<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/worlds-energy-watchdog-is-undermining-climate-change-battle-critics-say-261730">Climate change</a> could directly cost the world economy $7.9 trillion by mid-century as increased drought, flooding and crop failures hamper growth and threaten infrastructure, the new analysis showed Wednesday.&nbsp;

The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Climate Change Resilience Index measured the preparedness of the world's 82 largest economies and found that based on current trends the fallout of warming temperatures would shave off three per cent of global GDP by 2050.&nbsp;

Its analysis, which assesses each country's direct exposure to loss as climate change brings more frequent extreme weather events, found Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 per cent of its GDP in the balance.&nbsp;

In general, developing nations faired poorer in terms of resiliency than richer ones.&nbsp;

"Being rich matters," John Ferguson, EIU country analysis director, told AFP.

"Richer nations are really able to be more resilient towards the impacts of climate change, so this really threatens growth trajectories of the developing world as they try to catch up with the developed world."

"When we are already dealing with global inequality, for the impacts of climate change the developing world's challenges are much greater," he added.

Of the countries evaluated, Angola stood to lose the most, as much as 6.1 per cent of gross domestic product.

The study put this down to a mixture of a lack of quality infrastructure, as well as its geographical exposure to severe drought, soil erosion and rising sea levels.&nbsp;

Land degradation in Angola would prove a "significant" economic hindrance, the report said, given that agriculture is its largest employer.

Nigeria (5.9 per cent negative GDP), Egypt (5.5 per cent), Bangladesh (5.4 per cent) and Venezuela (5.1 per cent) were the next most climate-vulnerable nations identified in the analysis.&nbsp;

Watch: Climate change triggers extreme weather events across the world

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-climate-change-triggers-extreme-weather-events-across-the-world-252909/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Act now, and later

The analysis said <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/climate-change-pandemics-biodiversity-loss-no-country-is-sufficiently-prepared-260057">rising temperatures</a> meant the global economy was projected to hit $250 trillion by 2050, as opposed to $258 trillion with no climate impact.&nbsp;

While the United States, still the world's largest economy at market rates,&nbsp;is forecast to be one of the least impacted, the EIU noted that President Donald Trump's policies represented a "temporary setback" in the climate fight.&nbsp;

Russia was predicted to lose five per cent of GDP by 2050 and will "suffer more than most other countries in the world from the negative effects of climate change", it said. This held true even when potential benefits in increased agriculture were taken into account.&nbsp;

Melting permafrost -- threatening infrastructure such as hydrocarbon pipelines, was forecast to be among the biggest drags on Russia's economy in the coming decades.&nbsp;

Nations agreed in Paris in 2015 to work to limit temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius, and 1.5-C if possible.&nbsp;

To do so, the global economy must rapidly decrease its greenhouse gas emissions,&nbsp;a source of controversy in developing nations which say their economic growth shouldn't suffer after decades of fossil fuel use by wealthier countries.&nbsp;

"The global economy is going to suffer so it's not really a case of the act now or act later. We need to do both," said Ferguson.&nbsp;

"Developing countries can't do this on their own. There needs to be a coordinated global effort to deal with the impacts we are talking about."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-amazon-fires-to-venice-floods-climate-change-triggers-a-series-of-calamities-worldwide-262312">In pictures:&nbsp;From Amazon fires to Venice floods -&nbsp;Climate change triggers a series of calamities worldwide</a>

Climate change could directly cost the world economy $7.9 trillion by mid-century as increased drought, flooding and crop failures hamper growth and threaten infrastructure, the new analysis showed Wednesday.

Climate change could directly cost the world economy $7.9 trillion by mid-century as increased drought, flooding and crop failures hamper growth and threaten infrastructure, the new analysis showed Wednesday. The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Climate Change Resilience Index measured the preparedness of the world's 82 largest economies and found that based on current trends the fallout of warming temperatures would shave off three per cent of global GDP by 2050. Its analysis, which assesses each country's direct exposure to loss as climate change brings more frequent extreme weather events, found Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 per cent of its GDP in the balance. In general, developing nations faired poorer in terms of resiliency than richer ones. "Being rich matters," John Ferguson, EIU country analysis director, told AFP. "Richer nations are really able to be more resilient towards the impacts of climate change, so this really threatens growth trajectories of the developing world as they try to catch up with the developed world." "When we are already dealing with global inequality, for the impacts of climate change the developing world's challenges are much greater," he added. Of the countries evaluated, Angola stood to lose the most, as much as 6.1 per cent of gross domestic product. The study put this down to a mixture of a lack of quality infrastructure, as well as its geographical exposure to severe drought, soil erosion and rising sea levels. Land degradation in Angola would prove a "significant" economic hindrance, the report said, given that agriculture is its largest employer. Nigeria (5.9 per cent negative GDP), Egypt (5.5 per cent), Bangladesh (5.4 per cent) and Venezuela (5.1 per cent) were the next most climate-vulnerable nations identified in the analysis. Watch: Climate change triggers extreme weather events across the world Act now, and later The analysis said rising temperatures meant the global economy was projected to hit $250 trillion by 2050, as opposed to $258 trillion with no climate impact. While the United States, still the world's largest economy at market rates, is forecast to be one of the least impacted, the EIU noted that President Donald Trump's policies represented a "temporary setback" in the climate fight. Russia was predicted to lose five per cent of GDP by 2050 and will "suffer more than most other countries in the world from the negative effects of climate change", it said. This held true even when potential benefits in increased agriculture were taken into account. Melting permafrost -- threatening infrastructure such as hydrocarbon pipelines, was forecast to be among the biggest drags on Russia's economy in the coming decades. Nations agreed in Paris in 2015 to work to limit temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius, and 1.5-C if possible. To do so, the global economy must rapidly decrease its greenhouse gas emissions, a source of controversy in developing nations which say their economic growth shouldn't suffer after decades of fossil fuel use by wealthier countries. "The global economy is going to suffer so it's not really a case of the act now or act later. We need to do both," said Ferguson. "Developing countries can't do this on their own. There needs to be a coordinated global effort to deal with the impacts we are talking about." In pictures: From Amazon fires to Venice floods - Climate change triggers a series of calamities worldwide

Climate change and its impact 'to cost world $7.9 trillion' by 2050: Study

After days of 'severe' and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-pollution-air-quality-index-remains-in-very-poor-category-for-second-consecutive-day-262655">'very poor' air quality</a>, Delhi and its nearby areas witnessed a change with AQI improving to the 'poor' category in the morning on Tuesday.

According to SAFAR, this relief from toxic air is temporary as the wind speed is going to slow down from November 20. Due to this, the air quality is likely to plunge to the 'severe' category on Thursday (November 21).

"Pollutant accumulation leading to quick deterioration is predicted by November 20th and the probability of AQI touching the lower end of SEVERE category on 21st November is high," stated the organisation in its advisory.

Today, the overall <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/govt-to-decide-extending-odd-even-if-air-quality-in-delhi-doesnt-improve-in-2-3-days-arvind-kejriwal-262285">air quality of Delhi</a> was recorded at 218, with PM 10 at 155 and PM 2.5 at 67. People of the city expressed happiness over the improved air quality. "The pollution levels have definitely come down. The air is much cleaner today," said a resident of the city.

The Center-run SAFAR has advised people to reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. "Take more breaks and do less intense activities. Asthmatics, keep medicine ready if symptoms of coughing or shortness of breath occur. Heart patients, see a doctor if you get palpitations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue," it said in an advisory.

After days of 'severe' and 'very poor' air quality, Delhi and its nearby areas witnessed a change with AQI improving to the 'poor' category in the morning on Tuesday.

After days of 'severe' and 'very poor' air quality, Delhi and its nearby areas witnessed a change with AQI improving to the 'poor' category in the morning on Tuesday. According to SAFAR, this relief from toxic air is temporary as the wind speed is going to slow down from November 20. Due to this, the air quality is likely to plunge to the 'severe' category on Thursday (November 21). "Pollutant accumulation leading to quick deterioration is predicted by November 20th and the probability of AQI touching the lower end of SEVERE category on 21st November is high," stated the organisation in its advisory. Today, the overall air quality of Delhi was recorded at 218, with PM 10 at 155 and PM 2.5 at 67. People of the city expressed happiness over the improved air quality. "The pollution levels have definitely come down. The air is much cleaner today," said a resident of the city. The Center-run SAFAR has advised people to reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. "Take more breaks and do less intense activities. Asthmatics, keep medicine ready if symptoms of coughing or shortness of breath occur. Heart patients, see a doctor if you get palpitations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue," it said in an advisory.

Air quality improves slightly in Delhi, SAFAR says relief temporary

Deputy Chief Minister Dushyant Chautala urged the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, Dr Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank to include climate change and sustainability as subjects in the education curriculum. 
 
"Keeping in view the fact that climate change is one of the major challenges being faced by developing countries including us, which has severe impact on the health of every citizen, therefore climate change and sustainability classes as a pan of curriculum in education policy should be introduced throughout the country," a press note by Chautala on Saturday read. 
 
In the letter, giving the example of Italy, the Haryana Deputy Chief Minister, said it has become the first country to include compulsory classes on climate change and sustainability in its curriculum. 
 
He also raised concern over the issue of the increasing pollution in the national capital region (NCR)&nbsp;"which had converted the whole region as gas chamber&nbsp;(sic)'', in the letter written to the Union Minister.

Deputy Chief Minister Dushyant Chautala urged the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, Dr Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank to include climate change and sustainability as subjects in the education curriculum.

Deputy Chief Minister Dushyant Chautala urged the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, Dr Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank to include climate change and sustainability as subjects in the education curriculum. "Keeping in view the fact that climate change is one of the major challenges being faced by developing countries including us, which has severe impact on the health of every citizen, therefore climate change and sustainability classes as a pan of curriculum in education policy should be introduced throughout the country," a press note by Chautala on Saturday read. In the letter, giving the example of Italy, the Haryana Deputy Chief Minister, said it has become the first country to include compulsory classes on climate change and sustainability in its curriculum. He also raised concern over the issue of the increasing pollution in the national capital region (NCR) "which had converted the whole region as gas chamber (sic)'', in the letter written to the Union Minister.

Chautala urges MHRD to include climate change, sustainability as subjects in school curriculum

Imagine a world where storms inundate coastal megacities, entire species become extinct in the blink of an eye, and conflicts are fought over dwindling natural resources.&nbsp;Not so difficult in 2019, perhaps. 
 
After a year of devastating extreme weather and worldwide unrest over the emergency posed by climate change, topics that used to belong to the realm of science fiction are finding their way into mainstream storytelling. 
 
Back in 2004, Roland Emmerich's disaster flick 'The Day After Tomorrow' depicted a global weather catastrophe, with coastal areas devoured by the sea amid general meteorological mayhem. 
 
Just 15 years on, scenes from the movie resemble images taken from real-life weather events today. 
 
And as climate change makes superstorms, flooding, wildfires and droughts more likely, a new genre is gaining fatalistic fans the world over- "Cli-fi". 
 
"It's catching on like wildfire," said US writer and cli-fi aficionado Dan Bloom. 
 
He credited US President Donald Trump, who has said he will withdraw from the Paris climate deal, with helping promote the genre.&nbsp; 
"There's a lot of people who say that climate change is not real," said Bloom. "These people are making the rest of us very angry and as a result cli-fi is getting more and more power." 
 
Andrew Milner, a professor of comparative literature at Melbourne's Monash University, said that cli-fi was yet to break out from sci-fi's yoke -- most people get into the new genre because they like the old one.

"Both its texts and practitioners -- writers, readers, publishers, film directors, fans -- relate primarily to the science-fiction tradition," he said.&nbsp; 
 
"(But) it is very clear that the sub-genre has grown very rapidly in recent years." 
 
- Global appeal - 
 
Global protest movements such as the Youth Strike for Climate and Extinction Rebellion have heightened public awareness of the issue. 
 
For J.R. Burgmann, co-author of "Science Fiction and Climate Change: A Sociological Approach", cli-fi films and novels are a logical expression of an increasingly knowledgeable and concerned society. 
 
"This rise is a response to real-world concerns," he said. "And though I would argue that literature has been rather slow to respond to manmade climate change, it certainly appears to be making up for lost time." 
 
And, because climate change is a truly global problem, cli-fi has become a worldwide, multi-lingual phenomenon. 
 
In France, two major television series focussing on dystopian but conceivable futures have received popular and critical acclaim. 
 
"The Last Wave" tells the story of 10 surfers who go missing in bad weather. When they return they can't remember what happened but some have strange new powers. 
 
And "The Collapse", set in a post-apocalyptic world where fuel is scarce, nuclear sites are threatened and medicines are rationed, debuted this week. 
 
Recent cli-fi works from around the world include "Blackout Island" by Icelandic author Sigridur Hagalin Bjornsdottir, a Canadian adaptation of Jean Hegland's "Into the Forest" and "Water Knife", by US author Paolo Bacigalupi. 
 
In "The History of Bees", Norwegian author Maja Lunde's 2017 bestseller, humanity is forced to pollinate their crops by hand after pesticides have wiped insects off the face of the Earth. 
 
"People are more and more worried about climate change and authors write about what scares them," Lunde told AFP last year. 
 
- 'Hard to ignore' - 
 
Novels and films about climate change are nothing new, of course. 
 
J.G. Ballard's "The Burning World" (1964) and John Brunner's "The Sheep Look Up" (1972) depicted a world ravaged by&nbsp;environmental damage decades before scientists fully understood manmade climate change. 
 
Even John Steinbeck's generational "The Grapes of Wrath" (1939) is essentially a tale of the harrowing ordeal undergone by climate migrants from the Oklahoma dust bowl. 
 
But, as leading cli-fi author Jean-Marc Ligny explained, greater public awareness and a seemingly unending string of drought, wildfires and heatwaves have made climate a topic that's "hard to ignore". 
 
"Climate change needs stories, and readers need them to be told," he said. "There are figures, statistics, but these don't really say anything. Cli-fi makes people more aware of the situation."

Imagine a world where storms inundate coastal megacities, entire species become extinct in the blink of an eye, and conflicts are fought over dwindling natural resources.

Imagine a world where storms inundate coastal megacities, entire species become extinct in the blink of an eye, and conflicts are fought over dwindling natural resources. Not so difficult in 2019, perhaps. After a year of devastating extreme weather and worldwide unrest over the emergency posed by climate change, topics that used to belong to the realm of science fiction are finding their way into mainstream storytelling. Back in 2004, Roland Emmerich's disaster flick 'The Day After Tomorrow' depicted a global weather catastrophe, with coastal areas devoured by the sea amid general meteorological mayhem. Just 15 years on, scenes from the movie resemble images taken from real-life weather events today. And as climate change makes superstorms, flooding, wildfires and droughts more likely, a new genre is gaining fatalistic fans the world over- "Cli-fi". "It's catching on like wildfire," said US writer and cli-fi aficionado Dan Bloom. He credited US President Donald Trump, who has said he will withdraw from the Paris climate deal, with helping promote the genre. "There's a lot of people who say that climate change is not real," said Bloom. "These people are making the rest of us very angry and as a result cli-fi is getting more and more power." Andrew Milner, a professor of comparative literature at Melbourne's Monash University, said that cli-fi was yet to break out from sci-fi's yoke -- most people get into the new genre because they like the old one. "Both its texts and practitioners -- writers, readers, publishers, film directors, fans -- relate primarily to the science-fiction tradition," he said. "(But) it is very clear that the sub-genre has grown very rapidly in recent years." - Global appeal - Global protest movements such as the Youth Strike for Climate and Extinction Rebellion have heightened public awareness of the issue. For J.R. Burgmann, co-author of "Science Fiction and Climate Change: A Sociological Approach", cli-fi films and novels are a logical expression of an increasingly knowledgeable and concerned society. "This rise is a response to real-world concerns," he said. "And though I would argue that literature has been rather slow to respond to manmade climate change, it certainly appears to be making up for lost time." And, because climate change is a truly global problem, cli-fi has become a worldwide, multi-lingual phenomenon. In France, two major television series focussing on dystopian but conceivable futures have received popular and critical acclaim. "The Last Wave" tells the story of 10 surfers who go missing in bad weather. When they return they can't remember what happened but some have strange new powers. And "The Collapse", set in a post-apocalyptic world where fuel is scarce, nuclear sites are threatened and medicines are rationed, debuted this week. Recent cli-fi works from around the world include "Blackout Island" by Icelandic author Sigridur Hagalin Bjornsdottir, a Canadian adaptation of Jean Hegland's "Into the Forest" and "Water Knife", by US author Paolo Bacigalupi. In "The History of Bees", Norwegian author Maja Lunde's 2017 bestseller, humanity is forced to pollinate their crops by hand after pesticides have wiped insects off the face of the Earth. "People are more and more worried about climate change and authors write about what scares them," Lunde told AFP last year. - 'Hard to ignore' - Novels and films about climate change are nothing new, of course. J.G. Ballard's "The Burning World" (1964) and John Brunner's "The Sheep Look Up" (1972) depicted a world ravaged by environmental damage decades before scientists fully understood manmade climate change. Even John Steinbeck's generational "The Grapes of Wrath" (1939) is essentially a tale of the harrowing ordeal undergone by climate migrants from the Oklahoma dust bowl. But, as leading cli-fi author Jean-Marc Ligny explained, greater public awareness and a seemingly unending string of drought, wildfires and heatwaves have made climate a topic that's "hard to ignore". "Climate change needs stories, and readers need them to be told," he said. "There are figures, statistics, but these don't really say anything. Cli-fi makes people more aware of the situation."

Scarier than fiction: Climate worry driving 'cli-fi' boom

India Meteorological Department to collaborate with the China Meteorological Administration and Pakistan Meteorological Department to provide forecast services. Will this unity help in Climate change?

IMD to collaborate with Chinese, Pakistan Meteorological agencies to provide forecast services

From Amazon fires to Venice floods: Climate change triggers a series of calamities worldwide

By:&nbsp;Sakshi Khandelwal and Ayushi Agarwal

Air pollution is high in more than 90 per cent of cities across the globe and climate change is already damaging the health of the world’s children, a new report revealed on Thursday.

According to the Lancet Countdown Report 2019 on Health and Climate Change, air, water, soil, and chemical pollution were responsible for 940,000 deaths of children worldwide in 2016 and two-thirds of them were under the age of 5.&nbsp;

Pollution is inequitably distributed, and the overwhelming majority of pollution-related deaths in children occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Most were due to respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases caused by polluted air and water.

WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the first Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health in 2018 called air pollution a “silent public health emergency”.&nbsp;

Air pollution annually leads to nearly 7 million premature deaths, about 4 million of which are due to outdoor air pollution. It not only shortens our life span but also affects our day-to-day life negatively. It may cause various heart and lung diseases.&nbsp;

Recent research has linked air pollution to brain cancer for the first time. A comprehensive global review earlier in 2019 concluded that air pollution may be damaging every organ and virtually every cell in the human body.

India is in the midst of an air pollution crisis. Multiple studies show over one million deaths annually in recent years in India is caused by air pollution. According to a Greenpeace study, Delhi is the most polluted capital city on the planet.

World Health Organization (WHO) reports showing that air pollution has a vast and terrible impact on child health and survival. Globally, 93% of all children live in environments with air pollution levels above the WHO guidelines. More than one in every four deaths of children under 5 years is directly or indirectly related to environmental risks. Both ambient air pollution (AAP) and household air pollution (HAP) contribute to respiratory tract infections that resulted in 543 000 deaths in children under 5 years in 2016.&nbsp;

One of the best ways to make our future generations ready is to educate them about pollution and it's adverse effects.&nbsp;

Here is a list of children around the world who have come up with ways to combat pollution and lead a healthy life:

Licypriya Kangujam and her SUKIFU (Survival Kit for the Future)&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
8-years-old Indian Climate Activist Licypriya Kangujam brings out a symbolic device called SUKIFU to curb air pollution. SUKIFU is almost zero budget kit specially designed from trash to provide fresh air into our body when the pollution rate is high.This wearable plant is recognition of the Green Movement and it would be inspiring attention for all across the globe facing deadly pollution.Anybody can build up this concept at home from the trash by recycling to instil fresh air directly into our lungs.

“This is the ultimate solution. Whoever, carry this, especially the children moving on the popular street laced with Smog, would no doubt attract a due attention of the climate experts, pollution control board members, scientists, policymakers, city/municipal commissioners and the entire generation, who are bound to ensure “Safe Future” to their “Generation Next”. This type of pollution is not acceptable by any standards," she said.

Anna Du and her Deep Plastics Initiative 
&nbsp; 
A middle school girl has developed a robot that can find microplastics in the ocean and help in reducing waste and pollution.

She was walking along Castle Island’s beach in South Boston when she noticed plastic scattered on the shoreline. She reached down to pick it up and quickly realized there were many more tiny pieces than she could handle.

“When I realized how many pieces there were, it seemed impossible,” says Du, who was in sixth grade at the time.

Geetanjali Rao and her Tethys 
&nbsp; 
A 13-year-old, who already has her name in the Forbes '30 under 30' list for her small, mobile device that tests for lead in drinking water. It detects the amount of lead present in the sample and also indicates how safe is it to drink that water. She named the device Tethys after the Greek Titan goddess of clean water.

By: Sakshi Khandelwal and Ayushi Agarwal Air pollution is high in more than 90 per cent of cities across the globe and climate change is already damaging the health of the world’s children, a new report revealed on Thursday.

By: Sakshi Khandelwal and Ayushi Agarwal Air pollution is high in more than 90 per cent of cities across the globe and climate change is already damaging the health of the world’s children, a new report revealed on Thursday. According to the Lancet Countdown Report 2019 on Health and Climate Change, air, water, soil, and chemical pollution were responsible for 940,000 deaths of children worldwide in 2016 and two-thirds of them were under the age of 5. Pollution is inequitably distributed, and the overwhelming majority of pollution-related deaths in children occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Most were due to respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases caused by polluted air and water. WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the first Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health in 2018 called air pollution a “silent public health emergency”. Air pollution annually leads to nearly 7 million premature deaths, about 4 million of which are due to outdoor air pollution. It not only shortens our life span but also affects our day-to-day life negatively. It may cause various heart and lung diseases. Recent research has linked air pollution to brain cancer for the first time. A comprehensive global review earlier in 2019 concluded that air pollution may be damaging every organ and virtually every cell in the human body. India is in the midst of an air pollution crisis. Multiple studies show over one million deaths annually in recent years in India is caused by air pollution. According to a Greenpeace study, Delhi is the most polluted capital city on the planet. World Health Organization (WHO) reports showing that air pollution has a vast and terrible impact on child health and survival. Globally, 93% of all children live in environments with air pollution levels above the WHO guidelines. More than one in every four deaths of children under 5 years is directly or indirectly related to environmental risks. Both ambient air pollution (AAP) and household air pollution (HAP) contribute to respiratory tract infections that resulted in 543 000 deaths in children under 5 years in 2016. One of the best ways to make our future generations ready is to educate them about pollution and it's adverse effects. Here is a list of children around the world who have come up with ways to combat pollution and lead a healthy life: Licypriya Kangujam and her SUKIFU (Survival Kit for the Future) 8-years-old Indian Climate Activist Licypriya Kangujam brings out a symbolic device called SUKIFU to curb air pollution. SUKIFU is almost zero budget kit specially designed from trash to provide fresh air into our body when the pollution rate is high.This wearable plant is recognition of the Green Movement and it would be inspiring attention for all across the globe facing deadly pollution.Anybody can build up this concept at home from the trash by recycling to instil fresh air directly into our lungs. “This is the ultimate solution. Whoever, carry this, especially the children moving on the popular street laced with Smog, would no doubt attract a due attention of the climate experts, pollution control board members, scientists, policymakers, city/municipal commissioners and the entire generation, who are bound to ensure “Safe Future” to their “Generation Next”. This type of pollution is not acceptable by any standards," she said. Anna Du and her Deep Plastics Initiative A middle school girl has developed a robot that can find microplastics in the ocean and help in reducing waste and pollution. She was walking along Castle Island’s beach in South Boston when she noticed plastic scattered on the shoreline. She reached down to pick it up and quickly realized there were many more tiny pieces than she could handle. “When I realized how many pieces there were, it seemed impossible,” says Du, who was in sixth grade at the time. Geetanjali Rao and her Tethys A 13-year-old, who already has her name in the Forbes '30 under 30' list for her small, mobile device that tests for lead in drinking water. It detects the amount of lead present in the sample and also indicates how safe is it to drink that water. She named the device Tethys after the Greek Titan goddess of clean water.

As climate crisis claims over 9 lakh lives, children ready to lead fight against pollution

US President Donald Trump speaking at the &nbsp;Economic Club in New York on Tuesday said that countries like "China, India and Russia are doing absolutely nothing to clean up their smokestacks and clean up all of their plants and all of the garbage that they're dropping in the sea floats into Los Angeles".

Trump who pulled the US out of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/can-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change-succeed-without-the-us-4-questions-answered-261823"> Paris climate accord </a>last year amid worldwide criticism, said, "We have a relatively small piece of land - the United States. And you compare that to some of the other countries like China, like India, like Russia, like many other countries that absolutely are doing absolutely nothing to clean up their smokestacks and clean up all of their plants and all of the garbage that they're dropping in sea and that floats into Los Angeles, along with other problems that Los Angeles has, by the way."

"But when you see this happening, it's - nobody wants to talk about it. They want to talk about our country. We have to do this. We have can't have planes any longer. We can't have cows any longer. We can't have anything."

"I said, What about China?"

Last week, the US had filed paperwork for the formal exit<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-climate-agreement-us-should-take-more-responsibility-says-china-260120"> from the Paris Agreement</a>, a one-year process to walk out of&nbsp;the global pact which aims to fight climate change even as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added said that the United States had trimmed its emissions in recent years.

Speaking in New York, the US President asserted that he was "very much into climate", adding,&nbsp;"but I want the cleanest air on the planet and I want to have - I have to have clean air-water."

Trump declared the Paris Agreement a "disaster", stating that it resulted in "trillions and trillions of dollars" of destruction to America.

"And it is so unfair. It doesn't kick in for China until 2030. Russia goes back into the 1990s, where the base year was the dirtiest year ever in the world. India, we are supposed to pay them money because they are a developing nation. I said, "We&nbsp;'re a developing nation, too."

Even as the US pulled out the Paris agreement, French President Macron and Chinese President last week signed a pact to declare the "irreversibility of the Paris Agreement."

The Paris Agreement was signed during ex-President Obama's administration promising a 26-28 per cent in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 from 2005 levels, a move which was overturned by Trump last year.

Trump campaigned in 2016 presidential polls on a promise to pull the United States out of the agreement, saying it would hurt the US economy while leaving other big polluters like China to increase emissions. The US was bound by UN rules to wait until November 4, 2019, to file exit papers which was filed last week. 
&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump speaking at the Economic Club in New York on Tuesday said that countries like "China, India and Russia are doing absolutely nothing to clean up their smokestacks and clean up all of their plants and all of the garbage that they're dropping in the sea floats into Los Angeles".

US President Donald Trump speaking at the Economic Club in New York on Tuesday said that countries like "China, India and Russia are doing absolutely nothing to clean up their smokestacks and clean up all of their plants and all of the garbage that they're dropping in the sea floats into Los Angeles". Trump who pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord last year amid worldwide criticism, said, "We have a relatively small piece of land - the United States. And you compare that to some of the other countries like China, like India, like Russia, like many other countries that absolutely are doing absolutely nothing to clean up their smokestacks and clean up all of their plants and all of the garbage that they're dropping in sea and that floats into Los Angeles, along with other problems that Los Angeles has, by the way." "But when you see this happening, it's - nobody wants to talk about it. They want to talk about our country. We have to do this. We have can't have planes any longer. We can't have cows any longer. We can't have anything." "I said, What about China?" Last week, the US had filed paperwork for the formal exit from the Paris Agreement, a one-year process to walk out of the global pact which aims to fight climate change even as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added said that the United States had trimmed its emissions in recent years. Speaking in New York, the US President asserted that he was "very much into climate", adding, "but I want the cleanest air on the planet and I want to have - I have to have clean air-water." Trump declared the Paris Agreement a "disaster", stating that it resulted in "trillions and trillions of dollars" of destruction to America. "And it is so unfair. It doesn't kick in for China until 2030. Russia goes back into the 1990s, where the base year was the dirtiest year ever in the world. India, we are supposed to pay them money because they are a developing nation. I said, "We 're a developing nation, too." Even as the US pulled out the Paris agreement, French President Macron and Chinese President last week signed a pact to declare the "irreversibility of the Paris Agreement." The Paris Agreement was signed during ex-President Obama's administration promising a 26-28 per cent in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 from 2005 levels, a move which was overturned by Trump last year. Trump campaigned in 2016 presidential polls on a promise to pull the United States out of the agreement, saying it would hurt the US economy while leaving other big polluters like China to increase emissions. The US was bound by UN rules to wait until November 4, 2019, to file exit papers which was filed last week.

Garbage dropped by China, India and Russia into the sea floats into Los Angeles: Trump

On September 23, the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit was held in New York City to bring about action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Three days before the Summit, on September 20, about 4 million people participated in climate strikes worldwide to advocate for increased climate action [1]. The strikes continued till September 27, happening in 4,500 locations across 150 countries [2].&nbsp;

In India, there were 26 events across the country, with more than 14,000 people signing up [3]. The results of the Summit were mostly positive as important commitments were made in many areas. Still, there is much work to be done, especially from the major economies. India did not pledge to reduce its use of coal, while the US did not even speak at the conference.&nbsp;

The conversation on climate change and climate action is complicated. India is forecast to become the fifth-largest economy in the world by the end of 2019 [4]. It is the fastest-growing trillion-dollar economy, with a strong emphasis on manufacturing and services. India also has the second-highest population in the world after China. Its GDP per capita is therefore much lower, only $1,982 [5]. Is it fair for developed countries (who have historically caused the most greenhouse gas emissions) to ask developing countries to cut down their emissions? Even so, how do developing countries commit to climate action without compromising their own development?&nbsp;

This brings us to development and conservation.&nbsp;

These two terms are often assumed to be in conflict with one another, as development, especially economic development, often relates to the process of modernization or industrialisation. To achieve a sustainable future, however, we need both thriving human communities and healthy natural ecosystems. It is important to realise that economic and environmental goals are not mutually exclusive, that we can and need both to survive and thrive. It is through this understanding that we have seen a rise in conservation and sustainable development.&nbsp;

The UN Sustainable Development Goals were developed in 2015 with targets to be met in 2030. Out of the 17 goals, three directly relate to the status of our natural environment: Climate Action, Life Below Water, and Life on Land. These are not isolated challenges; each of the UN Sustainable Development Goals build on one another. About 35 per cent of India’s population lives within 100 km of the coastline, making them especially vulnerable to sea-level rise from climate change. India also accounts for 7-8 per cent of the recorded species of the world, with only 2.4 per cent of the world’s land area, making it critical to conserve natural habitats and protect India’s biodiversity [6].&nbsp;

To meet these targets set by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there has been a rise in Clean Development Mechanism projects in India, along with the development of State Action Plans on Climate Change, a National Clean Energy Fund, and the National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change [7]. Additionally, India has made progress to the specific goal Life Below Water, as recorded in their 2017 Voluntary National Review Report on Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals [8].&nbsp;

Environmental conservation in India has been around since the 20th century. The most well-known legislation is the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, providing for the protection of wild animals, birds, and plants (amended later multiple times) [9]. There is also the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, with amendments made in 1988, the 1986 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) [10], and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, made to meet the obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) [11].&nbsp;

As I am placed as an AIF Clinton Fellow with the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust (MCBT) this year, I hope to delve deep into the conversation on conservation, climate action, and sustainable development in India. How effective is environmental regulation and policy? What do people think of conservation? What about climate change? What are the most effective steps to climate action in India? How do local environmental organisations fit into all of this? Where is sustainable development headed in the future? I hope to explore all of these questions and more while I am here in India. &nbsp;

(A previous version of<a href="https://aif.org/on-conservation-and-climate-part-1/"> this article</a> was originally published by the American India Foundation)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

On September 23, the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit was held in New York City to bring about action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Three days before the Summit, on September 20, about 4 million people participated in climate strikes worldwide to advocate for increased climate action [1].

On September 23, the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit was held in New York City to bring about action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Three days before the Summit, on September 20, about 4 million people participated in climate strikes worldwide to advocate for increased climate action [1]. The strikes continued till September 27, happening in 4,500 locations across 150 countries [2]. In India, there were 26 events across the country, with more than 14,000 people signing up [3]. The results of the Summit were mostly positive as important commitments were made in many areas. Still, there is much work to be done, especially from the major economies. India did not pledge to reduce its use of coal, while the US did not even speak at the conference. The conversation on climate change and climate action is complicated. India is forecast to become the fifth-largest economy in the world by the end of 2019 [4]. It is the fastest-growing trillion-dollar economy, with a strong emphasis on manufacturing and services. India also has the second-highest population in the world after China. Its GDP per capita is therefore much lower, only $1,982 [5]. Is it fair for developed countries (who have historically caused the most greenhouse gas emissions) to ask developing countries to cut down their emissions? Even so, how do developing countries commit to climate action without compromising their own development? This brings us to development and conservation. These two terms are often assumed to be in conflict with one another, as development, especially economic development, often relates to the process of modernization or industrialisation. To achieve a sustainable future, however, we need both thriving human communities and healthy natural ecosystems. It is important to realise that economic and environmental goals are not mutually exclusive, that we can and need both to survive and thrive. It is through this understanding that we have seen a rise in conservation and sustainable development. The UN Sustainable Development Goals were developed in 2015 with targets to be met in 2030. Out of the 17 goals, three directly relate to the status of our natural environment: Climate Action, Life Below Water, and Life on Land. These are not isolated challenges; each of the UN Sustainable Development Goals build on one another. About 35 per cent of India’s population lives within 100 km of the coastline, making them especially vulnerable to sea-level rise from climate change. India also accounts for 7-8 per cent of the recorded species of the world, with only 2.4 per cent of the world’s land area, making it critical to conserve natural habitats and protect India’s biodiversity [6]. To meet these targets set by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there has been a rise in Clean Development Mechanism projects in India, along with the development of State Action Plans on Climate Change, a National Clean Energy Fund, and the National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change [7]. Additionally, India has made progress to the specific goal Life Below Water, as recorded in their 2017 Voluntary National Review Report on Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals [8]. Environmental conservation in India has been around since the 20th century. The most well-known legislation is the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, providing for the protection of wild animals, birds, and plants (amended later multiple times) [9]. There is also the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, with amendments made in 1988, the 1986 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) [10], and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, made to meet the obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) [11]. As I am placed as an AIF Clinton Fellow with the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust (MCBT) this year, I hope to delve deep into the conversation on conservation, climate action, and sustainable development in India. How effective is environmental regulation and policy? What do people think of conservation? What about climate change? What are the most effective steps to climate action in India? How do local environmental organisations fit into all of this? Where is sustainable development headed in the future? I hope to explore all of these questions and more while I am here in India. (A previous version of this article was originally published by the American India Foundation) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Climate change hits India: Much work needs to be done

Extreme floods in Venice, fires in Australia and even an outbreak of plague in China have been attributed to climate change this week, while researchers have warned that global warming could saddle future generations with a life-long illness.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venice-devastated-by-second-highest-tide-in-history-261863">Venice declared a state of emergency</a> on Wednesday after "apocalyptic" floods swept through the lagoon city, flooding its historic basilica and inundating squares and centuries-old buildings.

"This is the result of climate change," city mayor Luigi Brugnaro said on Twitter.

City thoroughfares were turned into raging torrents, stone balustrades were shattered, boats tossed ashore and gondolas smashed against their moorings as the lagoon tide peaked at 187 cm (6ft 2ins).

It was the highest since the record 194 cm set in 1966, but rising water levels are becoming a regular threat to the tourist jewel.

"Venice is on its knees," said Brugnaro. "The damage will run into hundreds of millions of euros."

On the other side of the world, parts of Australia have been <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australians-shelter-and-flee-as-firefighters-battle-150-bushfires-261748">ravaged by wild bushfires</a> this week, with four people killed and communities forced to flee the flames.

Since 2016, parts of northern and inland New South Wales, along with southern Queensland, have been in a drought that the Bureau of Meteorology says is being driven, in part, by warmer sea-surface temperatures affecting rainfall patterns.

Air temperatures have also warmed over the past century, increasing the ferocity of droughts and fires.

But links between climate change and extreme weather events have become a political football in Australia.

The coal-industry supporting government accepts the need to cut emissions while arguing that stronger environmental action would cripple its economy.

That pits the country against its Pacific island neighbours which are particularly susceptible to warmer temperatures and rising seas.

Globally, concern about effective action has surged since US&nbsp;President Donald Trump abandoned the international Paris Accord on climate change and took steps to dismantle environmental protections.

Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro are among the world's only leaders who publicly question the science of climate change, despite devastating fires in their countries - in California and the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/why-are-amazon-fires-so-damaging-and-how-can-we-stop-them-245735">Amazon basin</a> - that environmentalists at least partly blame on global warming.

While the politicians argue, the concern is growing about the impact on the health of a warmer world.

In China, health officials have reported a rare outbreak of pneumonic plague after two cases were confirmed this week in Beijing.

The two were infected in the province of Inner Mongolia, where rodent populations have expanded dramatically after persistent droughts, worsened by climate change, state media said.

An area the size of the Netherlands was hit by a "rat plague" last summer.

The wider implications for health are sobering.

The Lancet medical journal published a study this week saying climate change was already harming people's health by increasing the number of extreme weather events and exacerbating air pollution.

A warmer world brings risks of food shortages, infectious diseases, floods and extreme heat.

If nothing is done, the impacts could burden an entire generation with disease and illness throughout their lives, researchers said.

"Children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks of a changing climate. Their bodies and immune systems are still developing, leaving them more susceptible to disease and environmental pollutants," said Nick Watts, one of those who led the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change study.

Health damage in early childhood is "persistent and pervasive", he warned, bringing lifelong consequences.

"Without immediate action from all countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, gains in wellbeing and life expectancy will be compromised, and climate change will come to define the health of an entire generation," he told a London briefing.

Extreme floods in Venice, fires in Australia and even an outbreak of plague in China have been attributed to climate change this week, while researchers have warned that global warming could saddle future generations with a life-long illness.

Extreme floods in Venice, fires in Australia and even an outbreak of plague in China have been attributed to climate change this week, while researchers have warned that global warming could saddle future generations with a life-long illness. Venice declared a state of emergency on Wednesday after "apocalyptic" floods swept through the lagoon city, flooding its historic basilica and inundating squares and centuries-old buildings. "This is the result of climate change," city mayor Luigi Brugnaro said on Twitter. City thoroughfares were turned into raging torrents, stone balustrades were shattered, boats tossed ashore and gondolas smashed against their moorings as the lagoon tide peaked at 187 cm (6ft 2ins). It was the highest since the record 194 cm set in 1966, but rising water levels are becoming a regular threat to the tourist jewel. "Venice is on its knees," said Brugnaro. "The damage will run into hundreds of millions of euros." On the other side of the world, parts of Australia have been ravaged by wild bushfires this week, with four people killed and communities forced to flee the flames. Since 2016, parts of northern and inland New South Wales, along with southern Queensland, have been in a drought that the Bureau of Meteorology says is being driven, in part, by warmer sea-surface temperatures affecting rainfall patterns. Air temperatures have also warmed over the past century, increasing the ferocity of droughts and fires. But links between climate change and extreme weather events have become a political football in Australia. The coal-industry supporting government accepts the need to cut emissions while arguing that stronger environmental action would cripple its economy. That pits the country against its Pacific island neighbours which are particularly susceptible to warmer temperatures and rising seas. Globally, concern about effective action has surged since US President Donald Trump abandoned the international Paris Accord on climate change and took steps to dismantle environmental protections. Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro are among the world's only leaders who publicly question the science of climate change, despite devastating fires in their countries - in California and the Amazon basin - that environmentalists at least partly blame on global warming. While the politicians argue, the concern is growing about the impact on the health of a warmer world. In China, health officials have reported a rare outbreak of pneumonic plague after two cases were confirmed this week in Beijing. The two were infected in the province of Inner Mongolia, where rodent populations have expanded dramatically after persistent droughts, worsened by climate change, state media said. An area the size of the Netherlands was hit by a "rat plague" last summer. The wider implications for health are sobering. The Lancet medical journal published a study this week saying climate change was already harming people's health by increasing the number of extreme weather events and exacerbating air pollution. A warmer world brings risks of food shortages, infectious diseases, floods and extreme heat. If nothing is done, the impacts could burden an entire generation with disease and illness throughout their lives, researchers said. "Children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks of a changing climate. Their bodies and immune systems are still developing, leaving them more susceptible to disease and environmental pollutants," said Nick Watts, one of those who led the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change study. Health damage in early childhood is "persistent and pervasive", he warned, bringing lifelong consequences. "Without immediate action from all countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, gains in wellbeing and life expectancy will be compromised, and climate change will come to define the health of an entire generation," he told a London briefing.

Flood, fire and plague: climate change blamed for disasters

By:&nbsp;Henrik Selin

1. What is the process for a country to leave the Paris Agreement? 
President Trump announced in the summer of 2017 that he intended to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, as he had pledged during the 2016 campaign. The agreement was adopted in 2015 and entered into international legal force on November 4, 2016.

Article 28 of the agreement stipulates that a member can begin a formal withdrawal process no earlier than three years after the treaty enters into force. The Trump administration took this step when it notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations on November 4, 2019, that it intends to leave.

Trump’s notice of withdrawal will become effective one year later, on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 – one day after the next presidential election.

2. What does the US exit mean for curbing climate change? 
The Trump administration’s action will have political and practical implications, but it is unclear exactly how severe they will be.

The Paris Agreement was adopted thanks in part to strong political backing from the Obama administration, and US&nbsp;disengagement now creates a political void. Other major emitters, including China and the European Union, have made it clear that they still support the treaty, but US absence will change the political dynamics.

US withdrawal makes it more important for the remaining countries to show strong political commitment to collectively implementing the treaty. At the New York Climate Action Summit in September 2019, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called on countries to accelerate action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions

“The climate emergency is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win,” Guterres said.

Many countries’ voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement are modest, and scientists estimate that taken together, they are wholly inadequate to meet stated temperature goals focused on average global temperature increases of 2 degrees Celsius and 1.5°C.

Currently, the US&nbsp;is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, producing roughly 15% of global annual carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration is rolling back relevant federal mandates and making it harder for US states such as California to take action to reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.

But the future trajectory of US greenhouse gas emissions is not determined by whether or not the country belongs to the Paris Agreement. Key factors are federal and state-level policy decisions, economic trends in energy markets and the pace of technological development. Renewable energy sources are rapidly becoming cheaper, making them more economically attractive.

Even after exiting the Paris Agreement, the United States may end up meeting its commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below the 2005 level by 2025. But that’s only a fraction of what will be required over the next few decades to constitute a serious contribution toward meeting global temperature goals. Put another way, addressing climate change will require strong efforts by all major emitters – including the US – to speed up the transition to a lower-carbon economy.

3. How many other countries have not joined the Paris Agreement? 
Currently 186 countries – counting the US – plus the European Union are parties to the Paris Agreement. When the US leaves, it will join a short but eclectic list of nations that have signed but not ratified the agreement, including Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, South Sudan, Turkey and Yemen.

4. Can the US rejoin the Paris Agreement? 
Yes. The pact sets out procedures for both leaving and joining the treaty after its entry into force.

Article 21 states that a country that is not a party to the agreement can join it by submitting a formal notification, which will take effect 30 days later. This procedure is the same whether a country used to be a party and then withdrew, or is joining for the first time.

If a candidate other than President Trump wins the 2020 election, he or she will take office on January 20, 2021 and could serve notice that day that the US planned to rejoin the Paris Agreement. In this scenario, the United States could be back by late February of 2021, less than four months after President Trump’s move to withdraw becomes official.

However, when the US joined the Paris Agreement in late 2015, the Obama administration made a legal assessment that this decision was up to the president, classifying it as an executive agreement that did not require Senate approval or changes to US domestic laws. If a future return were conditioned on Senate ratification, it is highly unlikely that it would receive the necessary 67 votes, due to strong opposition mainly from Republican senators.

Even if the United States does rejoin the Paris Agreement in the future, other countries will remember that it unilaterally left an agreement that had global support and may well believe that the US could do so again in the future. America’s reputation as a reliable international partner has already suffered damage that will take a long time to repair.

(Henrik Selin is an Associate Professor in the Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change-succeed-without-the-us-4-questions-answered-126477">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

&nbsp;

By: Henrik Selin 1. What is the process for a country to leave the Paris Agreement? President Trump announced in the summer of 2017 that he intended to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, as he had pledged during the 2016 campaign.

By: Henrik Selin 1. What is the process for a country to leave the Paris Agreement? President Trump announced in the summer of 2017 that he intended to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, as he had pledged during the 2016 campaign. The agreement was adopted in 2015 and entered into international legal force on November 4, 2016. Article 28 of the agreement stipulates that a member can begin a formal withdrawal process no earlier than three years after the treaty enters into force. The Trump administration took this step when it notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations on November 4, 2019, that it intends to leave. Trump’s notice of withdrawal will become effective one year later, on Wednesday, November 4, 2020 – one day after the next presidential election. 2. What does the US exit mean for curbing climate change? The Trump administration’s action will have political and practical implications, but it is unclear exactly how severe they will be. The Paris Agreement was adopted thanks in part to strong political backing from the Obama administration, and US disengagement now creates a political void. Other major emitters, including China and the European Union, have made it clear that they still support the treaty, but US absence will change the political dynamics. US withdrawal makes it more important for the remaining countries to show strong political commitment to collectively implementing the treaty. At the New York Climate Action Summit in September 2019, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called on countries to accelerate action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions “The climate emergency is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win,” Guterres said. Many countries’ voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement are modest, and scientists estimate that taken together, they are wholly inadequate to meet stated temperature goals focused on average global temperature increases of 2 degrees Celsius and 1.5°C. Currently, the US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, producing roughly 15% of global annual carbon dioxide emissions. In addition to pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration is rolling back relevant federal mandates and making it harder for US states such as California to take action to reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. But the future trajectory of US greenhouse gas emissions is not determined by whether or not the country belongs to the Paris Agreement. Key factors are federal and state-level policy decisions, economic trends in energy markets and the pace of technological development. Renewable energy sources are rapidly becoming cheaper, making them more economically attractive. Even after exiting the Paris Agreement, the United States may end up meeting its commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below the 2005 level by 2025. But that’s only a fraction of what will be required over the next few decades to constitute a serious contribution toward meeting global temperature goals. Put another way, addressing climate change will require strong efforts by all major emitters – including the US – to speed up the transition to a lower-carbon economy. 3. How many other countries have not joined the Paris Agreement? Currently 186 countries – counting the US – plus the European Union are parties to the Paris Agreement. When the US leaves, it will join a short but eclectic list of nations that have signed but not ratified the agreement, including Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, South Sudan, Turkey and Yemen. 4. Can the US rejoin the Paris Agreement? Yes. The pact sets out procedures for both leaving and joining the treaty after its entry into force. Article 21 states that a country that is not a party to the agreement can join it by submitting a formal notification, which will take effect 30 days later. This procedure is the same whether a country used to be a party and then withdrew, or is joining for the first time. If a candidate other than President Trump wins the 2020 election, he or she will take office on January 20, 2021 and could serve notice that day that the US planned to rejoin the Paris Agreement. In this scenario, the United States could be back by late February of 2021, less than four months after President Trump’s move to withdraw becomes official. However, when the US joined the Paris Agreement in late 2015, the Obama administration made a legal assessment that this decision was up to the president, classifying it as an executive agreement that did not require Senate approval or changes to US domestic laws. If a future return were conditioned on Senate ratification, it is highly unlikely that it would receive the necessary 67 votes, due to strong opposition mainly from Republican senators. Even if the United States does rejoin the Paris Agreement in the future, other countries will remember that it unilaterally left an agreement that had global support and may well believe that the US could do so again in the future. America’s reputation as a reliable international partner has already suffered damage that will take a long time to repair. (Henrik Selin is an Associate Professor in the Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can the Paris Agreement on climate change succeed without the US? 4 questions answered

A short walk from the Eiffel Tower, Fatih Birol oversees the world’s energy watchdog, whose analyses of fuel demand have long been viewed as the gold standard by government officials, energy executives and investors.

But now, the Turkish economist and the International Energy Agency (IEA) he heads are facing mounting pressure from groups concerned about climate change – including investors, scientists and former United Nations diplomats - over the organisation's widely watched annual outlook.

The World Energy Outlook, due to be published Wednesday, shapes expectations among governments, companies and investors over the future use of coal, oil and gas.

The critics say it underplays the speed at which the world could switch to renewable sources of energy. The result, they say, is to bolster the case for continued investment in fossil fuel companies, undermining the fight against climate change.

"The IEA is effectively creating its own reality. They project ever-increasing demand for fossil fuels, which in turn justifies greater investments in supply, making it harder for the energy system to change," said Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a US&nbsp;non-profit group that promotes environmentally-friendly business.

Senior IEA officials say they share concerns over climate change but defend their organisation's work, saying the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of what the World Energy Outlook intends to show. They say the goal of the publication is to help governments assess the likely consequences of existing energy policies, not forecast what the world’s energy system will look like decades into the future.

The IEA,&nbsp;which is mainly funded by industrialized nations including the United States, Germany and Japan, advises governments on energy policy.

“If they criticise us, the only option that comes to my mind is that they don’t know exactly what we are doing,” said 61-year old Birol during an interview at the IEA’s headquarters in Paris last week. “They must be misunderstood, or they must have been misled.”

IEA officials also say there is also some wishful thinking about how quickly the transition to cleaner energy could happen.

"A lot of times people want to believe there's some simple lever that you push: 'change the IEA and the world will be better,"&nbsp;said David Turk, who had been a senior climate official in former US&nbsp;President Barack Obama’s administration and now heads the IEA's strategic initiatives office.

The IEA has long faced criticism from other energy analysts who say the outlook has failed to capture dramatic falls in the cost of solar power. Tim Buckley, a Sydney-based analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis think tank, said the cost in the United States had fallen to below $40 per megawatt-hour this year but the last World Energy Outlook implied a current figure closer to $90.

The IEA says much of the dramatic expansion of the solar industry has been driven by policy changes in China, which the outlook was not designed to predict, and that projections in other areas had proved accurate.

The increased scrutiny of the World Energy Outlook shows how the once esoteric subject of energy modelling is becoming a focus of the mainstream investment community as worries over climate change intensify.

Concerns among fund managers about the implications for their investments escalated after the world’s climate scientists issued a landmark U.N.-backed report late last year offering a stark assessment of the likely consequences of rising global temperatures.

The report said the worst effects could be averted by limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above the levels of pre-industrial times. That target is the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the global pact to curb global warming.

Birol was instrumental in developing the models used to compile the World Energy Outlook during his previous role as the agency’s chief economist. The outlook is published each year with a different cover featuring the yellow and red colours of Birol's favourite soccer club, Istanbul-based Galatasaray.

The publication’s main report, or scenario, maps how demand for different forms of energy would evolve over the next couple of decades based on existing government policy commitments. Some critics say that because it doesn’t take account of the likelihood that governments will take more drastic action to curb emissions, it means projections will inevitably be conservative.

IEA officials emphasised that the outlook is not a forecast, rather it explores the implications of existing policies, which is made clear in the introduction.

Another scenario, called the Sustainable Development Scenario, aims to show how the global balance of renewable energy and fossil fuel would need to change to meet the temperature goals of the Paris accord, cut air pollution and expand access to electricity for the world’s poor.

Investors and climate activists are lobbying Birol to include a scenario that uses the most ambitious Paris Agreement target of a 1.5 Celsius increase. In the last outlook, the Sustainable Development Scenario implied warming of about 1.7 to 1.8 degree Celsius.

Investors say using the more ambitious target could spur a faster switch to renewables by showing the financial markets a path for meeting the goal.

Among those pressing Birol for that change is a group of institutional investors representing $30 trillion of assets under management, called the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.

In a previously unreported letter sent to Birol earlier this year, the group said that appropriate scenarios are important to institutional investors for understanding their exposure to climate risks and deciding how to allocate capital. The IEA’s scenarios “materially impact expectations for future investment returns,” the investors wrote.

Birol, who downplays the extent to which the outlook guides investment decisions, said the next World Energy Outlook takes the latest findings of climate science into account. The IEA in comments on its website last month said that it will explore a path with a 50 per cent&nbsp;chance of stabilising warming at 1.5 degree Celsius without relying heavily on still early-stage techniques for sucking carbon from the atmosphere.

The Sustainable Development Scenario will be “more stringent” than in the previous outlook, Laura Cozzi, the IEA’s chief energy modeller, told Reuters. IEA officials said it was very challenging to model a scenario of a 1.5 degree Celsius rise given the amount of existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

In April, Birol received a separate letter expressing similar demands from more than 60 signatories, including leading climate scientists and former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres as well as several large asset managers, including UK-based asset manager Legal &amp; General Investment Management Ltd. and Sarasin &amp; Partners LLP.

The letter also urged Birol to make clear that the outlook’s main scenario, which had been called the New Policies Scenario and reflects governments’ existing climate pledges, is a “business as usual scenario” that would lead to a rise of between 2.7 and 3 degree Celsius.

In the comments on its website, the IEA said it would rename its main report the Stated Policies Scenario to clarify it reflected existing commitments.

The groups pushing for change welcomed the name change but said they would study the new outlook when it is published to reach firmer conclusions.

A short walk from the Eiffel Tower, Fatih Birol oversees the world’s energy watchdog, whose analyses of fuel demand have long been viewed as the gold standard by government officials, energy executives and investors.

A short walk from the Eiffel Tower, Fatih Birol oversees the world’s energy watchdog, whose analyses of fuel demand have long been viewed as the gold standard by government officials, energy executives and investors. But now, the Turkish economist and the International Energy Agency (IEA) he heads are facing mounting pressure from groups concerned about climate change – including investors, scientists and former United Nations diplomats - over the organisation's widely watched annual outlook. The World Energy Outlook, due to be published Wednesday, shapes expectations among governments, companies and investors over the future use of coal, oil and gas. The critics say it underplays the speed at which the world could switch to renewable sources of energy. The result, they say, is to bolster the case for continued investment in fossil fuel companies, undermining the fight against climate change. "The IEA is effectively creating its own reality. They project ever-increasing demand for fossil fuels, which in turn justifies greater investments in supply, making it harder for the energy system to change," said Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a US non-profit group that promotes environmentally-friendly business. Senior IEA officials say they share concerns over climate change but defend their organisation's work, saying the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of what the World Energy Outlook intends to show. They say the goal of the publication is to help governments assess the likely consequences of existing energy policies, not forecast what the world’s energy system will look like decades into the future. The IEA, which is mainly funded by industrialized nations including the United States, Germany and Japan, advises governments on energy policy. “If they criticise us, the only option that comes to my mind is that they don’t know exactly what we are doing,” said 61-year old Birol during an interview at the IEA’s headquarters in Paris last week. “They must be misunderstood, or they must have been misled.” IEA officials also say there is also some wishful thinking about how quickly the transition to cleaner energy could happen. "A lot of times people want to believe there's some simple lever that you push: 'change the IEA and the world will be better," said David Turk, who had been a senior climate official in former US President Barack Obama’s administration and now heads the IEA's strategic initiatives office. The IEA has long faced criticism from other energy analysts who say the outlook has failed to capture dramatic falls in the cost of solar power. Tim Buckley, a Sydney-based analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis think tank, said the cost in the United States had fallen to below $40 per megawatt-hour this year but the last World Energy Outlook implied a current figure closer to $90. The IEA says much of the dramatic expansion of the solar industry has been driven by policy changes in China, which the outlook was not designed to predict, and that projections in other areas had proved accurate. The increased scrutiny of the World Energy Outlook shows how the once esoteric subject of energy modelling is becoming a focus of the mainstream investment community as worries over climate change intensify. Concerns among fund managers about the implications for their investments escalated after the world’s climate scientists issued a landmark U.N.-backed report late last year offering a stark assessment of the likely consequences of rising global temperatures. The report said the worst effects could be averted by limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above the levels of pre-industrial times. That target is the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the global pact to curb global warming. Birol was instrumental in developing the models used to compile the World Energy Outlook during his previous role as the agency’s chief economist. The outlook is published each year with a different cover featuring the yellow and red colours of Birol's favourite soccer club, Istanbul-based Galatasaray. The publication’s main report, or scenario, maps how demand for different forms of energy would evolve over the next couple of decades based on existing government policy commitments. Some critics say that because it doesn’t take account of the likelihood that governments will take more drastic action to curb emissions, it means projections will inevitably be conservative. IEA officials emphasised that the outlook is not a forecast, rather it explores the implications of existing policies, which is made clear in the introduction. Another scenario, called the Sustainable Development Scenario, aims to show how the global balance of renewable energy and fossil fuel would need to change to meet the temperature goals of the Paris accord, cut air pollution and expand access to electricity for the world’s poor. Investors and climate activists are lobbying Birol to include a scenario that uses the most ambitious Paris Agreement target of a 1.5 Celsius increase. In the last outlook, the Sustainable Development Scenario implied warming of about 1.7 to 1.8 degree Celsius. Investors say using the more ambitious target could spur a faster switch to renewables by showing the financial markets a path for meeting the goal. Among those pressing Birol for that change is a group of institutional investors representing $30 trillion of assets under management, called the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. In a previously unreported letter sent to Birol earlier this year, the group said that appropriate scenarios are important to institutional investors for understanding their exposure to climate risks and deciding how to allocate capital. The IEA’s scenarios “materially impact expectations for future investment returns,” the investors wrote. Birol, who downplays the extent to which the outlook guides investment decisions, said the next World Energy Outlook takes the latest findings of climate science into account. The IEA in comments on its website last month said that it will explore a path with a 50 per cent chance of stabilising warming at 1.5 degree Celsius without relying heavily on still early-stage techniques for sucking carbon from the atmosphere. The Sustainable Development Scenario will be “more stringent” than in the previous outlook, Laura Cozzi, the IEA’s chief energy modeller, told Reuters. IEA officials said it was very challenging to model a scenario of a 1.5 degree Celsius rise given the amount of existing fossil fuel infrastructure. In April, Birol received a separate letter expressing similar demands from more than 60 signatories, including leading climate scientists and former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres as well as several large asset managers, including UK-based asset manager Legal & General Investment Management Ltd. and Sarasin & Partners LLP. The letter also urged Birol to make clear that the outlook’s main scenario, which had been called the New Policies Scenario and reflects governments’ existing climate pledges, is a “business as usual scenario” that would lead to a rise of between 2.7 and 3 degree Celsius. In the comments on its website, the IEA said it would rename its main report the Stated Policies Scenario to clarify it reflected existing commitments. The groups pushing for change welcomed the name change but said they would study the new outlook when it is published to reach firmer conclusions.

World's energy watchdog is undermining climate change battle, critics say

New Zealand has placed itself on the right side of history in the battle against climate change. NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday after lawmakers adopted a measure to cut carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050.

New Zealand lawmakers adopted measure to cut-down carbon emissions to net zero by 2050

New Zealand has placed itself on the right side of history in the battle against climate change, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday (November 7), after lawmakers adopted a measure to cut carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050.

"Our world is warming, and so, therefore, the question for all of us is, 'what side of history will we choose to sit on in that moment in time?' I absolutely believe and continue to stand by this statement that Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. And for us in Aotearoa, New Zealand, that means for this generation this is our nuclear moment.&nbsp;We have made a choice that I am proud of, that will leave a legacy and that I hope means the next generation will see that we, in New Zealand, were on the right side of history," she said on the floor of the parliament.

Thursday's framework enshrines in law the new 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target and makes it a legally binding objective to keep global warming below a rise of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/limiting-global-warming-to-15-will-require-a-social-transformation-170375">1.5 degrees</a> Celsius forecast by the United Nations.

The bill, spearheaded by her centre-left Labour-led coalition government, was passed with cross-party support from the main opposition National Party, despite changes promised by the latter if it wins the next election in 2020.

The bill accords different treatment to methane emissions from animals versus other greenhouse gases, but still targets a cut of 10 percent&nbsp;in biological methane by 2030 and up to 47 percent&nbsp;by 2050.

New Zealand has placed itself on the right side of history in the battle against climate change, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday (November 7), after lawmakers adopted a measure to cut carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050.

New Zealand has placed itself on the right side of history in the battle against climate change, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday (November 7), after lawmakers adopted a measure to cut carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050. "Our world is warming, and so, therefore, the question for all of us is, 'what side of history will we choose to sit on in that moment in time?' I absolutely believe and continue to stand by this statement that Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. And for us in Aotearoa, New Zealand, that means for this generation this is our nuclear moment. We have made a choice that I am proud of, that will leave a legacy and that I hope means the next generation will see that we, in New Zealand, were on the right side of history," she said on the floor of the parliament. Thursday's framework enshrines in law the new 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target and makes it a legally binding objective to keep global warming below a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius forecast by the United Nations. The bill, spearheaded by her centre-left Labour-led coalition government, was passed with cross-party support from the main opposition National Party, despite changes promised by the latter if it wins the next election in 2020. The bill accords different treatment to methane emissions from animals versus other greenhouse gases, but still targets a cut of 10 percent in biological methane by 2030 and up to 47 percent by 2050.

New Zealand passes law aiming for net zero carbon emissions by 2050

As many as 11,000 scientists from across 153 countries have released a report that concludes that the world is indeed in a state of climate emergency.

The report suggests if we do not make immediate changes to our way of lifestyle, mankind will be met with untold suffering.

The authors of the report maintain that climate change should be tracked using graphic indicators, such as livestock population, tree cover loss and meat production, and not just through heat signatures on the surface of the earth.

The authors also slammed world leaders for not being able to move ahead of world summits and negotiations when it comes to dealing with climate change.

It's been almost 40 years since the first climate summit in Geneva but business continues as usual, says William Ripple, the scientist who spearheaded the report.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/climate-alert-more-than-11000-scientists-globally-declare-climate-emergency-260272/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The report identifies few indicators that pose a threat to climate sustainability.

Livestock population is one of them. A cut-throat race to increase national GDP among nations, growing meat production in the market and even the bump in the number of air passengers over the past two decades have been contributing to climate change.

The usual suspect - fossil fuels - also feature&nbsp;on the list. Per capita production of fossil fuel continues to rise, despite the emergence of cleaner alternatives.

But it's not all gloom and doom, there are some encouraging signs as well.

Birth rates have started coming down in the last decade, researchers say. Consumption of solar and wind energy has increased 373 per cent - 28 times smaller than fossil fuel consumption.

Unlike other reports, this one also sets out possible remedies and corrective measures. These include the imposition of a carbon fee, changes in our diet and in our relationship with nature.

As many as 11,000 scientists from across 153 countries have released a report that concludes that the world is indeed in a state of climate emergency. The report suggests if we do not make immediate changes to our way of lifestyle, mankind will be met with untold suffering.

As many as 11,000 scientists from across 153 countries have released a report that concludes that the world is indeed in a state of climate emergency. The report suggests if we do not make immediate changes to our way of lifestyle, mankind will be met with untold suffering. The authors of the report maintain that climate change should be tracked using graphic indicators, such as livestock population, tree cover loss and meat production, and not just through heat signatures on the surface of the earth. The authors also slammed world leaders for not being able to move ahead of world summits and negotiations when it comes to dealing with climate change. It's been almost 40 years since the first climate summit in Geneva but business continues as usual, says William Ripple, the scientist who spearheaded the report. × The report identifies few indicators that pose a threat to climate sustainability. Livestock population is one of them. A cut-throat race to increase national GDP among nations, growing meat production in the market and even the bump in the number of air passengers over the past two decades have been contributing to climate change. The usual suspect - fossil fuels - also feature on the list. Per capita production of fossil fuel continues to rise, despite the emergence of cleaner alternatives. But it's not all gloom and doom, there are some encouraging signs as well. Birth rates have started coming down in the last decade, researchers say. Consumption of solar and wind energy has increased 373 per cent - 28 times smaller than fossil fuel consumption. Unlike other reports, this one also sets out possible remedies and corrective measures. These include the imposition of a carbon fee, changes in our diet and in our relationship with nature.

11,000 scientists caution against climate emergency, warn of unavoidable human suffering

By Gabriel Recchia and Haydn Belfield

There’s little that the left and the right agree on these days. But surely one thing is beyond question: that national governments must protect citizens from the gravest threats and risks they face. Although our government, wherever we are in the world, may not be able to save everyone from a pandemic or protect people and infrastructure from a devastating cyberattack, surely they have thought through these risks in advance and have well-funded, adequately practiced plans?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is an emphatic no.

Not all policy areas are subject to this challenge. National defence establishments, for example, often have the frameworks and processes that facilitate policy decisions for extreme risks. But more often than not, and on more issues than not, governments fail to imagine how worst-case scenarios can come about – much less plan for them. Governments have never been able to divert significant attention from the here and happening to the future and uncertain.

A recent report published by Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk argues that this needs to change. If even only one catastrophic risk manifests – whether through nature, accident or intention – it would harm human security, prosperity and potential on a scale never before seen in human history. There are concrete steps governments can take to address this, but they are currently being neglected.

The risks that we face today are many and varied. They include:

1. Tipping points in the environmental system due to climate change or mass biodiversity loss. 
2. Malicious, or accidentally harmful, use of artificial intelligence. 
3. Malicious use of, or unintended consequences from, advanced biotechnologies. 
4. A natural or engineered global pandemic. 
5. Intentional, miscalculated, or accidental use of nuclear weapons.

Each of these global catastrophic risks could cause unprecedented harm. A pandemic, for example, could speed around our hyper-connected world, threatening hundreds of millions – potentially billions – of people. In this globalised world of just-in-time delivery and global supply chains, we are more vulnerable to disruption than ever before. And the secondary effects of instability, mass migration and unrest may be comparably destructive. If any of these events occurred, we would pass on a diminished, fearful and wounded world to our descendants.

So how did we come to be so woefully unprepared, and what, if anything, can our governments do to make us safer?

A modern problem 
 
Dealing with catastrophic risks on a global scale is a particularly modern problem. The risks themselves are a result of modern trends in population, information, politics, warfare, technology, climate and environmental damage.

These risks are a problem for governments that are set up around traditional threats. Defence forces were built to protect from external menaces, mostly foreign invading forces. Domestic security agencies became increasingly significant in the 20th century, as threats to sovereignty and security – such as organised crime, domestic terrorism, extreme political ideologies and sophisticated espionage – increasingly came from inside national borders.

Unfortunately, these traditional threats are no longer the greatest concern today. Risks arising from the domains of technology, environment, biology and warfare don’t fall neatly into government’s view of the world. Instead, they are varied, global, complex and catastrophic.

As a result, these risks are currently not a priority for governments. Individually, they are quite unlikely. And such low-probability high-impact events are difficult to mobilise a response to. In addition, their unprecedented nature means we haven’t yet been taught a sharp lesson in the need to prepare for them. Many of the risks could take decades to arise, which conflicts with typical political time scales.

Governments, and the bureaucracies that support them, are not positioned to handle what’s coming. They don’t have the right incentives or skill sets to manage extreme risks, at least beyond natural disasters and military attacks. They are often stuck on old problems, and struggle to be agile to what’s new or emerging. Risk management as a practice is not a government’s strength. And technical expertise, especially on these challenging problem sets, tends to reside outside government.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that any attempt to tackle these risks is not nationally confined: it would benefit everyone in the world – and indeed future generations. When the benefits are dispersed and the costs immediate, it is tempting to coast and hope others will pick up the slack.

Time to act 
 
Despite these daunting challenges, governments have the capability and responsibility to increase national readiness for extreme events.

The first step is for governments to improve their own understanding of the risks. Developing a better understanding of extreme risks is not as simple as conducting better analysis or more research. It requires a whole-of-government framework with explicit strategies for understanding the types of risks we face, as well as their causes, impacts, probabilities and time scales.

With this plan, governments can chart more secure and prosperous futures for their citizens, even if the most catastrophic possibilities never come to pass.

Governments around the world are already working towards improving their understanding of risk. For example, the United Kingdom is a world leader in applying an all-hazard national risk assessment process. This assessment ensures governments understand all the hazards – natural disasters, pandemics, cyber attacks, space weather, infrastructure collapse – that their country faces. It helps local first responders to prepare for the most damaging scenarios.

Finland’s Committee for the Future, meanwhile, is an example of a parliamentary select committee that injects a dose of much-needed long-term thinking into domestic policy. It acts as a think tank for futures, science and technology policy and provides advice on legislation coming forward that has an impact on Finland’s long-range future.

And Singapore’s Centre for Strategic Futures is leading in “horizon scanning”, a set of methods that helps people think about the future and potential scenarios. This is not prediction. It’s thinking about what might be coming around the corner, and using that knowledge to inform policy.

But these actions are few and far between.

We need all governments to put more energy towards understanding the risks, and acting on that knowledge. Some countries may even need grand changes to their political and economic systems, a level of change that typically only occurs after a catastrophe. We cannot – and do not have to – wait for these structural changes or for a global crisis. Forward-leaning leaders must act now to better understand the risks that their countries face.

(Gabriel Recchia is Research Associate, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge; Haydn Belfield&nbsp;Research Associate, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-pandemics-biodiversity-loss-no-country-is-sufficiently-prepared-123466">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Gabriel Recchia and Haydn Belfield There’s little that the left and the right agree on these days. But surely one thing is beyond question: that national governments must protect citizens from the gravest threats and risks they face.

By Gabriel Recchia and Haydn Belfield There’s little that the left and the right agree on these days. But surely one thing is beyond question: that national governments must protect citizens from the gravest threats and risks they face. Although our government, wherever we are in the world, may not be able to save everyone from a pandemic or protect people and infrastructure from a devastating cyberattack, surely they have thought through these risks in advance and have well-funded, adequately practiced plans? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is an emphatic no. Not all policy areas are subject to this challenge. National defence establishments, for example, often have the frameworks and processes that facilitate policy decisions for extreme risks. But more often than not, and on more issues than not, governments fail to imagine how worst-case scenarios can come about – much less plan for them. Governments have never been able to divert significant attention from the here and happening to the future and uncertain. A recent report published by Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk argues that this needs to change. If even only one catastrophic risk manifests – whether through nature, accident or intention – it would harm human security, prosperity and potential on a scale never before seen in human history. There are concrete steps governments can take to address this, but they are currently being neglected. The risks that we face today are many and varied. They include: 1. Tipping points in the environmental system due to climate change or mass biodiversity loss. 2. Malicious, or accidentally harmful, use of artificial intelligence. 3. Malicious use of, or unintended consequences from, advanced biotechnologies. 4. A natural or engineered global pandemic. 5. Intentional, miscalculated, or accidental use of nuclear weapons. Each of these global catastrophic risks could cause unprecedented harm. A pandemic, for example, could speed around our hyper-connected world, threatening hundreds of millions – potentially billions – of people. In this globalised world of just-in-time delivery and global supply chains, we are more vulnerable to disruption than ever before. And the secondary effects of instability, mass migration and unrest may be comparably destructive. If any of these events occurred, we would pass on a diminished, fearful and wounded world to our descendants. So how did we come to be so woefully unprepared, and what, if anything, can our governments do to make us safer? A modern problem Dealing with catastrophic risks on a global scale is a particularly modern problem. The risks themselves are a result of modern trends in population, information, politics, warfare, technology, climate and environmental damage. These risks are a problem for governments that are set up around traditional threats. Defence forces were built to protect from external menaces, mostly foreign invading forces. Domestic security agencies became increasingly significant in the 20th century, as threats to sovereignty and security – such as organised crime, domestic terrorism, extreme political ideologies and sophisticated espionage – increasingly came from inside national borders. Unfortunately, these traditional threats are no longer the greatest concern today. Risks arising from the domains of technology, environment, biology and warfare don’t fall neatly into government’s view of the world. Instead, they are varied, global, complex and catastrophic. As a result, these risks are currently not a priority for governments. Individually, they are quite unlikely. And such low-probability high-impact events are difficult to mobilise a response to. In addition, their unprecedented nature means we haven’t yet been taught a sharp lesson in the need to prepare for them. Many of the risks could take decades to arise, which conflicts with typical political time scales. Governments, and the bureaucracies that support them, are not positioned to handle what’s coming. They don’t have the right incentives or skill sets to manage extreme risks, at least beyond natural disasters and military attacks. They are often stuck on old problems, and struggle to be agile to what’s new or emerging. Risk management as a practice is not a government’s strength. And technical expertise, especially on these challenging problem sets, tends to reside outside government. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that any attempt to tackle these risks is not nationally confined: it would benefit everyone in the world – and indeed future generations. When the benefits are dispersed and the costs immediate, it is tempting to coast and hope others will pick up the slack. Time to act Despite these daunting challenges, governments have the capability and responsibility to increase national readiness for extreme events. The first step is for governments to improve their own understanding of the risks. Developing a better understanding of extreme risks is not as simple as conducting better analysis or more research. It requires a whole-of-government framework with explicit strategies for understanding the types of risks we face, as well as their causes, impacts, probabilities and time scales. With this plan, governments can chart more secure and prosperous futures for their citizens, even if the most catastrophic possibilities never come to pass. Governments around the world are already working towards improving their understanding of risk. For example, the United Kingdom is a world leader in applying an all-hazard national risk assessment process. This assessment ensures governments understand all the hazards – natural disasters, pandemics, cyber attacks, space weather, infrastructure collapse – that their country faces. It helps local first responders to prepare for the most damaging scenarios. Finland’s Committee for the Future, meanwhile, is an example of a parliamentary select committee that injects a dose of much-needed long-term thinking into domestic policy. It acts as a think tank for futures, science and technology policy and provides advice on legislation coming forward that has an impact on Finland’s long-range future. And Singapore’s Centre for Strategic Futures is leading in “horizon scanning”, a set of methods that helps people think about the future and potential scenarios. This is not prediction. It’s thinking about what might be coming around the corner, and using that knowledge to inform policy. But these actions are few and far between. We need all governments to put more energy towards understanding the risks, and acting on that knowledge. Some countries may even need grand changes to their political and economic systems, a level of change that typically only occurs after a catastrophe. We cannot – and do not have to – wait for these structural changes or for a global crisis. Forward-leaning leaders must act now to better understand the risks that their countries face. (Gabriel Recchia is Research Associate, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge; Haydn Belfield Research Associate, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Climate change, pandemics, biodiversity loss: No country is sufficiently prepared

Chile&nbsp;pulled&nbsp;out&nbsp;of hosting two major international summits on Wednesday as it struggled to restore order after more than ten days of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/chile-anti-govt-protests-escalate-258114">civil unrest</a> that left at least 23 dead.

President Sebastian Pinera said "common sense" dictated the decision to withdraw from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and the Cop 25&nbsp;climate&nbsp;change conference.

US President Donald Trump had said he was planning to&nbsp;meet&nbsp;Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to lock down a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-china-close-to-finalising-part-of-a-phase-one-trade-deal-report-258209"> "phase one" agreement</a> at the November 16-17&nbsp;APEC&nbsp;meeting that would partially have ended an 18-month trade war between the world's two biggest economies.

The White House said it looked forward to finalising an agreement "within the same timeframe," although analysts Eurasia Group said that may not happen until the end of the year.

APEC&nbsp;said it supported&nbsp;Chile's decision but gave no indication there would be a replacement summit this year, saying only that Malaysia would&nbsp;host&nbsp;the 2020 event.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin had also been due to attend&nbsp;APEC, while teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg was among 25,000 delegates expected for COP 25.

The final of South American football's premier club competition, the Copa Libertadores, between Argentine holders River Plate and Brazilian giants Flamengo will go ahead on November 23 in Santiago,&nbsp;Chile's sports ministry said.

After more than 10 days of street protests, Pinera said&nbsp;Chile&nbsp;was not in a position to&nbsp;host&nbsp;either the&nbsp;APEC&nbsp;summit or the December 2-13&nbsp;climate&nbsp;convention.

The pullout is seen as a blow to&nbsp;Chile's tourism industry, and the Santiago stock exchange dropped 2.8 points while the peso fell to its lowest rate against the dollar since 2003.

"This has been a very difficult decision, a decision that has been deeply painful because we know exactly how important&nbsp;APEC&nbsp;and COP are for&nbsp;Chile&nbsp;and the world," said Pinera.

"When a father has problems, he must always prioritize his family over other options. The same goes for a president, he must always put his own compatriots first, ahead of any other considerations," he added.

Chile&nbsp;is grappling with its worst social crisis in decades, one that shows little sign of abating despite Pinera announcing a raft of measures aimed at placating protesters.

Demonstrators have demanded that the 69-year-old right-wing leader, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes at $2.8 billion, step down.

They have been angered by low salaries and pensions, poor public health care and education, and a yawning gap between rich and poor.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/support-for-chiles-pinera-lowest-for-president-since-pinochet-era-poll-258433">Pinera</a> announced last week an increase in the minimum wage and pensions as well as measures to alleviate sky-high health care costs and a streamlining of public offices.

"I'm not rejecting any structural reform," Pinera said Wednesday. "This is the time to listen to the people."&nbsp;

On Monday, he reshuffled his cabinet for the third time since coming to power in March 2018, but the street movement continues.

Protests began on October 18 and during the first few days there was widespread destruction, arson and looting.&nbsp;

Demonstrations have been largely calm over the last week but there were violent clashes between demonstrators and security services on Monday, when shops were looted and a building set on fire.

Huge numbers took to the streets on Wednesday, with the country semi-paralyzed as numerous shops and businesses remained closed.

Canceling the two major international events is more likely to backfire than to placate the demonstrators, University of&nbsp;Chile&nbsp;analyst Octavio Avendano told AFP.

He said it would be seen "as a sign of weakness and a sharpening of the conflict."

Chilean prosecutors announced Wednesday night that they were conducting investigations into the deaths of 23 people during the crisis.

Sixteen of the dead were killed "during the alleged commission of so-called 'common' crimes," five people "by actions of agents of the state" and two "under state custody," prosecutors said on Twitter.&nbsp;

Previously, the official death toll had stood at 20. &nbsp;

A mission led by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, Chile's former president,&nbsp;is expected to open a probe later this week into allegations of police brutality.

Justice and Human Rights Minister Hernan Larrain admitted on Tuesday that the government recognized that some incidents involving law enforcement during the protests "appear to be human rights violations."&nbsp;

Amnesty International has expressed concern about claims of "sexual torture," reports of eye injuries and situations in which police or military action directly led to a death.

&nbsp;

Chile pulled out of hosting two major international summits on Wednesday as it struggled to restore order after more than ten days of civil unrest that left at least 23 dead.

Chile pulled out of hosting two major international summits on Wednesday as it struggled to restore order after more than ten days of civil unrest that left at least 23 dead. President Sebastian Pinera said "common sense" dictated the decision to withdraw from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and the Cop 25 climate change conference. US President Donald Trump had said he was planning to meet Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to lock down a "phase one" agreement at the November 16-17 APEC meeting that would partially have ended an 18-month trade war between the world's two biggest economies. The White House said it looked forward to finalising an agreement "within the same timeframe," although analysts Eurasia Group said that may not happen until the end of the year. APEC said it supported Chile's decision but gave no indication there would be a replacement summit this year, saying only that Malaysia would host the 2020 event. Russian leader Vladimir Putin had also been due to attend APEC, while teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg was among 25,000 delegates expected for COP 25. The final of South American football's premier club competition, the Copa Libertadores, between Argentine holders River Plate and Brazilian giants Flamengo will go ahead on November 23 in Santiago, Chile's sports ministry said. After more than 10 days of street protests, Pinera said Chile was not in a position to host either the APEC summit or the December 2-13 climate convention. The pullout is seen as a blow to Chile's tourism industry, and the Santiago stock exchange dropped 2.8 points while the peso fell to its lowest rate against the dollar since 2003. "This has been a very difficult decision, a decision that has been deeply painful because we know exactly how important APEC and COP are for Chile and the world," said Pinera. "When a father has problems, he must always prioritize his family over other options. The same goes for a president, he must always put his own compatriots first, ahead of any other considerations," he added. Chile is grappling with its worst social crisis in decades, one that shows little sign of abating despite Pinera announcing a raft of measures aimed at placating protesters. Demonstrators have demanded that the 69-year-old right-wing leader, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes at $2.8 billion, step down. They have been angered by low salaries and pensions, poor public health care and education, and a yawning gap between rich and poor. Pinera announced last week an increase in the minimum wage and pensions as well as measures to alleviate sky-high health care costs and a streamlining of public offices. "I'm not rejecting any structural reform," Pinera said Wednesday. "This is the time to listen to the people." On Monday, he reshuffled his cabinet for the third time since coming to power in March 2018, but the street movement continues. Protests began on October 18 and during the first few days there was widespread destruction, arson and looting. Demonstrations have been largely calm over the last week but there were violent clashes between demonstrators and security services on Monday, when shops were looted and a building set on fire. Huge numbers took to the streets on Wednesday, with the country semi-paralyzed as numerous shops and businesses remained closed. Canceling the two major international events is more likely to backfire than to placate the demonstrators, University of Chile analyst Octavio Avendano told AFP. He said it would be seen "as a sign of weakness and a sharpening of the conflict." Chilean prosecutors announced Wednesday night that they were conducting investigations into the deaths of 23 people during the crisis. Sixteen of the dead were killed "during the alleged commission of so-called 'common' crimes," five people "by actions of agents of the state" and two "under state custody," prosecutors said on Twitter. Previously, the official death toll had stood at 20. A mission led by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, Chile's former president, is expected to open a probe later this week into allegations of police brutality. Justice and Human Rights Minister Hernan Larrain admitted on Tuesday that the government recognized that some incidents involving law enforcement during the protests "appear to be human rights violations." Amnesty International has expressed concern about claims of "sexual torture," reports of eye injuries and situations in which police or military action directly led to a death.

Crisis-wracked Chile pulls out as APEC, climate meet host

Jane Fonda accepted her BAFTA Brittania Award while being arrested at a climate change protest in Washington, D.C. Fonda has moved to Washington and has been lobbying lawmakers for a Green New Deal policy to slow and combat the effects of climate change.

Arrested Jane Fonda accept BAFTA award via video message

Actress and activist Jane Fonda accepted the BAFTA Stanley Kubrick Britannia Award while getting arrested for protesting against climate change.

The award honours people for excellence and&nbsp;longlasting influence in films. The ceremony was held at the Hilton in Beverly Hills, California. Fonda opted to send an acceptance video message, which is customary in the case of absence.

While being arrested in Washington DC, Fonda thanked BAFTA for the recognition and claimed that she was ''very honoured''.

This was Fonda's third recent arrest, as she faced her last arrest for protesting outside the United States Capitol on Friday. She has constantly been demanding urgent action against climate change.

"It's so important that we help people understand that this crisis is urgent. Urgent. It is too late for business as usual. I'm inspired by Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish student, who said 'we have to behave like our house is on fire. Because it is.' And that's why we're calling these Fire Drill Fridays", Fonda said

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Folks, <a href="https://twitter.com/Janefonda?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Janefonda</a> accepted the Stanley Kubrick Britannia Award WHILE BEING ARRESTED. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Britannias?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Britannias</a> <a href="https://t.co/LDbZKTZWrs">pic.twitter.com/LDbZKTZWrs</a>
— BAFTA Los Angeles (@BAFTALA) <a href="https://twitter.com/BAFTALA/status/1187950061990207489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Fonda&nbsp;marched arm-in-arm with other protesters, chanting, "What do we want? A Green New Deal! When do we want it? Now!"

The&nbsp;protest marked the second week of "Fire Drill Fridays", a movement inspired by young climate activists.

The Oscar-winning actress was best known outside the screen for her Vietnam War activism.&nbsp;Fonda, a longtime anti-war and women's' rights activist, launched a fitness craze with her 1980s workout videos, and was recently nominated for a Screen Actors Guild awards for her lead role in TV series "Grace and Frankie".

Previous winners of the Stanely Kubrick Britannia Award include Cate Blanchett, George Clooney and Meryl Streep.

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

Actress and activist Jane Fonda accepted the BAFTA Stanley Kubrick Britannia Award while getting arrested for protesting against climate change. The award honours people for excellence and longlasting influence in films.

Actress and activist Jane Fonda accepted the BAFTA Stanley Kubrick Britannia Award while getting arrested for protesting against climate change. The award honours people for excellence and longlasting influence in films. The ceremony was held at the Hilton in Beverly Hills, California. Fonda opted to send an acceptance video message, which is customary in the case of absence. While being arrested in Washington DC, Fonda thanked BAFTA for the recognition and claimed that she was ''very honoured''. This was Fonda's third recent arrest, as she faced her last arrest for protesting outside the United States Capitol on Friday. She has constantly been demanding urgent action against climate change. "It's so important that we help people understand that this crisis is urgent. Urgent. It is too late for business as usual. I'm inspired by Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish student, who said 'we have to behave like our house is on fire. Because it is.' And that's why we're calling these Fire Drill Fridays", Fonda said Folks, @Janefonda accepted the Stanley Kubrick Britannia Award WHILE BEING ARRESTED. #Britannias pic.twitter.com/LDbZKTZWrs — BAFTA Los Angeles (@BAFTALA) October 26, 2019 × Fonda marched arm-in-arm with other protesters, chanting, "What do we want? A Green New Deal! When do we want it? Now!" The protest marked the second week of "Fire Drill Fridays", a movement inspired by young climate activists. The Oscar-winning actress was best known outside the screen for her Vietnam War activism. Fonda, a longtime anti-war and women's' rights activist, launched a fitness craze with her 1980s workout videos, and was recently nominated for a Screen Actors Guild awards for her lead role in TV series "Grace and Frankie". Previous winners of the Stanely Kubrick Britannia Award include Cate Blanchett, George Clooney and Meryl Streep. (With inputs from Reuters)

Jane Fonda accepts BAFTA award while getting arrested for climate change protest

Cost To Manage Climate Protests In London: 37 Million Euros Or Rs. 292,11,49,982 (This Year Alone).

Gravitas: Even Climate Protests Come At A Cost!

Russian Navy Has Discover 5 New Islands In The Arctic As Glacier Melt Raises Climate Concerns On Wion Climate Tracker, we discuss the alarming development in Russia.

Gravitas: Wion Climate Tracker: Climate Change Uncovers 5 New Islands In Russia

Continuing with its proactive policy on <a href="http://wionews.com/entertainment/climate-change-is-a-serious-problem-says-kim-kardashian-as-she-praises-greta-thunberg-254679">climate change</a>, a resolution drafted and negotiated by India was unanimously adopted at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly meet in Belgrade, <a href="http://wionews.com/world/kosovo-voters-focus-on-graft-serbia-peace-deal-in-election-254036">Serbia</a>. The emergency item was adopted in a session "addressing <a href="http://wionews.com/world/canadians-voted-for-progressive-agenda-and-strong-action-on-climate-change-trudeau-257587">climate change</a>" at the IPU which is the oldest and the largest group of global parliamentarians.&nbsp;

Supporting the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the resolution reiterated the commitments of the 2015 agreement to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial levels.

India in its resolution mentioned the concept of "climate justice" and called on developed countries to take a lead and play an important role in addressing climate change. It also appealed for financial, technological and capacity-building assistance for developing countries by the developed ones to deal with climate change.

The resolution acknowledged that climate change is "anthropogenic" in origin, which means that the change happening due to human activity.

Over 800 parliamentarians or MPs participated in the 141 sessions of the IPU. India was represented by Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla along with other MPs including Congress party's Shashi Tharoor.

The IPU started in 1889 with a small group of MPs from 9 countries. In over 100 years, it has members from more than 179 countries.

India's proactive act in Belgrade comes even as India engages much more on climate change issue with international groups such as the International Solar Alliance. New Delhi-backed international solar alliance was founded in 2015 and aims to use solar energy to reduce dependence on fossil fuel. So far, 79 countries have signed the ISA framework agreement.

Continuing with its proactive policy on climate change, a resolution drafted and negotiated by India was unanimously adopted at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly meet in Belgrade, Serbia.

Continuing with its proactive policy on climate change, a resolution drafted and negotiated by India was unanimously adopted at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly meet in Belgrade, Serbia. The emergency item was adopted in a session "addressing climate change" at the IPU which is the oldest and the largest group of global parliamentarians. Supporting the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the resolution reiterated the commitments of the 2015 agreement to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial levels. India in its resolution mentioned the concept of "climate justice" and called on developed countries to take a lead and play an important role in addressing climate change. It also appealed for financial, technological and capacity-building assistance for developing countries by the developed ones to deal with climate change. The resolution acknowledged that climate change is "anthropogenic" in origin, which means that the change happening due to human activity. Over 800 parliamentarians or MPs participated in the 141 sessions of the IPU. India was represented by Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla along with other MPs including Congress party's Shashi Tharoor. The IPU started in 1889 with a small group of MPs from 9 countries. In over 100 years, it has members from more than 179 countries. India's proactive act in Belgrade comes even as India engages much more on climate change issue with international groups such as the International Solar Alliance. New Delhi-backed international solar alliance was founded in 2015 and aims to use solar energy to reduce dependence on fossil fuel. So far, 79 countries have signed the ISA framework agreement.

At world parliament meet in Serbia, India-led climate resolution gets adopted unanimously

Climate change dominates Swiss elections, Green Parties made historic gains. Watch this video to know more.

Climate change dominates Swiss elections, Green Parties made historic gains

Doctored Photos, Conspiracy Theories & Outright Abuse: Understanding The Vicious Troll Campaign Against Greta Thunberg Doctored photos, wild conspiracy theories & vile abuse; if you navigate through social media, you will find out the abuse that climate activist Greta Thunberg has been receiving at the hands of climate change trolls.

Gravitas: Greta Thunberg: Climate Change Trolls' Top Target

Prince William and wife Kate see impact of climate change in Pakistan's Hindu Kush mountains

Extension Rebellion protests rock London

Kim Kardashian says she wants to meet Greta Thunberg

Lawmaker Kim Kardashian soon?

London woke up on October 9 to the third consecutive day of acts of peaceful civil disobedience staged by the climate action group Extinction Rebellion.

3rd Consecutive Day of Climate Protests in London

Victor, a nine-year-old white-tailed eagle, has been enlisted to raise awareness of climate change with spectacular images of him soaring over the peaks in his Alpine home which has already been hard hit by the rise in global temperatures.

Victor the eagle's bird's eye view of Alps raises awareness of climate change

Victor: Bird's eye view of Alps raises climate change awareness

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/germany-urges-european-unity-30-years-after-prague-exodus-252914">The German government gave its blessing Wednesday to draft climate legislation</a>, even though it has been heavily criticised by environmentalists and scientists alike as an unambitious package.

"For the first time, Germany's climate goals are becoming legally binding," environment minister Svenja Schulze said in a statement.

"Germany missing its climate targets cannot happen again," she added after ministers admitted the country will not succeed in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) output by 40 per cent compared with 1990 by next year.

By 2050, the country should be climate neutral -&nbsp;a goal that "will for the first time be anchored in the law", said Schulze.

Over the coming decade, Berlin now targets greenhouse gas output to fall 55 per cent compared with 1990, while some 65 per cent of Germany's electricity should come from renewables.

To get there, ministers agreed to extend CO2 pricing from energy and industry -&nbsp;already regulated at the European Union level -&nbsp;to areas like transport and construction.

They will gradually raise the CO2 price each year from a low starting level of $11&nbsp;per tonne and allow a growing role for markets from 2025.

That represents "the economically most efficient way to reduce emissions and hit climate goals," the federal government said on its website.

On top of pricing, there will be subsidies for big-ticket items like electric vehicles or insulation and heating for buildings.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/germany-to-commit-at-least-100-billion-euros-on-climate-action-250843">And the government will invest in electric car charging points, public transport and passenger rail</a>, as well as levying higher charges on short-haul flights.

Parliament must now debate and vote on the package that has been hammered out in weeks of talks between Merkel's conservatives&nbsp;and junior coalition partners the social democrats.

The parties were forced into action as unusually hot and dry summers, years of car industry emissions scandals and months of "Fridays for Future" marches by students shot the climate up the political agenda.

Speaking to ZDF public television, Schulze had argued for a "more gentle" climate debate, after days in which Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to hobble road traffic in Berlin.

"Climate protection isn't just something for a few people, but for everyone," she said.

The German government gave its blessing Wednesday to draft climate legislation, even though it has been heavily criticised by environmentalists and scientists alike as an unambitious package.

The German government gave its blessing Wednesday to draft climate legislation, even though it has been heavily criticised by environmentalists and scientists alike as an unambitious package. "For the first time, Germany's climate goals are becoming legally binding," environment minister Svenja Schulze said in a statement. "Germany missing its climate targets cannot happen again," she added after ministers admitted the country will not succeed in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) output by 40 per cent compared with 1990 by next year. By 2050, the country should be climate neutral - a goal that "will for the first time be anchored in the law", said Schulze. Over the coming decade, Berlin now targets greenhouse gas output to fall 55 per cent compared with 1990, while some 65 per cent of Germany's electricity should come from renewables. To get there, ministers agreed to extend CO2 pricing from energy and industry - already regulated at the European Union level - to areas like transport and construction. They will gradually raise the CO2 price each year from a low starting level of $11 per tonne and allow a growing role for markets from 2025. That represents "the economically most efficient way to reduce emissions and hit climate goals," the federal government said on its website. On top of pricing, there will be subsidies for big-ticket items like electric vehicles or insulation and heating for buildings. And the government will invest in electric car charging points, public transport and passenger rail, as well as levying higher charges on short-haul flights. Parliament must now debate and vote on the package that has been hammered out in weeks of talks between Merkel's conservatives and junior coalition partners the social democrats. The parties were forced into action as unusually hot and dry summers, years of car industry emissions scandals and months of "Fridays for Future" marches by students shot the climate up the political agenda. Speaking to ZDF public television, Schulze had argued for a "more gentle" climate debate, after days in which Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to hobble road traffic in Berlin. "Climate protection isn't just something for a few people, but for everyone," she said.

German government presses on with criticised climate law

climate-change

Climate Change, News on Climate Change, stories on Climate Change, articles on Climate Change, Climate Change stories at Wion, Climate Change news, Climate Change latest news