After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief.&nbsp;

The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.&nbsp;

Dodging the skepticism rooted in the hard negotiations and slow progress in the run-up to COP 24, an agreement, even if with rued nods from many parties, is a positive step.&nbsp;

However, the unfolding of the negotiations warrants that developing countries invest in greater scrutiny of the implementation as well as subsequent discussions at COPs.&nbsp;

For over a decade now, the meaning of ‘global’ quest is being, subtly, pushed towards, what may be called, Third World’s burden irrespective of respective capabilities and responsibilities.

Many influential thought leaders from the developed world, while revealing their helplessness with, and discounting the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement by citing the commitments from the various state governments and cities, urge the developing countries, particularly China and India, to take on greater commitments without taking into account their own roles and responsibilities.

This convolution of differentiation was obvious at least in four instances during proceedings of the COP24: First, the unwillingness of industrialised countries to include providing credible and verifiable information on financial flows in the Global Stock Take process was in clear defiance of the objective of the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement aims to ensure financial flows consistent with the requirements of the climate resilient low-carbon development pathways.&nbsp;

After doing away with the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, providing climate finance to developing countries is the most significant substantive parameter of ensuring equity.&nbsp;

The diplomatic keenness of France to protect the Paris Agreement, by announcing annual replenishment to GCF, when the finance agenda was to become a point of deadlock explains the centrality of finance to successful climate negotiations, as well as ‘global’ climate action.

Second, the opposition to the use of accumulated credits from the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol in the new market mechanism under the Paris Agreement by many developed countries is equivalent of arguing for quantified emission reduction targets for developing countries, post-facto, when the relevant global agreement did not require them to have any.&nbsp;

The argument that the new rules are stricter, leading to the issues of environmental integrity, is not merely a technical point. It is symptomatic of political cunningness of trickery by rules.

Doubts over environmental integrity of certain Clean Development Projects (CDM) had been discussed in great detail during the reform debates and many proposals were made, including the use of a discount rate. These options are valid for the new market mechanism as well.

Discarding a celebrated market mechanism’s legacy in its next avatar and putting developing countries in a disadvantageous position must be understood as the reflection of the core political design of industrialised countries.

Third, the opposition by developed countries to the flexibilities given to developing countries in complying with the reporting requirements, along with the demands for greater details, leaves the process of Global Stock Take far from being congenially resolved.&nbsp;

The proposal to divide the rule-book into multiple agreements, which was rightly opposed by developing countries, was a clever attempt by developed countries at keeping the developing country parties under undue pressure of ‘global’ (read Northern) scrutiny.&nbsp;

Finally, as has been much debated, the unwillingness of some of the developed countries to ‘welcome’ the 1.5 degrees report from the IPCC – despite having asked for this assessment – is a clear indication of their unwillingness to adopt stricter mitigation measures today, even though this may result in significantly larger impacts in the world and on those that have greater vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacities.&nbsp;

We are once again proving that we are not able to deal with the science truly, in face of political compulsions. To sum up, as noted by India in her formal reservation statement, implementation of the principle of equity and differentiation is constantly being undermined.&nbsp;

Having done away with the top-down distinction between industrialised and developing countries, now the attempt is to erase it, if not reverse it, through the details of implementation of the Paris Agreement.&nbsp;

Both the governments as well as the researchers in developing countries, therefore, need to be extra vigilant in tracking climate policy globally and nationally. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-cop-24-developed-nations-unwilling-to-adopt-stricter-mitigation-measures-2697234">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief. The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.

After extended hours of negotiations, the COP 24 held in Katowice, Poland, finally sent out a sigh of ‘temporary’ relief. The rule book for implementing the Paris Agreement is an important milestone in the ‘global’ quest to address climate change in accordance with the principle of equity and common, but with differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. Dodging the skepticism rooted in the hard negotiations and slow progress in the run-up to COP 24, an agreement, even if with rued nods from many parties, is a positive step. However, the unfolding of the negotiations warrants that developing countries invest in greater scrutiny of the implementation as well as subsequent discussions at COPs. For over a decade now, the meaning of ‘global’ quest is being, subtly, pushed towards, what may be called, Third World’s burden irrespective of respective capabilities and responsibilities. Many influential thought leaders from the developed world, while revealing their helplessness with, and discounting the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement by citing the commitments from the various state governments and cities, urge the developing countries, particularly China and India, to take on greater commitments without taking into account their own roles and responsibilities. This convolution of differentiation was obvious at least in four instances during proceedings of the COP24: First, the unwillingness of industrialised countries to include providing credible and verifiable information on financial flows in the Global Stock Take process was in clear defiance of the objective of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to ensure financial flows consistent with the requirements of the climate resilient low-carbon development pathways. After doing away with the distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, providing climate finance to developing countries is the most significant substantive parameter of ensuring equity. The diplomatic keenness of France to protect the Paris Agreement, by announcing annual replenishment to GCF, when the finance agenda was to become a point of deadlock explains the centrality of finance to successful climate negotiations, as well as ‘global’ climate action. Second, the opposition to the use of accumulated credits from the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol in the new market mechanism under the Paris Agreement by many developed countries is equivalent of arguing for quantified emission reduction targets for developing countries, post-facto, when the relevant global agreement did not require them to have any. The argument that the new rules are stricter, leading to the issues of environmental integrity, is not merely a technical point. It is symptomatic of political cunningness of trickery by rules. Doubts over environmental integrity of certain Clean Development Projects (CDM) had been discussed in great detail during the reform debates and many proposals were made, including the use of a discount rate. These options are valid for the new market mechanism as well. Discarding a celebrated market mechanism’s legacy in its next avatar and putting developing countries in a disadvantageous position must be understood as the reflection of the core political design of industrialised countries. Third, the opposition by developed countries to the flexibilities given to developing countries in complying with the reporting requirements, along with the demands for greater details, leaves the process of Global Stock Take far from being congenially resolved. The proposal to divide the rule-book into multiple agreements, which was rightly opposed by developing countries, was a clever attempt by developed countries at keeping the developing country parties under undue pressure of ‘global’ (read Northern) scrutiny. Finally, as has been much debated, the unwillingness of some of the developed countries to ‘welcome’ the 1.5 degrees report from the IPCC – despite having asked for this assessment – is a clear indication of their unwillingness to adopt stricter mitigation measures today, even though this may result in significantly larger impacts in the world and on those that have greater vulnerabilities and lower adaptive capacities. We are once again proving that we are not able to deal with the science truly, in face of political compulsions. To sum up, as noted by India in her formal reservation statement, implementation of the principle of equity and differentiation is constantly being undermined. Having done away with the top-down distinction between industrialised and developing countries, now the attempt is to erase it, if not reverse it, through the details of implementation of the Paris Agreement. Both the governments as well as the researchers in developing countries, therefore, need to be extra vigilant in tracking climate policy globally and nationally. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

COP 24: Developed nations unwilling to adopt stricter mitigation measures to address climate change

Fractious climate change talks in Poland showed the limits of international action to limit global warming in a polarised world, putting the onus on individual governments, cities and communities to stop temperatures rising.

Nearly 200 countries at the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/katowice-climate-summit-three-key-outcomes-184439">United Nations talks in Katowice</a> in the coal mining region of Silesia saved the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement from disintegration on Saturday by agreeing with a package of guidelines for its implementation.

But it deferred rules on carbon credits a spur to business and lacked any firm commitment to strengthen countries' emissions cut targets by 2020 when the agreement comes into force.

As such it left the parties a long way from the Paris deal's goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the cap of 1.5C needed to avert more extreme weather, rising sea levels and the loss of plant and animal species.

The world is heading for a 3-5C rise in temperatures this century, the UN World Meteorological Organization has said.

The Paris Agreement is based on individual commitments and expectations for the Polish talks to produce much more than rules for how those would be measured had always been low: the unity built in Paris had been shattered by a wave of governments placing national agendas before collective action.

Only a handful of country leaders were present in Katowice and the UN&nbsp;Secretary-General had to fly back to the meeting to urge progress.

"Political will is missing," Alden Meyer, director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit science advocacy group said as the conference staggered towards a finish delayed for more than 24 hours by last-minute wrangling over parts of the text.

"But it provides the hooks for governments, cities, businesses, civil society etc to do the work to get (to the Paris Agreement goals)," he said.

For conference president Michal Kurtyka it was a job well done. "Mission accomplished," he wrote on Twitter. "Our children look back at our legacy and recognise that we took the right decisions at important junctures like the one we face today."

Scratching the surface

For nations already suffering from climate change the agreement, which did not make clear how pledged funding would be provided, was only just better than nothing. Simon Stiell, Environment Minister of Grenada in the Caribbean, told Reuters it "is barely scratching the surface of what we really require".

Investors said it would take more action at government level to persuade them to pump in the amount of money needed.

"Those countries ... who push ahead with ambitious, long-term climate policies will be the ones to reap the investment and economic advantages of doing so," said Stephanie Pfeifer, Chief Executive of Institutional Investors' Group on Climate Change, noting the low-carbon transition was already underway.

The United States, set to withdraw from the UN&nbsp;process at the behest of President Donald Trump, staged an event touting the benefits of burning fossil fuels, including coal, more efficiently, while back at home, Trump has termed the Paris deal "ridiculous".

A scientific report requested by the Paris signatories said the share of coal-fuelled power would have to be cut to under 2 per cent by 2050, along with big cuts to other fossil fuels, to stop temperatures rising more than 1.5C and causing devastating floods, storms, heat waves and drought.

The United States, as well as fellow oil producers Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait, refused to "welcome" the report, a term sought by countries seeking to focus minds on its findings.

The final statement merely welcomed its timely completion and invited parties to make use of the information it contained.

Yet the row over the report was far from the only one: China, India, Russia, Australia, Japan, Brazil and the European Union were all drawn into various rifts, although China won some praise for helping to overcome concern, especially from the United States, that it would sidestep any rules.

"I think they have come a long way in recognising they need to provide confidence," Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, said of the Chinese negotiators.

Describing Washington as "out of touch", Morgan noted the rules agreed in Poland nevertheless bound all countries, including the United States until its planned withdrawal in 2020, an achievement in itself.

"But that doesn´t substitute for the need to build ambition," she said.

Choking coal

Poland, hosting its third UN climate conference, came in for criticism for its commitment to coal, the most polluting of fossil fuels.

The meeting's final statement merely "noted," Warsaw's call for a "just transition" allowing communities dependent on coal more time to adjust.

The appointment of Kurtyka, Poland's deputy environment minister, to preside over the talks appeased some campaigners angered by the government's previous choice, the former environment minister, Jan Szyszko.

Szyszko had expressed doubts that global warming is manmade in the past and increased logging in the ancient forest of Bialowieza, declared illegal by the European Union's top court.

However, Kurtyka's job was complicated by Poland's environment minister says he did not want discussion about raising ambition at the talks and Poland's president vowing not to let anyone "murder coal mining".

A focus on technicalities in the first week was interpreted by campaigners as a pretext to avoid discussions on pledging deeper emissions cuts. Kurtyka got countries to focus on the guidelines near the end of the second week, but there was no collective action to harmonise or improve disparate pledges.

"Each delegation has its own domestic interests ... Our role, like the presidency, is to find balance, which ensures reaching a compromise," Adam Guibourge-Czetwertynski, Poland's chief negotiator, said in the second week of talks.

Poland's ruling party, the nationalist-minded Law and Justice (PiS), wants to scale back the share of coal in electricity production from 80 per cent to 60 per cent by 2030.

But the production of hard coal is expected to be stable for decades, although 72 per cent of Poles think it should be gradually phased out to reduce emissions, according to a survey by state-controlled pollster CBOS in November.

Katowice, the heart of Poland's coal region, is among the most polluted cities in Europe because many people heat their homes by burning low-quality coal, which is the cheapest. Residents say they have no choice.

"No climate decisions, even the best ones, will change the content of our wallets," said Maria Ligeza, an 83-year-old Katowice citizen. "Without help, people will be still burning what they have."

Fractious climate change talks in Poland showed the limits of international action to limit global warming in a polarised world, putting the onus on individual governments, cities and communities to stop temperatures rising.

Fractious climate change talks in Poland showed the limits of international action to limit global warming in a polarised world, putting the onus on individual governments, cities and communities to stop temperatures rising. Nearly 200 countries at the United Nations talks in Katowice in the coal mining region of Silesia saved the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement from disintegration on Saturday by agreeing with a package of guidelines for its implementation. But it deferred rules on carbon credits a spur to business and lacked any firm commitment to strengthen countries' emissions cut targets by 2020 when the agreement comes into force. As such it left the parties a long way from the Paris deal's goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the cap of 1.5C needed to avert more extreme weather, rising sea levels and the loss of plant and animal species. The world is heading for a 3-5C rise in temperatures this century, the UN World Meteorological Organization has said. The Paris Agreement is based on individual commitments and expectations for the Polish talks to produce much more than rules for how those would be measured had always been low: the unity built in Paris had been shattered by a wave of governments placing national agendas before collective action. Only a handful of country leaders were present in Katowice and the UN Secretary-General had to fly back to the meeting to urge progress. "Political will is missing," Alden Meyer, director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit science advocacy group said as the conference staggered towards a finish delayed for more than 24 hours by last-minute wrangling over parts of the text. "But it provides the hooks for governments, cities, businesses, civil society etc to do the work to get (to the Paris Agreement goals)," he said. For conference president Michal Kurtyka it was a job well done. "Mission accomplished," he wrote on Twitter. "Our children look back at our legacy and recognise that we took the right decisions at important junctures like the one we face today." Scratching the surface For nations already suffering from climate change the agreement, which did not make clear how pledged funding would be provided, was only just better than nothing. Simon Stiell, Environment Minister of Grenada in the Caribbean, told Reuters it "is barely scratching the surface of what we really require". Investors said it would take more action at government level to persuade them to pump in the amount of money needed. "Those countries ... who push ahead with ambitious, long-term climate policies will be the ones to reap the investment and economic advantages of doing so," said Stephanie Pfeifer, Chief Executive of Institutional Investors' Group on Climate Change, noting the low-carbon transition was already underway. The United States, set to withdraw from the UN process at the behest of President Donald Trump, staged an event touting the benefits of burning fossil fuels, including coal, more efficiently, while back at home, Trump has termed the Paris deal "ridiculous". A scientific report requested by the Paris signatories said the share of coal-fuelled power would have to be cut to under 2 per cent by 2050, along with big cuts to other fossil fuels, to stop temperatures rising more than 1.5C and causing devastating floods, storms, heat waves and drought. The United States, as well as fellow oil producers Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait, refused to "welcome" the report, a term sought by countries seeking to focus minds on its findings. The final statement merely welcomed its timely completion and invited parties to make use of the information it contained. Yet the row over the report was far from the only one: China, India, Russia, Australia, Japan, Brazil and the European Union were all drawn into various rifts, although China won some praise for helping to overcome concern, especially from the United States, that it would sidestep any rules. "I think they have come a long way in recognising they need to provide confidence," Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, said of the Chinese negotiators. Describing Washington as "out of touch", Morgan noted the rules agreed in Poland nevertheless bound all countries, including the United States until its planned withdrawal in 2020, an achievement in itself. "But that doesn´t substitute for the need to build ambition," she said. Choking coal Poland, hosting its third UN climate conference, came in for criticism for its commitment to coal, the most polluting of fossil fuels. The meeting's final statement merely "noted," Warsaw's call for a "just transition" allowing communities dependent on coal more time to adjust. The appointment of Kurtyka, Poland's deputy environment minister, to preside over the talks appeased some campaigners angered by the government's previous choice, the former environment minister, Jan Szyszko. Szyszko had expressed doubts that global warming is manmade in the past and increased logging in the ancient forest of Bialowieza, declared illegal by the European Union's top court. However, Kurtyka's job was complicated by Poland's environment minister says he did not want discussion about raising ambition at the talks and Poland's president vowing not to let anyone "murder coal mining". A focus on technicalities in the first week was interpreted by campaigners as a pretext to avoid discussions on pledging deeper emissions cuts. Kurtyka got countries to focus on the guidelines near the end of the second week, but there was no collective action to harmonise or improve disparate pledges. "Each delegation has its own domestic interests ... Our role, like the presidency, is to find balance, which ensures reaching a compromise," Adam Guibourge-Czetwertynski, Poland's chief negotiator, said in the second week of talks. Poland's ruling party, the nationalist-minded Law and Justice (PiS), wants to scale back the share of coal in electricity production from 80 per cent to 60 per cent by 2030. But the production of hard coal is expected to be stable for decades, although 72 per cent of Poles think it should be gradually phased out to reduce emissions, according to a survey by state-controlled pollster CBOS in November. Katowice, the heart of Poland's coal region, is among the most polluted cities in Europe because many people heat their homes by burning low-quality coal, which is the cheapest. Residents say they have no choice. "No climate decisions, even the best ones, will change the content of our wallets," said Maria Ligeza, an 83-year-old Katowice citizen. "Without help, people will be still burning what they have."

Climate talks pass baton in race to stop global warming

&nbsp;The United Nations' climate talks went into overtime early Saturday morning as negotiators from nearly 200 nations grappled with disagreements over parts of a package of rules to implement a landmark agreement to combat global warming.

Countries are on a self-imposed deadline to produce a "rulebook" to flesh out details of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius and which comes into force in 2020.

Talks in Katowice, Poland, underway since December 2, have been clouded by political divisions.&nbsp;

Before the talks started, many expected that the deal would fall short of the detailed plan scientists have said is needed to limit global warming to well below a 2 degree-Celsius rise this century.

Many exhausted ministers were seen going to their hotels around 2200 GMT to catch a few hours' sleep before resuming plenary talks scheduled for early Saturday morning, which could be subject to delays.

European climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete, on leaving the Spodek conference venue told Reuters that talks had been held up all day due to the issue of emissions counting cited in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement regarding market-based mechanisms to combat climate change.

Under the article, countries should agree to rules to ensure they do not double count emissions reductions. This is when one country is allowed to pay another to lower emissions but count those lower emissions towards their own emissions cut targets.

A way to avoid this is to create an accounting rule which would ensure that emissions reductions generated in one place cannot be counted both by the party generating the cuts and the country using those reductions towards its own target under the Paris Agreement.

A senior negotiator told Reuters Brazil was still obstructive on this issue and did not want clear rules to prevent double counting, which is unacceptable to many nations.

"This threatens the success of the negotiations and could undermine the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement," said Nathaniel Keohane, senior vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, a US-based non-profit climate advocacy.

Fear of Failure

UN&nbsp;secretary-general Antonio Guterres said on Friday that work needed to be finished "with the highest possible level of ambition."

"It's essential for me that Katowice is not a failure. The worst thing that could happen to us is that. There would be the idea of chaos, the idea that to a certain extent we would be reproducing in Katowice what happened in Copenhagen."

Climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009 were widely regarded as a failure as they ended with a bare-minimum agreement. It took six more years to clinch a deal in Paris.

The Katowice draft text is still subject to change but requires developed countries to deliver an increase on a promise of $100 billion a year of climate finance to help poorer countries adapt to climate change by 2020 and rules on how to report and monitor each nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

There has been compromising in some areas, such as tweaking the language to recognise the importance of a report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on limiting global warming to 1.5C, which caused rifts last week.

But greater clarity has been sought on what countries will do after leaving Poland and how they will strengthen their commitments and targets under the pact.

"We do not want to see the Paris Agreement watered down," said former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed.

The United Nations' climate talks went into overtime early Saturday morning as negotiators from nearly 200 nations grappled with disagreements over parts of a package of rules to implement a landmark agreement to combat global warming.

The United Nations' climate talks went into overtime early Saturday morning as negotiators from nearly 200 nations grappled with disagreements over parts of a package of rules to implement a landmark agreement to combat global warming. Countries are on a self-imposed deadline to produce a "rulebook" to flesh out details of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius and which comes into force in 2020. Talks in Katowice, Poland, underway since December 2, have been clouded by political divisions. Before the talks started, many expected that the deal would fall short of the detailed plan scientists have said is needed to limit global warming to well below a 2 degree-Celsius rise this century. Many exhausted ministers were seen going to their hotels around 2200 GMT to catch a few hours' sleep before resuming plenary talks scheduled for early Saturday morning, which could be subject to delays. European climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete, on leaving the Spodek conference venue told Reuters that talks had been held up all day due to the issue of emissions counting cited in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement regarding market-based mechanisms to combat climate change. Under the article, countries should agree to rules to ensure they do not double count emissions reductions. This is when one country is allowed to pay another to lower emissions but count those lower emissions towards their own emissions cut targets. A way to avoid this is to create an accounting rule which would ensure that emissions reductions generated in one place cannot be counted both by the party generating the cuts and the country using those reductions towards its own target under the Paris Agreement. A senior negotiator told Reuters Brazil was still obstructive on this issue and did not want clear rules to prevent double counting, which is unacceptable to many nations. "This threatens the success of the negotiations and could undermine the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement," said Nathaniel Keohane, senior vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, a US-based non-profit climate advocacy. Fear of Failure UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said on Friday that work needed to be finished "with the highest possible level of ambition." "It's essential for me that Katowice is not a failure. The worst thing that could happen to us is that. There would be the idea of chaos, the idea that to a certain extent we would be reproducing in Katowice what happened in Copenhagen." Climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009 were widely regarded as a failure as they ended with a bare-minimum agreement. It took six more years to clinch a deal in Paris. The Katowice draft text is still subject to change but requires developed countries to deliver an increase on a promise of $100 billion a year of climate finance to help poorer countries adapt to climate change by 2020 and rules on how to report and monitor each nation's greenhouse gas emissions. There has been compromising in some areas, such as tweaking the language to recognise the importance of a report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on limiting global warming to 1.5C, which caused rifts last week. But greater clarity has been sought on what countries will do after leaving Poland and how they will strengthen their commitments and targets under the pact. "We do not want to see the Paris Agreement watered down," said former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed.

UN climate talks go into overtime as negotiators grapple with text

Nations at <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/nations-urged-to-tackle-urgent-threats-at-un-climate-talks-180985">UN climate talks</a> were haggling Friday over the world's plan to avert disaster as host Poland dumped a draft decision text on delegates just hours before the summit was due to end. &nbsp;

Negotiators told AFP that delegates from nearly 200 nations were still far apart on several crunch issues -- from how the future fight against climate change is funded, to the levels of help given to countries already experiencing its effects.&nbsp;

Ministers at the COP24 talks must agree on a common rulebook to make good on promises made by countries in the landmark <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/why-the-next-two-years-are-critical-for-the-paris-climate-deals-survival-181651">2015 Paris accord</a>, which vowed to limit global temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).&nbsp;

But with the starkest warnings yet from scientists highlighting the need to drastically slash fossil fuel emissions within the coming decades in order to meet the safer cap of 1.5C warming, delegates were urged to act now or condemn at-risk nations to disaster.

One negotiator told AFP there were "several areas of concern" surrounding the draft decision text released overnight by Poland.&nbsp;

A major sticking point remains finance. Developing nations say they cannot afford to make their economies greener without reliable, transparent funding from richer nations.&nbsp;

'Cruel joke'

In the draft text there was no resolution on the key issue of finance, and developed nations -- responsible for the lion's share of historic greenhouse gas emissions -- were accused of seeking to shirk funding promises made in Paris.&nbsp;

"We are putting pressure on the (global) north to pay the cost," Costa Rica's environment minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez told reporters.

Harjeet Singh, global climate lead at ActionAid, said rich countries were "playing a cruel joke" on developing nations.

As it stands, "there is no obligation on their part on finance, both in terms of how much money they are going to provide and how to count that money," he said.&nbsp;

The draft text gave short shrift to another red-line issue for poor countries exposed to the ravages brought on by global warming: so-called "loss and damage".

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions and helping nations prepare for a climate-addled future have long been the twin pillars of the UN climate forum.&nbsp; 
But more recently, a third plank of the regime was added to help nations cope with deadly heatwaves, drought and floods -- amplified by climate change -- happening today.

"It is extremely concerning that loss and damage has been relegated to a footnote in the current draft," Mark Lutes, delegation lead for WWF.

'Climate emergency'

Xie Zhenhua, China's top <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/organic-food-has-bigger-climate-impact-than-conventionally-farmed-food-study-184028">climate</a> negotiator, said his country -- the world's largest carbon emitter -- "will do what we can" to get a deal in Katowice.

"We may get an outcome that everyone may not be entirely satisfied with, but can accept," he told reporters.&nbsp;

The expectation is that talks will go deep into overtime, with a number of key issues still unresolved. &nbsp;

One potential breakthrough came in the form of tentative consensus over how to treat the latest UN scientific report.&nbsp;

Most nations wanted the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- which highlighted the need for greenhouse gas emissions to be slashed to nearly half by 2030 in order to hit the 1.5C target -- to form a key part of future planning.

But the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait objected, leading to watered-down language in the draft decision.

Activists lamented the inability of the UN climate forum to decisively address what they describe as a "climate emergency."&nbsp;

"People are no longer waiting for some global consensus," said Jennifer Morgan, International Executive Director for Greenpeace.

"They are suing their governments, they are suing the carbon major companies, they are blocking roads and bridges, they are organising school strikes -- and this is only the beginning."

Dozens of school children took part in a strike inside the COP24 complex called by climate campaigning schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, who has been issuing pleas for action at the UN summit.

"For two weeks, Greta has been alone pushing leaders to deliver a climate deal. Today we answer her call and bring the call of young people everywhere to our leaders," said 15-year-old schoolgirl Malgorzata Czachowska. &nbsp;

"The time for talk is over, the time for action is now." &nbsp;

Nations at UN climate talks were haggling Friday over the world's plan to avert disaster as host Poland dumped a draft decision text on delegates just hours before the summit was due to end.

Nations at UN climate talks were haggling Friday over the world's plan to avert disaster as host Poland dumped a draft decision text on delegates just hours before the summit was due to end. Negotiators told AFP that delegates from nearly 200 nations were still far apart on several crunch issues -- from how the future fight against climate change is funded, to the levels of help given to countries already experiencing its effects. Ministers at the COP24 talks must agree on a common rulebook to make good on promises made by countries in the landmark 2015 Paris accord, which vowed to limit global temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). But with the starkest warnings yet from scientists highlighting the need to drastically slash fossil fuel emissions within the coming decades in order to meet the safer cap of 1.5C warming, delegates were urged to act now or condemn at-risk nations to disaster. One negotiator told AFP there were "several areas of concern" surrounding the draft decision text released overnight by Poland. A major sticking point remains finance. Developing nations say they cannot afford to make their economies greener without reliable, transparent funding from richer nations. 'Cruel joke' In the draft text there was no resolution on the key issue of finance, and developed nations -- responsible for the lion's share of historic greenhouse gas emissions -- were accused of seeking to shirk funding promises made in Paris. "We are putting pressure on the (global) north to pay the cost," Costa Rica's environment minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez told reporters. Harjeet Singh, global climate lead at ActionAid, said rich countries were "playing a cruel joke" on developing nations. As it stands, "there is no obligation on their part on finance, both in terms of how much money they are going to provide and how to count that money," he said. The draft text gave short shrift to another red-line issue for poor countries exposed to the ravages brought on by global warming: so-called "loss and damage". Cutting greenhouse gas emissions and helping nations prepare for a climate-addled future have long been the twin pillars of the UN climate forum. But more recently, a third plank of the regime was added to help nations cope with deadly heatwaves, drought and floods -- amplified by climate change -- happening today. "It is extremely concerning that loss and damage has been relegated to a footnote in the current draft," Mark Lutes, delegation lead for WWF. 'Climate emergency' Xie Zhenhua, China's top climate negotiator, said his country -- the world's largest carbon emitter -- "will do what we can" to get a deal in Katowice. "We may get an outcome that everyone may not be entirely satisfied with, but can accept," he told reporters. The expectation is that talks will go deep into overtime, with a number of key issues still unresolved. One potential breakthrough came in the form of tentative consensus over how to treat the latest UN scientific report. Most nations wanted the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- which highlighted the need for greenhouse gas emissions to be slashed to nearly half by 2030 in order to hit the 1.5C target -- to form a key part of future planning. But the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait objected, leading to watered-down language in the draft decision. Activists lamented the inability of the UN climate forum to decisively address what they describe as a "climate emergency." "People are no longer waiting for some global consensus," said Jennifer Morgan, International Executive Director for Greenpeace. "They are suing their governments, they are suing the carbon major companies, they are blocking roads and bridges, they are organising school strikes -- and this is only the beginning." Dozens of school children took part in a strike inside the COP24 complex called by climate campaigning schoolgirl Greta Thunberg, who has been issuing pleas for action at the UN summit. "For two weeks, Greta has been alone pushing leaders to deliver a climate deal. Today we answer her call and bring the call of young people everywhere to our leaders," said 15-year-old schoolgirl Malgorzata Czachowska. "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."

Nations still worlds apart at crunch UN climate summit

Melting ice in London aims to highlight global warming

WION Your Story: Arctic report card raises fears

Nations facing imminent environmental disaster called Monday on rich polluters to help them back from the brink, as the UN warned the world's plan to avoid climate catastrophe was<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/world-way-off-course-un-warns-at-crunch-climate-summit-181200"> "way off course"</a>.

From glaciers melting in Nepal to the rising seas threatening to engulf small island states, the world is already experiencing the damage lying in wait if global warming is allowed to run unchecked.

Nearly 200 nations gathered in Poland Monday for the start of the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/emphasis-on-urgency-as-climate-talks-begin-in-polish-coal-city-katowice-181146"> COP24 summit,</a> where they must agree on a universal rulebook to make good on the promises they made in the 2015 Paris climate deal.

"Nepal is a country comprised of mountains and plains," president Bidhya Devi Bhandari told delegates. "We have been bearing the brunt of the disproportionate impact of climate change despite being a low carbon-emitting country."&nbsp;

The<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-paris-climate-treaty-a-snapshot-180973"> Paris agreement</a> vowed to limit global temperature rises to under two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) and to the safer cap of 1.5 C if at all possible.

For this, richer nations must provide funding USD 100 billion per year by 2020 &nbsp;to steer developing countries towards greener energy while drastically drawing down their own emissions.

But developing nations have complained that richer states — responsible for the vast majority of historic fossil fuel use — aren't doing enough to help them adapt to our warming planet.

"We feel as if we have been penalised for the mistakes we never made," said Bhandari. It is incumbent on the international community to ensure that justice is done."&nbsp;

Trust in the Paris process has been badly undermined by US President Donald Trump's decision to renege on his country's commitment, and there are fears the political will to act is waning as negotiations drag on.

With just one degree Celsius of warming so far, Earth is already being subjected to raging forest fires, flooding and superstorms made worse by rising seas.

A string of<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/global-warming-outpaces-efforts-to-slow-it-un-179838"> UN reports</a> have sounded the alarm: levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the highest in 3 million years and the last four years were the four hottest in history.

In October a team of more than 90 independent scientists said mankind must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half within the next 12 years to avoid heat rises that could tear at the fabric of society.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned nations that their plan to chart a route away from runaway global warming was "way off course". 
"Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption," Guterres said.

President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria used his address to call for more stringent guidelines for "financial flows from developed countries to developing economies for climate change action".

As developing nations begged for vastly quicker action, host Poland was pushing its own agenda: a so-called "just transition" to greener energy which critics fear would allow it to continue burning coal for decades.

Eighty per cent of Polish energy comes from coal, and the COP24 itself is being held on the site of a decommissioned plant in the mining city of Katowice. 
Poland is expected to unveil a declaration calling on states to "recognise the challenges faced by sectors, cities and regions in transition from fossil fuels... To ensure a decent future for workers impacted by the transition."&nbsp;

Proceedings were injected with a shot of glamour as former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered a surprise address and wildlife documentary maker Sir David Attenborough made a plea to act on behalf of humanity.

"If we don't take action the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon," he said.

Frank Bainimarama, prime minister of Fiji and president of last year's COP, said developed nations must act before countries such has his were consumed by the waves. 
"Or, God forbid, (we) ignore the irrefutable evidence and become the generation that betrayed humanity," he said.

Nations facing imminent environmental disaster called Monday on rich polluters to help them back from the brink, as the UN warned the world's plan to avoid climate catastrophe was "way off course".

Nations facing imminent environmental disaster called Monday on rich polluters to help them back from the brink, as the UN warned the world's plan to avoid climate catastrophe was "way off course". From glaciers melting in Nepal to the rising seas threatening to engulf small island states, the world is already experiencing the damage lying in wait if global warming is allowed to run unchecked. Nearly 200 nations gathered in Poland Monday for the start of the COP24 summit, where they must agree on a universal rulebook to make good on the promises they made in the 2015 Paris climate deal. "Nepal is a country comprised of mountains and plains," president Bidhya Devi Bhandari told delegates. "We have been bearing the brunt of the disproportionate impact of climate change despite being a low carbon-emitting country." The Paris agreement vowed to limit global temperature rises to under two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) and to the safer cap of 1.5 C if at all possible. For this, richer nations must provide funding USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to steer developing countries towards greener energy while drastically drawing down their own emissions. But developing nations have complained that richer states — responsible for the vast majority of historic fossil fuel use — aren't doing enough to help them adapt to our warming planet. "We feel as if we have been penalised for the mistakes we never made," said Bhandari. It is incumbent on the international community to ensure that justice is done." Trust in the Paris process has been badly undermined by US President Donald Trump's decision to renege on his country's commitment, and there are fears the political will to act is waning as negotiations drag on. With just one degree Celsius of warming so far, Earth is already being subjected to raging forest fires, flooding and superstorms made worse by rising seas. A string of UN reports have sounded the alarm: levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the highest in 3 million years and the last four years were the four hottest in history. In October a team of more than 90 independent scientists said mankind must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half within the next 12 years to avoid heat rises that could tear at the fabric of society. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned nations that their plan to chart a route away from runaway global warming was "way off course". "Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption," Guterres said. President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria used his address to call for more stringent guidelines for "financial flows from developed countries to developing economies for climate change action". As developing nations begged for vastly quicker action, host Poland was pushing its own agenda: a so-called "just transition" to greener energy which critics fear would allow it to continue burning coal for decades. Eighty per cent of Polish energy comes from coal, and the COP24 itself is being held on the site of a decommissioned plant in the mining city of Katowice. Poland is expected to unveil a declaration calling on states to "recognise the challenges faced by sectors, cities and regions in transition from fossil fuels... To ensure a decent future for workers impacted by the transition." Proceedings were injected with a shot of glamour as former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered a surprise address and wildlife documentary maker Sir David Attenborough made a plea to act on behalf of humanity. "If we don't take action the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon," he said. Frank Bainimarama, prime minister of Fiji and president of last year's COP, said developed nations must act before countries such has his were consumed by the waves. "Or, God forbid, (we) ignore the irrefutable evidence and become the generation that betrayed humanity," he said.

At-risk nations plead for 'justice' at UN climate summit

We are facing global man-made disaster: David Attenborough

Humanity is falling further behind in the race against climate change, with the gap between greenhouse gas emissions and levels needed to achieve the Paris climate treaty temperature goals continuing to widen, the UN said Tuesday.

With only a single degree Celsius of warming so far, the world has seen a crescendo of deadly wildfires, heatwaves and hurricanes.

On current trends, temperatures are on track to rise roughly 4C by the century's end, a scenario that would tear at the fabric of civilisation, scientists say.

To cap global warming at two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), national carbon-cutting pledges annexed to the 2015 Paris Agreement must collectively triple by 2030, according to the UN Environment Programme's (UNEP) Emissions Gap report.

To hold the rise in Earth's temperature to 1.5C above the pre-industrial benchmark, such efforts would have to increase fivefold.

"The emissions gap is much bigger than last year," UNEP's Philip Drost, one of several coordinators for the annual report's ninth edition, told AFP.

One obvious reason was a spike last year in the quantity of carbon dioxide, methane and other planet-warming gases escaping into the atmosphere.

This trend is set to continue in 2018, which saw a jump in CO2 emissions from the energy sector, according to the International Energy Agency, as well as an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

But the gap between where we are and where we need to also grow on paper: new calculations by the UN's top science panel sharply reduce the real-world potential for drawing CO2 out of the air, whether by planting more trees or capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants.

'Chasing the bus'

More broadly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report released last month concluded that 2C of warming -- once seen as a safety guardrail -- would in fact usher in a maelstrom of deadly extreme weather.

Taken together, rising emissions and revised projections on CO2 removal have widened the emissions gap by 15 per cent for a 2C world, and by nearly 70 per cent for the 1.5C target, according to the new report.

The news comes despite breakneck growth in solar and wind power, gains in energy efficiency, and climate action by business and local governments, said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the Washington DC-based World Resources Institute. &nbsp;&nbsp;

"We are chasing a bus" -- climate change -- "and we are going faster and faster, setting new world records," he said by phone.

"But the bus is accelerating even faster, and the gap is increasing."

Momentum is most lacking at the national level, the report suggested.

"Governments really need to look at their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and increase their ambition," said Drost.

Boosting carbon-cutting efforts is high on the agenda at UN climate talks starting next week in Katowice, though host country Poland has let it be known that its top priority is finalising the "rulebook" for the Paris Agreement, which enters into force in 2020.

Carbon budget

But upping ambition will be a tall order given that most major economies are not even on track to achieve their current pledges.&nbsp;

The United States, the world's second-biggest carbon emitter, will miss its target badly, as will Australia, Canada, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey.

The European Union, Japan, Brazil and South Africa will also fall short. Top emitters China and Russia are both on track, but mostly because their goals were so modest to begin with.

The Emissions Gap report's projections are based on estimates of how much carbon humanity can emit into the atmosphere -- known as the "carbon budget" -- without breaching the 2C or 1.5C ceiling.

To cap global warming at 2C, annual emissions in 2030 will need to stay under 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or its equivalent (GtCO2e).

In 2017, total greenhouse gas emissions hit 53.5 GtCO2e.

If the target is 1.5C, the gap becomes a chasm: by 2030, carbon emissions must be lowered to no more than 24 billion tonnes per year, nearly one-and-a-half-times lower than they would be even if Paris promises are kept.

Written and reviewed by 100 climate scientists and experts, the annual, 100-page analysis tracks progress towards achieving the Paris treaty goals.

Under Donald Trump, the United States has abandoned its greenhouse gas goals and vowed to quit the Paris Agreement.

Humanity is falling further behind in the race against climate change, with the gap between greenhouse gas emissions and levels needed to achieve the Paris climate treaty temperature goals continuing to widen, the UN said Tuesday.

Humanity is falling further behind in the race against climate change, with the gap between greenhouse gas emissions and levels needed to achieve the Paris climate treaty temperature goals continuing to widen, the UN said Tuesday. With only a single degree Celsius of warming so far, the world has seen a crescendo of deadly wildfires, heatwaves and hurricanes. On current trends, temperatures are on track to rise roughly 4C by the century's end, a scenario that would tear at the fabric of civilisation, scientists say. To cap global warming at two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), national carbon-cutting pledges annexed to the 2015 Paris Agreement must collectively triple by 2030, according to the UN Environment Programme's (UNEP) Emissions Gap report. To hold the rise in Earth's temperature to 1.5C above the pre-industrial benchmark, such efforts would have to increase fivefold. "The emissions gap is much bigger than last year," UNEP's Philip Drost, one of several coordinators for the annual report's ninth edition, told AFP. One obvious reason was a spike last year in the quantity of carbon dioxide, methane and other planet-warming gases escaping into the atmosphere. This trend is set to continue in 2018, which saw a jump in CO2 emissions from the energy sector, according to the International Energy Agency, as well as an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. But the gap between where we are and where we need to also grow on paper: new calculations by the UN's top science panel sharply reduce the real-world potential for drawing CO2 out of the air, whether by planting more trees or capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants. 'Chasing the bus' More broadly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report released last month concluded that 2C of warming -- once seen as a safety guardrail -- would in fact usher in a maelstrom of deadly extreme weather. Taken together, rising emissions and revised projections on CO2 removal have widened the emissions gap by 15 per cent for a 2C world, and by nearly 70 per cent for the 1.5C target, according to the new report. The news comes despite breakneck growth in solar and wind power, gains in energy efficiency, and climate action by business and local governments, said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the Washington DC-based World Resources Institute. "We are chasing a bus" -- climate change -- "and we are going faster and faster, setting new world records," he said by phone. "But the bus is accelerating even faster, and the gap is increasing." Momentum is most lacking at the national level, the report suggested. "Governments really need to look at their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and increase their ambition," said Drost. Boosting carbon-cutting efforts is high on the agenda at UN climate talks starting next week in Katowice, though host country Poland has let it be known that its top priority is finalising the "rulebook" for the Paris Agreement, which enters into force in 2020. Carbon budget But upping ambition will be a tall order given that most major economies are not even on track to achieve their current pledges. The United States, the world's second-biggest carbon emitter, will miss its target badly, as will Australia, Canada, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey. The European Union, Japan, Brazil and South Africa will also fall short. Top emitters China and Russia are both on track, but mostly because their goals were so modest to begin with. The Emissions Gap report's projections are based on estimates of how much carbon humanity can emit into the atmosphere -- known as the "carbon budget" -- without breaching the 2C or 1.5C ceiling. To cap global warming at 2C, annual emissions in 2030 will need to stay under 40 billion tonnes of CO2 or its equivalent (GtCO2e). In 2017, total greenhouse gas emissions hit 53.5 GtCO2e. If the target is 1.5C, the gap becomes a chasm: by 2030, carbon emissions must be lowered to no more than 24 billion tonnes per year, nearly one-and-a-half-times lower than they would be even if Paris promises are kept. Written and reviewed by 100 climate scientists and experts, the annual, 100-page analysis tracks progress towards achieving the Paris treaty goals. Under Donald Trump, the United States has abandoned its greenhouse gas goals and vowed to quit the Paris Agreement.

Global warming outpaces efforts to slow it: UN

Soon after Diwali, Chhath puja was celebrated by people from Bihar and Jharkhand. The main religious ritual involves making offerings to the rising and setting sun, &nbsp;from the banks of a river. &nbsp;Like every year, hundreds of people from these eastern states gathered on the banks of various rivers in north India, including the Hindon, a tributary of the Yamuna. The Hindon originates in the lower Himalayas and flows through Meerut, Ghaziabad, Noida and Greater Noida before joining the Yamuna just outside Delhi. The Hindon has great significance in Indian history and culture as a site of the Indus Valley Civilization, Alamgirpur, lies on its banks. In the Mahabharat, the lac palace which the wily Kauravas had lured the Pandavas into in a ploy to burn them alive, lies in a place called Varnavat (now Barnava) in Baghpat district.&nbsp;

But looking at the froth in the polluted waters of this ancient river, no one can tell its cultural significance. The Ghaziabad district administration, &nbsp;the municipal authorities of the city and the Central minister of state General VK Singh (who is an MP from Ghaziabad) had promised people that the Hindon would be cleaned up before Chhath puja. However, that turned out to be yet another empty promise by the state. Some piecemeal efforts were made to release water into the Hindon but the problem runs much deeper as hundreds of litres of sewage water and garbage from the city is dumped into it. Essentially, once again, hundreds of Chhath puja devotees stood in highly polluted waters of the Hindon. A few years ago there were pictures of a red Hindon on social media as illegal stone crushing units had dumped their waste into the river with impunity. In 2016, some villages in Baghpat district of UP had decided not to vote in the 2017 assembly elections in protest as the unimaginable pollution of the Hindon was resulting in more cancers and neurological diseases than the people had ever experienced.

The environmental activist GD Agarwal or Swami Sanand died earlier this month due to fasting in protest against the government’s inaction on cleaning up the Ganga. The river was so dear to this civil engineer- activist monk, that he spent much of his long life fighting to save the Ganga from man-made projects that would hamper the river’s uninterrupted flow in the upper reaches. In the flurry of Bollywood weddings and other meaningless WhatsApp forwards, the news of his death and the cause he stood for barely registered with the masses. However, a consortium of seven non-profit organisations which have been organizing an annual event called India Rivers Week, which ends on November 26, dedicated this year to the late activist. &nbsp;The main question being asked is, despite the decades that have passed since efforts to clean up and revive the Ganga, and the several hundred crores that have since been spent, why is the state of the Ganga worse than it ever was, and how can this issue be solved?

The pollution of the Ganges from Rishikesh right until Diamond Harbour, near Kolkata, is an issue that has got the attention of the world, even though nothing dramatic has happened to control it. But it is almost impossible to find an Indian river which is unpolluted for most of its journey. In its latest study, the Central Pollution Control Board discovered that the number of polluted rivers in India has risen from 121 to 275 over the past five years. Tamil Nadu is fighting Karnataka not only over the Cauvery’s waters but also for polluting the river with industrial effluents even before it enters Tamil Nadu. Cauvery water which was the main drinking water source for lakhs of people, is now toxic beyond safe limits.

Ramaswamy Iyer, an expert on Indian rivers, having been secretary at the Ministry of Water Resources and author of India’s first National Water Policy in 1987 attributes near death of India’s once great rivers not just to heavy pollution but also to other factors like violence to their physical components such as the river-bed, banks and floodplains. The underlying cause, he says, is a poor understanding of what constitutes a river and the deeply flawed attitudes and approaches towards rivers and the environment in general. Every river in India, except the Brahmaputra, is a female and has significance in Hindu epics and scriptures. Just as women are worshipped as devis and abused like nowhere else, rivers are worshipped as bountiful mothers (Ganga maiyya, for example) &nbsp;but havoc is wreaked on them. This election season, voters need to realise that the only religious issue that matters is the downright insult to our river goddesses happening across the country. 
 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-india-s-once-great-rivers-are-victims-of-ecological-violence-2689285">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Soon after Diwali, Chhath puja was celebrated by people from Bihar and Jharkhand. The main religious ritual involves making offerings to the rising and setting sun, from the banks of a river.

Soon after Diwali, Chhath puja was celebrated by people from Bihar and Jharkhand. The main religious ritual involves making offerings to the rising and setting sun, from the banks of a river. Like every year, hundreds of people from these eastern states gathered on the banks of various rivers in north India, including the Hindon, a tributary of the Yamuna. The Hindon originates in the lower Himalayas and flows through Meerut, Ghaziabad, Noida and Greater Noida before joining the Yamuna just outside Delhi. The Hindon has great significance in Indian history and culture as a site of the Indus Valley Civilization, Alamgirpur, lies on its banks. In the Mahabharat, the lac palace which the wily Kauravas had lured the Pandavas into in a ploy to burn them alive, lies in a place called Varnavat (now Barnava) in Baghpat district. But looking at the froth in the polluted waters of this ancient river, no one can tell its cultural significance. The Ghaziabad district administration, the municipal authorities of the city and the Central minister of state General VK Singh (who is an MP from Ghaziabad) had promised people that the Hindon would be cleaned up before Chhath puja. However, that turned out to be yet another empty promise by the state. Some piecemeal efforts were made to release water into the Hindon but the problem runs much deeper as hundreds of litres of sewage water and garbage from the city is dumped into it. Essentially, once again, hundreds of Chhath puja devotees stood in highly polluted waters of the Hindon. A few years ago there were pictures of a red Hindon on social media as illegal stone crushing units had dumped their waste into the river with impunity. In 2016, some villages in Baghpat district of UP had decided not to vote in the 2017 assembly elections in protest as the unimaginable pollution of the Hindon was resulting in more cancers and neurological diseases than the people had ever experienced. The environmental activist GD Agarwal or Swami Sanand died earlier this month due to fasting in protest against the government’s inaction on cleaning up the Ganga. The river was so dear to this civil engineer- activist monk, that he spent much of his long life fighting to save the Ganga from man-made projects that would hamper the river’s uninterrupted flow in the upper reaches. In the flurry of Bollywood weddings and other meaningless WhatsApp forwards, the news of his death and the cause he stood for barely registered with the masses. However, a consortium of seven non-profit organisations which have been organizing an annual event called India Rivers Week, which ends on November 26, dedicated this year to the late activist. The main question being asked is, despite the decades that have passed since efforts to clean up and revive the Ganga, and the several hundred crores that have since been spent, why is the state of the Ganga worse than it ever was, and how can this issue be solved? The pollution of the Ganges from Rishikesh right until Diamond Harbour, near Kolkata, is an issue that has got the attention of the world, even though nothing dramatic has happened to control it. But it is almost impossible to find an Indian river which is unpolluted for most of its journey. In its latest study, the Central Pollution Control Board discovered that the number of polluted rivers in India has risen from 121 to 275 over the past five years. Tamil Nadu is fighting Karnataka not only over the Cauvery’s waters but also for polluting the river with industrial effluents even before it enters Tamil Nadu. Cauvery water which was the main drinking water source for lakhs of people, is now toxic beyond safe limits. Ramaswamy Iyer, an expert on Indian rivers, having been secretary at the Ministry of Water Resources and author of India’s first National Water Policy in 1987 attributes near death of India’s once great rivers not just to heavy pollution but also to other factors like violence to their physical components such as the river-bed, banks and floodplains. The underlying cause, he says, is a poor understanding of what constitutes a river and the deeply flawed attitudes and approaches towards rivers and the environment in general. Every river in India, except the Brahmaputra, is a female and has significance in Hindu epics and scriptures. Just as women are worshipped as devis and abused like nowhere else, rivers are worshipped as bountiful mothers (Ganga maiyya, for example) but havoc is wreaked on them. This election season, voters need to realise that the only religious issue that matters is the downright insult to our river goddesses happening across the country. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

India’s once great rivers are victims of ecological violence

If you crave a pint (or two) at the end of a hard day, brace yourself: climate change is poised to make your favourite lager, ale or IPA more scarce and pricey.

On current trends, a crescendo of heatwaves and droughts will periodically cause sharp declines in barley yields, a crucial ingredient in most beer, according to a study published Monday.

"Decreases in the global supply of barley lead to proportionally larger decreases in barley used to make beer," said lead author Dabo Guan, a professor of climate change economics and the University of East Anglia in Britain.

Only the highest quality grain -- less than 20 percent -- is used to make beer, with most of the rest used as feedstock.

"High-quality barley is even more sensitive to extreme weather events linked to climate change," Guan told AFP.&nbsp;

During severe climate events, global beer consumption would decline by 16 percent, or nearly 30 billion litres -- equal to all the beer quaffed each year in the United States, Guan and an international team of researchers reported in the journal Nature Plants.

Beer prices in the wake of these disruptive weather events would, on average, double.

By volume, beer is by far the most popular alcoholic drink in the world, with nearly 200 billion litres produced in 2017.

Some countries will get hit harder by beer shortages and higher bar tabs than others, the study found.

In China -- whose 1.3 billion people collectively down more brew than any other nation -- consumption would fall by a staggering 4.3 billion litres in a bad year.

Britain would also get thirsty during a severe barley crunch, with consumption dropping by up to 1.3 billion litres, and the price of a pint doubling.

Per capita, most of the top-20 beer-drinking nations are in Europe, along with the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

Keep calm, have a beer 
Guan and colleagues calculated the impact of severe weather events under different future climate scenarios -- ranging from a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to our current "business as usual" trajectory -- on yields in the world's 34 most important barley-growing regions.

An extreme weather year was defined as one with both heatwaves and drought -- in a barley region during growing season -- more severe than once-a-century events before global warming began.

From 2010 to the end of the century, they found, there will be 17 such events if humanity manages to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and 139 if current rates of carbon pollution persist.

The next step was to estimate how these "barley supply shocks" would affect the production and price of beer in each region.

In a climate-addled world where staple crops such as wheat, corn, soybeans and rice are predicted to decline in yield and nutritional value, pressure will likely mount to use barley as a source of food rather than to make brew.

"Climate change may undermine the availability, stability and access to 'luxury' goods," said Guan.

At the same time, the "cross-cultural appreciation of beer" is deep and widespread, he noted.

"There is little doubt that for millions of people around the world, the climate impact on beer availability and price will add insult to injury," he said.

As the adage goes, "It's all fun and games until the beer runs out."

The top exporters of barley are Australia, France, Russia, Ukraine and Argentina, with many European countries filling out the top-20.

The biggest importers are China, Saudi Arabia and Iran, with three top brewing nations -- Netherlands, Belgium and Japan -- just behind.&nbsp;

If you crave a pint (or two) at the end of a hard day, brace yourself: climate change is poised to make your favourite lager, ale or IPA more scarce and pricey. On current trends, a crescendo of heatwaves and droughts will periodically cause sharp declines in barley yields, a crucial ingredient in most beer, according to a study published Monday.

If you crave a pint (or two) at the end of a hard day, brace yourself: climate change is poised to make your favourite lager, ale or IPA more scarce and pricey. On current trends, a crescendo of heatwaves and droughts will periodically cause sharp declines in barley yields, a crucial ingredient in most beer, according to a study published Monday. "Decreases in the global supply of barley lead to proportionally larger decreases in barley used to make beer," said lead author Dabo Guan, a professor of climate change economics and the University of East Anglia in Britain. Only the highest quality grain -- less than 20 percent -- is used to make beer, with most of the rest used as feedstock. "High-quality barley is even more sensitive to extreme weather events linked to climate change," Guan told AFP. During severe climate events, global beer consumption would decline by 16 percent, or nearly 30 billion litres -- equal to all the beer quaffed each year in the United States, Guan and an international team of researchers reported in the journal Nature Plants. Beer prices in the wake of these disruptive weather events would, on average, double. By volume, beer is by far the most popular alcoholic drink in the world, with nearly 200 billion litres produced in 2017. Some countries will get hit harder by beer shortages and higher bar tabs than others, the study found. In China -- whose 1.3 billion people collectively down more brew than any other nation -- consumption would fall by a staggering 4.3 billion litres in a bad year. Britain would also get thirsty during a severe barley crunch, with consumption dropping by up to 1.3 billion litres, and the price of a pint doubling. Per capita, most of the top-20 beer-drinking nations are in Europe, along with the United States, New Zealand and Australia. Keep calm, have a beer Guan and colleagues calculated the impact of severe weather events under different future climate scenarios -- ranging from a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to our current "business as usual" trajectory -- on yields in the world's 34 most important barley-growing regions. An extreme weather year was defined as one with both heatwaves and drought -- in a barley region during growing season -- more severe than once-a-century events before global warming began. From 2010 to the end of the century, they found, there will be 17 such events if humanity manages to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and 139 if current rates of carbon pollution persist. The next step was to estimate how these "barley supply shocks" would affect the production and price of beer in each region. In a climate-addled world where staple crops such as wheat, corn, soybeans and rice are predicted to decline in yield and nutritional value, pressure will likely mount to use barley as a source of food rather than to make brew. "Climate change may undermine the availability, stability and access to 'luxury' goods," said Guan. At the same time, the "cross-cultural appreciation of beer" is deep and widespread, he noted. "There is little doubt that for millions of people around the world, the climate impact on beer availability and price will add insult to injury," he said. As the adage goes, "It's all fun and games until the beer runs out." The top exporters of barley are Australia, France, Russia, Ukraine and Argentina, with many European countries filling out the top-20. The biggest importers are China, Saudi Arabia and Iran, with three top brewing nations -- Netherlands, Belgium and Japan -- just behind.

An effect of climate change: Less beer

A group of young Americans suing the federal government over lack of action to fight climate change can proceed with their lawsuit, but US&nbsp;President Donald Trump cannot be named as a defendant, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-theres-something-there-manmade-or-not-regarding-climate-change-171639">Also Read:&nbsp;'There's something there, manmade or not', says&nbsp;Trump on climate change</a>

The decision by US&nbsp;District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, came before the case is scheduled to go to trial in federal court on October&nbsp;29th.

Twenty-one children and young adults, who were between 8 and 19 years of age when the lawsuit was filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, accused federal officials and oil industry executives of violating their due process rights by knowing for decades that carbon pollution poisons the environment, but doing nothing about it.

Aiken said the case revealed a delicate balance of power between the judicial and other government agencies. The judge said those concerns were not enough to warrant a dismissal of the entire case, but she concluded that the inclusion of Trump as the sitting US&nbsp;president violated the proper separation of powers.

The original lawsuit had named President Barack Obama as a defendant. After Trump took office, the lawsuit was amended to instead name Trump as a defendant.

The lawsuit still includes the heads of other US&nbsp;agencies. The names of the heads of those agencies were also amended with the change to the Trump administration.

The potentially far-reaching case is one of a handful seeking to have courts address global warming and its causes.

The US&nbsp;Justice Department said it was reviewing Monday's decision and in a statement called the lawsuit an unconstitutional attempt to control the entire country's climate and energy policy through a single court.

A spokeswoman for the plaintiffs did not return a request for comment on Monday's decision.

The federal government in a court filing on Friday asked the 9th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the case while it is seeking review by the US&nbsp;Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that extreme weather events, such as flooding, caused them emotional trauma and damage to their health, safety, cultural practices, food security and economic stability.

The government argued those injuries are widespread environmental phenomena affecting all other people on the planet and said the issue did not belong in court.

The federal defendants also contended that letting the case proceed would be too burdensome, would unconstitutionally pit the courts against the executive branch, and would require improper "agency decision-making" by forcing officials to answer questions about climate change.

Aiken in her Monday decision rejected those arguments, saying the plaintiffs had offered extensive expert declarations to link their injuries to fossil fuel-induced climate change.

She also said there was sufficient evidence that government actions, such as coal leasing, oil development and fossil fuel industry subsidies, led to the children's injuries. 
&nbsp;

A group of young Americans suing the federal government over lack of action to fight climate change can proceed with their lawsuit, but US President Donald Trump cannot be named as a defendant, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

A group of young Americans suing the federal government over lack of action to fight climate change can proceed with their lawsuit, but US President Donald Trump cannot be named as a defendant, a federal judge ruled on Monday. Also Read: 'There's something there, manmade or not', says Trump on climate change The decision by US District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, came before the case is scheduled to go to trial in federal court on October 29th. Twenty-one children and young adults, who were between 8 and 19 years of age when the lawsuit was filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, accused federal officials and oil industry executives of violating their due process rights by knowing for decades that carbon pollution poisons the environment, but doing nothing about it. Aiken said the case revealed a delicate balance of power between the judicial and other government agencies. The judge said those concerns were not enough to warrant a dismissal of the entire case, but she concluded that the inclusion of Trump as the sitting US president violated the proper separation of powers. The original lawsuit had named President Barack Obama as a defendant. After Trump took office, the lawsuit was amended to instead name Trump as a defendant. The lawsuit still includes the heads of other US agencies. The names of the heads of those agencies were also amended with the change to the Trump administration. The potentially far-reaching case is one of a handful seeking to have courts address global warming and its causes. The US Justice Department said it was reviewing Monday's decision and in a statement called the lawsuit an unconstitutional attempt to control the entire country's climate and energy policy through a single court. A spokeswoman for the plaintiffs did not return a request for comment on Monday's decision. The federal government in a court filing on Friday asked the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the case while it is seeking review by the US Supreme Court. The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that extreme weather events, such as flooding, caused them emotional trauma and damage to their health, safety, cultural practices, food security and economic stability. The government argued those injuries are widespread environmental phenomena affecting all other people on the planet and said the issue did not belong in court. The federal defendants also contended that letting the case proceed would be too burdensome, would unconstitutionally pit the courts against the executive branch, and would require improper "agency decision-making" by forcing officials to answer questions about climate change. Aiken in her Monday decision rejected those arguments, saying the plaintiffs had offered extensive expert declarations to link their injuries to fossil fuel-induced climate change. She also said there was sufficient evidence that government actions, such as coal leasing, oil development and fossil fuel industry subsidies, led to the children's injuries.

Government, not Trump, can be sued over climate change: US judge

Undeniably, this year has been marred by and fraught with natural disasters and calamities all across the globe. From the destructive deluge that hit the south Indian state of Kerala, wildfires that scorched Europe and America, to quakes, cyclones, heat-waves, droughts, typhoons and the recent Indonesian quake-tsunami disaster; almost every continent had some climatic mishap happening this year and it doesn’t seem to stop.

This year’s extreme climatic upheavals got many to think about climate change, global warming and the large-scale environmental imbalances. Thousands and hundreds of people have lost their lives in climate-related disasters all across the globe, millions of dollars have been wasted to grapple with the aftermath. A UN report claims that India, in the last two decades, has lost around <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-lost-795-billion-from-climate-related-disasters-in-20-years-un-report-170812">$79.5 billion from climate-related disasters</a>.

The question remains, can you and I still take baby steps towards reversing the damage? Is it possible to put the environmental imbalance back into equilibrium? Will our individual effort matter?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Experts suggest that the pace at which the West is consuming meat, it will only throw the ecological chain off balance</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Experts suggest that the pace at which the West is consuming meat, it will only throw the ecological chain off balance" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Earlier this week, another report on climate change, published in the journal Nature, proposed slashing global meat consumption to mitigate climatic disasters.

Experts suggest that the pace at which the West is consuming meat, it will only throw the ecological chain off balance, and in order to ensure that the planet is able to support and sustain 10 billion people by 2050, the West has to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/world-must-slash-meat-consumption-to-save-climate-study-170772">cut down on its meat intake by a whopping 90 per cent</a>. The report further warned that the damaging effects of the food industry will escalate by nearly 90 per cent by mid-century.

Food production -- which produces damaging greenhouse gases from livestock, ruins enormous swathes of forests and uses unsustainable amounts of water -- is a major contributor to climate change, news agency AFP reported.

In addition, the livestock industry uses immense amounts of water -- 500 grammes (a pound) of beef is estimated to require close to 7,000 litres of water.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Experts call for a gradual, but eventual, shift toward plant-based diets.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Experts call for a gradual, but eventual, shift toward plant-based diets." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Experts, therefore, call for a gradual, but eventual, shift toward plant-based diets for sustainability, better health and more secure future of mankind and global resources.

All aspects of human life must be towed toward attaining a balance, it becomes imperative to think at the microcosmic level and then see the larger picture to see how the smallest of changes help mend the situation at the global level.

Succinctly put, the problem will not be solved by getting meat eaters to suddenly switch to plant-based diets, it will happen only when each one of us pledges to make a conscious and consistent effort to depend less on our environment. You and I have to realize the price of natural resources and be mindful of how we use them while trying to conserve them.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Population explosion is another big factor; the number of humans on the planet has slowly begun to outpace the resources produced to meet the demand.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Population explosion is another big factor; the number of humans on the planet has slowly begun to outpace the resources produced to meet the demand." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Population explosion is another big factor; the number of humans on the planet has slowly begun to outpace the resources produced to meet the demand. With an ever-expanding population, we will only need more resources, more place to live, more water, more vehicles, more burden on resources, greater loss of equilibrium, more pollution, leading to an increased burden on the environment – as a result, the climatic equation will only deplete, faster than ever imagined or estimated.

We need to act now before it gets too late. Maybe there is going to be no dramatic end to the world, no apocalypse or doomsday like in the time of the gigantic woolly mammoth or the dinosaurs. Maybe the planet won't come to an end after getting hit by a colossal asteroid.

It would not be wrong to imagine that you and I are already sitting on a ticking time-bomb, still having an option to avert the outcome and script a different end. Maybe, there will be no big bang, and as TS Eliot noted in his celebrated poem ‘The Hollow Men’ almost a century ago – it is possible for the world to end in just a whimper.

“This is the way the world ends 
Not with a bang but a whimper,” – ‘The Hollow Men,’ TS Eliot, 1925.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Undeniably, this year has been marred by and fraught with natural disasters and calamities all across the globe. From the destructive deluge that hit the south Indian state of Kerala, wildfires that scorched Europe and America, to quakes, cyclones, heat-waves, droughts, typhoons and the recent Indonesian quake-tsunami disaster; almost every continent had some climatic mishap happening this year and it doesn’t seem to stop.

Undeniably, this year has been marred by and fraught with natural disasters and calamities all across the globe. From the destructive deluge that hit the south Indian state of Kerala, wildfires that scorched Europe and America, to quakes, cyclones, heat-waves, droughts, typhoons and the recent Indonesian quake-tsunami disaster; almost every continent had some climatic mishap happening this year and it doesn’t seem to stop. This year’s extreme climatic upheavals got many to think about climate change, global warming and the large-scale environmental imbalances. Thousands and hundreds of people have lost their lives in climate-related disasters all across the globe, millions of dollars have been wasted to grapple with the aftermath. A UN report claims that India, in the last two decades, has lost around $79.5 billion from climate-related disasters. The question remains, can you and I still take baby steps towards reversing the damage? Is it possible to put the environmental imbalance back into equilibrium? Will our individual effort matter? Experts suggest that the pace at which the West is consuming meat, it will only throw the ecological chain off balance × Earlier this week, another report on climate change, published in the journal Nature, proposed slashing global meat consumption to mitigate climatic disasters. Experts suggest that the pace at which the West is consuming meat, it will only throw the ecological chain off balance, and in order to ensure that the planet is able to support and sustain 10 billion people by 2050, the West has to cut down on its meat intake by a whopping 90 per cent. The report further warned that the damaging effects of the food industry will escalate by nearly 90 per cent by mid-century. Food production -- which produces damaging greenhouse gases from livestock, ruins enormous swathes of forests and uses unsustainable amounts of water -- is a major contributor to climate change, news agency AFP reported. In addition, the livestock industry uses immense amounts of water -- 500 grammes (a pound) of beef is estimated to require close to 7,000 litres of water. Experts call for a gradual, but eventual, shift toward plant-based diets. × Experts, therefore, call for a gradual, but eventual, shift toward plant-based diets for sustainability, better health and more secure future of mankind and global resources. All aspects of human life must be towed toward attaining a balance, it becomes imperative to think at the microcosmic level and then see the larger picture to see how the smallest of changes help mend the situation at the global level. Succinctly put, the problem will not be solved by getting meat eaters to suddenly switch to plant-based diets, it will happen only when each one of us pledges to make a conscious and consistent effort to depend less on our environment. You and I have to realize the price of natural resources and be mindful of how we use them while trying to conserve them. Population explosion is another big factor; the number of humans on the planet has slowly begun to outpace the resources produced to meet the demand. × Population explosion is another big factor; the number of humans on the planet has slowly begun to outpace the resources produced to meet the demand. With an ever-expanding population, we will only need more resources, more place to live, more water, more vehicles, more burden on resources, greater loss of equilibrium, more pollution, leading to an increased burden on the environment – as a result, the climatic equation will only deplete, faster than ever imagined or estimated. We need to act now before it gets too late. Maybe there is going to be no dramatic end to the world, no apocalypse or doomsday like in the time of the gigantic woolly mammoth or the dinosaurs. Maybe the planet won't come to an end after getting hit by a colossal asteroid. It would not be wrong to imagine that you and I are already sitting on a ticking time-bomb, still having an option to avert the outcome and script a different end. Maybe, there will be no big bang, and as TS Eliot noted in his celebrated poem ‘The Hollow Men’ almost a century ago – it is possible for the world to end in just a whimper. “This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper,” – ‘The Hollow Men,’ TS Eliot, 1925.

A year fraught with natural disasters, quit turning blind eye to climate change

By Mark Howden and Rebecca Colvin&nbsp;

A landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commissioned at the breakthrough 2015 summit that brokered the Paris climate agreement, outlines what’s at stake in the world’s bid to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃.

The report, released today, sets out the key practical differences between the Paris agreement’s two contrasting goals: to limit the increase of human-induced global warming to well below 2℃ and to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5℃.

Two and a half years in the making, the report provides vital information about whether the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious goal is indeed achievable, what the future may look like under it, and the risks and rewards of hitting the target.

Here are five key questions to which the report provides answers.

Can we limit warming to 1.5℃?

There is no clear yes or no answer to this question.

Put simply, it is not impossible that global warming could be limited to 1.5℃. But achieving this will be profoundly challenging.

If we are to limit warming to 1.5℃, we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030, reaching near-zero by around 2050.

Whether we are successful primarily depends on the rate at which government and non-state bodies take action to reduce emissions. Yet despite the urgency, current national pledges under the Paris Agreement are not enough to remain within a 3℃ temperature limit, let alone 1.5℃.

Global warming is not just a problem for the future. The impacts are already being felt around the world, with declines in crop yields, biodiversity, coral reefs, and Arctic sea ice, and increases in heatwaves and heavy rainfall. Sea levels have risen by 40.5mm in the past decade and are predicted to continue rising for decades, even if all greenhouse emissions were reduced to zero immediately. Climate adaptation is already needed and will be increasingly so at 1.5℃ and 2℃ of warming.

Rapid action is essential and the next ten years will be crucial. In 2017, global warming breached 1℃. If the planet continues to warm at the current rate of 0.2℃ per decade, we will reach 1.5℃ of warming around 2040. At current emissions rates, within the next 10 to 14 years there is a 2/3 chance we will have used up our entire carbon budget for keeping to 1.5.

How can we limit warming to 1.5℃?

The report says “transformational” change will be needed to limit warming to 1.5℃. Business, as usual, will not get us there.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases need to reach net zero globally by around 2050. Most economists say putting a price on emissions is the most efficient way to do this.

By 2050, 70-85% of electricity globally will need to be supplied by renewables. Investment in low-carbon and energy-efficient technologies will need to double, whereas investment in fossil-fuel extraction will need to decrease by around a quarter.

Carbon dioxide removal technology will also be needed to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. But the IPCC’s report warns that relying too heavily on this technology would be a major risk as it has not been used on such a large scale before. Carbon dioxide removal is an extra step that may be needed to keep warming to 1.5℃, not an excuse to keep emitting greenhouse gases.

Production, consumption and lifestyle choices also play a role. Reducing energy demand and food waste, improving the efficiency of food production, and choosing foods and goods with lower emissions and land use requirements will contribute significantly.

Taking such action as soon as possible will be hugely beneficial. The earlier we start, the more time we have to reach net zero emissions. Acting early will mean a smoother transition and less net cost overall. Delay will lead to more haste, higher costs, and a harder landing.

Reducing emissions quickly will also ensure warming is capped as soon as possible, reducing the number and severity of impacts.

Yet severe impacts will still be experienced even if warming is successfully capped at 1.5℃.

What is the cost of 1.5℃ of warming?

Although the Paris Agreement aims to hold global warming as close to 1.5℃ as possible, that doesn’t mean it is a “safe” level. Communities and ecosystems around the world have already suffered significant impacts from the 1℃ of warming so far, and the effects at 1.5℃ will be harsher still.

Poverty and disadvantages will increase as temperatures rise to 1.5℃. Small island states, deltas and low-lying coasts are particularly vulnerable, with an increased risk of flooding, and threats to freshwater supplies, infrastructure, and livelihoods.

Warming to 1.5℃ also poses a risk to global economic growth, with the tropics and southern subtropics potentially being hit hardest. Extreme weather events such as floods, heatwaves, and droughts will become more frequent, severe, and widespread, with attendant costs in terms of health care, infrastructure, and disaster response.

The oceans will also suffer in a 1.5℃ warmer world. Ocean warming and acidification are expected to impact fisheries and aquaculture, as well as many marine species and ecosystems.

Up to 90% of warm water coral reefs are predicted to disappear when global warming reaches 1.5℃. That would be a dire situation, but far less serious than at 2℃, when the destruction of coral reefs would be almost total (greater than 99% destruction).

How do 1.5℃ and 2℃ compare? 
 
Impacts on both human and natural systems would be very different at 1.5℃ rather than 2℃ of warming. For example, limiting warming to 1.5℃ would roughly halve the number of people globally who are expected to suffer from water scarcity.

Seas would rise by an extra 10cm this century at 2℃ compared with 1.5℃. This means limiting global warming to 1.5℃ would save up to 10.4 million people from the impacts of rising seas. 
 
At 1.5℃ rather than 2℃:

*Up to 427 million fewer people will suffer food and water insecurity, climate risks, and adverse health impacts

*Extreme weather events, heat-related death and disease, desertification, and wildlife extinctions will all be reduced

*It will be significantly easier to achieve many of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, including those linked to hunger, poverty, water and sanitation, health, and cities and ecosystems.

How does the 1.5℃ target fit with the Sustainable Development Goals?

The Sustainable Development Goals aim for a world in which people can be healthy, financially stable, well fed, have clean air and water, and live in a secure and pleasant environment. Much of this is consistent with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5℃, which is why the IPCC notes there are synergies if the SDG initiatives and climate action should be explicitly linked.

But some climate strategies may make it harder to achieve particular SDGs. Countries that are highly dependent on fossil fuels for employment and revenue may suffer economically in the transition towards low-carbon energy.

Carefully managing this transition by simultaneously focusing on reducing poverty and promoting equity in decision-making may help avoid the worst effects of such trade-offs. What works in one place may not work in another, so strategies should always be locally appropriate.

Where next?

Limiting global warming to 1.5℃ will require a social transformation, as the world takes rapid action to reduce greenhouse gases. The effects of climate change will continue to shape the world we live in, but there is no doubt we will be far better off under 1.5℃ than 2℃ of global warming.

The choices we make today are shaping the future for coming generations. As the new report makes clear, if we are serious about the 1.5℃ target, we need to act now. 
 
(Mark Howden is Director, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University; &nbsp;Rebecca Colvin is Knowledge Exchange Specialist, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-un-report-outlines-urgent-transformational-change-needed-to-hold-global-warming-to-1-5-c-103237">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Mark Howden and Rebecca Colvin A landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commissioned at the breakthrough 2015 summit that brokered the Paris climate agreement, outlines what’s at stake in the world’s bid to limit global temperature rise to 1.

By Mark Howden and Rebecca Colvin A landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commissioned at the breakthrough 2015 summit that brokered the Paris climate agreement, outlines what’s at stake in the world’s bid to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃. The report, released today, sets out the key practical differences between the Paris agreement’s two contrasting goals: to limit the increase of human-induced global warming to well below 2℃ and to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5℃. Two and a half years in the making, the report provides vital information about whether the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious goal is indeed achievable, what the future may look like under it, and the risks and rewards of hitting the target. Here are five key questions to which the report provides answers. Can we limit warming to 1.5℃? There is no clear yes or no answer to this question. Put simply, it is not impossible that global warming could be limited to 1.5℃. But achieving this will be profoundly challenging. If we are to limit warming to 1.5℃, we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030, reaching near-zero by around 2050. Whether we are successful primarily depends on the rate at which government and non-state bodies take action to reduce emissions. Yet despite the urgency, current national pledges under the Paris Agreement are not enough to remain within a 3℃ temperature limit, let alone 1.5℃. Global warming is not just a problem for the future. The impacts are already being felt around the world, with declines in crop yields, biodiversity, coral reefs, and Arctic sea ice, and increases in heatwaves and heavy rainfall. Sea levels have risen by 40.5mm in the past decade and are predicted to continue rising for decades, even if all greenhouse emissions were reduced to zero immediately. Climate adaptation is already needed and will be increasingly so at 1.5℃ and 2℃ of warming. Rapid action is essential and the next ten years will be crucial. In 2017, global warming breached 1℃. If the planet continues to warm at the current rate of 0.2℃ per decade, we will reach 1.5℃ of warming around 2040. At current emissions rates, within the next 10 to 14 years there is a 2/3 chance we will have used up our entire carbon budget for keeping to 1.5. How can we limit warming to 1.5℃? The report says “transformational” change will be needed to limit warming to 1.5℃. Business, as usual, will not get us there. Global emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases need to reach net zero globally by around 2050. Most economists say putting a price on emissions is the most efficient way to do this. By 2050, 70-85% of electricity globally will need to be supplied by renewables. Investment in low-carbon and energy-efficient technologies will need to double, whereas investment in fossil-fuel extraction will need to decrease by around a quarter. Carbon dioxide removal technology will also be needed to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. But the IPCC’s report warns that relying too heavily on this technology would be a major risk as it has not been used on such a large scale before. Carbon dioxide removal is an extra step that may be needed to keep warming to 1.5℃, not an excuse to keep emitting greenhouse gases. Production, consumption and lifestyle choices also play a role. Reducing energy demand and food waste, improving the efficiency of food production, and choosing foods and goods with lower emissions and land use requirements will contribute significantly. Taking such action as soon as possible will be hugely beneficial. The earlier we start, the more time we have to reach net zero emissions. Acting early will mean a smoother transition and less net cost overall. Delay will lead to more haste, higher costs, and a harder landing. Reducing emissions quickly will also ensure warming is capped as soon as possible, reducing the number and severity of impacts. Yet severe impacts will still be experienced even if warming is successfully capped at 1.5℃. What is the cost of 1.5℃ of warming? Although the Paris Agreement aims to hold global warming as close to 1.5℃ as possible, that doesn’t mean it is a “safe” level. Communities and ecosystems around the world have already suffered significant impacts from the 1℃ of warming so far, and the effects at 1.5℃ will be harsher still. Poverty and disadvantages will increase as temperatures rise to 1.5℃. Small island states, deltas and low-lying coasts are particularly vulnerable, with an increased risk of flooding, and threats to freshwater supplies, infrastructure, and livelihoods. Warming to 1.5℃ also poses a risk to global economic growth, with the tropics and southern subtropics potentially being hit hardest. Extreme weather events such as floods, heatwaves, and droughts will become more frequent, severe, and widespread, with attendant costs in terms of health care, infrastructure, and disaster response. The oceans will also suffer in a 1.5℃ warmer world. Ocean warming and acidification are expected to impact fisheries and aquaculture, as well as many marine species and ecosystems. Up to 90% of warm water coral reefs are predicted to disappear when global warming reaches 1.5℃. That would be a dire situation, but far less serious than at 2℃, when the destruction of coral reefs would be almost total (greater than 99% destruction). How do 1.5℃ and 2℃ compare? Impacts on both human and natural systems would be very different at 1.5℃ rather than 2℃ of warming. For example, limiting warming to 1.5℃ would roughly halve the number of people globally who are expected to suffer from water scarcity. Seas would rise by an extra 10cm this century at 2℃ compared with 1.5℃. This means limiting global warming to 1.5℃ would save up to 10.4 million people from the impacts of rising seas. At 1.5℃ rather than 2℃: *Up to 427 million fewer people will suffer food and water insecurity, climate risks, and adverse health impacts *Extreme weather events, heat-related death and disease, desertification, and wildlife extinctions will all be reduced *It will be significantly easier to achieve many of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, including those linked to hunger, poverty, water and sanitation, health, and cities and ecosystems. How does the 1.5℃ target fit with the Sustainable Development Goals? The Sustainable Development Goals aim for a world in which people can be healthy, financially stable, well fed, have clean air and water, and live in a secure and pleasant environment. Much of this is consistent with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5℃, which is why the IPCC notes there are synergies if the SDG initiatives and climate action should be explicitly linked. But some climate strategies may make it harder to achieve particular SDGs. Countries that are highly dependent on fossil fuels for employment and revenue may suffer economically in the transition towards low-carbon energy. Carefully managing this transition by simultaneously focusing on reducing poverty and promoting equity in decision-making may help avoid the worst effects of such trade-offs. What works in one place may not work in another, so strategies should always be locally appropriate. Where next? Limiting global warming to 1.5℃ will require a social transformation, as the world takes rapid action to reduce greenhouse gases. The effects of climate change will continue to shape the world we live in, but there is no doubt we will be far better off under 1.5℃ than 2℃ of global warming. The choices we make today are shaping the future for coming generations. As the new report makes clear, if we are serious about the 1.5℃ target, we need to act now. (Mark Howden is Director, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University; Rebecca Colvin is Knowledge Exchange Specialist, Climate Change Institute, Australian National 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)

Limiting global warming to 1.5℃ will require a social transformation

Temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if global warming continues at its current pace and if the world fails to take rapid and unprecedented measures to stem the increase, a U.N. report said on Monday.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met last week in Incheon, South Korea to finalise the report, prepared at the request of governments in 2015 when a global pact to tackle climate change was agreed.

The report is seen as the main scientific guide for government policymakers on how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The Paris pact aims to limit global average temperature rise to "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels, while seeking to tighten the goal to 1.5C.

There has already been a rise of 1C since the mid-1800s as industrialisation lifted emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas blamed for climate change.

A rise of 1.5C would still carry climate-related risks for nature and mankind but the risks would be lower than a rise of 2C, the report summary said.

Meeting the 1.5C limit required "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented" change in land and energy use, industry, buildings, transport and cities, it said, adding temperatures would be 1.5C higher between 2030 and 2052 at the current pace.

The targets agreed in Paris on cutting emissions would not be enough even if there were larger and more ambitious cuts after 2030, it said.

To contain warming at 1.5C, manmade global net carbon dioxide emissions would need to fall by about 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels and reach "net zero" by mid-century. Any additional emissions would require removing CO2 from the air.

"Limiting warming to 1.5C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, co-chair of the IPCC working group which assesses climate change mitigation.

UNPRECEDENTED CHANGE

The summary said renewable energy would need to supply 70 to 85 percent of electricity by 2050 to stay within a 1.5C limit, compared with about 25 percent now.

Using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the share of gas-fired power would need to be cut to 8 percent and coal to between 0 and 2 percent. There was no mention of oil in this context in the summary.

If the average global temperature temporarily exceeded 1.5C, additional carbon removal techniques would be required to return warming to below 1.5C by 2100.

But the report said the efficacy of measures, such as planting forests, bioenergy use or capturing and storing CO2, were unproven at a large scale and carried some risks.

Steps like reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space were not assessed because of the uncertainties about using such technology, the report said.

It said keeping the rise in temperature to 1.5C would mean sea levels by 2100 would be 10 cm lower than if the warming was 2C, the likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century not at least once a decade, and coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent instead of being virtually wiped out.

"The report shows that we only have the slimmest of opportunities remaining to avoid unthinkable damage to the climate system that supports life as we know it," said Amjad Abdulla, the IPCC board member and chief negotiator for the alliance of small island states.

Temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if global warming continues at its current pace and if the world fails to take rapid and unprecedented measures to stem the increase, a U.

Temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 if global warming continues at its current pace and if the world fails to take rapid and unprecedented measures to stem the increase, a U.N. report said on Monday. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met last week in Incheon, South Korea to finalise the report, prepared at the request of governments in 2015 when a global pact to tackle climate change was agreed. The report is seen as the main scientific guide for government policymakers on how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris pact aims to limit global average temperature rise to "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels, while seeking to tighten the goal to 1.5C. There has already been a rise of 1C since the mid-1800s as industrialisation lifted emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas blamed for climate change. A rise of 1.5C would still carry climate-related risks for nature and mankind but the risks would be lower than a rise of 2C, the report summary said. Meeting the 1.5C limit required "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented" change in land and energy use, industry, buildings, transport and cities, it said, adding temperatures would be 1.5C higher between 2030 and 2052 at the current pace. The targets agreed in Paris on cutting emissions would not be enough even if there were larger and more ambitious cuts after 2030, it said. To contain warming at 1.5C, manmade global net carbon dioxide emissions would need to fall by about 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels and reach "net zero" by mid-century. Any additional emissions would require removing CO2 from the air. "Limiting warming to 1.5C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, co-chair of the IPCC working group which assesses climate change mitigation. UNPRECEDENTED CHANGE The summary said renewable energy would need to supply 70 to 85 percent of electricity by 2050 to stay within a 1.5C limit, compared with about 25 percent now. Using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the share of gas-fired power would need to be cut to 8 percent and coal to between 0 and 2 percent. There was no mention of oil in this context in the summary. If the average global temperature temporarily exceeded 1.5C, additional carbon removal techniques would be required to return warming to below 1.5C by 2100. But the report said the efficacy of measures, such as planting forests, bioenergy use or capturing and storing CO2, were unproven at a large scale and carried some risks. Steps like reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space were not assessed because of the uncertainties about using such technology, the report said. It said keeping the rise in temperature to 1.5C would mean sea levels by 2100 would be 10 cm lower than if the warming was 2C, the likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century not at least once a decade, and coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent instead of being virtually wiped out. "The report shows that we only have the slimmest of opportunities remaining to avoid unthinkable damage to the climate system that supports life as we know it," said Amjad Abdulla, the IPCC board member and chief negotiator for the alliance of small island states.

World temperatures likely to rise by 1.5 degrees between 2030 & 2052: UN

Avoiding global climate chaos will require a major transformation of society and the world economy that is "unprecedented in scale," the UN said Monday in a landmark report that warns time is running out to avert disaster.

Earth's surface has warmed one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) -- enough to lift oceans and unleash a crescendo of deadly storms, floods and droughts -- and is on track toward an unliveable 3C or 4C rise.

At current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we could pass the 1.5C marker as early as 2030, and no later than mid-century, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) reported with "high confidence".

"The next few years are probably the most important in human history," Debra Roberts, head of the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department in Durban, South Africa, and an IPCC co-chair, told AFP.

A Summary for Policymakers of the 400-page tome underscores how quickly global warming has outstripped humanity's attempt to tame it, and outlines paradigm-shift options for avoiding the worst ravages of a climate-addled future.

Before the Paris Agreement was inked in 2015, nearly a decade of scientific research rested on the assumption that 2C was the guardrail for a climate-safe world.

The IPCC report, however, shows that global warming impacts have come sooner and hit harder than predicted.

Pay now or pay later

"Things that scientists have been saying would happen further in the future are happening now," Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, told AFP.

To have at least a 50/50 chance of staying under the 1.5C cap without overshooting the mark, the world must, by 2050, become "carbon neutral," according to the report.&nbsp;

"That means every tonne of CO2 we put into the atmosphere will have to be balanced by a tonne of CO2 taken out," said lead coordinating author Myles Allen, head of the University of Oxford's Climate Research Programme.

Drawing from more than 6,000 recent scientific studies, the report laid out four "illustrative" pathways to that goal.

The most ambitious would see a radical drawdown in energy consumption coupled with a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and a swift decline in CO2 emissions starting in 2020. It would also avoid an "overshoot" of the 1.5C threshold.

A contrasting "pay later" scenario compensates for a high-consumption lifestyles and continued use of fossil fuels with a temporary breaching of the 1.5C ceiling.&nbsp;

It depends heavily on the use of biofuels. But the scheme would need to plant an area twice the size of India in biofuel crops, and assumes that some 1,200 billion tonnes of CO2 -- 30 years' worth of emissions at current rates -- can be safely socked away underground.

"Is it fair for the next generation to pay to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere that we are now putting into it?", asked Allen. "We have to start having that debate."

'Hail of silver bullets'

The stakes are especially high for small island states, developing nations in the tropics, and countries with densely-populated delta regions already suffering from rising seas.&nbsp;

"We have only the slimmest of opportunities remaining to avoid unthinkable damage to the climate system that supports life as we know it," said Amjad Abdulla, chief negotiator at UN climate talks for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

"Historians will look back at these findings as one of the defining moments in the course of human affairs."

Limiting global warming to 1.5C comes with a hefty price tag: some $2.4 trillion (2.1 trillion euros) of investments in the global energy system every year between 2016 and 2035, or about 2.5 per cent of world GDP.&nbsp;

That amount, however, must be weighed against the even steeper cost of inaction, the report says.

The path to a climate-safe world has become a tightrope, and will require an unprecedented marshalling of human ingenuity, the authors said.

"The problem isn't going to be solved with a silver bullet," Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute, told AFP.&nbsp;

"We need a hail of silver bullets."

The IPCC report was timed to feed into the December UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, where world leaders will be under pressure to ramp up national carbon-cutting pledges which -- even if fulfilled -- would yield and 3C world.&nbsp;

The week-long meeting in Incheon, South Korea -- already deep into overtime -- deadlocked on Saturday when oil giant Saudi Arabia demanded the deletion of a passage noting the need for global CO2 emissions to decline "well before 2030".

The report was approved by consensus as soon as the Saudis backed down, participants to the meeting told AFP.

Concerns that the United States would seek to obstruct the process proved unfounded.&nbsp;

The Trump administration has dismantled emissions reduction policies domestically, and vowed to ditch the Paris treaty.

Avoiding global climate chaos will require a major transformation of society and the world economy that is "unprecedented in scale," the UN said Monday in a landmark report that warns time is running out to avert disaster.

Avoiding global climate chaos will require a major transformation of society and the world economy that is "unprecedented in scale," the UN said Monday in a landmark report that warns time is running out to avert disaster. Earth's surface has warmed one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) -- enough to lift oceans and unleash a crescendo of deadly storms, floods and droughts -- and is on track toward an unliveable 3C or 4C rise. At current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we could pass the 1.5C marker as early as 2030, and no later than mid-century, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) reported with "high confidence". "The next few years are probably the most important in human history," Debra Roberts, head of the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department in Durban, South Africa, and an IPCC co-chair, told AFP. A Summary for Policymakers of the 400-page tome underscores how quickly global warming has outstripped humanity's attempt to tame it, and outlines paradigm-shift options for avoiding the worst ravages of a climate-addled future. Before the Paris Agreement was inked in 2015, nearly a decade of scientific research rested on the assumption that 2C was the guardrail for a climate-safe world. The IPCC report, however, shows that global warming impacts have come sooner and hit harder than predicted. Pay now or pay later "Things that scientists have been saying would happen further in the future are happening now," Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, told AFP. To have at least a 50/50 chance of staying under the 1.5C cap without overshooting the mark, the world must, by 2050, become "carbon neutral," according to the report. "That means every tonne of CO2 we put into the atmosphere will have to be balanced by a tonne of CO2 taken out," said lead coordinating author Myles Allen, head of the University of Oxford's Climate Research Programme. Drawing from more than 6,000 recent scientific studies, the report laid out four "illustrative" pathways to that goal. The most ambitious would see a radical drawdown in energy consumption coupled with a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and a swift decline in CO2 emissions starting in 2020. It would also avoid an "overshoot" of the 1.5C threshold. A contrasting "pay later" scenario compensates for a high-consumption lifestyles and continued use of fossil fuels with a temporary breaching of the 1.5C ceiling. It depends heavily on the use of biofuels. But the scheme would need to plant an area twice the size of India in biofuel crops, and assumes that some 1,200 billion tonnes of CO2 -- 30 years' worth of emissions at current rates -- can be safely socked away underground. "Is it fair for the next generation to pay to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere that we are now putting into it?", asked Allen. "We have to start having that debate." 'Hail of silver bullets' The stakes are especially high for small island states, developing nations in the tropics, and countries with densely-populated delta regions already suffering from rising seas. "We have only the slimmest of opportunities remaining to avoid unthinkable damage to the climate system that supports life as we know it," said Amjad Abdulla, chief negotiator at UN climate talks for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). "Historians will look back at these findings as one of the defining moments in the course of human affairs." Limiting global warming to 1.5C comes with a hefty price tag: some $2.4 trillion (2.1 trillion euros) of investments in the global energy system every year between 2016 and 2035, or about 2.5 per cent of world GDP. That amount, however, must be weighed against the even steeper cost of inaction, the report says. The path to a climate-safe world has become a tightrope, and will require an unprecedented marshalling of human ingenuity, the authors said. "The problem isn't going to be solved with a silver bullet," Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute, told AFP. "We need a hail of silver bullets." The IPCC report was timed to feed into the December UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, where world leaders will be under pressure to ramp up national carbon-cutting pledges which -- even if fulfilled -- would yield and 3C world. The week-long meeting in Incheon, South Korea -- already deep into overtime -- deadlocked on Saturday when oil giant Saudi Arabia demanded the deletion of a passage noting the need for global CO2 emissions to decline "well before 2030". The report was approved by consensus as soon as the Saudis backed down, participants to the meeting told AFP. Concerns that the United States would seek to obstruct the process proved unfounded. The Trump administration has dismantled emissions reduction policies domestically, and vowed to ditch the Paris treaty.

UN warns paradigm shift needed to avert global climate chaos

Diplomats gathering in South Korea Monday will find themselves in the awkward position of vetting and validating a major UN scientific report that underscores the failure of their governments to take stronger action on climate.

The UN special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels began as a request from the 195 nations that inked the Paris Agreement in 2015.

That landmark pact called for capping the rise in global temperature to "well-below" 2C, and invited countries to submit voluntary national plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To the surprise of many -- especially scientists, who had based nearly a decade of research on the assumption that 2C was the politically acceptable guardrail for a climate-safe world -- the treaty also called for a good-faith effort to cap warming at the lower threshold.

At the same time, countries asked the UN's climate science authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to detail what a 1.5C world would look like, and how hard it might be to prevent a further rise in temperature.

Three years and many drafts later, the answer has come in the form of a 400-page report -- grounded in an assessment of 6,000 peer-reviewed studies -- that delivers a stark, double-barrelled message: 1.5C is enough to unleash climate mayhem, and the pathways to avoiding an even hotter world require a swift and complete transformation not just of the global economy, but of society too.

With only one degree Celsius of warming so far, the world has seen a climate-enhanced crescendo of deadly heatwaves, wild fires and floods, along with superstorms swollen by rising seas.

- Line-by-line vetting - 
"I don't know how you can possibly read this and find it anything other than wildly alarming," said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based research and advocacy group, referring to the draft Summary for Policy Makers.

Government representatives -- often the same ones in the trenches at UN climate negotiations -- will spend the entire week going through the 22-page executive summary, line-by-line.

With scientists at their elbow, they will check it against the underlying report and, if the past is any guide, attempt to blunt conclusions deemed inconvenient by their governments. &nbsp;&nbsp;

"Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have threatened to be obstructionist," said one of the report's authors.&nbsp;

China is said to have reservations on the chapters outlining policy options, concerned that some of the measures outlined may be too ambitious.

But the joker in the pack is the United States, several delates and observers noted.

"This is the first report coming up for approval since the Trump administration took office," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, and an IPCC author on a another report-in-progress.&nbsp;

"That's a real wild card."

US a 'wild card'

There are few clues as to what the United States might say or do in Incheon, which has left a lot of people nervous.

"The US could, as they have in the past, support the science," said one contributing author.&nbsp;

"Or they could become obstructionist -- maybe Fox News will decide to shine a spotlight on the meeting."

A State Department spokesperson confirmed to AFP that veteran climate diplomat Trigg Talley will head the US delegation, a development one veteran IPCC author described as "reassuring."

"Never in the history of the IPCC has there been a report that is so politically charged," said Henri Waisman, a senior researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, and one of the report's 86 authors.

Governments looking for a straightforward answer to the question of whether the 1.5C target can be reached are likely to be disappointed, he added.

"The report isn't going to simply say 'yes' or 'no'," he told AFP.

"Our goal was to put as much information as possible into the hands of policy makers so they can step up to their responsibilities."

Many scientists say the goal is feasible on paper, but would require political will and economic transformations that are not on the near-term horizon.

"In my view, 1.5C stabilisation is extremely difficult if not impossible at this point, while 2C stabilisation is an uphill challenge but doable," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, told AFP.

Diplomats gathering in South Korea Monday will find themselves in the awkward position of vetting and validating a major UN scientific report that underscores the failure of their governments to take stronger action on climate.

Diplomats gathering in South Korea Monday will find themselves in the awkward position of vetting and validating a major UN scientific report that underscores the failure of their governments to take stronger action on climate. The UN special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels began as a request from the 195 nations that inked the Paris Agreement in 2015. That landmark pact called for capping the rise in global temperature to "well-below" 2C, and invited countries to submit voluntary national plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To the surprise of many -- especially scientists, who had based nearly a decade of research on the assumption that 2C was the politically acceptable guardrail for a climate-safe world -- the treaty also called for a good-faith effort to cap warming at the lower threshold. At the same time, countries asked the UN's climate science authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to detail what a 1.5C world would look like, and how hard it might be to prevent a further rise in temperature. Three years and many drafts later, the answer has come in the form of a 400-page report -- grounded in an assessment of 6,000 peer-reviewed studies -- that delivers a stark, double-barrelled message: 1.5C is enough to unleash climate mayhem, and the pathways to avoiding an even hotter world require a swift and complete transformation not just of the global economy, but of society too. With only one degree Celsius of warming so far, the world has seen a climate-enhanced crescendo of deadly heatwaves, wild fires and floods, along with superstorms swollen by rising seas. - Line-by-line vetting - "I don't know how you can possibly read this and find it anything other than wildly alarming," said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based research and advocacy group, referring to the draft Summary for Policy Makers. Government representatives -- often the same ones in the trenches at UN climate negotiations -- will spend the entire week going through the 22-page executive summary, line-by-line. With scientists at their elbow, they will check it against the underlying report and, if the past is any guide, attempt to blunt conclusions deemed inconvenient by their governments. "Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have threatened to be obstructionist," said one of the report's authors. China is said to have reservations on the chapters outlining policy options, concerned that some of the measures outlined may be too ambitious. But the joker in the pack is the United States, several delates and observers noted. "This is the first report coming up for approval since the Trump administration took office," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, and an IPCC author on a another report-in-progress. "That's a real wild card." US a 'wild card' There are few clues as to what the United States might say or do in Incheon, which has left a lot of people nervous. "The US could, as they have in the past, support the science," said one contributing author. "Or they could become obstructionist -- maybe Fox News will decide to shine a spotlight on the meeting." A State Department spokesperson confirmed to AFP that veteran climate diplomat Trigg Talley will head the US delegation, a development one veteran IPCC author described as "reassuring." "Never in the history of the IPCC has there been a report that is so politically charged," said Henri Waisman, a senior researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, and one of the report's 86 authors. Governments looking for a straightforward answer to the question of whether the 1.5C target can be reached are likely to be disappointed, he added. "The report isn't going to simply say 'yes' or 'no'," he told AFP. "Our goal was to put as much information as possible into the hands of policy makers so they can step up to their responsibilities." Many scientists say the goal is feasible on paper, but would require political will and economic transformations that are not on the near-term horizon. "In my view, 1.5C stabilisation is extremely difficult if not impossible at this point, while 2C stabilisation is an uphill challenge but doable," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, told AFP.

UN report spotlights government inaction on climate

Antarctica has lost a staggering three trillion tonnes of ice since 1992, according to a landmark study published Wednesday that suggests the frozen continent could redraw Earth's coastlines if global warming continues unchecked.

Two-fifths of that ice loss occurred in the last five years, a three-fold increase in the pace at which Antarctica is shedding its kilometres-thick casing, a consortium of 84 scientists reported in the journal Nature.

The findings should dispel any lingering doubts that the continent's ice mass is shrinking, the authors said.

They also highlight the existential threat facing low-lying coastal cities and communities home to hundreds of millions of people.

"We now have an unequivocal picture of what's happening in Antarctica," said co-lead author Eric Rignot, a scientist at NASA's Jet propulsion Laboratory who has been tracking Earth's ice sheets for two decades.

"We view these results as another ringing alarm for action to slow the warming of our planet."

Up to now, scientists have struggled in determining whether Antarctica has accumulated more mass through snowfall than it loses in meltwater run-off and ice flows into the ocean. &nbsp;

But more than two decades of satellite data -- the new findings draw from 24 separate space-based surveys -- have finally yielded a more complete picture. &nbsp;

Covering twice the area of the continental United States, Antarctica is blanketed by enough ice pack to lift global oceans by nearly 60 metres (210 feet).&nbsp;

More than 90 per cent of that frozen water sits atop East Antarctica, which has remained mostly stable even as climate change has driven up Earth's average surface temperature by a full degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).&nbsp;

A step increase

Some studies had suggested a net gain in mass over recent decades.

West Antarctica, however, has proven far more vulnerable to global warming, especially the Antarctic Peninsula, where more than 6,500 square kilometres (2,500 square miles) of ice shelves have sheared off into the sea since 1995.

Already floating, ice shelves breaking off into icebergs do not add to sea level. But massive glaciers on West Antarctica slowly gliding seaward hold enough water to push oceans up by 3.5 metres (11 feet).&nbsp;

Two of these glaciers -- Pine Island and Thwaites -- have accelerated and are today seen as unstable. Together, they act as corks holding back ice mass further inland from falling into the ocean.&nbsp;

Nearly all of the mass shed over the last quarter century has come from West Antarctica, the study found.&nbsp;

Ice loss of 2.7 trillion tonnes since 1992 added about eight millimetres to sea level.&nbsp;

"Whilst there's still considerable uncertainty about East Antarctica mass balance, it is increasingly clear that ice loss from West Antarctica has accelerated," said Kate Hendry, a researcher at the University of Bristol, commenting on the findings.

On current trends, Antarctica could become the single largest source of sea level rise, ahead of runoff from the Greenland ice sheet and mountain glaciers, and the expansion of ocean water as it warms, the study found.&nbsp;

Oceans are currently rising by 3.4 millimetres (0.13 inches) per year. Since 1993, the global ocean watermark has gone up by 84.8 mm (3.3 inches).

By century's end, sea level -- compared to a pre-industrial benchmark -- could increase from a few dozen centimetres to a metre or more, depending in part on efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.&nbsp;

Under any scenario, oceans will continue to rise for several centuries, scientists say.

Deeply concerning

In the two decades prior to 2012, Antarctica lost about 76 billion tonnes annually, according to the new findings. Since then, that figure has jumped, on average, to 219 billion tonnes. &nbsp;

"There has been a step increase in ice losses from Antarctica during the past decade," said Leeds University professor Andrew Shepherd, co-leader of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Exercise (ISMBE).&nbsp;

"The continent is causing sea levels to rise faster today than at any time in the past 25 years."

Scientists not involved with the study lauded its methodology.

"The power of this research is that it brings together independent methods and results from a collection of different teams throughout the world," noted Twila Moon, a scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.

They also said governments should take note.

"The outcome is deeply concerning," commented Imperial College London professor Martin Siegert, who did not take part in the study.&nbsp;

"We appear to be on a pathway to substantial ice-sheet loss in the decades ahead, with longer term consequences for enhanced sea level rise.

"If we aren't already alert to the dangers posed by climate change, this should be an enormous wake-up call," he added.

The finding was reported by a consortium of 84 scientists reported in the journal Nature. 'We view these results as another ringing alarm for action to slow the warming of our planet,' they said

Antarctica has lost a staggering three trillion tonnes of ice since 1992, according to a landmark study published Wednesday that suggests the frozen continent could redraw Earth's coastlines if global warming continues unchecked. Two-fifths of that ice loss occurred in the last five years, a three-fold increase in the pace at which Antarctica is shedding its kilometres-thick casing, a consortium of 84 scientists reported in the journal Nature. The findings should dispel any lingering doubts that the continent's ice mass is shrinking, the authors said. They also highlight the existential threat facing low-lying coastal cities and communities home to hundreds of millions of people. "We now have an unequivocal picture of what's happening in Antarctica," said co-lead author Eric Rignot, a scientist at NASA's Jet propulsion Laboratory who has been tracking Earth's ice sheets for two decades. "We view these results as another ringing alarm for action to slow the warming of our planet." Up to now, scientists have struggled in determining whether Antarctica has accumulated more mass through snowfall than it loses in meltwater run-off and ice flows into the ocean. But more than two decades of satellite data -- the new findings draw from 24 separate space-based surveys -- have finally yielded a more complete picture. Covering twice the area of the continental United States, Antarctica is blanketed by enough ice pack to lift global oceans by nearly 60 metres (210 feet). More than 90 per cent of that frozen water sits atop East Antarctica, which has remained mostly stable even as climate change has driven up Earth's average surface temperature by a full degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). A step increase Some studies had suggested a net gain in mass over recent decades. West Antarctica, however, has proven far more vulnerable to global warming, especially the Antarctic Peninsula, where more than 6,500 square kilometres (2,500 square miles) of ice shelves have sheared off into the sea since 1995. Already floating, ice shelves breaking off into icebergs do not add to sea level. But massive glaciers on West Antarctica slowly gliding seaward hold enough water to push oceans up by 3.5 metres (11 feet). Two of these glaciers -- Pine Island and Thwaites -- have accelerated and are today seen as unstable. Together, they act as corks holding back ice mass further inland from falling into the ocean. Nearly all of the mass shed over the last quarter century has come from West Antarctica, the study found. Ice loss of 2.7 trillion tonnes since 1992 added about eight millimetres to sea level. "Whilst there's still considerable uncertainty about East Antarctica mass balance, it is increasingly clear that ice loss from West Antarctica has accelerated," said Kate Hendry, a researcher at the University of Bristol, commenting on the findings. On current trends, Antarctica could become the single largest source of sea level rise, ahead of runoff from the Greenland ice sheet and mountain glaciers, and the expansion of ocean water as it warms, the study found. Oceans are currently rising by 3.4 millimetres (0.13 inches) per year. Since 1993, the global ocean watermark has gone up by 84.8 mm (3.3 inches). By century's end, sea level -- compared to a pre-industrial benchmark -- could increase from a few dozen centimetres to a metre or more, depending in part on efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Under any scenario, oceans will continue to rise for several centuries, scientists say. Deeply concerning In the two decades prior to 2012, Antarctica lost about 76 billion tonnes annually, according to the new findings. Since then, that figure has jumped, on average, to 219 billion tonnes. "There has been a step increase in ice losses from Antarctica during the past decade," said Leeds University professor Andrew Shepherd, co-leader of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Exercise (ISMBE). "The continent is causing sea levels to rise faster today than at any time in the past 25 years." Scientists not involved with the study lauded its methodology. "The power of this research is that it brings together independent methods and results from a collection of different teams throughout the world," noted Twila Moon, a scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. They also said governments should take note. "The outcome is deeply concerning," commented Imperial College London professor Martin Siegert, who did not take part in the study. "We appear to be on a pathway to substantial ice-sheet loss in the decades ahead, with longer term consequences for enhanced sea level rise. "If we aren't already alert to the dangers posed by climate change, this should be an enormous wake-up call," he added.

Antarctica ice melting three times faster than earlier, could redraw Earth's coastlines

In a tweet last year, US president Donald Trump had said in the East, it could be the coldest New Year’s Eve on record, perhaps we could use a little bit of that "good old Global Warming that our country", but not other countries, was going to pay trillions of dollars to protect against.

Trump's tweet had caused global outrage with several scientists and environmentalists hitting back at the President asserting that global warming couldn't be taken lightly.

Now, a Finnish NGO, Melting Ice, has decided put Trump's face on ice, literally.

The initiative known as "Project Trumpmore" will reportedly itch Trump's face in a 115-foot iceberg in the Arctic in an attempt to show that global warming actually exists.

Melting Ice is looking for a place to put Trump's mammoth structure in place, inspired by Mount Rushmore national memorial which has 60-foot granite faces of US presidents - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.&nbsp;

Last year, Trump had announced the US would be pulling out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, an initiative of the United Nations, saying it would undermine the US economy with several experts criticising the US president's move.

In a televised address, Trump had said: "The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States, it undermines our economy, hamstrings our workers and "effectively decapitates our coal industry."

The Finnish NGO is reportedly looking funding, once they are able to get it, the organization&nbsp;says&nbsp;Mongolian and Finnish ice sculptors will carve the statue which would be broadcast live on the web.

Now, a Finnish NGO, Melting Ice, has decided put Trump's face on ice, literally.

In a tweet last year, US president Donald Trump had said in the East, it could be the coldest New Year’s Eve on record, perhaps we could use a little bit of that "good old Global Warming that our country", but not other countries, was going to pay trillions of dollars to protect against. Trump's tweet had caused global outrage with several scientists and environmentalists hitting back at the President asserting that global warming couldn't be taken lightly. Now, a Finnish NGO, Melting Ice, has decided put Trump's face on ice, literally. The initiative known as "Project Trumpmore" will reportedly itch Trump's face in a 115-foot iceberg in the Arctic in an attempt to show that global warming actually exists. Melting Ice is looking for a place to put Trump's mammoth structure in place, inspired by Mount Rushmore national memorial which has 60-foot granite faces of US presidents - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Last year, Trump had announced the US would be pulling out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, an initiative of the United Nations, saying it would undermine the US economy with several experts criticising the US president's move. In a televised address, Trump had said: "The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States, it undermines our economy, hamstrings our workers and "effectively decapitates our coal industry." The Finnish NGO is reportedly looking funding, once they are able to get it, the organization says Mongolian and Finnish ice sculptors will carve the statue which would be broadcast live on the web.

Project Trumpmore: Now, Trump's 115-foot face to be carved in the Arctic

People around the world are celebrating Earth Day on Sunday to celebrate and honour Earth.

Various events are being held across the world in order to show their support for environmental issues and encourage each and every individual to take steps towards the environment&nbspprotection.

Numerous communities celebrate Earth Week with an entire week of activities focused on the environmental issues that the world faces. In 2017, the March for Science occurred on Earth day (April 22, 2017) and was followed by the People's Climate Mobilization (April 29, 2017)

Here is everything you want to know about the day!

Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970 and was founded by the United States Senator Gaylor Nelson as an environmental teach-in to encourage make people aware of the environment issues.

Earth Day Network is the organisation who leads Earth Day celebrations worldwide.

The day was first limited to United States only, However, with efforts of a Denis Hayes's organisation launched this event worldwide in 1990. He organised events in 141 nations in a collective coordination.

In 1969 the incident of Santa Barbara oil blowout and protests that were followed prompted the idea of a day dedicated to earth only in which more than three million gallons of oil spewed, killing 10,000 seabirds, dolphines, seals and sea lions.

According to reports currently, more than 1 billion people take part in Earth Day activities every year and put environmental issues on the world stage.

For this year's earth day the theme is 'end plastic pollution' which will be focused on to provide the information and inspiration needed to eventually end plastic pollution. This year various talks will be held to spread awareness regarding the plastic pollution and how recyling it is not enough and what other measure people can take to tackle the global crisis.

 
&nbsp

&nbsp

Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970 and was founded by the United States Senator Gaylor Nelson as an environmental teach-in to encourage make people aware of the environment issues

People around the world are celebrating Earth Day on Sunday to celebrate and honour Earth. Various events are being held across the world in order to show their support for environmental issues and encourage each and every individual to take steps towards the environment&nbspprotection. Numerous communities celebrate Earth Week with an entire week of activities focused on the environmental issues that the world faces. In 2017, the March for Science occurred on Earth day (April 22, 2017) and was followed by the People's Climate Mobilization (April 29, 2017) Here is everything you want to know about the day! Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970 and was founded by the United States Senator Gaylor Nelson as an environmental teach-in to encourage make people aware of the environment issues. Earth Day Network is the organisation who leads Earth Day celebrations worldwide. The day was first limited to United States only, However, with efforts of a Denis Hayes's organisation launched this event worldwide in 1990. He organised events in 141 nations in a collective coordination. In 1969 the incident of Santa Barbara oil blowout and protests that were followed prompted the idea of a day dedicated to earth only in which more than three million gallons of oil spewed, killing 10,000 seabirds, dolphines, seals and sea lions. According to reports currently, more than 1 billion people take part in Earth Day activities every year and put environmental issues on the world stage. For this year's earth day the theme is 'end plastic pollution' which will be focused on to provide the information and inspiration needed to eventually end plastic pollution. This year various talks will be held to spread awareness regarding the plastic pollution and how recyling it is not enough and what other measure people can take to tackle the global crisis.

Earth Day: Everything you want to know

Varsha Rajkhowa, 26, won the Miss Scuba International beauty pageant in Malaysia in November 2016. Miss Scuba International is a beauty pageant with a slight twist – the contestants all have to be scuba divers.&nbsp;

There were a total of 16 contestants from countries including the US, UK, and the Netherlands, and it was the first time an Indian was competing but Varsha won.&nbsp;

Varsha could now, arguably and with a little hyperbole, be called “chief spokesperson of the world's oceans”.&nbsp;

But, she had told WION when we first met her, the people are not listening to her.&nbsp;

“I tell them not to litter and they say, 'You're a marine environmentalist. Why do you care about littering on land?'&nbsp;

“But all that plastic... it ends up in the ocean,” says Varsha.&nbsp;

“Do you know the five ocean gyres are full of plastic?”&nbsp;

The five ocean gyres are the world's major ocean currents.&nbsp;

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is now becoming visible from space.&nbsp;

That “patch” is a gargantuan floating collection of litter in the North Pacific Ocean, most of it having made its way from the land to the sea.&nbsp;

Estimates of the “patch's” size range from 700,000 square kilometres to 15,000,000 square kilometres – that's 8% of the Pacific Ocean or, according to some media reports, up to "twice the size of the continental United States".&nbsp;

There is also an Indian Ocean Garbage Patch.&nbsp;

This plastic – and global warming, and tourism – is beginning to affect the world's oceans beyond repair.&nbsp;

The plastic breaks down into micro-plastics which are then ingested by fish. We eat the fish, along with the plastic in them.&nbsp;

That might be causing cancer in humans.&nbsp;

The toxins released by the breakdown of the plastic are also hurting marine life.&nbsp;

 
Global warming in India 
Varsha says a good place in India to see the effects of global warming is the Andamans.&nbsp;

The most obvious effect of the warming is coral bleaching, or the dying of coral reefs. They go from being vividly colourful to white overnight.&nbsp;

Caused by a sudden rise in water temperature, entire sections of coral reef in the Andamans have been known to bleach overnight.&nbsp;

 
Giving up the crown 
Varsha gave up her crown (all good things must come to an end, and you only get to be queen for a year) in November last year.&nbsp;

What was that like? "Emotional," says Varsha. Any separation anxiety? "Yes," says Varsha, "you get used to the crown. To being a queen."

Did she cry? "Yes, but with a smile." Did she cry when she had won? "Oh yes," says Varsha. "Especially because they announced the winner's name as India, not Varsha Rajkhowa."&nbsp;

 
So, what now?&nbsp; 
"My work as an ocean ambassador starts now," says Varsha, adding that her responsibilities have increased. She means that in the year she was reigning queen, she got to travel and tour with the Miss Scuba International organisation, but that she now has to talk about the world's oceans, their conservation, and scuba diving (remember what the award is called) and safe diving practices — all on her own.&nbsp;

"I'm working with the people I can," says Varsha, "schools and colleges, spreading awareness." She says that she was recently in the Konkan region, where she talked about plastic, the damage it can do, and how to limit it.&nbsp;

Varsha also did an awareness programme recently with the Climate Reality Project, a non-profit working on education and advocacy related to climate change..&nbsp;

What about the public? Are they listening?&nbsp;

“They will listen,” Varsha had told WION after winning her crown. “You tell people that we will be left with no oceans by 2030 if we are not careful – and if there are no oceans, there will be no earth – and they will listen.”&nbsp;

Are they listening now?&nbsp;

"They are,' says Varsha. "They even do what you ask them to for a day or two. But there isn't very much follow-up." &nbsp;

Varsha Rajkhowa, 26, won the Miss Scuba International beauty pageant in Malaysia. She could now, arguably and with a little hyperbole, be called 'chief spokesperson of the world's oceans'

Varsha Rajkhowa, 26, won the Miss Scuba International beauty pageant in Malaysia in November 2016. Miss Scuba International is a beauty pageant with a slight twist – the contestants all have to be scuba divers. There were a total of 16 contestants from countries including the US, UK, and the Netherlands, and it was the first time an Indian was competing but Varsha won. Varsha could now, arguably and with a little hyperbole, be called “chief spokesperson of the world's oceans”. But, she had told WION when we first met her, the people are not listening to her. “I tell them not to litter and they say, 'You're a marine environmentalist. Why do you care about littering on land?' “But all that plastic... it ends up in the ocean,” says Varsha. “Do you know the five ocean gyres are full of plastic?” The five ocean gyres are the world's major ocean currents. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is now becoming visible from space. That “patch” is a gargantuan floating collection of litter in the North Pacific Ocean, most of it having made its way from the land to the sea. Estimates of the “patch's” size range from 700,000 square kilometres to 15,000,000 square kilometres – that's 8% of the Pacific Ocean or, according to some media reports, up to "twice the size of the continental United States". There is also an Indian Ocean Garbage Patch. This plastic – and global warming, and tourism – is beginning to affect the world's oceans beyond repair. The plastic breaks down into micro-plastics which are then ingested by fish. We eat the fish, along with the plastic in them. That might be causing cancer in humans. The toxins released by the breakdown of the plastic are also hurting marine life. Global warming in India Varsha says a good place in India to see the effects of global warming is the Andamans. The most obvious effect of the warming is coral bleaching, or the dying of coral reefs. They go from being vividly colourful to white overnight. Caused by a sudden rise in water temperature, entire sections of coral reef in the Andamans have been known to bleach overnight. Giving up the crown Varsha gave up her crown (all good things must come to an end, and you only get to be queen for a year) in November last year. What was that like? "Emotional," says Varsha. Any separation anxiety? "Yes," says Varsha, "you get used to the crown. To being a queen." Did she cry? "Yes, but with a smile." Did she cry when she had won? "Oh yes," says Varsha. "Especially because they announced the winner's name as India, not Varsha Rajkhowa." So, what now? "My work as an ocean ambassador starts now," says Varsha, adding that her responsibilities have increased. She means that in the year she was reigning queen, she got to travel and tour with the Miss Scuba International organisation, but that she now has to talk about the world's oceans, their conservation, and scuba diving (remember what the award is called) and safe diving practices — all on her own. "I'm working with the people I can," says Varsha, "schools and colleges, spreading awareness." She says that she was recently in the Konkan region, where she talked about plastic, the damage it can do, and how to limit it. Varsha also did an awareness programme recently with the Climate Reality Project, a non-profit working on education and advocacy related to climate change.. What about the public? Are they listening? “They will listen,” Varsha had told WION after winning her crown. “You tell people that we will be left with no oceans by 2030 if we are not careful – and if there are no oceans, there will be no earth – and they will listen.” Are they listening now? "They are,' says Varsha. "They even do what you ask them to for a day or two. But there isn't very much follow-up."

The Indian beauty queen that no one has heard of

US President Donald Trump has bashed international efforts to combat climate change and questioned the scientific consensus that global warming is dangerous and driven by human consumption of fossil fuels.

But there is a disconnect between what Trump says at home and what his government does abroad. While attention has been focused on Trump&#39;s rhetoric, State Department envoys, federal agencies, and government scientists remain active participants in international efforts to both research and fight climate change, according to the US and foreign representatives involved in those efforts.

&quot;We really don&#39;t detect any change with the Americans,&quot; said one of the officials, Aleksi H&auml;rk&ouml;nen of Finland, who chairs the eight-nation Arctic Council&#39;s key group of senior officials, who are charged with protecting a region warming faster than any other on Earth.

Over the past year, the United States has helped draft the rulebook for implementing the Paris climate accord, signed international memoranda calling for global action to fight climate change, boosted funding for overseas clean energy projects, and contributed to global research on the dangers and causes of the Earth&#39;s warming.

While the United States&rsquo; participation in international forums - including the Paris accord and the Arctic Council - has been reported, its continued, broad and constructive support for climate change efforts in these gatherings has not.

This business-as-usual approach has surprised some of America&rsquo;s foreign partners, along with some of Trump&rsquo;s allies, who had expected the new administration to match its rhetoric with an obstructionist approach to combating climate change.

&quot;I am concerned that much of our climate policy remains on autopilot,&quot; complained Trump&rsquo;s former energy adviser Myron Ebell, now a research director at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said it reflects a failure by the administration to fill key positions and replace staffers who oppose the president&#39;s agenda.

The US efforts abroad to tackle climate change have been counter-balanced by Trump&#39;s aggressive push at home to increase production of the fossil fuels scientists blame for global warming. He has also ordered a wide-ranging rollback of Obama-era climate regulations and appointed a self-described climate sceptic, Scott Pruitt, as the nation&rsquo;s chief environmental regulator.

And to be sure, none of the US dealings in international climate efforts since last year have committed the United States to any emissions cuts that would undermine Trump&rsquo;s domestic energy agenda.

The State Department - which handles the bulk of US climate policy abroad - told Reuters it was still developing its global warming policy under Trump.

&quot;The State Department is working with the White House and the interagency to further develop our approach to international climate change diplomacy,&quot; State Department spokesman Ambrose Sayles said in a statement before Trump sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday.

&quot;In the meantime, we will continue to participate ... to ensure a level playing field that benefits and protects US interests, and to keep all options open for the President,&quot; Sayles said.

Tillerson&#39;s departure leaves a question mark over the future of US climate policy abroad. Tillerson was in favour of the Paris accord, while his successor, Mike Pompeo, has expressed doubts about the science of climate change. Climate advocates say they hope Pompeo will be too distracted by tensions with Iran and North Korea to change the State Department&rsquo;s approach to climate change.

White House spokeswoman Kelly Love declined to comment.

Trump announced last year that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement to fight global warming, raising concerns among other parties to the deal that Washington might attempt to torpedo the accord or disengage from it completely.

That hasn&#39;t happened. Washington sent a 40-strong delegation to talks in Bonn in November to help draft a new rulebook that will provide rules of the road for the 200 participating nations. It was a smaller delegation than Washington had sent to past meetings, but it still won praise from fellow delegates for its work.

For example, Andrew Rakestraw - a climate negotiator for the State Department since 2013 - co-chaired discussions on how to ensure that the pledges by signatories are comparable and use the same accounting standards - a point seen as critical to the success of the accord.

Nazhat Shameem Khan, chief negotiator for Fiji, which presided over the talks, said the United States delegation was &quot;constructive and helpful.&quot; &nbsp;The UN&rsquo;s climate chief, Patricia Espinosa, also called the US role constructive.&nbsp;

Thomas Shannon, the State Department&#39;s chief climate negotiator in Bonn, did not respond to requests for comment. Rakestraw also did not respond to calls and emails requesting comment.

A US source familiar with the US position at the talks, who asked not to be named, said that US delegates in Bonn were pushing an agenda that resembled those of past administrations - stressing that emerging economies like China follow the same rules as developed nations and meet international standards for monitoring and reporting emissions.

There was one jarring note: Washington sponsored a side event to promote &ldquo;clean coal.&rdquo; Some other delegates said they were unhappy with this, as they wanted the talks to focus on renewable energies.

Under the details of the accord, the United States cannot formally withdraw until 2020.

The State Department&rsquo;s delegations to the Arctic Council are also continuing their work in much the same way they did under President Barack Obama - acknowledging that warming is real and should be countered in planning everything from new shipping routes to the protection of indigenous peoples.

Some US agencies are also still bolstering international efforts to fight climate change.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which seeks to advance US policy by financing foreign business ventures, doubled its support for solar projects in 2017 under a climate-friendly policy last updated by the Obama administration.

And NASA, the US space agency, continues to research climate change, publish climate change data, and contribute to international reports, spokesman Stephen Cole said.

Both OPIC and NASA are independent of the State Department, so would not be under Pompeo&#39;s sway.

Scientists representing the United States in the international research say they have also been unfettered by the Trump administration, despite concerns early in the Trump presidency that the White House would seek to silence them or restrict their work.

&ldquo;There has been no pressure on US authors,&rdquo; said one US scientist, who is now helping to write a United Nations report that will call for coal to be &ldquo;phased out rapidly&rdquo; to limit global warming - &nbsp;a direct clash with Trump&#39;s pro-coal agenda.

The scientist asked not to be named because the draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be released in October, is confidential.

&quot;Our US colleagues know that climate change is not a hoax,&quot; said one of the non-US authors of the same report, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

Christopher Field, a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University who co-chaired a 2014 IPCC report on the impacts of climate change, agreed: &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve not seen any indication that the climate denialism from Trump and other members of the administration has had any influence ... on the alignment of the US scientific community with the scientific consensus around the world.&quot;

Still, scientists worry that while the Trump administration is not interfering with their research it is ignoring it.

The Trump administration made no move to block an assessment by 300 experts last year that outlined the threats and causes of warming in the United States and concluded there is &ldquo;no convincing alternative explanation&rdquo; for climate change than human activity.

&quot;But then they haven&#39;t acknowledged the findings, nor changed their climate science denying stance,&rdquo; said the US scientist involved in drafting the UN coal report.

Trump has bashed international efforts to combat climate change and questioned the scientific consensus that global warming is dangerous and driven by human consumption of fossil fuels

US President Donald Trump has bashed international efforts to combat climate change and questioned the scientific consensus that global warming is dangerous and driven by human consumption of fossil fuels. But there is a disconnect between what Trump says at home and what his government does abroad. While attention has been focused on Trump's rhetoric, State Department envoys, federal agencies, and government scientists remain active participants in international efforts to both research and fight climate change, according to the US and foreign representatives involved in those efforts. "We really don't detect any change with the Americans," said one of the officials, Aleksi Härkönen of Finland, who chairs the eight-nation Arctic Council's key group of senior officials, who are charged with protecting a region warming faster than any other on Earth. Over the past year, the United States has helped draft the rulebook for implementing the Paris climate accord, signed international memoranda calling for global action to fight climate change, boosted funding for overseas clean energy projects, and contributed to global research on the dangers and causes of the Earth's warming. While the United States’ participation in international forums - including the Paris accord and the Arctic Council - has been reported, its continued, broad and constructive support for climate change efforts in these gatherings has not. This business-as-usual approach has surprised some of America’s foreign partners, along with some of Trump’s allies, who had expected the new administration to match its rhetoric with an obstructionist approach to combating climate change. "I am concerned that much of our climate policy remains on autopilot," complained Trump’s former energy adviser Myron Ebell, now a research director at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said it reflects a failure by the administration to fill key positions and replace staffers who oppose the president's agenda. The US efforts abroad to tackle climate change have been counter-balanced by Trump's aggressive push at home to increase production of the fossil fuels scientists blame for global warming. He has also ordered a wide-ranging rollback of Obama-era climate regulations and appointed a self-described climate sceptic, Scott Pruitt, as the nation’s chief environmental regulator. And to be sure, none of the US dealings in international climate efforts since last year have committed the United States to any emissions cuts that would undermine Trump’s domestic energy agenda. The State Department - which handles the bulk of US climate policy abroad - told Reuters it was still developing its global warming policy under Trump. "The State Department is working with the White House and the interagency to further develop our approach to international climate change diplomacy," State Department spokesman Ambrose Sayles said in a statement before Trump sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday. "In the meantime, we will continue to participate ... to ensure a level playing field that benefits and protects US interests, and to keep all options open for the President," Sayles said. Tillerson's departure leaves a question mark over the future of US climate policy abroad. Tillerson was in favour of the Paris accord, while his successor, Mike Pompeo, has expressed doubts about the science of climate change. Climate advocates say they hope Pompeo will be too distracted by tensions with Iran and North Korea to change the State Department’s approach to climate change. White House spokeswoman Kelly Love declined to comment. Trump announced last year that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement to fight global warming, raising concerns among other parties to the deal that Washington might attempt to torpedo the accord or disengage from it completely. That hasn't happened. Washington sent a 40-strong delegation to talks in Bonn in November to help draft a new rulebook that will provide rules of the road for the 200 participating nations. It was a smaller delegation than Washington had sent to past meetings, but it still won praise from fellow delegates for its work. For example, Andrew Rakestraw - a climate negotiator for the State Department since 2013 - co-chaired discussions on how to ensure that the pledges by signatories are comparable and use the same accounting standards - a point seen as critical to the success of the accord. Nazhat Shameem Khan, chief negotiator for Fiji, which presided over the talks, said the United States delegation was "constructive and helpful." The UN’s climate chief, Patricia Espinosa, also called the US role constructive. Thomas Shannon, the State Department's chief climate negotiator in Bonn, did not respond to requests for comment. Rakestraw also did not respond to calls and emails requesting comment. A US source familiar with the US position at the talks, who asked not to be named, said that US delegates in Bonn were pushing an agenda that resembled those of past administrations - stressing that emerging economies like China follow the same rules as developed nations and meet international standards for monitoring and reporting emissions. There was one jarring note: Washington sponsored a side event to promote “clean coal.” Some other delegates said they were unhappy with this, as they wanted the talks to focus on renewable energies. Under the details of the accord, the United States cannot formally withdraw until 2020. The State Department’s delegations to the Arctic Council are also continuing their work in much the same way they did under President Barack Obama - acknowledging that warming is real and should be countered in planning everything from new shipping routes to the protection of indigenous peoples. Some US agencies are also still bolstering international efforts to fight climate change. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which seeks to advance US policy by financing foreign business ventures, doubled its support for solar projects in 2017 under a climate-friendly policy last updated by the Obama administration. And NASA, the US space agency, continues to research climate change, publish climate change data, and contribute to international reports, spokesman Stephen Cole said. Both OPIC and NASA are independent of the State Department, so would not be under Pompeo's sway. Scientists representing the United States in the international research say they have also been unfettered by the Trump administration, despite concerns early in the Trump presidency that the White House would seek to silence them or restrict their work. “There has been no pressure on US authors,” said one US scientist, who is now helping to write a United Nations report that will call for coal to be “phased out rapidly” to limit global warming - a direct clash with Trump's pro-coal agenda. The scientist asked not to be named because the draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be released in October, is confidential. "Our US colleagues know that climate change is not a hoax," said one of the non-US authors of the same report, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. Christopher Field, a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University who co-chaired a 2014 IPCC report on the impacts of climate change, agreed: “I’ve not seen any indication that the climate denialism from Trump and other members of the administration has had any influence ... on the alignment of the US scientific community with the scientific consensus around the world." Still, scientists worry that while the Trump administration is not interfering with their research it is ignoring it. The Trump administration made no move to block an assessment by 300 experts last year that outlined the threats and causes of warming in the United States and concluded there is “no convincing alternative explanation” for climate change than human activity. "But then they haven't acknowledged the findings, nor changed their climate science denying stance,” said the US scientist involved in drafting the UN coal report.

Weathering Trump's scepticism, US officials still fighting global warming

Global warming could place 25 to 50 per cent of species in the Amazon, Madagascar and other biodiverse areas at risk of localised extinction within decades, a report said Wednesday.

The lower projection is based on a mercury rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels -- the warming ceiling the world&#39;s nations agreed on in 2015.&nbsp;

The highest is for out-of-control warming of 4.5 C.

&quot;Global biodiversity will suffer terribly over the next century unless we do everything we can,&quot; said conservation group WWF, which commissioned the analysis published in science journal Climatic Change.

&quot;We must keep average global temperatures down to the absolute minimum.&quot;

The report focused on 33 so-called &quot;Priority Places&quot; which host some of the world&#39;s richest and most unusual terrestrial species, including iconic, endangered, or endemic plants and animals.

They include southern Chile, the eastern Himalayas, South Africa&#39;s unique Fynbos ecoregion, Borneo, Sumatra, the Namibian desert, West Africa, southwest Australia, coastal east Africa, and southern Africa&#39;s Miombo Woodlands, home to African wild dogs.

The team looked at the impact of climate change on nearly 80,000 terrestrial plant, mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile species.

At warming of 4.5 C, based on a &quot;business-as-usual&quot; scenario of no emissions cuts, the Amazon could risk the local extinction of 69 per cent of its plant species.&nbsp;

The Miombo Woodlands risks losing 90 per cent of its amphibians, 86 per cent of birds, and 80 per cent of mammals, according to the report.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries made voluntary pledges to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, oil and natural gas.

New normal

But even if those pledges are met, scientists predict warming over 3 C, a recipe for disastrous climate change-triggered sea level rises, superstorms, floods, and droughts.

Warming of 3.2 C would place about 37 per cent of species in Priority Places at risk of local extinction, said a WWF statement.

&quot;Even with the emissions cuts pledged under the Paris Agreement, temperatures that were extreme in the past are set to be the new normal in all Priority Places,&quot; it added -- in some as early as 2030.

Limiting warming to 2 C would enable many species to continue inhabiting the areas they currently occupy, according to the report.

And if animals can move freely -- not constrained by roads, fences, or human settlements -- the proportion of species at extinction risk at warming of 2 C drops from 25 to 20 per cent.

The report comes ahead of a major meeting of the IPBES inter-governmental panel in Medellin, Colombia, where scientists and governments will release five assessments of the state of biodiversity.

Extinction is not simply about the disappearance of species, said the WWF, &quot;but about profound changes to ecosystems that provide vital services to hundreds of millions of people.&quot;

Job- and revenue-generating tourism would suffer greatly if species disappear, and as-yet-undiscovered medicines from plants forever lost.

&quot;Put simply, we have to stop burning fossil fuels,&quot; said the WWF.

The lower projection is based on a mercury rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels -- the warming ceiling the world's nations agreed on in 2015

Global warming could place 25 to 50 per cent of species in the Amazon, Madagascar and other biodiverse areas at risk of localised extinction within decades, a report said Wednesday. The lower projection is based on a mercury rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels -- the warming ceiling the world's nations agreed on in 2015. The highest is for out-of-control warming of 4.5 C. "Global biodiversity will suffer terribly over the next century unless we do everything we can," said conservation group WWF, which commissioned the analysis published in science journal Climatic Change. "We must keep average global temperatures down to the absolute minimum." The report focused on 33 so-called "Priority Places" which host some of the world's richest and most unusual terrestrial species, including iconic, endangered, or endemic plants and animals. They include southern Chile, the eastern Himalayas, South Africa's unique Fynbos ecoregion, Borneo, Sumatra, the Namibian desert, West Africa, southwest Australia, coastal east Africa, and southern Africa's Miombo Woodlands, home to African wild dogs. The team looked at the impact of climate change on nearly 80,000 terrestrial plant, mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile species. At warming of 4.5 C, based on a "business-as-usual" scenario of no emissions cuts, the Amazon could risk the local extinction of 69 per cent of its plant species. The Miombo Woodlands risks losing 90 per cent of its amphibians, 86 per cent of birds, and 80 per cent of mammals, according to the report. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries made voluntary pledges to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, oil and natural gas. New normal But even if those pledges are met, scientists predict warming over 3 C, a recipe for disastrous climate change-triggered sea level rises, superstorms, floods, and droughts. Warming of 3.2 C would place about 37 per cent of species in Priority Places at risk of local extinction, said a WWF statement. "Even with the emissions cuts pledged under the Paris Agreement, temperatures that were extreme in the past are set to be the new normal in all Priority Places," it added -- in some as early as 2030. Limiting warming to 2 C would enable many species to continue inhabiting the areas they currently occupy, according to the report. And if animals can move freely -- not constrained by roads, fences, or human settlements -- the proportion of species at extinction risk at warming of 2 C drops from 25 to 20 per cent. The report comes ahead of a major meeting of the IPBES inter-governmental panel in Medellin, Colombia, where scientists and governments will release five assessments of the state of biodiversity. Extinction is not simply about the disappearance of species, said the WWF, "but about profound changes to ecosystems that provide vital services to hundreds of millions of people." Job- and revenue-generating tourism would suffer greatly if species disappear, and as-yet-undiscovered medicines from plants forever lost. "Put simply, we have to stop burning fossil fuels," said the WWF.

Warming could threaten half of species in 33 key areas: Report

Not for the first time in recent years, Europe has descended into a deep freeze while the Arctic experiences record high temperatures, leaving scientists to ponder the role global warming may play in turning winter weather upside down.

The reversal has been dramatic.

A Siberian cold front has spread sub-zero temperatures across Europe, carpeting southern cities and palm-lined Mediterranean beaches with snow.

On Sunday, meanwhile, air temperatures at the North Pole -- which won&#39;t see the Sun until March -- rose above freezing.

&quot;In relative terms, that&#39;s a 30 C (54 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature anomaly,&quot; Robert Rohde, lead scientist at Berkeley Earth in Washington, tweeted.

At the Longyearbyen weather station on the Island of Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean, temperatures were 10 C above average over the last 30 days, according to Zack Labe, a climate modeller at the University of California Irvine.

At the same time, sea ice is covering the smallest area in the dead of winter since records began more than half a century ago.

In one region, around Svalbard, the area covered by sea ice -- 205,727 square kilometres -- on Monday was less than half the average for the period 1981-2010, the Norway Ice Service reported.

&quot;Positive temperatures near the North Pole in winter are thought to have occurred during four winters between 1980 and 2010,&quot; Robert Graham, a climate scientist at the Norwegian Polar Institute, told AFP.

They have now occurred in four out of the last five winters.&quot;

This acceleration, experts said, circumstantially points to climate change, which has -- over the same period -- warmed the Arctic region twice as fast as the global average.

Transform the planet 
Another clue may be the Arctic thaw/European deep freeze pairing.&nbsp;

&quot;The surge of mild weather at the North Pole and the cold front in Europe are directly linked,&quot; Etienne Kapikian, a scientist at Meteo France, the national weather service, told AFP.

&quot;Just how hot is the Arctic now?&quot; tweeted Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the US National Academy of Science.

&quot;Hotter than ever measured in winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet.&quot;

Gleick&#39;s larger assertion is no longer seriously contested, but the link between the &quot;warm Arctic, cold continent&quot; phenomenon and global warming has yet to be proven, other scientists say.

If the connection with global warming remains speculative, the mechanics of what scientists call &quot;sudden stratospheric warming&quot; -- the weird winter weather&#39;s immediate cause -- is well understood.

Strong winds in the stratosphere circulate west-to-east over the Arctic some 30 kilometres above Earth&#39;s surface. This is the polar vortex.

The jet stream, meanwhile, races in the same direction at bullet-train speed 10 kilometres overhead at the upper boundary of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere.

Sometimes the vortex dramatically warms and weakens, with winds slowing down and even reversing, explained Marlene Kretschmer, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.&nbsp;

A cooling tendency 
&quot;When this happens, it can affect the jet stream where our weather is made,&quot; she told AFP. &quot;That is exactly what has happened now.&quot;

Freezing Arctic air that is normally &quot;locked&quot; in the polar vortex breaks out, creating the Siberian cold front that has blanketed Europe.&nbsp;

Sudden stratospheric warming occurs, on average, every other year, so it is not a rare phenomenon.&nbsp;

But over the last two decades, the vortex&#39;s breakdowns have become deeper and more persistent.

&quot;Overall, the global warming trend is clear,&quot; said Kretschmer. Earth&#39;s average surface temperature has gone up by one degree Celsius since the mid-19th century -- enough to unleash deadly drought, heatwaves, and storms engorged by rising seas.

&quot;But if you just look at winter temperatures since 1990, you see a cooling tendency in winter over northern Eurasia.&quot;

Still, the question remains: What drives changes in the intensity and duration of sudden stratospheric warming?

One theory holds that newly ice-free ocean surface -- which absorbs the Sun&#39;s rays rather than bouncing them back into space like snow -- releases warmth into the air that eventually disrupts the stratosphere.&nbsp;

&quot;It is hard to say that any one event is linked to global warming,&quot; said Kretschmer.

&quot;But there are a lot of studies now suggesting this pattern -- warm Arctic, cold continent -- could be linked to climate change.&quot;

&quot;This much is certain -- there is overwhelming evidence that changes in the Arctic will affect our weather,&quot; she added.

Parts of Europe are at the moment colder than the Arctic

Not for the first time in recent years, Europe has descended into a deep freeze while the Arctic experiences record high temperatures, leaving scientists to ponder the role global warming may play in turning winter weather upside down. The reversal has been dramatic. A Siberian cold front has spread sub-zero temperatures across Europe, carpeting southern cities and palm-lined Mediterranean beaches with snow. On Sunday, meanwhile, air temperatures at the North Pole -- which won't see the Sun until March -- rose above freezing. "In relative terms, that's a 30 C (54 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature anomaly," Robert Rohde, lead scientist at Berkeley Earth in Washington, tweeted. At the Longyearbyen weather station on the Island of Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean, temperatures were 10 C above average over the last 30 days, according to Zack Labe, a climate modeller at the University of California Irvine. At the same time, sea ice is covering the smallest area in the dead of winter since records began more than half a century ago. In one region, around Svalbard, the area covered by sea ice -- 205,727 square kilometres -- on Monday was less than half the average for the period 1981-2010, the Norway Ice Service reported. "Positive temperatures near the North Pole in winter are thought to have occurred during four winters between 1980 and 2010," Robert Graham, a climate scientist at the Norwegian Polar Institute, told AFP. They have now occurred in four out of the last five winters." This acceleration, experts said, circumstantially points to climate change, which has -- over the same period -- warmed the Arctic region twice as fast as the global average. Transform the planet Another clue may be the Arctic thaw/European deep freeze pairing. "The surge of mild weather at the North Pole and the cold front in Europe are directly linked," Etienne Kapikian, a scientist at Meteo France, the national weather service, told AFP. "Just how hot is the Arctic now?" tweeted Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the US National Academy of Science. "Hotter than ever measured in winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet." Gleick's larger assertion is no longer seriously contested, but the link between the "warm Arctic, cold continent" phenomenon and global warming has yet to be proven, other scientists say. If the connection with global warming remains speculative, the mechanics of what scientists call "sudden stratospheric warming" -- the weird winter weather's immediate cause -- is well understood. Strong winds in the stratosphere circulate west-to-east over the Arctic some 30 kilometres above Earth's surface. This is the polar vortex. The jet stream, meanwhile, races in the same direction at bullet-train speed 10 kilometres overhead at the upper boundary of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Sometimes the vortex dramatically warms and weakens, with winds slowing down and even reversing, explained Marlene Kretschmer, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. A cooling tendency "When this happens, it can affect the jet stream where our weather is made," she told AFP. "That is exactly what has happened now." Freezing Arctic air that is normally "locked" in the polar vortex breaks out, creating the Siberian cold front that has blanketed Europe. Sudden stratospheric warming occurs, on average, every other year, so it is not a rare phenomenon. But over the last two decades, the vortex's breakdowns have become deeper and more persistent. "Overall, the global warming trend is clear," said Kretschmer. Earth's average surface temperature has gone up by one degree Celsius since the mid-19th century -- enough to unleash deadly drought, heatwaves, and storms engorged by rising seas. "But if you just look at winter temperatures since 1990, you see a cooling tendency in winter over northern Eurasia." Still, the question remains: What drives changes in the intensity and duration of sudden stratospheric warming? One theory holds that newly ice-free ocean surface -- which absorbs the Sun's rays rather than bouncing them back into space like snow -- releases warmth into the air that eventually disrupts the stratosphere. "It is hard to say that any one event is linked to global warming," said Kretschmer. "But there are a lot of studies now suggesting this pattern -- warm Arctic, cold continent -- could be linked to climate change." "This much is certain -- there is overwhelming evidence that changes in the Arctic will affect our weather," she added.

Europe is icy cold, the North Pole is balmy: Global warming turns world upside down

The North Pole is experiencing a sudden surge in temperatures which has left the environmentalists and experts stunned. The North Pole is usually at its coldest around this time of the year. Despite this, the region has seen a historic thaw after an enormous storm pumped an intense pulse of heat through the Greenland Sea.

It is unlikely for the North Pole to get the sight of the Sun until till March 20;&nbsp;meanwhile, the temperature in the region has already mounted to 35 degrees Fahrenheit, around 2 degree Celsius.&nbsp;

According to Zack Labe, a climate scientist from the University of California at Irvine, this is one of the most expansive warm intrusions to have hit the region for the longest time.&nbsp;

&quot;No other warm intrusions were very close to this,&quot; Labe said in an interview, describing a data set maintained by the Danish Meteorological Institute that dated back to 1958. &quot;I was taken by surprise how expansive this warm intrusion was,&quot; Labe noted.&nbsp;

Some of the previously conducted studies have noted climatic intrusions to have become more frequent ever since the 1980s.&nbsp;

The change in temperature&nbsp;has been linked to the decline of winter sea ice in the Arctic; January&#39;s ice extent was the lowest on record.

With inputs from ANI&nbsp;

Some of the previously conducted studies have noted similar climatic intrusions to have become more frequent ever since the 1980s

The North Pole is experiencing a sudden surge in temperatures which has left the environmentalists and experts stunned. The North Pole is usually at its coldest around this time of the year. Despite this, the region has seen a historic thaw after an enormous storm pumped an intense pulse of heat through the Greenland Sea. It is unlikely for the North Pole to get the sight of the Sun until till March 20; meanwhile, the temperature in the region has already mounted to 35 degrees Fahrenheit, around 2 degree Celsius. According to Zack Labe, a climate scientist from the University of California at Irvine, this is one of the most expansive warm intrusions to have hit the region for the longest time. "No other warm intrusions were very close to this," Labe said in an interview, describing a data set maintained by the Danish Meteorological Institute that dated back to 1958. "I was taken by surprise how expansive this warm intrusion was," Labe noted. Some of the previously conducted studies have noted climatic intrusions to have become more frequent ever since the 1980s. The change in temperature has been linked to the decline of winter sea ice in the Arctic; January's ice extent was the lowest on record. With inputs from ANI

Temperatures soar at North Pole in warmest climatic intrusion

An increasingly warm Arctic, where temperatures rise twice as fast as the rest of the planet and ice melts at an alarming pace is the &quot;new normal,&quot; warned a global scientific report Tuesday.

In 2017, winter sea ice around the Earth&#39;s northern pole cover fell to the smallest extent on record, said the Arctic Report Card, released annually by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The year was the second warmest in modern times for the fragile Arctic, said the peer-reviewed report compiled by 85 scientists from 12 nations.

&quot;The magnitude and pace of the 21st century sea ice and surface ocean warming decline are unprecedented in at least the last 1,500 years and likely much longer,&quot; said the report.

&quot;There are many strong signals that continue to indicate the Arctic environmental system has reached a &#39;new normal.&#39;&quot;

The consequences of this continued warming are dire -- harming valuable fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea, compromising roads, homes and infrastructure due to permafrost thaw and risking increasing wildfires at high altitudes, said the report.&nbsp;

Even though fewer heat records were shattered than in 2016, the &quot;Arctic shows no sign of returning to the reliably frozen region it was decades ago,&quot; it said.

&quot;Arctic temperatures continue to increase at double the rate of the global temperature increase.&quot;

Scientists released the Arctic Report Card, now in its 12th&nbsp;year, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

In 2017, winter sea ice around the Earth's northern pole cover fell to the smallest extent on record

An increasingly warm Arctic, where temperatures rise twice as fast as the rest of the planet and ice melts at an alarming pace is the "new normal," warned a global scientific report Tuesday. In 2017, winter sea ice around the Earth's northern pole cover fell to the smallest extent on record, said the Arctic Report Card, released annually by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The year was the second warmest in modern times for the fragile Arctic, said the peer-reviewed report compiled by 85 scientists from 12 nations. "The magnitude and pace of the 21st century sea ice and surface ocean warming decline are unprecedented in at least the last 1,500 years and likely much longer," said the report. "There are many strong signals that continue to indicate the Arctic environmental system has reached a 'new normal.'" The consequences of this continued warming are dire -- harming valuable fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea, compromising roads, homes and infrastructure due to permafrost thaw and risking increasing wildfires at high altitudes, said the report. Even though fewer heat records were shattered than in 2016, the "Arctic shows no sign of returning to the reliably frozen region it was decades ago," it said. "Arctic temperatures continue to increase at double the rate of the global temperature increase." Scientists released the Arctic Report Card, now in its 12th year, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Warming, melting Arctic is 'new normal'

Global warming is likely to be slightly less severe than previously expected thanks to stronger climate policies by China and India that will offset less US&nbsp;action under President Donald Trump, a study showed on Wednesday.

But average world temperatures are still on track to rise far above the key goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to &quot;well below&quot; two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, it said.

The Carbon Action Tracker (CAT) report, by three independent European research groups, said current policies meant the world was headed for a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 Fahrenheit) by 2100, down from 3.6 degrees (6.5) it predicted a year ago.

&quot;This is the first time since the CAT began tracking action in 2009 that policies at a national level have visibly reduced its end of century temperature estimate,&quot; it said.

China was on track to over-achieve its pledge under the Paris Agreement to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, it said. And India was also making progress to limit a surge in emissions driven by more coal use.

A rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4F) in global average temperatures could cause loss of tropical coral reefs, Alpine glaciers, Arctic summer sea ice and perhaps an irreversible melt of Greenland&#39;s ice that would drive up world sea levels, a UN&nbsp;science panel says.

&quot;It is clear who the leaders are here: in the face of US&nbsp;inaction, China and India are stepping up,&quot; said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, one of the research groups.

Trump, who doubts that climate change is primarily caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said in June that he would instead focus on promoting jobs in the US&nbsp;fossil fuel industry. 
 
Hare told Reuters that it was too early to say that global emissions were peaking.

&quot;While China India&#39;s emissions growth has slowed, they are still growing,&quot; especially in India, he said. &quot;The most fundamental step to halt the global emissions growth now is for coal plants to be phased out in many countries.&quot;

On Monday, another report said that man-made carbon dioxide emissions were on target to rise by 2 percent in 2017, dashing hopes that they had peaked. The main driver was a 3.5 percent rise by China in 2017.

&nbsp;

Global warming is likely to be slightly less severe than previously expected

Global warming is likely to be slightly less severe than previously expected thanks to stronger climate policies by China and India that will offset less US action under President Donald Trump, a study showed on Wednesday. But average world temperatures are still on track to rise far above the key goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, it said. The Carbon Action Tracker (CAT) report, by three independent European research groups, said current policies meant the world was headed for a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 Fahrenheit) by 2100, down from 3.6 degrees (6.5) it predicted a year ago. "This is the first time since the CAT began tracking action in 2009 that policies at a national level have visibly reduced its end of century temperature estimate," it said. China was on track to over-achieve its pledge under the Paris Agreement to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, it said. And India was also making progress to limit a surge in emissions driven by more coal use. A rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4F) in global average temperatures could cause loss of tropical coral reefs, Alpine glaciers, Arctic summer sea ice and perhaps an irreversible melt of Greenland's ice that would drive up world sea levels, a UN science panel says. "It is clear who the leaders are here: in the face of US inaction, China and India are stepping up," said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, one of the research groups. Trump, who doubts that climate change is primarily caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said in June that he would instead focus on promoting jobs in the US fossil fuel industry. Hare told Reuters that it was too early to say that global emissions were peaking. "While China India's emissions growth has slowed, they are still growing," especially in India, he said. "The most fundamental step to halt the global emissions growth now is for coal plants to be phased out in many countries." On Monday, another report said that man-made carbon dioxide emissions were on target to rise by 2 percent in 2017, dashing hopes that they had peaked. The main driver was a 3.5 percent rise by China in 2017.

Climate policies by India, China to offset less US action: Study

As climate change drives up temperatures, Earth comes ever closer to dangerous &#39;tipping points&#39; that could accelerate global warming beyond our capacity to reign it in, scientists warned at UN talks in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/climate-change-imperils-one-in-four-natural-heritage-sites-report-24124">Bonn</a> Monday.

&quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/if-asia-leads-on-climate-the-world-will-follow-24082">Climate change</a> is here. It is dangerous. And it is about to get much worse,&quot;&nbsp;said Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

&quot;In the last two years, evidence has accumulated that we are now on a collision course with tipping points in the Earth system.&quot;

Think of someone leaning back on two legs of a chair, suggested Sybren Drijfhout, a professor at the University of Southampton.

&quot;The tipping point is when you&#39;re exactly in between two states,&quot; he said. &quot;A tiny perturbation&quot; - a gentle shove - &quot;will make the system tip over.&quot;

In relation to climate change, these invisible thresholds are a point-of-no-return beyond which lies a world that could fall rapidly and seriously out of balance.

Some <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/world-carbon-emissions-on-the-rise-again-study-24098">scientists</a>, for example, have concluded that the planet&#39;s surface has already warmed enough - 1.1 degrees Celsius (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit) on average - in the last 150 years to lock in the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which holds enough frozen water to lift global oceans by six or seven metres.&nbsp;

It may take 1,000 years, but -&nbsp;if they are right -&nbsp;the ice sheet will melt no matter how quickly humanity draws down <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-government-files-plea-in-ngt-seeking-changes-in-its-previous-directions-24100">the greenhouse gases</a> that continue to drive global warming.

Other scientists say that threshold is higher, perhaps 1.5 C&nbsp; or 2.0 C. But all agree that there is a point of no return.

Rockstrom and other scientists identified a dozen tipping points - keyed to different temperature triggers - in a briefing paper presented at the 196-nation, 12-day UN talks, which run through Friday.

The danger, if they kick in, is that change could become abrupt and irreversible, at least on a timescale measured in thousands, or tens of thousands, of years.

An increase of 1-3 C could provoke the loss of Arctic summer sea ice; irreversible melting of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet; loss of many warm-water coral reefs; and the disappearance of many mountain glaciers.&nbsp;

Earth getting in the act&nbsp;

A temperature rise of 3-5 C would likely turn large swathes of the Amazon rainforest into savanna; slow down the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a deep-sea current which regulates weather on both sides of the northern Atlantic; and affect the intensity and frequency of El Ninos.&nbsp;

On the plus side, it could also green the Sahel region of northern Africa.

If the thermometer goes up beyond 5 C - unlikely but not impossible - the world would see the melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, lifting seas tens of metres; and the loss of Arctic winter sea ice.

It would also melt the permafrost, which traps at least nearly twice as much carbon as is contained in the atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Right now, the scientists point out, humanity is having a very hard time dealing with the amount of CO2 and methane - the two most important greenhouse gases -- we have already released.

If Earth itself gets into the act, that task could quickly become overwhelming.

&quot;It is important to remind everyone of the very reasons why tens of thousands of people are meeting in Bonn,&quot; said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and co-author of the briefing.

&quot;It is because of the unprecedented risk to humanity due to global warming, as revealed by science.&quot;

This hard reality, he added, may force us to reconsider the &quot;culture of short-term convenience and consumption&quot; that has emerged since the middle of the 20th century.

As climate change drives up temperatures, Earth comes ever closer to dangerous 'tipping points' that could accelerate global warming beyond our capacity to reign it in, scientists warned at UN talks in Bonn Monday

As climate change drives up temperatures, Earth comes ever closer to dangerous 'tipping points' that could accelerate global warming beyond our capacity to reign it in, scientists warned at UN talks in Bonn Monday. "Climate change is here. It is dangerous. And it is about to get much worse," said Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. "In the last two years, evidence has accumulated that we are now on a collision course with tipping points in the Earth system." Think of someone leaning back on two legs of a chair, suggested Sybren Drijfhout, a professor at the University of Southampton. "The tipping point is when you're exactly in between two states," he said. "A tiny perturbation" - a gentle shove - "will make the system tip over." In relation to climate change, these invisible thresholds are a point-of-no-return beyond which lies a world that could fall rapidly and seriously out of balance. Some scientists, for example, have concluded that the planet's surface has already warmed enough - 1.1 degrees Celsius (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit) on average - in the last 150 years to lock in the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which holds enough frozen water to lift global oceans by six or seven metres. It may take 1,000 years, but - if they are right - the ice sheet will melt no matter how quickly humanity draws down the greenhouse gases that continue to drive global warming. Other scientists say that threshold is higher, perhaps 1.5 C or 2.0 C. But all agree that there is a point of no return. Rockstrom and other scientists identified a dozen tipping points - keyed to different temperature triggers - in a briefing paper presented at the 196-nation, 12-day UN talks, which run through Friday. The danger, if they kick in, is that change could become abrupt and irreversible, at least on a timescale measured in thousands, or tens of thousands, of years. An increase of 1-3 C could provoke the loss of Arctic summer sea ice; irreversible melting of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet; loss of many warm-water coral reefs; and the disappearance of many mountain glaciers. Earth getting in the act A temperature rise of 3-5 C would likely turn large swathes of the Amazon rainforest into savanna; slow down the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a deep-sea current which regulates weather on both sides of the northern Atlantic; and affect the intensity and frequency of El Ninos. On the plus side, it could also green the Sahel region of northern Africa. If the thermometer goes up beyond 5 C - unlikely but not impossible - the world would see the melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, lifting seas tens of metres; and the loss of Arctic winter sea ice. It would also melt the permafrost, which traps at least nearly twice as much carbon as is contained in the atmosphere. Right now, the scientists point out, humanity is having a very hard time dealing with the amount of CO2 and methane - the two most important greenhouse gases -- we have already released. If Earth itself gets into the act, that task could quickly become overwhelming. "It is important to remind everyone of the very reasons why tens of thousands of people are meeting in Bonn," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and co-author of the briefing. "It is because of the unprecedented risk to humanity due to global warming, as revealed by science." This hard reality, he added, may force us to reconsider the "culture of short-term convenience and consumption" that has emerged since the middle of the 20th century.

Climate change pushing Earth towards 'tipping point': Report

Climate change imperils one in four natural World Heritage sites, including coral reefs, glaciers, and wetlands -- nearly double the number from just three years ago, a report said Monday.

The number of sites at risk has grown to 62 from 35 in 2014, when one in seven were listed, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which released the report at UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany.

Among the ecosystems most threatened by global warming are coral reefs which bleach as oceans heat up, and glaciers which melt.

&quot;Climate change acts fast and is not sparing the finest treasures of our planet,&quot; said IUCN director general Inger Andersen.

&quot;Climate change now threatens the very fabric of our society, threatens our identity, an identity that is grounded in the rich and yet delicate patchwork of natural heritage,&quot; she told journalists in Bonn.

The report found that 29 percent of World Heritage sites faced &quot;significant&quot; threats, and seven percent -- including the Everglades National Park in the United States and Lake Turkana in Kenya -- had a &quot;critical&quot; outlook.&nbsp;

&quot;The scale and pace at which it (climate change) is damaging our natural heritage underline the need for urgent and ambitious national commitments and actions to implement the Paris Agreement,&quot; said Andersen.

Negotiators are gathered in Bonn to work out a nuts-and-bolts rulebook for executing the pact adopted by nearly 200 countries in the French capital in 2015.

The agreement seeks to limit average global warming caused by greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel burning to under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels, and to 1.5 C if possible.

The 1 C mark has already been passed, and scientists say that on current country pledges to cut emissions, the world is headed for a 3 C future.

- &#39;Devastating&#39; - 
The IUCN monitors more than 200 natural Heritage Sites listed by the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Three World Heritage-listed coral reefs -- the Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean, the Belize Barrier Reef in the Atlantic, and Australia&#39;s Great Barrier Reef, the biggest on Earth -- have been affected by &quot;devastating&quot; bleaching events over the last three years, said the IUCN report.

Corals &quot;bleach&quot; when they are stressed by environmental changes -- due to ocean warming or pollution.&nbsp;

The corals expel the colorful algae that live in them and turn bone white.

&quot;Retreating glaciers, also resulting from rising temperatures, threaten sites such as Kilimanjaro National Park, which boasts Africa&#39;s highest peak, and the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch, home to the largest Alpine glacier,&quot; said the union.

Wetlands, low-lying deltas, permafrost and fire-sensitive ecosystems are also affected by changes in Earth&#39;s climate, it added.

- Insufficient funding - 
Harm to natural sites endangers local economies and livelihoods, the IUCN said.

&quot;In Peru&#39;s Huascaran National Park, for example, melting glaciers affect water supplies and contaminate water and soil due to the release of heavy metals previously trapped under ice.&quot;

Only invasive plant and animal species surpassed climate change as a risk to natural heritage sites said the union. And climate change boosts their spread.

Sites on the World Heritage list are earmarked for protection for future generations.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Countries assume responsibility under the World Heritage Convention to protect listed sites within their borders.&nbsp;

The report said the management of heritage sites has declined since 2014, &quot;notably due to insufficient funding.&quot;

The Bonn meeting is the first of UN climate envoys since US President Donald Trump said he would pull America out of the hard-fought Paris Agreement, a move many fear will make the 2 C goal that much harder to reach.

Among the ecosystems most threatened by global warming are coral reefs which bleach as oceans heat up, and glaciers which melt.

Climate change imperils one in four natural World Heritage sites, including coral reefs, glaciers, and wetlands -- nearly double the number from just three years ago, a report said Monday. The number of sites at risk has grown to 62 from 35 in 2014, when one in seven were listed, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which released the report at UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany. Among the ecosystems most threatened by global warming are coral reefs which bleach as oceans heat up, and glaciers which melt. "Climate change acts fast and is not sparing the finest treasures of our planet," said IUCN director general Inger Andersen. "Climate change now threatens the very fabric of our society, threatens our identity, an identity that is grounded in the rich and yet delicate patchwork of natural heritage," she told journalists in Bonn. The report found that 29 percent of World Heritage sites faced "significant" threats, and seven percent -- including the Everglades National Park in the United States and Lake Turkana in Kenya -- had a "critical" outlook. "The scale and pace at which it (climate change) is damaging our natural heritage underline the need for urgent and ambitious national commitments and actions to implement the Paris Agreement," said Andersen. Negotiators are gathered in Bonn to work out a nuts-and-bolts rulebook for executing the pact adopted by nearly 200 countries in the French capital in 2015. The agreement seeks to limit average global warming caused by greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel burning to under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels, and to 1.5 C if possible. The 1 C mark has already been passed, and scientists say that on current country pledges to cut emissions, the world is headed for a 3 C future. - 'Devastating' - The IUCN monitors more than 200 natural Heritage Sites listed by the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Three World Heritage-listed coral reefs -- the Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean, the Belize Barrier Reef in the Atlantic, and Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the biggest on Earth -- have been affected by "devastating" bleaching events over the last three years, said the IUCN report. Corals "bleach" when they are stressed by environmental changes -- due to ocean warming or pollution. The corals expel the colorful algae that live in them and turn bone white. "Retreating glaciers, also resulting from rising temperatures, threaten sites such as Kilimanjaro National Park, which boasts Africa's highest peak, and the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch, home to the largest Alpine glacier," said the union. Wetlands, low-lying deltas, permafrost and fire-sensitive ecosystems are also affected by changes in Earth's climate, it added. - Insufficient funding - Harm to natural sites endangers local economies and livelihoods, the IUCN said. "In Peru's Huascaran National Park, for example, melting glaciers affect water supplies and contaminate water and soil due to the release of heavy metals previously trapped under ice." Only invasive plant and animal species surpassed climate change as a risk to natural heritage sites said the union. And climate change boosts their spread. Sites on the World Heritage list are earmarked for protection for future generations. Countries assume responsibility under the World Heritage Convention to protect listed sites within their borders. The report said the management of heritage sites has declined since 2014, "notably due to insufficient funding." The Bonn meeting is the first of UN climate envoys since US President Donald Trump said he would pull America out of the hard-fought Paris Agreement, a move many fear will make the 2 C goal that much harder to reach.

Climate change imperils one in four natural heritage sites: Report

The carbon dioxide emissions that drive global warming, flat since 2014, are set to rise two percent this year, dashing hopes they had peaked, scientists reported at UN climate talks Monday.

&quot;This is very disappointing,&quot; said Corinne Le Quere, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia and lead author of a major study detailing the findings.&nbsp;

&quot;With global CO2 emissions from human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), let alone 1.5 C.&quot;

The 196-nation Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, calls for capping global warming at 2 C below pre-industrial levels.

With the planet out of kilter after only one degree of warming -- enough to amplify deadly heatwaves, droughts, and superstorms -- the treaty also vows to explore the feasibility of holding the line at 1.5 C.

Earth is overheating due to the burning of oil, gas and especially coal to power the global economy. Deforestation also plays a critical role.

&quot;The news that emissions are rising after a three-year hiatus is a giant leap backward for humankind,&quot; said Amy Luers, a climate policy advisor to Barack Obama and executive director of Future Earth, which co-sponsored the research.

This year&#39;s climate summit is presided by Fiji, one of the dozens of small island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising seas engorged by warmer water and melt-off from ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.

Thousands of diplomats in Bonn are negotiating the &quot;rulebook&quot; for the Paris pact, which goes into effect in 2020.

To stay below the 2 C threshold, greenhouse gas emissions should peak and begin to curve downward by 2020, earlier research has shown.

Stalled CO2 emissions from 2014 through 2016 -- due to better energy efficiency, a boom in renewables, and reduced coal use in China -- raised expectations that the world had turned the corner.

Those hopes were premature.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&quot;As each year ticks by, the chances of avoiding 2 C of warming continue to diminish,&quot; said co-author Glen Peters, research director at Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway.

&quot;Given that 2 C is extremely unlikely based on current progress, then 1.5 C is a distant dream,&quot; he told AFP.

The study fingered China as the single largest cause of resurgent fossil fuel emissions in 2017, with the country&#39;s coal, oil and natural gas use up three, five and 12 percent, respectively.

Earth outside the safe zone&nbsp;

China alone accounts for nearly 30 percent of global carbon pollution.

Emissions from India -- the world&#39;s fourth largest emitter after the United States and the European Union -- are projected to grow by two percent, down from a 6.7-percent increase the year before.

2017 CO2 emissions in the United States will drop by only 0.4 percent, compared to 1.2 percent annually over the previous decade.

For the first time in five years, US coal use is projected to rise.&nbsp;

&quot;Human-induced warming has accelerated over the past few years despite the slowdown in carbon dioxide emissions because of other drivers of climate change, notably methane,&quot; said Myles Allen, a professor at the University of Oxford, commenting on the findings.

The Paris Agreement rests on voluntary carbon-cutting pledges from virtually every country in the world.

But even if fulfilled, those promissory notes are not enough to keep Earth in the safe zone, and would still see global temperatures rise a devastating 3 C (5.6 F) by the end of the century.

&quot;Global commitments made in Paris to reduce emissions are still not being matched by actions,&quot; said Peters.

The bottom line, say experts, is that the global economy is not shifting quickly enough from fossil fuels to low- or zero-carbon energy.&nbsp;

Solar and wind energy have grown 14 percent annually since 2012, but still only account for a tiny fraction -- less than four percent -- of global energy consumption.

The transition from dirty to clean energy has been slowed by oil, gas and coal subsidies that topped $320 million dollars (270 million euros) in 2015, according to the International Energy Agency.

Oceans and forests combined absorbed over half of the CO2 emissions from human activity, with the rest staying in the atmosphere, the study showed.&nbsp;

&quot;We would expect that the carbon sinks will eventually weaken as temperatures continue to rise, but how much and how fast is an active area of research,&quot; said Peters.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), meanwhile, released a report Monday showing that climate change now imperils one in four natural World Heritage sites, including coral reefs, glaciers, and wetlands -- nearly double the number from just three years ago.

Thousands of diplomats in Bonn are negotiating the "rulebook" for the Paris pact, which goes into effect in 2020

The carbon dioxide emissions that drive global warming, flat since 2014, are set to rise two percent this year, dashing hopes they had peaked, scientists reported at UN climate talks Monday. "This is very disappointing," said Corinne Le Quere, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia and lead author of a major study detailing the findings. "With global CO2 emissions from human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), let alone 1.5 C." The 196-nation Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, calls for capping global warming at 2 C below pre-industrial levels. With the planet out of kilter after only one degree of warming -- enough to amplify deadly heatwaves, droughts, and superstorms -- the treaty also vows to explore the feasibility of holding the line at 1.5 C. Earth is overheating due to the burning of oil, gas and especially coal to power the global economy. Deforestation also plays a critical role. "The news that emissions are rising after a three-year hiatus is a giant leap backward for humankind," said Amy Luers, a climate policy advisor to Barack Obama and executive director of Future Earth, which co-sponsored the research. This year's climate summit is presided by Fiji, one of the dozens of small island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising seas engorged by warmer water and melt-off from ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. Thousands of diplomats in Bonn are negotiating the "rulebook" for the Paris pact, which goes into effect in 2020. To stay below the 2 C threshold, greenhouse gas emissions should peak and begin to curve downward by 2020, earlier research has shown. Stalled CO2 emissions from 2014 through 2016 -- due to better energy efficiency, a boom in renewables, and reduced coal use in China -- raised expectations that the world had turned the corner. Those hopes were premature. "As each year ticks by, the chances of avoiding 2 C of warming continue to diminish," said co-author Glen Peters, research director at Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway. "Given that 2 C is extremely unlikely based on current progress, then 1.5 C is a distant dream," he told AFP. The study fingered China as the single largest cause of resurgent fossil fuel emissions in 2017, with the country's coal, oil and natural gas use up three, five and 12 percent, respectively. Earth outside the safe zone China alone accounts for nearly 30 percent of global carbon pollution. Emissions from India -- the world's fourth largest emitter after the United States and the European Union -- are projected to grow by two percent, down from a 6.7-percent increase the year before. 2017 CO2 emissions in the United States will drop by only 0.4 percent, compared to 1.2 percent annually over the previous decade. For the first time in five years, US coal use is projected to rise. "Human-induced warming has accelerated over the past few years despite the slowdown in carbon dioxide emissions because of other drivers of climate change, notably methane," said Myles Allen, a professor at the University of Oxford, commenting on the findings. The Paris Agreement rests on voluntary carbon-cutting pledges from virtually every country in the world. But even if fulfilled, those promissory notes are not enough to keep Earth in the safe zone, and would still see global temperatures rise a devastating 3 C (5.6 F) by the end of the century. "Global commitments made in Paris to reduce emissions are still not being matched by actions," said Peters. The bottom line, say experts, is that the global economy is not shifting quickly enough from fossil fuels to low- or zero-carbon energy. Solar and wind energy have grown 14 percent annually since 2012, but still only account for a tiny fraction -- less than four percent -- of global energy consumption. The transition from dirty to clean energy has been slowed by oil, gas and coal subsidies that topped $320 million dollars (270 million euros) in 2015, according to the International Energy Agency. Oceans and forests combined absorbed over half of the CO2 emissions from human activity, with the rest staying in the atmosphere, the study showed. "We would expect that the carbon sinks will eventually weaken as temperatures continue to rise, but how much and how fast is an active area of research," said Peters. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), meanwhile, released a report Monday showing that climate change now imperils one in four natural World Heritage sites, including coral reefs, glaciers, and wetlands -- nearly double the number from just three years ago.

Global 2 per cent rise in CO2 'giant leap backwards for humankind'

The world must sharply curb greenhouse gas emissions and suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air if today&#39;s youth are to be spared climate cataclysm, a top scientist has warned.

&quot;This reality is being ignored by governments around the world,&quot; said James Hansen, who famously announced to the US Congress 30 years ago that global warming was underway.

&quot;To say that we are &#39;moving in the right direction&#39; just isn&#39;t good enough anymore,&quot; he said in an interview.

Head of NASA&#39;s Goddard Institute for Space Studies until 2013, Hansen and his 18-year-old granddaughter&nbsp;who is suing the US government for contributing to the problem&nbsp;delivered that message this week at UN climate negotiations in Bonn.

Thousands of diplomats at the 12-day, 196-nation talks are haggling over the fine print of a &quot;user&#39;s manual&quot; for a treaty that will go into effect in 2020.

Inked in the French capital in 2015, the Paris Agreement calls for capping global warming at two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).&nbsp;

With the planet out of kilter after only one degree of warming&nbsp;enough to amplify deadly heatwaves, superstorms, and droughts-the treaty also vows to explore the feasibility of holding the line at 1.5 C.&nbsp;

&quot;That is a good impulse because if we go to 2 C, it is guaranteed that we will lose our shorelines and coastal cities,&quot; said Hansen.&nbsp;

&quot;The only question is how fast.&quot;

Earth&#39;s surface temperature, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and sea levels have all changed in lock-step over hundreds of millions of years, he pointed out.

In 2016, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide the main greenhouse gas&nbsp;tipped over 403 parts per million (ppm), 40 per cent above the pre-industrial average and the highest level in at least 800,000 years, the UN&#39;s weather agency reported this week.&nbsp;

&#39;Proven prescient&#39;&nbsp;

Even under optimistic scenarios, that number is projected to rise for decades.&nbsp;

What&#39;s the limit for a climate-safe world?

The UN&#39;s science advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has said we can &quot;likely&quot; stay under the 2 C threshold if CO2 levels don&#39;t exceed 450 ppm by 2100.

For Hansen, that&#39;s a recipe for disaster.

Meltwater from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could add metres to sea levels by 2100, he has calculated.

&quot;The last time in Earth&#39;s history that CO2 concentrations were at 450 ppm, sea level was 25 metres (80 feet) higher,&quot; he noted.

When writer and environmentalist Bill McKibben decided a decade ago to launch a campaign to fight global warming, he asked the world&#39;s best known climate scientist what he should call it.

&quot;He had in mind the name &#39;450.org&#39;,&quot; Hansen recalled.&nbsp;

By coincidence, Hansen was about to publish a major study that concluded the ceiling for CO2 levels should be 350 ppm, at most.&nbsp;

Thus was born 350.org, probably the largest grassroots climate action organisation in the world.

&quot;Hansen does make a compelling case that many climate change impacts are occurring sooner and with greater magnitude than we expected,&quot; said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.

&quot;Jim&#39;s past predictions have proven prescient and we do indeed ignore him at our peril.&quot;

&quot;Hansen&#39;s contributions to the basic science of climate change are fundamental to our current understanding -- no one has contributed more,&quot; said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

&nbsp;Climate negligence&nbsp;

Even if humanity succeeds in bending down the curve of greenhouse emissions far sooner than currently seems imaginable, it would not be fast enough to bring CO2 levels back to 350 ppm by century&#39;s end, according to Hansen.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

&quot;You would have to extract 150 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere,&quot; more than 10 times the amount we emit each year, he said.

The technology to do that does not currently exist.At 76, Hansen is thinking a lot about and what kind of world young people will be inheriting.&nbsp;

So is his granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, a first year university student in the United States.&nbsp;

Along with 20 of her peers, Kivlehan has sued the US federal government for what might best be called climate negligence.&nbsp;

&quot;When the US Constitution says &#39;We the People,&#39; that means young people too,&quot; she said in an interview.&nbsp;

&quot;We have constitutional rights, and those rights are being violated.&quot;

The case is currently wending its way through the federal court system, and could one day wind up before the Supreme Court, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs told AFP.

Government attempts to have the case thrown out have failed.

Despite his grim predictions, Hansen has not thrown his hands up in despair. He continues, for example, to campaign for a direct tax on fossil fuels as the only realistic way to achieve the necessary cuts.

The world must sharply curb greenhouse gas emissions and suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air if today's youth are to be spared climate cataclysm, the scientist warned

The world must sharply curb greenhouse gas emissions and suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air if today's youth are to be spared climate cataclysm, a top scientist has warned. "This reality is being ignored by governments around the world," said James Hansen, who famously announced to the US Congress 30 years ago that global warming was underway. "To say that we are 'moving in the right direction' just isn't good enough anymore," he said in an interview. Head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies until 2013, Hansen and his 18-year-old granddaughter who is suing the US government for contributing to the problem delivered that message this week at UN climate negotiations in Bonn. Thousands of diplomats at the 12-day, 196-nation talks are haggling over the fine print of a "user's manual" for a treaty that will go into effect in 2020. Inked in the French capital in 2015, the Paris Agreement calls for capping global warming at two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). With the planet out of kilter after only one degree of warming enough to amplify deadly heatwaves, superstorms, and droughts-the treaty also vows to explore the feasibility of holding the line at 1.5 C. "That is a good impulse because if we go to 2 C, it is guaranteed that we will lose our shorelines and coastal cities," said Hansen. "The only question is how fast." Earth's surface temperature, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and sea levels have all changed in lock-step over hundreds of millions of years, he pointed out. In 2016, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide the main greenhouse gas tipped over 403 parts per million (ppm), 40 per cent above the pre-industrial average and the highest level in at least 800,000 years, the UN's weather agency reported this week. 'Proven prescient' Even under optimistic scenarios, that number is projected to rise for decades. What's the limit for a climate-safe world? The UN's science advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has said we can "likely" stay under the 2 C threshold if CO2 levels don't exceed 450 ppm by 2100. For Hansen, that's a recipe for disaster. Meltwater from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could add metres to sea levels by 2100, he has calculated. "The last time in Earth's history that CO2 concentrations were at 450 ppm, sea level was 25 metres (80 feet) higher," he noted. When writer and environmentalist Bill McKibben decided a decade ago to launch a campaign to fight global warming, he asked the world's best known climate scientist what he should call it. "He had in mind the name '450.org'," Hansen recalled. By coincidence, Hansen was about to publish a major study that concluded the ceiling for CO2 levels should be 350 ppm, at most. Thus was born 350.org, probably the largest grassroots climate action organisation in the world. "Hansen does make a compelling case that many climate change impacts are occurring sooner and with greater magnitude than we expected," said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "Jim's past predictions have proven prescient and we do indeed ignore him at our peril." "Hansen's contributions to the basic science of climate change are fundamental to our current understanding -- no one has contributed more," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Climate negligence Even if humanity succeeds in bending down the curve of greenhouse emissions far sooner than currently seems imaginable, it would not be fast enough to bring CO2 levels back to 350 ppm by century's end, according to Hansen. "You would have to extract 150 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere," more than 10 times the amount we emit each year, he said. The technology to do that does not currently exist.At 76, Hansen is thinking a lot about and what kind of world young people will be inheriting. So is his granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, a first year university student in the United States. Along with 20 of her peers, Kivlehan has sued the US federal government for what might best be called climate negligence. "When the US Constitution says 'We the People,' that means young people too," she said in an interview. "We have constitutional rights, and those rights are being violated." The case is currently wending its way through the federal court system, and could one day wind up before the Supreme Court, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs told AFP. Government attempts to have the case thrown out have failed. Despite his grim predictions, Hansen has not thrown his hands up in despair. He continues, for example, to campaign for a direct tax on fossil fuels as the only realistic way to achieve the necessary cuts.

Climate target too low and progress too slow: Top Scientist

global-warming

Global Warming, News on Global Warming, stories on Global Warming, articles on Global Warming, Global Warming stories at Wion, Global Warming news, Global Warming latest news