes this wicked problem in detail and suggests ways forward.

Why India matters

India's population will soon reach 1.4 billion and this decade it is expected to overtake China as the world's most populous nation. This, combined with a young population, growing economy and rapid urbanisation, means energy consumption in India has doubled since 2000.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates India will have the largest increase in energy demand of any country between now and 2040.

An affordable, reliable supply of energy is central to raising the nation's living standards. A recent World Bank analysis found up to 150 million people in India are poor.

Alongside its massive reliance on coal, India has one of the world's most ambitious renewable energy plans, including an aim to quadruple renewable electricity capacity by 2030.

The IEA says coal accounts for about 70% of India's electricity generation. And as the nation rebounds from the coronavirus pandemic this year, the rise in coal-fired electricity production is expected to be three times that from cleaner sources.

Coal-powered generation is anticipated to grow annually by 4.6% to 2024, and coal is expected to remain a major emitter of greenhouse gases to 2040.

While India's energy trajectory remains aligned with its commitments under the Paris Agreement, the speed and readiness of its transition remains a complex, divisive issue. The World Economic Forum's 2021 Energy Transition Index ranks India 87th out of 115 countries analysed.

Read more: Even without new fossil fuel projects, global warming will still exceed 1.5℃. But renewables might make it possible

Bottlenecks in the transition

Our research involved visits to the Angul district in Odisha in 2018 and 2019, where we conducted focus groups and interviews. Angul is home to 11 coal mines.

We found three crucial bottlenecks to the energy transition, which arguably exist in India's other coal belts and could derail the nation's decarbonisation efforts.

First, the Odisha government has historically been very pro-business. Politicians across the spectrum support coal mining and seek to position it as the region's primary economic lifeline.

The official pro-coal position receives little pushback from Angul residents, who are largely unaware of Odisha's contribution to national greenhouse gas emissions. Any local opposition to coal usually stems from concern about environmental degradation such as air, water and land pollution.

Most of Angul's residents felt a deep connection to coal because their livelihood depends on it. One participant told us:

even if all the water is polluted and five inches of dust settles on our well, we would prefer mining to continue as my family's survival depends on (the contract with the mining company).

Most participants considered their farming land as an asset to be sold to the mining companies for a significant sum. The money would, in turn, allow them to start a business, buy a car or arrange a marriage in the family.

Second, the heavy reliance on coal means efforts to diversify the region's economy have been grossly neglected.

In Angul, mining zones and coal-dedicated railway lines passing through paddy fields mean agricultural productivity has declined over time. Rural development agendas have been short-lived, often set within six months of an election deadline then changed or abandoned.

Skill-development programs in non-coal vocations have also been limited. This lack of viable alternatives implicitly generates local support for coal.

And third, a suite of industries in Odisha - such as steel, cement, fertiliser and bauxite - depend on cheap coal for power. This is reflected across India, where coal has deep ties with other industries in ways not seen elsewhere.

For example, in 2016 Indian Railways earned 44% of its freight revenue from transporting coal. Indian Railways is India's largest employer and coal revenue helps keep passenger fares low. So in this way, a potential coal phaseout in India would have far-reaching effects.

The way forward

We offer these pathways to ensure a steady, just energy transition in India:

India must help its coal regions diversify their economic activities

bipartisan support for a coal-free India is needed. Transition champions such as Germany can show India's leaders the way

a national taskforce for energy transition should be established. It should include representatives from across industry and academia, as well as climate policymakers and grassroots organisations

India's coal regions are endowed with metals needed in the energy transition, including iron ore, bauxite and manganese. With improved regulatory standards, these offer economic alternatives to coal

concerns about the coal phase-out from communities in coal regions should be addressed fairly and in a timely way.

The world's emerging economies are responsible for two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions. The energy transition in India, if done well, could show the way for other developing nations.

But as new industrial sectors emerge and clean energy jobs grow, India must ensure those in coal-dependent regions are not left behind.

Read more: South Korea's Green New Deal shows the world what a smart economic recovery looks like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
India's wicked problem: how to loosen its grip on coal while not abandoning the millions who depend on it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India is the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and its transition to a low-carbon economy is crucial to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. But unfortunately, the nation is still clinging firmly to coal. Our new research considered this problem, drawing on a case study in the Angul district, India's largest coal reserve in the eastern state of Odisha.

# data[].attributes.body
How did your city rank? Do you agree? Why / Why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Auckland in New Zealand has been named the world's most liveable city, in an annual ranking that has been shifted by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) survey ranked 140 cities on factors including stability, infrastructure, education and access to healthcare.

But the pandemic proved to be the defining factor in this year's list.

It meant European cities fell while those in Australia, Japan and New Zealand rose up the rankings.

Those island countries responded swiftly to the coronavirus outbreak and were able to minimise cases and loosen restrictions.

European Union countries, meanwhile, had a sluggish start to their vaccine rollout and many member states imposed tough lockdowns which hurt their performance in this year's survey.

Auckland topped the list followed by Osaka in Japan, Adelaide in Australia, Wellington in New Zealand and the Japanese capital Tokyo. No UK cities made the top ten.

"Auckland rose to the top of the ranking owing to its successful approach in containing the Covid-19 pandemic, which allowed its society to remain open and the city to score strongly," the EIU said.

"European cities fared particularly poorly in this year's edition," it added. "Eight of the top ten biggest falls in the rankings are European cities."

Vienna, for example, fell from first place to 12th. The Austrian capital had led the list for several years, usually tied at the top with Melbourne.

But Hamburg in northern Germany had the most dramatic fall - dropping 34 places to 47th.

This trend was motivated by a "stress on hospital resources" which the study said had increased for most German and French cities, resulting in a "deteriorated healthcare score".

Lockdown measures and restrictions on movement also reduced overall liveability, the study said.

"Cities across the world are now much less liveable than they were before the pandemic began, and we've seen that regions such as Europe have been hit particularly hard," the EIU said.

While the top of the list has shifted, the study said there had been much less movement at the bottom.

Damascus remains the city where life is most difficult, largely because of Syria's continuing civil war. Many of the cities that ranked poorly have been blighted by conflict, which has put pressure on their health systems and infrastructure.

The ten most liveable cities in 2021

1. Auckland, New Zealand

2. Osaka, Japan

3. Adelaide, Australia

4. Wellington, New Zealand

5. Tokyo, Japan

6. Perth, Australia

7. Zurich, Switzerland

8. Geneva, Switzerland

9. Melbourne, Australia

10. Brisbane, Australia

The ten least liveable cities in 2021

1. Damascus, Syria

2. Lagos, Nigeria

3. Port Moresby, PNG

4. Dhaka, Bangladesh

5. Algiers, Algeria

6. Tripoli, Libya

7. Karachi, Pakistan

8. Harare, Zimbabwe

9. Douala, Cameroon

10. Caracas, Venezuela

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coronavirus: Auckland ranked most liveable city as pandemic shifts list

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Auckland in New Zealand has been named the world's most liveable city, in an annual ranking that has been shifted by the coronavirus pandemic. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) survey ranked 140 cities on factors including stability, infrastructure, education and access to healthcare. But the pandemic proved to be the defining factor in this year's list.

# data[].attributes.headline
More about electric cars.  Could this be a strategy you would plan for in AT1??

# data[].attributes.subject
More about electric cars.  Could this be a strategy you would plan for in AT1??

# data[].attributes.body
I had an early link to the discussion about electric cars.  It's not a solution by itself but could it be part of the bigger picture?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring the U.S. must "move fast" to win the world's carmaking future, President Joe Biden on Thursday announced a commitment from the auto industry to produce electric vehicles for as much as half of U.S. sales by the end of the decade.

Biden also wants automakers to raise gas mileage and cut tailpipe pollution between now and model year 2026. That would mark a significant step toward meeting his pledge to cut emissions and battle climate change as he pushes a history-making shift in the U.S. from internal combustion engines to battery-powered vehicles.

He urged that the components needed to make that sweeping change - from batteries to semiconductors - be made in the United States, too, aiming for both industry and union support for the environmental effort, with the promise of new jobs and billions in federal electric vehicle investments.

Pointing to electric vehicles parked on the White House South Lawn, the president declared them a "vision of the future that is now beginning to happen."

"The question is whether we lead or fall behind in the race for the future," he said, "Folks, the rest of the world is moving ahead. We have to catch up."

In obvious good spirits, the president hopped into a plug-in hybrid Jeep Wrangler Rubicon that can run solely on batteries and took a quick spin around the driveway after the ceremony.

Earlier Thursday, the administration announced there would be new mileage and anti-pollution standards from the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department, part of Biden's goal to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. It said the auto industry had agreed to a target that 40% to 50% of new vehicle sales be electric by 2030.

Both the regulatory standards and the automakers' voluntary target were included in an executive order that Biden signed as a gathering of auto industry leaders and lawmakers applauded.

The standards, which must go through the regulatory process, would reverse fuel economy and anti-pollution rollbacks done under President Donald Trump. At that time, the mileage increases were reduced to 1.5% annually through model year 2026.

The new standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions and raise fuel economy by 10% over the Trump rules in car model year 2023. They would get 5% stronger in each model year through 2026, according to an EPA statement. That's about a 25% increase over four years.

The EPA said that by 2026, the proposed standards would be the toughest greenhouse emissions rules in U.S. history.

Still, it remains to be seen how quickly consumers will be willing to embrace higher-mileage, lower-emission vehicles over less fuel-efficient SUVs, currently the industry's top sellers. The 2030 EV targets ultimately are nonbinding, and the industry stresses that billions of dollars in electric-vehicle investments in legislation pending in Congress will be vital to meeting those goals.

Only 2.2% of new vehicle sales were fully electric vehicles through June, according to Edmunds.com estimates. That's up from 1.4% at the same time last year.

Biden has long declared himself "a car guy," his blue collar political persona intertwined with support for union workers and his role, as vice president, in steadying the auto industry after the economic collapse in 2008. He told General Motors CEO Mary Barra that he wanted to reserve a certain test drive.

"I have a commitment from Mary: When they make the first electric Corvette, I get to drive it," Biden said. "Right, Mary? You think I'm kidding. I'm not kidding."

Dave Cooke, senor vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the new rules are close to matching the final year of standards enacted when Barack Obama was president that were rolled back by Trump.

But Cooke said he is concerned that the regulations extend the number of years automakers get double credit toward complying with the standards for every electric vehicle they sell. That allows more emissions from internal combustion vehicles, he said.

Last week, The Associated Press and other news organizations reported that the Biden administration was discussing weaker mileage requirements with automakers, but they since have been strengthened. The change came after environmental groups complained publicly that they were too weak.

Transportation is the single biggest U.S. contributor to climate change.

The deal with automakers defines electric vehicles as plug-in hybrids, fully electric vehicles and those powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

Environmental groups welcomed the movement but also said the administration should move faster.

"Given how climate change has already turned our weather so violent, it's clear that we need to dramatically accelerate progress," said Simon Mui of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Scientists say human-caused global warming is increasing temperatures, raising sea levels and worsening wildfires, droughts, floods and storms globally.

Several automakers already have announced electric vehicle sales goals similar to those in the deal with the government. Last week Ford's CEO said his company expects 40% of its global sales to be fully electric by 2030. General Motors has said it aspires to sell only electric passenger vehicles by 2035. Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler, also pledged over 40% electrified vehicles by 2030.

The Trump rollback of the Obama-era standards would require the fleet of new vehicles to get a projected 29 mpg in "real world" driving by 2026. Cooke said under the Biden EPA proposal, the mileage should be similar to the 37 mpg that the Obama rules were to achieve.

General Motors, Stellantis and Ford said in a joint statement that their recent electric-vehicle commitments show they want to lead the U.S. in the transition from combustion vehicles.

They said such a "dramatic shift" from the U.S. market today can only happen with policies that include incentives for electric vehicle purchases, adequate government funding for charging stations and money to expand electric vehicle manufacturing and the parts supply chain.

The United Auto Workers union, which has voiced concerns about being too hasty with an EV transition because of the potential impact on industry jobs, did not commit to endorsing the 40% to 50% EV target. But UAW said it stands behind the president to "support his ambition not just to grow electric vehicles but also our capacity to produce them domestically with good wages and benefits."

Biden on Thursday repeatedly extolled the virtues of American union workers and said that the challenges of climate change could present an opportunity for "good paying union jobs."

Under a shift from internal combustion to electric power, jobs that now involve making pistons, fuel injectors and mufflers will be supplanted by the assembly of lithium-ion battery packs, electric motors and heavy-duty wiring harnesses.

Many of those components are now built overseas, including in China. Biden has made the development of a U.S. electric vehicle supply chain a key part of his plan to create more auto industry jobs.

In a bipartisan infrastructure bill awaiting Senate passage, there is $7.5 billion for grants to build charging stations, about half of what Biden originally proposed. He wanted $15 billion for 500,000 stations, plus money for tax credits and rebates to entice people into buying electric vehicles.

___

Krisher reported from Detroit. Associated Press writers Hope Yen, Jonathan Lemire and Seth Borenstein contributed from Washington.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US automakers pledge huge increase in electric vehicles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring the U.S. must "move fast" to win the world's carmaking future, President Joe Biden on Thursday announced a commitment from the auto industry to produce electric vehicles for as much as half of U.S. sales by the end of the decade.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you have a specific item / product?
Have you linked to environmental issue?
Have you linked to human health outcomes?
What did you recommend (planning)
We are looking forward to your interesting analysis of your products

# data[].attributes.body
This is exactly what we are discussing this week..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earth has warmed 1.09℃ since pre-industrial times and many changes such as sea-level rise and glacier melt are now virtually irreversible, according to the most sobering report yet by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report also found escape from human-caused climate change is no longer possible. Climate change is now affecting every continent, region and ocean on Earth, and every facet of the weather.

The long-awaited report is the sixth assessment of its kind since the panel was formed in 1988. It will give world leaders the most timely, accurate information about climate change ahead of a crucial international summit in Glasgow, Scotland in November.

The IPCC is the peak climate science body of the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization. It is the global authority on the state of Earth's climate and how human activities affect it. We are authors of the latest IPCC report and have drawn from the work of thousands of scientists from around the world to produce this new assessment.

Sadly, there is hardly any good news in the 3,900 pages of text released today. But there is still time to avert the worst damage, if humanity chooses to.

It's unequivocal: humans are warming the planet

For the first time, the IPCC states unequivocally - leaving absolutely no room for doubt - humans are responsible for the observed warming of the atmosphere, lands and oceans.

The IPCC finds Earth's global surface temperature warmed 1.09℃ between 1850-1900 and the last decade. This is 0.29℃ warmer than in the previous IPCC report in 2013. (It should be noted that 0.1℃ of the increase is due to data improvements.)

Read more: Monday's IPCC report is a really big deal for climate change. So what is it? And why should we trust it?

The IPCC recognises the role of natural changes to the Earth's climate. However, it finds 1.07℃ of the 1.09℃ warming is due to greenhouse gases associated with human activities. In other words, pretty much all global warming is due to humans.

Global surface temperature has warmed faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2,000 years, with the warming also reaching ocean depths below 2,000 metres.

The IPCC says human activities have also affected global precipitation (rain and snow). Since 1950, total global precipitation has increased, but while some regions have become wetter, others have become drier.

The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased over most land areas. This is because the warmer atmosphere is able to hold more moisture - about 7% more for each additional degree of temperature - which makes wet seasons and rainfall events wetter.

Higher concentrations of CO₂, growing faster

Present-day global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) are higher and rising faster than at any time in at least the past two million years.

The speed at which atmospheric CO₂ has increased since the industrial revolution (1750) is at least ten times faster than at any other time during the last 800,000 years, and between four and five times faster than during the last 56 million years.

About 85% of CO₂ emissions are from burning fossil fuels. The remaining 15% are generated from land use change, such as deforestation and degradation.

Read more: More livestock, more carbon dioxide, less ice: the world's climate change progress since 2019 is (mostly) bad news

Concentrations of other greenhouse gases are not doing any better. Both methane and nitrous oxide, the second and third biggest contributors to global warming after CO₂, have also increased more quickly.

Methane emissions from human activities largely come from livestock and the fossil fuel industry. Nitrous oxide emissions largely come from the use of nitrogen fertiliser on crops.

Extreme weather on the rise

Hot extremes, heatwaves and heavy rain have also become more frequent and intense across most land regions since 1950, the IPCC confirms.

The report highlights that some recently observed hot extremes, such as the Australian summer of 2012-2013, would have been extremely unlikely without human influence on the climate.

Human influence has also been detected for the first time in compounded extreme events. For example, incidences of heatwaves, droughts and fire weather happening at the same time are now more frequent. These compound events have been seen in Australia, Southern Europe, Northern Eurasia, parts of the Americas and African tropical forests.

Oceans: hotter, higher and more acidic

Oceans absorb 91% of the energy from the increased atmospheric greenhouse gases. This has led to ocean warming and more marine heatwaves, particularly over the past 15 years.

Marine heatwaves cause the mass death of marine life, such as from coral bleaching events. They also cause algal blooms and shifts in the composition of species. Even if the world restricts warming to 1.5-2℃, as is consistent with the Paris Agreement, marine heatwaves will become four times more frequent by the end of the century.

Read more: Watching a coral reef die as climate change devastates one of the most pristine tropical island areas on Earth

Melting ice sheets and glaciers, along with the expansion of the ocean as it warms, have led to a global mean sea level increase of 0.2 metres between 1901 and 2018. But, importantly, the speed sea level is rising is accelerating: 1.3 millimetres per year during 1901-1971, 1.9mm per year during 1971-2006, and 3.7mm per year during 2006-2018.

Ocean acidification, caused by the uptake of CO₂, has occurred over all oceans and is reaching depths beyond 2,000m in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic.

Many changes are already irreversible

The IPCC says if Earth's climate was stabilised soon, some climate change-induced damage could not be reversed within centuries, or even millennia. For example, global warming of 2℃ this century will lead to average global sea level rise of between two and six metres over 2,000 years, and much more for higher emission scenarios.

Globally, glaciers have been synchronously retreating since 1950 and are projected to continue to melt for decades after the global temperature is stabilised. Meanwhile the acidification of the deep ocean will remain for thousands of years after CO₂ emissions cease.

Read more: We mapped the world's frozen peatlands - what we found was very worrying

The report does not identify any possible abrupt changes that would lead to an acceleration of global warming during this century - but does not rule out such possibilities.

The prospect of permafrost (frozen soils) in Alaska, Canada, and Russia crossing a tipping point has been widely discussed. The concern is that as frozen ground thaws, large amounts of carbon accumulated over thousands of years from dead plants and animals could be released as they decompose.

The report does not identify any globally significant abrupt change in these regions over this century, based on currently available evidence. However, it projects permafrost areas will release about 66 billion tonnes of CO₂ for each additional degree of warming. These emissions are irreversible during this century under all warming scenarios.

How we can stabilise the climate

Earth's surface temperature will continue to increase until at least 2050 under all emissions scenarios considered in the report. The assessment shows Earth could well exceed the 1.5℃ warming limit by early 2030s.

If we reduce emissions sufficiently, there is only a 50% chance global temperature rise will stay around 1.5℃ (including a temporary overshoot of up to 0.1℃). To get Earth back to below 1.5℃ warming, CO₂ would need to be removed from the atmosphere using negative emissions technologies or nature-based solutions.

Global warming stays below 2℃ during this century only under scenarios where CO₂ emissions reach net-zero around or after 2050.

Read more: We've made progress to curb global emissions. But it's a fraction of what's needed

The IPCC analysed future climate projections from dozens of climate models, produced by more than 50 modelling centres around the world. It showed global average surface temperature rises between 1-1.8℃ and 3.3-5.7℃ this century above pre-industrial levels for the lowest and highest emission scenarios, respectively. The exact increase the world experiences will depend on how much more greenhouse gases are emitted.

The report states, with high certainty, that to stabilise the climate, CO₂ emissions must reach net zero, and other greenhouse gas emissions must decline significantly.

We also know, for a given temperature target, there's a finite amount of carbon we can emit before reaching net zero emissions. To have a 50:50 chance of halting warming at around 1.5℃, this quantity is about 500 billion tonnes of CO₂.

At current levels of CO₂ emissions this "carbon budget" would be used up within 12 years. Exhausting the budget will take longer if emissions begin to decline.

The IPCC's latest findings are alarming. But no physical or environmental impediments exist to hold warming to well below 2℃ and limit it to around 1.5℃ - the globally agreed goals of the Paris Agreement. Humanity, however, must choose to act.
Click here to read more of The Conversation's coverage of the IPCC report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth's future. Here's what you need to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth has warmed 1.09℃ since pre-industrial times and many changes such as sea-level rise and glacier melt are now virtually irreversible, according to the most sobering report yet by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report also found escape from human-caused climate change is no longer possible.

# data[].attributes.body
AT1 & AT2 resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A specific component of air particle pollution found in some common household products could be responsible for up to 900,000 premature deaths every year-10 times greater than previous estimates, according to new research published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

While the majority of these components, referred to as anthropogenic secondary organic aerosols (ASOAs), are produced during the combustion of fossil fuels, some come from everyday use products, such as cleaning supplies, pesticides, or household paint.

"All those different smells you're getting from paint are different [volatile organic compounds] that are being emitted" into the air, Benjamin Nault, a research scientist at Aerodyne Research, Inc. and lead author of the study, told EHN. Once released, these gases, also known as VOCs, can transform into a new subset of stickier chemicals which clump together to form ASOAs.

Even though the majority of these compounds are produced indoors-and can play a role in creating poor indoor air quality -they will eventually escape outside through open windows or miniscule cracks in the foundation. In urban areas, ASOAs can make up a significant portion of the more commonly known pollutant, fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

"There's more people living in urban areas," Nault explains- more than 50% of the world's population, to be exact. With more people, "you need more of these everyday use products to paint all the apartments and townhouses, to put the asphalt down, [and] to clean everything up," said Nault. Urban populations are expected to increase by 150% by 2045.

Inhaling any type of particle-but especially PM 2.5-can be detrimental to human health. According to the American Lung Association, potential health effects caused by prolonged exposure to PM 2.5 could include reduced lung function, the development of lung cancer, and an increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease. Because of this, many countries have developed laws that restrict the amount of particle-forming VOCs that can be released into the air. In the U.S., the creation of these regulations-especially those that have targeted transportation-have led to a nation-wide improvement in air quality.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the pollution created from these everyday consumer items, which are also referred to as volatile chemical products (VCPs). In contrast to the success seen in the transportation sector, emissions from VCPs are "remaining relatively flat or going up," said Nault, because they're "less regulated and more directly tied to everyday use and population."

VCPs are also more difficult to regulate as a whole since there are thousands of compounds emitted by a diverse range of sources that span from deodorant to asphalt to outdoor barbecues. Plus, the stickiness that makes them so efficient at forming ASOAs also makes them difficult to measure.

This "makes it really hard to say, 'these are the emissions that need to be regulated'...to improve public health," said Nault.

Air pollution and premature deaths

Volatile chemical products are difficult to regulate as a whole since there are thousands of compounds emitted by a diverse range of sources that span from deodorant to asphalt to outdoor barbecues. (Credit: Pam Broviak/flickr)

The new study builds upon previous work, led by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, that showed that VCP emissions are contributing to a large fraction of the PM 2.5 formed in Los Angeles. Even before that, however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has "long accounted for emissions from volatile chemical products in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI)," a spokesperson told EHN through email, and has been assessing their impact on air quality since at least 1995.

But many of these findings have been limited to the U.S., which is why Nault and his international team of researchers expanded the scope of research and incorporated air quality data collected across several continents. They found that 37% of ASOAs, on average, were derived from VCPs in cities located in North America, Europe, and Asia. "Other places around the world have both emissions from tailpipes, but also from these everyday use products," said Nault. "This is a global thing."

They then used models to correlate concentrations of ASOA to premature mortality and compared their values to previous estimates. Nault and his team suspect between 340,000 to 900,000 premature deaths are caused by ASOAs.

"There weren't very many estimates of [ASOA-related] premature deaths in literature prior to this," said Nault, but the ones that existed significantly underestimated the number of deaths ASOA contributed to.

It's likely this percentage of VCP-derived pollution could grow in the future as transportation emissions continue to decrease and city populations continue to grow. That's why, in the U.S., the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard requires manufacturers to reduce the amount of VOCs emitted by consumer products to prevent formation of ozone, another dangerous pollutant. However, when swapping out these compounds in accordance with the rules, it's possible companies may inadvertently add others that are better equipped to create ASOAs.

"One of the big things that we really need is to really look at these products that we use every day and look at what is actually in them, and what is coming out of them," said Nault.

Consumer products regulation

Proper regulation of both VCPs and transportation emissions is paramount if we want to prevent premature deaths caused by ASOAs, especially considering that these numbers could be an underestimation. "We think that there's differences within the stuff in the [aerosols] that could lead to very different differences in health and mortality," said Nault.

Research led by the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) in South Korea backs this up. "Right now, it is assumed that the toxicity is the same for all types of particles," Kihong Park, a professor at GIST, told EHN. However, upon exposing human and animal cells to different types of particles, he concluded that's likely not the case.

"Typically, chemical components such salt species, sulfates, and nitrates have less toxicity than [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons], heavy metals, and organic compounds which are abundant in combustion-generated particles," Park explained. While he didn't assess the toxicity of VCP-derived particles in his original study, Park suspects that they might be comparable to aerosols that contain benzene or toluene, which elicited some of the highest toxicity scores in his study.

"In the future, we have to consider the differential toxicity of PM2.5, in addition to the amount of PM2.5, to better understand the effects of the PM2.5 on human health," said Park. "If the specific source for PM2.5 is more dangerous than others, we have to put more priority on the control of that source."

The U.S. has made great strides when it comes to improving our air quality. Much of this success has come from reducing transportation emissions. But we only focused on transportation because it "was very easy to recognize and say, 'this is where most of the pollution is coming from,'" said Nault.

Now, however, it's time to also turn our attention towards VCPs, he said.

The EPA spokesperson mentioned that the agency plans to "adopt new methods for quantifying emissions from volatile chemical products...as well as improve the representation of these emissions in air quality modeling efforts to better understand the relationship of volatile chemical products and criteria pollutants."

Still, more research needs to be done. "It's really tricky to try to track all those different [compounds]," explained Nault. Many ingredient lists are considered proprietary information and scientific equipment often struggles to measure all the compounds emitted from VCPs.

But "once we know what [these compounds] are and [which ones] contribute more to this PM 2.5," explained Nault, "then we can work on replacing those compounds with other ones" that might not produce as much pollution.
Banner photo credit: Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Air pollution from household products is cutting people's lives short

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A specific component of air particle pollution found in some common household products could be responsible for up to 900,000 premature deaths every year-10 times greater than previous estimates, according to new research published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics .

# data[].attributes.headline
A warming earth: Natural disasters from 2020 to now

# data[].attributes.subject
A warming earth: Natural disasters from 2020 to now

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2021/how-the-world-ran-out-of-time/?fbclid=IwAR3Ry9ige3uFJuw-SYpIG0GfZZ9p9B1iJv52nASuP-v98iv8hrRXHFZY7mA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Nick O’Malley, Miki Perkins, Pallavi Singhal, Daniel Carter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme weather across the world over the past year has underscored the urgency of the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows the effects over time and a comparision from 1900 to now -> showing the ongoing detriments of a warming climate on the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole. Since 1906, the global average surface temperature has increased by more than 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius)- even more in sensitive polar regions. And the impacts of rising temperatures aren't waiting for some far-flung future-the effects of global warming are appearing right now. The heat is melting glaciers and sea ice, shifting precipitation patterns, and setting animals on the move.

Many people think of global warming and climate change as synonyms, but scientists prefer to use "climate change" when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet's weather and climate systems. 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 these changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Scientists already have documented these impacts of climate change:

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. In Montana's Glacier National Park the number of glaciers has declined to fewer than 30 from more than 150 in 1910.

Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise. Global sea levels are rising 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year. The rise is occurring at a faster rate in recent years and is predicted to accelerate in the coming decades.

Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats. Vanishing ice has challenged species such as the Adélie penguin in Antarctica, where some populations on the western peninsula have collapsed by 90 percent or more.

As temperatures change, many species are on the move. Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have migrated farther north or to higher, cooler areas.

Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.

Some species-including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests-are thriving. Booming populations of bark beetles that feed on spruce and pine trees, for example, have devastated millions of forested acres in the U.S.

Other effects could take place later this century, if warming continues. These include:

Sea levels are expected to rise between 10 and 32 inches (26 and 82 centimeters) or higher by the end of the century.

Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Floods and droughts will become more common. Large parts of the U.S., for example, face a higher risk of decades-long "megadroughts" by 2100.

Less freshwater will be available, since glaciers store about three-quarters of the world's freshwater.

Some diseases will spread, such as mosquito-borne malaria (and the 2016 resurgence of the Zika virus).

Ecosystems will continue to change: Some species will move farther north or become more successful; others, such as polar bears, won't be able to adapt and could become extinct.

Read next: Is Global Warming Real?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change: Sir David Attenborough in 'act now' warning

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change: Sir David Attenborough in 'act now' warning

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59039485

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"If we don't act now, it'll be too late." That's the warning from Sir David Attenborough ahead of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

The broadcaster says the richest nations have "a moral responsibility" to help the world's poorest.

And it would be "really catastrophic" if we ignored their problems, he told me in a BBC News interview.

"Every day that goes by in which we don't do something about it is a day wasted," he said.

Sir David and I were speaking at Kew Gardens in London during filming for a new landmark series, The Green Planet, to be aired on BBC1 next year.

Our conversation ranged from the latest climate science to the importance of COP26 to the pace of his working life.

The UN climate science panel recently concluded that it is "unequivocal" that human activity is driving up global temperatures.

And Sir David said that proved that he and others had not been making "a fuss about nothing", and that the risks of a hotter world are real.

"What climate scientists have been saying for 20 years, and that we have been reporting upon, you and I both, is the case - we were not causing false alarms.

"And every day that goes by in which we don't do something about it is a day wasted. And things are being made worse".

But he said the report had not convinced everyone and that they are acting as a brake on efforts to tackle climate change.

"There are still people in North America, there are still people in Australia who say 'no, no, no, no, of course it's very unfortunate that there was that forest fire that absolutely demolished, incinerated that village, but it's a one-off'.

"Particularly if it's going to cost money in the short term, the temptation is to deny the problem and pretend it's not there.

"But every month that passes, it becomes more and more incontrovertible, the changes to the planet that we are responsible for that are having these devastating effects."

His call for an urgent response reflects the latest scientific assessment that to avoid the worst impacts of rising temperatures, global carbon emissions need to be halved no later than 2030.

That's why the coming years are described as "the decisive decade" and why the COP26 talks are so crucial for getting the world on a safer path now.

As things stand, emissions are projected to continue rising rather than starting to fall, and Sir David was sounding more exasperated than I've heard before.

"If we don't act now, it will be too late," he said. "We have to do it now."

We turned to the question of responsibility, a highly contentious issue which will loom large at the conference. Developing countries have for years accused the richest nations, which were the first to start polluting the atmosphere, of failing to shoulder their share of the burden.

The argument is that they should be making the deepest cuts in carbon emissions and providing help to those who need it most. A long-standing promise of $100bn a year for low carbon development and to build stronger defences against more violent weather has yet to be fulfilled - reaching that total will be a key test of whether COP26 succeeds or fails.

For Sir David, this is one of the most worrying challenges, and he says it would be "really catastrophic" if threats to the poorest nations were ignored.

"Whole parts of Africa are likely to be unliveable - people will simply have to move away because of the advancing deserts and increasing heat, and where will they go? Well, a lot of them will try to get into Europe.

"Do we say, 'Oh, it's nothing to do with us' and cross our arms?

"We caused it - our kind of industrialisation is one of the major factors in producing this change in climate. So we have a moral responsibility.

"Even if we didn't cause it, we would have a moral responsibility to do something about thousands of men, women and children who've lost everything, everything. Can we just say goodbye and say this is no business of ours?"

Finally I asked about his own hectic workload at the age of 95 - from filming documentaries to addressing the G7 summit, the UN Security Council and the Duke of Cambridge's Earthshot Prize.

The COP26 global climate summit in Glasgow in November is seen as crucial if climate change is to be brought under control. Almost 200 countries are being asked for their plans to cut emissions, and it could lead to major changes to our everyday lives.

"I don't plan very far ahead - as you say, I'm 95. How long can you go on? It isn't within our gift to say those things or to know those things.

"All I know is that if I get up tomorrow and I feel that I'm able to do a decent day's work, then I shall jolly well do it and be grateful.

"And the day is going to come when I'm going to get out of bed and say, I don't think I can do that. When that's going to be, who knows? I don't."

Having watched him filming for five hours straight, and remaining not only focused but also good-humoured, I suggested that he still loved what he was doing.

"At the moment, I feel it would be a waste of an opportunity just to back out and not do the things I think are very important to do in which I am well placed to do."

And the next major engagement in the Attenborough diary? Nothing less than speaking, virtually or in-person, to what's set to be the largest ever gathering of global leaders on British soil: COP26, in a few days' time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Sir David Attenborough in 'act now' warning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"If we don't act now, it'll be too late." That's the warning from Sir David Attenborough ahead of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. The broadcaster says the richest nations have "a moral responsibility" to help the world's poorest. And it would be "really catastrophic" if we ignored their problems, he told me in a BBC News interview.

# data[].attributes.headline
How has COVID-19 increased plastic pollution?

# data[].attributes.subject
How has COVID-19 increased plastic pollution?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211021/How-has-COVID-19-increased-plastic-pollution.aspx

since the covid outbreak, there has been a large amount of plastic waste moving towards the oceans causing an increase in pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Professor Yong Sik Ok Director of APRU Sustainable Waste Management Program Korea University
In this interview, News-Medical speaks to Professor Yong Sik Ok about his latest research into COVID-19 and its impact on plastic pollution due to the increased use of PPE.
Please can you introduce yourself, tell us about your background within environmental science, and what inspired your latest research?

For more information about Prof Ok, please kindly check our website: https://apru.org/international/yong-sik-ok/

Sustainable waste management is one of our research interests, and Prof Ok is chairing APRU sustainable waste management program ( https://apru.org/our-work/pacific-rim-challenges/sustainable-waste-management/).

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we firstly figured out that COVID-19 seriously caused unsustainable waste management. Therefore, we published one article (Letter) in ( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abc7778), which is titled "COVID-19's unsustainable waste management".

Following our research interests and output, we keep focusing on the effect COVID-19 has on our ecosystem. Therefore, we wrote one more article titled "The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a shift to a plastic circular economy", which has just been released in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00223-2).

A lot of the attention given to the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on vaccination strategies and its variants. However, there are a lot of other problems created by the virus that are not highlighted, including plastic pollution. Why is it still important to spotlight some of these other impacts?

Up to now, it's clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has been causing unexpected direct and indirect issues. Plastic products, especially PPE, have played significant roles in protecting humans from COVID-19.

However, inadequate plastic waste management resulted in an alarming accumulation of plastic in soil and aquatic ecosystems. For example, it is estimated that approximately 1.56 billion face masks (~5.66 tonnes (Mt) of plastic) ended up in the oceans in 2020. Therefore, it's urgent and critical to spotlight sustainable plastic management for a circular economy.

Image Credit: People Image Studio/Shutterstock.com

What impact does plastic pollution have on our environment? How is this affecting climate change?

As mentioned in our article published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, approximately 400 Mt of plastic waste was produced globally in 2019. However, the estimated waste volume reached over 530 Mt in the first 7 months of the COVID-19 outbreak (December 2019-June 2020), suggesting plastic waste totals for 2020 would be at least double those of 2019. Moreover, large pieces of plastic waste, (including masks,) can break into microplastics (>100 nm and <5 mm) and nanoplastics (<100 nm).

The accidental ingestion of these micro-/nano-plastics by marine and freshwater organisms, alongside the unexpected accumulation in terrestrial plants and animals, and transport in the atmosphere as "plastic-rain" or "plastic-smog," raise concerns for the safety of human food, drinking water, and breathable air. In addition, micro-/nano-plastics can serve as potential vectors for pathogens and toxic contaminants, leading to injury and death, with direct negative effects on biodiversity.

Plastic pollution has been labeled as a driver of environmental change. Production, transportation, and recycling could emit large amounts of greenhouse gases (i.e., CO ₂), clearly exhibiting a clear deviation from climate change mitigation.

Can you describe how you carried out your latest research into the effect COVID-19 has had on plastic pollution? What did you discover?

In our research, we collected data on plastic waste generation, analyzed the potential environmental risks to humans and the ecosystem, and finally discovered the challenges and perspectives based on concerted efforts on sustainable management of plastic waste.

As highlighted in our article published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, the COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating plastic pollution. A shift in waste management practices is thus urgently needed to close the plastic loop, requiring governments, researchers, and industries to work towards intelligent design and sustainable upcycling.

What more can governments, researchers, and organizations be doing to help the world transition into a sustainable plastic economy?

As described in our article published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, a shift in waste management practices is thus urgently needed to close the plastic loop, requiring governments, researchers, and industries to work towards intelligent design and sustainable upcycling. Please kindly check the following in detail (together with the figure).

Technological breakthroughs are needed to create a closed-loop plastic society, starting at the design stage and up through disposal and environmental recovery. Biodegradable plastics are a promising future technology; however, full techno-economic and environmental footprint assessments for industrial-scale applications are needed before they are broadly implemented. Industries should provide exhaustive information on the biodegradable plastic stream flow to related researchers and policymakers so that appropriate techno-socio-economic analyses can be conducted to formulate policies.

Beyond biodegradable plastics, advanced and efficient catalytic conversion routes for plastic waste upcycling offer opportunities to enhance profitability from both environmental and resource-recovery viewpoints. These upcycling technologies should be encouraged and implemented by governments in their waste management programs.

Renewable energy, such as low- or medium-grade solar thermal power, should be used to upcycle plastic waste to obtain hydrogen fuel and produce clean carbon. With concerted efforts from industries, and financial and policy support from governments, these novel technologies could be upscaled for commercial applications alongside the push to achieve net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

Image Credit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00223-2).

How can consumers get involved to help reduce plastic pollution? Are there more sustainable options available to combat the disposable plastic products currently being used?

As displayed in the Figure (provided in Q6), consumers are encouraged to take action of "refuse-reduce-reuse", making a plastic-free choice as much as possible.

Collaboration has been a huge advantage to recent advancements in the COVID-19 pandemic. How we can use this level of collaboration and apply it to the global fight against plastic pollution?

Many governments have implemented the single-use legislation and Extended producer responsibility (EPR), which is strongly supportive in achieving zero-plastic pollutions. Moreover, industries should provide exhaustive information on the stream flow of plastic products to related researchers and policymakers so that appropriate techno-socio-economic analyses can be conducted to formulate policies.

After performing the full techno-economic and environmental footprint assessments of plastic waste management, governments could provide incentives to related sections in achieving zero-plastic pollution. Finally, heightened consumer awareness, increased industry innovation, expanded government investment, and continued research can mitigate plastic burdens on the environment and develop a society guided by a circular economy.

Do you believe that with continued research efforts into the global plastic pollution problem, we will start to see global change?

Sure, we do. With concerted efforts from industries, and financial and policy support from governments, many novel technologies could be upscaled for commercial applications alongside the push to achieve net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

Image Credit: REC Stock Footage/Shutterstock.com

What are the next steps in your research into the environmental impact of COVID-19?

The plastic pollution has been magnified by COVID-19, but the pandemic is not the root cause of it - single-use plastics were already pervasive and disposed of improperly. Therefore, we will keep paying more attention to sustainable plastic management together with environmental impact assessment.

Our group is developing the novel upcycling route of plastic waste into value-added products (i.e., liquid fuels, engineered novel materials), achieving waste-to-energy/materials conversion in a sustainable manner.

In addition, we are evaluating the potential environmental impacts of commercial biodegradable plastics from the life cycle perspective. All these findings will be beneficial in achieving sustainable waste management and plastic pollution mitigation.

Where can readers find more information?

Reference:

Authors: Xiangzhou Yuan ¹, Xiaonan Wang 2,3, Binoy Sarkar 4, and Yong Sik Ok 1,5,6

Title of Original Paper: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a shift to a plastic circular economy

Journal: Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

DOI: 10.1038/s43017-021-00223-2

Affiliations: ¹Korea Biochar Research Center, APRU Sustainable Waste Management Program & Division of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University ²Department of Chemical Engineering, Tsinghua University ³Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore ⁴Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University ⁵Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland ⁶ Department of Soil and Groundwater Management, University of Wuppertal

About Professor Yong Sik Ok

Yong Sik Ok is a Full Professor and global research director at Korea University in Seoul, Korea. His academic background covers waste management, the bioavailability of emerging contaminants, and bioenergy and value-added products (such as biochar).

Further, Professor Ok has experience in fundamental soil science and the remediation of various contaminants in soils and sediments. In collaboration with graduate students and colleagues, Professor Ok has published over 600 research papers, 88 of which have been ranked as Web of Science ESI's top papers since 2009. In 2019, he became the first Korean to be selected as an HCR in the field of Environment and Ecology.

He currently serves as Director of the Sustainable Waste Management Program for the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) and Co-President of the International ESG Association. Moreover, he has served as chairman of numerous major conferences such as Engineering Sustainable Development 2019, organized by the APRU and the Institute for Sustainability of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). Prof. Ok will host the first Nature conference among South Korean universities in Seoul in 2021 on waste management and valorization for a sustainable future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How has COVID-19 increased plastic pollution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Professor Yong Sik Ok Director of APRU Sustainable Waste Management Program Korea University In this interview, News-Medical speaks to Professor Yong Sik Ok about his latest research into COVID-19 and its impact on plastic pollution due to the increased use of PPE.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-23/drone-footage-shows-la-palma-volcano-erupting-lava-ash/100563072?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently released drone footage shows hypnotic images of the volcano in the Spanish island of La Palma as it continues to shoot sprays of lava, smoke and ash into the air.

The volcano began erupting a month ago

Scientists say the eruption could last three months

Spain's government has pledged money to help rebuild damaged infrastructure

Hundreds of people were evacuated on Thursday night as a river of molten rock crept deeper into their town during a protracted volcanic eruption.

On Friday, two lava flows merged into one.

A total of around 7,500 people have been forced to flee since the Cumbre Vieja volcanic ridge began erupting more than a month ago.

Scientists say the eruption could go on for three months.

Although most of the island of 85,000 people off north-west Africa is unaffected by the eruption, part of the western side has seen the lava ruin livelihoods and destroy homes.

The molten rock has covered more than 866 hectares and crushed or damaged around 2,185 buildings.

Meanwhile, the economy of La Palma - part of Spain's Canary Islands - is based mainly on tourism and banana-growing.

The Spanish government has pledged millions of euros to help rebuild damaged infrastructure.
AP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drone footage shows La Palma volcano continuing to erupt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently released drone footage shows hypnotic images of the volcano in the Spanish island of La Palma as it continues to shoot sprays of lava, smoke and ash into the air.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review - Environmental Chemistry Letters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change is defined as the shift in climate patterns mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions from natural systems and human activities. So far, anthropogenic activities have caused about 1.0 °C of global warming above the pre-industrial level and this is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 a…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This content is more than 6 years old

Our new report reveals that climate change is likely to worsen the systemic disadvantages suffered by rural and regional communities, and further widen the gap between rural and urban areas.

The 'On the Frontline: Climate Change & Rural Communities' report finds the increase in extreme weather events is disproportionately affecting those in rural areas, with serious social, health and economic impacts.

KEY FINDINGS

1. Rural and regional communities are
disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change.

Climate change
is worsening extreme weather events such as bushfires and drought and rural and
regional communities will continue to be disproportionately affected.

Many
agricultural businesses surveyed have used financial reserves and/or have taken
on increased debt in response to extreme weather events.

Australia's
agricultural sector is showing signs of decreasing capacity and faltering
productivity gains and the resilience of some rural industries is under threat.

2. The systemic disadvantages experienced by rural and regional communities over those
in urban areas are likely to worsen if climate change continues unabated.

Rural and regional communities have already seen a significant reduction in
population that has prompted further losses in services and unemployment. Climate
change will further exacerbate these stresses.

Strong climate action is required
to protect rural and regional communities from the worsening impacts.

3. Rural and
regional communities are already adapting to the impacts of climate change but
there are limits and costs.

Adaptation to cope with a changing climate may
be relatively incremental, such as changing sowing and harvesting dates, or
switching to new breeds of livestock and new varieties of crops.

More
substantial adaptation options may involve changing production systems (eg. from
cropping to grazing), or relocating to more suitable areas.

The more
transformational adaptive changes may be risky and expensive, especially for individual
farmers.

As the climate continues to change, adaptation will become increasingly
challenging.

4. While rural and regional communities
are on the frontline of climate change impacts, tackling climate change also
provides these communities with many opportunities.

In Australia, rural
areas receive around 30 - 40% of the total investment in renewables, valued at
$1-2 billion per year.

Renewable energy projects bring jobs and investment into
rural and regional communities. Delivering half of our electricity from
renewable sources by 2050 would create more than 28,000 jobs.

The transition
to clean energy will also reduce the health burden of burning coal, which is
almost entirely borne by rural and regional areas, e.g. the Hunter and Latrobe
valleys.

Farmers can build the climate resilience of their farms by adding
additional revenue streams, such as by hosting wind turbines and other renewable
energy projects. Across Australia, approximately $20.6 million is paid annually
in lease payments to farmers and landholders hosting wind turbines.

Community funds and additional rate revenue for rural and regional areas from renewable
energy can be used to improve public services such as schools and local infrastructure.

Renewable energy can reduce electricity costs for rural and remote
communities, who traditionally pay much higher prices than their urban counterparts.
It also offers independence from the grid with several towns now racing to be the
first to operate on 100% renewable energy.

INFOGRAPHICS

Energy Calling Time: How to Remove Fossil Fuel Sponsorships from Sports, Arts and Events

Climate Impacts Shifting gear: The path to cleaner transport

Health Trips on public transport, walking and riding must triple to see genuine transport emissions reduction: Climate Council report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On the Frontline: Climate Change & Rural Communities | Climate Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our new report reveals that climate change is likely to worsen the systemic disadvantages suffered by rural and regional communities, and further widen the gap between rural and urban areas. The 'On the Frontline: Climate Change & Rural Communities' report finds the increase in extreme weather events is disproportionately affecting those in rural areas, with [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How it Works

#TeamSeas will be one of the biggest, baddest, most-impactful cleanup projects of all time-and here's how we're doing it. Scroll on to see our cutting-edge river Interceptors, info on locally-organized cleanups, ghost-gear removal efforts and professional expeditions to areas where we can have the greatest conservation impact!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Help us remove 30 million pounds of trash by January 1st, 2022 - Join #TeamSeas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One dollar is one less pound of trash in the ocean.