Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

Global average.

[Svartalf]

OK, because France was not that super hot, not saying it was below average, but I wasn't melting either.

[JimC]

Everywhere, on average...

[Svartalf]

I'm sad for those who suffered that hot a weather

[Brian Peacock]

Climate Anxiety, Maturational Loss, and Adversarial Growth, Feb 2024.

ABSTRACT

Climate anxiety is intimately connected with climate grief. This article applies interdisciplinary research and especially theories of grief and bereavement to climate anxiety. The aim is to provide important information regarding encounters between children and adults in relation to climate change and other environmental crises. This is useful for therapists, but also for many other adults who wish to react constructively. The article explores various kinds of loss and grief that people, especially children and youth, may experience in relation to climate change. It is pointed out that many intangible losses can be involved. These may be first difficult to notice, and there is often disenfranchised grief in relation to them. Climate change also produces nonfinite loss, which is challenging to live with. Literature of grief research can help in discerning these and in reacting constructively to them, but applications for the context of ecological grief have to be made. Furthermore, the article applies the framework of maturational loss into the context of climate change. While even normal developmental changes can evoke sadness, climate change can intensify this, because “climate maturity” brings many difficult things to live with. At the same time, there are possibilities of adversarial growth or post-traumatic growth because of climate anxiety, and also these need more attention. The article ends with discussion about the challenges and possibilities of encounters between adults and children amidst the complex dynamics of climate emotions. The adults have their own developmental tasks and potential maturational losses which need engagement with...

[Brian Peacock]

A couple of interesting papers I came across this week. The first, from the World Development Perspective journal, suggests that 8+ billion people could live 'good lives' on only 30% of the world's current level of consumption; and the second, from The Lancet journal of Planetary Health, discusses how the current consumption demands of the West are threatening exactly the kinds of things that would contribute to a 'good life' globally.

How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis

Abstract

Some narratives in international development hold that ending poverty and achieving good lives for all will require every country to reach the levels of GDP per capita that currently characterise high-income countries. However, this would require increasing total global output and resource use several times over, dramatically exacerbating ecological breakdown. Furthermore, universal convergence along these lines is unlikely within the imperialist structure of the existing world economy. Here we demonstrate that this dilemma can be resolved with a different approach, rooted in recent needs-based analyses of poverty and development. Strategies for development should not pursue capitalist growth and increased aggregate production as such, but should rather increase the specific forms of production that are necessary to improve capabilities and meet human needs at a high standard, while ensuring universal access to key goods and services through public provisioning and decommodification. At the same time, in high-income countries, less-necessary production should be scaled down to enable faster decarbonization and to help bring resource use back within planetary boundaries. With this approach, good lives can be achieved for all without requiring large increases in total global throughput and output. Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments. Such a future requires planning to provision public services, to deploy efficient technology, and to build sovereign industrial capacity in the global South.

(open access)

***

A just world on a safe planet: a Lancet Planetary Health–Earth Commission report on Earth-system boundaries, translations, and transformations

Executive Summary

The health of the planet and its people are at risk. The deterioration of the global commons—ie, the natural systems that support life on Earth—is exacerbating energy, food, and water insecurity, and increasing the risk of disease, disaster, displacement, and conflict. In this Commission, we quantify safe and just Earth-system boundaries (ESBs) and assess minimum access to natural resources required for human dignity and to enable escape from poverty.

Collectively, these describe a safe and just corridor that is essential to ensuring sustainable and resilient human and planetary health and thriving in the Anthropocene. We then discuss the need for translation of ESBs across scales to inform science-based targets for action by key actors (and the challenges in doing so), and conclude by identifying the system transformations necessary to bring about a safe and just future.

Our concept of the safe and just corridor advances research on planetary boundaries and the justice and Earth-system aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals. We define safe as ensuring the biophysical stability of the Earth system, and our justice principles include minimising harm, meeting minimum access needs, and redistributing resources and responsibilities to enhance human health and wellbeing. The ceiling of the safe and just corridor is defined by the more stringent of the safe and just ESBs to minimise significant harm and ensure Earth-system stability. The base of the corridor is defined by the impacts of minimum global access to food, water, energy, and infrastructure for the global population, in the domains of the variables for which we defined the ESBs. Living within the corridor is necessary, because exceeding the ESBs and not meeting basic needs threatens human health and life on Earth. However, simply staying within the corridor does not guarantee justice because within the corridor resources can also be inequitably distributed, aggravating human health and causing environmental damage. Procedural and substantive justice are necessary to ensure that the space within the corridor is justly shared.

We define eight safe and just ESBs for five domains—the biosphere (functional integrity and natural ecosystem area), climate, nutrient cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen), freshwater (surface and groundwater), and aerosols—to reduce the risk of degrading biophysical life-support systems and avoid tipping points. Seven of the ESBs have already been transgressed: functional integrity, natural ecosystem area, climate, phosphorus, nitrogen, surface water, and groundwater. The eighth ESB, air pollution, has been transgressed at the local level in many parts of the world. Although safe boundaries would ensure Earth-system stability and thus safeguard the overall biophysical conditions that have enabled humans to flourish, they do not necessarily safeguard everyone against harm or allow for minimum access to resources for all. We use the concept of Earth-system justice—which seeks to ensure wellbeing and reduce harm within and across generations, nations, and communities, and between humans and other species, through procedural and distributive justice—to assess safe boundaries. Earth-system justice recognises unequal responsibility for, and unequal exposure and vulnerability to, Earth-system changes, and also recognises unequal capacities to respond and unequal access to resources.

We also assess the extent to which safe ESBs could minimise irreversible, existential, and other major harms to human health and wellbeing through a review of who is affected at each boundary. Not all safe ESBs are just, in that they do not minimise all significant harm (eg, that associated with the climate change, aerosol, or nitrogen ESBs). Billions of people globally do not have sufficient access to energy, clean water, food, and other resources. For climate change, for example, tens of millions of people are harmed at lower levels of warming than that defined in the safe ESB, and thus to avoid significant harm would require a more stringent ESB. In other domains, the safe ESBs align with the just ESBs, although some need to be modified, or complemented with local standards, to prevent significant harm (eg, the aerosols ESB).

We examine the implications of achieving the social SDGs in 2018 through an impact modelling exercise, and quantify the minimum access to resources required for basic human dignity (level 1) as well as the minimum resources required to enable escape from poverty (level 2). We conclude that without social transformation and redistribution of natural resource use (eg, from top consumers of natural resources to those who currently do not have minimum access to these resources), meeting minimum-access levels for people living below the minimum level would increase pressures on the Earth system and the risks of further transgressions of the ESBs.

We also estimate resource-access needs for human populations in 2050 and the associated Earth-system impacts these could have. We project that the safe and just climate ESB will be overshot by 2050, even if everybody in the world lives with only the minimum required access to resources (no more, no less), unless there are transformations of, for example, the energy and food systems. Thus, a safe and just corridor will only be possible with radical societal transformations and technological changes.
Living within the safe and just corridor requires operationalisation of ESBs by key actors across all levels, which can be achieved via cross-scale translation (whereby resources and responsibilities for impact reductions are equitably shared among actors). We focus on cities and businesses because of the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth system, and their potential to take swift action and act as agents of change. We explore possible approaches for translating each ESB to cities and businesses via the sequential steps of transcription, allocation, and adjustment. We highlight how different elements of Earth-system justice can be reflected in the allocation and adjustment steps by choosing appropriate sharing approaches, informed by the governance context and broader enabling conditions.

Finally we discuss system transformations that could move humanity into a safe and just corridor and reduce risks of instability, injustice, and harm to human health. These transformations aim to minimise harm and ensure access to essential resources, while addressing the drivers of Earth-system change and vulnerability and the institutional and social barriers to systemic transformations, and include reducing and reallocating consumption, changing economic systems, technology, and governance.

(open access)

[Brian Peacock]

Entire Earth vibrated for nine days after climate-triggered mega-tsunami

A landslide and mega-tsunami in Greenland in September 2023, triggered by the climate crisis, caused the entire Earth to vibrate for nine days, a scientific investigation has found.

The seismic event was detected by earthquake sensors around the world but was so completely unprecedented that the researchers initially had no idea what had caused it. Having now solved the mystery, the scientists said it showed how global heating was already having planetary-scale impacts and that major landslides were possible in places previously believed to be stable as temperatures rapidly rose.

The collapse of a 1,200-metre-high mountain peak into the remote Dickson fjord happened on 16 September 2023 after the melting glacier below was no longer able to hold up the rock face. It triggered an initial wave 200 metres high and the subsequent sloshing of water back and forth in the twisty fjord sent seismic waves through the planet for more than a week...

[Brian Peacock]

Earth’s ‘vital signs’ show humanity’s future in balance, say climate experts

Record emissions, temperatures and population mean more scientists are looking into possibility of societal collapse, report says

Malthusian nonsense in 3, 2, 1...

[Sean Hayden]

People are stubborn, and the changes required touch on so many areas at once. Just look at cutting back on meat consumption. Have you ever been to Texas? How’s that going to happen? You might say we have a meat economy.

[macdoc]

Good overview

BOM and CSIRO State of the Climate report 2024 predicts more extreme weather as warming increases

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-31/ ... /104525682

[Brian Peacock]

People are stubborn, and the changes required touch on so many areas at once. Just look at cutting back on meat consumption. Have you ever been to Texas? How’s that going to happen? You might say we have a meat economy.

So true. At a deep level addressing climate change and global heating is a cultural issue that touches on, well, everything, from how we structure and organise our societies to our relationships with others and the natural world - all of which impacts our sense of who we are as individuals, citizens, and as members of a sentient species.

At the same time the consequences of climate change and global heating are so impactful that they're going to force all those things to be challenged and shifted anyway.

About half of greenhouse gases have been emitted since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - so we've already lost a generation to inaction. That said, it's never too late to initiate radical action - while there's still time to take it of course! - but for that to happen we need to deal with those knotty systemic and cultural sticking points. Effecting cultural change is incredibly difficult to say the least, but not impossible. Successful, meaningful change also depends on who has the power to effect change and how they go about doing it. However, fundamentally, it begins with understanding where we're starting from and where we want to end up.

So addressing the issues climate and global heating throw up has to definitely be a multi-generational project, but the systems we rely on - and with it our cultural mindsets - are simply not set-up for that kind of long-term thinking and action.

I think the only way to do this democratically is through our education systems, and by that I don't just mean changing the content of school and university curricula, but taking a good hard look at our social, political and economic assumptions about education and what and who education is for.

[pErvinalia]

We have hit 1.5C. The average for 2024 so far.

[aufbahrung]

We have hit 1.5C. The average for 2024 so far.

Been breezy here for sure

[Brian Peacock]