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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A self-fulfilling prophecy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blue Green Tips Celebrate Earth Day Instagram Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Illustrated Earth Climate Change Instagram Post

# data[].attributes.body
https://news.globallandscapesforum.org/55449/updated-ndcs-set-world-on-track-for-2-7-degrees-of-warming-by-2100/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world gets ready for the most important climate conference of the year, COP26, governments' climate targets remain far from sufficient.

New and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - the emission-curbing plans pledged by countries to the Paris Agreement on climate change - would reduce the expected level of 2030 emissions by 7.5 percent compared to previous NDCs, according to 2021's annual Emissions Gap Report released yesterday. For context, a 55 percent reduction is needed to keeping global warming within the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists have said would limit the worst of climate-induced catastrophes.

"Climate change is no longer a future problem. It is a now problem," said Inger Andersen, the Executive Director of UN Environment (UNEP), which issued this the report.

"To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we have eight years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: eight years to make the plans, put in place the policies, implement them and ultimately deliver the cuts. The clock is ticking loudly."

In a year marked by fires, floods, droughts and extreme heat, the stakes are high for COP 26, which will take place next week in Glasgow. So far, 116 countries have submitted new NDC targets, covering 61 percent of global emissions and half of the world's population. Some countries' plans, however, are not more ambitious than their previous plans.

In fact, the report states that the current NDCs put the world on the path to a temperature increase of at least 2.7 degrees by 2100 .

The formally submitted and announced targets of G20 countries would result in an annual reduction of roughly 3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent compared to their previous NDCs. Nevertheless, G20 countries are collectively expected to fall short of this by 1.1 gigatonnes annually, as only 10 have measures in place to achieve their previous NDCs.

Seven G20 countries - including the U.S., Australia and Brazil - are not expected to fulfill their previous NDCs, let alone updated ones, without significant policy change. India and Turkey have not updated their NDCs.

Despite this, countries' net-zero targets are highlighted as a promising development. So far, 49 countries and the E.U. have net-zero targets, with most aiming to reach this by 2050. Current pledges cover more than half of global domestic greenhouse gas emissions, over half of the world's GDP and a third of the world's population. These targets could potentially shave 0.5 degrees off warming from current 2100 projections to 2.2 degrees Celsius.

The report notes, however, that many net-zero targets remain ambiguous, and most are unclear on aspects including aviation, shipping and progress reporting. It also calls for more short-term actions to reach net-zero because delayed action and then a sudden rush to decarbonize as 2050 approaches could still result in more warming overall.

Countries are also described as having mostly missed the opportunity that recovery programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could have presented to transform economies to emit less carbon.

The vast majority of pandemic-related funds have been for immediate rescue spending, such as unemployment payments or healthcare costs. Of the USD 2.25 trillion that countries used to invest in long-term recovery, only 17 to 19 percent (USD 390 to 440 billion) could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Although time is running dangerously short, the report says that reducing methane - the second-most important greenhouse gas for global warming - is an important opportunity for mitigating climate change.

Methane leaks can be prevented at a relatively low cost by the fossil fuel sector. Such low-cost measures alone could cut human-caused methane emissions by 20 percent by 2030. However, other measures like dietary changes or switching to renewables are needed to cut methane emissions by 44 percent and limit global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Updated NDCs set world on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by 2100

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world gets ready for the most important climate conference of the year, COP26, governments' climate targets remain far from sufficient. New and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - the emission-curbing plans pledged by countries to the Paris Agreement on climate change - would reduce the expected level of 2030 emissions by 7.5 percent compared to previous NDCs, according to 2021's annual Emissions Gap Report released yesterday.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2021/november/what-would-four-degree-global-warming-feel-like/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would 4°C of global warming feel like?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COP26 is underway and keeping 1.5°C within reach will feature prominently in world leaders’ discussions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.economist.com/films/2021/10/30/this-is-what-3degc-of-global-warming-looks-like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is what 3°C of global warming looks like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s an entirely plausible scenario. This film shows the catastrophic consequences

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
“Bad For Humans”: The World Is On Track To Warm 3 Degrees Celsius This Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our current coastlines gone. Bangkok underwater. Massive declines in the fish population. More droughts, downpours, and heat waves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beige Green and Blue Simple Happy Earth Day Instagram Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LONDON - There is reason for cautious optimism when it comes to negotiations at the COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, according to the United Nations' climate chief.

The pivotal conference, which the U.K. is hosting between Oct. 31 and Nov. 12, has seen a number of high-profile announcements in its first week.

India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2070, while over 100 world leaders, including U.S. President Joe Biden, China's Xi Jinping and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, have committed to end deforestation by 2030.

In addition, 28 more countries joined an international alliance dedicated to phasing out coal, although notable absentees included China, India and the United States.

In an interview with CNBC's Steve Sedgwick on Thursday, Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was asked how she viewed the progress made at Glasgow and if it was enough.

"I feel really encouraged by what ... we have seen so far," she said. "Of course, we're coming to this conference with the clear message that the numbers we have in terms of emissions are not good," she added. "So that means that we really must come out of here with clarity on how we are going to move forward."

Espinosa was speaking after COP26's "Finance Day" on Wednesday. Among other things, U.K. Finance Minister Rishi Sunak announced plans for the country to become the "first-ever net zero aligned financial center."

Elsewhere, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero said more than $130 trillion of private capital had been "committed to transforming the economy for net zero."

"What we have seen here," Espinosa said, "these 120 heads of state and government ... the Finance Day with ministers, heads of international financial institutions, people from [the] private sector also making pledges, announcing initiatives, I think there is ... really a reason to be, to be hopeful ... cautiously optimistic."

A huge amount is riding on COP26. The U.K.'s official website for the summit states it will "bring parties together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Described by the United Nations as a legally-binding international treaty on climate change, the Paris Agreement aims to "limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels."

The challenge is huge, and the United Nations has noted that 1.5 degrees Celsius is considered to be "the upper limit" when it comes to avoiding the worst consequences from climate change.

In her interview with CNBC, Espinosa highlighted the ramifications of inaction. A report from the IPCC, she said, had shown that "the scenario of two degrees is ... terrible, is catastrophic."

"And the prime minister of Barbados said it in the plenary, she said: 'For us, 2 degrees is a death sentence'," Espinosa added. "So that means that this is really not good enough and we need to be very frank and open about it."

"Not to make people more pessimistic, but I hope on the contrary, to make people more energetic in really taking seriously the very difficult decisions that need to be made."
-Chloe Taylor, Lucy Handley and Sam Meredith contributed to this report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united nations climate change conference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN climate chief encouraged by progress at COP26, warns of 'catastrophic' consequences of inaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LONDON - There is reason for cautious optimism when it comes to negotiations at the COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, according to the United Nations' climate chief. The pivotal conference, which the U.K. is hosting between Oct. 31 and Nov. 12, has seen a number of high-profile announcements in its first week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
우리의 하나뿐인 지구입니다

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Navy Blue Earth Ice Cream Global Warming Social Media Graphic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Green Photo Border Global Warming Social Media Graphic (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Earth Day Illustrated Instagram Post (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The success or failure of cities will shape opportunities and quality of life for a growing share of the world's population," says the National Intelligence Council in its recent analysis of security risks the world will likely face by 2040. This is especially true for densely populated coastal and low-lying areas. The western United States continues to suffer extreme drought and fires after breaking heat records this summer . China has experienced significant flooding , highlighting its ill-preparedness for dealing with the effects of climate change. Parts of Brazil are suffering while others received unexpected snow and ice . Climate-related disasters have nearly doubled over the last two decades, causing over one million fatalities , affecting nearly 4 billion people, and costing almost 3 trillion dollars. At the heart of these impacts are cities.

The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence , "booming cities of middle-income East, Southeast, and South Asia as well as the low-income urban areas of eastern and southern Africa are already exposed to the highest number of disasters per capita ." The climate crisis is reshaping our world and cities are at the forefront-especially in those fragile states whose governments already struggle to meet the needs of their citizens. Further complicating matters, while cities experience an outsized impact from global climate change, they also produce the majority of climate-change related emissions.

Even as a majority of Americans view government action on climate as insufficient , pre-election surveys regularly showed that citizens ranked environmental concerns relatively low. Could this be because too little of the climate change discussion touches on challenges specific to the urban environments where most of humanity lives ? In other words, has the focus in the media on polar bears and other issues perceived as "distant" and remote made climate change feel less relevant and therefore less urgent? Could recent climate impacts on major urban centers, such as those discussed above, change the discourse? New research from Yale University seems to show the impacts will.

Vulnerability of cities to climate change

Over half of the world's population lives in cities, and urban populations are expected to increase to 6 billion people by 2045. For the 216 million people who could be internally displaced by climate change , urban areas will be the ultimate destination for most. In response, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recognized urbanization as a ' ' and the UN Chief Executives Board for Coordination called upon the UN to " facilitate cooperation among agencies in order to advance... sustainable urbanization ."

With up to one-third of food crops likely to be disrupted by climate change, urban food supplies will be impacted. People in low-income neighborhoods of cities are likely to live in "food deserts" and have lower access to nutritional knowledge, leading to them to purchase and consume less nutritious foods. Already, urban hunger-which persists even in some minority communities in the United States, a country with significant resources- spiked during Covid-19 .

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "Relatively poor countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia will account for almost all global population growth during the next two decades and will be rapidly urbanizing at the same time." Transitioning to clean energy systems and investing in energy efficiency will be key in these economies where 800 million people are anticipated to need modern energy services by 2050, primarily in cities . R educing the reliance on polluting and inefficient technologies is also needed to mitigate climate change and improve air quality in cities.

Responding to heat, drought, and floods: providing safe, consistent water, food, and energy

Cities can and must help residents and peri-urban areas manage climate risks and better prepare for natural disasters. The UN Security Council and General Assembly are increasingly paying attention to climate risks and migration-related impacts on cities. Local governments, businesses, and cities are also ramping up efforts - or at least commitments - especially in the context of planning economic recovery following Covid-19.

Cities are increasingly aware of their vulnerability and several are taking steps to address it. Phoenix, Arizona's 2021-22 budget included almost $3 million for addressing climate change , established an Office of Heat Response and Mitigation, and pledged to work toward doubling urban shade trees by 2030. Tampa, Florida, recently released a resilience roadmap with climate change adaptation measures which includes promoting "climate-ready infrastructure." Several other cities, including and , have launched climate adaptation plans. With the number of world cities exposed to extreme heat nearly , Athens, Greece recently appointed its first ever Chief Heat Officer .

There are also positive opportunities for cities to better meet citizen needs in the face of climate change. Migration to cities and the growing demand for higher value-added foods has helped create more diverse and higher paying off-farm jobs for urban and peri-urban citizens and strengthen rural-urban linkages.

Urban agriculture can serve as a source of healthy food. In industrialized nations, hydroponics can offer an attractive and potentially profitable foundation. Hydroponics can also serve in some less developed settings but demands a reliable energy supply, among other resources. Lower-tech options include backyard and rooftop gardens. Community gardens can improve access to healthy food, increasing nutritional outcomes and physical activity opportunities. Gardens and other green spaces in cities also have the advantage of mitigating climate change impacts as they can help to reduce temperatures in cities . Tree-rich cities are also more conducive to human physical and mental wellbeing and are more welcoming to other species.

The urgency of acting now

Just ahead of the G7 meeting in June, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that this year is "the make-it-or-break-it year" for climate action . With leaders unable to agree on how to end the use of coal and with the UN warning that a lack of progress puts us on a " catastrophic pathway ," it is clear that both adaptation (actions to adjust to our new reality) and mitigation (actions to limit the impacts of changes that cannot be avoided or tolerated) will be required. In the short term, scaling up support for cities to better plan for and integrate climate-induced migrants and to enact disaster reduction policies will be necessary. President Biden's Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration is part of the solution, providing a forum to explore options for protection and resettlement of individuals displaced directly or indirectly from climate change, and to explore the use of foreign assistance to bolster climate resilience. Responding to the climate crisis also provides new opportunities for ecosystem protection, economic growth, and technological innovation in cities. Bold global climate action could lead to an estimated $26 trillion in economic gains in twelve years. Investments such as green infrastructure, early warning systems, and improved water management have a benefit-cost return as high as 10 to 1. Recent work by the World Bank suggests that addressing climate change today could reduce the number of internally displaced people by 80 percent.

While nations have been failing to expeditiously act, cities around the world are propelling systematic change. With ample revenue but large carbon footprints, many cities are aiming to be at the forefront of efforts to reach net zero emissions within decades .

A key to the solution is recognizing that cities are essential to development, testing, and implementation of green technology . City governments around the world can and should support climate-smart investment planning and improve access to climate finance to bridge the gap between donor assistance, and national-level goals, and local needs for climate-related upgrades. This should include partnering directly with the most vulnerable and marginalized local urban communities, where pollution, climate change, and economic hardship often converge.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not a reflection of the position of any U.S. government entity. Gad Perry is a Professor of conservation biology at the Department of Natural Resource Management at Texas Tech University and a Jefferson Science Fellow in the Office of Foreign Assistance, U.S. Department of State from 2019-2020. Gad.Perry@ttu.edu Michelle DaPra is a Senior Advisor in the Office of Foreign Assistance at the U.S. Department of State. An economist, she specializes in issues related to urbanization, humanitarian assistance policy and clean energy. mmdapra@state.gov . Sources: Academic Commons, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions, Bloomberg, Cable News Network, City of Tampa, Deutsche Welle, Discover Magazine, Elsevier Inc, Greater London Authority, Industry Dive, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, International Energy Agency, International Food Policy Research Institute, National Academy of Sciences, National Intelligence Council, NBC News, New York Times, NewClimate Institute, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Patch Media, Pew Research Center, ReliefWeb, Reuters, The Animal Reader, The Heat is Online, The New Climate Economy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Federal Register, United Nations Chief Executives Board for Coordination, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Urban Institute, World Bank Group, World Meteorological Organization, and Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Photo Credit: People walk in the middle of Route 18 in New Brunswick after flooding from Hurricane Ida, courtesy of Sara J Lee, Shutterstock.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cities are at the Forefront of Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The success or failure of cities will shape opportunities and quality of life for a growing share of the world's population," says the National Intelligence Council in its recent analysis of security risks the world will likely face by 2040. This is especially true for densely populated coastal and low-lying areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Green and Blue Illustrated Earth Day Poster

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/atlanta-adds-paper-cups-curbside-recycling-program/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Atlanta adds paper cups to its recycling program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The city has partnered with the Foodservice Packaging Institute to include paper cups to its curbside recycling program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In another analysis, the World Resources Institute and Climate Analytics highlight how China, India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - together responsible for 33% of greenhouse gases - have yet to submit updated plans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: UN warning over nations' climate plans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In another analysis, the World Resources Institute and Climate Analytics highlight how China, India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - together responsible for 33% of greenhouse gases - have yet to submit updated plans.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/why-methane-cuts-pledged-at-cop26-may-be-key-to-meeting-climate-goals

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

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

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

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

Understanding the greenhouse effect

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

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

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

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

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

Aren't temperature changes natural?

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this matter?

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/oct/31/airline-industry-sets-high-goal-in-emissions/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The coronavirus pandemic proved just how much vehicle pollution adds to our carbon footprint.

During various lockdowns in 2020, UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 8.9% - from 454.8 million tonnes in 2019 to 414.1 million - the biggest drop since records began in 1990.

Transport accounts for around a third of total emissions in Britain and toxic fumes from cars, vans and lorries cause thousands of premature deaths every year.

So opting for public transport or car-sharing to get around will help lower your carbon footprint considerably.

The government is banning any new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, but before then, if you're able to travel by electric bus or tram - or have your own electric car - this is the best option for the planet.

Overall greenhouse gases also fell as a result of air travel being ground to a halt during the pandemic.

The aviation industry is responsible for 2% of all human-induced CO2 emissions, according to the Air Transport Action Group.

But while reducing unnecessary air travel will make a difference, climate campaign group Possible claims that a small minority of frequent flyers are the ones causing the real damage.

They say 70% of all flights in the UK are taken up by the same 15% of people, with the vast majority on higher incomes.

As a result, they want a frequent flyer levy introduced to deter people who can afford to fly more often from doing so.

Professor Collins explains that while you can electrify cars, you can't do the same with planes. So the only way to reduce emissions from air travel is to fly less often.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change: Six everyday things you can do to help stop global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The coronavirus pandemic proved just how much vehicle pollution adds to our carbon footprint. During various lockdowns in 2020, UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 8.9% - from 454.8 million tonnes in 2019 to 414.1 million - the biggest drop since records began in 1990.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02990-w

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Nature survey reveals that many authors of the latest IPCC climate-science report are anxious about the future and expect to see catastrophic changes in their lifetimes.

# data[].attributes.body
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-amazon-rainforest-teetering-brink.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/03/bill-gates-doubts-aim-to-limit-global-warming-to-1point5-degrees-achievable-.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LONDON - Bill Gates appears to have cast doubt on whether the world will be able to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, providing a sobering reminder of how much work needs to be done if climate goals are to be met.

Gates' comments on global warming, made during the first week of the COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow, are a reference to the Paris Agreement, which aims to "limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels."

In an excerpt of his interview, which was conducted by U.K. lawmaker Jeremy Hunt for the think tank Policy Exchange, the billionaire seemed skeptical about whether the goal could be met.

"It's all a matter of degrees, so to speak. That is, you know, hitting 2.5 is better than hitting 3, hitting 2 is better than hitting 2.5," he said. "1.5 ... will be very difficult, I doubt that we'll be able to achieve that."

The COP26 summit, delayed a year by the coronavirus pandemic, comes six years after the landmark Paris accord was signed by nearly 200 countries.

The 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold is a crucial global target because beyond this level, so-called tipping points become more likely. Tipping points refer to an irreversible change in the climate system, locking in further global warming.

The Microsoft co-founder also said there was "no comparable feat that mankind has ever achieved to what we need to do for climate change."

Gates acknowledged that mankind was "much richer today, far more knowledgeable today - we do have the digital tools that enable us to work on these things."

Expanding on his point, he said: "What happened with solar panels, where they were very expensive and now they're cheap, or lithium ion batteries, we need to do that for about six other technologies."

Namechecking green steel, cheap hydrogen and offshore wind, Gates said lots of money would be required and that there were "many paths of innovation." This innovation would have to be rapid, he added.

Asked by Hunt on how the U.K. was dealing with climate issues, Gates offered praise. "The U.K., actually, is exemplary," he said. "Coal started here and yet there's periods of time when the coal emissions in the U.K. are zero."

"I admit I was worried when they merged the climate department and the business department," he went on to state. In 2016, the U.K. government combined the Department of Energy and Climate Change with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

"I thought, OK, will climate get lost in that? In fact, the right thing happened, which is more business-oriented, analytical thinking came together with people who understood the climate."

"And that, I think, is why the U.K. has made progress on this. No, the U.K. gets a very good grade on climate progress."
-CNBC's Sam Meredith contributed to this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united nations climate change conference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Gates doubts goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees is achievable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LONDON - Bill Gates appears to have cast doubt on whether the world will be able to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, providing a sobering reminder of how much work needs to be done if climate goals are to be met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world is not adapting fast enough to the climate crisis, UN reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wealthy countries haven’t been able to meet their pledge to help low-income nations adapt to the crisis. But the pledge itself isn’t even enough, the UN reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change explained in simple terms as COP26 summit takes place in Glasgow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Cambridge Dictionary defines climate as ‘the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Without decisive action, we are gambling away our last chance to - literally - turn the tide", UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said ahead of the meeting. But why could it be our last chance?

Here's some answers we've found to the most common questions you might have about what's coming up.

Let's start with the basics, what is COP26?

To keep it simple, COP26 is the biggest and most important climate-related conference on the planet.

In 1992, the UN organised a major event in Rio de Janeiro called the Earth Summit, in which the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC) was adopted.

In this treaty, nations agreed to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere" to prevent dangerous interference from human activity on the climate system. Today, the treaty has 197 signatories.

Since 1994, when the treaty entered into force, every year the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits or "COPs", which stands for 'Conference of the Parties'.

This year should have been the 27 th annual summit, but thanks to COVID-19, we've fallen a year behind due to last year's postponement - hence, COP26.

So, what happens at COP26? Don't we have enough meetings about climate change already?

Various "extensions" to the UNFCCC treaty have been negotiated during these COPs to establish legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries, and to define an enforcement mechanism.

These include the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which defined emission limits for developed nations to be achieved by 2012; and the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, in which all countries of the world agreed to step up efforts to try and limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, and boost climate action financing.

So, here's where COP26 gets interesting: during the conference, among other issues, delegates will be aiming to finalise the 'Paris Rulebook', or the rules needed to implement the Agreement. This time they will need to agree on common timeframes for the frequency of revision and monitoring of their climate commitments.

Basically, Paris set the destination, limiting warming well below two degrees, (ideally 1.5) but Glasgow, is the last chance to make it a reality.

So, this brings us to our initial question: why is it the last chance?

Like a boa constrictor that slowly squeezes its prey to death, climate change has gone from being an uncomfortable low-level issue, to a life-threatening global emergency, in the past three decades.

Although there have been new and updated commitments made by countries ahead of COP26, the world remains on track for a dangerous global temperature rise of at least 2.7°C this century even if Paris goals are met.

The science is clear: a rise of temperatures of that magnitude by the end of the century could mean, among other things, a 62% increase in areas scorched by wildfires in the Northern Hemisphere during summer, the loss of habitat of a third of the mammals in the world, and more frequent four to 10 month-long droughts.

UN chief António Guterres bluntly calls it "climate catastrophe", one that it is already being felt to a deadly degree in the most vulnerable parts of the world like sub-Saharan Africa and Small Island States, lashed by rising sea levels.

Millions of people are already being displaced and killed by disasters exacerbated by climate change.

For Mr. Guterres, and the hundreds of scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scenario of 1.5°C warming, is the "only liveable future for humanity".

The clock is ticking, and to have a chance of limiting the rise, the world needs to halve greenhouse gas emissions in the next eight years.

This is a gigantic task that we only will be able to do if leaders attending COP26 come up with bold, time-bound and front-loaded plans to phase out coal and transform their economies to reach so called net zero emissions.

Hmm, but didn't countries like China and the United States already commit to net zero?

The most recent UN Emissions Gap Report explains that a total of 49 countries plus the European Union have pledged a net zero target.

This covers over half of global domestic greenhouse gas emissions, over half of global GDP and a third of the global population. Eleven targets are enshrined in law, covering 12 per cent of global emissions.

Sounds great right? But there's a catch: many of the commitments delay action until after 2030, raising doubts over whether these net zero pledges can actually be achieved. Also, many of these pledges are "vague" and inconsistent with the officially submitted national commitments, known as NDC's.

This again explains why COP26 is so important: "The time has passed for diplomatic niceties...If governments - especially G20 governments - do not stand up and lead this effort, we are headed for terrible human suffering", warned Guterres in the UN General Assembly this week.

So, what exactly is COP26 hoping to achieve (practically speaking)?

The official negotiations take place over two weeks. The first week includes technical negotiations by government officials, followed by high-level Ministerial and Heads of State meetings in the second week, when the final decisions will be made - or not.

There are four main points that will be discussed during the conference according to its host, the United Kingdom:

1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach

To do this, countries need to accelerate the phase-out of coal, curb deforestation, speed up the switch to greener economies. Carbon market mechanisms will be also part of the negotiations.

2. Adapt more to protect communities and natural habitats

Since the climate is already changing countries already affected by climate change need to protect and restore ecosystems, as well as build defences, warning systems and resilient infrastructure.

3. Mobilise finance

At COP15, rich nations promised to channel $100 billion a year to less-wealthy nations by 2020 to help them adapt to climate change and mitigate further rises in temperature.

That promise was not kept, and COP26 will be crucial to secure the funds, with the help of international financial institutions, as well as set new climate finance targets to be achieved by 2025.

4. Work together to deliver

This means establishing collaborations between governments, businesses and civil society, and of course, finalising the Paris Rulebook to make the Agreement fully operational.

In addition to formal negotiations, COP26 is expected to establish new initiatives and coalitions for delivering climate action.

How, when and where?

The main event will be held at the Scottish Event Campus, from 31 October to 12 November, with the possibility of negotiations spilling over an extra day or two. So far, there are over 30.000 people registered to attend representing governments, businesses, NGOs, and civil society groups.

The 197 Parties to the UNFCCC treaty, often get in groups or "blocs" to negotiate together such as the G77 and China, the Africa Group, the Least Developed Countries, the Umbrella Forum, the Small Island Developing States, and the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The negotiations also include observers, which have no formal part in them but make interventions and help maintain transparency. Observers include United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, faith-based groups, and the press.

But besides the official negotiations, there will be a conference, a pavilion, and thousands of side events happening, divided over thematic days, on topics like finance, energy, youth and public empowerment, nature, adaptation, gender, science and innovation, transport, and cities.

The conference will happen across two zones - The Blue Zone (Scottish Events Campus), and the Green Zone located at the Glasgow Science Centre.

The Blue Zone is a UN-managed space where negotiations are hosted, and to enter all attendees must be credited by the UNFCCC Secretariat.

The Green Zone is managed by the UK Government and open to the public. It will include events, exhibitions, workshops and talks to promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments on climate change.

Anyone famous attending?

Several heads of state and government including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden are expected to attend. Other famous faces in Glasgow will include Sir David Attenborough, the COP26 people's advocate, activist Greta Thunberg, the famous Game of Thrones actress Maisie Williams and singer-songwriter and UNEP ambassador Ellie Goulding. The Queen announced with regret, on Tuesday, that she would not be travelling to the event's main reception after all.

The United Nations newest SDG ambassadors K-pop superstars BLACKPINK will be also joining the event. The Korean all-girl group released a video before their appearance, sharing a sneak peek of their heartfelt message to inspire climate action.

And with such a big conference, are there any special COVID-19 measures?

While COVID-19 continues to be a huge challenge across the world, tackling the climate crisis cannot wait according to the COP26 hosts.

In-person negotiations are preferred over online ones, to ensure inclusive participation by high and low-income countries as well as ensuring scrutiny and transparency.

Fully vaccination is encouraged for those attending the conference, and the United Kingdom ran a programme ahead of time, to deliver vaccines to participants living in countries unable to get one.

There will also be strict COVID-19 testing protocols in place, including daily testing for everyone entering the Blue Zone to ensure the health and wellbeing of all those involved and the surrounding community.

There are also COP-specific arrangements for the COVID Travel Regime people will encounter as they enter England and Scotland, with some countries requiring quarantine (which will be funded by the UK Government for attendees in difficult circumstances.

How can I follow the discussions and events from home?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COP26 - what we know so far, and why it matters: Your UN News guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a world shaken by a pandemic, and a fast-closing window of opportunity to avoid climate catastrophe, the pivotal COP26 UN climate conference kicks off this Sunday in the Scottish city of Glasgow - the stakes could not be higher.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Garrett Rue grew up fly fishing in central Colorado, often surrounded by mountains stained amber and maroon, and hiking along streams that seemed to borrow those colors. Sometimes he would cast for native trout and come back with nothing-because there was nothing to catch. Then he started hearing stories about people in nearby mountain communities who couldn't drink their own water. He began to wonder: "These streams have problems supporting ecosystems, and they're not usable for drinking. What's going on here?"

Nowadays, Rue, a postdoctoral scientist studying waterways at the University of Colorado's Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, knows how to read the color code of stream ecology: rusty red or orange for iron oxide, chalky white for aluminum, and yellow for manganese. Such colors reveal the presence of minerals that wash down mountainsides; the results can be hostile to local aquatic life and dangerous for drinking water systems. Some mineralization and acidification occur naturally. But decades of research show some is also a result of historic excavations and waste disposal practices at regional gold, silver and other mines, often found in mountainous regions. Now, climate change seems to be speeding up the process.

The chemistry starts in high mountain valleys, many of which have long served as the world's natural water towers. Climate change is raising temperatures and increasing the frequency and intensity of droughts in those high-elevation alpine environments, where mines typically are located. A growing body of research links these hotter, drier conditions to increasingly acidic water, which causes rocks to shed more minerals into waterways. And the list of what's entering those waters continues to grow. These trends could potentially compromise water quality in watersheds anywhere in the world where mountains contain high concentrations of minerals, from the Rocky Mountains to the Himalayas to the Andes.

Research co-authored by Rue is among the latest entries on this front, and one of the first to link rising temperatures with increasing concentrations of dissolved rare earth elements in mountain streams. These metallic elements are use d to polish and color glass-and to make the batteries and magnets that run our ubiquitous cell phones, televisions and motor vehicles. Rue says his findings, published in August in Environmental Science and Technology, could hold still more ramifications for the safety of surface water used for drinking, and for the long-term health of ecosystems fed by these streams.

The rare earth elements identified by Rue are relative newcomers to research around water quality concerns. Little is known about the human health effects of these elements, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water regulations do not specify thresholds for them. Typically, they are found in water in parts per trillion-often undetectably low-Rue says. In samples collected between 2012 and 2019 in Colorado's Snake River Basin for Rue's recent research, the team found tens of parts per billion of dissolved rare earth metals lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, erbium, ytterbium and yttrium. "They may not have been a toxicant at low levels," Rue says, but "we could be crossing a threshold." Rue also reported finding rare earth elements in the bodies of stream-dwelling insects, suggesting these metals are entering the food web.

Even in parts of the Snake River Basin without a history of mining, Rue found that concentrations of rare earth elements in waterways are rising. This suggests that mountain mineral deposits, which have shed these elements at a relatively steady rate for decades, will also leach more extensively as temperatures rise and drought conditions worsen, says study co-author and civil and environmental engineer Diane McKnight of the University of Colorado Boulder. There are no water quality standards related to rare earth elements. So, McKnight and Rue looked to U.S. water quality standards for lead and cadmium to estimate the potential risk this leaching could pose. The researchers found concentrations of rare earth elements above the level at which lead and cadmium are considered safe for aquatic life and human health.

Climate aside, links between mines and downstream water quality concerns-often related to the release of various metals beyond those meant to be extracted-are widespread, and in some cases enduring. Elsewhere in the Rockies, including Idaho's Coeur d'Alene River Basin, a 1998 study tracked metals from old mines entering waterways. Researchers found metals in sediment and river rocks 50 miles downstream from historic mining. Residents of Italy's island of Sardinia have dealt in recent decades with groundwater contamination caused by acidified floodwaters laden with zinc, cadmium and lead draining from mines, including millennia-old Phoenician ones. And in Germany, highly acidic water flowing from silver, lead, copper and zinc mines dug over the last 800 years reportedly continued to contaminate groundwater as recently as 20 years ago.

There has been little, if any, formal investigation of climate change's role in the above examples. But if climate-related droughts are affecting downstream water quality elsewhere, there could be a lot of sites to investigate in the United States alone. More than 100,000 abandoned mines remain in this country, according to federal tallies. Rue estimates that over 40 percent of major U.S. rivers have montane headwaters potentially contaminated by either mine-related heavy metals or natural sources of them. In Australia, where mining also boomed in the 1800s, a public policy think tank reports some 60,000 abandoned mines.

Conventional mining practices contribute to the potential water contamination. For every ounce of gold, silver, copper and lead extracted, miners hired to chase those veins produce tons of waste rock. Until the 1970s, U.S. mining law allowed private companies, individual prospectors and mill operators to leave behind piles of such waste. Veins of minerals are often intertwined, meaning these rock piles include a variety of metals that emerged from the ground along with the targeted ore. Rue's research adds rare earth elements to the list of potential constituents washing out of the rocks.

Piles of waste rock might look innocuous, but mined metals are often found in rocks that also contain sulfides. When weathered over time by air and precipitation, sulfides degrade and create sulfuric acid, which can slough off remaining traces of aluminum, cadmium, iron, lead, zinc and other metals-including rare earths at the Snake River Basin sites of Rue and McKnight's study. Snowmelt or rain then carries these metals downstream.

Sufficient amounts of rain and meltwater can dilute metals' impact on downhill waterways, and wetlands can serve as water filters. But a warmer, drier climate, with its accompanying droughts of increasing duration, cuts into these mitigating factors.

For a detailed look at how these climate impacts affect stream health, researchers have reviewed stream chemistry samples collected over the past 40 years in the Snake River Basin in central Colorado. A 2012 study analyzing these data linked the area's rising summer temperatures to a five-fold jump in concentrations of zinc and other metals of ecological concern in the basin's waterways. Andrew Manning, a research geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, was a co-author on that study, and followed it in 2013 with a study demonstrating that as climate change extends the summer season in the basin, those warmer and drier months lower the water table -potentially exposing deeper layers of rock to weathering that yields the corrosive sulfuric acid. Declining snowpack caused by global warming can also lead to higher concentrations of dissolved minerals in shrinking bodies of water, Rue adds.

"It's amazing how, when you start messing with the climate, all of these unforeseen consequences are tied together," Manning says. "And these ecosystems, especially in places like the Arctic and the mountains, were delicately weaved together based on a fairly stable climate."

McKnight has studied the Snake River Basin for decades, recording increasingly acidic water that will release more heavy metals (likely including rare earths) from rocks. The first time a student tested stream pH at a site there and reported it at an extremely acidic 2.7, she recalls, "I said, 'That can't be right.' And it was." Acid rain typically ranks closer to neutral, around 4 on the pH scale-which is also the level at which enough metals dissolve into the water that the basin's rainbow trout die, a 2007 study concluded.

Downstream, dissolved metals can compromise human communities' water supplies. For example, the Snake River basin drains into Dillon Reservoir, which provides drinking water to Denver. Dilution and settling address much of the concern, says Denver Water spokesperson Todd Hartman, but the utility company closely watches the issue of mine water draining into drinking water. If nearby ski areas have to rely on more intensely mineralized and acidified water to make artificial snow, that could compound the problem, McKnight adds. Spring melting could wash metals that collect in the prior winter's artificial snow into nearby streams in a concentrated pulse.

Rue's findings are less a cause for alarm than a cue for additional research, Manning says.

"There are so few watersheds where we have long-term water quality data that we're left with the bigger question of 'How widespread is this?'" says Manning, who recently sampled watersheds across Colorado to try to answer that question. "This is very much a concern, but one of the big things we're trying to figure out right now is how concerned we should be. We just don't know."

Rue's work has seen him splashing around waterways in New Zealand-some of them thick enough with iron oxide to stain his tennis shoes orange. In his travels there nearly four years ago, Rue visited an abandoned coal mine where tanks of oyster shells, which are naturally alkaline, are being used to neutralize acidic runoff from old mine shafts and reduce the load of metals coming from them. He hopes to see similar innovations in the U.S. to address contaminated runoff from abandoned mines. With demand for rare earth elements outpacing the global supply chain, harvesting minerals from the polluted water in these mountain streams could both address a manufacturing need and ease environmental concerns-if technological and legal hurdles can be overcome.

"But this is not about finding the next boom," Rue says. "This is about finding sustainable solutions to environmental problems.... We're already in this mess, so we kind of have to science our way out of it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Is Acidifying and Contaminating Drinking Water and Alpine Ecosystems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Garrett Rue grew up fly fishing in central Colorado, often surrounded by mountains stained amber and maroon, and hiking along streams that seemed to borrow those colors. Sometimes he would cast for native trout and come back with nothing-because there was nothing to catch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ethical case for combatting climate change is incontestable, the economic one, indisputable. I would argue that the health case for achieving our climate goals is equally strong.

It seems the WHO agree. In advance of Cop26, it released a special report emphasising the need to ensure that health is at the forefront of the climate change agenda. It's very clear why.

Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year worldwide.

Flooding resulting from extreme weather events and rising sea levels brings with it water-borne diseases and takes a huge toll on the mental health of those affected.

Extreme heat causes dehydration, heat stroke and exacerbates cardiovascular disease.

Air pollution has been linked to cancer, neurological conditions including dementia, and increased susceptibility to asthma and respiratory diseases.

And human destruction of the natural world heightens the threat of future pandemics.

Every minute, forests the size of 35 football pitches are destroyed. Less than 10 per cent of the earth's land surface can now be said to be "natural" and since 1970, the majority of the world's wild land animals have been wiped out.

The dramatic loss of host species has forced many parasites to look for alternative hosts - either livestock or humans. Deforestation and intensive agriculture are also leading to increased contact between humans and animals, making it easier for pathogens to pass between them, causing disease "spillover" events. Rising temperatures and annual rainfall resulting from climate change is also widening the distribution of disease carrying animals such as malarial mosquitoes, and increased urbanisation and international travel serve only to accelerate the pace at which infections can spread.

Now, 75 per cent of emerging infections in human populations have come from animals and future outbreaks of new diseases are likely. Viruses even more deadly or contagious than Covid-19 could make the jump.

Biodiversity loss also undermines food security and destroys the habitat of plant life harbouring undiscovered medicines.

Here in the UK, it is very clear that we are vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis. For every 1°C increase in temperature over 20°C, ambulance call outs for the NHS increase by 1 per cent. The 2020 heatwaves in the UK were estimated to have led to more than 2,500 deaths. Deaths due to extreme heat are projected to double by the 2050s.

1.8 million people in Britain are living in areas at significant risk of flooding; air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year.

Evidently, climate change needs to be tackled as a priority, with the same urgency as the response to the Covid-19. Continued negligence puts us all in danger.

To guard against the next pandemic, we should be taking a government-wide "health in all policies" approach, with properly funded public health services to improve population health and tackle growing inequalities. Buttressing this by undertaking regular pandemic planning and leading the way on global disease surveillance and R&D will ensure we are prepared.

Not only will we need a health system that is resilient in the face of the growing challenge of climate change, we need one that is actively part of the solution. The NHS currently contributes 4 per cent of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, if healthcare were a country, it would be the fifth largest emitter on the planet.

I welcome NHS England's pledge to reach net zero by 2040. But achieving a green recovery from Covid is not just about building a few new hospitals in a carbon neutral way, while existing infrastructure is left crumbling with a £9.2bn repair backlog.

Sustainability must become central to every aspect of how the system operates, from service delivery to energy consumption. NHS staff, who are continually asked to do ever more with even less, must be fully involved to make sure the changes work for them.

Even just by planting trees across the NHS estate, we can capture carbon and improve the surroundings for patients and staff. Instead, the Conservatives have missed tree-planting targets by over 50 per cent and one in seven native British species is now at risk of extinction.

As well as setting an example here at home, we have a duty to reach beyond our own shores and protect the world's most vulnerable. They will likely be hit hardest by the climate crisis. But the government's decision to cut overseas aid will have a disastrous effect on many countries on the frontline of the climate emergency, which are among the world's poorest. It undermines our role as hosts of Cop26, as well as our international standing and moral authority.

We should be looking outwards and forming alliances internationally to make the world a safer place for the future. By working together, we can address common threats and attain optimal health for people, animals and our environment through initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

Put simply, by taking care of the planet, we will ensure that the earth can continue to take care of us. The Cop26 summit represents a unique moment to lead the world and rise to the challenge - I urge the government to take it.
Jonathan Ashworth is the shadow secretary of state for health and social care and the Labour (Co-op) MP for Leicester South

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: The climate crisis is not just about the environment - it's health too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ethical case for combatting climate change is incontestable, the economic one, indisputable. I would argue that the health case for achieving our climate goals is equally strong. It seems the WHO agree. In advance of Cop26, it released a special report emphasising the need to ensure that health is at the forefront of the climate change agenda.

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Trajectory

Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound

The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions, and an increase in the wind intensity and rainfall from tropical cyclones. Credit: left - Mike McMillan/USFS, center - Tomas Castelazo / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0, right - NASA.

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth's climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

" The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change - modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

A Degree of Difference

So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?

Read more

The IPCC's Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900. The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

What's the difference between climate change and global warming?

"Global warming" refers to the long-term warming of the planet. "Climate change" encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet, including rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times.

detailed answer

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

" The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future." ²

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Future Effects in the U.S.

U.S. Regional Effects

U.S. Regional Effects

Climate change is bringing different types of challenges to each region of the country. Some of the current and future impacts are summarized below. These findings are from the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

detailed answer

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose increasing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Farmers can explore new crop options, but these adaptations are not cost- or risk-free. Moreover, adaptive capacity, which varies throughout the region, could be overwhelmed by a changing climate. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of peak flows in rivers and streams are reducing water supplies and worsening competing demands for water. Sea level rise, erosion, flooding, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire incidence and severity, heat waves, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread forest die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region's economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also worsen a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Climate change has caused increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks. In turn, these changes have made wildfires more numerous and severe. The warming climate has also caused a decline in water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and triggered heat-related health impacts in cities. In coastal areas, flooding and erosion are additional concerns.

References
References
Header image shows cracked mud stretches across sections of the Panamint Valley. Credit: NPS/Kurt Moses; A degree of concern thermometer image credit: Pixabay/geralt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
intergovernmental panel on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Long-term effects of global climate change in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a leading climate scientist, Paola Arias doesn't need to look far to see the world changing. Shifting rain patterns threaten water supplies in her home city of Medellín, Colombia, while rising sea levels endanger the country's coastline. She isn't confident that international leaders will slow global warming or that her own government can handle the expected fallout, such as mass migrations and civil unrest over rising inequality. With such an uncertain future, she thought hard several years ago about whether to have children.

"My answer was no," says Arias, a researcher at the University of Antioquia in Medellín, who was one of the 234 scientists who wrote a climate-science report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in August (see go.nature.com/3pjupro). That assessment, which makes clear that the world is running out of time to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, will figure prominently in climate negotiations over the next two weeks at the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, UK.

Many other leading climate researchers share Arias's concerns about the future. Nature conducted an anonymous survey of the 233 living IPCC authors last month and received responses from 92 scientists-about 40% of the group. Their answers suggest strong scepticism that governments will markedly slow the pace of global warming, despite political promises made by international leaders as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Six in ten of the respondents said that they expect the world to warm by at least 3 °C by the end of the century, compared with what conditions were like before the Industrial Revolution. That is far beyond the Paris agreement's goal to limit warming to 1.5-2 °C.

Most of the survey's respondents-88%-said they think global warming constitutes a 'crisis', and nearly as many said they expect to see catastrophic impacts of climate change in their lifetimes. Just under half said that global warming has caused them to reconsider major life decisions, such as where to live and whether to have children. More than 60% said that they experience anxiety, grief or other distress because of concerns over climate change.

For Arias, who frequently sees the impacts of political instability out of her office window as immigrants from strife-torn Venezuela wander the streets seeking food and shelter, the choice about children came naturally. She says many friends and colleagues have arrived at the same conclusion. "I'm not saying that that is a decision that everyone should make," she says, "but it's not something I am struggling with much any more."

The pessimism expressed by some IPCC panellists underscores the vast gulf between hopes and expectations for the climate summit that began this week in Glasgow. In advance of the meeting, the United States, the European Union, China and others have announced new plans to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, although scientific analyses suggest those plans still fall well short of the Paris goals. Over the next two weeks, countries will formalize-and perhaps even strengthen-those commitments. But making them a reality will require as-yet- unprecedented political mobilization at the national level once leaders return home.

"Right now, governments are just at the stage of providing green promises, but so far we have not seen any actions to curb greenhouse-gas emissions," says Mouhamadou Bamba Sylla, an IPCC author and climate modeller at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Kigali, Rwanda. Sylla says his home country of Senegal has gone through all the motions and developed adaptation plans for a warming climate, but is anything changing on the ground? "I don't think so," he says.

Climate anxiety

The scientists surveyed by Nature are part of the IPCC working group charged with assessing the causes and extent of climate change. Their latest report, approved by 195 governments in August, concluded that fossil-fuel emissions are driving unprecedented planetary changes, threatening both people and the ecosystems that humans rely on for food and other resources. "Unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 °C or even 2° C will be beyond reach," the IPCC said. But in announcing the report, IPCC scientists stressed that these goals could still be achieved.

A separate report from the United Nations Environment Programme last week projected that the climate commitments already announced by nations would put the world on a path towards 2.7 °C of warming by the end of the century (see go.nature.com/3vphvtu). Other projections raise the possibility of even more reductions. The Climate Action Tracker, a consortium of scientific and academic organizations, estimates that warming would be limited to 2.4 °C if countries follow through on their latest pledges under the Paris agreement. One of the goals of the climate negotiations is to prompt more-ambitious steps for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, but most respondents to the Nature survey seemed to be pessimistic about future policies and the amount of warming (see Supplementary information for survey data tables).

The survey results might not be surprising given the decades of limited progress in tackling climate change, but the opinions of climate researchers should raise alarms, says Diana Liverman, a geographer who studies climate at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "I suppose the fact that they're pessimistic should make us even more worried."

The Nature survey has limitations: it doesn't capture the views of 60% of the IPCC authors, and two scientists wrote separately to Nature expressing concerns about the poll precisely because it taps into opinions rather than science. Those who took part did so in a personal capacity, not as representatives of the IPCC. Still, the survey provides a snapshot of the views of a significant proportion of the researchers who wrote the report.

Positive signals

Although the results indicate that many harbour deep concerns, the survey also revealed signs of optimism. More than 20% of the scientists said they expect nations to limit global warming to 2 °C, and 4% said the world might indeed meet its most aggressive goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C-a target that many scientists and academics wrote off from the moment the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.

Charles Koven, a climate scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, draws hope about the future because of advances in science and technology, and rapidly evolving public opinion. One positive development, he says, is that results in the past few years indicate that global average temperatures will level off quickly once humanity stops emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is contrary to long-held expectations that warming would continue for decades even if emissions were halted, owing to a lag in the climate system. He also cites plummeting costs of clean-energy technologies, as well as rising public demand for action in the face of increasingly visible climate impacts-such as the wildfires that he and his family have grown accustomed to each year in California.

"Fundamentally, I believe that the majority of people really do care about the future, and that it is possible for governments to coordinate and avoid the worst climate outcomes," Koven says.

Two-thirds of the respondents said they engage in climate advocacy, and almost all of those who do said they promote climate science through speeches, publications or videos. Some 43% of those who engage said they have signed letters or petitions, and 40% said they have contacted lawmakers to advocate for climate policies. One-quarter said they have joined demonstrations.

The tables turned, however, when scientists considered whether the IPCC should take on more of an advocacy role, which would be a sharp break from its remit of neutrally assessing the science: nearly three-quarters of the respondents said the IPCC should refrain from climate advocacy. One survey respondent gave the IPCC credit for sticking to its core mission. "By focusing on the best available scientific information, it has avoided the politicization that has occurred with other scientific issues, such as masking and vaccinating for COVID-19," the respondent said.

When asked to name the biggest accomplishments of the IPCC's climate-science working group, nearly 40% of the respondents said the panel effectively informs the public and policymakers about climate change and the part that humans are playing. Many (27%) also value how the IPCC assesses and synthesizes evidence.

Since it issued its first report in 1990, the IPCC has gradually increased the representation of researchers from the global south. Nearly 80% of respondents said that the IPCC includes suitable representation of experts from all countries. Arias disagrees, saying it could do more to actively recruit scientists from the global south. Sylla says the IPCC has done an adequate job on that front, given the geographical imbalance in the broader climate-science community. However, he adds, the organization could do more in terms of local outreach to promote the science and to engage policymakers after its reports are published. "I want the IPCC to be more aggressive on that," he says.

Like Arias, Sylla sees the impacts of political and economic instability as people pile aboard small boats leaving Senegal for a perilous journey in search of a better future. He also fears the situation will only get worse as the climate warms. Although he is currently planning to build a house for his family-far from the sea and in a location that is unlikely to flood-Sylla isn't convinced that Senegal is where he wants to ride out the climate storm. But he is keenly aware of the fact that Europe and the United States are also vulnerable to the inevitable impacts of global warming. "So the question is, where do you go?"
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 1 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top Climate Scientists Are Skeptical That Nations Will Rein in Global Warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a leading climate scientist, Paola Arias doesn't need to look far to see the world changing. Shifting rain patterns threaten water supplies in her home city of Medellín, Colombia, while rising sea levels endanger the country's coastline.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/06/why-you-might-not-get-plastic-utensils-next-time-you-go-to-a-restaurant-in-california/amp/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why you might not get plastic utensils next time you go to a California restaurant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The new laws are aimed at reducing plastic pollution in the ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world gets ready for the most important climate conference of the year, COP26, governments' climate targets remain far from sufficient.

New and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - the emission-curbing plans pledged by countries to the Paris Agreement on climate change - would reduce the expected level of 2030 emissions by 7.5 percent compared to previous NDCs, according to 2021's annual Emissions Gap Report released yesterday. For context, a 55 percent reduction is needed to keeping global warming within the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists have said would limit the worst of climate-induced catastrophes.

"Climate change is no longer a future problem. It is a now problem," said Inger Andersen, the Executive Director of UN Environment (UNEP), which issued this the report.

"To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we have eight years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: eight years to make the plans, put in place the policies, implement them and ultimately deliver the cuts. The clock is ticking loudly."

In a year marked by fires, floods, droughts and extreme heat, the stakes are high for COP 26, which will take place next week in Glasgow. So far, 116 countries have submitted new NDC targets, covering 61 percent of global emissions and half of the world's population. Some countries' plans, however, are not more ambitious than their previous plans.

In fact, the report states that the current NDCs put the world on the path to a temperature increase of at least 2.7 degrees by 2100 .

The formally submitted and announced targets of G20 countries would result in an annual reduction of roughly 3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent compared to their previous NDCs. Nevertheless, G20 countries are collectively expected to fall short of this by 1.1 gigatonnes annually, as only 10 have measures in place to achieve their previous NDCs.

Seven G20 countries - including the U.S., Australia and Brazil - are not expected to fulfill their previous NDCs, let alone updated ones, without significant policy change. India and Turkey have not updated their NDCs.

Despite this, countries' net-zero targets are highlighted as a promising development. So far, 49 countries and the E.U. have net-zero targets, with most aiming to reach this by 2050. Current pledges cover more than half of global domestic greenhouse gas emissions, over half of the world's GDP and a third of the world's population. These targets could potentially shave 0.5 degrees off warming from current 2100 projections to 2.2 degrees Celsius.

The report notes, however, that many net-zero targets remain ambiguous, and most are unclear on aspects including aviation, shipping and progress reporting. It also calls for more short-term actions to reach net-zero because delayed action and then a sudden rush to decarbonize as 2050 approaches could still result in more warming overall.

Countries are also described as having mostly missed the opportunity that recovery programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could have presented to transform economies to emit less carbon.

The vast majority of pandemic-related funds have been for immediate rescue spending, such as unemployment payments or healthcare costs. Of the USD 2.25 trillion that countries used to invest in long-term recovery, only 17 to 19 percent (USD 390 to 440 billion) could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Although time is running dangerously short, the report says that reducing methane - the second-most important greenhouse gas for global warming - is an important opportunity for mitigating climate change.

Methane leaks can be prevented at a relatively low cost by the fossil fuel sector. Such low-cost measures alone could cut human-caused methane emissions by 20 percent by 2030. However, other measures like dietary changes or switching to renewables are needed to cut methane emissions by 44 percent and limit global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Updated NDCs set world on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by 2100

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world gets ready for the most important climate conference of the year, COP26, governments' climate targets remain far from sufficient. New and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - the emission-curbing plans pledged by countries to the Paris Agreement on climate change - would reduce the expected level of 2030 emissions by 7.5 percent compared to previous NDCs, according to 2021's annual Emissions Gap Report released yesterday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Code red for humanity’: 5 key climate change facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Effects of human-caused global warming are happening now and will only worsen if urgent action is not taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World leaders are meeting for the 26th time to address the causes and effects of climate change. These five questions and answers show how much our planet has already changed.

#1 Which regions emit the most CO2?

Governments are increasingly pledging to transform their economies to become carbon neutral within the next 10 to 30 years. With emissions stabilizing in Europe and the Americas and rising in Asia and Africa, the following chart shows how much of an economic turnaround carbon neutrality would need.

Absolute emissions, however, only tell half the story. Countries in Asia have seen immense population growth over the last decades, and more people leads to greater consumption of resources.

Seen from a CO2 per capita perspective, the picture is very different. Factoring in population size puts the spotlight on both Western countries like the US and Australia, as well as nations in other parts of the world, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Mongolia.

In the discussion about who should contribute most to emissions reductions, experts argue that not all nations can be held equally responsible, and that economic power and wealth should be taken into account.

Clustering countries in terms of income groups (see below) shows a connection between higher levels of income and higher median emissions per capita. It also reveals how countries within each group vary widely, and that the higher the income group, the wider the spread across the emissions spectrum.

High income countries with elevated emissions, such as Qatar, emit much more CO2 per capita than countries like Germany and France, although they are in the same income group.

And although countries like India and China rank low on per capita emissions, their decisions still have a big impact, given their huge population numbers (bubble size).

#2 What are the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions?

Given the correlation between economic strength and CO2 emissions, it's no surprise that the industrial sector is responsible for the lion's share (35%) of overall greenhouse gases (GHG) - including methane and nitrous oxide - released into the atmosphere.

At 20%, agriculture, forestry and change in land use collectively account for the second greatest source of GHG emissions.

Over the last two decades, the annual amount of tree cover lost has gradually increased. Russia, Brazil and the United States were the world's biggest drivers of deforestation in 2020.

Compared to the decade from 1990-2000, however, the rate of deforestation has slowed.

Deforestation is not only problematic because the CO2 previously stored in the ground and the trees themselves is released into the atmosphere, but also because forests and soils are "carbon sinks" that absorb atmospheric CO2 - making them a valuable tool in the fight against climate change.

#3 How have CO2 emissions developed over the last centuries?

CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels have been on the rise since the early days of industrialization. However, as humans produced higher levels of carbon dioxide, Earth absorbed it in natural " carbon sinks," such as forests and oceans.

But as humanity began to produce more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than the planet's ecosystem could naturally absorb, more of those emissions became trapped in the atmosphere (red area in the following chart).

#4 How much has the world warmed already?

An increasing volume of CO2 particles traps the sunlight's warmth in the atmosphere, acting like a greenhouse in which it gets warmer and warmer. Compared to the 20th century - and the past five years in particular - the average global temperature has increased by almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

This change is measured by calculating the difference between temperatures observed at a specific time and place and the historical average for that same spot. The 1 degree increase in temperature is the global average of those variations. The difference can be much greater on a local level.

In a more concrete example, the average August temperature in the northwestern US city of Portland was around 20 C from 1991 to 2020. With global warming, Portland is seeing hotter-than-average days. On August 13, for example, the daily average reached 30 C, which was an extreme temperature anomaly.

In the same week, unusual temperatures were recorded in Spain, Tunisia, Russia, India, Cambodia, Australia and Argentina, to name just a few countries.

Such temperature increases push Earth's temperature anomaly up and will have potentially wide-ranging effects - from pockets of impossible heat to failing harvests and an increase in dangerous events like storms and floods. A rise in sea levels is among the most noticeable impacts. Hotter temperatures are melting ice caps and glaciers and increasing the total amount of water in the oceans.

#5 How much sea level rise do we already have?

According to data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States government climate research agency, sea levels have risen nearly 25 centimeters (9.8 inches) in the last 140 years. Around one third of that increase happened in the last 25 years alone.

Sea levels are rising worldwide, but the trend is accentuated in the Arctic, which is heating faster than other regions.

The thermal property of water that allows it to expand when warmer is also contributing to rising sea levels.

As usual, there is a caveat to the absolute numbers. While most of the world's oceans and seas are indeed higher their historical levels, some areas are more affected than others.

Tide gauges in western Canada and northern Chile, for example, detect steady or even receding seas, whereas island countries in the southern Pacific and Indian oceans are witnessing alarming increases in levels - threats that could lead to them literally disappearing beneath the waves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change in 11 charts | DW | 02.11.2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World leaders are meeting for the 26th time to address the causes and effects of climate change. These five questions and answers show how much our planet has already changed. Governments are increasingly pledging to transform their economies to become carbon neutral within the next 10 to 30 years.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8350453/hamilton-city-reduce-water-loss-leak-detection-program/amp/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hamilton city officials are confident that a leak detection program will reduce the percentage of treated drinking water that never makes it to the taps in your home.

Currently, 26 per cent of Hamilton's potable water is lost to leaky underground pipes and watermain breaks, as well as firefighting and the flushing of watermains.

Water distribution manager Dave Alberton has told city councillors that figure is significantly higher than the industry standard of 15 per cent.

"Due to Hamilton's unique geography, and often rocky, pourous ground," says Alberton, "there are many watermain breaks that do not surface and have the potential to remain undetected for years."

In a bid to reduce water loss, the city has been piloting a program through which it lowers devices into the system that can detect leaks with 96 per cent accuracy, before they become more costly and disruptive.

"The loggers are programmed to listen for leaks between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.," says Alberton, "when water usage and traffic noise are usually minimal, resulting in less interference and more accurate readings."

The public works committee has been told that dozens of leaks have been found and repaired already this year, using the technology, cutting the loss of water by billions of litres and saving the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary treatment costs.

Alberton says he'll be seeking a budget increase of $288,000 next year to purchase the equipment to make the program permanent, which will also require hiring two staff members.

Ward 8 Coun. John Paul Danko says the results of the pilot program are a "good news story" for the city.

"Not only is it saving money," agrees Ancaster Coun. Lloyd Ferguson, "it's probably preventing a major catastrophe."

Ferguson adds that "these watermain breaks sometimes go off like a zipper, then you have a huge gusher coming out, road damage and roads closed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hamilton hopes to reduce water loss through leak detection program - Hamilton | Globalnews.ca

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hamilton city officials are confident that a leak detection program will reduce the percentage of treated drinking water that never makes it to the taps in your home. Currently, 26 per cent of Hamilton's potable water is lost to leaky underground pipes and watermain breaks, as well as firefighting and the flushing of watermains.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.dairyreporter.com/Article/2021/11/04/Study-shows-soluble-bio-digestible-barriers-for-paper-and-board-packaging-are-effective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Study says soluble bio-digestible barriers for paper and board packaging are effective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DS Smith and Aquapak said a new study they commissioned shows bio-digestible barrier coatings increase paper recycling rates and fiber yield, without compromising functionality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World Ozone Day 1 / 5 World Ozone Day is observed on September 16 every year to spread awareness among people about the depletion of Ozone Layer.

This year the slogan for World Ozone Day is 'Ozone For Life'. Ozone Layer Depletion 2 / 5 The Ozone layer reduces harmful UV radiation reaching ...

Key stories on business-standard.com are available to premium subscribers only.

Already a premium subscriber? LOGIN NOW

MONTHLY STAR

Business Standard Digital

Business Standard Digital Monthly Subscription

Requires personal information

What you get?

ON BUSINESS STANDARD DIGITAL

Unlimited access to all the content on any device through browser or app.

Exclusive content, features, opinions and comment - hand-picked by our editors, just for you.

Pick 5 of your favourite companies. Get a daily email with all the news updates on them.

Track the industry of your choice with a daily newsletter specific to that industry.

Stay on top of your investments. Track stock prices in your portfolio.

18 years of archival data.

NOTE :

The product is a monthly auto renewal product.

Cancellation Policy: You can cancel any time in the future without assigning any reasons, but 48 hours prior to your card being charged for renewal. We do not offer any refunds.

To cancel, communicate from your registered email id and send the email with the cancellation request to assist@bsmail.in. Include your contact number for speedy action. Requests mailed to any other ID will not be acknowledged or actioned upon.

SMART ANNUAL

Business Standard Digital
Subscribe Now and get 12 months Free

Business Standard Premium Digital - 12 Months + 12 Months Free

What you get

ON BUSINESS STANDARD DIGITAL

Unlimited access to all content on any device through browser or app.

Exclusive content, features, opinions and comment - hand-picked by our editors, just for you.

Pick 5 of your favourite companies. Get a daily email with all the news updates on them.

Track the industry of your choice with a daily newsletter specific to that industry.

Stay on top of your investments. Track stock prices in your portfolio.

NOTE :

The monthly duration product is an auto renewal based product. Once subscribed, subject to your card issuer's permission we will charge your card/ payment instrument each month automatically and renew your subscription.

In the Annual duration product we offer both an auto renewal based product and a non auto renewal based product.

We do not Refund.

No Questions asked Cancellation Policy.

You can cancel future renewals anytime including immediately upon subscribing but 48 hours before your next renewal date.

Subject to the above, self cancel by visiting the "Manage My Account" section after signing in OR Send an email request to assist@bsmail.in from your registered email address and by quoting your mobile number.

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard .

Digital Editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ozone layer depletion: Cause, effects, and solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World Ozone Day 1 / 5 World Ozone Day is observed on September 16 every year to spread awareness among people about the depletion of Ozone Layer. This year the slogan for World Ozone Day is 'Ozone For Life'. Ozone Layer Depletion 2 / 5 The Ozone layer reduces harmful UV radiation reaching ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is climate change? A really simple guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human activities are causing world temperatures to rise, posing serious threats to people and nature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Climate Change Impact on Crops Expected Within 10 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change may affect the production of maize (corn) and wheat as early as 2030 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, according to a new NASA study published in the journal, Nature Food.

# data[].attributes.body
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/what-is-climate-change-global-warming-explained-simple-terms-cop26-summit-1284164

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change explained in simple terms as COP26 summit takes place in Glasgow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Cambridge Dictionary defines climate as ‘the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place’

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/climate-change/.premium-can-global-warming-be-kept-below-2-degrees-celsius-1.10354065

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can the world as we know it be saved from global warming? No. It's already not like the world we knew if we're more than 5 years old. If anything, climate change is apparently accelerating. Nobody is safe.

But can we be spared worse? Is it even theoretically possible at this point to keep the mean global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even 2 degrees Celsius - a level long touted as catastrophic? (4 degrees is the new 2 degrees, but don't be fooled.)

Theoretically yes, according to an international team of climate scientists writing in Science, as the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) rolls on. But that "yes" is based on the nations meticulously fulfilling their updated pledges and hopefully going even further.

That is an optimistic assumption, since they haven't so far. Talk is cheap and as John Harris wrote in The Guardian, too few of these world leaders came to Glasgow with a mandate for serious climate action "because almost none of them have tried to get one."

Indeed, the record on keeping climate promises is abysmal. Even before COP26, the Brookings Institute points out, over 100 countries had joined an alliance aiming for net zero emissions by 2050: "These pledges are powerful, visible, simple ... and utterly insufficient," wrote the institute's Rahul Tongia.

On Thursday, The Guardian drove home the emptiness of the rhetoric by noting that fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions haven't declined: they've reached record heights.

Emissions in Europe have dropped a bit in the last 20 years, but the global trajectory is horrifying, and emissions from giants China and India are slated to keep rising.

Also, big business tends to fudge figures while beating the green drum: As The New York Times reported Thursday, at least some companies claiming to be environmentally woke are ignoring a key component - the emissions of their supply chain, which can be responsible for as much as 95 percent of the companies' real contribution to greenhouse gases.

It's tempting to succumb to feel-good distractions, but solar panels or even an eggplant garden on a manufacturer's roof aren't going to go far in mitigating production and transport emissions. And increases of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, to which we are now reduced to aspiring, means the extreme weather experienced so far is nothing yet.

Five temperature/emissions scenarios (Dec. 2019): No action; current policies; pre-COP26 pledges; pathways to 2C and to 1.5C, if urgent vast cuts are made to emissions Credit: Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser

Note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself warns that even if emissions are eliminated quickly, it could take 20 to 30 years for temperatures to stabilize. That, by the way, is a guesstimate since temperature and carbon dioxide levels are correlated but at a lag. We don't know what the lag will be, or its dimensions; we just know that temperature is not "caught up" with the CO2 already emitted.
How it could be done
So, how can warming be curtailed below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, per Yang Ou of the Joint Global Change Research Institute and colleagues? It's a matter of keeping one's word and hoping for new technologies.

The authors applaud that 121 parties, which are responsible for 52 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, updated their pledges at COP26 and most vowed to move fast - meaning, to cut as "soon" as 2025 to 2035. Of course, that leaves the ones responsible for the other 48 percent and the snag that all too many others are lying or just not moving fast enough: the global trajectory of emissions remains sharply upward.

Annual CO2 emissions by region, October 2020 Credit: Our World in Data

But Ou et al stress that the COP26 pledges are stronger than the previous lot, and that world leaders are evincing a keener sense of urgency.

There have also been technological advances that have been reducing the cost of renewable energy and electric vehicles, and so on. Apropos, an electric car is only as "clean" as the power station from which it gets its power. If your local power plant isn't green, neither is your vehicle.

"Collectively, the updated pledges result in lower CO2 emissions from energy and industry in 2030 by 15 percent relative to the 2015 pledges," Ou et al write. And note, while some are committing to becoming carbon-zero by 2050 - for instance, Shell Oil! - or 2070 ( India), none are committing to becoming carbon-negative.

But if the COP26 pledges are sincere, if the countries and Shell Oil and its ilk sustain their actions afterward too, then the probability of "exceeding 4 degrees Celsius is virtually eliminated," Ou and colleagues claim. They calculate a 34 percent probability of temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. There is a 1.5 percent chance that temperature increase can be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius (note again that 1.5 degrees is considered catastrophic).

Climate activists protesting against the use of fossil fuels, on the sidelines of the COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow on Wednesday. Credit: BEN STANSALL - AFP

But Ou et al add that if countries step up their mitigation efforts, not only is the probability of exceeding 4 degrees Celsius virtually eliminated, but the probabilities of limiting temperature change below 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees also increase to 60 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

In Israel, meanwhile, the person in the street seems oblivious to the implications of climate change, even though the temperature in the Middle East is rising faster than elsewhere (if we leave the Arctic Circle out of it). The mean global temperature has already increased by 1.1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius; in Israel it's risen by 1.5 degrees.

To save us, our leaders need our help. It's not good enough to grouse from the house about useless politicians and their blowhard ways. Earth could be alien to humans by the year 2500 if we don't change trajectory, The Conversation and Scientific American warn. Don't want that? We the people must lead by example, accept that we will have to change our behavior and curb our consumerism, and vote responsibly.

Click the alert icon to follow topics:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can global warming be kept below 2 degrees Celsius?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can the world as we know it be saved from global warming? No. It's already not like the world we knew if we're more than 5 years old. If anything, climate change is apparently accelerating. Nobody is safe. But can we be spared worse?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/foster-global-warming-is-a-design-issue-we-can-solve/5114548.article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the COP26 Climate Change Conference taking place in Glasgow, a key question is what do all the new pledges by different countries to reduce emissions mean for global warming? This was a central question we addressed in the IEA's recent World Energy Outlook 2021 (WEO-2021), and we are continuing to update that analysis.

By the time WEO-2021 was published in mid-October, more than 120 countries had announced new targets for emissions reductions by 2030, and governments representing about 70% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions had pledged to bring those emissions to net zero by 2050 or soon after. Despite this momentum, those ambitions still fell short of what was called for in the Paris Agreement that was reached at COP21 in 2015. Ahead of COP26, WEO-2021 showed that even if all announced pledges were implemented in full and on time, the world would be headed for 2.1 °C of warming by the end of the century, missing the goals of the Paris Agreement and hugely increasing climate risks.

Since mid-October, however, more countries have been raising their ambitions. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi strengthened the country's 2030 targets, and pledged to hit net zero emissions by 2070. Several other large economies have also announced pledges to reach net zero emissions. The announcements have not been limited to CO2 emissions, with more than 100 countries promising to cut emissions of methane - another potent greenhouse gas - by 30% by 2030. As recent IEA analysis shows, rapid actions to reduce methane emissions from fossil fuel operations provide the most impactful way to limit near-term climate change.

Our updated analysis of these new targets - on top of all of those made previously - shows that if they are met in full and on time, they would be enough to hold the rise in global temperatures to 1.8 °C by the end of the century. This is a landmark moment: it is the first time that governments have come forward with targets of sufficient ambition to hold global warming to below 2 °C.

All the climate pledges announced to date, if met in full and on time, would be enough to hold the rise in global temperatures to 1.8 °C by 2100

But even as we welcome this progress, we must also sound a note of caution: 1.8 °C is still above the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. Scientists have clearly warned of the major climate risks of breaching the 1.5 °C limit. Our latest analysis - reflected in an Announced Pledges Scenario updated to include all the recent announcements - shows that even with these new commitments, we still fall well short of what is needed to keep the door open to 1.5 °C. This would require rapid progress on reducing emissions between now and 2030. But all the climate pledges made globally as of today still leave a 70% gap in the amount of emissions reductions needed by 2030 to keep 1.5 °C within reach. Governments are making bold promises for future decades, but short-term action is insufficient.

What is essential is for governments to turn their pledges into clear and credible policy actions and strategies today. Ambitions count for little if they are not implemented successfully. Tracking and accountability will be critical to ensure countries and companies are following through on their promises. At the request of the United Kingdom's COP26 Presidency, the IEA will lead the tracking of global progress against the Glasgow Breakthroughs - five goals aimed at driving down the costs of clean technologies. Meeting these goals will be essential to enabling the achievement of governments' long-term net zero pledges.

The IEA and its partners will publish the results of our tracking work every year so the world can see where things stand. To do this, we will draw on our years of expertise working on data collection, energy system analysis and policy development. Drawing on our Global Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050, we will also provide policy advice to governments on how they can bring their emissions in line with their pledges while still ensuring their clean energy transitions are secure, affordable and fair.

What's still needed: Higher ambition, strong implementation, clear tracking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COP26 climate pledges could help limit global warming to 1.8 °C, but implementing them will be the key - Analysis - IEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the COP26 Climate Change Conference taking place in Glasgow, a key question is what do all the new pledges by different countries to reduce emissions mean for global warming? This was a central question we addressed in the IEA's recent World Energy Outlook 2021 (WEO-2021), and we are continuing to update that analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2021/november/what-would-four-degree-global-warming-feel-like/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would 4°C of global warming feel like?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COP26 is underway and keeping 1.5°C within reach will feature prominently in world leaders’ discussions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/science-and-health/climate-change/.premium-can-global-warming-be-kept-below-2-degrees-celsius-1.10354065

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can the world as we know it be saved from global warming? No. It's already not like the world we knew if we're more than 5 years old. If anything, climate change is apparently accelerating. Nobody is safe.

But can we be spared worse? Is it even theoretically possible at this point to keep the mean global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even 2 degrees Celsius - a level long touted as catastrophic? (4 degrees is the new 2 degrees, but don't be fooled.)

Theoretically yes, according to an international team of climate scientists writing in Science, as the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) rolls on. But that "yes" is based on the nations meticulously fulfilling their updated pledges and hopefully going even further.

That is an optimistic assumption, since they haven't so far. Talk is cheap and as John Harris wrote in The Guardian, too few of these world leaders came to Glasgow with a mandate for serious climate action "because almost none of them have tried to get one."

Indeed, the record on keeping climate promises is abysmal. Even before COP26, the Brookings Institute points out, over 100 countries had joined an alliance aiming for net zero emissions by 2050: "These pledges are powerful, visible, simple ... and utterly insufficient," wrote the institute's Rahul Tongia.

On Thursday, The Guardian drove home the emptiness of the rhetoric by noting that fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions haven't declined: they've reached record heights.

Emissions in Europe have dropped a bit in the last 20 years, but the global trajectory is horrifying, and emissions from giants China and India are slated to keep rising.

Also, big business tends to fudge figures while beating the green drum: As The New York Times reported Thursday, at least some companies claiming to be environmentally woke are ignoring a key component - the emissions of their supply chain, which can be responsible for as much as 95 percent of the companies' real contribution to greenhouse gases.

It's tempting to succumb to feel-good distractions, but solar panels or even an eggplant garden on a manufacturer's roof aren't going to go far in mitigating production and transport emissions. And increases of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, to which we are now reduced to aspiring, means the extreme weather experienced so far is nothing yet.

Five temperature/emissions scenarios (Dec. 2019): No action; current policies; pre-COP26 pledges; pathways to 2C and to 1.5C, if urgent vast cuts are made to emissions Credit: Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser

Note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself warns that even if emissions are eliminated quickly, it could take 20 to 30 years for temperatures to stabilize. That, by the way, is a guesstimate since temperature and carbon dioxide levels are correlated but at a lag. We don't know what the lag will be, or its dimensions; we just know that temperature is not "caught up" with the CO2 already emitted.
How it could be done
So, how can warming be curtailed below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, per Yang Ou of the Joint Global Change Research Institute and colleagues? It's a matter of keeping one's word and hoping for new technologies.

The authors applaud that 121 parties, which are responsible for 52 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, updated their pledges at COP26 and most vowed to move fast - meaning, to cut as "soon" as 2025 to 2035. Of course, that leaves the ones responsible for the other 48 percent and the snag that all too many others are lying or just not moving fast enough: the global trajectory of emissions remains sharply upward.

Annual CO2 emissions by region, October 2020 Credit: Our World in Data

But Ou et al stress that the COP26 pledges are stronger than the previous lot, and that world leaders are evincing a keener sense of urgency.

There have also been technological advances that have been reducing the cost of renewable energy and electric vehicles, and so on. Apropos, an electric car is only as "clean" as the power station from which it gets its power. If your local power plant isn't green, neither is your vehicle.

"Collectively, the updated pledges result in lower CO2 emissions from energy and industry in 2030 by 15 percent relative to the 2015 pledges," Ou et al write. And note, while some are committing to becoming carbon-zero by 2050 - for instance, Shell Oil! - or 2070 ( India), none are committing to becoming carbon-negative.

But if the COP26 pledges are sincere, if the countries and Shell Oil and its ilk sustain their actions afterward too, then the probability of "exceeding 4 degrees Celsius is virtually eliminated," Ou and colleagues claim. They calculate a 34 percent probability of temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. There is a 1.5 percent chance that temperature increase can be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius (note again that 1.5 degrees is considered catastrophic).

Climate activists protesting against the use of fossil fuels, on the sidelines of the COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow on Wednesday. Credit: BEN STANSALL - AFP

But Ou et al add that if countries step up their mitigation efforts, not only is the probability of exceeding 4 degrees Celsius virtually eliminated, but the probabilities of limiting temperature change below 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees also increase to 60 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

In Israel, meanwhile, the person in the street seems oblivious to the implications of climate change, even though the temperature in the Middle East is rising faster than elsewhere (if we leave the Arctic Circle out of it). The mean global temperature has already increased by 1.1 to 1.2 degrees Celsius; in Israel it's risen by 1.5 degrees.

To save us, our leaders need our help. It's not good enough to grouse from the house about useless politicians and their blowhard ways. Earth could be alien to humans by the year 2500 if we don't change trajectory, The Conversation and Scientific American warn. Don't want that? We the people must lead by example, accept that we will have to change our behavior and curb our consumerism, and vote responsibly.

Click the alert icon to follow topics:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can global warming be kept below 2 degrees Celsius?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can the world as we know it be saved from global warming? No. It's already not like the world we knew if we're more than 5 years old. If anything, climate change is apparently accelerating. Nobody is safe. But can we be spared worse?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211104162551.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over 100 nations have issued new commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP26, currently underway in Glasgow, Scotland.

A new analysis published today in the journal Science assessed those new pledges, or nationally determined commitments (NDCs), and how they could shape Earth's climate. The study's authors find the latest NDCs could chart a course where limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and under within this century is now significantly more likely.

Under pledges made at the 2015 Paris Agreement, the chances of limiting temperature change to below 2 and 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 were 8 and 0 percent, respectively.

Under the new pledges -- and if those pledges are successfully fulfilled and reinforced with policies and measures of equal or greater ambition -- the study's authors estimate those chances now rise to 34 and 1.5 percent, respectively. If countries strike a more ambitious path beyond 2030, those probabilities become even more likely, rising to 60 and 11 percent, respectively.

Further, the chance of global temperatures rising above 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) could be virtually eliminated. Under the 2015 pledges, the probability of such warming was, at 10 percent, more likely.

"We are so much closer to getting to the 2-degree goal than six years ago when the Paris Agreement was first signed," said corresponding author Haewon McJeon, a research scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "The wave of strengthened climate pledges and net-zero targets significantly increased our chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius. And we practically ruled out the possibility of the worst climate outcomes of 4 degrees or higher."

But making the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit more likely will take more ambition, cautioned lead author Yang Ou, a postdoctoral researcher at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland.

"We find there's a roughly one in three chance that we'll stay under 2 degrees Celsius," said Ou. "But even with increased ambition, we're still far away from getting down to 1.5 degrees in this century."

The researchers used an open-source model called the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) to simulate a spectrum of emissions scenarios. They then evaluated the probabilistic temperature outcomes for those scenarios.

At one end of the spectrum is a hypothetical future in which current climate mitigation measures and policies remain largely the same through 2100. At the other, nations commit to more ambitious targets for limiting emissions and increasing the global decarbonization rate. Such modeling illustrates the range of climate outcomes that lie beyond different courses of action.

The Road Ahead

Several factors reshaped near-term emissions trajectories and long-term climate outcomes, the authors said. Examples include the worldwide shift away from coal to technological advances that made solar panels and electric vehicles less costly. These developments, they said, have helped bring the goals of the Paris Agreement closer to fruition.

Even under a scenario in which no new emission mitigation policies take place through 2100, this century's emissions are projected to be lower than previous estimates, largely due to post-2015 developments like reduced coal power investment and the reduced cost of renewable energy.

"New commitments, technological advances, and the near- and long-term recovery from the pandemic have set us on a different course than what laid before us at the 2015 Paris Agreement," said co-lead author and PNNL research scientist Gokul Iyer. "But if we adopt more ambitious goals that truly reflect the common but differentiated responsibilities across all parties, that gives us a better than even chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius."

"And this highlights the importance of the Glasgow meeting," Iyer added. "Without periodic and transparent updates, we won't get the commitments strong enough to meet the temperature goal."

The research team brought together researchers from PNNL with researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Tracker, the University of Maryland, the University of Melbourne, and Imperial College London.

"This was an all-out team effort among the scientists and policy experts with extensive knowledge of ongoing international discussions on climate policies," McJeon added. "We brought together the policy analysts who track each country's climate commitments with the modelers who simulate global greenhouse gas emission activities and the climate response to these increased emissions. It really shows the importance of collaborative science."

This assessment, Can Updated Climate Pledges Limit Warming Well Below 2°C, was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

Journal Reference:

Yang Ou, Gokul Iyer, Leon Clarke, Jae Edmonds, Allen A. Fawcett, Nathan Hultman, James R. McFarland, Matthew Binsted, Ryna Cui, Claire Fyson, Andreas Geiges, Sofia Gonzales-Zuñiga, Matthew J. Gidden, Niklas Höhne, Louise Jeffery, Takeshi Kuramochi, Jared Lewis, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Pralit Patel, Shaun Ragnauth, Joeri Rogelj, Stephanie Waldhoff, Sha Yu, Haewon McJeon. Can updated climate pledges limit warming well below 2°C? Science, 2021; 374 (6568): 693 DOI: 10.1126/science.abl8976

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
climate; environmental issues; global warming; environmental policy; environmental policies; resource shortage; education and employment; ocean policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New climate pledges, if fulfilled, now significantly more likely to prevent worst of global warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 100 nations have issued new commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP26, currently underway in Glasgow, Scotland. A new analysis published today in the journal Science assessed those new pledges, or nationally determined commitments (NDCs), and how they could shape Earth's climate.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933303

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For the first time, sector allocations of the global carbon budget have been provided for both hard-to-abate and all other sectors - 12 main macro industry sectors in total, reporting scope 1, 2 and 3 breakdowns.

Scientists from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have developed energy-related carbon budgets for industries including the aluminium, steel and chemical industries and the car and aviation industries.

The research shows that it is still possible to limit global warming to 1.5C and implement the Paris Climate Agreement. This, however, requires timely climate action by the energy intensive industries supported by the finance sector, backed by reliable and long-term policies from governments.

The global carbon budget to limit global warming to +1.5C with 67% certainty is 400 GtCO2 until 2050. The steel industry would have a share of 19 Gt CO2 remaining (5.0%), the cement industry 9 Gt CO2 (2.4%) and the aluminium industry 6 Gt CO2 (1.6%). The largest carbon budgets are calculated for buildings (climatization and electricity) with 88 Gt CO2 (22.6%) and road transport with 82 GtCO2 (21.1%).

Associate Professor Sven Teske, who lead the research at UTS, said: "It is crucial to have a science-based carbon budget for specific industries to implement climate targets for all parts of these industries. We found that power utilities have by far the greatest responsibility: They have to provide enough renewable electricity for the energy intensive chemical, steel, cement and aluminium industries and for electric vehicles that no longer need oil."

Those specific industry emission budgets were further subdivided into so-called Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, which define the responsibility for those emissions. So far, this system has only been applied to companies, but not to an entire branch of industries or a region in a very granular way. For investment portfolio steering in line with a net-zero emission pledge the finance industry needs one holistic model for a 1.5C low/no overshoot path. The UTS scientists developed a model - the One Earth Climate Model (OECM) - to fill the gap for industry sector specific decarbonisation pathways.

Emission targets for a specific branch, for example the steel industry sector, and emissions by 'Scope' can be used as a benchmark and guidance for investment portfolio decision-making. It is possible now to develop emission paths for industry classifications, which is then captured in one consistent model in line with the net zero ambition level. Members of the UN-convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (the Alliance) have already started using the model.

The 12 analysed main industry and service sectors are: aluminium, chemical, cement, steel and textile & leather industry, power and gas utilities, agriculture, forestry, the aviation and shipping industry, road transport and the real estate and buildings.

Günther Thallinger, Chair of the UN convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, said: "The One Earth Climate Model's sector pathway work is important to inform the financial industry for portfolio decision making as the model is based on a holistic integrated approach. It also shows the granularity that is needed to feed into investors' analysis. The information details on sector budgets and scope, on interconnections and responsibilities are exceptional."

As a first major use case sending a strong signal to the UNFCCC COP negotiations, the UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance is supporting the further development of the OECM and applying the latest UTS findings and data for informing the investor group's net zero target setting protocol and reporting framework. The Alliance is an international group of 60 institutional investors committed to transitioning their investment portfolios of about $US10 trillion Assets under Management (AuM) to net-zero emissions by 2050 on a low/no overshoot path

The following recommendations to policy makers, industry and financial actors derive from this new UTS research:

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists have defined the remaining global carbon budget for the 12 main industry and service sectors to limit global warming to 1.5C by 2050 and implement the Paris Climate Agreement.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.myvetcandy.com/newsblog/2021/4/1/reducing-global-warming-matters-for-freshwater-fish-species?format=amp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The habitats of freshwater fish species are threatened by global warming, mainly due to rising water temperatures. A 3.2-degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature would threaten more than half of the habitat for one third of all freshwater fish species. The number of species at risk is ten times smaller if warming is limited to 1.5 degrees. This is the conclusion of a study led by Radboud University, in collaboration with Utrecht University, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Leiden University and others, and published in Nature Communications on March 15th.

Many studies have already assessed the potential impacts of climate change on animal and plant species in terrestrial systems. "However, freshwater fish species have been largely ignored, even though they represent approximately a quarter of the global known vertebrate diversity", says Valerio Barbarossa, lead author of the paper. This is the first study that investigated the potential impact of climate change on approximately 11,500 freshwater fish species around the globe.
Clear differences between global warming scenarios
With a global rise of 3.2 degrees Celsius, a scenario expected if there are no further emission cuts after current governments' pledges for 2030, over one third of the freshwater species have more than half of their present-day habitats threatened by extremes in water temperature or streamflow.

If global warming is limited to 2 degrees, 9% of the species would have more than a half of their habitat threatened. If warming is limited to 1.5 degrees, the number of species at risk reduces to 4%. "These numbers indicate that limiting global warming really matters for freshwater fish species, just as previous research has shown that it matters for species in terrestrial systems", says Barbarossa.
Temperature and flow
The researchers modelled future extremes in water flow and temperature and identified where these may exceed present-day extremes within the habitats of the fish species. "Water temperature and water flow are two key habitat factors for freshwater fish species. Climate change will amplify extremes in flow and temperature, which may reduce the amount of suitable habitat. This in turn is an important indicator of extinction risk", says Aafke Schipper, environmental researcher at Radboud University and PBL and co-author of the study.

The results of the study indicate that changes in water temperature are much more threatening than changes in flow extremes, reflecting that global warming will lead to rising water temperatures nearly everywhere. The findings further show that threats to freshwater fish species are particularly high in tropical waters.
Man-made barriers
"The numbers of species at risk represent a worst-case scenario in the sense that we assume that fish will not be able to move to other parts of the watershed or adapt to changed conditions", continues Barbarossa. "We have also considered a scenario in which species could move freely across the watershed and "escape" altered conditions. In that case, climate change threats would be substantially lower. However, many freshwater systems are fragmented, which impedes fish from moving to more suitable conditions."

River systems worldwide are characterized by an increasing number of many man-made barriers like dams, weirs, sluices or culverts. These reduce the connectivity of freshwater habitats and limit opportunities for fish to respond to climate change by shifting their ranges. This in turn stresses the need to limit global warming, the authors conclude, if we want to safeguard freshwater biodiversity.

###

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Reducing global warming matters for freshwater fish species' | Vet Candy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The habitats of freshwater fish species are threatened by global warming, mainly due to rising water temperatures. A 3.2-degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature would threaten more than half of the habitat for one third of all freshwater fish species. The number of species at risk is ten

# data[].attributes.body
https://news.globallandscapesforum.org/55449/updated-ndcs-set-world-on-track-for-2-7-degrees-of-warming-by-2100/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world gets ready for the most important climate conference of the year, COP26, governments' climate targets remain far from sufficient.

New and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - the emission-curbing plans pledged by countries to the Paris Agreement on climate change - would reduce the expected level of 2030 emissions by 7.5 percent compared to previous NDCs, according to 2021's annual Emissions Gap Report released yesterday. For context, a 55 percent reduction is needed to keeping global warming within the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists have said would limit the worst of climate-induced catastrophes.

"Climate change is no longer a future problem. It is a now problem," said Inger Andersen, the Executive Director of UN Environment (UNEP), which issued this the report.

"To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we have eight years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: eight years to make the plans, put in place the policies, implement them and ultimately deliver the cuts. The clock is ticking loudly."

In a year marked by fires, floods, droughts and extreme heat, the stakes are high for COP 26, which will take place next week in Glasgow. So far, 116 countries have submitted new NDC targets, covering 61 percent of global emissions and half of the world's population. Some countries' plans, however, are not more ambitious than their previous plans.

In fact, the report states that the current NDCs put the world on the path to a temperature increase of at least 2.7 degrees by 2100 .

The formally submitted and announced targets of G20 countries would result in an annual reduction of roughly 3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent compared to their previous NDCs. Nevertheless, G20 countries are collectively expected to fall short of this by 1.1 gigatonnes annually, as only 10 have measures in place to achieve their previous NDCs.

Seven G20 countries - including the U.S., Australia and Brazil - are not expected to fulfill their previous NDCs, let alone updated ones, without significant policy change. India and Turkey have not updated their NDCs.

Despite this, countries' net-zero targets are highlighted as a promising development. So far, 49 countries and the E.U. have net-zero targets, with most aiming to reach this by 2050. Current pledges cover more than half of global domestic greenhouse gas emissions, over half of the world's GDP and a third of the world's population. These targets could potentially shave 0.5 degrees off warming from current 2100 projections to 2.2 degrees Celsius.

The report notes, however, that many net-zero targets remain ambiguous, and most are unclear on aspects including aviation, shipping and progress reporting. It also calls for more short-term actions to reach net-zero because delayed action and then a sudden rush to decarbonize as 2050 approaches could still result in more warming overall.

Countries are also described as having mostly missed the opportunity that recovery programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could have presented to transform economies to emit less carbon.

The vast majority of pandemic-related funds have been for immediate rescue spending, such as unemployment payments or healthcare costs. Of the USD 2.25 trillion that countries used to invest in long-term recovery, only 17 to 19 percent (USD 390 to 440 billion) could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Although time is running dangerously short, the report says that reducing methane - the second-most important greenhouse gas for global warming - is an important opportunity for mitigating climate change.

Methane leaks can be prevented at a relatively low cost by the fossil fuel sector. Such low-cost measures alone could cut human-caused methane emissions by 20 percent by 2030. However, other measures like dietary changes or switching to renewables are needed to cut methane emissions by 44 percent and limit global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Updated NDCs set world on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by 2100

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world gets ready for the most important climate conference of the year, COP26, governments' climate targets remain far from sufficient. New and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) - the emission-curbing plans pledged by countries to the Paris Agreement on climate change - would reduce the expected level of 2030 emissions by 7.5 percent compared to previous NDCs, according to 2021's annual Emissions Gap Report released yesterday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
꽃잎 사진 여름 인용구 인스타그램 게시물-1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 나호정 (@starlike._.n)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are an immense amount of characteristics of the Earth that make life sustainable; the Ozone layer is one of the most important features that make the Earth well suited for life. The Earth's atmosphere is composed of five layers: the Troposphere, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Thermosphere, and the Exosphere. The Ozone layer is located between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere, between 15-30km above the Earth's surface.

The Ozone layer is named after its high concentration of ozone. It is composed of triatomic oxygen molecules that absorb lethal ultraviolet radiation from the sun. According to a study conducted by Mary Peyton Wall, ozone is a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms. Ozone is formed when heat and sunlight create a photochemical reaction of splitting oxygen molecules into two oxygen molecules by solar energy. The process of producing ozone is dependent on sunlight, making ozone produced at higher rates when near lower latitudes due to the concentration of high solar radiation around the equator.

Another study conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency found that the Ozone layer protects living things from too much ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Over the years, depletion of the ozone layer has been occurring because of the release of chemical substances into the atmosphere by humans. Studies conducted by the writers of UKessays environmental studies department, have found that there has been an increase in ozone depleting substances (ODS) that were in the atmosphere. The high levels of ODS have resulted in the ozone layer thinning by 30-50% over the Arctic and Antarctic; and by 3-5% globally since 1980.

The process of depletion is initiated when ozone depleting substances (ODS) such as chlorine and bromine and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), mostly from human sources, are released into the atmosphere. The gases accumulate in the atmosphere, then are moved to the stratosphere through vertical mixing. The chlorine, bromine, and CFCs are initially non-reactive gases, but they are converted into reactive compounds by UV radiation. The reactive gases then produce chemical reactions that destroy the ozone layer.

After the chemical reactions take place, the gases are moved back to the troposphere where they are removed from the atmosphere through precipitation.

Studies conducted by the European Commision found that the negative effects of ozone depletion can have an incredibly negative impact on human health.

Again, the depletion of the ozone layer increases the amount of ultraviolet beams that reach the Earth's surface.

First, increased exposure of ultraviolet beams will increase the risk of a person having skin cancer according to studies conducted by Leonard H. Goldberg, MD. One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. The most serious form of skin cancer is melanoma. Melanoma is deemed extremely dangerous because of its ability to spread to other organs rapidly if it is not treated at an early stage. Less deadly nonmelanoma skin cancers are basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. Both nonmelanoma skin cancers are less likely to spread to other parts of the body.

Other UV-related skin disorders include actinic keratoses and premature aging of the skin.

Actinic keratoses are skin growths that occur on parts of the body that are over exposed to the sun according to studies conducted by Leonard H. Goldberg, MD. The most common parts of the body where actinic keratoses are found is the face, hands, forearms. Actinic Keratoses are a risk factor for developing squamous cell carcinoma. Constant exposure to the sun will also cause premature aging, making the skin become thick, wrinkled, and leathery.

Increased exposure to UV beams can increase the risk of cataracts. Cataracts are a form of eye damage in which a loss of transparency in the lens of the eye clouds vision. If left untreated, cataracts can lead to blindness. Although cataracts can be cured with eye surgery, they diminish the eyesight of millions of Americans and cost billions of dollars in medical care each year.

UV radiation also negatively affects the developmental processes of plants. A study conducted by the National Park Service found that the depletion of the ozone layer causes considerable damage to agricultural crops and plants in natural ecosystems. Ozone damages plants by entering leaf openings called stomata and oxidizing (burning) plant tissue during respiration. This damages the plant leaves and causes reduced survival.

According to studies conducted by the NASA Ozone Observatory, ozone symptoms usually occur between the veins on the upper leaf surface of older and middle-aged leaves, but may also involve both leaf surfaces (bifacial) for some species. The type and severity of injury is dependent on several factors including duration and concentration of ozone exposure, weather conditions, and plant genetics.

If not slowed, the depletion of the ozone layer can leave irreversible effects on human life and plant life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ozone layer depletion: Humans and animals in immediate danger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Naomi Branch There are an immense amount of characteristics of the Earth that make life sustainable; the Ozone layer is one of the most important features that make the Earth well suited for life. The Earth's atmosphere is composed of five layers: the Troposphere, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Thermosphere, and the Exosphere.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/16/larger-than-usual-ozone-layer-hole-bigger-than-antarctica

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/our-science/three-ways-to-save-our-planet/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If we want to save the planet, we need to produce more food on less land, eliminate overfishing, and increase clean energy. Here's how we're doing just that.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/learning/lesson-plans/explore-7-climate-change-solutions.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ozone layer is showing signs of continuing recovery from man-made damage and is likely to heal fully by 2060, new evidence shows.

The measures taken to repair the damage will also have an important beneficial effect on climate change, as some of the gases that caused the ozone layer to thin and in places disappear also contribute to warming the atmosphere. Phasing them out could avoid as much as 0.5C (0.9F) of warming this century.

Recovery from the holes and thinning caused by aerosol chemicals has progressed at a rate of about 1% to 3% a decade since 2000, meaning the ozone layer over the northern hemisphere and mid-latitudes should heal completely by the 2030s, if current rates are sustained.

Over the southern hemisphere and in the more problematic polar regions, recovery will take longer, until the middle of this century in the former and about 2060 in the latter case.

The results, presented on Monday in a four-year assessment of the health of the ozone layer, represent a rare instance of global environmental damage being repaired, and a victory for concerted global action by governments. Scientific evidence of the depletion of the ozone layer over the Antarctic was first presented in 1985, and in 1987 the Montreal protocol was signed, binding world governments to reduce and phase out the harmful chemicals identified as causing the problem.

Ozone in the upper layers of the atmosphere protects the earth's surface from most of the harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. Without it, skin and eye damage can occur, and evidence suggests a rise in skin cancers associated with the thinning of the ozone layer.

"The Montreal protocol is one of the most successful multilateral agreements in history for a reason," said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. "The careful mix of authoritative science and collaborative action that has defined the protocol for more than 30 years and was set to heal our ozone layer is precisely why the Kigali amendment holds such promise for climate action in future."

The Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol, coming into effect at the start of next year, will help reduce future climate change, by targeting HFC gases, mostly used in refrigeration, which have a warming effect tens of thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide.

Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, said: "Over the last three decades, the Montreal protocol has fulfilled its original objective to heal the ozone layer. But it didn't stop there. Because CFCs and related gases are also super climate pollutants, phasing them out has reduced the climate problem by an amount that would have equalled the contribution of carbon dioxide today - more than half of all warming - with the Kigali amendment adding even more climate protection."

Until recently, most major sources of ozone-harming gases were thought to have been closed down, until studies showed sites in China where gases were still emerging. The Chinese government has pledged to find and close down these sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ozone layer finally healing after damage caused by aerosols, UN says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ozone layer is showing signs of continuing recovery from man-made damage and is likely to heal fully by 2060, new evidence shows. The measures taken to repair the damage will also have an important beneficial effect on climate change, as some of the gases that caused the ozone layer to thin and in places disappear also contribute to warming the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ozone layer is the part of the Earth's atmosphere which contains relatively high concentrations of ozone gas, which is an inorganic molecule with the chemical formula O3. Ozone is a pale blue gas with a pungent (chlorine-like) smell. Though relatively high, the concentration in this layer is still small in comparison to other gases in the stratosphere.

The Ozone layer absorbs most of the ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth from the sun. Ozone Layer in the atmosphere is thicker over the poles than over the equator.

When the sun's rays split oxygen molecules into single atoms, Ozone is created in the atmosphere. These single atoms combine with nearby oxygen to form a three-oxygen molecule - Ozone.

Who discovered the Ozone Layer?

The Ozone Layer was discovered by the French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson in 1913.

Why is Ozone Layer important?

Ozone protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays from the Sun. Without the Ozone layer in the atmosphere, life on Earth would be very difficult. Plants cannot live and grow in heavy ultraviolet radiation, nor can the planktons that serve as food for most of the ocean life. With a weakening of the Ozone Layer shield, humans would be more susceptible to skin cancer, cataracts and impaired immune systems.

Ozone can both protect and harm the Earth - it all depends on where it resides. For instance, if Ozone is present in the stratosphere of the atmosphere, it will act as a shield. However, if it is in the troposphere (about 10 km from the Earth's surface), Ozone is harmful. It is a pollutant that can cause damage to lung tissues and plants. Hence, an upset in the ozone balance can have serious consequences.

Disruption of Ozone Balance in the atmosphere

Since the 1970s scientists have observed human activities to be disrupting the ozone balance. Production of chlorine-containing chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have added to depletion of the Ozone Layer.

What is 'Ozone Layer depletion'?

Chemicals containing chlorine and bromine atoms are released in the atmosphere through human activities. These chemicals combine with certain weather conditions to cause reactions in the Ozone Layer, leading to ozone molecules getting destroyed. Depletion of the Ozone Layer occurs globally, but the severe depletion of the Ozone Layer over the Antarctic is often referred to as the 'Ozone Hole'. Increased depletion has recently started occurring over the Arctic as well.

International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer is observed on September 16 every year.

Montreal Protocol on Ozone Layer depletion

Montreal Protocol is a multilateral environmental agreement that regulates the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). It was adopted on September 15, 1987. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol reached agreement at their 28th Meeting of the Parties on 15 October 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda, to phase-down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Countries agreed to add HFCs to the list of controlled substances, and approved a timeline for their gradual reduction by 80-85 per cent by the late 2040s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Ozone Layer, When is World Ozone Day, Importance of Ozone Layer, What is Ozone Layer Depletion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ozone layer is the part of the Earth's atmosphere which contains relatively high concentrations of ozone gas, which is an inorganic molecule with the chemical formula O3. Ozone is a pale blue gas with a pungent (chlorine-like) smell. Though relatively high, the concentration in this layer is still small in comparison to other gases in the stratosphere.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014/full

# data[].attributes.body
https://tt.loopnews.com/content/landfills-ozone-layer-and-biodiversity-3-things-know-0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With most of the country's landfills at capacity, there's an urgent need to take action.

Space isn't the only issue as these landfills lack proper hazardous waste treatment facilities, leading to the possibility of dangerous chemicals leaching into soil or nearby waterways.

Here are several measures being taken to address national issues on chemicals and waste, ozone depletion and biodiversity:
1. Landfills and wastewater
The Ministry of Planning and Development said a National Implementation Plan was developed in 2013 to provide a five-year roadmap to strengthen the management of domestic pollution.

Some of the measures include providing data on sources, uses and production of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and creating a multi-stakeholder approach to management.

The Plan was updated in 2018 and a public awareness campaign started running in 2020.

The Ministry said the Guanapo Landfill is being cleaned up using a Leachate Treatment Plan and an Environmental Risk Management Plan. This is expected to reduce leachate, improve water quality and the health of the environment.

The economic benefit of treating wastewater was made clear in a 2015 study conducted in the Caroni Swamp in Trinidad and the Buccoo Reef/Bon Accord Lagoon Complex in Tobago.

Results showed that the beneficial economic impact on the environment and to almost 100,000 residents would outweigh the investment cost.
2. Phasing out HFCs
The Ministry said the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, which damage the ozone layer, was phased out since 2008 but the work to protect the ozone layer continues.

The Ministry said hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are being phased down and replaced with low-carbon refrigeration and air conditioning Technologies.

The Ministry said it also continue to strengthen its institutions to comply with the Montreal Protocol and the Kigali Amendment.
3. Supporting biodiversity
Trinidad and Tobago is home to about 450 species of birds, 354 types of fish, 600 species of butterflies and over 2000 types of plants.

The Ministry said the country's biological diversity, as well as the work to protect and maintain it, has been recorded in six National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity including the most recent in 2019.

The Ministry said it's made contributions to the Global Biodiversity Outlook and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and, on the local front, operates with a comprehensive National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).

The Ministry said 60 organizations have contributed to conducting research, crafting new policies, building capacity and developing a new system for improving and managing protected areas which includes:

For more information join the Ministry of Planning and Development's Focal Point network at the Environmental Policy and Planning Division here: https://forms.gle/bpfouNKfMuoo3Dkr6 or visit on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/eppdtt

Loop is better in the app. Customize your news feed, save articles for later, view your reading history and more. Click the links below to download the app for Android and IOS.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landfills, the ozone layer and biodiversity: 3 things to know | Loop Trinidad & Tobago

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With most of the country's landfills at capacity, there's an urgent need to take action. Space isn't the only issue as these landfills lack proper hazardous waste treatment facilities, leading to the possibility of dangerous chemicals leaching into soil or nearby waterways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent decades, climate change has become an increasingly important issue not only for the world but for dermatologists. From an increase in specific skin diseases to the urgency for more sun protection, it's hard for dermatologists to ignore the effect climate change is having on the skin health of individuals around the world. A variety of speakers discussed the different ways climate change is affecting dermatology in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience 2021 (AAD VMX 2021) held virtually April 23-25.
What's Changing?
Caroline Nelson, MD, FAAD, medical director of dermatology inpatient consultative service at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, touched on the rise of vector-borne infectious diseases associated with climate change. ¹ Vector-borne infectious diseases are viruses, bacteria, or protozoa that are transmitted by living organisms (most commonly blood-sucking arthropods). Humans may be the natural or incidental hosts. ²

She specifically mentioned the rise in Lyme disease in the United States. Caused by Borrelia burgdorferi and other Borrelia species, Lyme disease can trigger skin manifestations such as erythema migrans and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans. "In the eastern and midwestern United States, there was a dramatic increase in the incidence of Lyme disease from 2001 to 2014," Nelson said. ³

She said this spread can be attributed to 3 factors. One factor looks at the tick vector abundance. Typically, low minimum temperatures in winter are unsuitable for tick survival. However, because of warmer temperatures in the winter, Ixodes scapularis (East Coast) and Ixodes pacificus (West Coast), tick species known to spread Lyme disease, have both been seen spreading farther north between 1996 and 2015, according to Nelson.

Another factor involves the prevalence of B burgdorferi infection in ticks, which can be attributed to the white-foot mouse extending its range north to Wisconsin and Minnesota in parallel with the tick. The last vector looks at contact frequency between infected ticks and humans. Ixodes ticks, Nelson said, search for hosts when temperatures exceed roughly 7 °C because changes in land use, such as farmland reforestation and residential development in wooded areas, put humans in closer proximity to ticks, white-footed mice, and deer.

Dirk Elston, MD, FAAD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, spoke about other diseases that are quickly spreading due to change in climate. 4 Some emerging diseases Elston mentioned included the spreading of anaplasmosis, a tick-borne disease carried by Ixodes ticks; dengue virus, which belongs to the genus Flavivirus; chikungunya, a mosquito-borne togavirus; and a new tick-borne illness that includes severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome.

Elston also mentioned an increase in tick bites and red meat allergy. "Red meat allergens share the saliva with Amblyomma [ americanum] ticks, and after Amblyomma tick bites, you can become sensitized where you eat red meat and you develop anaphylaxis," he said.

Elston added that the increased spread of these diseases can be attributed to climate change. With the increase in global temperatures, Amblyomma americanum ticks, which typically are seen in the southern United States, are now being seen in the Midwest, Eastern Seaboard, and Canada, with researchers subsequently seeing a rise in red meat allergies throughout these areas.

Incidence of Chagas disease has also been increasing in recent years, according to Elston. "The triatomine bugs that carry Chagas disease were pretty much restricted to Latin America, but they are now common in other parts of the world and, in fact, the trypanosomes that cause Chagas disease have also spread," he added. One report found that 42% of the triatomine bugs collected in and around homes in suburban Tucson, Arizona, were positive for Trypanosoma cruzi. ⁵

"As things change, the species that were further south move further north....," Elston said. "With that change in the environment come changes in the distribution of the vectors of disease and arthropods that we deal with."

Climate change is not only affecting rates of vector-borne infectious diseases but also the incidence of skin cancer. In her presentation, Eva Parker, MD, FAAD, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, discussed rising skin cancer rates that can be attributed to the effects of climate change. ⁶

"Skin cancer is one of the most common diseases that we deal with on a daily basis as dermatologists," Parker said. "We are seeing rising rates worldwide, and climate change and environmental impacts are implicated as contributory factors to this increased incidence. In the United States alone, we have over 5 million cases of skin cancer per year."

She added that incidence rates for skin cancer have gone up, with the incidence of melanoma increasing 4% to 5% per year. Parker also reminds dermatologists that UV radiation is a complete carcinogen, meaning it causes mutations that lead to skin cancer without the need for additional promoters or initiators.

This increase in UV radiation and skin cancer incidence can be attributed to stratospheric ozone depletion, according to Parker. Ambient sunlight consists of 90% to 95% UV-A and 5% to 10% UV-B. The ozone acts as a protectant against UV-C and a portion of UV-B to help plants and animals survive on Earth.

Large holes in the ozone were first discovered by British scientists in 1985, Parker said. Depletion of the ozone layer is caused by substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), bromine-containing halons and methyl bromide, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), carbon tetrachloride (CCI4), and methyl chloroform. These substances can be found in aerosols, foam products, refrigerator and air conditioning, solvent cleaning products, and sterilization.

As ozone levels decrease, more UV radiation reaches Earth's surface. "Less ozone means more UV-B reaches Earth's surface, causing more DNA damage and therefore higher rates of skin cancer," Parker said. "In fact, just a 10% reduction in stratospheric ozone is estimated to cause an additional 300,000 skin cancers."
Disclosures:
Nelson, Elston, and Parker report no relevant disclosures.
References:

1. Nelson C. Infectious diseases, vectors, and climate change. Presented at: American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience 2021; April 2021; virtual. Accessed June 9, 2021; https://www.aad.org/member/meetings-education/aadvmx/2020-library-media

2. Barker CM, Reisen WK. Epidemiology of vector-borne diseases. In: Mullen GR, Durden LA, eds. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Elsevier; 2019:33-49.

3. Beard CB, Eisen RJ, Barker CM, et al. Chapter 5: Vector-borne diseases. In: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2016. Accessed June 9, 2021. https://health2016.globalchange.gov/low/ClimateHealth2016_05_Vector_small.pdf

4. Elston D. What's changing in the environment? Presented at: American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience 2021; April 2021; virtual. Accessed June 9, 2021; https://www.aad.org/member/meetings-education/aadvmx/2020-library-media

5. Reisenman CE, Lawrence G, Guerenstein PG, Gregory T, Dotson E, Hildebrand JG. Infection of kissing bugs with Trypanosoma cruzi, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(3):400-405. doi:10.3201/eid1603.090648

6. Parker E. Climate change and skin cancer. Presented at: American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience 2021; April 2021; virtual. Accessed June 9, 2021; https://www.aad.org/member/meetings-education/aadvmx/2020-library-media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Takes Toll on Skin Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent decades, climate change has become an increasingly important issue not only for the world but for dermatologists. From an increase in specific skin diseases to the urgency for more sun protection, it's hard for dermatologists to ignore the effect climate change is having on the skin health of individuals around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/action-on-climate-is-effective-just-look-at-acid-rain-and-the-ozone-layer-1.4693694

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Action on climate is effective, just look at acid rain and the ozone layer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stuart Mathieson: International efforts can have an effect within our lifetimes

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.miragenews.com/protecting-ozone-layer-is-delivering-vast-656855/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans will be spared 443 million skin cancer cases, 63 million cataract cases

An international agreement to protect the ozone layer is expected to prevent an estimated 443 million cases of skin cancer and 63 million cases of cataracts for people born in the United States through the end of this century, according to new research.

The study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and other institutions, focused on the far-reaching impacts of a 1987 treaty known as the Montreal Protocol, including later amendments that strengthened it. The agreement phased out the use of chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons, also known as CFCs, that destroy ozone in the stratosphere.

Stratospheric ozone shields the planet from harmful levels of the sun's ultraviolet radiation, protecting life on Earth.

The study was published in  ACS Earth and Space Chemistry. NCAR is sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The scientists developed a computer modeling approach that enabled them to look at both the past and the future by simulating the treaty's impact on Americans born between 1890 and 2100. The model revealed the treaty's effect on stratospheric ozone, the associated reductions in ultraviolet radiation, and the resulting health benefits.

In addition to the number of skin cancer and cataract cases that will be prevented, the study also showed that the treaty, as most recently amended, will prevent approximately 2.3 million skin cancer deaths in the U.S.

"It's very encouraging," said NCAR scientist Julia Lee-Taylor, a co-author of the study. "It shows that, given the will, the nations of the world can come together to solve global environmental problems."

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s).View in full here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protecting ozone layer is delivering vast health benefits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans will be spared 443 million skin cancer cases, 63 million cataract cases An international agreement to protect the ozone layer is expected to prevent an estimated 443 million cases of skin cancer and 63 million cases of cataracts for people born in the United States through the end of this century, according to new research.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/amp/s/civileats.com/2021/10/06/methane-from-agriculture-is-a-big-problem-we-explain-why/amp/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methane From Agriculture Is a Big Problem. We Explain Why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Agriculture and waste are the largest sources of the greenhouse gas, which scientists say is one key to limiting catastrophic warming fast.