“The fight against the climate crisis is a fight for a more just world.”The commitment of climate scientists furious with politics

The weekly round-up on the climate crisis and data on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

What is the future of the planet?In what direction is global warming going?Is there hope to avoid the worst?Are we still in time to stop the rise in temperatures?It's causing a lot of discussion survey of Guardian which asked 380 climate scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) what they predict for the future of our planet.According to the majority of experts contacted, by 2100 global temperatures will rise by at least 2.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels, almost half a global warming of 3°C, while just 6% believe that the 1.5°C agreed with the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The limit of 1.5°C has been indicated by the international community as a threshold beyond which not to go in order to avoid it the triggering of dangerous chain effects which could irreparably damage some ecosystems of our planet with catastrophic consequences for humanity.According to a new study, the summer of 2023 was the warmest in the last two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere, outside the tropics, consistent "with a warming trend induced by greenhouse gases", and current climate policies mean that the Earth is on the right track to reach approximately 2.7°C. 

Many scientists predict a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migrations, caused by heat waves, fires, floods and storms of intensity and frequency far exceeding those that are already affecting us everywhere.

“I think we're headed for a major societal upheaval within the next five years,” says Gretta Pecl, of the University of Tasmania.“The authorities will be overwhelmed by one extreme event after another, food production will be disrupted.I couldn't feel more despair about the future."

“I am extremely concerned about the human costs,” adds Leticia Cotrim da Cunha, of the State University of Rio de Janeiro.

The most pessimistic are the younger scientists, reports the Guardian:52% of respondents under 50 expect an increase in global temperatures of at least 3°C, while those over 50 are 38%.

“Sometimes it's almost impossible not to feel hopeless and broken,” He says climate scientist Ruth Cerezo-Mota.“After all the floods, fires and droughts of the last three years around the world, all linked to climate change, and after the rampage of Hurricane Otis in Mexico, my country, I really thought that governments were ready to listen science, to act in the interest of the people", continues Cerezo-Mota, who adds:“It's very frustrating because a lot of these things could have been avoided.And it's silly to think:'Well, I don't care if Mexico gets destroyed.'We have seen these extreme events happen everywhere.There is no safe place for anyone."

Faced with such a colossal danger, why is the world's response so slow and inadequate?Experts have no doubts:over 75% of the experts interviewed in the survey call into question the inertia of governments pursuing other political and industrial paths and priorities, despite the scientific evidence provided being now clear and evident.And 60% point the finger at vested corporate interests, with clear reference to the fossil fuel industry.

“The world's response to date is reprehensible:we live in a crazy age,” commented a South African scientist, who asked to remain anonymous.

“Climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and a lack of political will and entrenched corporate interests prevent us from addressing it.I'm worried about the future my children will inherit." he claims Lorraine Whitmarsh, of the University of Bath in the United Kingdom.

“All humanity must unite and cooperate:this is a monumental opportunity to put aside differences and work together,” observes Louis Verchot, of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia.“I wonder how deep the crisis has to get before everyone starts rowing in the same direction.”

Yet many they invite not to feel overwhelmed, to continue fighting regardless of the increase in global temperature, because every fraction of a degree avoided means less human suffering.As Peter Cox, of the University of Exeter, UK:“Climate change won't suddenly become dangerous at 1.5°C - it already is.And it won't be 'game over' if we go above 2°C, which could happen."

“I am convinced that we have all the solutions needed for a 1.5°C path and that we will implement them in the next 20 years,” says Henry Neufeldt, of the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Centre.“But I fear that our actions may come too late and one or more tipping points may occur.”

However, this does not mean that we have given up and are preparing for defeat.“The good news is that the worst-case scenario is avoidable,” explains Michael Meredith of the British Antarctic Survey.“We still have the chance to build a better future from a climate perspective than what currently awaits us.”But with the awareness that "our societies will be forced to change and the suffering and damage to lives and livelihoods will be severe", he continues.“I believe in social turning points,” where small changes in society trigger large-scale climate action, adds Elena López-Gunn, of research firm Icatalist in Spain

There are many possible collective turning points identified by the experts interviewed by the Guardian.Among the actions that each of us can undertake individually, the majority (76%) indicated the moment of voting, when we elect our representatives in national parliaments and international fora.The new far-right majority in the Netherlands has already announced, for example, the intention to abandon major climate policies.

Scientists have recommended voting for politicians who are committed to taking strong climate action.From this point of view, 2024 is a very crucial year considering that there will be elections in the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Mexico, South Africa and the European Parliament will be renewed with the configuration of the new European Commission.

The area in which we can most intervene is that of transport through the transition from fossil fuel vehicles to electric and public ones.Furthermore, climate scientists strongly recommend reducing airplane flights, the most polluting activity an individual can undertake.Frequently flown “super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world's population cause half of the aviation sector's carbon emissions.Two-thirds of survey participants said they had reduced their number of flights.

Everything you need to know about electric cars

Among individual stocks, nearly 30% of experts said that eat less meat it is the most effective climate action.A slightly smaller percentage supported reducing emissions from heating or cooling homes, for example by installing heat pumps.

Laboratory-grown meat is already a reality and could drastically reduce the impact of our eating habits on the ecosystem

However, if it is true that each of us can have an impact in our own small way, individual actions can only go up to a certain point, as they are important for increasing collective awareness of the problem, as explained by Hiroyuki Enomoto, professor at the National Institute of Japan Polar Research.It is the systemic actions and policies adopted that make the difference in terms of emissions mitigation, adaptation to the effects of the climate crisis, redefinition of financing mechanisms and debt reduction of those countries particularly exposed to extreme weather events, economically vulnerable and less responsible for global warming.

“Fast and deep cuts are needed in carbon emissions from oil and gas, as well as other sectors such as transportation, which are beyond the control of any individual,” says Shobha Maharaj, a climate impact scientist from Trinidad and Tobago.“Individual action can be just a drop in the bucket:only systemic changes will be enough,” says David Wrathall, a professor at Oregon State University in the US.

So what to do?“Fighting for a fairer world” is the message of a French researcher which reflects the thoughts of most of the interviewees.“If the world, incredibly rich as it is, stands by and does nothing to address the plight of the poor, in the end we will all lose,” adds Dipak Dasgupta, economist and former consultant to the Indian government, now at the Energy and Resources Institute of New Delhi.

Climate change is a multiplier of all forms of social inequality

In addition to voting, many scientists said they have participated in climate protests, as citizens deeply concerned about global warming, and have personally engaged in projects that protect citizens from the impacts of the climate crisis.

“I work more on projects with vulnerable communities, so that they improve their adaptation to climate change, whose impacts we already experience and which will increase in the future,” said Professor Carolina Vera of the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina.

Several scientists also said they were volunteering their time as expert witnesses in climate change lawsuits, and others said they were helping groups develop new climate policies.

And it is young people who represent an open door to the future:“My only source of hope is that, as an educator, I see the next generation as being so intelligent and capable of understanding the policies that need to be undertaken,” commented Lisa Schipper, of the University of Bonn in Germany.

Words that echo in an editorial by former key UN climate negotiator Christiana Figueres, according to whom:“Stubborn optimism may be our only hope.We need to build collective awareness, a sense that change is possible, and momentum for broader systemic progress.”

The United Nations has approved a complaints and appeals procedure against the carbon market to safeguard local communities

Among the actions implemented to combat climate change, countries and energy companies can offset their carbon emissions through offsetting projects, such as, for example, the planting of land in those countries that emit less but are more exposed to the effects of climate crisis.In other words, a country or company that produces a lot of climate-changing gas emissions can obtain carbon credits and offset part of its emissions in exchange for projects.However, these actions can lead to land expropriations and have devastating effects on local communities.

This is what happened, for example, in Congo, where a compensation project of the oil giant Total brought it into crisis the local farmers, expropriated of their fields to allow the planting of trees over an area of ​​40,000 hectares and the creation of the Forest Neutral Congo (FNC).According to Total's project, the acacia trees planted on the 40 thousand hectares of land would allow the sequestration of over ten million tons of CO2 in 20 years.The project generates carbon credits that Total would use to offset some of its emissions.But the project, as witnessed by Pulchérie Amboula in an investigation by SourceMaterial and Unearthed, is having a high cost for the families of the Batéké highlands who have lived on these lands for generations

Last week the United Nations they approved an appeals and complaints procedure for the carbon credit accreditation mechanism.“We are creating new avenues to empower vulnerable communities and individuals, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights are upheld,” said Maria AlJishi, president of the body responsible for establishing the market.

Isa Mulder, a researcher at the group Carbon Market Watch, told Climate Home that the agreement on policies for contesting carbon credit projects before and after their implementation represents “a rather important step”.

The previous UN carbon market had no such procedures.

Study in Science:“Interventions to protect ecosystems work”

Globally, biodiversity it is reducing due to habitat destruction, the spread of invasive species, intensive agriculture and the effects of the climate crisis.But there is good news.The actions and measures taken in various places by local communities to reverse biodiversity loss and protect ecosystems are working.This is what emerges from one study published on Science by a team led by conservation organization Re:wild, the universities of Oxford and Kent and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, who analyzed the results of 186 studies from 665 trials of different conservation interventions globally over the course of a century.

Conservation interventions – they explain the authors of the study in an article on The Conversation – they have improved the state of biodiversity or slowed down its decline in the majority of cases (66%) compared to when nothing was done and, above all, when conservation interventions work, they are highly effective.

Among the examples cited by the study authors is the management of invasive native predators on two Florida islands, which he brought to an immediate and substantial improvement in sea turtle nesting.In the Central African countries of the Congo basin, deforestation was reduced by 74% on land subject to a forest management plan compared to those that were not.In the Brazilian Amazon, protected areas and indigenous lands they recorded significantly less deforestation and smaller fires.

Even cases in which conservation actions have failed to recover or slow the decline of species or ecosystems are useful for understanding what went wrong.For example, in India, the removal of an invasive algae he favored its spread elsewhere.In New South Wales, Australia, the creation of a marine protected area led to a decrease of seahorses because it had allowed the abundance of predatory species, such as octopuses.All information that allows you to learn from mistakes and think of new solutions.

To ensure that these interventions are even more effective, there is a need for greater funding for nature conservation, the study concludes.Over half of the world's GDP, almost 44 trillion dollars, is moderately or strongly dependent from nature. According to previous studies, a comprehensive global conservation program would require an investment of between $178 and $524 billion.By comparison, in 2022 alone, subsidies for the production and use of fossil fuels - which are ultimately destructive to nature, given that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change - they amounted to 7 trillion dollars globally.This is 13 times higher than the maximum estimate of what would be needed each year to finance the protection and restoration of biodiversity.Today, all over the world, they are invested only $121 billion per year for conservation.

Researchers at the University of California have developed a self-digesting plastic

Polyurethane is used for everything from phone cases to sneakers, but it's difficult to recycle and mostly ends up in landfill.A solution could come from the United States.Scientists at the University of California San Diego, La Jolla, they developed a “self-digesting plastic” which, according to them, could help reduce pollution.

Researchers Han Sol Kim and Jon Pokorski have developed a self-destructing plastic by incorporating spores of plastic-eating bacteria.The spores remain dormant during the life of the plastic, but become activated and begin to digest the product when exposed to nutrients from the compost.Furthermore, the spores increase the strength of the plastic.“Our process makes the material more robust, extending its life cycle,” explains Pokorski.“Then, once it's done, we're able to remove it from the environment, regardless of how it's disposed of.”

The plastic material is currently being worked on in the lab, but could be used in the real world within a few years, with the help of a manufacturer.The type of bacteria added to plastic is Bacillus subtilis, which is widely used as a food additive and probiotic.The bacterium must be genetically engineered to be able to withstand the very high temperatures needed to produce plastic.

In any case, the preferable solution remains reducing the amount of plastic used.“Solutions like this might give the impression that we should worry less about plastic pollution because any plastic that leaks into the environment degrades quickly and, ideally, safely.Yet, for the vast majority of plastic materials, this is not the case,” explains the professor.Steve Fletcher, director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth.

The most effective way to tackle plastic pollution is to agree legally binding global cuts to plastic production, concludes Fletcher.The penultimate round of United Nations talks aimed at agreeing a global deal to tackle plastic pollution has just concluded in Canada. We talked about it in the last round-up. 

Preview image via libcom.org