Datasets:

pierre-pessarossi

/

wikipedia-climate-data

like 1

third pole

The Third Pole, also known as the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayan system (HKKH), is a mountainous region west and south of the Tibetan Plateau. Part of High-Mountain Asia, it spreads over an area of more than 4.2 million square kilometres (1.6 million square miles) across nine countries, i.e. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The area is nicknamed "Third Pole" because its mountain glaciers and snowfields store more frozen water than anywhere else in the world except for the Arctic and Antarctic polar caps. With the world's loftiest mountains, comprising all 14 peaks above 8,000 metres (26,000 ft), it is the source of 10 major rivers, and forms a global ecological buffer.The Third Pole area possesses huge socioeconomic and cultural variance; being home to a range of ethnic communities conversing in more than 600 languages and many more dialects. It is rich with natural resources and consists of all or some of four global biodiversity hotspots. The mountain resources administer a wide range of ecosystem benefits and the base for the drinking water, food production and livelihoods to the 220 million inhabitants of the region, as well as indirectly to the 1.3 billion people — one sixth of the world's population — living in the downstream river basins. More than 3 billion people benefit from the food and energy produced in these river basins whose headwaters rely on meltwaters and precipitations that run off these mountains. Third Pole and climate change Climate change is now a key concern in the Third Pole. Mountain set-ups are especially sensitive to climate change and the Third Pole area is inhabited by a populace most susceptible to these global alterations. Modifications in the river systems have had a direct impact on the contentment of a multitude of people. The rate of warming in the Third Pole is considerably greater than the global average, and the rate is increased at an elevated altitude, indicating a greater susceptibility of the cryosphere environment to climate change. This trend is expected to continue. Climate change projections suggest that all areas of South Asia are likely to warm by at least 1 °C by the turn of the century, while in some areas the warming could be as much as 3.5 to 4 °C. The lives and livelihoods of those living in the Third Pole region are challenged by climate change, and the security and development of the region impacted by the Third Pole are in peril. This will have ramifications for the entire continent, and indeed the effects will be felt worldwide. However, there is insufficient awareness of this risk and its potential knock-on effects outside of the impacted region; a special effort is required to increase the attention given to the fragility of the mountain social-ecological set-up. Efforts for monitoring climate change and its impacts in the TP region World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has planned to set up a network of regional climate centers in this region and named this as TP-RCC Network. A "Scoping Meeting on the Implementation of Third Pole Regional Climate Centres Network" was held during 27 March to 28 March 2018 at WMO Headquarters Office in Geneva, Switzerland. In this meeting it was decided that China, India and Pakistan will be the leading nodes for this network. Another meeting, "Implementation Planning Meeting of the Third Pole Regional Climate Centre Network", was also conducted during 13 December to 14 December 2018 in Beijing, China. An international scientific programme called the Third Pole Environment or TPE has set up 11 ground stations and tethered balloons since 2014, working with the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. This monitoring network is already larger than similar efforts in Antarctica and the Arctic, and almost doubles the number of such stations around the world. Another proposed programme named "Enhancing Climate Resilience in the Third Pole" by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) seeks to strengthen the use of weather, water and climate services in the Third Pole region to adapt to climate variability and change and to apply well-informed risk management approaches and will be implemented under the umbrella of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS). The proposed programme reflects the recommendations stemming from the “Regional Consultation on Climate Services for the Third Pole and other High Mountain Regions 2" that was held on 9–11 March 2016 in Jaipur, India. The consultation brought together experts from the NMHSs and key decision-makers and practitioners from the five priority areas of the GFCS (agriculture and food security, energy, health, water and disaster risk reduction). The programme's objectives will be achieved by strengthening regional support networks and institutional capacities, developing tools and products that are needed for anticipating climate variability and change. The primary measurable benefits include approximately 260 million direct and 1.3 billion indirect beneficiaries from the region who will gain access to critical weather and climate information, which will result in reduced disaster risk, improved water resources management and improved agricultural productivity. The regional component is complemented by a continuum of synergistic national components in each of the countries within the Third Pole region. The activities that will be implemented at the national level will demonstrate the value of effective application/integration of the enhanced capacity at regional level that will result in improved agricultural production, reduced disaster risk and improved water management in least developed countries (LDCs) in the Third Pole (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar). The programme is aligned with the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of LDCs in the Third Pole (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar) which place agriculture followed by disaster risk reduction and water as top priority sectors for adaptation actions. The Programme has three main objectives: Enhance climate information services to better anticipate the effects of climate change on the cryosphere for vulnerability and adaptation assessment and planning; Improve early warning for extreme weather/climate events (i.e. heatwaves, droughts, GLOFs, landslides, etc.) to reduce the impacts of disasters on human lives and livelihoods; Strengthen the provision and use of weather and climate services for agricultural risk management and water management.A comprehensive inventory of glaciers and glacial lakes in the Pakistani part of the Third Pole has been successfully completed. == References ==

new zealand climate science coalition

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was a anthropogenic climate change denial organisation in New Zealand, formed in 2006 with aim of "refuting what it believes were unfounded claims about anthropogenic global warming". The Coalition came to prominence in 2010 when it challenged the methodology and accuracy of NIWA's historical temperature records in court. The Coalition lost the case, could not afford to pay costs awarded against it and was forced into liquidation. There is an unrelated website called the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition which is an American blog also written by climate change deniers. The American website links to a different URL to the original URL associated with the New Zealand website which no longer exists. Claims The Coalition was formed in April 2006 by a group including the botanist Professor David Bellamy who held the position that "climate science is not settled, that the world is not on the brink of a man-made global warming catastrophe".In July 2006, Bryan Leyland, who claimed to be the acting chairman of the Coalition, issued a media release recommending the New Zealand government institute a Royal Commission on climate change claiming the public were "being given incomplete, inaccurate and biased information about the effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" when "global warming caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases ... cannot be substantiated". The Government refused on the grounds that the majority of climate scientists in the world agree that there is no longer any doubt that climate is changing due to human activity.In April 2007, another member of the Coalition, Vincent R. Gray, described the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as "dangerous unscientific nonsense" and "lacking in scientific rigour". Mr Gray spent much of his retirement criticising the IPCC. Legal action In August 2010, the Coalition commenced legal action against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, asking the High Court to invalidate its official temperature record, to prevent it using the temperature record when advising Government and to require the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to produce a "full and accurate" temperature record. Coalition spokesman, Bryan Leyland, acknowledged that the earth had been warming for 150 years, but claimed it had not heated as much as NIWA claimed. In 2012, the High Court declined all claims and ruled that the Coalition pay NIWA's costs. In his decision, Justice Venning said: "I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology." The Coalition was ordered to pay NIWA $89,000 in costs after losing the case. When the Coalition refused to pay, NIWA pursued liquidation. When asked about its assets, Bryan Leyland said: "To my knowledge, there is no money. We spent a large amount of money on the court case, there were some expensive legal technicalities." He acknowledged that funding had come "from a number of source, which are confidential" to take the case to court. In 2007, the Heartland Institute, which rejects mainstream scientific information about man-made climate change, granted the Coalition US$25,000 (NZ$32,000) sending the money to NZCSC member Owen McShane. Scientific credibility of Coalition members In making his decision in favour of NIWA, Justice Venning noted that at least two of the people representing the Coalition at court did not have scientific qualifications in the field of climate science. On that basis, he ruled that evidence presented by Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who was a founding member of the trust was inadmissible. He said: Dunleavy "has no applicable qualifications" and "his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert". Justice Venning also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose "general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science". Tim Lambert writing in ScienceBlogs said "The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand." The following individuals have been involved in the Coalition: Vincent R. Gray, who used to criticize the IPCC reports, had a vested interest in denying the impact of human induced climate change by virtue of his role as Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Association. Now deceased.Owen McShane was a founding member of the Coalition and had a background in architecture and town planning. A search of Google Scholar reveals he never published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Now deceased.David Bellamy: A search of Google Scholar reveals that David Bellamy has published only one article in a journal on the subject of climate change: "Carbon is the World's Best Friend," co-published by Bellamy and Jack Barrett, was published in the Energy & Environment (E&E), a journal edited by climate change denier Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Now deceased.Augie Auer: Had degrees in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University (1965) and Professional Meteorology from St. Louis University (1962). In New Zealand he worked as the chief meteorologist for the MetService. After Auer retired, Metservices new chief meteorologist Neil Gordon said that Auer had used the term "former MetService chief meteorologist" in public statements denying global warming. Gordon said: "We want to make it very clear in the public's mind that we do not agree with what he is saying." Now deceased. See also Heartland Institute Climate change in New Zealand References External links DESMOG: Clearing The Pr Pollution That Clouds Climate Science Hot Topic: Global Warming & the Future of New Zealand

yuri poluneev

Yuri Poluneev (born 1956 in Odessa, Soviet Union) is international economist, member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), professional with significant experience in board governance (more than 16 years, including the board of a major international financial organisation), international financial institutions, central banking and economic policy; long-time lecturer in international economics at Kyiv State University Institute for International Relations. Former member and deputy head of the supervisory board (Council) of the National Bank of Ukraine (2008-2015). Ex-member of Ukraine's parliament (2007-2012). Expertise: developmental economics, competitiveness strategies, monetary policy, bank and financial sector regulation and supervision, anti-crisis laws in the financial sector, bank non-performing debt restructuring, creditor and consumer rights, deposit insurance, consumer credit, financial consumer protection. Was the author or co-author of more than 40 law drafts, many of which became an important part of the financial reform agenda (bank debt restructuring, creditor and financial consumer rights, state deposit insurance fund, state lottery regulatory regime). As an economist, Dr. Yuri Poluneev put forward and promoted a concept that a country's strong international competitiveness should become a “national idea” for many emerging markets, particularly for Ukraine He developed an original economic concept “Technology for Economic Breakthrough” based on the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook methodology, which maps in detail the "technology" to translate a country's competitiveness rating into the economic policy objectives. Researched extensively the impact of Ukraine crisis upon the country's long-term economic prospects. He served as a member of Council of the National Bank of Ukraine and a member of the Committee for Economic Reform. Education and research Yuri Poluneev graduated in 1978 from Kyiv State University with BA in International Economy, English and Arabic languages. He is also a graduate of one-year international management programme at Toronto University (1991-1992) as well as of short-term course on management accounting and finance in 2000 at London Business School. He holds a PhD degree in International Economics from the Kyiv State University (1986). Was awarded honorary title "Merited Economist" (2010). Fellow of the International Academy of Management (Barcelona). He authored and co-authored 13 books and more than 100 publications on various aspects of transition economy reforms, country competitiveness, banking and finance. Editor-in-chief of the journal “Monitor of Competitiveness” (2006-2008), which promoted the competitiveness as a top economic policy priority. Professional career In 2005-2007, Yuri Poluneev served as President of the oldest MBA school in Ukraine, International Management Institute (MIM-Kyiv). During that period, he also was a member of the UNECE Team of Specialists on Innovation and Competitiveness Policies (TOS-ICP).During 1996-2005, served as a member of the board of directors (executive director) at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), a multilateral financial institution based in London, representing five sovereign Bank shareholders - Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia.In 1996, served as a deputy head of economic department in the Administration of the President of Ukraine. During 1994-1996, Yuri Poluneev was assistant Director General for Programmes at the International Committee for Economic Reform & Cooperation (Bonn, Germany) where he developed and implemented programmes for cooperation and investment in the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union.In 1989-1994, worked as deputy director general for the International Management Institute (MIM-Kyiv), was a visiting professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University (Ithaca, New York, USA) and served as a consultant for the OECD FDI Advisory Group for Ukraine and Belarus. Co-authored two pioneering OECD country investments reviews for Ukraine (1993) and Belarus (1994).In 1978-1983 and in 1985-1989, he worked as a research fellow at the Institute of Social and Economic Problems of Foreign Countries (Ukrainian SSR Academy of Sciences). In 1983-1985, served as analyst and interpreter of English and Arabic in the Office of the Economic Advisor to the USSR Embassy in Iraq. Social activities and personal profile In 2005, Yuri Poluneev founded an NGO “Council on Competitiveness of Ukraine”. It mobilized prominent personalities from various venues of life with the mission to initiate the public discussion involving authorities, business, civil society and education (research) as well as mass media to elevate competitiveness to the forefront of public awareness and policy-making in Ukraine. By 2008, the competitiveness theory has formally become an integral part of the government economic policy setting and strategic thinking. He had also focused on the reform in the financial consumer protection by preparing with the USAID assistance a number of new draft legislation focusing on consumer credit and consumer protection in accordance with the OECD guidelines.Yuri Poluneev was a member of the board of the British Ukrainian Society and had been an active promoter of closer political and business links between the two countries, especially when served as a co-chairman of the UK-Ukraine Inter-Parliamentary Group (2007-2012).Poluneev actively contributed to charitable activities. From proceeds of sale of his own music album, he founded the charity “Music – to Children” (2004), which provided financing and assistance to teach disabled children fine arts and music.Yuri Poluneev speaks fluent English, Ukrainian and Russian. Has a good knowledge of German, reads Arabic. He is married and has four children. References External links Who's who in Ukraine Personal Page at the Parliament website in Ukrainian

3rd millennium

In contemporary history, the 3rd (third) millennium is the current millennium in the Anno Domini or Common Era, under the Gregorian calendar. It began on 1 January 2001 (MMI) and will end on 31 December 3000 (MMM), spanning the 21st to 30th centuries. Ongoing futures studies seek to understand what will likely continue and what could plausibly change in this period and beyond. Predictions and forecasts not included on this timeline List of future astronomical events List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century List of solar eclipses in the 21st century Projections of population growth Climate change Representative Concentration Pathway Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Extinction List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events Predictions and claims for the Second Coming Near future in fiction Works falling into the public domain in the United States List of time capsules 21st century 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s 2041: The Antarctic treaty is scheduled to come under review. 2042: September 17: a common computing representation of date and time on IBM mainframe systems will overflow with potential results similar to the year 2000 problem. 2047: On July 1, the present "one country, two systems" arrangement in Hong Kong is scheduled to end, as it was guaranteed for 50 years starting from July 1, 1997, provided under the Hong Kong Basic Law. The agreement was raised by Deng Xiaoping to deal with Hong Kong's reunification with the People's Republic of China in 1997, and stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. What will be done is not stated in any document. 2048: On January 14, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty is scheduled to come up for review. 2049: December 20: The present "One country, two systems" with Macau, guaranteed for 50 years starting from 20 December 1999, provided under the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration on the Question of Macau, will expire. 2050s 2050: Three-North Shelter Forest Program is expected to be completed. The case files surrounding the 1943 death of the former lieutenant general of the Polish Army and first Prime Minister of the Polish government in exile, Władysław Sikorski, is expected to be declassified this year by the British government. Due to tensions between The United Kingdom, The Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, the circumstances of his death has led to disputes over whether the crash was deliberate or not. The official conclusion by the British government is that the crash was accidental. However, the Polish government refused to endorse this report on the basis of a lack of conclusive findings and contradictions within the British evidence. In 2008 an investigation was opened by the Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation of the Institute of National Remembrance, and concluded in 2013 that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the sabotage theory. 2051: April: One of the METI messages Cosmic Call 1 sent from the 70-meter Eupatoria Planetary Radar in 1999 arrives at its destination, Gliese 777 star. 2054: Hawksbill Creek Agreement granting tax exemptions and special economic status for Freeport, Bahamas, is set to expire. 2060s 2060: The Chinese government aims for China to be carbon neutral. 2061: December 31: Expiration of the Singapore-Malaysia Water Agreement. All 6 reactors from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant are planned to be decommissioned by this time. (30 to 40 years from 2021) However, according to a 2023 report by Voice of America, some experts have said "it would be impossible to remove all the melted fuel debris by 2051 and would take 50-100 years, if achieved at all." 2065: The process of cleanup and decommissioning the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, is projected to be finished. 2070s 2070: According to an announcement made by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi in 2021, India will be carbon neutral. 2076: The tricentennial of the United States of America 2079: For computer software using unsigned 16-bit binary day counts and an epoch of 1 January 1900, the counts will overflow after 65,536 (216) days, which will occur on 6 June 2079. 2080s 2085: The "secret" letter of Queen Elizabeth II will be opened in Sydney, Australia. 2088: The University of Bologna, the world's oldest university in continuous operation, will turn 1,000 years old. 2090s 2090: The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund is set to expire. 2092: Work on cleaning up the site of the Oldbury Nuclear Power Station is scheduled to be complete in 2092 (early estimate). 2094: April 7: Mercury transits Jupiter, this is the only known such event of the decade. 2096: Ash Wednesday will occur on February 29 (leap day) for the very first time since the start of the Gregorian calendar in 1582. 2099: The 99-year lease for Kaufman Astoria Studios in Queens, New York City is set to expire. Ontario regains control of the Ontario Highway 407 when its 99-year lease expires. 2099 is the maximum year that can be set on computers with BIOS firmware, as well as Microsoft's Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1 operating systems, and Sony's PlayStation 2 and the Nintendo DS gaming platforms. 2100s 2100: Silverstein Properties' 99-year lease on the World Trade Center expires. 22nd century 2100s 2103: Per an agreement between the National Archives and Caroline Kennedy, the jacket Jackie Kennedy wore on the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated cannot be displayed in public until this year. FAT file systems theoretically support dates up to 31 December 2107 (though officially only up to 31 December 2099). 2110s The Chernobyl New Safe Confinement reaches end of designed lifetime in the 2110s. 2111: The will of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is scheduled to become public knowledge. 2112: The will of Queen Elizabeth II is scheduled to become public knowledge. 2115: The first book from the Future Library project will be published, 100 years after being submitted by author Margaret Atwood. The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) initiated by Stanford University will be concluded. The film 100 Years by Robert Rodriguez and John Malkovich will be released, 100 years after its development finished in 2015. 2116: China Merchants Port's 99-year lease on Hambantota International Port in Sri Lanka is set to expire. 2117: A song titled "100 Years", composed by Pharrell Williams, will be released to the public. The song was performed by Williams at a private party in Shanghai, China, in 2017. The song is said to have addressed global warming. 2140s 2140: All Bitcoins are expected to be mined. 2150s 2155: The Year type in MySQL supports dates up to 31 December 2155. 2160s 2170s 2178: On March 23, Pluto will have completed its first full orbit since its discovery in 1930. 2180s 2182: On September 24, asteroid 101955 Bennu has a 1-in-2,700 chance of impacting Earth. 23rd century 2227–2247: Pluto will be closer to the Sun than Neptune for the first time since the year 1999. 2240: On September 16, the Hebrew calendar will reach the year 6000, signaling the latest possible arrival of the Messiah. 2265: Return of the Great Comet of 1861. 2285: On March 22, Easter will occur on its earliest possible date for the first time since the year 1818. 24th century 2333: It is projected that the Dounreay nuclear site will be safe to use for other purposes. 2353: The date of Easter as conventionally calculated will be five weeks earlier than its hypothetical date according to astronomical principles, in a "negative equinoctial paradox". Along with 2372, this will be one of only two such occurrences between 2020 and 4000. 2372: The date of Easter will see another "negative equinoctial paradox", this time four weeks earlier than its hypothetical date. This will be the last such occurrence before the year 4000. 2391: Palm Sunday and Saint Patrick's Day will coincide for the first time since 1940; the "wearing of the shamrock and the palm together" was seen as presaging a great event in Ireland. 2400: The first century leap year since 2000. 25th century 2425: If not repealed or overridden, the annual funding increase of $325 per student to Wisconsin public schools, which began in 2023, will end. 2439 (estimated): The "Across the Universe" message broadcast by NASA in 2008 will reach Polaris. 26th century c. 2500: Climate projections predict a barren landscape for the Amazon rainforest amid low water levels due to vegetation decline. 27th century 2640: On September 5, the 639-year-long performance of John Cage's organ work As Slow as Possible (begun in 2001) is scheduled to finish at the St. Burchardi Church in Halberstadt, Germany. 28th century Earth will experience 241 lunar eclipses. 29th century 2847: The St. Michael's Catholic Cemetery (Happy Valley) in Hong Kong lease on Wanzai's Saint Fulan gentleman street will end after a 999-year lease, assuming no legal status changes before that date. 2883: On January 4, the CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) lease on the O&Q (Ontario and Quebec) will end, after a 999-year lease. 30th century 2999: The Longplayer composition is set to finish on 31 December 2999, marking the end of the thousand-year piece of music, which began on 1 January 2000. See also Timelines of the future Anthropocene Foresight (psychology) Outline of futures studies Technology forecasting Notes == References ==

wanjuhi njoroge

Wanjuhi Njoroge (born 1989) is a Kenyan entrepreneur and activist, who campaigns against climate change. She calls for improvements to digital access and gender rights. She is a member of the African Women Leader's Network (AWLN). Biography Njoroge was born in 1989 and grew up in Kabaru, a village in Nyeri County, Kenya. She studied Sociology and Communication at the University of Nairobi, and was awarded a Diploma in Business Information Technology from Strathmore University. She is founder and president of the communications company Nelig Group, as well as the non-profit RootEd Africa, which works with schools and local communities to teach coding and innovation. RootEd aims to create employment through online jobs, reduce the rate of school dropout, especially amongst adolescent women, and to bring economic activity to villages through digital markets. In 2017 RootEd partnered with Safaricom to establish a modern library in Kabaru. Through her work she has also supported local farmers to move to more sustainable farming practices.In 2018 she was awarded a Young Leaders Project (YELP) Fellowship by the LéO Africa Institute. In 2019 Njoroge joined the Kenyan national chapter of the African Women Leader's Network (AWLN), which was launched at the UN Headquarters in New York in June 2017, under the auspices of the African Union Commission (AUC) and the United Nations (UN). On 28 January 2021, Wanjuhi took part in a panel event of international experts called Climate Change: Why should we care?, organised by the Science Museum Group.Njoroge has held a number of positions where she has worked to reduce inequality, including her role as a Vital Voices Fellow; She is affiliated with the World Economic Forum, both as a member of its Global Shaper community and as the leader of the Nairobi group. She is also part of the team implementing the Internet for All Project within the World Economic Forum. Awards Top 40 Under 40 (2016) - for her work in improving education, and increasing school admission & retention rates in rural Africa. == References ==

environmental policy of the donald trump administration

The environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration represented a shift from the policy priorities and goals of the preceding Barack Obama administration. Where President Obama's environmental agenda prioritized the reduction of carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy with the goal of conserving the environment for future generations, the Trump administration policy was for the US to attain energy independence based on fossil fuel use and to rescind many environmental regulations. By the end of Trump's term, his administration had rolled back 98 environmental rules and regulations, leaving an additional 14 rollbacks still in progress. As of early 2021, the Biden administration was making a public accounting of regulatory decisions under the Trump administration that had been influenced by politics rather than science.The Trump administration supported energy development on federal land, including gas and oil drilling in national forests and near national monuments and parks. Soon after taking office, Trump began to implement his "America First Energy Plan" and signed executive orders to approve two controversial oil pipelines. In 2018, the Department of the Interior announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters, the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed. In 2019, the Administration completed plans for opening the entire coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.Trump and his cabinet appointees did not believe the consensus of most scientists that climate change will have catastrophic impacts nor that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change. Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, leaving the U.S. the only nation that was not part of the agreement. He avoided environmental discussions at both the 44th G7 summit held in Canada and the 45th G7 summit held in France by departing early from these conferences. In September 2019, the Trump administration replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which did not cap emissions. In April 2020, he issued his new vehicle emissions standards, which were projected to result in an additional billion tons of carbon dioxide, increasing annual U.S. emissions by about one-fifth. In 2020, environmentalists feared that a successful reelection of Trump could have resulted in severe and irreversible changes in the climate.The administration repealed the Clean Water Rule and rewrote the EPA's pollution-control policies—including policies on chemicals known to be serious health risks—particularly benefiting the chemicals industry, A 2018 analysis reported that the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80,000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people." Background At a Republican primary debate in Detroit on March 3, 2016, Trump said: "Department of Environmental Protection: We are going to get rid of it in almost every form. We're going to have little tidbits left. But we're going to take a tremendous amount out." During the campaign, Trump expressed the view that global warming and cooling is a natural process. He often described global warming as a "hoax"; and sometimes attributed the "hoax" to the Chinese government as a plot to sabotage American manufacturing, but later claimed that had been a joke. As a candidate Trump said he would rescind Obama's Climate Action Plan, cancel U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement, and stop all U.S. payments towards United Nations global warming programs.Many of his first cabinet picks were people with a history of opposition to the agency they were named to head. Within days after taking office, he invited American manufacturers to suggest which regulations should be eliminated; industry leaders submitted 168 comments, of which nearly half targeted Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Within his first couple months in office, he required a federal review of the Clean Water Rule and the Clean Power Plan.He did not attend the climate discussions held during both the 2018 and 2019 G7 meetings, the only world leader not in attendance. Appointments Trump's cabinet nominees reflect his desire to scale back federal environmental regulation and to promote domestic production of coal, oil, and natural gas. In some cases his appointees had a history of conflict with the agencies they now lead. Although the scientific conclusion is that "it is extremely likely (95 to 100 percent probable) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," Trump's department head appointees do not agree that global warming has been man-made.President Trump's appointments to key agencies dealing in energy and environmental policy reflect his commitment to deregulation, particularly of the fossil fuel industry. Three of the four chair-level members of Trump's transition team commissioned to draw up a list of proposals to guide his Native American policies had links to the oil industry. In July 2018, amid numerous ethics investigations, Trump's first appointment for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, resigned and was replaced by Andrew Wheeler. First EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt As the attorney general of Oklahoma, Trump's choice of EPA administrator Scott Pruitt challenged EPA regulations in court more than a dozen times. With some cases still pending, Pruitt declined to say if he would recuse himself with regard to those suits. Pruitt hired former Oklahoma banker Albert Kelly to head the Superfund program, which is responsible for cleaning up the nation's most contaminated land. Kelly completely lacked any experience with environmental issues, and had just received a lifetime ban from working in banking, his career until then, due to "unfitness to serve".Pruitt said he planned to prioritize state and local control over federal land use and ease regulations on the environmental impacts of industries. A March 2017 executive order allowed Pruitt to start a review process of the Obama administration's regulations of the coal industry, reflecting Trump's repeated promises to support the coal industry and "bring back jobs" in coal mining. Such changes are likely to affect America's ability to meet the climate emission goals of the Paris Agreement. Pruitt has said he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. While admitting that the climate is warming, Pruitt believes that warming is not necessarily harmful and could be beneficial. "Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? That's fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100." Climate experts, including Michael Mann and Chris Field who oversaw a United Nations and World Meteorological Organization scientific report on climate change, disagree with Pruitt's position. According to Field, "thousands" of studies document that a warming planet causes a host of problems, not just from high temperatures but also from heat waves, higher seas, heavier downpours, and more frequent destructive hurricanes and wildfires."In April 2018, Pruitt drew criticism for what some consider to be the excessive security expenditures which he had requested. Trump defended Pruitt in a tweet stating, "Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars." However, according to PolitiFact no new figures on air quality have been released since 2016. To state the nation's waters as being at record clean levels is also inaccurate since while a report was issued in 2017, the information was gathered in 2012 or earlier. Commenting on Pruitt's claim that his excessive security expenses are related to his need for security, The New York Times commented that the high expenses appear to be "driven more by a desire to avoid tough questions from the public than by concerns about security." In April 2018, thirty-nine members of the Senate and more than 130 members of the House of Representatives called for Pruitt's resignation.On July 5, 2018, President Trump tweeted, "I have accepted the resignation of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Within the Agency Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this." At the time of his resignation Pruitt was facing numerous ethics investigations. Second EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler In 2017 Trump nominated Andrew Wheeler to be the deputy administrator of the EPA. Wheeler has worked as a coal industry lobbyist, specializing in energy and environmental policy. He is a critic of nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions and has supported the continued use of fossil fuels. The Senate rejected him in 2017 and Trump resubmitted his name in January 2018. In March 2018, Wheeler commented to CNN that the EPA is "brainwashing our kids." His nomination was confirmed on April 12, 2018, by a mostly party line vote of 53–45, that included three Democratic senators. Following Pruitt's resignation, Wheeler was appointed to head the EPA on July 5, 2018. Following his appointment Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune commented, "He fought against safeguards to limit mercury poisoning. He fought against protections to limit the amount of ozone in our skies. He fought against air pollution from neighboring states. He's a climate denier. So, sadly, he fits in well with EPA leadership." Department of Energy The United States Department of Energy is tasked with developing technology for better and more efficient energy sources as well as energy education. Trump chose Rick Perry to head the department, who had called for eliminating it when he was running for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. His confirmation as head of the Department of Energy was a source of contention among Democrats due to his previous denial of man-made climate change and his close ties to the Texas oil and gas industry. During his confirmation hearing, Perry said he regretted his promise to abolish the Department of Energy.In March 2017, Perry met with Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray and coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler who would later replace Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA. Murray submitted a confidential "action plan" at the meeting. In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) Simon Edelman, who was at the time a government photographer who was taking photos of the meeting, the actions Murray wanted the Trump administration to take "included replacing members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords and revoking the Clean Power Plan." He said that he was fired shortly after he released the photographs of the meeting. A copy of the plan was obtained by The New York Times and the AP in January 2018. They reported that "it mirrors policy later pushed by the Trump administration." Department of the Interior Ryan Zinke was appointed Secretary of the Interior in 2017. Following his appointment, Zinke said that he had made "probably the greatest reorganization in the history of the Department of the Interior." Some scientists charged that some of the staff changes were politically motivated. Zinke supported Trump's plan to reduce the DOI budget by $1.6 billion (~$1.72 billion in 2021) in 2018, which would have caused roughly 4,000 employees to lose their jobs and a rollback of many of the regulations that Obama put in place. When questioned about global warming during his senate confirmation hearing, Zinke replied, "...I don't know definitively, there's a lot of debate on both sides of the aisle."In January 2019, Zinke was replaced with David Bernhardt, an attorney and oil industry lobbyist who had been serving as Trump's United States Deputy Secretary of the Interior since 2017. At his confirmation hearing, speaking regarding his policy decisions related to global warming he said, "We're going to look at the science whatever it is, but ... policy decisions are made – this president ran and he won on a particular perspective." During Bernhardt's tenure as deputy secretary and acting secretary, the department embarked on a program of deregulation and substantially increased fossil fuel sales on public land. In March 2019, Politico reported that heads of the oil industry lobbyist group Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) boasted about their ties to Bernhardt. Department of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, former governor of Georgia, was appointed Agriculture Secretary. His supporters say that his experience in agriculture and conservative views on immigration make him an appropriate choice. Perdue says that he plans to rid the department of "onerous regulations" that do not contribute to a better environment. Opponents fear that he will not sufficiently address the effects that farm pollution has on sources of drinking water. Speaking on climate change, Perdue says that he agrees that the climate is warming but "we don't know definitively in my opinion what is causing climate change." Council on Environmental Quality The Council on Environmental Quality is a division of the Executive Office of the President that coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices on the development of environmental and energy policies and initiatives. In October 2017, Trump nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, former chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to be chair of CEQ. Some of Hartnett's energy views have been considered controversial. She has "called renewable energy unreliable and parasitic" and she has "suggested that climate regulation is a conspiracy pushed by communists." Her nomination was withdrawn in February 2018 as she did not garner enough support in the Senate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Trump nominated Barry Lee Myers to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce that warns of dangerous weather, focuses on the conditions of the atmosphere, oceans and major waterways, and guides the use and protection of ocean and coastal resources. Myers is an attorney and businessman who has served as CEO of AccuWeather, a company that provides commercial weather forecasting services. In the past, he has strongly advocated against NOAA's capability to provide a weather information service directly to the public via the National Weather Service.Myers nomination has not been confirmed and Neil Jacobs has been serving as active Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere since February 25, 2019, following Timothy Gallaudet and Benjamin Friedman.In what came to be known as Sharpiegate, in September 2019, President Trump incorrectly stated that the path of Hurricane Dorian would include Alabama. Rather than correct his mistake he went on to frequently claim he was correct and on September 4 he held a news conference in which he held up a map which showed the expected path of the hurricane with a black sharpie extension that included Alabama. On September 6, under Jacob's leadership, NOAA released a statement that backed Trump's false claim. An investigation of the incident found that Jacob had twice violated codes of the agency's scientific integrity policy. Secretary of State In March 2018, President Trump nominated Mike Pompeo as his new Secretary of State, succeeding Rex Tillerson. Pompeo has referred to the Obama administration's environment and climate change plans as "damaging" and "radical". He opposes the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and supports eliminating the United States federal register of greenhouse gas emissions. He has stated, "Federal policy should be about the American family, not worshipping a radical environmental agenda." In 2012 he called for the permanent elimination of wind power production tax credits calling them an "enormous government handout". In 2015 he voted against the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan resolution. In 2019 Pompeo refused to sign on to a joint statement addressing the need for protection of the Arctic region from the threat of rapidly melting ice unless all mentions of climate change were removed from the document. He stated "climate change is actually good for the Arctic, since melting ice caps are 'opening up new shipping routes' and thus making it more economically viable to expand oil drilling in the region." Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division In 2018, Trump appointed Jeffrey Clark as the nation's top environmental lawyer. Clark previously represented numerous oil industry clients and represented BP in lawsuits over the 2010 oil spill. He has also represented the Chamber of Commerce in lawsuits challenging the government's authority to regulate carbon emissions and has argued that it is not appropriate to base government policymaking on the scientific consensus presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).In 2021, Clark was involved in the attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. In an attempt to pressure Georgia election officials to reverse its election results, Trump floated a plan to replace the acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Clark who would then reverse the decisions of the previous Attorney General, open an investigation, and pressure Georgia election officials to void Joe Biden's win in that state. Domestic energy policy Deregulation Trump unveiled what he called the "America First Energy Plan" soon after his inauguration. His administration claimed that American business "has been held back by burdensome regulations on [its] energy industry". The "America First" plan emphasized fossil fuels and did not mention renewable energy.His main focus was on environmental rules imposed or proposed during the Obama administration. He portrayed himself as a champion of the environment, fighting for clean air and water while his critics said that his policies showed the opposite of what he claimed. The Trump administration estimated deregulation would increase wages by over $30 billion by 2024. This figure specifically refers to the removal of Obama's Climate Action Plan and was drawn from a study from the Institute for Energy Research, a conservative non-profit organization specializing in research of global energy markets; the report actually based that figure on increased oil drilling on federal land and offshore, not on reduction of regulations.When Trump took office the EPA focused on a range of topics including air, emergency management, land and cleanup, pesticides, toxic substances, waste, and water. Trump said he would refocus its efforts to solely protect clean air and clean water. This resulted in a 31% proposed budget cut to the EPA. Environmentalists, current EPA staff members, and former EPA staff members believed that the EPA would have a harder time upholding environmental standards with a smaller budget.In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University stated that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people." The EPA responded to the analysis by stating "This is not a scientific article, it's a political article." Water use reduction programs In 2006 the EPA launched the WaterSense program to reduce water use of fixtures such as toilets. WaterSense certified toilets, for example, use only 1.28 gallons per flush, 20% less than the current federal standard of 1.6 gallons. Other fixtures and appliances can be WaterSense certified as well. In December 2019, after meeting with small business owners Trump announced he had ordered a federal review of water efficiency standards pertaining to bathroom fixtures. He said it was "common sense" to review standards which resulted in showers with water "quietly dripping out", toilets that end up using more water because "people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once" and sink water faucets with such a diminished flow that it takes twice as long to wash one's hands. At their website the EPA states that "recent advancements have allowed toilets to use 1.28 gallons per flush or less while still providing equal or superior performance." In December 2019, Trump said "women tell me" they have to run modern dishwashers more than once to get clean dishes. Renewable energy policy In 2016 it was reported that America currently had 264 billion barrels of oil reserves, the largest oil reserve of any nation. The United States also has a vast amount of coal reserves, amounting to 26% of the world's total, more than any other nation. Its untapped oil and coal resources are estimated to be worth about $50 trillion according to the Trump administration. However, reports from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) show that coal consumption in the US has steadily declined by about 20% over the last 10 years, with natural gas and renewable energy quickly taking over. Christina Simeone, director of policy and external affairs with the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, says that strict regulations aren't the only reason for the faltering coal market; natural gas has now become a cheaper option.Trump wants America to achieve energy independence from OPEC and all nations hostile to the interests of the United States to ensure national security, and insulate it from any supply disruptions and price fluctuations from the global oil market. However, fossil fuels are finite, and entities such as the Pentagon claim climate change also poses a threat to national security. The NRDC has argued that a more reliable long-term solution would be to develop more of a reliance on renewable energy rather than maintaining a reliance on fossil fuels.The America First Energy Plan does not mention renewable energy and instead reflects the president's focus on fossil fuels. During the campaign, Trump praised solar technology during a rally in California the summer of 2016 but then criticized it for being too expensive and has since complained about the subsidies renewable energy companies receive. In June 2017, Trump said in a White House meeting that the wall with Mexico should be covered with solar panels. The statement was not taken seriously. The Trump administration's 2019 budget proposes large cuts in programs that research renewable energy and that study the effects of and ways to mitigate climate change. Wind power is one of the fastest job-growing industries in the country and it is producing a substantial amount of power in some areas; for example, 25% of the energy in Iowa and North and South Dakota is from the wind. Minnesota, which ranks 7th in the nation at 18%, plans to shut down all of its coal-fired plants by 2030 and switch to renewable energy for all of its power needs.Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that noise from windmills causes cancer. He has also repeatedly said that they cause avian deaths, which is true. The US Fish and Wildlife Service reports that up to 300,000 birds a year are killed by windmills; however, they say that that number is low compared to other sources: "Communication towers kill 40 million, power lines kill 140 million, and cats kill hundreds of millions." COVID-19 pandemic relaxation of regulations In response to oil industry lobbyists, the Trump administration suspended the enforcement of certain environmental laws during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, it was announced that the EPA would not expect routine monitoring and compliance or reporting of pollution emissions and would not pursue penalties for breaking those rules as long as it could be claimed that the violations were caused by the pandemic. Because COVID-19 attacks the lungs, environmental groups expressed particular concern over air pollution emitted from industrial facilities, which are predominantly located in communities with large numbers of people of color and low-income people. At the urging of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the pandemic was also used as a reason to increase the sale of public land to industry to open them to mining, drilling for gas and oil, and cutting timber. Cynthia Giles, head of EPA enforcement during the Obama administration, commented, "I am not aware of any instance when EPA ever relinquished this fundamental authority as it does in this memo. This memo amounts to a nationwide moratorium on enforcing the nation's environmental laws and is an abdication of EPA's responsibility to protect the public." Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline The construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access had been placed on hold by then-president Barack Obama, who considered it a major contributor to climate change due to the greenhouse gas intensive extraction of oil from tar sands. After months of protest, in December 2016 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the Obama administration announced that it would not grant an easement for the pipeline to be drilled under Lake Oahe and that USACE was undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes.Many Sioux tribes said that the pipeline threatens the tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and that it has damaged and destroyed sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance. The tribe has expressed concern about leaks because the pipeline passes under Lake Oahe, which serves as a major source of water. Protests at pipeline construction sites in North Dakota began in the spring of 2016 and drew indigenous people from throughout North America as well as many other supporters, creating the largest gathering of Native Americans in the past hundred years.An executive order reviving the plans for the pipelines was signed by Trump on January 24, 2017, with the hopes of creating jobs and bolstering domestic energy production. The pipeline became commercially operational on June 1, 2017 In September 2018, the Dakota Access pipeline was estimated to have created 51 permanent jobs across the four states that it passes through.The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued and in March 2020 a federal judge sided with the tribe and ordered USACE to do a full environmental impact statement. The Judge found the existing impact statement extremely lacking, noting numerous factors that had not been taken into account or were clearly not accurate. In July 2020, saying federal officials failed to carry out a complete analysis of its environmental impacts, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the pipeline must be shut down by August 5. Pipeline owner Energy Transfer appealed and on August 5, the Court of Appeals sided with Energy Transfer to allow the pipeline to stay open. However the court did not grant Energy Transfer's motion to block the review, which must continue. Executive order on climate change Amid protests, on March 28, 2017, Trump signed a "sweeping executive order" instructing EPA "regulators to rewrite key rules curbing U.S. carbon emissions and other environmental regulations." Trump was accompanied by "coal miners and coal executives" among others and he devoted his remarks on the executive order to "praising coal miners, pipelines and U.S. manufacturing." He addressed the coal-miners directly, "Come on, fellas. Basically, you know what this is? You know what it says, right? You're going back to work." A Trump official said that the executive order plans to put American jobs first by not supporting climate change policies that place the economy at risk. Auto fuel economy and emissions standards More than 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from light-duty trucks and cars. The Obama administration 2012 fuel economy plan called for a doubling in fuel economy for new cars and light trucks, to more than 50 miles per US gallon (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg‑imp) by 2025, equivalent to a real-world average of 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 L/100 km; 43 mpg‑imp). In April 2018, saying "those standards are inappropriate and should be revised," Scott Pruitt announced that the EPA was rolling back the Obama administration's fuel efficiency and emissions standards. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed his concern.The state of California has a waiver that allows it to set its own auto emissions standards, which it has used to combat smog and, more recently, global warming. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standards as their own. Arguing that the Pruitt plan violates the federal Clean Air Act and doesn't follow the agency's own regulations, in April California sued the Trump administration. Joining California were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. All have Democratic attorneys general.While automakers sought a relaxation of emission control requirements, they found the Trump rollback proposal extreme and were concerned it would split the American car market into two regulatory regimes. In July 2019, four automakers —Ford, Honda, Volkswagen Group of America and BMW of North America – rejected the Trump rule proposal and adopted the California emission standards. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice began an antitrust investigation of these four companies on the basis that working the deal together may have restricted consumer choice. By February 2020, the DOJ announced it had ended the investigation with no action.In April 2018, the administration announced plans to undo the Obama administration's auto fuel efficiency and emissions standards. In September 2019, Trump announced he planned to roll back the California waiver. State attorney general Xavier Becerra said Trump had "no basis and no authority" to revoke the waiver. In a statement, Governor Gavin Newsom said, "It's a move that could have devastating consequences for our kids' health and the air we breathe if California were to roll over. We will fight this latest attempt and defend our clean car standards."On April 1, 2020, the administration released its final rule on mileage standards through 2026. In a statement EPA head Andrew Wheeler said, "We are delivering on President Trump's promise to correct the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards." The administration says the less stringent mileage standards will allow consumers to continue to buy the less fuel-efficient SUVs that U.S. drivers have favored for years. It is expected that states and environmental groups will challenge the Trump rules, and a U.S. District Court will likely issue a temporary order shelving them until it decides whether they are legal.In December 2020, following Joseph Biden's successful bid for the presidency General Motors CEO Mary Barra announced that GM would drop its participation in the Trump administration lawsuit seeking to block California's right to set its own clean air standards. Commenting, she said that "the ambitious electrification goals of the president-elect, California, and General Motors are aligned, to address climate change by drastically reducing automobile emissions." Nuclear in 2017, Trump announced that his administration would "begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector, which I'm so happy about, which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy." In line with this, he signed the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017. Rollback of efficient lighting regulations In September 2019, the Energy Department announced the reversal of a 2014 regulation that would have taken effect on January 1, 2020, and implemented the last round of energy-saving light bulb regulations outlined by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. A spokesperson for the Alliance to Save Energy disputed the Department's regulations, saying that an average American household's lighting cost would increase by about $100 a year. The spokesperson also said that using less efficient light bulbs would require the electricity produced by 25 coal power plants. The ruling would allow some types of incandescent bulbs to remain in service. The U.S. states of California, Colorado, Nevada, Washington, and Vermont adopted their own energy standards. The California law was challenged in court by light bulb manufacturers but a judge ruled it was proper under the congressional exemption previously granted. In 2021, the Biden administration rolled back the Trump regulations and introduced energy efficient standards on bulbs and many home appliances as well. Proposed EPA budget cuts While campaigning for office Trump had proposed the idea of eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency to help balance the United States' budget. Trump said, "We're going to have little tidbits left but we're going to get most of it out". Following his election, in March 2017, he announced plans to cut the EPA 2018 budget by 31%, by far the largest budget cut to any federal agency. The cut would result in a loss of 19% of the workforce or roughly 3,200 employees, through both staff buyouts and layoffs. The choice to remove the Clean Power Plan, which was put in place to reduce carbon dioxide emissions chiefly from coal-fired Power Plants, would effectively eliminate Obama's efforts to curb climate change. This plan would also remove the $100 million allocated to fund research combating climate change. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provides $250 million for programs which aid countries with high risk of impacts from rising and increasingly warm and acidic sea water levels. These programs would be eliminated under the new set of budget cuts. If enacted, this would mean the elimination of up to 38 of the agency's programs. Programs to be eliminated included the radon program, grants to clean up industrial sites ("brownfields"), climate change research, and the Office of Environmental Justice.Trump's objectives include the lifting of regulations from various energy industries to boost domestic energy production. Trump asked American manufacturers which regulations made production the most difficult. The industry leaders responded, and an overwhelming number of them recommended lifting restrictions related to the environment and workers' rights. In an open letter to Scott Pruitt, Mustafa Ali, former head of the EPA's Environmental Justice Program who resigned in protest to Pruitt's budget cuts, expressed concerns with how the budget cuts will effect pollution in poor and minority neighborhoods.The administration said it planned to refocus the EPA mission on clean water, air, and other core responsibilities. It also planned to delegate more of the EPA's enforcement activities to the states, while decreasing the amount of money given to states for that purpose by 30%. Issues like greenhouse gas emissions would be trimmed significantly or eliminated from the budget.On September 12, 2018, the Senate approved a so-called Minibus funding bill or Omnibus spending bill, which reduced the EPA's budget from $8.2 billion annually to $5.7 billion, a decrease of $2.5 billion or −31%. The bill was expected to eliminate more than 50 programs and 3,200 jobs, discontinue funding for international climate-change programs, cut funding for the Office of Research and development in half, cut funding for the Superfund cleanup program and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance, and prioritizes drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Department of the Interior The Department of the Interior is responsible for the management and conservation of natural resources, most federal lands such as national parks and forests, wildlife refuges and tribal territories. Trump accused President Obama of "denying millions of Americans access to the energy wealth sitting under our feet" by his leasing restrictions and the banning new coal extraction on federal lands. Trump campaigned on a promise to "unleash America's $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves." Trump's proposed 2018 budget aimed to cut $1.5 billion (~$1.61 billion in 2021) of funding from the Department of Interior.In a White House speech in 2019, Trump hailed "America's environmental leadership" under his watch, asserting his administration was "being good stewards of our public land," reducing carbon emissions and promoting the "cleanest air" and "crystal clean" water. Experts noted that the cited achievements were the result of actions taken by his predecessors going all the way back to the Nixon administration.Trump appointed Congressman Ryan Zinke of Montana as Secretary of the Interior. Zinke is an advocate for mining and logging on federal lands. Commenting on the Trump presidency, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington DC-based lobby group, said, "This opportunity is unique, maybe once in a lifetime," in regards to increased access to federal leases.The Trump administration stated plans to open up more federal land for energy development, such as fracking and drilling. The Clean Water Rule, issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2015, was also a target for possible repeal. The rule clarifies the federal government's jurisdiction to protect small streams and wetlands from pollution. Developers, business, and agriculture groups oppose the rule because they believe that their private property rights are violated and that undue regulatory burdens are created. In January 2018, the EPA formally suspended the 2015 regulation and announced plans to issue a new version later in 2018. Fifteen states, two cities and several environmental organizations have challenged EPA's suspension in several lawsuits. On September 12, 2019, the Trump administration repealed the Clean Water Rule. Tongass National Forest In August 2019, Trump had instructed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to exempt Alaska's Tongass National Forest from logging restrictions established nearly 20 years ago during the Clinton administration. The move opens it to potential logging and energy and mining projects. Tongass is the world's largest intact temperate rainforest, containing old-growth cedar, hemlock and spruce, fjords and rivers with salmon runs. It serves as an enormous natural carbon sink, holding an estimated 8% of all carbon stored in U.S. national forests. Unlike most other national forests, most of the forest is in a natural condition. The Forest Service had finalized a plan to phase out old-growth logging in 2016 and Congress had designated more than 5.7 million acres of the forest as wilderness, not to be developed under any circumstances. Should Trump's plan be successful, it could affect 9.5 million acres. On September 25, 2020, the Trump administration submitted a revised environmental impact study which recommended a "full exemption" for the Tongass, opening the forest to more development and logging. Responding, Andy Moderow of the Alaska Wilderness League said that Tongass plays an important role in helping to combat climate change noting that it "stores more than 400 million metric tons of CO2 and sequesters an additional 3 million metric tons annually, equivalent to taking nearly 650,000 cars off the road each year." If elected, presidential candidate Joe Biden could reverse the decision.In November 2021, the Biden administration announced they would start to reinstate the Roadless Rule, protecting about 9 million acres of Tongass National Forest. In a statement Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, "'Restoring the Tongas'’ roadless protections supports the advancement of economic, ecologic and cultural sustainability in Southeast Alaska in a manner that is guided by local voces". Proposed Alaska gold and copper mine In July 2020, Trump reversed the Obama administration's decision against a proposed Alaska gold and copper mining operation, Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay. The Obama administration had found that a mine would permanently harm the region's sockeye salmon fisheries. The Trump administration's reversal was, according to The Washington Post, typical of the administration's "whiplash" decisions which have "methodically dismantled many of his predecessor's actions on climate change, conservation and pollution." The Army Corps of Engineers denied the Pebble Mine permit on November 25, 2020. The proposal had been opposed by 80 percent of Bristol Bay residents. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a 1,090,000-acre (4,400 km2) wilderness area in the state of Minnesota. In 2018, the Trump administration cleared the way for renewed mineral leasing within the watershed of the BWCA. The Obama administration had proposed a 20-year mining ban and asked for an environmental study based on concerns that mining in the Boundary Waters watershed could lead to irreversible harm to the BWCA. Environmentalists challenged the reversal of the decisions in federal court. In January 2022, the Biden administration cancelled the mining leases granted by Trump saying that the department's Office of Solicitor ruled that they had been improperly renewed. Hunting The International Wildlife Conservation Council (IWCC) was created under the Department of the Interior to loosen restrictions around importing endangered wildlife hunting trophies like heads and skins. After a judge ruled in February 2020 that the council's legitimacy could be challenged in court, the Department of the Interior told the judge that the council's charter had already ended and would not be renewed.In June 2020, the administration changed a five-year-old Obama-era rule to allow, once again, hunters on federal land in Alaska to use food to lure bears out of hibernation; to use artificial light to enter wolf dens; and to shoot animals from planes, boats, and snowmobiles. National monuments In April 2017, President Trump directed the Department of the Interior to review 27 monuments of at least 100,000 acres (40,000 ha) in size through Executive Order 13792. The vast majority of the lands under review were set aside by President Obama.In June 2017, Zinke issued an interim report as requested in the executive order. He proposed a scaling back of the Bears Ears National Monument. In August 2017, Zinke delivered a final report to Trump. The report called for the reduction of Bears Ears (established by Obama – 2016), Cascade–Siskiyou (Clinton – 2000), Gold Butte (Obama – 2016), Grand Staircase–Escalante (Clinton – 1996), Pacific Remote Islands Marine (Bush – 2006), and Rose Atoll Marine (Bush – 2009). Bears Ears Monument Bears Ears National Monument, located in southeastern Utah, was established by presidential proclamation by Barack Obama in 2016. Five native American tribes urged Obama to create the monument to preserve about 9,000 recorded archaeological sites, including petroglyphs, woven cloth, human remains and ancient roads. In 2017 Donald Trump reduced it by 85%. Members of the Navajo tribe in particular were integral to the monument's passage. A tribal spokesperson stated that a reduction in the size of the Bear's Ears Monument would be "an attack on a significant part of the foundation of American conservation law." A different opinion was offered by Republican Utah state representative Mike Noel who sees a shrinking of the Bears Ears Monument as a victory over federal restrictions over mining and animal grazing. "When you turn the management over to the tree-huggers, the bird and bunny lovers and the rock lickers, you turn your heritage over."Legal scholars have argued that the reduction is not authorized by law and several federal lawsuits have been filed challenging Trump's action. They contend that the Trump administration stacked the Federal Advisory Committee Act committee, which is supposed to be balanced and not unduly influenced by the financial interests of its members, with politicians and ranchers with a conflict of interest. An attorney who works with Democracy Forward commented, "The Bears Ears committee was designed to protect a treasure of the American West and stacking it with opponents of the monument could violate federal law." (See update above) Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed a proclamation that opened the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, the Atlantic Ocean's only fully protected marine sanctuary, to commercial fishing. In 2016 the Obama administration created the monument, an area of nearly 5,000 square miles, to protect whales and other endangered species and to allow marine life to recover from overfishing. Soon after Trump took office he ordered his administration to review marine sanctuaries and Ryan Zinke, Interior Department Secretary at that time, met with fishermen and fishing industry groups that were attempting to overturn the Obama legislation. During a roundtable discussion held in Maine in June 2020, Trump met with Maine's former governor Paul LePage, a Trump supporter, and commercial fishermen and signed an executive order to end the restrictions on commercial fishing. The current governor, Janet Mills, was not invited to the event. Responding to Trump's ruling a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, an organization that works to protect endangered species, said, "Gutting these safeguards attacks the very idea of marine monuments." (See update above) Offshore drilling In January 2018, the Interior Department announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters. This would be the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed, and includes regions that were long off-limits to development and more than 100 million acres in the Arctic and the Eastern Seaboard, regions that President Obama had placed under a drilling moratorium. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and North Slope to drilling The Trump administration tax bill passed in December 2017, including a provision introduced by Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski that required Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to approve at least two lease sales for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Scientists, environmentalists and former Interior Department officials have warned that fossil fuel extraction in the ANWR could harm the landscape and the species that live there.In September 2019, the administration said they would like to see the entire coastal plain opened for gas and oil exploration, the most aggressive of the suggested development options. The Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has filed a final environmental impact statement and plans to start granting leases by the end of the year. The area includes areas where caribou visit for calving and polar bears who have been driven to spend more of their time along the refuge's coastal plain due to melting ice caused by global warming have their dens. There are concerns for the Indigenous populations as well because many of them rely on subsistence hunting and fishing. In a review of the statement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the BLM's final statement underestimated the climate impacts of the oil leases because they viewed global warming as cyclical rather than human-made. The administration's plan calls for "the construction of as many as four places for airstrips and well pads, 175 miles of roads, vertical supports for pipelines, a seawater-treatment plant and a barge landing and storage site." On August 17, 2020, the Trump Administration finalized and announced its decision to open the ANWR to drilling. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, formerly an oil industry lobbyist, said that the administration's oil and gas leasing program could "create thousands of jobs" and "mark a new chapter in American energy independence." Due to the fact that world markets are currently flooded bringing crude oil to historically low prices, that due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic the market for oil has collapsed, and since Trump took office in 2017 there has been an increased awareness of the need to combat global warming, it is unlikely that any drilling would soon begin. However, Trump's decision has been seen as a way to make the opening of the region to drilling harder to undo should a new administration be voted in during the November 2020 presidential election.In January 2021 President Trump finalized legislation to allow drilling in 18.6 million acres in the Alaska North Slope (see map above) along the Arctic Ocean. Tribal and environmental groups warned that expanding drilling will potentially imperil wildlife and Native Alaskans who count on caribou hunting for sustenance.In June 2021,`the Biden Administration suspended all drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the North Slope. Great American Outdoors Act and the LWCF In August 2020, Trump signed the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which gives billions of dollars to fix national park infrastructure. It also provides annual funding to the decades-old Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). However, on November 9, 2020, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order allowing state and local leaders to veto land acquisitions made by the federal government under LWCF. Privatization of Native American reservations Within the Interior Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs handles some federal relations with Native Americans. Native American reservations are estimated to contain about a fifth of the nation's oil and gas, along with vast coal reserves. In December 2016, a Trump advisory group put forth a plan to privatize Native American reservations to open them up to drilling and mining. Many Native Americans view such efforts as a violation of tribal self-determination and culture.Trump's transition team commissioned a Native American coalition to draw up a list of proposals to guide his Indian policy. According to a Reuters investigative report, "The backgrounds of the coalition's leadership are one sign of its pro-drilling bent. At least three of four chair-level members have links to the oil industry." Endangered species threats In February 2018, Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke presented their recommendation for the 2019 budget. It did not grant any funding for state efforts for the recovery of endangered species. The Cooperative Endangered species Conservation Fund, a program authorized by the Endangered Species Act, supports conservation planning, habitat restoration, land acquisition, research, and education. The administration justified the budget change saying that it "is not requesting funding for these activities in order to support higher priorities."A senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity said gutting the fund would push endangered species toward extinction. "This is especially damaging because [the] funding is often the backbone of state non-game programs and helps animals across the country, from bats and butterflies to salmon and grizzlies." The former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who served during Obama's time in office said, "We were very proud of the record we set, that we had recovered and delisted more species than all previous administrations combined. And that didn't happen by accident. It happened because we applied the resources to get species over that last mile."In July 2018, more than two dozen pieces of "legislation, policy initiatives and amendments designed to weaken" the Endangered Species Act were introduced or voted on by congress. Former oil lobbyist David Bernhardt, the deputy interior secretary, led the push to review the endangered species act. Utah Republican representative Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said. "We're all aware that the Endangered Species Act hasn't undergone any significant updates in over 40 years. Now is the time to modernize this antiquated law to simultaneously benefit both endangered species and the American people." Bruce Babbitt, who served as the interior secretary under the Clinton administration, commented, "This is the first time that we've seen an orchestrated effort by the president, the Republican leaders in the House, the industry and the Interior Department all working together in a concentrated effort to eviscerate the act." Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, commented, "I think the Endangered Species Act is endangered. They haven't been able to do this for 20 years, but this looks like their one chance."In August 2019, the Department of Interior announced a list of major changes to the Endangered Species Act. Industry groups and Republican lawmakers applauded the proposed changes while critics expressed concerns as they are coming at a time of crisis when as many as one million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. Numerous state attorneys general and environmental groups have said that they will sue the administration over the changes, alleging they are illegal because they're not grounded in scientific evidence.One of Trump's final acts as president, on the morning of his successor's inauguration, was to pardon Robert Bowker, a man who had pled guilty decades earlier to a violation the Lacey Act involving snakes and alligators. The official statement said that Bowker had since taken interest in "animal conservation efforts." Mexico border wall concerns President Donald Trump's signature campaign promise was the construction of a big wall on the southern border. The administration has described the project as including a 30 ft-tall concrete and steel "big, beautiful wall", a 150 ft 'enforcement zone' which will be kept clear of vegetation, and a road. Critical habitats are on the border with Mexico in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and candidates for that list from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service includes ninety-three species whose ranges are near or cross the border. Trump's proposed border wall will block the movement of threatened wildlife and interfere with the movement of animals in response to climate change and could prevent genetic exchange. Among the threatened species are the jaguar (the largest cat native to North America), the ocelot (30 lb [14 kg] cats that could be making a comeback), the Mexican wolf (the smallest Gray Wolf in North America), the Sonoran pronghorn (related to giraffes, they can run 60 mph [97 km/h] and are North America's fastest land mammals), the tiny cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (who fly at about 4.5 to 13 ft [1.4–4.0 m], lower than the wall), and the Quino checkerspot butterfly (who fly no higher than 6 to 8 ft [1.8–2.4 m]).In July 2018, citing "bypassed environmental laws, habitat destruction, and losses to conservation and scientific research", in a report published in the scientific journal BioScience thousands of scientists "expressed alarm" over the expansion of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. The report has 16 co-authors and as of July 24, 2,700, signatures from almost 50 countries. In December 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which allowed the Trump administration to waive federal environmental protection laws to construct a border wall cutting through the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas. The center has been called the most diverse butterfly sanctuary in the country. Habitat restoration has also attracted birds which can not be seen anywhere else in the continental U.S. The wall will also slice through the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge and the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park. Yellowstone grizzly Grizzly bears in the Lower 48 States were placed on the endangered list in 1975 because they had lost 98 percent of their historical range and the Yellowstone-area population had dropped to fewer than 140 bears. In June 2017, the Trump administration announced a decision to remove protections for Yellowstone grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. They argued that the population had sufficiently recovered from the threat of extinction, however numerous conservation and tribal organizations argued that the grizzly population remained genetically vulnerable. Numerous tribes revere the grizzly as sacred and they and environmentalists expressed fears about trophy hunts, livestock and logging interests, and the gas, coal, and oil extraction industries. They sued the administration (Crow Tribe et al v. Zinke) and in September 2018 they won their lawsuit and on July 30, 2019, the Yellowstone grizzly was officially returned to federal protection. At a hearing on August 1, 2019, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Republican from Wyoming which is one of the states affected by the ruling, stated that the successful litigation by the tribes and environmentalists "was not based on science or facts" but motivated by plaintiffs "intent on destroying our Western way of life." Threats to migratory birds from industry The Trump administration proposal to rollback protections that have been in place for more than a century was announced in June 2020. This would greatly limit federal authority to prosecute industries for practices that kill migratory birds. The new proposal would only punish oil and gas and construction companies if they intentionally kill birds. A study done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows that "As the legal certainty increases, fewer entities would likely implement best practices ... resulting in increased bird mortality." Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the analysis "a cynical effort" to justify a policy that is "clearly bad for birds, clearly cruel and inconsistent with the MBTA in every way." The courts ruled that the legal opinion which serves as the basis for this action does not align with the intent and language of the law in August 2010. The ruling stated that the policy "runs counter to the purpose of the MBTA to protect migratory bird populations" and is "contrary to the plain meaning of the MBTA". Endangered gray wolves In October 2020 the Trump administration announced that they had removed grey wolves from the endangered species list. Grey wolves were put on the list in 1967 when only 1000 remained in the Lower 48 states and at this time there are less than 8,000, mostly in three Midwestern states—Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Conservationists say that the population remains severely depleted in thousands of acres of historical wolf habitat areas in states such as Washington, California, and Oregon. They criticized the removal saying that the agency had not considered the impact that illegal hunting could have on the wolf population and concerns that in some isolated areas without connections to the larger populations they may be unable to survive.In February 2022, a federal judge restored grey wolf protections in 45 states saying the US Fish and Wildlife Service "failed to adequately analyze and consider the impacts of partial delisting and of historical range loss on the already-listed species." Regulation of hazardous chemicals It has been charged that the Trump administration has attempted to change the way the federal government evaluates hazardous chemicals that may pose a risk to human health, making them more aligned with the chemical industry's wishes. Trump appointed Nancy B. Beck as a top deputy of the EPA's toxic chemical unit, while during her previous five years she had been an executive at the industry trade association American Chemistry Council for American chemical companies. Shortly after her appointment in May 2017, Beck rewrote, among others, the regulations covering the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which has been linked to many serious health problems. Her revisions make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore harder to regulate. Pesticides In March 2017, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt denied that he had met with Dow Chemicals CEO Andrew Liveris before making a decision to deny a petition to ban Dow's chlorpyrifos pesticide that had been initiated by the Obama administration. Research has concluded that even minuscule amounts of chlorpyrifos can disrupt the development of fetuses and infants. In August, it was revealed that in fact Pruitt and other EPA officials had met with industry representatives on dozens of occasions in the weeks immediately prior to the March decision, promising them that it was "a new day" and assuring them that their wish to continue using chlorpyrifos had been heard. Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, said in a March 8 email that he had "scared" career staff into going along with the political decision to deny the ban, adding "[T]hey know where this is headed and they are documenting it well." Emails also indicated that the decision was closely coordinated with the White House and the Department of Agriculture. Following the decision, the American Academy of Pediatrics said they were "deeply alarmed" and urged Pruitt to take chlorpyrifos off the market saying, "There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women. The risk to infant and children's health and development is unambiguous."Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, the agency's previous top official overseeing pesticides and toxic chemicals, said she first felt concern when the EPA's new leadership decided to reevaluate a plan to ban methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene, two chemicals that have caused deaths and severe health problems. "It was extremely disturbing to me. The industry met with EPA political appointees. And then I was asked to change the agency's stand." In March 2017, Hamnett was again instructed to ignore the recommendation of EPA scientists and deny the ban of chlorpyrifos. Hamnett retired in September and was replaced by a toxicologist who has spent years helping businesses fight EPA restrictions.In 2017, a coalition of attorneys general for several states, farm workers, and environmental groups sued then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt over his chlorpyrifos ban reversal. Saying that the EPA had "violated federal law by ignoring the conclusions of agency scientists that chlorpyrifos is harmful," on August 9, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ordered the EPA to remove chlorpyrifos from sale in the United States within 60 days. In July 2019, the EPA announced it would not ban chlorpyrifos. In April 2021, under the Biden administration the EPA reversed the Trump ruling and restored the ban saying the EPA would follow science and "put health and safety first."The US EPA had also recently taken a variety of actions to regulate the use of neonicotinoids, pesticides linked to declining bee numbers. In 2014, under the Obama presidency, a blanket ban was issued against the use of neonicotinoids in National Wildlife Refuges in response to concerns about off-target effects, and a lawsuit from environmental groups. In 2018, the Trump administration reversed this decision, stating that decisions on neonicotinoid usage on farms in wildlife refuges will be made on a case-by-case basis. The Trump decision also ended the policy of prohibiting large tracts of land to be used for the growing of biotech crops such as corn and soybeans in the refuges.In 2020, the Trump EPA found that glyphosate, the main ingredient in the pesticide Roundup, did not expose people to a health risk. Its maker, Monsanto, is facing billions of dollars in payments to people who claim that glyphosate caused their cancers. In June 2022, the California Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to reexamine EPA's finding of no risk to human health because " it was not supported by substantial evidence" and that "EPA fell short of its obligations under the Endangered Species Act by inadequately examining glyphosate’s impact on animal species and vegetation." Lead paint standards According to the EPA, lead poisoning is the number one environmental health threat for children ages 6 and younger. No new standards have been set since 2001, though it is agreed that the old standards need to be updated. In December 2017, after Pruitt requested six more years to regulate lead levels, a divided federal appeals court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Pruitt to regulate lead within the next 90 days. The Court called the lead paint risks for children "severe". In December 2020 the EPA announced new clearance levels for lead-contaminated dust from chipped or peeling lead-based paint. This dust can remain at the sites of lead removal activities, such as pre-1978 homes and childcare facilities. The change strengthened federal lead clearance level restrictions for the first time in almost 20 years. PFOS and PFOA study publication withheld Using information gained through a Freedom of Information Act request, in May 2018 it was learned that January 2018 emails between the EPA, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) showed an apparent decision to withhold the results of a study done by the DHHS Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that was planned for publication. Looking at the chemicals widely known as PFOS and PFOA, the study showed that they endanger human health at a far lower level than EPA has previously called safe. They have been found to contaminate several areas, reaching water supplies near military bases, chemical plants, and other sites in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. One White House email said, "The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge. The impact to EPA and [the Defense Department] is going to be extremely painful. We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be." When questioned about the release of the study the White House referred questions to DHHS, which confirmed that the study has no scheduled release date. Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, defended EPA's decision to withhold the results of the study to "ensure that the federal government is responding in a uniform way to our local, state, and Congressional constituents and partners." Members of Congress had a very strong reaction to the release of information regarding the withholding of the study, including Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, Representative Peter Welch, and Senator Patrick Leahy.Pruitt conceded that his agency should take "concrete action" related to chemicals like PFAS, but testified that he was unaware of any delay in the release of the study. On May 16 Pruitt announced a "leadership summit" on PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals scheduled for the following week.When the "invitation only" leadership summit was held on May 22 and 23, news agencies, including Politico, E&E News, and CNN were initially barred from the hearing. An Associated Press journalist was told she was not on the invitation list and forcibly removed from the room. CNN commented, "We understand the importance of an open and free press and we hope the EPA does, too," Jahan Wilcox, speaking for the EPA, justified the agency's actions by claiming the summit was not a "federal advisory committee event, " to which the public would be entitled to access, but instead was an opportunity "for EPA's state, tribal, and federal government partners and national organizations to share a range of individual perspectives" regarding PFASs. Senator Tom Udall, the ranking Democrat on a committee with oversight of EPA, did not agree. He sent a letter to Pruitt saying "Clean drinking water is a public health issue that does not belong behind closed doors." Toxic waste clean-up In attempts to lift regulations on oil, mining, drilling, and farming industries, the Trump administration proposed a 31% budget cut to the EPA that would result in reduced initiatives to protect water and air quality, leaving much of the effort up to the states. Environmentalists fear that these cuts will result in health problems. EPA budget cuts are also expected to lead to decreased regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which would result in less federal oversight of clean-up projects in these areas.EPA administrator Scott Pruitt hired former Oklahoma banker Albert Kelly to head the Superfund program, which is responsible for cleaning up the nation's most contaminated land. Kelly completely lacked any experience with environmental issues, and had just received a lifetime ban from working in banking, his career until then. Clean water legislation Rollback of Obama administration regulations Much of the Trump administration's efforts to decrease pollution regulation involved directly rescinding or overturning pollution regulations enacted under the Obama administration. In February 2017, Trump signed a resolution overturning President Obama's Stream Protection Rule, after being in effect for less than 30 days. When he signed the resolution repealing the rule, Trump predicted that striking down the rule would save thousands of U.S. mining-related jobs. The administration has also proposed a rollback on the Obama administration's extension of federal jurisdiction over lands protected by the Clean Water Act in attempts to reduce water pollution in areas surrounding toxic waste facilities. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative During Trump's first year in office he called for eliminating the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, initiated by President Obama, and in the following two years he called for a 90% cut to the program. However Congress overruled him, giving the program $300 million each year. In 2019 he cut the program from $300 million to just $30 million. In March 2019, speaking at a rally in Michigan, which borders Lake Michigan, he commented: I support the Great Lakes. Always have. They are beautiful. They are big, very deep. Record deepness, right? And I am going to get, in honor of my friends, full funding of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative which you have been trying to get for over 30 years. So, we will get it done. Clean Water Rule Soon after taking office, on February 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to allow the EPA administrator to revise or rescind the Obama era Clean Water Rule, also referred to as Waters of the United States (WOTUS). The executive order cited a need to pursue "economic growth" and to avoid "regulatory uncertainty." The Obama rule placed pollution limits on about 60 percent of the nation's bodies of water, protecting both large bodies of water and the tributaries, streams, and wetlands that drain into them. Research cited by the EPA shows that one in three Americans get their water from public drinking water systems which are partly sourced from streams protected by the Clean Water Rule. These streams may be in danger of pollution by industrial and agricultural waste, sewage, radioactive materials and a large number of other pollutants now covered by the Clean Water Rule. The Audubon Society has expressed concerns about a repeal of the Rule. They write at their website: "...the Trump administration's intent is clear: to reverse Obama-era environmental protections no matter what, even if they have been effective at protecting avian and human life." On September 12, 2019, the Trump administration repealed the Clean Water Rule.In August 2021 a federal judge nullified the Trump rule regarding the scope of waterways under federal protection which had significantly cut back on the range of waterways under federal supervision leaving vast areas vulnerable to potential pollution and degradation. The judge concluded that Trump officials were guilty of "serious errors" when putting the rule together and the Trump-era provisions that were put in place could culminate in "serious environmental harm."In November 2021 the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA announced that they would undo the Trump administration water regulations. The EPA said the new wording would be "updated to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions." Clean Water Act On April 10, 2019, President Trump issued two executive orders aimed at boosting the production of fossil fuels by cutting back on regulations he sees as"unnecessary red tape". The new regulations benefit energy companies by making it more difficult for states to block projects such as oil pipelines by using the Clean Water Act. Currently under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, states can reject any project if they believe it could impact the state's water. Under Trump's order any decisions related to permits will no longer be made by the state secretary, but by the president.On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund that the federal Clean Water Act applies to pollution of underground water that flows into nearby bodies of water and streams. The Trump administration argued that the law didn't apply to groundwater. The decision came after a sewage treatment plant in Hawaii claimed that the law covered only "point sources" of pollution, such as an effluent pipe. Following months of investigation it was shown that the treatment plant was contaminating underground water which was seeping into the nearby ocean bay and harming sealife. The case was argued by Earth Justice; it was widely watched as a technical test case for future decisions related to the Clean Water Act.In June 2020, the EPA finalized a rule which will end the long-standing rights of states, tribes and the public to object to federal permits for projects that could pollute waterways. The energy industry sees the change as a way to speed up oil pipelines and other projects, while environmentalists are concerned that it could undercut state and tribal efforts to safeguard rivers and drinking water. In June 2021 the administration of President Joe Biden announced that it would begin a new rulemaking to reverse the 2019/2020 replacement rule. New lead standards Saying "We are delivering on the president's commitment that all Americans have access to clean and safe drinking water," on October 10, 2019, the administration announced their proposals for new regulations on lead and copper in drinking water. The draft plan includes requirements that water utilities disclose inventories of lead service pipes and requires that daycare centers and schools report elevated lead levels within 24 hours rather than the current standard of 30 days. However, environmental activists are critical of the relaxation of other standards that have been proposed that slow the timetable for the replacement of lead pipes found to contain high levels of lead, extending the replacement time from 7 percent of lead service lines each year to just 3 percent. The Natural Resources Defense Council calls the slower timetable for lead pipe replacement "a huge weakening change that will swallow up the few small improvements in the proposal." Clean Air Act standards The Clean Air Act is a federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level. In June 2017, Pruitt announced that he would delay designating which areas met new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, a byproduct of pollutants from burning fossil fuels that has been linked to asthma. In August 2017, Pruitt said he would reverse that decision after being sued by 16 state attorneys general. In March 2018, Pruitt was finally ordered to do so by U.S. district judge Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr.As of May 2020, the Trump administration was trying to roll back restrictions on ethylene oxide, a carcinogenic air pollutant. It is widely used to produce antifreeze, fumigate crops, and sterilize medical equipment. Coal emission standards On August 21, 2018, the Trump administration announced plans to cut back Obama's coal emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, calling them "overly prescriptive and burdensome." The Trump plan increases the leeway given states to make their own decisions on coal emission standards, saying it "empowers states, promotes energy independence, and facilitates economic growth and job creation." Critics say the proposal would allow states to run and extend the life of older less efficient power plants and use less stringent emission guidelines for establishing new plants.The New York Times reported in October 2019 that the Trump EPA planned to roll back or eliminate a 2015 limitation on coal-fired power plants releasing heavy metals like arsenic, lead and mercury into water supplies. In April 2020, the administration announced that the EPA had changed the way that they calculate the benefits of mercury controls. The changes will reduce the positive health effects of regulations on paper and raise their economic costs so as to loosen restrictions on any pollutant that the fossil fuel industry has deemed too costly to control. Environmental lawyers say that the new method will undermine the legal underpinnings of controls on mercury and many other pollutants. David Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs, said, "That is the big unstated goal. This is less about mercury than about potentially constraining or handcuffing future efforts by the E.P.A. to regulate air pollution." Landscape conservation cooperatives Established under the Obama administration, Landscape conservation cooperatives (LCC) are research centers that address broad issues such as flooding, species extinction, and climate change. When Trump entered office he eliminated LCC funding in his budget proposals. However, following pressure from state fish and wildlife agencies, NGOs and tribal groups, Congress restored the LCC funding. In April 2019, it was reported that while Congress had set aside funding for LCC projects, the Trump administration had either closed 16 of the 22 research centers or put them on indefinite hiatus. Another six remain open receiving support from other sources. Rollback of the National Environmental Policy Act Trump has frequently criticized environmental rules calling them "burdensome" and responsible for slowing work on infrastructure projects. In January 2020, Trump proposed changes in the Environmental impact statement process (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was passed in 1969. NEPA changed environmental oversight in the U.S. by requiring federal agencies to consider whether a project would harm the air, land, water or wildlife. Thus, NEPA has prevented federal agencies from dividing large projects into smaller chunks to make the environmental impact appear to be insignificant. For example, the proposal for a forest road would require that the impact of logging that it was built to accommodate be evaluated as well. NEPA also requires that the public be allowed to review and provide input on proposals. Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups have voiced concerns that Trump's proposals would gut environmental protections and remove the public's right to know and make comments of project's potential harms to the environment.In June 2020, Trump further weakened standards when he signed an executive order to waive long-standing environmental laws and speed up approval for pipelines, highways, new mines, and other projects. On June 19 he declared that the COVID-19 pandemic had given rise to an economic "emergency" which evoked a section of federal law allowing "action with significant environmental impact" without observing normal requirements imposed by laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act.In October 2021, the Biden Administration White House Council on Environmental Quality announced it planned to restore the NEPA policies which were rolled back under Trump. The changes will come in phases, beginning with reinstating the key aspects of the laws that were dismantled by the Trump administration. Climate change Although in the scientific literature there is overwhelming scientific consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, neither Trump nor any of the department heads he has appointed believe that global warming is human-related. Speaking in a 2017 interview he stated, "You have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years, Dr. John Trump, and I didn't talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture." Calling himself "an environmentalist", he said, "Everything I want and everything I have is clean. Clean is very important – water, air. I want absolutely crystal clear water and I want the cleanest air on the planet and our air now is cleaner than it's ever been. Very important to me."Following Trump's election large amounts of climate information from the EPA website was altered or removed. There was widespread concern among environmentalists and scientists and a coalition of scientific and academic groups began to make copies of the EPA web pages before they were deleted. According to the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative which tracks changes to government websites under the Trump administration, over 200 web pages providing climate information were omitted during Trump's first year in office. Other pages were altered to remove mentions of climate and climate change. In August 2017, the Trump administration rolled back regulations that required the federal government to account for climate change and sea-level rise when building infrastructure. Responding to a 2018 government-funded study which warned of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts, Trump said he had read part of the report but did not believe it.In May 2019, The New York Times reported that the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), James Reilly, who has background in petroleum geology, ordered that the USGS only project impacts of climate change to 2040, instead of their previous practice of projecting to 2099. Thus, according to the Times, the 2022 National Climate Assessment, or other government reports on science, will not automatically include "such worst-case scenario projections". Models show that carbon emissions will only significantly change Earth's rate of warming around 2050. The Times also reported that the Trump administration is also planning to create a climate change review panel headed by William Happer, who is presently serving on Trump's United States National Security Council. Happer has repeatedly publicly stated, "the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler." In June 2019, Trump's White House reportedly tried to prevent a State Department intelligence analyst, Rod Schoonover, from testifying to Congress about "possibly catastrophic" effects of human-caused climate change. Trump's White House reportedly prevented Schoonover's written testimony from being included in the official Congressional Record because it "doesn't reflect the coordinated [intelligence committee] position, or the administration's position". The National Security Council offered many criticisms of Schoonover's testimony, including a comment that "a consensus of peer reviewed literature has nothing to do with the truth." The New York Times quoted two anonymous sources as saying that the comments came from William Happer, a denier of the scientific consensus on global warming. The White House Office of Legislative Affairs also reportedly proposed removing five pages of testimony about the "Scientific Baseline" regarding climate change and the "Stresses to Human and Societal Systems" posed by climate change. Schoonover resigned July 2019. In 2020, looking back at the Trump administration's first term policy changes, some environmentalists believe that a second Trump term would mean severe and irreversible changes in the climate.During the summer of 2020 numerous large fires burned thousands of acres with the loss of many homes and lives. Scientists report that they are related to climate changes which have increased the likelihood of more fires that will burn more widely and intensely than in the past. Trump was briefed in September on the status of fires in California–more than two dozen were burning at that time. Wade Crowfoot, California's secretary for natural resources and other officials repeatedly urged him to consider the role of global warming. Trump replied, "It'll start getting cooler. You just—you just watch" and Crowfoot replied, "I wish science agreed with you." Trump replied, "Well, I don't think science knows, actually."The Sabin Center for Climate Change listed 175 deregulations made by the Trump administration. Paris Climate Agreement On June 1, 2017, Trump announced United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, causing the U.S. to become the third out of 197 nations worldwide to not sign the agreement. As of 2018 the remaining two nations signed and the U.S. is the only nation that has not ratified the Paris Agreement. Since the terms of the agreement prohibit any country from withdrawing during the first three years, the Trump decision to withdraw will not be finalized until November 2019 and then it will not become official for another year after that, the day after the 2020 presidential election.Prior to withdrawal, the U.S. had pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and assign $3 million in aid to foreign countries combating climate change. The withdrawal was supported by several Republican lawmakers who felt that backing out was in-line with Trump's "America First" policy and goals to diverge from the environmental policies of the Obama administration. The announcement has been criticized by many national and international leaders, domestic politicians, business leaders and academics, as well as a large majority of American citizens (7 out of 10 according to a study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication).Trump opposed the agreement on the grounds that it would compromise U.S. sovereignty and cause many Americans to lose their jobs. Proponents of the agreement argue, however, that backing out will result in a loss for our economy as new green jobs are offered instead to competitors overseas. Trump also announced his attempts to reach a negotiation with leaders involved in the agreement, who responded saying that the accord was "non-negotiable."The process of withdrawal is expected to take several years, and in the meantime there has been a vocal resistance on the state and local levels. Hawaii became the first state to independently commit to the goals initially lined out by the accord. Shortly after Trump's announcement, state governments in California, New York, and Washington founded the United States Climate Alliance to continue advancing the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The sentiment has also been expressed by other state governors, by mayors and businesses, and the alliance now has 10 states with governors of both the Democratic and Republican parties pledging to abide by the agreement. Additionally, shortly after withdrawal California governor Jerry Brown met personally with President Xi Jinping of China to declare the states' compliance with the Paris Accord. In September 2017, some administration officials stated that the administration remains open to staying in the agreement "under the right conditions." Clean Power Plan The Clean Power Plan, first proposed in 2014, was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating global warming. The plan's goal was to move away from coal and instead use renewable energy or gas to generate electricity, which would reduce particulate matter in the environment. On March 1, 2017, Murray Energy Corporation sent a letter to the Trump administration with an Action Plan [1] "which will help getting America's coal miners back to work." Doing away with Obama's Clean Power Plan was at the top of the list. Their second priority was doing away with the "endangerment finding" (the legal and scientific foundation for climate action) in the Clean Air Act.[2] Their third priority was the elimination of tax credits for solar panels and windmills, and fourth was the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. Other suggestions included cutting back of EPA staffing to at least half. On March 28, 2017, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw and rewrite Obama's Clean Power Plan, aimed at reviving the coal mining industry and unburdening the automotive industry. EPA staff emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Environmental Defense Fund in 2018 show that, within days of Trump's announcement, EPA director Scott Pruitt directed EPA staff to remove much of the climate change information from the agency's website and "[modify] search results for 'Clean Power Plan' to feature a page touting Trump's executive order featuring a photo of the president posing with smiling coal miners, Pruitt and other members of his cabinet."In May 2019, Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced plans to change the way the EPA calculates health risks of air pollution, resulting in the reporting of far fewer health-related deaths and making it easier to roll back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The Trump administration has argued that the Obama administration over-estimated the health risks for various environmental regulations, to the detriment of industry. Administrator Wheeler defended the change as a way to rectify inconsistencies in the current cost-benefit analyses used by the agency. The new plan is known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE). The planned changes were hailed by industry representatives.Environmentalists are fighting the administration's power plant regulation rollbacks. In April 2020, several environmental groups and twenty-two states filed their first legal briefs in an attempt to fight the administration's attempt to loosen emission standards. Environmentalists were concerned that the new standards are so limited in the pollution controls it requires power producers to install that it could hamstring future administrations from addressing climate-altering pollution. On January 19, 2021, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the Affordable Clean Energy rule violated the Clean Air Act, leaving the administration of incoming President Joe Biden to make a rule from scratch. Carbon Monitoring System The Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) is a NASA remote monitoring system used to measure carbon dioxide and methane, using instruments placed in satellites and aircraft. The information provided by the CMS can be used to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords. CMS has also supported other research projects including providing information that has helped countries assess their carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. In April 2018, President Trump ended funding for the CMS. 2016 methane rule In September 2018, the Trump administration submitted plans to roll back Obama-era legislation designed to reduce venting, flaring, and other emissions of methane gas by the oil and gas industry. At that time it was believed that the proposed new rule would put an additional 380,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere from 2019 to 2025, an amount that is roughly equivalent to more than 30 million tons of carbon dioxide. The Trump EPA noted that while increased pollution as a result of the proposal "may also degrade air quality and adversely affect health and welfare," their plan will save $75 million in regulatory costs annually. Governor Jerry Brown of California called the administration's proposal "perhaps the most obvious and dangerous and irresponsible action by Mr. Trump – and that's saying quite a lot." In August 2020, Trump rolled back the methane rule even as new scientific studies showed that methane is contributing even more to global warming than previously thought. Disbanding the social cost of carbon group In March 2017, Trump signed an executive order which disbanded the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and withdrew the documents in which the group set forth a social cost of carbon which monetized the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The system was introduced by Obama who claimed that "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." His administration set the social cost of Carbon at $51 per ton. Trump slashed the cost to $7 per ton. Forbes wrote, "President Trump's new order is an about face, directing agencies to evaluate many of those regulations and to 'suspend, revise, or rescind' them." In February 2021, President Biden restored the Obama-era working group and brought the cost of carbon back up to $51 (~$51.00 in 2021) per ton. In February 2022, a Trump-appointed judge reversed the social cost of carbon back to back to Trump's estimate of $7 per ton. The reversal was a result of a lawsuit of 10 Republican attorneys general. 2018 National Climate Assessment In November 2018, the government released its Fourth National Climate Assessment, largely compiled during the Obama Administration. The report, issued every four years, is written by 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists. The report warns of the potential catastrophic impacts of climate change including changes to the availability of food and water, increasing extreme weather and decreasing air quality, and the spread of new diseases by insects and pests. When questioned about the report President Trump replied, "I've seen it. I've read some of it. It's fine [but] I don't believe it."Following its release the Trump Administration criticized the report saying it was not factually based. Acting EPA head Andrew Wheeler said he "wouldn't be surprised if the Obama administration directed authors to the worst-case scenario." Wheeler's statement was followed by an EPA press release which said that Wheeler "was right" adding, "In fact, the Obama administration did just that." The EPA used a report done by the Daily Caller, a conservative website founded by Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, as proof of their claims. FactCheck.Org found the Caller's claims to be "false, exaggerated or unsubstantiated."In October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report that had been commissioned by policymakers at the Paris climate talks in 2016. The report, authored by the world's leading climate scientists, warned there are only 12 years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which "even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people." G7 meetings Trump attended the 44th G7 summit held in Canada in 2018 and the 45th G7 summit held in France in 2019. G7 Summits are conferences held between industrialized nations to discuss world affairs. Trump arrived late for the 2018 meeting, missing the full discussions on gender equality. He left early to attend a meeting with Kim Jong Un, choosing to not take part in the discussions about climate change and cleaning up the oceans which were being held on the third day of the summit meetings.On the third day of the 2019 G7 talks world leaders discussed climate change, biodiversity, and warming oceans. A spokesperson said Trump had to skip the discussion due to a scheduled meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, although they were both attending the climate meeting. Later in the day when reporters asked him about the climate session he replied, "We're having it in a little while." although the meeting had already taken place. At a press conference Trump said he was "an environmentalist" adding, "I think I know more about the environment than most people."The 46th G7 summit was scheduled to be held somewhere in the United States in 2020. In October 2019, Trump's chief of staff Mick Mulvaney announced that the event would be held at the Trump National Doral Miami, a golf resort in Florida which is owned by Trump. Mulvaney told reporters "Climate change will not be on the agenda." The state of Florida is the state most vulnerable to the effects of global warming such as rising ocean levels and more severe storms. The 46th G7 summit was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lawsuits During its first few months, the Trump administration rescinded rules limiting mercury and air toxins from power plants, limiting water pollution from coal plants, banning the pesticide chlorpyrifos, and banning methane emissions from landfills, among other rules, which has resulted in lawsuits from various environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.Some lawsuits against the Trump administration's regulation rollbacks have been successful, such as a lawsuit from the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental groups against the administration's decision to suspend a rule which limited methane emissions from oil and gas wells, a decision which was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Following legal action, the administration has also reversed its decision to do away with an Obama-era plan requiring dentists to prevent about five tons of mercury, used in their practice, from getting into the nation's waterways.By February 2018, New York's attorney general Eric Schneiderman had filed over 50 lawsuits opposing the Trump administration's environmental revisions, saying New York had "beaten back" several of the administration's deregulation attempts, "from energy efficiency rollbacks to smog."In November 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, overruled a 3-judge panel of the court and scheduled a rehearing of the case against the Trump administration-proposed land swap in Alaska to allow a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. In an unusual action, President Jimmy Carter filed a statement of support for the environmental-groups' lawsuit, saying the swap violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Anilca). Anilca was passed in 1980 near the end of Carter's term in office. Carter said the act "may be the most significant domestic achievement of my political life" at the time of his filing. Commentary Trump environmental policies drew comments from environmentalists and others. Noam Chomsky Speaking in April 2020 during the coronavirus emergency, Noam Chomsky noted that when Trump and his administration released their budget for the coming year they had defunded the CDC and other government institutions responsible for health while increasing the administration's funding for fossil fuel production. While calling the pandemic "bad and serious", Chomsky said the U.S. will recover, however, "We're not going to recover from the melting of the polar ice sheets, which is leading to a feedback effect, well known, that increases — as they melt, there's less reflective surface, more absorption in the dark seas. The warming that's melting increases. That's just one of the factors that's leading to destruction, unless we do something about it." Biden administration's restoration of pre-Trump policies Writing in January 2021, The New York Times noted that while President Biden had run on a policy "to restore environmental protections frayed over the past four years [and] ordered the review of more than 100 rules and regulations on air, water, public lands, endangered species and climate change that were weakened or rolled back by his predecessor," it could take two to three years or even most of Biden's term in office to restore many of the previous environmental rules. While The Times noted that in a limited number of cases Biden would be able to use executive authority to cancel some projects, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, others could take years. See also Carbon bubble List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump March for Science People's Climate March (2017) Trump administration political interference with science agencies Space-based measurements of carbon dioxide, * Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, and TanSat == References ==

enhanced transparency framework

The Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) for action and support is a central component to the design, credibility and operation of the Paris Agreement. The framework specifies how parties to the agreement must report on progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It also provides for international procedures for the review and evaluation of those reports. Background The adoption of the Paris Agreement marked a turning point in international climate policy, one which had previously been initiated at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009. The Agreement, which is binding under international law and global in scope, not only sets ambitious global goals, such as limiting the rise in the Earth's average temperature to well below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels, but also introduces a new climate policy paradigm that gives states considerable leeway in setting their climate change goals – Parties’ individual goals are not negotiated at international level but are instead set by the Parties themselves. Also, compliance with those goals is not binding. To ensure that the targets and goals they have set are implemented nonetheless, an innovative architecture comprising international review and transparency mechanisms has been integrated into the Agreement. The Transparency Framework is an essential element of that architecture. Role of the Transparency Framework in the Paris climate regime The Paris Agreement requires its signatory states (known as Parties) to formulate their own regular climate action plans, so-called nationally determined contributions (NDCs). When updated, those NDCs must not fall short of the targets applicable prior to the update and should reflect the highest possible level of ambition. Parties are also required to implement measures that contribute to achieving their NDCS. There is, however, no obligation under international law to achieve the NDCs and no sanctions are provided for in the event of Parties’ failure to achieve them.Against this backdrop, the Transparency Framework is of central importance. Parties must report regularly on their progress in implementing their NDC targets and goals, and the reports are subject to international peer review. The Transparency Framework thus creates the basis for the global public to publicly name and denounce those states that have failed to meet their self-imposed targets and goals. This procedure, known as “naming and shaming”, could offset the lack of binding NDC achievement and is thus a central pillar of the Paris regime. The Transparency Framework is also an essential part of the NDC cycle. The information gathered in line with the Transparency Framework is fed into the Global Stocktake which assesses collective progress towards the long-term goals. The outcomes of the stocktake are in turn taken into account when developing nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Reporting under the Transparency Framework The reporting requirements set out in the Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement go beyond and also replace the previous requirements for the disclosure of information under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.From 2024 onwards, all Parties must submit what are known as Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) every two years. With these transparency reports, Parties submit their greenhouse gas inventories and disclose information on progress made in implementing their NDCs. Unlike the reporting requirements under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, when it comes to climate action, the Transparency Framework makes no distinction between industrialised and developing countries, and the requirements apply to all states. However, developing countries with limited capacities have been given the opportunity to deviate from the requirements and to report to a lesser extent, less frequently or in less detail. Countries wishing to make use of this flexibility must, however, justify their need to do so and indicate a date by which they will have overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of full reporting.In addition to climate change mitigation, the Transparency Framework covers various other issues. For example, information on the effects of climate change and action taken to adapt to climate change is collected on a voluntary basis. In addition, the Transparency Framework serves to collect information on climate action-related support. However, with regard to financial assistance provided, there is only a reporting requirement for industrialised countries. The Transparency Framework also gathers information on support needed and that already received. Here, too, however, there is no reporting requirement for developing countries.It should also be noted that Parties using the market-based cooperation approaches enshrined in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must report on emission reductions transferred as part of that approach. These requirements are intended to prevent emission reductions from being counted more than once and to avoid undermining the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement. Review and evaluation of the reports The Paris Agreement also established a two-stage international procedure for reviewing and evaluating reports. Implementation rules for both steps were set out at the Conference of the Parties in Katowice in December 2018:Step 1 comprises the Technical Expert Reviews. These check whether the submitted reports comply with the provisions of the Transparency Framework and identify areas where there is potential for enhancement. Explicitly excluded from this review was the question of whether the NDC submitted by the respective Party is appropriate or to what extent the measures implemented are sufficient. An assessment of this kind is not compatible with the bottom-up approach of the Paris Agreement, under which Parties set their own NDCs. Step 2 involves the Facilitative, Multilateral Consideration of Progress. Here, Parties share their questions and answers with one another. The exchange takes place both in writing and in workshops. Outlook With the creation of the Transparency Framework, a uniform reporting system was created that requires all Parties to disclose essential climate policy information. Whether the Transparency Framework can actually contribute to an increase in climate policy ambition, as set out under the Paris Agreement regime, will depend to a large extent on its application in practice. Will Parties actually fulfil their reporting obligations? And if so, how will they interpret the existing requirements? Although the Conference of the Parties in Katowice in 2018 indicated a great willingness on the part of the international community to ensure greater transparency by agreeing the implementation rules, the weak outcome of the negotiations at the Climate Change Conference in Madrid in 2019 indicates otherwise. For example, at COP25 Parties failed to further specify the transparency requirements by establishing uniform reporting structures and tables. Well-known differences between industrialised countries, which called for greater transparency, and large emerging economies, which were opposed to overly-specific reporting requirements, came to light once again. To enable robust and the most accurate reporting possible from 2024 onwards, these points of contention so relevant to implementation must be resolved in time for the next climate conference which will be held in Glasgow at the end of 2020. == References ==

oregon petition

The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a group which urges the United States government to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and similar policies. Their petition challenges the scientific consensus on climate change. Though the group claims more than thirty-thousand signatories across various scientific fields, the authenticity and methods of the petitioners as well as the signatories' credentials have been questioned, and the project has been characterized as a disinformation campaign engaged in climate change denial. History and signatories The petition was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (described as "a small independent research group") in 1998, and again in 2007. Frederick Seitz, then chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote a supporting cover letter, signed as "Past President National Academy of Sciences USA, President Emeritus Rockefeller University". "In a highly unusual move, the National Academy held a press conference to disclaim the mailing and distance itself from its former president."Robinson asserted in 2008 that the petition has over 31,000 signatories, with 9,000 of these holding a PhD degree. Most signatories with a PhD hold their degree in engineering. The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)—a group that "disputes the reality of man-made climate change"—lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with PhDs. The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting the names of Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list. Petition text The text of the Global Warming Petition Project reads, in its entirety:We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.Along with the cover letter from Seitz (see above), the petition was circulated with a manuscript plus a reprint of a December 1997 Wall Street Journal op-ed ("Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth") by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. The current version of Seitz's letter describes the summary as "a twelve page review of information on the subject of 'global warming'." The article is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The Journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is associated with the Oregon Institute, which sponsored the petition. The publication, which is not indexed alongside peer-reviewed journals, is the outlet of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is a libertarian political organization. Signatories The Oregon Petition Project clarified their verification process as follows: The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists was listed at 95%, but the means by which this verification was done was not specified. Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree. The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees. As of 2013, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,487 petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science." Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. As of 2007, about 2,400 people in addition to the original 17,100 signatories were "trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition." The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline:Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805 (Climatology: 39) Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935 Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812 Chemistry: 4,822 Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965 Medicine: 3,046 Engineering and General Science: 10,102 Credentials and authenticity The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned. Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, said event organizers "take it for granted" that global warming is real when scientists do not agree "that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful" or "that human activity leads to global warming in the first place." George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials." Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved". Spurious names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe". When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake". A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided." According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved. Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying that, although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science." Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap. NAS incident A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal, but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths". F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal." A 2006 article in the magazine Vanity Fair stated: Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming. See also Leipzig Declaration An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming Climate change denial Global warming controversy Global Warming Policy Foundation Heartland Institute Public opinion on climate change Scientific opinion on climate change Notes References Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury, 2010). Further reading Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, OISM Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 2007, AB Robinson, NE Robinson, & W. Soon, J. American Physicians & Surgeons Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide 1999, W. Soon, SL Beliunas, AB Robinson, ZW Robinson, Climate Research V. 13, 149-164, Oct. 26, 1999, Harvard Unv. Thomas R. Karl; Kevin Trenberth; James E. Hansen (December 18, 1997). "Op-Ed Science a Myth: Global Warming is happening". Natural Science Open Forum. Archived from the original on June 3, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-31. Prof. Joseph E. Armstrong (1998). "The Wall Street Journal Blurs the Lines Between Science, Opinion, & Politics on Global Warming". Reall (newsletter) [1]. Retrieved 2007-03-31. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) External links Global Warming Petition Project at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Global Warming Petition Project Collected debunkings of the Oregon Petition [2] Scan of Oregon Petition Mailing]

dimmock v secretary of state for education and skills

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills was a case heard in September–October 2007 in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, concerning the permissibility of the government providing Al Gore's climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth to English state schools as a teaching aid. The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry (HGV) driver and school governor from Kent, England, a father of two sons who attend a state school. Dimmock has twice stood as a local election candidate for the New Party and received backing for the case from Viscount Monckton, the author of the New Party's manifesto. Monckton, one of the UK's most prominent climate change deniers, launched an advertising campaign against Al Gore in March 2007 challenging Gore to a public debate on climate change. Monckton has received funding from a Washington-based conservative think tank of which he is chief policy adviser, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), to create a film, Apocalypse No, which will parody Gore, showing Monckton presenting a slide show making an attack on climate change science.The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically. Background to the case In October 2006, the Government announced that the academic year 2006/07 would be a "Sustainable Schools Year of Action" to promote sustainable development and environmental consciousness. This followed an earlier public consultation on a Sustainable Schools Strategy. As part of the strategy, schools throughout the UK were to be given guidance and educational material on current environmental issues.Ross Finnie, the Environment Minister of the Scottish Executive, announced on 16 January 2007 that An Inconvenient Truth would be shown to all secondary school pupils in Scotland, with the costs being underwritten by the energy company ScottishPower. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) followed suit on 2 February with an announcement that a copy of the film would be sent to all 3,385 secondary schools in England. A month later, the Welsh Assembly Government likewise announced that schools and colleges in Wales would receive a copy of the film. In all three countries, the distribution of the film was accompanied by guidance notes and resources on how climate change fits into the context of the National Curriculum and the Sustainable Schools Year of Action programme. The DVD was also accompanied in English schools by a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which included two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.The move was opposed by a group of parents in the New Forest region of Hampshire, who argued that the film was "inaccurate and politically motivated" and threatened to take legal action against the Government. The parents' spokesman, Conservative councillor Derek Tipp, asserted that the circulation of the film by the Government amounted to political indoctrination and was in breach of the Education Act 2002. The court case The film's distribution was also opposed by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a prominent British global warming denier. According to Monckton, he "identified three dozen scientific errors in it" and prompted an unnamed wealthy friend "to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense". Funding for litigation was provided by the friend, and when the government "didn't reply satisfactorily", Monckton and his colleagues served papers on the government. The case was brought in May 2007 in the name of Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver and governor at a school in Dover, Kent, who was also a member of the same small political party for which Monckton had written a manifesto. In papers lodged at the High Court in London, the plaintiffs argued that showing the film would violate section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996. The Act requires that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers "shall forbid... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school". Alternatively, the plaintiffs submitted, showing the film was unlawful because it did not provide "a balanced presentation of opposing views" as required by section 407. Dimmock petitioned the court to enjoin the Government from showing An Inconvenient Truth in English schools. Although he did not publicly explain his motivation, he was reported to feel "very strongly that this is an attempt to brainwash children with flawed science." The behind-the-scenes role of Monckton and the other global warming deniers was disclosed much later, in an interview given by Monckton to the conservative American talk show host Glenn Beck in March 2008.The initial written application to challenge the Government was refused in July 2007. On 27 September 2007, however, permission was granted at an oral hearing with a three-day judicial review before Justice Michael Burton following immediately thereafter. Dimmock's counsel asserted that the film was "partisan, aimed at influencing rather than informing, and lacked balance", and that it contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush." The court was told that Dimmock had been widely supported by "[l]ots of parents [who] have written to him supporting his application. They do not want our children brainwashed in this way by the New Labour Thought Police."In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views. The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns. On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown." The judgment Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007. He found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." The necessary amendments made to the related guidance notes make it clear what the mainstream view is, insofar as the film departs from it. The notes also explain that there are views of deniers who do not accept the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Given these amendments, the judge considered that the film was put in a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views was offered and where it could be shown to students in compliance with the law. Given a proper context, the requirement for a balanced presentation did not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view. The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Dr. Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine of the statements that Dimmock's counsel had described as "errors" as inaccuracies; i.e, that were not representative of the mainstream. He also found that some of these statements arose in the context of supporting Al Gore's political thesis. The judge required that the guidance notes should address these statements. The nine inaccuracies The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream. However, Al Gore's spokesman has disputed this characterisation of the nine statements, which were as follows: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Gore's view: "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastating. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans." Justice Burton's view: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus." Other scientific views: Gore does not say that the sea level would rise 7 metres in the immediate future, though he says that such a rise is a possibility (without specifying the timeframe). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicts that the sea level could rise up to 59 cm by 2100, but excludes any effects from melting in Greenland and Antarctica because of the scientific uncertainties in predicting that scenario. While many scientists believe that neither land mass will melt significantly in the next century, NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has predicted a major increase in sea level on the order of several metres by the end of the 21st century. Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are having to be evacuated because of the effects of global warming. Gore's view: "[T]hat's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand." Justice Burton's view: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened." Other scientific views: The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea announced in 2005 that they would evacuate the islands and move to the much larger Bougainville Island, as their homeland was expected to be submerged by 2015. The cause of the islands' submersion is a matter of debate; a United Nations official suggested that a local fishing practice of destroying reefs with dynamite might be responsible. The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe. Gore's view: "One of the [scenarios] they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor. At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1,000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah. [points at Greenland]" Justice Burton's view: "According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down." Other scientific views: A group of 12 climatologists was surveyed on this question in 2006 by Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria, Canada. Assuming a temperature rise of 4 °C (7.2 °F) by 2100, eight of them assessed the probability of thermohaline circulation collapse as significantly above zero; three estimated a probability of 40% or higher. There was an exact fit between graphs showing changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures over a period of 650,000 years. Gore's view: "In all of this time, 650,000 years, the CO2 level has never gone above 300 parts per million. ... The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside." Justice Burton's view: "Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts." Other scientific views: Global warming episodes at the end of ice ages have not been triggered by rises in atmospheric CO2. However, this does not disprove the proposition that CO2 warms the atmosphere and that rising emissions of CO2 are the principal cause of global warming today. The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania was due to global warming. Gore's view: "And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago." Justice Burton's view: "Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Miliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change." Other scientific views: A 2006 study by a group at the University of Innsbruck concluded that "rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for [the glaciers'] demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them." The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming. Gore's view: "This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing." Justice Burton's view: The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability. Other scientific views: A NASA study released in 2001 concluded that Lake Chad's shrinkage resulted from a combination of irrigation demands and climate change: "Using model and climate data, Coe and Foley calculate that a 30% decrease took place in the lake between 1966 and 1975. Irrigation only accounted for 5% of that decrease, with drier conditions accounting for the remainder. They noticed that irrigation demands increased four-fold between 1983 and 1994, accounting for 50% of the additional decrease in the size of the lake." Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming. Gore's view: "And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it. ... There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause." Justice Burton's view: "In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that." Other scientific views: The World Meteorological Organization explains that "though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point." They also clarified that "no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change." Polar bears were being found drowned after having to swim long distances to find the (melting) ice. Gore's view: "That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." Justice Burton's view: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues." Other scientific views: The study in question is a September 2004 paper in Polar Biology which describes the unprecedented discovery of four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska. The paper's lead author "doubts this was simply the result of exhaustion from having to swim further from ice to shore. More likely, weather conditions are becoming more severe in the growing expanses of open water, making swimming more difficult." Coral reefs were being bleached by the effects of global warming and other factors. Gore's view: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall species loss is now occurring at a rate 1,000 times greater than the natural background rate." Justice Burton's view: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1–3°C, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt [sic] or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult." Other scientific views: The most recent IPCC report does indeed state that most corals would bleach if temperatures rose more than 1 °C over levels in the 1980s and 1990s. With the current rate of increase, further coral bleaching is considered highly likely. The rise in temperatures is also increasing the incidence of disease in corals, accelerating the rate of bleaching. Responses to the judgment The Minister of Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan, declared the outcome a victory for the government, stating: "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film." Mr Justice Burton declared the case a victory for the claimant stating "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act".A spokesman for Al Gore stated that, "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."The verdict was criticised by the National Union of Teachers, which stated that it was "inappropriate for a judge to dictate how films or other creative work was taught in schools."Viscount Monckton criticised the judge, who he claimed had been "a Labour [Party] candidate before", and asserted that the Government had "decided that for the sake of retaining what little scientific credibility the office still has, they better admit this were errors and once they admitted them, the judge, even though he wanted to, couldn't find that Gore's film was accurate."In July 2009, Gore was interviewed by Heather Ewart of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In the interview, Gore was questioned about Justice Burton's ruling that there were "nine errors" in the film. Gore commented that "the ruling was in my favour." Costs and funding Dimmock's legal costs were said to be around £200,000. He was awarded only two-thirds of his costs and is reported to have received a bill of more than £60,000 for the remainder.The question of the lawsuit's funding was raised in September 2007, even before the case had concluded, by a report in The Daily Telegraph which wondered "Where will the money come from?". According to Stewart Dimmock's solicitor, it was "a private matter for him". However, the Telegraph noted that Dimmock was a member of the New Party, a small right-wing party with a record of climate change denial. The party declares that "political opportunism and alarmism have combined in seizing [the IPCC's] conclusions to push forward an agenda of taxation and controls that may ultimately be ineffective in tackling climate change, but will certainly be damaging to our economy and society". The New Party was reported to be backing Dimmock. It issued a press release on 1 October 2007 in which it publicised the case and declared, somewhat prematurely, that "it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the film will ever be shown as intended." In March 2008, the New Party's manifesto-writer Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley acknowledged he had prompted an unnamed wealthy friend to fund the case and that he had himself been heavily involved in the litigation. The Observer reported at the time that Dimmock's backers were "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies." The chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, has been described as "a long-time critic of environmentalists" who established a climate change denial group called the Scientific Alliance. The alliance publicised Dimmock's case on its website and was also involved in advising Channel 4 on the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which Viscount Monckton is distributing to schools as a riposte to An Inconvenient Truth. See also Education in the United Kingdom Climate change in the United Kingdom References External links Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007) – full text of judgment The climate change film pack – Guidance for teaching staff, Department for Children, Schools and Families

straight up (book)

Straight Up: America's Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on the Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions is a book by author, blogger, physicist and climate expert Joseph J. Romm. A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and former Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Romm writes about methods of reducing global warming and increasing energy security through energy efficiency, green energy technologies and green transportation technologies.Romm writes and edits the climate blog ClimateProgress.org for the Center for American Progress, where he is a Senior Fellow. Time magazine named this blog one of the "Top 15 Green Websites" and called Romm "The Web's most influential climate-change blogger", naming him as one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)".Straight Up was released on April 19, 2010, by Island Press. It is "largely a selection of [Romm]'s best blog postings over the past few years related to climate change issues". TreeHugger describes the book as "a whirlwind tour through the state of climate change, the media that so badly neglects it, the politicians who attempt to address it (and those who obstruct their efforts and ignore [the] science), and the clean energy solutions that could help get us out of the mess." Summary The title of the book's introduction, "Why I blog", is a play on the title of George Orwell's essay, "Why I Write". Romm states, "I joined the new media because the old media have failed us. They have utterly failed to force us to face unpleasant facts. From this starting point, Romm posits that global warming is a bipartisan issue. He writes, "Averting catastrophic global warming requires completely overturning the status quo, changing every aspect of how we use energy – and doing so in under four decades. Failure to do so means humanity's self-destruction." The book collects, reprints and updates postings from his blog, ClimateProgress.org, as the main part of his content, adding introductions and some new analysis.In his first chapter, Romm argues that the media perpetuates the status quo through laziness and a misunderstanding of how to present a "balanced" story. For example, he believes that the media did a bad job of assessing the outcome of the Copenhagen summit in December 2009. Romm comments that global warming is a science story, but that the traditional news media, which has scaled back on specialized reporting, has given the story to political reporters who don't understand, and have not time to research, the scientific consensus. He next presents research concerning the science of climate change, as explained by what Romm calls "uncharacteristically blunt scientists". In the third chapter, Straight Up presents proposed solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the use of clean energy technologies and other currently available technologies. For example, it describes what Romm believes are the advantages of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, generation of energy through wind and solar power, including concentrated solar power using mirrors to concentrate the sun's energy. He writes that "A 20 percent reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits". "Our plan", says Romm, must be "Deployment, deployment, deployment, R&D, deployment, deployment, deployment." The next chapter discusses peak oil. The next chapters move into the politics of global warming and what Romm sees as a "right-wing disinformation machine" that confuses and misleads the public, by, for example, fostering what Romm calls "Anti-Scientific Syndrome". The book says, "the economic cost of action is low, whereas the cost of inaction is incalculably greater – what exactly is the 'price' of 5 feet of sea level rise in 2100 ... and losing all of the inland glaciers that provide a significant fraction of water to a billion people? Or the price of losing half the world's species? ... the bottom line is that the economic cost of action is low, whereas the cost of inaction is incalculably greater". Romm calculates that deployment of existing technologies on the massive scale that can save the climate can be accomplished at the cost of 0.12 percent of global GDP per year. Romm advocates citizen action to pressure Washington and industry to act quickly and decisively to reduce greenhouse emissions. Otherwise, he argues, we will fall behind in the race to commercialize profitable technologies. "China has a excellent track record of achieving gains in energy efficiency and has begun to ramp up its efficiency efforts and aggressively expand its carbon-free electricity targets (recently committing, for instance, to triple its wind goal to 100,000 MW by 2020). ... will the United States be a global leader in creating jobs and exports in clean energy technologies or will we be importing them from Europe, Japan, and the likely clean energy leader in our absence, China"? In the last chapter, Romm posits that progressives are "lousy" at educating the public, and he offers ways in which he thinks they can be more effective at messaging. In his conclusion at the end of the book, Romm argues that the global economy is a sort of ponzi scheme, in which our failure to prevent the worst effects of climate change now could eventually cause the world economy to fall apart just like a ponzi scheme. Reception Initial reviews A review in USA Today called the book "a gut-wrenching wakeup call". Thomas L. Friedman, in his op-ed column in The New York Times, called the book "insightful", agreeing with Romm's arguments in the book that the proposed "cap and trade" climate bill "is a step in the right direction toward reducing greenhouse gases and expanding our base of clean power technologies". Former US Vice-President Al Gore endorsed the book as "important" on his blog, writing, "If you are interested in the fight to solve the climate crisis, I recommend you read this book."The book has been reviewed by many of the "green" websites. For example, the blog of the American Solar Energy Society, Solar Today, commented, "It's a collection of spirited and readable critiques of the delaying forces – the corporations and institutions who want to see no changes in national policies and tax codes that now work to make them rich. In particular, Romm eviscerates the American news establishment for ignoring climate catastrophe issues". ... It's full of solid fact-based arguments, properly referenced within the text (no footnotes!), along with a lot of low-carbon fire and brimstone. Daily Kos commented, "Romm's forceful, impassioned blogging – and his book publishing – are a shining light in the confrontation of those 'misguided seals of approval'" being given out by the mainstream press to climate disinformers. The review continues, "Romm is a tenacious fighter ... ready to take on all comers to the point that he can even rub 'friends' and allies the wrong way at times. ... Romm's knowledge, writing skills, and passion enable most to see past those conflicts since, on so many issues, Romm is simply – well – correct and laying out viable paths forward. ... Simply put, if the 'nation' would read Straight Up and follow Romm's prescriptions, we would find ourselves moving away from decline into a new era of prosperity." The Green Energy Reporter stated that "Straight Up's indictment of "status-quo media" like The New York Times lays bare the inadequacies of traditional he-said-she-said media coverage when faced with a civilizational challenge like climate change. ... Strong opinions, muscular writing."Reporter Tyler Hamilton calls the book "a stinging critique of how poorly the mainstream media has covered global warming" and says that the book, like Romm's blog, "cuts through the crap in a way no mainstream media outlet has or will." A review in TreeHugger termed the book "an essential guide to climate, energy, and politics for the blog era." It continued, "nobody knows the game like Romm – both in terms of ability to interpret and explain the latest science, and in boasting expertise on the politics and policy process that, whether you like it our not, is going to be instrumental in mitigating climate change on a large scale." Even for readers of Romm's blog, the book "provides an important narrative flow, and condenses everything you need to know about the current state of climate science and politics into a nice, quick read. While extremely thorough, it may make some beginners' head spin, and it can get combative and wonky in places. But such is the nature of this beast – climate change should make a beginner's head spin, and as Romm makes clear, addressing it is going to be messy, politically charged, and a daunting battle." The Environmental Defense Fund review opined, "Straight Up is well-researched, provides insightful political analysis, and showcases compelling data on the economic benefits of climate change solutions."Ross Gelbspan reviewed the book for Grist magazine, writing that Romm's "unfailing sense of priorities shines through his startlingly thoughtful and brutally blunt writing." Gelbspan continues, "while one wishes Romm would have stitched the blog posts together into a more coherent narrative – and omitted a few that addressed transitory, fleeting events – his book is absolutely on point in its insistence that climate change long ago ceased to be a scientific issue and, instead, is most clearly a political one." Gelbspan agrees with Romm that "a central reason that most political conservatives and libertarians deny the reality of human-induced climate change 'is that they simply cannot stand the solution. So they attack both the solution and the science.' I don't recall reading that simple truth in [traditional media,] virtually all of which treat the climate debate as though it actually had some legitimacy." He also agrees with Romm that the major media "have failed, in the name of 'journalistic balance', to distinguish between legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research and the deliberate obfuscation by a cadre of climate skeptics, many of whom have been funded by coal and oil companies. As a result, the public has no idea that we are already at a point of no return in terms of staving off climate chaos." Gelbspan notes, "Romm happens to favor both efficiency and concentrated solar thermal power. But, his technological preferences aside, he's right on point when he describes the call for more R&D as a stalling tactic to avoid coming to grips with the threat. As Romm writes, 'deployment completely trumps research'." However, Gelbspan criticizes Romm for "wandering", at the end of the book, "into the question of why climate advocates are so bad at 'messaging.' It may be a valid question. ... But I'm afraid the issue [is] a diversion from the real question facing all of us at this moment of history. ... We are already beginning to see crop failures, water shortages, increasing extinctions, migrations of environmental refugees, and all manner of potential breakdowns in our social lives. Where Straight Up falls short is in its failure to deal with this reality head on." Still, he says, "This is not at all to minimize the value of Romm's book. To the contrary, if you think the most pressing task today is to limit the coming damage through a transition to non-carbon technologies, I can't think of a better place to start than by reading Straight Up." Later assessments In June 2010, FDL Book Salon said of the book, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. By pulling together the very best content from the blog and thoughtfully organizing it in a logical way, the book achieves ... cohesiveness. ... [What makes Romm's] writing on climate change and energy policy so valuable is his comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter." A review the same month in the New Zealand climate blog Hot Topic contains a detailed summary of the book. A July 2010 review in RenewableEnergyWorld.com agreed with Romm that "with the little time we have left to avert climate chaos, we must devote most of our resources to deploying existing technologies like solar, wind and geothermal that we know can bring atmospheric carbon back down down to safe levels."In July 2010, Bill McKibben wrote in Washington Monthly: Romm ... knows his climate science ... cold. Trained as a physicist, he is unintimidated by scholarly work, and is able to synthesize huge amounts of complex data. He has been a persuasive voice for the most important truth about global warming: that it is a far worse problem than either politicians or the general public understand. In his posts and in his previous book Hell and High Water Romm has made the stakes clear. "If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path," he writes, the century will bring "staggeringly high temperature rise ... [and] sea level rise. ... Dust bowls will cover the southwestern United States and many other heavily populated regions around the globe. Massive species loss will occur on land and sea – affecting 50 percent or more of all life." These changes ... are relatively uncontroversial middle-of-the-road projections. ... Romm's willingness to repeat these concerns ... has been essential in emboldening a few opinion writers – Tom Friedman, for instance – to keep this message in the mainstream media. ... Romm has been consistent in insisting that we have much of the technology necessary to at least begin tackling the problem. He regularly documents the gains we could easily squeeze from commonsense efficiencies ... [and current technologies,] the plug-in hybrid car, for example. ... Romm is very clear on the economics of climate change: any large-scale adjustment, while not cheap, is affordable, and neglecting the issue as we have done will prove to be very expensive in the long run. Indeed, it's hard to read him without understanding just how disingenuous and shortsighted is the Republican argument that we should ignore global warming because it will cost us money. ... The [2009] McKinsey report ... estimate[s that] most of the first few decades of carbon trimming will actually make us money. ...The second half of Straight Up ... covers the politics of climate. [Romm has been] a tireless foil to the "right-wing disinformation machine" that has tried – with great success ... to delay action by confusing and disheartening Americans about global warming. The right's basic message ... is not supported by the evidence. It is, however, supported by both a good deal of fossil-fuel industry cash and a good deal of wishful thinking from all of us who are so used to the lifestyles underwritten by cheap fossil fuel. It requires a thick skin to take on the daily task of dealing with the disinformers, but Romm has the taste for this kind of blood sport, and the talent as well. He coined the term "anti-science syndrome" (and its rude acronym) for the campaign to undermine the scientific consensus. He's waged memorable wars with, say, Lord Monckton ... who dropped his earlier campaign to quarantine all AIDS sufferers. ... Romm is also stern with progressives, mostly for their poor messaging on climate issues. ... In fact, my main dispute with Romm's work is his relentless focus on Washington. Since the advent of the Obama administration he has devoted a great deal of his fierceness to attacking anyone who questions the legislative solutions to climate change put forward by the Democrats in the White House and Congress. ... It's not that his message is absurd. We do desperately need action from Washington on climate change. ... But Romm's hyper-realism may ignore more important political possibilities. He's paid less attention to the emerging popular movement on climate change than to the machinations of the Senate, but if we're actually going to get change on the scale we need, it's quite possible it won't happen without an aggressive, large, and noisy movement demanding that change. And Romm, who would have a good deal of useful things to say to such a movement, hasn't been very interested. See also References External links Straight Up at Island Press Romm's climate blog

dot earth

Dot Earth is a media piece environmental blog, by science writer Andrew Revkin, which ran from 2007 to 2016 for The New York Times. The blog's aim is to examine efforts to balance human affairs with the planet's limits.Featuring videos, interviews and other types of information like environmental and climate change issues, including energy policy, conservation, biodiversity, and sustainability, Dot Earth was further described as "an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts." History Posted on October 25, 2007, Revkin's first entry on Dot Earth was on "Cutting Greenhouse Gases for Cash Prizes". In April 2010, "after 940 posts as a news blog", The New York Times moved Dot Earth to the "opinion side" of its online site. This decision accompanied Revkin's move from a fulltime position to that of a freelancer, with the move being done to make clear the line between the two categories. After 9 years and 2,810 posts, Revkin ended the blog on 5 December 2016, just before he began work as a senior reporter for ProPublica. Readership According to a Pace University press release, an institution in which the blogger is associated, the blog is "read by millions of people in over 200 countries, from Brazil to China". Honours and awards Outside magazine, Top 10 Environmental Blogs (#4), 2011 References External links Dot Earth official webpage

bert metz

Bert Metz (born 15 August 1945) is a Dutch climate policy expert. He was co-chair of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III on mitigation on climate change for the third and fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Currently, he is a fellow at the European Climate Foundation. Biography Metz was born in The Hague. He obtained an engineer's degree in chemical engineering at Delft University of Technology and subsequently his Ph.D. degree at the same university. From 1976 to 1987, he worked for Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment in the fields of air pollution, external safety, noise pollution, chemical waste and the enforcement of environmental laws. From 1987 until 1992, he was Counsellor for Health and Environment at the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington DC. In 1992 he became deputy director for Air and Energy of the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, with responsibility for climate policy. He led the Netherlands delegation to the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Convention. In 1997, he moved to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency at RIVM to head the group on climate change and global sustainability and was elected as co-chairman of the Working Group on Climate Change Mitigation of the IPCC for the preparation of the Third Assessment Report. In 2002 he was re-elected in that position for the 4th Assessment Report cycle. Although formally retired, Bert Metz is still very active in the climate policy arena, among others as advisor for the European Climate Foundation and as steering group member of UNEP's annual Emissions Gap Report. In 2008 he was named Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau.[1]. == References ==

alexander f. more

Alexander F. More is an American scientist (climate and health), economist, and science communicator. His discoveries include the impact of climate change on the largest pandemics in the last two millennia, the impact of pandemics on air pollution, and the resetting of toxic air pollution standards through highly detailed interdisciplinary research. More also uncovered the creation of the first broad public health system during an environmental and climate crisis (the second pandemic). He frequently appears as a leading expert on national and global news stories on climate change and public health, as well as other issues of public policy, including immigration, sustainability and economic growth. He worked as a staff member for Senator Ted Kennedy when he was drafting the Affordable Care Act, and continues to engage in public service and non-profit activities as part of several foundations. Early life and education More was born in Italy. The extreme pollution affecting the region where he grew up motivated his later focus in his work on environmental change and economic growth driving it. More moved briefly to Venice for his secondary education at the Scuola Navale Militare Francesco Morosini, but decided to leave Europe to attend college in the United States. He traveled to New York City on his own and supported himself as he studied for college admission. More attended Washington University in St. Louis, earning a bachelor’s degree in history with a minor in chemistry. While at Washington University, More supported himself by teaching, and working in the Biomedical Magnetic Resonance Laboratory of Dr. Joseph Ackerman, focusing on the design and implementation of research measuring the perfusion coefficient of water in HeLa cells.More graduated with honors from Washington University with a thesis based on original research, in five languages, with sources retrieved from multiple countries in Europe. He was immediately admitted to Harvard University, where he pursued a fully funded PhD. Due to the several disciplines needed for his doctoral research, More designed and gained approval at Harvard for a rare (ad hoc) interdisciplinary PhD covering environmental, economic and public health fields.His doctoral work focused on the creation of the first government-sponsored public health and welfare policies, emerging as a result of environmental and epidemic crises in Europe. Among his advisers were Allan M. Brandt, Angeliki Laiou, Ernest R. May, Michael McCormick, Katharine Park and Philip J. Landrigan.While at Harvard, he received more than ten teaching awards and three university-wide Hoopes prizes (“for excellence in the art of teaching,” awarded for advising prize-winning theses). More was a member of Winthrop House as non-resident tutor. In addition to a fully funded PhD, More was the recipient of the Dumbarton Oaks Junior Fellowship, the Arango Fund Grant, and the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation fellowship.More is a first-generation college and PhD graduate, and a naturalized US citizen, having immigrated to the U.S. from Europe. Discoveries and Career More continued his career with a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard and the Climate Change Institute (2015–18), focusing on the impact of climate change and pollution on human and ecosystem health. His research was funded by the Arcadia Fund of London.In 2019, More took a position as associate professor of environmental health at Long Island University, where he also directed the Honors College and was named fellow of the Theodore Roosevelt Institute. In 2021, More was elected chair of the Department of Public Health at Long Island University and led efforts to organize two global summits on human and ecosystem health, in collaboration with the Embassy of France, the government of Portugal and the National Council for Science and the Environment. More is the main author of the Lisbon declaration of the Global Exploration Summit, committing all participants to the preservation of planetary health. In 2022, More accepted a position as associate professor of environmental health at the University of Massachusetts Boston, which allowed him to be closer to Harvard and the Climate Change Institute where he continues to lead a research project on climate and health. More is a research associate at the Initiative for the Science of the Human Past at Harvard, the Max Planck Harvard Research Center for the Archaeoscience of the Ancient Mediterranean, and an Associate Research Professor at the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine. He has been a Managing Editor of the Mapping Past Societies digital atlas at Harvard since 2014. Impact of climate change on pandemics In 2020, More showed compelling evidence of the impact of environmental change on the emergence of the largest pandemic in human history (by number of victims), the "Spanish flu". By combining multiple climate, environmental and epidemiological records, More showed how the Spanish flu pandemic (caused by the avian H1N1 virus) was worsened if not caused by a six-year climate anomaly that affected Europe during World War I and until 1920.More showed that torrential rains and unusual cold weather (with an anomalous low-pressure system) facilitated the spread of the virus through the battlefields and cities of Europe. The climate anomaly was worsened by the first widespread carpet bombing of Europe, which created dust clouds that eased condensation (or nucleation) of water, increasing precipitation throughout the conflict. The same climate anomaly interrupted the normal migration pattern of birds which were one of the major carriers of the disease, while floods from rivers and lakes where birds remained carried the disease to trenches and beyond. Lowered immune responses due to the cold, as well as well documented bacterial co-infections, increased the death toll of the pandemic.More explored the impact of climate change on the emergence of disease for other events such as the Cocoliztli epidemics and the second pandemic. His research has received global media coverage, reaching the top 5% of scientific outputs tracked by Altmetrics and other citation services. Impact of pandemics on pollution and reset of toxic metal pollution standards More is renowned as the author of several studies that reset consensus on pollution standards for toxic metals worldwide, predicting the drop in air pollution that occurs during pandemic events three years before the COVID-19 pandemic. By showing that pollution levels dropped well below what scientists previously thought of as “natural levels” during pandemic events—when economic activity declines or ceases—More proved that no such “natural levels” of pollution exist. His research combined the highest resolution pollution and climate record for the last two millennia with highly detailed economic and epidemiological records. More pioneered this interdisciplinary work, using retrospective epidemiological (historical) data he sourced as well as ice core data produced and analyzed by cutting-edge systems and a team under the guidance of Dr. Paul Andrew Mayewski at the Climate Change Institute. World renowned experts in lead pollution such as Philip J. Landrigan hailed More’s research as revealing the true nature of modern pollution. Consilience More is a well-known proponent of scientific approaches that lead to consilience, a concept popularized by Harvard ecologist E. O. Wilson, which describes the convergence of multiple independent data sources to remove bias and represent a reality or solve a problem which would not be clear if only one discipline or type of data were used. More has adopted Wilson’s methodology and applied it to his research, arguing that only this type of systems approach would be able to solve complex crises such as climate change and pandemics. He pioneered the transdisciplinary use of ultra-high-resolution climate data in combination with highly detailed retrospective epidemiological and economic (historical) data. More has also highlighted how consilience and systems dynamics predicted environmental and economic crises fairly accurately more than fifty years in advance. First public health policies More’s research has uncovered the creation of the first government-sponsored public health and welfare system in western history, during an environmental crisis and on the eve of the second pandemic. Through extensive research he identified the site as the Republic of Venice, where sophisticated economic policies provided a continuous food supply with limited inflation, even during periods of extreme weather patterns (droughts, failed harvests, floods). In the same republic, broad public health measures guaranteed the safety of food as well as widespread access to medical care for the poor and all citizens. More demonstrated that the US Constitution contains clauses inspired by the same policies he uncovered, which were known to the framers. Awards and honors In 2021, More was elected Fellow of Royal Society for Public Health and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. Upon his recruiting by Long Island University, he was elected Fellow of the Theodore Roosevelt Institute (2019-2022). In 2009, he became a junior Fellow of Harvard’s Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. More is also a fellow of the Linnaean Society of New York and The Explorers Club of New York. As an active scientist in the fields of environmental health and climate science, More is a member of the American Public Health Association, the National Environmental Health Association, the American Geophysical Union, the Planetary health Alliance, and member and UN Representative of the Global Council for Science and the Environment. Media More appears frequently in TV and print media as a commentator and expert for climate and health stories. He and his research have been featured in news reports on CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Forbes, Newsweek, The Times of London, The Guardian, Popular Science and many more outlets in several languages. Discovery Channel also dedicated an episode to him on their Discovery+ network. In his TED talk and other interviews, More has emphasized the crucial role of scientists in engaging the public in their discoveries. Public service More has served as a staff member in the office of Senator Ted Kennedy while he was drafting the Affordable Care Act. After Kennedy’s passing, More continued serving under his replacement, Paul G. Kirk, in 2009-10. He declined an offer to continue serving under Scott Brown. As he discussed in several interviews, More pursued this unpaid position because he wanted the chance to work on the bill (ACA) that would grant Americans universal health care, a right and policy he has worked on throughout his career. Although an early version of the bill, drafted by Kennedy, did include an option for universal coverage, after his death this was removed. More worked on issues of immigration while serving in the Senate and continues to be an advocate for immigrants' rights, student loan forgiveness, universal health care, and climate action. Non-profit More serves on several board of directors of non-profits, including the Daniels Family Sustainable Energy Foundation, Blue Ocean Watch, and has served briefly on the Board of The Explorers Club (TEC). More chairs the program committee for Climate Week, at TEC, promoting cutting-edge scientific discoveries and partnerships between governments, scientists and the private sector. His sponsors have included UNESCO, IUCN,Rolex, African Parks, Nia Tero, Solutions Journalism Network, and Discovery Channel. More has also led the organization of several global summits committing the participant nations and scientists to protecting ecosystem and human health in an endeavor to find solutions to climate and environmental change, as well as emerging epidemics. Main works Selected editorials More, Alexander F.; Mayewski, P. A.; Norchi, C. (November 1, 2020). "Why Climate Matters to Your Security, Health and Wealth". Journal of the North Atlantic and Arctic (also syndicated in Why Climate Matters and Global Geneva). Retrieved July 14, 2023. More, Alexander F.; Mayewski, P. A.; Norchi, C. (September 20, 2021). "The Hindu Kush Himalaya: An Endangered "Water Tower" in a Warming World". Why Climate Matters and Global Geneva. Retrieved July 14, 2023. See also Lead poisoning == References ==

national centers for environmental information

The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) is a U.S. government agency that manages one of the world’s largest archives of atmospheric, coastal, geophysical, and oceanic data. The current director is Derek Arndt.NCEI is operated by the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which operates under the U.S. Department of Commerce. In addition to archiving data, NCEI develops products and services that make data readily available to scientists, government officials, the business community, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the general public. NCEI provides environmental data, products, and services covering the depths of the ocean to the surface of the Sun. History NCEI was created in 2015 from the merger of three NOAA data centers: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), which includes the National Coastal Data Development Center (NCDDC)NCEI was established by the in Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 response to increasing demand for environmental information. The organization was created by merging existing National Data Centers for Weather and Climate, Oceans, Coasts, and Geophysics with the goal of streamlining the collection and preservation of environmental data. The merger, which came in response to increasing demand for environmental information, was intended to make NOAA's data more useful through the application of consistent data stewardship practices across all science disciplines. NCEI works with the ISC World Data System to make data free and accessible. Data and services The NCEI archive contains more than 60 petabytes of data, equivalent to more than 700 million filing cabinets filled with documents. NCEI offers users access to tens of thousands of datasets and hundreds of products. Data are collected by NOAA, other agencies and departments of the U.S. government, as well as by other institutions, organizations, and governments around the world.Environmental data are collected from many sources, including satellites, land-based stations, ocean buoys, ships, remotely operated underwater vehicles, weather balloons, radar, forecasting and climate models, and paleoclimatological research. Once transmitted to NCEI, data are archived and made available for use by researchers and others in public and private sectors. The data and products offer information about climate and weather, coasts, oceans, and geophysics. NCEI Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) collaborate on national and international research projects. In 2022, they collaborated with scientists from across the globe to produce world-class research and authored more than 90 papers in peer-reviewed journals. Areas of study were as varied as the environmental data housed at NCEI: hurricanes, drought, ocean warming, fire science, solar flares, artificial intelligence, marine microplastics, and many more. NCEI data users NCEI resources are used for scientific research and commercial applications in many fields, including agriculture, forestry, marine and coastal ecosystems, tourism, transportation, civil infrastructure, energy, transportation, water resources, energy, health, insurance, litigation, and national security.For example, retail and manufacturing businesses use climate data to assess how weather has influenced past sales so they can better plan for the future. Corn farmers rely on NCEI data to decide how much fertilizer to apply. The reinsurance industry—which offers insurance to insurance companies—uses NCEI data to determine risks associated with natural disasters. Cattle ranchers use NCEI’s weekly U.S. Drought Monitor to make decisions about land management, herd size, and feed purchases. The freight railway industry uses a number of NCEI products—including Local Climatological Data, Integrated Surface Daily Database, and Global Historical Climatology Network—to predict where tracks might be blocked by landslides and to help trains avoid the path of severe storms. U.S. fishing boats use NCEI ocean and coastal data to determine where fishing conditions are most promising. The third-party weather service industry uses NCEI data to create customized forecasts and other tools to serve a wide range of clients, such as transportation companies seeking to build facilities where fog or snow is less likely to create problems. Locations NCEI is headquartered in Asheville, North Carolina, with other primary locations in Boulder, Colorado; Silver Spring, Maryland; and the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi.NOAA's six Regional Climate Services Directors, which are part of NCEI, represent the Eastern, Central, Southern, Pacific, Western, and Alaska regions. They work with a broad range of partners to provide climate information specific to each region. NCEI manages the Regional Climate Center Program, which provides services through six regional offices: High Plains Regional Climate Center (Lincoln, Nebraska) Midwestern Regional Climate Center (West Lafayette, Illinois) Northeast Regional Climate Center (Ithaca, New York) Southeast Regional Climate Center (Chapel Hill, North Carolina) Southern Regional Climate Center (College Station, TX) Western Regional Climate Center (Reno, Nevada)NCEI partners with academic and nonprofit institutions known as cooperative institutes to conduct research and perform tasks that support its mission and goals. The cooperative institutes affiliated with NCEI are as follows: Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies (CISESS) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) Northern Gulf Institute (NGI) See also Earth System Research Laboratory Environmental data rescue National Snow and Ice Data Center NOAA Central Library Space Weather Prediction Center References External links National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI About Page NCEI Environmental Products page NCEI's Our Impact NCEI Locations NCEI/NOAA's Story Map Gallery NCEI's Data Archive and More The Value of NCEI Data: How NCEI Supports US Aviation NOAA NCEI Data Bolster Nation’s Transportation and Logistics Sector Weather Data: Beyond the Forecast, How NOAA NCEI Data Assist Businesses and Economy

catherine mckenna

Catherine Mary McKenna (born August 5, 1971) is a Canadian lawyer and former politician who served as a Cabinet minister from 2015 to 2021. A member of the Liberal Party, McKenna was the minister of environment and climate change from 2015 to 2019 and minister of infrastructure and communities from 2019 to 2021. She was the member of Parliament (MP) for Ottawa Centre from 2015 to 2021, but decided not to seek reelection in the 2021 federal election. After leaving politics, McKenna founded the Climate and Nature Solutions advisory firm, became a visiting fellow at Columbia University, and served as the chair of the United Nations High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities. Early life and career McKenna was born on August 5, 1971, in Hamilton, Ontario. She is the eldest of four children of Dr. John McKenna, an Irish dentist and his Quebec-born wife Pat McKenna, who lived in the southwest part of Hamilton.After graduating from École élémentaire catholique Notre-Dame (her father insisted that all his children be bilingual despite not knowing any French himself), McKenna attended Saint Mary Catholic Secondary School.McKenna earned her undergraduate degree in French and international relations from the University of Toronto. She was the captain of the university's swim team, won three of the four Canadian Interuniversity Athletics Union she attended with her team, and reached the Canadian Olympics trials for swimming at the 1988 Summer Olympics. After graduating from the University of Toronto, she travelled through south-east Asia and co-produced a travel documentary with her friend, Steve Hulford. McKenna earned a master's degree in international relations from the London School of Economics. Legal career Between 1996 and 1999, McKenna studied law at McGill University before beginning her legal career in Jakarta, Indonesia at the firm, SSEK where she focused on international trade, investment and constitutional issues. In 2001, she moved to East Timor where she spent a year as a senior negotiator with the United Nations peacekeeping mission in East Timor which culminated in the Timor Sea Treaty providing for the joint exploitation of petroleum resources in a part of the Timor Sea.She returned to Canada in 2002, where she joined Stikeman Elliott LLP, working in the areas of competition, trade, and constitutional law. During this time she was senior counsel on the review of Canada's military justice system, headed by Antonio Lamer, former chief justice of Canada.In 2005, McKenna co-founded Canadian Lawyers Abroad - Avocats canadiens à l'étranger (CLA-ACE), now called Level Justice, a University of Ottawa-based charity that helps Canadian law students and law firms do pro bono legal work in developing countries. Level Justice works to reduce barriers to justice by uniting the power of people, education and law will lead to create a more equitable and just society.She remains a member of the bars of Ontario and New York State. Political career In the 2015 federal election, McKenna defeated longtime New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Paul Dewar in the riding of Ottawa Centre. McKenna said that she knocked on 100,000 doors during her 522 days as a candidate. McKenna was elected with 43 per cent of the votes compared to Dewar's 38 per cent, and had campaigned on issues such as reforming the National Capital Commission, funding for a new main branch of the Ottawa Public Library, and opposing the proposed Memorial to the Victims of Communism.McKenna was one of 50 women elected to the Liberal caucus in the 2015 election. Minister of Environment and Climate Change As Canada’s former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change she was a lead negotiator of the 2015 Paris Agreement (in particular Article 6 concerning carbon markets). In 2016, she announced the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change with the provinces, territories and Indigenous communities. In 2018, the carbon pricing scheme was implemented by the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which was upheld at the Supreme Court in 2021. She also led efforts to phase out coal, reduce plastics in oceans and waterways, and doubled the amount of nature protected in Canada in partnership with Indigenous Peoples. While in government, she helped establish the Powering Past Coal Alliance (with Canada, the UK and Bloomberg Philanthropies), the Ministerial on Climate Action (with Canada, the UK and China), the Women Kicking it on Climate Summit and the Nature Champions Summit, was Co-Chair of the World Bank's Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, and helped develop the Ocean Plastics Charter adopted at the G7 hosted by Canada in 2018.Some of McKenna's critics, such as Rebel News, have derisively nicknamed her "Climate Barbie", a label McKenna considers a sexist insult. Conservative MP Gerry Ritz caused controversy in September 2017 when he tweeted a link to a news story stating no industrialized nations were on pace to meet Paris Agreement carbon emission targets with the comment "Has anyone told our climate Barbie! [sic]" (referring to McKenna). Ritz eventually deleted the original post, afterward posted another message stating: "I apologize for the use of Barbie, it is not reflective of the role the Minister plays". Conservative leader Andrew Scheer condemned Ritz's comment later in the day and stated he would reach out to McKenna personally to "assure the minister that this type of behavior has no place in the Conservative caucus".In May 2018, the Trudeau government's decision to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion was criticized by environmental activists as contrary to its climate change plans.In November 2018, in response to the Government of Ontario's decision to cancel all climate action projects supported through the federal Low Carbon Economy Fund, McKenna announced that the Government of Canada would work directly with businesses to re-invest the $200-million remaining in the province's Low Carbon Economy Fund. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities After the 2019 federal election, McKenna was appointed as the minister of infrastructure and communities in November 2019. The same month, she was the keynote speaker at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. As Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, she made historic investments in public transit and green infrastructure, leveraged private sector investment through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and led the development of Canada’s first National Infrastructure Assessment to drive to net-zero emissions by 2050.In 2019, McKenna was provided with an Royal Canadian Mounted Police security detail over verbal harassment issues. On October 24, 2019, her office was defaced with a misogynistic slur.In late June 2021, McKenna announced she would not seek re-election to her seat in Parliament. Following the 2021 federal election, she was succeeded as MP by Yasir Naqvi, a Liberal who served as the attorney general of Ontario in the provincial government of Kathleen Wynne. Post-political career After leaving politics, McKenna founded Climate and Nature Solutions, an advisory firm that works with governments, corporations, foundations and universities to scale practical climate and nature-based solutions. She also joined Columbia University's Centre on Global Energy Policy and Climate School. In 2022, she chaired the United Nations High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities which issued the landmark report, Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions, in November 2022.In June 2023, McKenna was made a Chevalier of the French Legion of Honour for her contributions to negotiating the Paris Agreement and other climate change diplomacy. Personal life McKenna was married to entrepreneur and writer Scott Gilmore, with whom she moved to The Glebe, Ottawa in 2002, until separating in 2019. Together, they have three children. McKenna still swims for fun. In 2015, she competed as part of the National Capital YMCA Masters Swim Team. Electoral record References External links Official Website Bio & mandate from the Prime Minister Catherine McKenna – Parliament of Canada biography Speeches, votes and activity at OpenParliament.ca

the great global warming swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a 2007 British polemical documentary film directed by Martin Durkin. The film denies the scientific consensus about the reality and causes of climate change, justifying this by suggesting that climatology is influenced by funding and political factors. The program was formally criticised by Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulatory agency, which ruled the film failed to uphold due impartiality and upheld complaints of misrepresentation made by David King, who appeared in the film. The film presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials claim that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." Its original working title was "Apocalypse my arse", but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted as an allusion to the 1980 mockumentary The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle about British punk band the Sex Pistols.The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007. The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired." According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."Although the documentary was welcomed by climate change deniers, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists, including one of the scientists interviewed in the film and one whose research was used to support the film's claims. The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Viewpoints expressed in the film The film's basic premise is that the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising. The film won best documentary award at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace who later became a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used. Assertions made in the film The film takes a view strongly opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change. It argues that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on what it says are inconsistencies in the evidence, and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics. Evidential issues The film highlights what it asserts are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting man-made global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has after that increased until 1997. Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere. Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged (by over 100 years) behind temperature increases during glacial terminations. Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide. Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years. Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming. Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.) Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation. The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth. Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe. Political issues The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests: Increased funding of climate science. According to the film, there has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science." Increased availability of funding for global warming research. The film asserts that scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research. Influence of vested interests. The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of arguments supporting the occurrence of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidised as a result. Suppression of dissenting views. According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the view that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations. Role of ideology. The film proposes that some supporters of the finding that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States. Role of politics. The programme asserts that the view that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the National Union of Mineworkers. Role of industry. The film argues that the assertion that global warming denialists are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact. Disputing the global warming consensus The film argues that the consensus among climate scientists about global warming does not exist. Status of IPCC contributors. The programme asserts that it is falsely stated that "2,500 top scientists" support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s reports on global warming. In fact, according to the programme, the report includes many politicians and non-scientists, and even dissenters who demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused. Accuracy of representation of IPCC contributors. The film argues that IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorialising. The film highlights the case of Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute who complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration. It states that the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor and did not remove his name until he threatened legal action. Suppression of dissenting views. According to the programme, the concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervour. Denialists are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film (and in subsequent press publicity) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming. Killing the African dream of development Author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels: "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." He describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry – rather a transistor radio." We are being told, 'Don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide." The film describes a Kenyan health clinic that is powered by two solar panels that do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign." Reception and criticism The show attracted 2.5 million viewers and an audience share of 11.5%. Channel 4 stated that it had received 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one. Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme. Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields. Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialised nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented. Complaints received by Ofcom The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-written by a group of scientists. Ofcom ruled on 21 July 2008 that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality; however, the Code rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1–4, because the link between human activity and global warming had largely been settled before March 2007. OfCom did not rule on the programme's accuracy, but did rule that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence." On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings, though it will not face sanctions. Reactions from scientists The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming," which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major industrialised countries and China, India and Brazil. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide." The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the [[attribution of recent climate change#Warming sometimes leads CO2 increases|feedback argument]] to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions. Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist: "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence." The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, briefly restates the scientific consensus on climate change and adds:Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two-day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed". According to the Guardian in 2007, a study published by, among others, Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory was partially inspired in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle. Lockwood then had co-authored a paper about solar data from the past 40 years. He found that between 1985 and 1987, the solar factors that should affect climate performed a "U-turn in every possible way", therefore 2007 cooling would have to be expected, which was not the case then. Lockwood therefore was quoted several times as critical evidence against various claims made in the film. Volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan.The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science… Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views. A public forum entitled "Debunking "The Great Global Warming Swindle"" was held at the Australian National University in Canberra on 13 July 2007, at which scientists from the Australian National University, Stanford University, USA, and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies exposed what they described "as the scientific flaws and half-truths in the claims of climate change skeptics" Criticism from two scientists featured in the programme Carl Wunsch Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two", and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used: In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening. Filmmaker Durkin responded: Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said. Wunsch has stated that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global climate change debate distasteful. He wrote in a letter dated 15 March 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the 'climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess." He further cautiously states that "The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise, ...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern (sic) precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples." Wunsch has said that he received a letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agreed to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled. Wunsch refused, although he states he was forced to hire a solicitor in the UK.Following Wunsch's complaints, his interview material was removed from the international and DVD versions of the film. On 7 December 2007, Wunsch restated his critique on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline programme after the film was screened, saying: "It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement." In the same interview, reacting to what he claimed were new and further distortions by Durkin, Wunsch said: Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this," Ofcom ruling on Wunsch complaint Ofcom divided Wunsch's complaint into three parts, ruling in his favour on two parts and against him on one part. Ofcom agreed with Wunsch that he was misled as to the programme's intent, ruling that he wasn't given sufficient information about the polemical nature and tone of the programme to allow him to give informed consent for his participation. Ofcom also found that Wunsch's general views were misrepresented:The Committee did not consider that the editing of the programme presented Professor Wunsch as denying that global warming is taking place. However it noted that the programme included his edited interview in the context of a range of scientists who denied the scientific consensus about the anthropogenic causes of global warming. In the Committee's view Professor Wunsch made clear in his full unedited interview that he largely accepted this consensus and the seriousness of the threat of global warming (albeit with caveats about proof) and therefore found that the presentation of Professor Wunsch's views, within the wider context of the programme, resulted in unfairness to him.However, Ofcom did not uphold Wunsch's complaint that the programme misrepresented his views in relation to the oceans and CO2:The Committee noted from the unedited interview that Professor Wunsch had referred to the greenhouse effect on a couple of occasions. However, in the Committee’s opinion Professor Wunsch's comments in this respect had not been primarily to warn of the dangers of warming the ocean (as Professor Wunsch had suggested in his complaint). Rather the references had been used to make the point that the relationship between carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature is complicated. In the Committee’s view, it was entirely at the programme maker's editorial discretion to decide whether to include these comments in the programme. Eigil Friis-Christensen Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used: We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years'. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming. In response to a question from The Independent as to whether the programme was scientifically accurate, Friis-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate." Following Eigil Friis-Christensen's criticism of the 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years' graph used in the programme (for perfectly matching the lines in the 100 years 1610–1710 where data did not in fact exist in the original), Durkin emailed Friis-Christensen to thank him for highlighting the error: "it is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument". Reaction in the British media The documentary received substantial coverage in the British press, both before and after it was broadcast. Environmentalist and political activist George Monbiot, writing for The Guardian before the programme was shown, discussed the arguments for and against the "hockey stick graph" used in An Inconvenient Truth, saying that the criticism of it has been "debunked". He also highlighted Durkin's previous documentary Against Nature, where the Independent Television Commission found that four complainants had been "misled" and their views were "distorted by selective editing". After the programme was shown, Monbiot wrote another article arguing that it was based on already debunked science, and he accused Channel 4 of being more interested in generating controversy than in producing credible science programmes. Robin McKie, science editor of The Guardian, said the documentary opted "for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem".Dominic Lawson, writing in The Independent, was favourable toward the programme, echoing many of its claims and recommending it to the public. He largely focused his attention on the reactions of the environmental community, first at Durkin's earlier production, Against Nature, and now at The Great Global Warming Swindle. Lawson characterised the programme's opponents as being quick to leap to ad hominem attacks about the director's qualifications and political affiliations rather than the merits of his factual claims. Lawson summarised examples from the production of how dissenting scientists are pushed into the background and effectively censored by organisations such as the IPCC. Lawson described the correlation between sunspots and temperature as "striking."Geoffrey Lean, The Independent's environment editor, was critical of the programme. He noted that Dominic Lawson is the son and brother-in-law, respectively, of two prominent global warming deniers (Nigel Lawson, who is also featured in the programme, and Christopher Monckton), implying that Lawson was not a neutral observer. The Independent mostly disagreed with three of the programme's major claims, for example stating that "recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850". In a later Independent article, Steve Connor attacked the programme, saying that its makers had selectively used data that was sometimes decades old, and had introduced other serious errors of their own: Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. 'There was a fluff there,' he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the NASA website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940—although that would have undermined his argument. 'The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,' Mr Durkin said. Connor also wrote that although the graph in question was attributed to NASA in the film, when he asked Wag TV where the graph really came from, they told him that it had been taken from a paper published in Medical Sentinel. Connor noted that "The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank."The online magazine Spiked published an interview with Durkin, in which the director complained of how Ofcom censures "seriously controversial work", and that the end result is "phoney controversialism on TV but not much real controversialism". Spiked described the programme's "all-encompassing cosmic ray theory" as "a little unconvincing", but said that "the film poked some very big holes in the global warming consensus", and argued "we could do with more anti-conformist films from 'mavericks' like Durkin".The Times's science editor Mark Henderson listed a number of points where, in his opinion, "Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change". He highlighted the feedback argument for the ice core data, the measurement error explanation for temperatures in the troposphere, and the sulphate cooling argument for mid-20th century cooling.Janet Daley, writing in The Daily Telegraph in a column headlined "The Green Lobby Must Not Stifle The Debate", noted that "Among those who attempted to prevent the film being shown at all was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, Chris Huhne, who, without having seen the programme, wrote to Channel 4 executives advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast it".In response, Huhne sent a letter to The Daily Telegraph about Daley's column, writing "Janet Daley is simply wrong to state that I wrote to Channel 4 'advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast' Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle. I wrote asking for Channel 4's comments on the fact—not in dispute—that the last time Mr Durkin ventured onto this territory he suffered serious complaints for sloppy journalism—upheld by the Independent Television Commission—and had to apologise." The Daily Telegraph apologised, saying they were happy to accept that "Mr Huhne's letter was not an attempt to prevent the film being shown or suppress debate on the issue".The Christopher Booker book The Real Global Warming Disaster provides a detailed synopsis of the programme, as well as an account of the subsequent complaints and Ofcom verdict. Other reactions David Miliband, at the time the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film on his blog and stated that "there will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me."Steven Milloy, who runs the website Junkscience.com, endorsed the documentary on 18 March 2007.The programme has been discussed extensively in Australia, including favourable mentions in an editorial in The Australian and the Counterpoint radio programme presented by Michael Duffy. The Australian stated the film "presents a coherent argument for why governments must hasten slowly in responding". Duffy noted the program's claims regarding Margaret Thatcher. In response, writing in an opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review, John Quiggin criticised the programme for putting forward "conspiracy theories". According to The Australian, scientist Tim Flannery had wondered at a conference whether the programme should be classified as fiction rather than a documentary. In a critical review of the documentary, Barry Brook stated "Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise)." In the Czech Republic, President Václav Klaus addressed the audience of the first local release of the movie on 28 June 2007. He called the premiere a "meeting of supporters of reason against irrationality" and compared the warnings of scientists against global warming to Communist propaganda. According to Czech news, Klaus—an outspoken critic of scientific consensus on global warming—has been the first head of state to endorse this movie.In September 2008, Iain Stewart presented a documentary series The Climate Wars covering the climate change debate, in which a clip from Durkin's film showing the link between solar activity and temperature was shown, noting 'it seems a convincing argument!'. Stewart's documentary then showed that the correlation didn't hold if more recent data (available at the time but not used in The Great Global Warming Swindle) was included. Reaction to DVD release Thirty-seven climate scientists wrote a letter urging Martin Durkin to drop plans to release a DVD of the film. In the letter they say Durkin "misrepresented both the scientific evidence and the interpretations of researchers." Durkin said in response: "The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them". He acknowledged two of the errors mentioned by the scientists—including the claim about volcanic emissions—but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.In response to the call by these scientists not to market a DVD of the film, Times columnist Mick Hume, described environmentalism as a "new religion", saying "Scientists have become the equivalent of high priests in white coats, summoned to condemn heretics".The DVD was released in the UK on 30 September 2007. Christopher Monckton, a prominent British global warming sceptic, is funding the distribution of the documentary in English schools as a riposte to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, which is also being shown in schools. Durkin's response to his critics On 17 March 2007, The Daily Telegraph published a response by Durkin, "The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?" In it, he rejected any criticism of the alleged close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, claiming that "No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history." He accepted that the time axis of one graph was incorrectly labelled when the programme was first transmitted, but said that this does not change his conclusions. Regarding the Carl Wunsch controversy (see above), he repeated his claim that Wunsch was not duped into taking part in the programme. (Ofcom later ruled against Durkin on this point.) Durkin went on to reject his opponents' position that the cooling period observed post Second World War was caused by sulfate aerosol cooling: "Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?" He concluded by saying that the "global warming alarm...is wrong, wrong, wrong." Commenting at a Cannes film festival press conference on 17 April 2007, Durkin noted: "My name is absolute mud on the Internet; it's really vicious," adding "There is no good scientific basis for it but the theory continues to hold sway because so many people have built their careers and reputations on it." The Armand Leroi correspondence The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi, a geneticist, was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures that was subsequently found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail in which he said that he thought the programme "made some good points (the politics of the IPCC) and some bad points (anthropogenic global warming is a conspiracy to keep Africa underdeveloped)," but said what had most interested him were some of the scientific claims about solar activity and global temperature. He said he looked for citations of the 1991 Friis-Christensen scientific paper used in the programme. While Leroi acknowledged "I am no climate scientist," he said that after reviewing criticisms of the paper, he had become convinced that: "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong–and may have been deliberately faked... it does show what abundant experience has already taught me–that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth."Leroi copied the e-mail to other parties including The Guardian journalist and Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre and science writer and mathematics expert Simon Singh. Durkin replied to all with the single sentence: "You’re a big daft cock". Singh then sent an email to Durkin that said: "I have not paid the same attention to your programme as Armand has done, but from what I did see it is an irresponsible piece of film-making. If you can send me a copy of the programme then I will examine it in more detail and give you a more considered response...it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather just resorting to one line replies". Durkin responded: "The IPCC's own figures show the hottest year in the past ten was 1998, and the temp has been flat-lining now for five years. If it's greenhouse gas causing the warming the rate of warming should be higher in the troposphere than on the surface. The opposite is the case. The ice core data shows that temperature change causes the level of atmospheric CO2 to change — not the other way round. Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?", and concluded with, "Never mind a bit of irresponsible film-making. Go and fuck yourself". Durkin later apologised for his language, saying that he had sent the e-mails when tired and had just finished making the programme, and that he was "eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas". Ofcom investigation of complaints Ruling In an 8400-word official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change. Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria. However, the regulator said that because "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007", in parts 1–4 the audience was not "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence". According to Ofcom the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast", meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy.Channel 4 said in its defence against the complaints that The Great Global Warming Swindle "was clearly identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic of some of Channel 4’s output", and Ofcom said in its decision that it was "of paramount importance that broadcasters, such as Channel 4, continue to explore controversial subject matter". Ofcom declined to rule on the accuracy of the programme, saying: "It is not within Ofcom's remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the 'communications industry' to establish or seek to adjudicate on 'facts' such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon." It noted that it only regulates "misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence" and "as a consequence, the requirement that content must not materially mislead the audience is necessarily a high test."The regulator ruled that the parts of the programme about the scientific debate "were not matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply." In the fifth segment of the programme concerning the political controversy and public policy, however, Ofcom ruled that the programme-makers were "required to include an appropriate wide range of the significant views" but "failed to do this." Channel 4 was required to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom ruling but was given no further sanctions. General responses Robert Watson, a former chair of the IPCC, also welcomed Ofcom's ruling that the film had committed a number of breaches of the broadcasting code but expressed disappointment "that Ofcom did not find that the programme materially misled the audience as to cause harm or offence." He characterised the film as inaccurate, not impartial, unbalanced and misrepresentative of the scientific consensus on climate change. Another former IPCC chair, Sir John Houghton, likewise commented that "it's very disappointing that Ofcom hasn't come up with a stronger statement about being misled." Bob Ward, the former head of media at the Royal Society, who played a major role in coordinating objections to the film, asserted that "the programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality", noting that although the ruling acknowledged that "Channel 4 had admitted errors in the graphs and data used in the programme", the regulator had nonetheless "...decided that this did not cause harm or offence to the audience." Rajendra K. Pachauri, the former chair of the IPCC, welcomed the ruling as "a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC and the manner in which we function, and [it] clearly brings out the distortion in whatever Channel 4 was trying to project." The Royal Society's head, Lord Rees, issued a statement in response to the ruling, commenting: "TV companies occasionally commission programmes just to court controversy, but to misrepresent the evidence on an issue as important as global warming was surely irresponsible. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was itself a swindle. The programme makers misrepresented the science, the views of some of the scientists featured in the programme and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Channel Four's response The ruling was welcomed by Channel 4's Head of Documentaries, Hamish Mykura who commissioned the film stating the channel was "pleased" that Ofcom found the film did not "materially mislead the audience."When questioned by television industry e-zine C21 about Ofcom's finding against the channel Mykura said: It has scrutinised the documentary in great detail over 16 months. Any film scrutinised for that long would have revealed some factual inaccuracies, but crucially, it's said that what it found was not of a significant magnitude to materially mislead the viewer. It said that there were some things that weren't right, but ultimately it has exonerated us. While he said that he regretted that 'there were some breaches of the code' he said there was "a degree" to which he disagreed with the complaints they upheld: On the complaint from Sir David King, there was a quote by a contributor in the film that was wrong, which he had wrongly picked up from someone else and was quoting. On the second point regarding the IPCC, Ofcom decided that we didn't give it enough time to respond to the allegations presented. We gave them 10 days, so you can decide as to whether you feel that's enough time. And on the complaint from Carl Wunsch, he complained that we hadn't made it significantly clear he would be appearing on a polemic climate change programme. But we told him we were going to explore the issues of the counter argument to global warming and he got the same letter as everyone else, and no-one else claimed they didn't know what they'd be appearing on. Awards and recognition Shortlisted in the Best Documentary category in the British television industry's 2008 Broadcast awards. Best Documentary at the Io Isabella International Film Week held in southern Italy. Jury's Special Mention for courageous contribution to the scientific dialogue and for the quality of cinematography in the 3rd International Science Film Festival Awards 2008 held in Athens. Contributors to the programme The film includes appearances from the following individuals: Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center Tim Ball – Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Misidentified in the film as Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.) Nigel Calder – Former Editor, New Scientist from 1962 to 1966 John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Credited in the film as 'a Lead Author, IPCC') Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Piers Corbyn – Weather Forecaster, Weather Action Paul Driessen – Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death (2003) Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen (who has since criticised the programme for fabricating data and not fully explaining his position on 20th century global warming). Nigel Lawson – Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T. Patrick Michaels – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia Patrick Moore – Early member of Greenpeace and former president, Greenpeace Canada Paul Reiter – Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem James Shikwati – Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (Misidentified in the film as Former Director, U.S. National Weather Service. From 1962–64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service) Roy Spencer – Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville Philip Stott – Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London Carl Wunsch – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since repudiated the programme) Bert Bolin - He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University from 1961 until his retirement in 1990. Related programmes and films Against Nature: An earlier controversial Channel 4 programme made by Martin Durkin, which was also critical of the environmental movement and was charged by the Independent Television Commission of the UK for misrepresenting and distorting the views of interviewees by selective editing An Inconvenient Truth: A film that showcases Al Gore's presentation on global warming, arguing that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change Cool It: A documentary film that also denies climate change. The Greenhouse Conspiracy: An earlier Channel 4 documentary broadcast on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series, in which similar claims were made. Three of the people interviewed (Lindzen, Michaels and Spencer) were also interviewed in The Great Global Warming Swindle The Denial Machine: A 2007 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary "how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences". Many interviewees from The Great Global Warming Swindle appeared in—and were the subject of—this film. Doomsday Called Off: A 2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expose raising many of the same criticisms of anthropogenic global warming. It includes interviews with several sources of information used, but not interviewed, in The Great Global Warming Swindle (among whom are Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas). International distribution The documentary has been sold to Sweden's TV4, (who aired it in April 2007) Denmark's DR2, Germany's RTL (on 11 June 2007) and n-TV (on 7 July 2007), Finland's MTV3 (on 7 October 2007) and Hong Kong's TVB Pearl (on 16 November 2007). Negotiations are underway with the United States network ABC and France's TF1.A modified version (running time 55 minutes) of the documentary was shown in Germany. Many interviews were cut out, with others replaced by German speaking interview partners, and some claims were abandoned or changed. For example, the reference to Margaret Thatcher was replaced by the claim that Helmut Schmidt promoted climate change to justify the construction of nuclear power plants in Germany. The programme on RTL was followed by a discussion roundtable.A shortened version, excluding the interview with Carl Wunsch and claims about volcanoes, among other material, was shown by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 12 July 2007. The Australian reported that this was "against the advice of ABC science journalist Robyn Williams, who instructed the ABC Television not to buy the program." Williams described the programme as "demonstrably wrong", and claimed that the ABC board had put pressure on ABC TV director Kim Dalton to show the programme. Dalton defended the decision, saying "[Durkin's] thesis is way outside the scientific mainstream. But that's no reason to keep his views away from audiences"The broadcast was followed by an interview between Durkin and ABC reporter Tony Jones, in which Jones challenged Durkin on a number of points, including the accuracy of graphs used in the program, criticism of the program's claims by climate scientists, its allegation of a conspiracy theory and the claims of misrepresentation by Carl Wunsch. This was followed by a panel discussion, including participation from a studio audience. Lateline, which followed, included an interview with Wunsch. (See Carl Wunsch section for full details.) New Zealand broadcast A version of The Great Global Warming Swindle (edited by Durkin to remove errors) was broadcast in New Zealand on Prime TV, 8:40 pm, 1 June 2008. Following the program there was an hour-long panel discussion, moderated by Prime presenter Eric Young, including the following people: David Wratt—NIWA General Manager Leighton Smith—climate change sceptic and radio talkshow host Willem De Lange—Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences – University of Waikato Cindy Baxter—Greenpeace Climate change consultant Martin Manning—Professor and Research Fellow in Climate Change at the Victoria University, Climate Change Research InstituteManning and Wratt stated that the IPCC reports represented the well documented consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change was a real phenomenon and that human activities, including CO2 emissions, were the most likely cause. Smith disputed that there was evidence that CO2 caused temperature rises. He referred further science issues to de Lange. Smith made several references to the many scientists whose research and publications refuted the human causes of climate change, however no details were provided. Baxter was supportive of the IPCC consensus. She reminded the group on several occasions that there were several known funding connections between the groups most vocal in raising doubts about CO2 and large industrial companies (such as ExxonMobil). At the end of the session, two different graphs were shown with more recent data than that used in The Great Global Warming Swindle. See also Climate change denial The Cloud Mystery Global warming controversy Climate change conspiracy theory Not Evil Just Wrong Politics of global warming References Bibliography Booker, Christopher (2009). The Real Global Warming Disaster. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4411-1052-7. External links The Great Global Warming Swindle at IMDb The Great Global Warming Swindle, WagTV

oleg anisimov

Oleg Aleksandrovich Anisimov is a Russian climate scientist. Doctor of Science in Geography and Professor of Physical Geography at the State Hydrological Institute (SHI), part of the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring of Russia (Roshydromet) in Saint Petersburg. An expert on the impact of climate change on the Arctic region, he has acted as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Life Anisimov was the coordinating lead author of the Polar regions chapters in the Third (2001), Fourth (2007) and Fifth IPCC assessment reports. He was also lead author for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) and Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA).In 2015, Anisimov warned that Arctic amplification was causing global warming in Yakutia, Russia's coldest region, to take place at twice the global rate: There is a reduction in snow and ice cover, which reflect much of the coming sunlight. With less snow and ice, the Arctic gets additional warmth [...] In September 2012 sea ice reached its absolute minimum of 3.2 million square kilometres, which is more than twice lower than the 1979-2000 average of 7.0 million square kilometres. Therefore, by the middle of the century it may be that the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice free. In December 2018, he addressed the 8th Arctic: Today and the Future, an international forum of Arctic researchers, reporting on changes in the cryolithic zone of the Arctic.After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Anisimov apologised for his country's actions to a virtual meeting of more than 200 delegates from IPCC member countries, saying he had 'huge praise' for Ukraine. == References ==

josep penuelas

Josep Penuelas or Josep Peñuelas i Reixach (Vic, 1958) is a Catalan ecologist and researcher internationally recognized for his contributions in the fields of ecology and the environment. He was a student of Ramon Margalef. His research in the field of global ecology requires high levels of interdisciplinarity: global ecology, global change, climate change, pollution, atmosphere-biosphere, biogenic volatile organic compounds, remote sensing, plant ecophysiology, function and structure of plants and terrestrial ecosystems, chemical ecology, ecometabolomics, microbial ecology, macroecology and evolutionary ecology, biogeochemistry with a focus on phosphorus, environmental sustainability, food security, and global health. Included in the Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researchers list in ecology and environment, plant and animal sciences, agricultural sciences, geosciences, and all fields of science. National and international recognition He has received various distinctions, both national and international (Comte de Barcelona 1990; NASA 1993; Japanese Ministry of Science 1998; Medi Ambient Institut d'Estudis Catalans-Caixa Sabadell 2008; I National Research Award of Catalonia 2010; Silver Badge of the Institut d'Estudis Catalans 2014; Rey Jaime I Award 2015; Dr. Honoris Causa by the Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia (2016); Adoptive son of Figueres, 2016; President of the jury of the Nature awards for scientific tutoring 2017; Ramon Margalef Award for Ecology from the Generalitat de Catalunya 2016; Special Mention at the Premis Ciutat de Barcelona in the category of Earth and Environmental Sciences 2017; Scientist distinguished by the Chinese Academy of Sciences 2018 and 2022; Marsh Award for Climate Change Research Prize by the British Ecological Society 2018; IV Ramon Muntaner Award for Excellence 2018; Ciutat de Barcelona Prize in Earth and Environmental Sciences 2018; Collegiate of Honor of the Col•legi de Biòlegs de Catalunya 2019; nominated among the four-hundred most influential scientists in all fields and among the ten most influential scientists in ecological and environmental sciences (Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford - METRICS) 2019; chosen American Geophysical Union 2020 Fellow for his exceptional contributions in the Earth and space science; his Imbalance-P project project elected between the highlighted 15 examples of how ERC researchers have truly transformed science (among 10,000 ERC grantees); ranked 56th among all researchers in Spain and Spaniards abroad based on the newest Webometrics Ranking 2021; recognized as an Expertscape World Expert in Climatic Processes; most productive ecologist of the world (GlobalauthorID 2021 ranking); 1st position in the ranking of leading ecology and evolution scientists of Spain (Research.com) 2022; Highly cited scientist in ecology/environment, plant and animal sciences, agricultural sciences, geosciences and in all scientific fields of the ISI essential science indicators (since 2016), Premio Nacional de Investigación Alejandro Malaspina 2023 [1], among many others)). He has been president of the Institució Catalana d'Història Natural (ICHN), advisor to the Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible (CADS) of the Generalitat de Catalunya, member of the Group of experts for the climate emergency (GEC) (Barcelona City Hall) (since 2021) and member of the Group of Experts on Climate Change in Catalonia (since 2009). External links Global Ecology Unit ERC Synergy Grant: IMBALANCE-P Google Scholar, Citation index

politicization of science

The politicization of science for political gain occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom, and as a result it is considered taboo to mix politics with science. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy. Overview Many factors can act as facets of the politicization of science. These can range, for example, from populist anti-intellectualism and perceived threats to religious belief to postmodernist subjectivism, fear for business interests, institutional academic ideological biases or potentially implicit bias amongst scientific researchers.Politicization occurs as scientific information is presented with emphasis on the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of scientific evidence. The emphasis capitalizes on the lack of consensus, which influences the way the studies are perceived. Chris Mooney describes how this point is sometimes intentionally ignored as a part an "Orwellian tactic." Organizations and politicians seek to disclaim all discussion on some issues as 'the more probable conclusion is still uncertain' as opposed to 'conclusions are most scientifically likely' in order to further discredit scientific studies. Tactics such as shifting conversation, failing to acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on doubt of scientific consensus have been used to gain more attention for views that have been undermined by scientific evidence. "Merchants of Doubt," ideology-based interest groups that claim expertise on scientific issues, have run successful "disinformation campaigns" in which they highlight the inherent uncertainty of science to cast doubt on scientific issues such as human-caused climate change, even though the scientific community has reached virtual consensus that humans play a role in climate change.William R. Freudenburg and colleagues have written about politicization of science as a rhetorical technique and states that it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof in an argument. He offers the example of cigarette lobbyists opposing laws that would discourage smoking. The lobbyists trivialize evidence as uncertain, emphasizing lack of conclusion. Freudenberg concludes that politicians and lobby groups are too often able to make "successful efforts to argue for full 'scientific certainty' before a regulation can be said to be 'justified' and maintain that what is needed is a balanced approach that carefully considers the risks of both Type 1 and Type 2 errors in a situation while noting that scientific conclusions are always tentative. Politicization by advocacy groups A political tactic, sometimes used to delay the implementation of legislation to control potentially harmful activities, is the "Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method" (SCAM). In many cases, there is a degree of uncertainty in scientific findings and this can be exploited to delay action, perhaps for many years, by demanding more "certainty" before action is taken. Climate change Both mainstream climatologists and their critics have accused each other of politicizing the science behind climate change. There is a scientific consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations organization called the "Information Council on the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Critics of industry groups have charged that the claims about a global warming controversy are part of a deliberate effort to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on their business interests.In June 2005, John Vidal, environment editor of The Guardian, asserted the existence of US State Department papers showing that the Bush administration thanked Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the industry advocacy group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.In 2006, Guardian columnist George Monbiot reported that according to data found in official Exxon documents, 124 organizations have taken money from ExxonMobil or worked closely with those that have, and that "These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled 'junk science'. The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound science'." The "selective use of data", cherry picking, is identified as a notable form of scientific abuse by the Pacific Institute, an organization created to provide independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security. Intelligent design The intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute, attempts to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The Discovery Institute portrays evolution as a "theory in crisis" with scientists criticizing evolution and that "fairness" and "equal time" requires educating students about "the controversy." A cornerstone of modern scientific biological theory is that all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification. While many valid criticisms to the theory of evolution have existed throughout time, often certain ideological proponents seek to expand the scope of these disagreements in order to draw doubt onto the entire theory. For example, in the United States, there is a legal precedent of those who sought to discredit the teaching of evolution in classrooms by emphasizing so-called flaws in the theory of evolution or disagreements within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the mainstream scientific community about the validity of the main pillars of theory of evolution at this time. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is thus not primarily a scientific one. The 2005 ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the claims of intelligent design proponents were considered by a United States federal court concluded that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Tobacco and cancer By the mid-1950s there was a scientific consensus that smoking promotes lung cancer, but the tobacco industry fought the findings, both in the public eye and within the scientific community. Tobacco companies funded think tanks and lobbying groups, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals, and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even pet birds. Denying the case against tobacco was "closed," they called for more research as a tactic to delay regulation. John Horgan, notes a rhetoric tactic that has been used by tobacco companies. It is summarized in a line that appeared in a confidential memo from a tobacco company, in 1969, when they sought to cast doubt on evidence that supports smoking causes cancer. It read, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Eugenics Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was well known for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of racial hygiene. The Nazis manipulated scientific research in Germany, by forcing some scholars to emigrate, and by allocating funding for research based on ideological rather than scientific merit.In the early 20th century, Eugenics enjoyed substantial international support, from leading politicians and scientists. The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people.The level of support for eugenics research by the Nazis prompted an American eugenics advocate to seek an expansion of the American program, with the complaint that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".There was a strong connection between American and Nazi eugenics research. Nazis based their eugenics program on the United States' programs of forced sterilization, especially on the eugenics laws that had been enacted in California. Social justice Some critics argue that science has been politicized by social justice advocates. David Randall, director of research at the politically conservative advocacy group the National Association of Scholars, said that the emphasis on pursuing social justice and political activism "threatens the very definition of science as primarily a search for truth". In October 2021, The New York Times reported a rise in calls for "citational justice" within academic communities, which the article defines as an effort by professors and graduate students "to cite more Black, Latino, Asian and Native American scholars and in some cases refuse to acknowledge in footnotes the research of those who hold distasteful views." Some researchers have defended these efforts against the charge of politicization, arguing that science has always been inherently political. Government politicization Soviet Union In the Soviet Union, scientific research was under strict political control. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden. This has led to significant setbacks for the Soviet science, notably in biology due to ban on genetics (see "Lysenkoism") and in computer science, which drastically influenced the Soviet economy and technology. United States The General Social Survey (GSS) of 1974 recorded that conservatives had the highest rates of trust in science between the three major political demographics: conservatives, liberals, and moderates. This study was repeated annually between 1972 and 1994, and biannually from 1994 until 2010. In 2010, when the same study was repeated, conservatives' trust rates had decreased from 49% to 38%, moderates' trust rates from 45% to 40%, and liberals' trust rates staying relatively stable, rising slightly from 48% to 50%.The study by Gordon Gauchat, which investigates time trends in the public trust of science in the United States, suggests that the increase of distrust of conservatives can be attributed to two cultural shifts. The first was during the post-Reagan era when the New Right emerged, and the second during the G.W. Bush era when the NR intensified and conservatives commenced the "war on science". Barack Obama and other politicians, since Bush's presidency, have expressed their concerns with the politicization of science in both the public and government sphere. In 2011, during his State of the Union speech, Obama discussed his dissatisfaction of the relationships between organized science, private economic interests, and the government. George W. Bush administration In 2004, The Denver Post reported that the George W. Bush administration "has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee." At least 20 of these former industry advocates helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. "They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates." Also in 2004, the scientific advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science which charged the following: A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies. A petition, signed on February 18, 2004, by more than 9,000 scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients, followed the report. The petition stated: When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. The same year, Francesca Grifo, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, stated "We have reports that stay in draft form and don't get out to the public. We have reports that are changed. We have reports that are ignored and overwritten."In response to criticisms, President Bush in 2006 unveiled a campaign in his State of the Union Address to promote scientific research and education to ensure American competitiveness in the world, vowing to "double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years." Surgeon General Richard Carmona, the first surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush, publicly accused the administration in July 2007 of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research."Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Carmona testified.Although he did not make personal accusations, the Washington Post reported on July 29 that the official who blocked at least one of Carmona's reports was William R. Steiger. Food and Drug Administration In July 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released survey results that demonstrate pervasive political influence of science at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to the survey, nearly one fifth (18 percent) said that they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document." This is the third survey Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted to examine inappropriate interference with science at federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services also conducted a survey addressing the same topic which generated similar findings. According to USA Today, a survey of Food and Drug Administration scientists by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that many scientists have been pressured to approve or reject new drugs despite their scientific findings concerns. In July 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists released survey results that they said "demonstrate pervasive political influence of science" at the Food and Drug Administration. United States Department of the Interior On May 1, 2007, deputy assistant secretary at the United States Department of the Interior Julie MacDonald resigned after the Interior Department Inspector General, Honorable Earl E. Devaney, reported that MacDonald broke federal rules by giving non-public, internal government documents to oil industry and property rights groups, and manipulated scientific findings to favor Bush policy goals and assist land developers. On November 29, 2007, another report by Devaney found that MacDonald could have also benefitted financially from a decision she was involved with to remove the Sacramento splittail fish from the federal endangered species list.MacDonald's conduct violated the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703, Use of nonpublic information, and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101, Basic obligation of public service. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she had "violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." Climate change In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor reported that at least since 2003, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush administration broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as edited scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions. Those who have studied organizations that set up to delay action and manufacture uncertainty about the well-established scientific consensus have divided their tactics into three steps: first, deny that there is a problem, second, make the case that there are benefits involved, and, third, insist that there is nothing that can be done.In a study, "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere" by Gordon Gauchat, Timothy O'Brien, and Oriol Mirosa, the researchers conclude that attitudes about environmental scientists as policy advisers are highly politicized. Their results demonstrate that, to be perceived by the public as a reputable policy advisor, the public's perception of their integrity and understanding weigh more strongly than their agreement with scientific consensus. Waxman report In August 2003, United States, Democratic Congressman Henry A. Waxman and the staff of the Government Reform Committee released a report concluding that the administration of George W. Bush had politicized science and sex education. The report accuses the administration of modifying performance measures for abstinence-based programs to make them look more effective. The report also found that the Bush administration had appointed Dr. Joseph McIlhaney, a prominent advocate of abstinence-only program, to the Advisory Committee to the director of the Centers for Disease Control. According to the report, information about comprehensive sex education was removed from the CDC's website.Other issues considered for removal included agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and breast cancer; the report found that a National Cancer Institute website has been changed to reflect the administration view that there may be a risk of breast cancer associated with abortions. The website was updated after protests and now holds that no such risk has been found in recent, well-designed studies. Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis is the belief that induced abortions increase the risk of developing breast cancer. This belief is in contrast to the scientific consensus that there is no evidence suggesting that abortions can cause breast cancer. Despite the scientific community rejecting the hypothesis, many anti-abortion advocates continue to argue that a link between abortions and breast cancer exists, in an effort to influence public policy and opinion to further restrict abortions and discourage women from having abortions. While historically a controversial hypothesis, the debate now is almost entirely political rather than scientific.The most notable example of the politicization of this topic was the modification of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) fact sheet by the George W. Bush administration from concluding no link to a more ambiguous assessment regarding the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, despite the NCI's scientifically based assessment to the contrary. United States House Science Subcommittee on Oversight In January 2007, the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology announced the formation of a new subcommittee, the Science Subcommittee on Oversight, which handles investigative and oversight activities on matters covering the committee's entire jurisdiction. The subcommittee has authority to look into a whole range of important issues, particularly those concerning manipulation of scientific data at Federal agencies. In an interview, subcommittee chairman Rep. Brad Miller pledged to investigate scientific integrity concerns under the Bush Administration. Miller noted that there were multiple reports in the media of the Bush Administration's manipulation of science to advance his political agenda, corrupt advisory panels, and minimize scientific research with federal funds. Miller, as part of the House Committee of Science and Technology, collected evidence of interference with scientific integrity by Bush's political appointees. Trump administration Policy The Trump administration marginalized the role of science in policy making, halted numerous research projects, and saw the departure of scientists who said their work was marginalized or suppressed. It was the first administration since 1941 not to name a Science Advisor to the President. In July 2018, Trump nominated meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier for the position, and Droegemeier was confirmed by the Senate on January 2, 2019, the final day of the 115th United States Congress. He was sworn in by Vice President Mike Pence on February 11, 2019. While preparing for talks with Kim Jong-un, the White House did so without the assistance of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. The position of chief scientist in the State Department or the Department of Agriculture was not filled. The administration nominated Sam Clovis to be chief scientist in the United States Department of Agriculture, but he had no scientific background and the White House later withdrew the nomination. The United States Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration disbanded advisory committees. Climate change The issue of politicized science surfaced during the 2016 United States presidential campaign by then Republican candidate Donald Trump. Trump stated his intention to strip NASA's Earth Science division of its funding, a move that "would mean the elimination of NASA's world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena". Subsequently, the Trump administration successfully nominated Jim Bridenstine, who had no background in science and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, to lead NASA. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy prohibited the use of the term "climate change". In March 2020 The New York Times reported that an official at the Interior Department has repeatedly inserted climate change-denying language into the agency's scientific reports, such as those that affect water and mineral rights. Health During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration replaced career public affairs staff at the Department of Health and Human Services with political appointees, including Michael Caputo, who interfered with weekly Centers for Disease Control scientific reports and attempted to silence the government's most senior infectious disease expert, Anthony Fauci, "sowing distrust of the FDA at a time when health leaders desperately need people to accept a vaccine in order to create the immunity necessary to defeat the novel coronavirus." One day after President Donald Trump noted that he might dismiss an FDA proposal to improve standards for emergency use of a coronavirus vaccine, the Presidents of the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine issued a statement expressing alarm at political interference in science during a pandemic, "particularly the overriding of evidence and advice from public health officials and derision of government scientists".The administration reportedly sent a list to the CDC on words that the agency was prohibited from using in its official communications, including "transgender", "fetus", "evidence-based", "science-based", "vulnerable", "entitlement", and "diversity". The Director of the CDC denied these reports. Biden administration As part of an effort to "refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy," President-elect Joe Biden announced, before taking office, that he will elevate the role of Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to a cabinet level position.Biden's removal of Betsy Weatherhead from her role as director of the National Climate Assessment has been criticized as being politically motivated. Scholarly studies of the politics of science The politicization of science is a subset of a broader topic, the politics of science, which has been studied by scholars in a variety of fields, including most notably Science and Technology Studies; history of science; political science; and the sociology of science, knowledge, and technology. Increasingly in recent decades, these fields have examined the process through which science and technology are shaped. Some of the scholarly work in this area is reviewed in The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies (1995, 2008), a collection of literature reviews published by the Society for Social Studies of Science. There is an annual award for books relevant to the politics of science given by the Society for Social Studies of Science called the Rachel Carson Prize. See also References Further reading Shawn Lawrence Otto, Fool Me Twice: Fighting The Assault On Science In America, Rodale Books, 2011, ISBN 978-1-60529-217-5 Steven Rose, "Pissing in the Snow" (review of Audra J. Wolfe, Freedom's Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science, Johns Hopkins, January 2019, ISBN 978-1-4214-2673-0, 302 pp.), London Review of Books, vol. 41, no. 14 (18 July 2019), pp. 31–33. == External links ==

disaster risk reduction

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of disaster. It aims to promote sustainable development by increasing the resilience of communities to any disasters they might face. DRR is normally used as policies intended to "define goals and objectives across different timescales and with concrete targets, indicators and time frames.": 16  The concept is also called disaster risk management (DRM). Disaster risk reduction has been strongly influenced by mapping of natural disaster risks and research on vulnerability since the mid-1970s. Disaster risk reduction decreases the vulnerability of communities by mitigating effects of disasters, reducing severity and volume of risky events, and promoting improved resilience. Since climate change is increasing the severity of hazardous events that can become disasters, DRR and climate change adaptation are often associated together in development efforts. There is potential for disaster risk reduction initiatives in most sectors of development and humanitarian work. Strategies and implementation can come from community volunteers, local agencies, federal governments, and even international groups such as the United Nations. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is an important international initiative that has helped 123 countries adopt both federal and local DRR strategies as of 2022. The International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction, on October 13, has helped increase the visibility of DRR and promote a culture of prevention. Some of the main issues and challenges include the importance of communities and local organisations in disaster risk management, governance of disaster risk and how this relates to development, and gender sensitivity of disaster impacts and disaster prevention strategies. Definitions and scope Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is defined by United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) as those actions which aim to "prevent new and reducing existing disaster risk and managing residual risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development".: 16  Disaster risk is the potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could impact a society or community. Disaster risk results from the interaction of three factors: hazard(s), vulnerability and exposure.: 14  This is illustrated in the risk equation. Disaster risk reduction is very wide-ranging: Its scope is much broader and deeper than conventional emergency management and includes objectives that align with many sectors of development and humanitarian work. Disaster risk management Disaster management thinking and practice since the 1970s has included more focus on understanding why disasters happen. It has also focused on actions that can reduce risk before a disaster occurs. This has put more emphasis on mitigation and preparedness in addition to the response and recovery phases of disasters. It has been widely embraced by governments, disaster planners and civil society organisations.DRR is such an all-embracing concept that it has proved difficult to define or explain in detail, although the broad idea is clear enough. It is generally understood to mean the broad development and application of policies, strategies and practices to minimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout society. Its policy goals and objectives are defined in disaster risk reduction strategies and plans.: 16 The term 'disaster risk management' (DRM) is often used in the same context and to mean much the same thing. That is, a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing risks of all kinds associated with hazards and human activities. DRM is more properly applied to the operational aspects of DRR: the practical implementation of DRR initiatives. In other words, disaster risk reduction is the policy objective of disaster risk management. Resilience Resilience is scientifically defined as the efficiency with which a system can reduce the extent and duration of a disruption. The concept can take two forms: hard and soft resilience. Hard resilience refers to the strength of a structure to withstand pressure, while soft resilience is whether a system can recover from a disruptive event without changing its core function.Alternatively, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines resilience as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.” Vulnerability According to the UNISDR, vulnerabilities are "the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard." The most vulnerable people or communities are those who have the most difficulties accessing resources they need to respond to an event.Vulnerability plays a critical role in the analysis of risk, as the risk a structure faces is proportional to its level of vulnerability. Risk is often defined by the likelihood of an event occurring and the vulnerability of the community to that event. The more vulnerable the community, the more risk they face. Mitigation Mitigation is the action taken before an event to reduce any possible negative outcomes or harmful effects. Natural risk assessments commonly use the term mitigation, while broader climate change reports tend to use adaptive capacity instead (mitigation holds another definition in the scope of climate change). Although related, adaptive capacity refers more to the potential to adjust a system, while mitigation is the actual implementation of adjustments.Mitigation is often used interchangeably with risk reduction, however the terms have a few key differences. Both aim to reduce the number of negative effects of hazards, but risk reduction focuses on reducing the likelihood of the event itself, while mitigation focuses on reducing the impact of the event.Mitigation planning helps local governments lessen the impacts of hazards within their communities. No two locations have the same hazard risks and communities know their experiences best; for example, even if a hazard is not recorded in government data, locals will take note of anything that occurs in their neighborhood. Policymakers can use community input to create more efficient mitigation plans. Sustainable development Sustainable development was notorious for its "slippery nature" and ambiguities: multiple definitions have led to multiple interpretations in the agenda setting environment. However in 1987, the Brundtland Report redefined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Now, the term has a clearer political interpretation. Sustainable development balances between economic development, environmental protection, and social well-being. The economic systems aims to improve economic growth, equity, and efficiency; social systems work towards empowerment, social cohesion, and cultural diversity; and the biological/environmental system promotes genetic diversity, productivity, and resilience. In 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals were adopted as part of the broad intergovernmental agreement on development to 2030. Many of these objectives tie directly into disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development plans often mention DRR. Climate change adaptation See also: Climate change adaptation Climate change, through rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and increasing sea levels, affects the nature of hydro meteorological hazards that can give rise to a disaster. Examples of such hazards are droughts, floods, and cyclones. Research on climate change adaptation has been ongoing since the 1990s.This section is an excerpt from Climate change adaptation § Disaster risks, response and preparedness. Climate change contributes to disaster risk. So experts sometimes see climate change adaptation as one of many processes within disaster risk reduction. In turn, disaster risk reduction is part of the broader consideration of sustainable development. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction have similar goals (to reduce potential impacts of hazards and increase the resilience of people at risk). They use similar concepts and are informed by similar sources and studies. Effects of climate change Hazards such as droughts, floods, and cyclones are naturally occurring phenomena. However, climate change has caused these hazards to become more unreliable, frequent and severe. They thus contribute to disaster risks. A disaster is a result of a natural hazard impacting a vulnerable community. Poor planning or development or a lack of preparation are human failures which make communities vulnerable to climate hazards. When the impact of these events becomes too extreme, they are often called disasters. Disasters are defined by their influence on people: if a hazard overwhelms or negatively affects a community, it is considered a disaster. As of 2008, there were on average 400 disaster events per year, more than double the amount since the 1980s.Countries contributing most to climate change are often at the lowest risk of feeling the consequences. As of 2019, countries with the highest vulnerability per capita release the lowest amount of emissions per capita, and yet still experience the most heightened droughts and extreme precipitation. According to a UN report, 91% of deaths from hazards from 1970 to 2019 occurred in developing countries. These countries already have higher vulnerability and lower resilience to these events, which exacerbates the effects of the hazards. International Governance There have been growing calls for greater clarity about components of DRR and about indicators of progress toward resilience — a challenge that the international community took up at the UN's World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in Kobe, Japan, in 2005, only days after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The WCDR began the process of pushing international agencies and national governments beyond the vague rhetoric of most policy statements and toward setting clear targets and commitments for DRR. Hyogo Framework for Action The first step of the WCDR's process was formally approving the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015) (HFA). The HFA was the first internationally accepted framework for DRR. It set out an ordered sequence of objectives (outcome – strategic goals – priorities), with five priorities for action attempting to 'capture' the main areas of DRR intervention. The UN's biennial Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction Archived 2018-11-09 at the Wayback Machine provided an opportunity for the UN and its member states to review progress against the Hyogo Framework. It held its first session 5–7 June 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland, where UNISDR is based. The subsequent Global Platforms were held in June 2009, May 2011 and May 2013, all in Geneva. Subtitled "Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters," the HFA emphasizes how resilience to hazards is needed for community development and planning. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction The Sendai Framework places the responsibility of reducing disaster risk primarily on federal governments through seven targets divided into two categories: substantial reductions and increases. It aims to reduce disaster mortality, people affected, economic loss, and damage to infrastructure and services. The remaining targets work to increase access to warning systems, aid to developing countries, and the number of countries with disaster risk reduction strategies. Since the adoption of the Sendai Framework in 2015, the number of countries with national DRR strategies has increased dramatically, from 55 to 123 countries in 2022.: 22 The framework also details four priorities for action to be accomplished by 2030: Understanding disaster risk Strengthening disaster risk governance Investing in disaster risk reduction Enhancing disaster preparednessThese priorities acknowledge current shortcomings of DRR efforts, such as the lack of communication between local and federal governments and private programs, as well inequities faced by women and people with disabilities in the realm of disaster response. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction The United Nations General Assembly designated the 1990s an International decade for natural disaster reduction. The United Nations' Secretary-General had been tasked with overseeing research into the relationship between disasters and development, and in 1987 reported that there was room for improvement from the international community. Due to the increasing numbers of international deaths and damages due to climate related hazards, especially in developing countries, the United Nations believed dedicating a decade to the topic would substantially improve policies at local, regional, and federal levels. The 1987 General Assembly session proposed 5 goals to guide policy efforts: Improve the capacity to mitigate effects of natural disasters, especially in developing countries Devise plans to apply preexisting knowledge of disasters from diverse perspectives Foster programs aimed to close knowledge gaps Disseminate information about current measures being applied Develop programs to prevent and mitigate disasters specific to each hazard and locationBefore the start of the decade in 1989, The General Assembly discussed plans for the decade in more detail and created the International Framework of Action for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. This framework restates the goals, and adds further guidelines for national governments, the United Nations Systems, and the Secretary-General to follow. Federal governments were encouraged to participate in the decade, formulate national mitigation programs, create scientific committees, encourage local action, inform the Secretary-General of their actions, increase public awareness, monitor the impact of disasters on health care, and improve availability of emergency supplies. The proposed role of the United Nations System focused on holding countries accountable for these goals, as well as providing resources or policy plans countries may need for implementation. However, many of the tasks given to the United Nations fall to the Secretary-General. During the 1990s, there were three Secretary-Generals: Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Boutros Boutros-Ghalil, and Koji Annan. Over the decade, these secretaries were tasked with establishing and leading a number of committees for the decade, including a scientific and technical committee on the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, a special high-level council to provide general advice and promote awareness, and a secratariat that would handle daily activities and support the other committees. These groups, as well as leaders of each country, would report their progress to the Secretary-General, who would oversee all progress and report to the General Assembly every two years on the progress of the decade's goals. International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction The United Nations General Assembly designated October 13th as the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction (IDDRR) to encourage citizens and governments alike to foster more disaster-resilient communities. The day was created in 1989 as part of the United Nations' proclamation of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Originally, the IDDRR was on the second Wednesday of October and intended to highlight the goals of the decade for disaster reduction. In 2009 the day was officially set as October 13, rather than the second Wednesday of the month.The IDDRR supports the themes of the Sendai Framework, especially after the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The 2023 IDDRR, just months after this report, intended to bolster the framework's new plan for accelerated disaster resistance by highlighting inequalities in disaster preparedness. The 2023 IDDRR used the tagline "Fighting Inequality for a Resilient Future" and hashtags #ResilienceForAll, #BreakTheCycle, and #DDRDay to spread awareness on social media. Sustainable Development Goals The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a renowned example of sustainability policy. The United Nations adopted these 17 SDGs addressing problems ranging from poverty to education to climate change. The intersectionality between these issues means that each issue can only be solved if development is made to the others as well.DRR is applicable and relevant to several of the SDGs: SDG11 (sustainable cities and communities) lists DRR as a means of implementation. Targets 11.5 and 11.B call for more investment into disaster risk resilience strategies and policies, and 11.B aims to assess DRR strategies in accordance with the Sendai Framework.SDG13 (climate action) also uses DRR as a means of implementation. Target 13.1 aims to strengthen resilience to climate related hazards, and measures the number of local and federal governments who have adopted DRR strategies.Numerous other SDGs also rely on DRR strategies as an interdisciplinary method of achieving their goals. For example, SDG9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) aims to build infrastructure that is resilient to hazards, and SDG1 (end poverty) asserts that many impoverished people have the highest vulnerability to disasters. DRR implementation has long lasting effects on a wide range of social issues due to these related factors. Issues and challenges Communities and their organizations Traditional emergency management/civil defense thinking makes two misleading assumptions about communities. First, it sees other forms of social organisation (voluntary and community-based organisations, informal social groupings and families) as irrelevant to emergency action. Spontaneous actions by affected communities or groups (e.g., search and rescue) are viewed as irrelevant or disruptive, because they are not controlled by the authorities. The second assumption is that disasters produce passive 'victims' who are overwhelmed by crisis or dysfunctional behavior (panic, looting, self-seeking activities) and need to be controlled — in some cases, through the imposition of martial law. An alternative viewpoint emphasises the importance of communities and local organisations in disaster risk management. In this strategy, local people and organisations are the main actors in risk reduction and disaster response. Community-based disaster risk management responds to local problems and needs, capitalises on local knowledge and expertise, is cost-effective, improves the likelihood of sustainability through genuine 'ownership' of projects, strengthens community technical and organisational capacities, and empowers people by enabling them to tackle these and other challenges. Understanding the social capital already existent in the community can greatly help reducing the risk at the community level. Low community involvement can increase the severity of disaster. Community volunteers provide crucial resources to recovery efforts, such as access to communication, search and rescue efforts, supply distribution, housing and food provision, and technological assistance. Government agencies rarely "consider the needs and desires of communities" or ask for community input when implementing their DRR strategies. A case study in Rwanda showed that only 14.7% of policy utilized "community's traditional knowledge" when creating plans, despite expressed interest from the community. Governance In most countries, risk management is decentralized to local governments. In urban areas, the most widely used tool is the local development plan (municipal, comprehensive or general plan), followed by emergency and risk reduction plans that local governments are required to adopt by law and are updated every 4–5 years. Larger cities prefer stand-alone plans, called, depending on the context, sustainable, mitigation, or green plans. In rural areas, the mainstreaming of risk reduction policies into municipal (county or district) development plans prevails. In many contexts, especially South of the Sahara, this process clashes with the lack of funds or mechanisms for transferring resources from the central to the local budget. Too often plans do not integrate local, scientific and technical knowledge. Finally, they entrust the implementation of policies to individual inhabitants without having fully involved them in the decision-making process. The authentic representativeness of the communities and gender participation in the decision-making process still remain an objective of the local development plans instead of being the way to build them. Gender Disaster risk is not gender-neutral. Studies have shown that women and girls are disproportionately impacted by disasters. Following the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, 77% and 72% of the deaths in the districts of North Aceh and Aceh Besar, Indonesia, were female. And in India 62% of people who died were female. This is due to socially-constructed gender roles that determine what norms and behaviors are acceptable for women and men, and girls and boys. In particular, women tend to take responsibility for home-based tasks and can be reluctant to leave their assets in the case of hazard warning; and often do not learn survival skills that can help in disasters, such as learning to swim or climb. A gender-sensitive approach would identify how disasters affect men, women, boys and girls differently and shape policy that addresses people's specific vulnerabilities, concerns and needs. Cost and financing Costs of DRR Economic costs of disasters are on the rise, but most humanitarian investment is currently spent on responding to disasters, rather than managing their future risks. Only 4% of the estimated $10 billion in annual humanitarian assistance is devoted to prevention (source), and yet every dollar spent on risk reduction saves between $5 and $10 in economic losses from disasters. A case study of Niger showed positive cost and benefit results for preparedness spending across 3 different scenarios (from the absolute level of disaster loss, to the potential reduction in disaster loss and the discount rate), estimating that every $1 spent results in $3.25 to $5.31 of benefit.There has been an increase in the economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters, which contributed to $165 billion of economic losses worldwide in 2018 according to estimates from insurance giant Swiss Re. Financing needs and finance flows The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a multi-donor partnership supporting low and middle-income countries in managing paired risks of natural hazards and climate change. Between 2007 and 2022, GFDRR has provided $890 million in technical assistance, analytics, and capacity building support to more than 157 countries. In 2022, the GFDRR committed $21.1 million in new grants and $3.3 million in additional funds to scale up existing activities. GFDRR also works to mobilise additional funding through the World Bank and other development banks' engagement. It estimates that each dollar of GFDRR financing influences at least 100 dollars in climate resilient development impact. Examples Bangladesh Based on the Climate Risk Index, Bangladesh is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to different types of disasters because of climatic variability, extreme events, high population density, high incidence of poverty and social inequity, poor institutional capacity, inadequate financial resources, and poor infrastructure. Bangladesh commenced its disaster preparedness following the cyclone of 1991 and has now a comprehensive National Plan for Disaster Management which provides mechanisms at both national and sub-national levels. European Union In addition to providing funding to humanitarian aid, the European Commission's Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG-ECHO) is in charge of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism to coordinate the response to disasters in Europe and beyond and contributes to at least 75% of the transport and/or operational costs of deployments. Established in 2001, the Mechanism fosters cooperation among national civil protection authorities across Europe. Currently 34 countries are members of the Mechanism; all 27 EU Member States in addition to Iceland, Norway, Serbia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Mechanism was set up to enable coordinated assistance from the participating states to victims of natural and man-made disasters in Europe and elsewhere. United States The United States has a government organization designated to address emergency management. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) created a model to measure hazardous events. This assessment plan, the FEMA model, uses history, vulnerability, maximum threat, and probability of each potential disaster to predict potential damage. Each hazard is then given a rating on the scale using these criteria and comparisons to other hazards to determine the priority of mitigation efforts.As of May 2023, FEMA has updated their Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, which provides a framework for local governments to follow in the case of hazardous events. This strategy contains 4 steps: organize resources, assess risks, develop mitigation strategies, and implement plans. These steps are broad, as they are designed to be applied to a wide variety of hazards. FEMA also has more specific policy plans, such as their Hazard Mitigation Field Book (HMFB) on Roadways. This document focuses on preventing road erosion, inundation, and debris pileup caused by damaged culverts, embankments, and road surfaces. The HMFB uses a project identification diagram to realize each issue and a selection matrix to match that problem with an effective solution using duration, feasibility, design, and environmental considerations. See also References External links Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction Disaster Risk Management Society, GC University, Lahore. Archived 2018-07-11 at the Wayback Machine Asian Disaster Preparedness Center FAO – Platform for East and Central Africa EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Preventionweb – Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters The World Bank, Hazards Management Unit United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response

anna rose

Anna Rose (born 14 April 1983) is an Australian author, activist and environmentalist. She co-founded the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) in late 2006 with Amanda McKenzie. In 2012 she co-starred in an ABC documentary, I Can Change Your Mind on Climate Change and released her first full-length book, Madlands: A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate Sceptic. Rose is the founder and CEO of Environment Leadership Australia, a not-for-profit, non-partisan organisation championing community and political leadership on climate change. She sits on the Board of Directors of Farmers for Climate Action, is a Governor of WWF-Australia, an advisory board member for Australian Geographic Society, and a former Myer Foundation Innovation Fellow. Early life and education Rose was born in Newcastle, NSW, and graduated from Merewether High School in 2001. She won a scholarship with Distinction to the University of Sydney and graduated in 2008 with degrees in law (1st class honours) and Arts. During her studies, she was part of the Department of Geography's South East Asian field school along the Mekong Delta, and in her final year she went on exchange to Cornell University in upstate New York. Rose received the Young Alumni Award for Achievement in 2009. Career Student activism Rose was elected Environment Officer of the Students Representative Council and was spokesperson for the organisation Sustainability at Sydney University. In 2005 and 2006 she helped to lead a student campaign for the university to take action to reduce carbon emissions. In 2004, Rose was elected an editor of Honi Soit, the weekly student newspaper. In 2005 Rose deferred her studies for a year upon election as National Environment Officer for the National Union of Students as a member of the Australian Student Environment Network. At the end of 2005 Rose was selected to attend the United Nations Kyoto Protocol climate change negotiations in Montreal.In 2007, Rose went on exchange to Cornell Law School and while living in the United States represented young Australians at the Secretary General's Special Conference on Climate Change at the United Nations in New York on 24 September. Australian Youth Climate Coalition In 2006, Rose founded the Australian Youth Climate Coalition by bringing together representatives from all major Australian youth-run organisations in Melbourne for a three-day founding summit. Rose was AYCC's first national director, studying law while starting up the new organisation. After she returned from the United States, Amanda McKenzie and Rose shared the leadership of the organisation as co-directors. Rose's early work with the AYCC included setting up organisational fundamentals, growing membership, and representing the organisation in the media and at public events. For example, she spoke alongside the Dalai Lama at Perth's Burswood Dome.Rose was instrumental in two Australian Youth Climate Coalition projects in 2009. Power Shift, Australia's first youth climate summit, brought together 1500 of the AYCC's most active members together at the University of Western Sydney for three days of training and workshops in campaigning and grassroots organising. The final day culminated in a flash mob dance on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. In December 2009, Rose helped lead a delegation of young Australians and Pacific islanders to the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Consultant and freelance writer In 2009, Rose wrote a chapter on environment and sustainability for the book The Future, By Us published by Hardie Grant Books. Rose has published articles in The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Vogue Australia and other publications.In 2012, Rose appeared on the ABC Television documentary I Can Change Your Mind About... Climate. Madlands: A Journey to Change the Mind of A Climate Sceptic In 2012, Melbourne University Press published Rose's book Madlands: A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate Sceptic. The book is the story of Rose's efforts to change the mind of former Finance Minister Nick Minchin on the science of climate change. The book received favourable reviews by authors Bill McKibben and Peter FitzSimons, scientists Tim Flannery and Matthew England, former leader of the Liberal Party John Hewson, CEO of World Vision Australia Tim Costello, and lead singer of the Australian band Blue King Brown, Natalie Pa'apa'a.Later in 2012, Rose also toured the book around Australia on the 'Madlands Book Tour', visiting over 50 towns and cities around Australia. Academic Rose was a course convenor and lecturer at the Australian National University, for the undergraduate course 'Leadership & Influence'. 'Leadership & Influence' is one of three Vice Chancellor's Courses, which are high-level, inter-disciplinary subjects involving active discovery and research.Rose is currently an Associate with the Melbourne University Sustainable Societies Institute. Farmers for Climate Action Rose is on the board of Farmers for Climate Action, a movement of farmers and agricultural leaders putting farmers at the centre of climate solutions behind and beyond the farm gate. Groundswell Rose is a co-founder of Australia's first climate advocacy-focused giving circle, Groundswell. Environmental Leadership Australia Rose is the founder and CEO of Environment Leadership Australia, a not-for-profit, non-partisan organisation championing community and political leadership on climate change. Awards and honours Rose's awards and honours include: 2007–2008 – International Youth Foundation Fellowship 2008 – Delegate, Prime Minister's Australia 2020 Summit 2008–2009 – Australian Leadership Award from the Australian Davos Connection 2009 – University of Sydney Young Alumni Award for Achievement 2010 – Sydney Morning Herald '100 Most Influential Sydneysiders' 2010 – Sierra Club Earthcare Award for International Environmental Protection 2011 – Sydney Morning Herald '50 Most Powerful People in NSW' 2011 – The Australian/ IBM Expert Contributor, Shaping Our Future Series 2014 – Australian Geographic Society's Conservationist of the Year 2015 – ACT Australian of the Year Nominee 2019 – AFR Woman of Influence Publications Madlands, a journey into the climate fight, 2012, Melbourne University Press See also Climate change in literature Climate change in Australia References External links Public comment on the ABC TV program I can change your mind about climate change Sydney Morning Herald, 28 April 2012. How people resist changing their minds 'The Conversation', 27 April 2012.

friends of science

Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol. The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.Madhav Khandekar, Chris de Freitas, Tim Patterson and Sallie Baliunas act or acted as advisers to the Friends of Science with their work cited in Friends' publications. Douglas Leahey has been president since December, 2009. History In the late 1990s the Calgary-based Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, a group modeled on the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, invited Chris de Freitas, from The University of Auckland, a critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as guest speaker. Following these talks in which de Frietas was "very critical of what was being said about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, ...[w]e all left the luncheon speeches all shaking our heads that this silliness was going on." After the Canadian government signed the Kyoto Protocol, Eric Loughead, former editor of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin and his fellow members of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists responded by creating the Friends of Science Society, who held its first meeting in the curling lounge of the Glencoe Club in Calgary in 2002.The first board of directors in 2002 included oil industry geologist and member of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Arthur M. Patterson, as President; Gordon C. Wells, as Vice-President; Charles Simpson as Secretary and H. Graham Donoghue as Treasurer. Founding members of the Friends of Science, Arthur M. Patterson, Albert Jacobs, and David Barss (Hons. Geol. published the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG) position on global climate change science in January 2003 in which they cite an article by Chris de Freitas entitled "Are Observed Changes in the Concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Really Dangerous?"In 2002, as faculty member of the University of Calgary, political scientist Barry Cooper, set up the Science Education Fund which could accept donations through the Calgary Foundation. The 57-year-old charity, Calgary Foundation administers charitable giving in the Calgary area and had "a policy of guarding donors' identities." Albert Jacobs, a geologist and retired oil explorations manager, who attended the first meeting held in the curling lounge of Calgary's Glencoe Club back in 2002, described how donations from industry donors were passed on to the Science Education Fund set up by Barry Cooper, which in turn supported the activities of the Friends of Science.In 2004 Talisman Energy, a Calgary-based, global oil and gas exploration and production company, one of Canada's largest independent oil and gas companies, donated $175,000 to fund a University of Calgary-based "public relations project designed to cast doubt on scientific evidence linking human activity to global warming." Journalist Mike De Souza published the list of significant donations to the Friends of Science which had been received by the press, in an article published in the Vancouver Sun in 2011. Sydney Kahanoff, a Calgary oil and gas executive and philanthropist donated $50,000 through his Kahanoff Foundation, a charity he established in 1979. Murphy Oil matched one of its employees $1,050 donations. Douglas Leahey defended the donations to the Friends of Science from the then CEO of Talisman Energy, James Buckee, who shared the Friends' views on climate change.On their original web page, dated 2002, the Friends recommended several key documents explaining their standpoint, including testimonies by George C. Marshall Institute former board members, Richard S. Lindzen and Sallie Baliunas. Richard S. Lindzen's testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001. Lindzen, a former member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change became one of the most well-known climate ”skeptic” scientists. A prolific writer, he has been criticizing the IPCC since the early 1990s. Noted deniers Sallie Baliunas was also a paid consultant of the George C. Marshall Institute.The Friends' short recommended reading list also included the anti-Kyoto testimony provided by Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist, Sallie Baliunas, well-known denier, to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Baliunas claimed that, "[p]roposals like the Kyoto agreement to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions are estimated in most economic studies to have enormous economic, social and environmental costs. The cost estimates for the U.S. alone amount to $100 billion to $400 billion per year. Those costs would fall disproportionately on America's and the world's elderly and poor." MacRae, an engineer, investment banker and environmentalist warned of economic fall-out and inaccurate science of the Kyoto accord. The Friends recommended Wildavaky's 1995 publication in which he claimed that "an all-powerful environmental community" overstated risks in everyday life.In 2008 Canwest News Service confirmed that Morten Paulsen, senior vice president and general manager of Fleishman-Hillard Canada, was hired by the Friends of Science in 2006 on "a one-year contract to manage communications" and during that time was also a registered lobbyist for the Friends as well as two oil and gas industry companies. Paulsen, who had ties with the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties, volunteered for the Conservative party’s 2006 federal election campaign while working for the Friends of Science as paid communications consulted. The Friends of Science launched radio ads, directed by Paulsen, "targeting key markets in vote-rich Ontario" during the 2006 federal election. The ads attacking the Liberal government's spending on climate change, attracted 300,000 visits to the Friends of Science webpage. Position Friends of Science publishes a list of "ten myths of climate change," each of which they disagree with: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. CO2 is a pollutant. Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming. The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level risingFriends of Science states that the satellite and balloon temperature records indicate no significant global warming has taken place over the last three decades. Friends of Science states: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Activism In April 2005, Friends of Science released a 23-minute on-line video directed by Mike Visser, entitled "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change" that contrasts the views of politicians and scientists on the question of climate change. The video featured consultant Tim Ball, Sallie L. Baliunas, geologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University, Ross McKitrick and political scientist Barry F. Cooper of the University of Calgary, all of whom are known for their rejection of the mainstream scientific view on global warming. A second edition was released 13 September 2007. Madhav Khandekar, Chris de Freitas, Tim Patterson, Sallie Baliunas and Douglas Leahey were among the 60 "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines," signatories along with prominent members of The Heartland Institute, to the letter sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling on him to walk away from the Kyoto agreement, which he eventually did. On 31 December 2011, Canada became the first signatory to announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.The Friends of Science endorsed the Heartland Institute's 2008 Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. Some of the Friends, such as Madhav Khandekar, Chris de Freitas, Tim Patterson, Sallie Baliunas and Douglas Leahey, Tom Harris, were present at the conference which took place in New York City at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in March 2008. Other Friends, like Timothy F. Ball, who were endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields. Arthur M. Patterson was another Friend and endorser. The Friends of Science are proponents of the Manhattan Declaration statements agreeing that "global Warming is not a global crisis" and arguing that "there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change." The Manhattan Declaration calls for an end to "all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2."In 2013 in his opinion piece in the Financial Post Tom Harris described the climate symposium, "Earth climate: past, present, future" at the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada (GAC-MAC) annual joint conference where Friends of Science presenters included Calgary geophysicist, independent oil and energy professional, Norm Kalmanovitch, a long-time member of Friends of Science. Kalmanovitch argued that the greenhouse effect from greenhouse gas emissions has never existed to any measurable extent. In a letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald dated 16 April 2015, Kalmanovitch claimed that in 1970, "the world was in the grips of a global cooling scare brought on by the 1942 reversion from global warming to global cooling, ending the 250-year recovery from the Little Ice Age and threatening its return. In 1975, the threat ended with the reversion to global warming, but returned with the reversion to global cooling in 2002 that is in place today." Kalmanovitch based his arguments on those of Jim Peden.In June 2014, the organization put up a billboard in Calgary stating that the sun is "the main driver of climate change." This provoked criticism from, among others, Greenpeace, whose request for their own advertisement to appear on an Alberta billboard had been denied by the same company that displayed Friends of Science's ad. Funding In October 2005 Barry Cooper set up the Science Education Fund at the University of Calgary which was able to access funds from the Calgary Foundation. Critics remark that Cooper established the Science Education Fund to "obscure the political and financial interests behind the donations, not only providing anonymity to donors but also a tax break for their contributions to science education." Friends of Science has been "criticized for its close financial ties to the Alberta patch." In 2010, in the section on "Donations" published in the Friends of Science's newsletter in 2010, Chuck Simpson, the Past Director of Friends of Science called for fund raising to help this "small group of volunteers" with administrative costs. One of their claimed problems is that they were unable to "attract money from corporations", although their antagonists claim the Friends of Science are funded by the petroleum industry and close links to the oil and gas industry. Bankruptcy disclosures made by Peabody Energy, a large US coal company, showed that Friends of Science received funding from the company. Peter Gorrie also said in the Toronto Star that Friends of Science received a third of its funding from the oil industry. See also APCO Worldwide Calgary School Canada and the Kyoto Protocol The Heartland Institute Talisman Energy Notes References External links Friends of Science website Sourcewatch article about Friends of Science

bergier commission

The Bergier commission in Bern was formed by the Swiss government on 12 December 1996 in the wake of the then ongoing World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks accused of withholding valuables belonging to Holocaust victims. It is also known as the ICE (Independent Commission of Experts). Founded in a decade when Switzerland had come under recurring criticism for its behaviour during World War II, particularly with respect to its relations with the Nazi government in Germany, the commission was established by the Swiss Parliament and headed by Jean-François Bergier, an economic historian. Made up of Polish, American, Israeli and Swiss historians, the commission's mandate was to investigate the volume and fate of assets moved to Switzerland before, during, and immediately after the Second World War. The investigation was to be made from a historical and legal point of view, with a particular emphasis on the links between the Nazi regime and Swiss banks. The mandate covers almost every type of asset, including gold, currency and cultural assets. The content of the research program was broadened by the government to include economic relations, arms production, "Aryanisation measures", the monetary system, and refugee policy. Approach The commission did not set out to write a general history of Switzerland during the Nazi era; rather, it took as its task "to shed light upon certain controversial or insufficiently analyzed aspects of this history, aspects in which it appeared that Switzerland, that is to say its political authorities and economic decision-makers, had perhaps been derelict in assuming their responsibilities."The commission was given unprecedented powers and resources by the Swiss Parliament: it was to have unimpeded access to the archives held by Swiss private companies including banks, insurance companies, and enterprises; the companies were prohibited from destroying any files relating to the period being examined by the commission; the initial budget of 5 million Swiss francs was increased to a total of 22 million francs. Focus In the course of its work, the commission identified three areas where the government failed to carry out its responsibilities: that of the Swiss government and its cantons' policy with respect to the refugees. that which regards the concessions which the Federal state and a part of the private economy made to the Axis powers. that which concerns the issue of restitution of assets once the war had ended. Final report The commission presented its final report in March 2002. Refugee policy Since the 19th century, Switzerland had a positive humanitarian image based upon the tradition of granting asylum, providing good offices, humanitarian aid, particularly through the work of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). However, after the First World War, Switzerland was not immune to xenophobic and anti-semitic sentiments that were spreading through Europe. As in other Western countries in the 1930s, Switzerland, increasingly applied restrictions on the admission of foreigners in the name of national security.Switzerland, apparently on its own initiative began to openly apply racist selection criteria according to the Nazi definition. In 1938, even before the war broke out, the Swiss Government requested the Nazi authorities to stamp all passports of German Jews with a "J" as the Swiss did not recognize the right to asylum of those fleeing racial persecution. With the increasing persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime, Swiss restrictions were set apart from other restrictive policies of the Allies due to its geographical location: it was the easiest country on the continent for refugees to reach. Thousands of refugees were sent back even though authorities knew that they were likely sending them to their deaths.The ICE concluded: Switzerland, and in particular its political leaders, failed when it came to generously offering protection to persecuted Jews. This is all the more serious in view of the fact that the authorities, who were quite aware of the possible consequences of their decision, not only closed the borders in August 1942, but continued to apply this restrictive policy for over a year. By adopting numerous measures making it more difficult for refugees to reach safety, and by handing over the refugees caught directly to their persecutors, the Swiss authorities were instrumental in helping the Nazi regime to attain its goals. Refugee figures are hard to come by. However the commission concluded that during the Second World War Switzerland offered refuge from Nazi persecution to some 60,000 refugees for varying periods of time, a little under 50% of whom were Jewish.The commission carefully explained the difficulty of estimating the number of refugees, most of whom were probably Jewish, turned away. In a preliminary report for the commission, an estimate of 24,000 "documented rejections" was published. However, in the final report, perhaps having taken into account criticism of the earlier figures, the commission was more cautious, indicating that it must be assumed that "Switzerland turned back or deported over 20,000 refugees during the Second World War." Specifically, they reported that during the period from 1 January 1942, after the borders were closed, to 31 December 1942, 3,507 refugees were turned back.In August 2001 when the commission issued a final conclusion, with respect to refugee policy, stating that, "measured against its previous stand in terms of humanitarian aid and asylum where its refugee policy was concerned, neutral Switzerland not only failed to live up to its own standards, but also violated fundamental humanitarian principles." Economic relations The commission defined its focus: "The question which arises is not whether Switzerland should or could have maintained its business contacts and foreign trade with the warring powers in the first place, but rather how far these activities went: in other words, where the line should be drawn between unavoidable concessions and intentional collaboration." Foreign trade relations Switzerland which relied heavily on foreign trade experienced an increasingly difficult position during the protectionist 1930's. This worsened when war broke out in 1939. "Maintaining trade and business traffic was an 'essential precondition for conducting the wartime economy...'"Swiss exports were a necessary condition for obtaining imports of necessary food and raw materials required for the population. Maintaining trade with the warring powers was thus required to meet "the domestic political objectives, in particular to supply the population with food and purchasing power." To achieve this goal, the Federal government set up structure in order to control foreign trade. This was done in part through continual negotiations with the warring parties, particularly with Nazi Germany. On the whole, this policy was successful: "Switzerland's efforts to achieve close economic co-operation with Germany brought it dual advantages. Swiss businesses emerged from the war years both technologically and financially stronger. The state was able to realise the central objectives of its defence and economic policies."Switzerland intended to continue economic relations with all countries, but because of the war, there was a large shift to relations with the Axis powers resulting in large increases in exports to the Axis powers and large reductions in trade with England and France (and to a lesser extent, the USA). Germany during the period July 1940 and July 1944 became the largest importer of Swiss goods. Thus domestic production (and employment) was directly linked on the success of trade negotiations, particularly with the German government. The actual supplies of armament related goods exported to Germany was quite small: just 1% of German armament end products. Some specialized items, i.e. time fuses accounted for a little more than 10%. Far more important was the role played by Switzerland's open capital market—sale of gold and securities—and as the Franc was the only convertible currency available to the Axis powers, it played a vital role in paying for certain strategic imports such as tungsten and oil.In order to finance its imports from Switzerland, the German government demanded "clearing loans" which took the form of state guarantees to exporters. "The Swiss clearing loans made it possible for the German and Italian armies to fund their large-scale armaments purchases in Switzerland." Whether the contribution of Swiss exports to German rearmament during the war is considered to have been more or less significant does not affect the principal findings of our investigation. Of greater importance was the role played by Switzerland in the years leading up to 1933, when – together with other European countries – it accommodated the covert rearmament of Germany. Without this opportunity, Germany would not have been able to start a pan-European war in so short a time. Gold transactions During the Second World War, Switzerland was the hub of European gold trade. 77% of the German gold shipments abroad were arranged through it. Between 1940 and 1945, the German state bank sold gold valued 101.2 million Swiss francs to Swiss commercial banks and 1,231.1 million francs through the Swiss National Bank (SNB). While its trading role as such could be seen as the result of maintaining neutrality, a proportion of the gold had in fact been stolen from private individuals and the central banks of Germany's defeated neighbors (particularly Belgium and the Netherlands). This looted gold was then sold to the Swiss for Swiss francs which were used for making strategic purchases for the German war effort. Already during the war, the Allies condemned the gold transactions, and at its end, they demanded the "full restitution of the looted gold." Swiss justification for their role ranged from lack of knowledge of where the gold originated to the right of seizure by an invading power to the need to maintain Switzerland's neutral status. The report points out that the legal arguments were particularly tenuous (and were pointed out to SNB officials at the time): the right to seizure as outlined in the Hague conventions pertains only to state property and not to the gold owned privately nor by the central banks concerned which were then private institutions. However, Swiss purchase continued right up until the end of the war. Statistics indicating what proportion of the gold transferred was looted gold are hard to calculate. However, the commission points out that looted central bank reserves, mainly from Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg totaled 1,582 million francs and that the amount of gold stolen from Holocaust victims in Eastern Europe has been estimated 12.5 million francs while that expropriated and looted from individuals in the Reich was at least 300 million francs.Postwar restitution: After negotiations, the Swiss government signed the Washington Agreement in May 1946 which called to a payment by the Swiss of 250 million francs in exchange for the dropping of claims relating to the Swiss role in incriminating gold transactions during the war period. However, the controversial issue of gold looted from the Netherlands was raised too late to be included in the Washington negotiations. The commission concluded: ...starting from 1942 in particular, it made a number of key decisions relating to the German gold transactions which had little to do with the technical aspects of currency management. Its analysis of the legal position after 1943 was fundamentally flawed. It was an affront to the Allies, who had repeatedly warned Switzerland about the gold purches, as well as to its own advisors and the Swiss jurists whom it had consulted. It is hardly surprising that the SNB's decisions have—quite legitimately—been the subject of historical and moral assessment on frequent occasions and that its decisions are judged as having been reprehensible. The financial system During World War II, Swiss banks loaned money to a wide variety of German enterprises which were involved in armaments as well as activities linked to activities involved in the extermination of the Jews. In addition, Credit Suisse and the Swiss Bank Corporation closely cooperated with major German banks which resulted "in some of the most questionable transactions of the wartime period: dealings with gold booty and/or looted gold. As late as 1943, the Union Bank of Switzerland granted Deutsche Bank a new loan of over 500,000 francs. Relations were maintained until the end of the war and even later."There was very dubious trading on the unregulated Swiss security markets: looted assets from the newly occupied countries found their way into the Swiss markets, provoking a warning issued by the Allies in January 1943. "In 1946, the value of securities of dubious provenance to find their way to Switzerland during the war was estimated by the Federal Department of Finance (Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement, EFD) to be between 50 and 100 million francs."Many foreigners who deposited money with the Swiss banks were murdered by the Nazi regime. Some of their assets were handed over to the German government while the rest remained in dormant accounts in the Swiss financial institutions. After the war the resolution of the assets that had been handed over as well as the dormant accounts and looted securities was not solved. ICE reported: The banks were able to use the amounts remaining in the accounts and to earn income from them. They showed little interest in actively seeking accounts of Nazi victims, justifying their inaction with the confidentiality desired by their customers. What the victims of National Socialism and their heirs thought to be the advantages of the Swiss banking system turned out to be disadvantageous for them. Swiss insurance companies in Germany The German market was an important market for the Swiss insurance companies even before the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933. Many in the Swiss insurance sector were worried that German nationalism and xenophobia (not to mention the rise of a virulent anti-semitic ideology) would have adverse effects on it. This led some Swiss insurance firms (i.e. Vereinigte Krankenversicherungs AG, a subsidiary of Schweizer Rück) to anticipate German laws before they were enacted by dismissing their Jewish employees in 1933 even before the German laws were passed.Toward the end of 1937, Swiss insurers came under increasing pressure to get rid of all Jewish employees not only in their offices in Germany, but also in their home offices in Switzerland. "With one exception, Swiss insurers supported the furnishing of such proof, thus endorsing discrimination against the Jews and extending the scope of Germany's racial laws to Switzerland as well."After the destructive pogrom riots on the night of 9 to 10 November 1938, the German government issued an ordinance that Jews should pay for the destruction caused by the anti-Jewish rioters themselves and that any insurance money that was paid out should be paid to the German state rather than to the private individuals affected. The ICE found that, "In general, the Swiss companies reacted with remarkable passivity to the Nazi's flouting of established legal tradition....In this way, the Swiss insurers helped to cover up events which would have cast the completely illegal and immoral methods of the German state and party organisation in November 1938 into sharp relief." Manufacturing companies Swiss companies who were operating during the Nazi period in Germany had already been well-established before the Nazis came to power. Apparently, business concerns rather than an ideological commitment to Nazis determined their continued operation. However, established Swiss companies continued to operate although they adapted in different ways to the Nazis regime. The contribution of Swiss companies to the German war effort was important, if not decisive. The vast majority of the production of Swiss-owned companies in Germany was civilian goods. The commission concluded: "Among the few neutral countries, Switzerland made the greatest contribution towards the German war effort since it was Switzerland which had the greatest presence in both Germany itself and the countries it occupied." Finally, after the end of the war, the same companies which operated in Germany during the war were "able to continue or revive their activities without any major problems." Cultural assets Switzerland was an important hub for the traffic and trade in cultural assets such as paintings and other art objects. During the period between 1933 and 1945, the art market in Switzerland flourished. Much of the trade was legitimate, at least in the sense that the owners of a piece of art were selling in order to raise money often so they could flee Nazi territories. Thus much of the trade took place through the Swiss hub.The commission distinguishes two types of questionable trade: 1) trade in "flight assets" and 2) trade in "looted assets". Under definition of the commission, "Flight assets were those which were brought into or through Switzerland, often by their (Jewish) owners themselves." Their sale was directly linked to the persecution of their owners who needed to raise money for their flight or as a way to keep assets out of the hands of the Nazis or even the result of forced sales. Looted assets were those that were confiscated by the Germans either from private individuals or from museums in Germany or occupied territories. A distinction is made between those looted assets that were confiscated "legally" from German museums, the so-called degenerate art, and the art that came from the plundering of public and private collections in the occupied territories. The commission concluded that "Swiss involvement in the Nazi regime's looting and cultural policy was considerable and diverse; as a result, Hitler's and Goering's collections were boosted by the acquisition of major works by the Old Masters and the school of German Romanticism".However, the commission was unable to say much more about the size and importance of such involvement, concluding that "the notion that the trade in looted art – compared with the occupied territories of Western Europe – took place on a particularly large scale could not be confirmed. Conversely, one could argue that it is astonishing that this trade assumed such dimensions in Switzerland, a non-occupied country, which continued to function in accordance with the rule of law." Law and legal practice The commission outlines a number of instances where established law as interpreted by the courts was ignored by the Federal government ruling by decree under the emergency powers granted to it by Federal parliament in 1939. One of the most important aspects was the abandonment of constitutional principal of equality before the law which had far reaching impact on the treatment of foreigners, minority citizens and contributed to the failure of the state to offer any diplomatic protection to Swiss Jews residing in Nazi occupied territory. They conclude, "...diplomatic practice increasingly came into line with the ethnic «völkisch» criteria adopted by the Nazi state, an approach which sharply conflicted with the constitutional equality enjoyed by Jews in Switzerland since 1874."With respect to refugees, under existing Swiss domestic law, only refugees whose lives were at risk because of political activities could be granted asylum. This meant those who were fleeing because of racial persecution could be returned to the persecuting government. However, in July 1936, Switzerland ratified a provisional arrangement concerning the status of refugees coming from Germany: "Switzerland violated this agreement by handing refugees from Germany, whose lives were at risk and who had crossed the border (legally or illegally) and were not apprehended immediately in the border's vicinity, over to the German authorities on the borders with Austria or France."The commission identified a number of areas, particularly in the domain of private international law, where the courts applied the doctrine of "ordre public" which is an explicit ethical component of law: for example, Swiss courts "consistently took the view that Nazi anti-Semitic legislation must be deemed to constitute injustice which violated all legal principles and should therefore not be applied in practice." However, this doctrine based on what was right and proper under Swiss law was not extended to practices which were incompatible with more universal, non-codified principles such as the principle of humanity. Other issues Racial discrimination The initial reaction to Nazi policy of discriminating against Jews was mixed with some of the companies complying readily and even anticipating laws to come, while others held out and resisted discriminating as long as they could. However, the commission found that the practice of certifying the Aryan origin of its staff was widespread among owners and senior managers of Swiss companies in Nazi-occupied territory. Even before 1938, the Swiss Federal Political Department had suggested the applying of German law concerning race to Swiss companies. The commission concluded that this "clearly shows that the FPD, ..., either completely misjudged the legal, political and ethical implications of doing so, or ignored any misgivings they might have had for the sake of commercial interests."After 1938, it became impossible for Swiss companies operating in Nazi controlled areas to avoid applying aryanization policy if they were to continue to operate. The commission concluded, "that Swiss firms played an active role in the 'Aryanisation' process." Not only were their head offices in Switzerland aware of what was happening – often because their subsidiaries within Nazi-controlled territory were involved in the acquisition of Jewish businesses – but they approved of or even encouraged the process." Forced labor The commission also addressed the issue of the use of slave and forced labor in Swiss-owned firms and concluded: "that the figure quoted in the media – a total of over 11,000 forced labourers and prisoners of war employed in Swiss subsidiary companies throughout the Reich – is likely to be on the low side." Swiss diplomatic service The commission examined the role of the Swiss diplomatic service in protecting Swiss-owned property held in the Reich and concluded that a double standard was applied: whereas international law was strictly applied vis-a-vis Swiss property in the Soviet Union, Swiss authorities, "increasingly favoured the so-called theory of equal treatment, i.e., that if Germany was discriminating against its own Jewish citizens it was hardly possible to legally contest its equally harsh treatment of foreign Jews living in Germany." Reparations and restitution Even before the end of the war, the Allies were critical of the role Switzerland played with respect to looted assets of the Nazis. The London Declaration of January 1943 "warned of transfers or dealings regardless of whether they 'have taken the form of open looting or plunder, or of transactions apparently legal in form, even when they purport to be voluntarily effected'" At the Bretton Woods Conference, July 1944, Resolution VI stated "that accepting looted gold and concealing enemy assets would not go unpunished." In March 1945, after intensive negotiation with the allied Currie mission, an agreement was signed by the Swiss which "provided for the restitution of all assets looted under the Nazi regime and moved to neutral territory." The Paris Conference on Reparations of December 1945 stated that German assets held in neutral countries such as Switzerland were to be transferred to "the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees (IGCR) [...] for the rehabilitation and settling of victims of German actions who could not be repatriated" as quickly as possible. Finally, the Swiss under the Washington Agreement of 1946 paid 250 million Swiss Francs in response to Allied pressure relating to looted gold held by the Swiss. The sum represented about one-fifth of all gold transactions estimated to have been made during the war. Looted assets The Swiss were very reluctant to engage with the Allies on the issue of looted assets. There was the feeling both on the left and the right that Switzerland had done nothing to make amends for. A Federal Councillor from the right-wing Catholic Conservative People's Party is quoted in the report as stating: "Switzerland has nothing to make amends for either to the victims of Nazi persecution or to Jewish or other organizations..." A Social Democratic national councillor made a similar statement at the time: "Actually, Switzerland has nothing to make amends for and countries are not entitled to make any claims", indicating the sentiment enjoyed a "broad consensus."Although the Swiss paid 250 million francs in 1946 related to war-time gold transactions, the government refused to label it as restitution or reparation payments, but rather as a voluntary contribution to the reconstruction of war-torn Europe. Even though the Swiss signed the agreement in March 1945 at the end of the Currie mission visit, they did not keep their promises: three weeks later, an internal memo repudiated the promises and referred to the Allied pressure as "economic warfare". The report concluded, "By this time Switzerland was already pursuing a dual strategy which consisted on the one hand of seeking rapid agreement with the Allies, and on the other hand playing for time when implementing practical measures." Bank accounts With respect to the bank accounts held by Jewish victims, the Swiss authorities were reluctant to change any of their past procedures in light of the extraordinary events in Germany and German-occupied territories. Attempts to pass laws making it possible to transfer assets held in the banks were unsuccessful due to resistance by the Swiss Bankers Association. When as a result of continuing allied pressure, a decree was issued in 1945 which broke with past legal practice, it was valid only for a period of two years and it was not publicized internationally, making it likely that there would be few claimants. Legal principles The Swiss were also concerned that any restitution would be contrary to the principle in Swiss private law that ownership of assets bought in good faith by the existing owner belonged to him. However, the commission concluded that, "Legal principles were exploited for corporate objectives in the name of a blind adherence to the letter of the law." They pointed out that the "solution chosen, however, was blind to the fate of the victims. Contemporaries realised as early as 1945 that the extent of the crimes committed by the Nazi regime had called for special legislation that would have impinged on relations governed by private law in order to enable restitution to be made. In this situation, 'business as usual' was an attitude that allowed companies and individuals to profit from past injustice and the crimes committed in the name of National Socialism."Although later work added more details about the unclaimed assets of Holocaust victims (see: Volcker Commission), it was clear that claims were rejected for narrow legalistic reasons. The commission found that the amount of unclaimed assets was much larger than the banks had claimed. At the same time, they came to the conclusion that the pace of growth of the postwar Swiss economy was not contributed to by the amount of unclaimed assets: the amounts were too small to make any contribution. The commission concluded, "The image of a banking system that built its wealth on assets expropriated from victims of the Nazi regime is not based on the facts." Insurance policies Swiss insurance companies had sold policies to Germans for many years. The German government seized policies held by German Jews and cashed them in with the Swiss companies, according to German laws passed by the Nazi government. After the war, the Swiss companies mainly refused to redeem policies held by holocaust victims and their heirs, arguing that the amounts had already been paid out according to German law. However, the commission concluded: There is equally good reason to believe that not all those who were persecuted registered their policies with the Nazi authorities in accordance with the directives of 1938. It is therefore probable that a considerable number of policies belonging to Jews who remained in Germany were never paid out to those authorities. Some summary conclusions German race laws were implicitly endorsed by the Swiss government In 1938 the Swiss asked the German government to stamp a J in the passports of all German Jews in order that they could be treated differently from other German passport holders. In 1942 the Swiss officials closed their borders and refused to admit Jewish children among children brought to Switzerland for holidays. Anti-semitic attitudes held by Swiss authorities contributed to such decisions. In 1941 when the Nazi government stripped German Jews of their citizenship, the Swiss authorities applied the law to German Jews living in Switzerland by declaring them stateless; when in February 1945 Swiss authorities blocked German Bank accounts held in Switzerland they declared that the German Jews were no longer stateless, but were once again German and blocked their Swiss bank accounts as well.While it is true that Swiss offered humanitarian assistance to refugees in Switzerland and others in distress abroad, the Swiss government did not use its unique geographical and historical positions to offer protection to those persecuted by the Nazi state, rather they progressively closed their borders and returned refugees to Nazi authorities, driving many people to certain death. Consistent with historical business ties and Swiss neutrality, Swiss firms continued and often increased their relationship with the economies in Nazi occupied Europe. However, in a number of cases Swiss businessmen went out of their way to conform to the German political climate to the extent of removing Jewish employees in their factories and offices in Germany and even sometimes in Switzerland. Swiss firms also neglected the interests, particularly in the banking and insurance sectors of clients who were persecuted by the Nazis. Some Swiss firms in adapting to the restructured German economy found themselves employing forced labour and in some cases labour from concentration camps. Even though statistics are hard to come by, it is clear that Nazi-plundered gold flowed into Switzerland with the knowledge of the highest authorities in spite of promises that were made to the Allies to forbid such trade. The commission concluded that the dual responsibilities of a democratic state to its own people and to the international community were not met during the period examined, and were often ignored during the fifty year post-war period. After the war, when victims of the Holocaust or relatives of victims tried to access bank accounts that had been dormant during the war, Swiss banking authorities hid behind an interpretation of banking secrecy laws to block access and restitution. Such behavior was deemed to have been determined by institutional self-interest rather than the interests of the victims of the Nazi state who had transferred their assets to Switzerland for safekeeping. Criticism Though generally accepted both within Switzerland and outside as an authoritative analysis and evaluation of Switzerland’s conduct during World War II, multiple conclusions drawn by the Bergier Commission were subject to criticism and contention. Serge Klarsfeld, the French-Jewish historian, activist and Nazi Hunter claimed in 2013 that the Swiss authorities rejected fewer WWII Jewish refugees than believed. He claimed that the number of entry denials was closer to 3000, significantly lower than the 24,500 mentioned by the Bergier Commission’s Final Report. Klarsfeld’s estimate for the number of Jews admitted was 30,000. Klarsfeld believes a “maximum” of 1,500 Jews were rejected at the Swiss-French border, 300 Jews were turned away at the southern Swiss border with then-fascist Italy and that 1,200 people were rejected in the North and East at the borders with Germany and Austria.One of the conclusions drawn by the Bergier Commission Report was that Switzerland asked the Nazi authorities to add a “J-stamp” to every German Jew’s passport. The claim that the Swiss government was responsible for the stamp predates the Bergier Commission. It was the Swiss political magazine Beobachter that originally stated in its March 31, 1954 edition that wartime Swiss Police Chief Heinrich Rothmund had suggested to the Nazis to add a J Stamp. Rothmund, who was still in office, resigned due to the scandal surrounding the revelation. In 2001, Beobachter recanted its claim and exonerated Rothmund. The magazine stated that the J-Stamp was the product of 1935 negotiations between the Nazi and Swiss governments relating to the imposition of visa requirements on all German citizens wishing to enter Switzerland. Based on the archived paper trail the German side (led by negotiator Werner Best) made the initial suggestion while Switzerland approved it at a joint meeting in 1938, where Rothmund was present. Beobachter claimed Rothmund personally opposed any demarcation of Jewish German passports. The Bergier Commission’s final 2002 report retained the mention of the J-stamp being a Swiss invention, despite Beobachter’s 2001 retraction. Swiss academic Jean-Christian Lambelet of the University of Lausanne published a critical paper (translated into English) in 2001 where he questioned the internal consistency, accuracy of several statements and statistics found in the Bergier report, as well as identified instances of what he thought was hyperbole that went beyond historical analysis and evaluation.Another Swiss academic, the historian Philippe Marguerat (at the time of the University of Neuchatel) believed that the Bergier Commission, though acknowledging (and then refuting) some Swiss arguments for the legality and moral permissibility of gold purchases from Nazi Germany, failed to take into consideration the inherent military deterrent value of the gold purchases as a justification considering Germany had already made plans to invade.In 1998, shortly before the Commission began work, one member of Switzerland’s parliament, Luzi Stamm, of the Swiss People’s Party criticized the Commission’s mission to “qualify the actions of those responsible at the time politically and morally” as opposed to simply finding out the truth. In Switzerland it was widely seen as problematic that the Bergier Commission’s mission went beyond truth and reconciliation (as in the South African case).A group of Swiss, many of whom had lived through World War II, started the Arbeitskreis Gelebte Geschichte/ Groupe de travail Histoire vécue/ Gruppo di Lavoro Storia Vissuta which translates to “The Working Group of Lived History.” This group, sought to react to and, when necessary, criticize the conclusions drawn by the Bergier Commission’s Final Report using oral history, stories of Swiss people’s lived experiences during the war. The working group had around 500 members, including former ambassadors and chief officials of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, former military officers with the rank of general, professors from various disciplines and personalities from the business world and Swiss industry. The Working Group of Lived History was itself staunchly criticized by Swiss members of the Bergier Commission, for not primarily focusing on documentary evidence. Membership The commission included: Jean-François Bergier, Zug, (President) Władysław Bartoszewski, Warsaw Saul Friedländer, Jerusalem Harold James, Princeton (USA) Georg Kreis, Basel Sybil Milton, Washington, died in October 2000, replaced in February 2001 by Helen B. Junz Jacques Picard, Berne Jakob Tanner, Bielefeld, Zurich Joseph Voyame, Saint Brais (JU), resigned in April 2000, replaced by Daniel Thürer See also Switzerland during the World Wars Volcker Commission Notes References International Commission of Experts (ICE) (2002). Switzerland, National Socialism and the Second World War (PDF). Pendo Verlag. ISBN 3-85842-603-2. "Confronting Holocaust History: The Bergier Commission's Research on Switzerland's Past - Helen B. Junz". 1 May 2003. Retrieved 23 October 2009. William Z. Slany (1997). US and Allied Efforts to Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen Or Hidden by Germany During World War II. DIANE Publishing. p. 100. ISBN 9780788145360. External links Independent UEK.ch, Commission of Experts Switzerland – Second World War (ICE) - Official website with intermediary and final reports PBS.org, PBS Frontline article on Bergier Commission Plunder and Restitution: Findings and Recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States and Staff Report December 2000

heaven and earth (book)

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science is a popular science book published in 2009 and written by Australian geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and mining company director Ian Plimer. It disputes the scientific consensus on climate change, including the view that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" and asserts that the debate is being driven by what the author regards as irrational and unscientific elements. The book received what The Age newspaper called "glowing endorsements" from the conservative press. The Australian said it gave "all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want." Other reviewers criticised the book as unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent. Ideas in it have been described as "so wrong as to be laughable".Heaven and Earth was a bestseller in Australia when published in May 2009, and is in its seventh printing, according to the publisher. The book has also been published in the United States and the United Kingdom. Background Heaven and Earth is a sequel to a previous work by Plimer called A Short History of Planet Earth. Published in 2001, A Short History was based on a decade's worth of radio broadcasts by Plimer aimed mainly at rural Australians. It became a bestseller and won a Eureka Prize in 2002. However, Plimer was unable to find any major publisher willing to publish his follow-up book. He attributed this to there being "a lot of fear out there. No one wants to go against the popular paradigm." Plimer turned to Connor Court Publishing. The company has a history of publishing books on "culture, justice and religion", including many books on Christianity and Catholicism in particular. It has also published fellow Australian climate change skeptic Garth Paltridge's book, The Climate Caper, which likewise criticises the climate change consensus and the "politicisation of science". Crikey, an Australian webzine, commented that the publication of Heaven and Earth was a coup for conservatives, and said of the publisher: "The conservatives have a new friend in publishing".According to Plimer, he wrote Heaven and Earth after being "incensed by increasing public acceptance of the idea that humans have caused global warming" and set out to "knock out every single argument we hear about climate change." Although he does not dispute that climate change is happening, he argues that "It's got nothing to do with the atmosphere, it's about what happens in the galaxy" and that climate is driven by the sun, the Earth's orbit and plate tectonics rather than the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Plimer says his book is for the "average punter in the street" who can "smell something is wrong in the climate debate but can't put a finger on what."Critics have regularly questioned Plimer about his commercial interests in the mining industry, but he defends the independence of his views, saying that these commercial interests do not colour his arguments, which he claims are based on pure science. Critics note that Plimer has opposed a carbon trading scheme in Australia, saying that "it would probably destroy [the mining industry] totally". Synopsis In the book, Plimer likens the concept of human-induced climate change to creationism and claims that it is a "fundamentalist religion adopted by urban atheists looking to fill a yawning spiritual gap plaguing the West". Environmental groups are claimed to have filled this gap by having a romantic view of a less developed past. The book is critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which he claims has allowed "little or no geological, archeological or historical input" in its analyses. If it had, the book asserts, the IPCC would know cold times lead to dwindling populations, social disruption, extinction, disease and catastrophic droughts, while warm times lead to life blossoming and economic booms – suggesting that global warming, whether or not caused by humans, should be welcomed.The book is critical of political efforts to address climate change and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable and unavoidable. Meteorologists have a huge amount to gain from climate change research, the book claims, and they have narrowed the climate change debate to the atmosphere, whereas the truth is more complex. Money would be better directed to dealing with problems as they occur rather than making expensive and futile attempts to prevent climate change. The book differs from the scientific consensus in contending that the Great Barrier Reef will benefit from rising seas, that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, and that 98% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour. In the book, Plimer claims that the scientific consensus on human-induced global warming is not in accord with history, archaeology, geology or astronomy and must be rejected, that promotion of this theory as science is fraudulent, and that the current alarm over climate change is the result of bad science. He argues that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide, rather than factoring in other issues such as solar variation, the effect of clouds, and unreliable temperature measurements. Reception and criticism Heaven and Earth received substantial coverage in the Australian and international media. It produced a highly polarised response from reviewers, with members of the conservative press praising the book and many scientists criticising it. A Wall Street Journal columnist called the book "a damning critique" of the theory of man-made global warming, while the Guardian writer and activist George Monbiot listed some of the book's errors with the comment: "Seldom has a book been more cleanly murdered by scientists than Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth, which purports to show that manmade climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data." Reactions from scientists Canadian broadcaster John Moore said it was "widely criticised by fellow scientists as just another collection of denier hits." The Adelaide Advertiser stated that among other scientists, "Plimer is all but out in the cold".Barry Brook of Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, who is at the same university as Plimer and has debated climate change issues with him, described the book as a case study "in how not to be objective" and accused Plimer of using "selective evidence". Brook said that Plimer's "stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self-interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view, and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science." He said that Plimer's assertions about man's role in climate change were "naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted." Brook also suggested that many of the scientific authors cited by Plimer actually support the consensus view and that their work is misrepresented in Plimer's book. Susannah Eliott, the chief executive of the Australian Science Media Centre, encouraged colleagues to read the book and comment on it, but took the view that "there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments".Many reviewers highlighted factual and sourcing problems in Heaven and Earth. Colin Woodroffe, a coastal geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, and a lead chapter author for the IPCC AR4, wrote that the book has many errors and will be "remembered for the confrontation it provokes rather than the science it stimulates." Woodroffe noted Plimer's "unbalanced approach to the topic," and concluded that the book was not written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and was evidently not aimed at a scientific audience. Charlie Veron, former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said every original statement Plimer makes in the book on coral and coral reefs is incorrect, and that Plimer "serve[s] up diagrams from no acknowledged source, diagrams known to be obsolete and diagrams that combine bits of science with bits of fiction."David Karoly, an atmospheric dynamicist at Melbourne University and a lead author for the IPCC, accused Plimer of misusing data in the book and commented that "it doesn't support the answers with sources." Karoly reviewed the book and concluded: "Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear."Ian G. Enting, a mathematical physicist at MASCOS, University of Melbourne and author of Twisted, The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial, similarly criticised what he described as numerous misrepresentations of the sources cited in the book and charged that Plimer "fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variation." Enting compiled a list of over 100 errors in the book.Michael Ashley, an astronomer at the University of New South Wales, criticised the book at length in a review for The Australian in which he characterised the book as "largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical." He accused Plimer of having "done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken."Malcolm Walter, the Director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology, University of New South Wales, commented on Plimer's "fallacious reasoning," noting the "blatant and fundamental contradictions" and inconsistencies in the book. Walter told ABC Radio National that Plimer's interpretation of the literature is confused and that Plimer "bit off more than he can chew." According to Walter, "reviewing this book has been an unpleasant experience for me. I have been a friendly colleague of Plimer's for 25 years or more. ... But..., in my opinion, he has done a disservice to science and to the community at large." On the same network, geophysicist Kurt Lambeck, currently president of the Australian Academy of Science, said that the book was "sloppy" and that it "is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist."Chris Turney, a researcher of prehistoric climate changes, of the University of Exeter's Department of Geography, stated the book was "a cacophony of climate skeptic arguments that have been discredited by decades of research." He described the number of errors in the book as "disturbingly high": "statements that are at best ambiguous and in many cases plain wrong are repeated, figures purporting to demonstrate climate change is all natural are erroneous, time and spatial scales are mixed up ... the list goes on." Turney comments that Plimer "badly mistreats" the history of the development of climate science, "regurgitating" the fringe idea of global cooling to portray "recent concerns over warming [as] just another case of alarmism." He concludes that "Plimer's thesis of inaction is a course we follow at our peril."Writing in Earth magazine, emeritus USGS geologist Terry Gerlach commented that the book "illustrates one of the pathways by which myths, misrepresentations and spurious information get injected into the climate change debate." He highlighted Plimer's inaccurate claims about volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide and noted that Plimer had failed to provide estimates of present-day global carbon dioxide emission rate from volcanoes. In Gerlach's view, this was ironic considering that the book professes to provide the "missing science" on climate change.Retired meteorologist William Kininmonth, a long-standing opponent of the scientific consensus on climate change, supported the book in a commentary published in The Australian in which he wrote that "Plimer's authoritative book provides the excuse and impetus to re-examine the scientific fundamentals [of climate change]."The scientists' criticisms were rejected by Plimer, who embarked on a lecture tour following the book's publication in a bid to lobby the Australian government to change its policies on climate change to reflect what he called "valid science". He said that he had predicted that "The science would not be discussed, there would be academic nit-picking and there would be vitriolic ad hominem attacks by pompous academics out of contact with the community" and asserted that "comments by critics suggest that few have actually read the book and every time there was a savage public personal attack, book sales rose." Media reactions Plimer's book has received "glowing endorsements in the conservative press" according to Adam Morton of The Age. Christopher Pearson, a columnist with the conservative broadsheet The Australian, served as master of ceremonies at the book's launch and hailed it as a "campaign document" for climate change skeptics that "contains all the scientific ammunition they could want, packed into 493 eloquent pages." Sydney Morning Herald conservative commentator Miranda Devine called the book "a comprehensive scientific refutation of the beliefs underpinning the idea of human-caused climate change" and wrote that "Plimer's book, accessible as it is to the layperson, will help redress the power imbalance between those who claim to own the knowledge and the rest of us."Paul Sheehan, a conservative commentator from The Sydney Morning Herald, asserted that "Ian Plimer is not some isolated gadfly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor." Sheehan continued, calling the book "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel called it "a damning critique" of the theory of man-made global warming and credited Plimer with sparking an "era of renewed enlightenment".The Spectator, a conservative British magazine, made the book the cover story of its 11 July 2009 issue. In Canada, Rex Murphy of The Globe and Mail recommended Heaven and Earth as "a wonderfully comprehensive and fearless book." London-based banker Lakshman Menon wrote in the Leisure section of the Business Standard of India that "if [the book] kickstarts an honest debate about climate change, Heaven And Earth will have performed an important service."Leigh Dayton, science writer for The Australian, expressed dismay at Plimer for having "boarded the denialist ark" and described his arguments, such as his claims that scientists had been playing along with the view of human-induced climate change "in order to keep the research dollars flowing", as "a load of old codswallop". Dayton criticised Plimer's "shaky assumptions" and "misinformation", describing his assertion that the IPCC's scientists "whip up scary agenda-driven scenarios" as "fanciful".In The Times, Bob Ward called the book an angry, bitter and error-strewn polemic. He said that Plimer "uses geology as an excuse to conclude the opposite of mainstream climate science", and that it is "hard to work out how and why he managed to produce such a controversial and flawed account." The Australian's coverage of Heaven and Earth attracted criticism from Robert Manne, a lecturer on politics at La Trobe University in Melbourne, who criticised the "gushing praise" given the book. Manne deplored the willingness of The Australian to "give books such as [Plimer's] the kind of enthusiastic welcome hundreds of others published in this country every year cannot dream of receiving", calling this "a grave intellectual, political and moral mistake". Similarly, George Monbiot criticised The Spectator for featuring Heaven and Earth as a cover story, calling it "one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year" since "a quick check would have shown that [the book is] utter nonsense".Lawrence Solomon of Canada's Financial Post commented that "Thanks to Plimer, the press and politicians, Australia is likely to become the developed world’s third Denier Nation" behind the Czech Republic and the United States. Other reactions Václav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic and an economist, recommended Heaven and Earth in a blurb on the dust jacket: "This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book." His endorsement was in response to Plimer's request for the backing of "the big guns", which Plimer asserts is indicative of "a great body of extremely clever and well-known people out there that do not agree with the Chicken Little arguments that are being put up."George Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, wrote in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper that Heaven and Earth was "likely to make a huge difference to public opinion" and defended Plimer from charges of being a climate change "denier" because "history shows the planet is dynamic and the climate is always changing." The Archbishop concluded that Plimer's evidence "shows the wheels are falling from the climate catastrophe bandwagon."Former Australian Federal Representative and pro-mining maverick Graeme Campbell has sought to use the book to get "the other side of the debate" on climate change into schools. In June 2009, Campbell gave copies of Heaven and Earth to every school in his home town of Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. Senator Steve Fielding of the conservative Family First Party has also stated that his views on climate change have been influenced by Plimer and his book.Lyn Allison, leader of the Australian Democrats from 2004 to 2008, called Plimer the "pet denialist" of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, and accused Plimer of "happily cashing in on his speaking tours and his book". See also Global warming controversy Global warming conspiracy theory References External links Connor Court Publishing – Heaven and Earth Global Warming... Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ – Checking the Claims. Ian G. Enting, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS)

health in brazil

The fundaments of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) were established in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, under the principles of universality, integrality and equity. It has a decentralized operational and management system, and social participation is present in all administrative levels. The Brazilian health system is a complex composition of public sector (SUS), private health institutions and private insurances . Since the creation of SUS, Brazil has significantly improved in many health indicators, but a lot needs to be done in order to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC). The Human Rights Measurement Initiative finds that Brazil is doing 93.3% of what should be possible at its level of income for the right to health. Health situation in Brazil Mortality by non-transmissible illness: 16.6% as of 2016. Of this 65.7 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is caused by heart and circulatory diseases, along with 26.7 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is caused by cancer. Mortality caused by external causes (transportation, violence and suicide): 55.7 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (10.9% of all deaths in the country), reaching 62.3 deaths in the southeast region.Brazil has reduced the malaria incidence by over 56%in the past decade compared to the year 2000, but yet it is the country in the region of the americas with the highest number of cases.Dengue is found in all the states of the country, with 4 viral stereotypes. Reported cases: 1.649.008 (2014). In 2014 occurred the introduction of the Chikungunya fever virus in the country, and in 2015 the Zika virus, which are transmitted by Aedes aegypti. The vector is being faced with the strategy of Integrated Management vector and community awareness approach.In September, 30th 2020 the country has recorded more than 142.000 deaths linked to COVID-19 and more than 4.745.464 confirmed cases. It is one of the worst affected country just behind The US and India. Life expectancy The life expectancy of the Brazilian population increased from 71.16 years in 1998 to 76.76 years in 2018, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), and currently 76.76 years in 2018. The data indicate a significant progress compared with 59.50 years in 1940. Demographic projections foresee the continuation of this process, estimating a life expectancy in Brazil around 77.39 years in 2020. According to the IBGE, Brazil will need some time to catch up with Japan, Hong Kong (China), Switzerland, Iceland, Australia, France and Italy, where the average life expectancy is already over 82. Although, research has shown that Brazil could achieve an expectancy of around 80.12 years by 2030 and pass 82 by 2040 and 2050 will be over 85 years.The decline in mortality at young ages and the increase in longevity, combined with the decline of fecundity and the accentuated increase of degenerative chronic diseases, caused a rapid process of demographic and epidemiological transition, imposing a new public health agenda in the face of the complexity of the new morbidity pattern. Infant mortality For example, mortality among indigenous infants in 2000 was more than triple that of the general population, highlighting the importance of tailored health policies to address disparities in health outcomes for Brazil's Indigenous Peoples. Sanitation, education and per capita income are the most important explanatory factors of poor child health in Brazil. Moreover, ethnographic findings of infant mortality rates (IMR) in northeast Brazil are not accurate because the government tends to overlook infant morality rates in rural areas. These issues tend to be inaccurate due to a huge amount of underreporting and questions related to the cultural validity and the contextual soundness of these mortality statistics. There is a solution to this issue however and scientists stress that quality local-level cultural data can serve to craft as the alternative and appropriate method to measure infant death in Brazil accurately. In order to not overlook infant mortality rates it is also stressed that there needs to be a focus on an ethnography of experience, a vision that cuts to the core of human suffering as it flows from daily life and experiences. For example, one must get down to the flesh, blood and souls of infant death in the impoverished households of Brazilians in order to understand and live with those who have to suffer its consequences. Methods of gathering mortality data also need to be respectful of local death customs and must be implemented in places where death is experienced through a different cultural lens.UNICEF report shows a rising rate of survival for Brazilian children under the age of five. UNICEF says that out of a total of 195 countries analyzed, Brazil is among the 25 nations with the best improvement in survival rates for children under the age of 5. The report shows that Brazil's infant mortality rate for live births in 2012 was 14 per thousand. Mortality rates for children at one year of age was 18 per thousand, a reduction of 60%. The study went on to show that malnutrition among children of less than two years of age during the period between 2000 and 2008 fell by 77%. There was also a substantial drop in the number of school age children who were not in school, falling from 920,000 to 570,000 during the same period. Cristina Albuquerque, coordinator of the UNICEF Infant Survival and Development Program called the numbers "an enormous victory" for Brazil. She added that with regard to public policy aimed at reducing social disparities, Brazil's Bolsa Família program had become an international benchmark in combating poverty, reducing vulnerability and improving quality of life. "Brazil is going through a great moment, but much remains to be done. So, along with the celebrating it is a good time to reflect on the many challenges still to be overcome," Albuquerque declared. Obesity Obesity in Brazil is a growing health concern. 52.6 percent of men and 44.7 percent of women in Brazil are overweight. 35% of Brazilians are obese in 2018. The Brazilian government has issued nutrition guidelines in 2014 which have caught the attention of public health experts for their simplicity and their critical position towards the food industry. In September 2020 the Ministry of Agriculture publicised a technical note saying that the Guideine " Attacks without justification " industrialized food and asked for revision of the recommendation. International scientists send a group letter to the ministry of Agriculture criticizing the position in relation to The Brazilian food guide..The guidelines are summarized at the end of the document as follows: Prepare meals using fresh and staple foods. Use oils, fats, sugar, and salt only in moderation. Limit consumption of ready-to-eat food and drink products. Eat at regular mealtimes and pay attention to your food instead of multitasking. Find a comfortable place to eat. Avoid all-you-can-eat buffets and noisy, stressful environments. Eat with others whenever possible. Buy food in shops and markets that offer a variety of fresh foods. Avoid those that sell mainly ready-to-eat products. Develop, practise, share, and enjoy your skills in food preparation and cooking. Decide as a family to share cooking responsibilities and dedicate enough time for health-supporting meals. When you dine out, choose restaurants that serve freshly made dishes. Avoid fast-food chains. Be critical of food-industry advertising. Climate change and health The WHO Country Report on Climate and Health - 2015 placed Brazil as an important and unique player in climate change for being economically and environmentally relevant. It is among the largest economies in the world and at least 60% of the Amazon rainforest is in its territory. The main vulnerabilities posed by climate change in this report were "risk of coastal flooding, reduced water availability, health risks associated with heat stress, and interference in climate sensitive vector borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue". Another threat that could be softened by decarbonization is outdoor air pollution, which is mainly a consequence of the use of fossil fuels for energy generation and transportation. It poses a major risk for respiratory, cardiovascular, dermatological diseases and cancers, particularly for the population living in the urban areas. In Brazil, between 2010 and 2012, 4 out of the 5 most populated cities which had the information about air pollution available were above the annual mean for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels of 10 µg/m3 from the WHO guideline.Inland river flood risk can also be more frequent and affect broader areas in a high emission scenario, putting additional 78,600 people at risk of drowning, food insecurity, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, infectious diseases outbreaks and socio-economic changes.In 2016, Brazil developed a National Adaptation Plan to Climate Change, coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and with the participation of 26 Federal Government Institutions, among then, the Ministry of Health. Other agents from civil-society, private-sector and the state also contributed to the writing.Under the section of health and climate change, this plan focused on 4 main health-related risks associated to climate: natural disasters, air pollution, unavailability and quality of water resources and climate sensitive infectious diseases. For each risk, they analyzed vulnerabilities and potential impacts in the population and in the health system. Further on, the document provided guidance and strategies focusing on evidence and information management, awareness and education, potential alliances, and adaptation measures. In December 2020, Brazil submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) an updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement, with the compromise of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 37% until 2025 and 43% until 2030, relative to 2005.Nevertheless, as for September 2021, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) rated Brazilian response to mitigate climate change as Insufficient. The underlying reasons are challenges faced by the country to keep COVID-19 under control, increasing deforestation rate trends and unsatisfactory policies for halting emissions growth and support the energy transition to a greener and more sustainable one.Even so, in May 2021, seven Brazilian-healthcare institutions (out of 43 in the world so far) joined the Race to Zero campaign, a United Nations initiative to promote leadership and ramp up the move to achieve net zero and a healthier, greener, and sustainable economy. Many Brazilian companies and cities are also committed to this initiative as a global effort to hasten Government's contributions to achieve the Paris Agreement. See also Healthcare in Brazil Sistema Único de Saúde HIV/AIDS in Brazil Education in Brazil Demography of Brazil Brazilian traditional medicine References External links World Health Organization: Brazil Brazilian National Health Agency Brazilian Ministry of Health Brazilian National Health Confederation

biochar carbon removal

Biochar carbon removal (BCR) (also called Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage) is a negative emissions technology. It involves the production of biochar through pyrolysis of residual biomass and the subsequent application of the biochar in soils or durable materials (e.g. cement, tar). The carbon dioxide sequestered by the plants used for the biochar production is therewith stored for several hundreds of years, which creates carbon sinks. Definition The term refers to the practice of producing biochar from sustainably sourced biomass and ensuring that it is stored for a long period of time. The concept makes use of the photosynthesis process, through which plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere during their growth. This carbon dioxide is stabilised within the biochar during the production process and can therewith be stored for several hundreds of years. Scientifically, this process is often referred to as Pyrogenic Carbon Capture and Storage (PyCCS). The term Biochar Carbon Removal (BCR) was first introduced by the European Biochar Industry Consortium (EBI) in 2023 and has since been adopted by various institutions and experts. Beyond carbon sequestration, biochar application has various other potential benefits, such as increased yield and root biomass, water use efficiency and microbial activity. Biochar production Biochar is produced through the pyrolysis process. Biomass (e.g. residual plant material from landscaping or agricultural processes) is reduced to smaller pieces is heated to between 350°C and 900°C under oxygen-deficient conditions. This results in solid biochar and by-products (bio-oil, pyrogas). In order to maximise the carbon storage potential, typically those biochar technologies are used that minimise combustion and avoid the loss of pyrogas into the atmosphere.In low-oxygen conditions, the thermal-chemical conversion of organic materials (including biomass) produces both volatiles, termed pyrolytic gases (pyrogases), as well as solid carbonaceous co-products, termed biochar. While the pyrogases mostly condense into liquid bio-oil, which may be used as an energy source, biochar has been proposed as a tool for sequestering carbon in soil.The global biochar market is expected to reach USD 368.85 million by 2028.Internationally there are several voluntary standards that regulate the biochar production process and product quality. These include the following (non-exhaustive list): European Biochar Certificate (EBC) and World Biochar Certificate (WBC) developed by the Ithaka Institute Carbon removal potential The potential extent of carbon removal with biochar is subject of ongoing research. Up to 6% of global emissions, equivalent to 3 billion tonnes of CO2, could be removed annually over a 100 year timeframe.Biochar carbon removal is considered to be a rapidly implemented and capital-efficient negative emissions technology ideal for smaller scale installations such as farmers, and also to help rural diversification in developing countries. It thus falls into the category of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. This is, amongst others, reflected in the guidance documents of the Science Based Targets initiative.Three main carbonaceous products are generated during pyrolysis, which can be stored subsequently in different ways to produce negative emissions: a solid biochar as soil amendment, a pyrolytic liquid (bio-oil) pumped into depleted fossil oil repositories, and permanent-pyrogas (dominated by the combustible gases CO, H2 and CH4) that may be transferred as CO2 to geological storages after combustion. Permanence The level to which carbon dioxide is fixed and stored, depends both on the biochar production process and the subsequent application. If produced under certain conditions, 97% of the total organic carbon in biochar is highly refractory carbon, i.e. carbon that has near infinite stability. This implies that biochar can have a very high permanence in terms of carbon dioxide storage.There is evidence that biochar, produced at pyrolysis temperature over 600°C, resembles inertinite and thus highly stable.There are several applications that are considered to store CO2 for long periods of time: Soil application Additive for construction material Additive in asphalts Additive in plastics, paper and textiles Soil Application Once mixed into soil, biochar, which is less susceptible to remineralization into CO2 and CH4 than non-pyrogenic biomass, fragments into micro- and nano-particles which can be transported to deeper soil horizons, groundwater, or other compartments that further protect it from degradation. Multiple studies have demonstrated that pyrogenic carbon is stable over centennial timescales. The impact on soil fertility is context dependent, but largely positive. It is estimated that biochar soil application could sequester 2.5 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 annually. Role of climate finance Biochar Carbon Removal is increasingly seen as a promising negative emissions technology suitable for offsetting and carbon markets. Trade in BCR credits is still limited to a small number of suppliers and credit off-takers. In 2022, out of 592,969 carbon dioxide removal credits purchased on the voluntary carbon market, 40% were based on biochar carbon removal projects.For the purpose of generating carbon credits, there are several internationally recognised voluntary biochar standards and methodologies. These include the following (non-exhaustive list): VERRA VM0044 Puro.Earth Biochar Methodology CSI Global Artisinal C-Sink See also Climate change scenario Climate engineering List of emerging technologies Dark earth Terra preta Anthrosols == References ==

good energy (non-profit)

Good Energy is a non-profit organization and creative consultancy that advocates for and advises on the inclusion of climate change in Film & TV entertainment, arts and culture. History Good Energy was founded in 2019 by Anna Jane Joyner, a climate communications expert and non-profit executive. Since Joyner had appeared in the 2014 SHOWTIME climate documentary series Years of Living Dangerously, in 2018 Joyner was asked to serve as consultant on CBS’s Madam Secretary, since the show featured a character based on both her work in climate and Joyner’s relationship with her father Rick Joyner, an evangelical Christian climate skeptic and megachurch pastor. TIME Magazine reported that this experience helped inspire the founding of Good Energy. Programs Good Energy Playbook Deadline reported that In April 2022 Good Energy published a screenwriting playbook titled Good Energy: A Playbook for Screenwriting in the Age of Climate Change developed with input from more than 100 screenwriters, producers, Film & TV creatives, climate scientists, climate justice leaders and psychologists to serve as a resource for portraying climate in scripted entertainment, in collaboration with organizations including Bloomberg Philanthropies, The Redford Center, Center for Cultural Power, and Creative Artists Agency Foundation. The playbook features quotations from the Academy Award winning climate allegory film Don’t Look Up’s director Adam McKay along with entertainment industry professionals including actor Mark Ruffalo, who is the co-founder of the climate non-profit The Solutions Project, and Norman Lear. Research In October 2022 Good Energy published a research report in collaboration with the USC Norman Lear Center which found that from 2016 - 2020, only 2.8 percent of scripted television portrayed climate change or mentioned any of the studied climate change-related keywords. The report and Good Energy’s work have been a reference for reporting on climate in entertainment by many news cites including NPR, The Washington Post, and the BBC. Consulting and workshops According to the entertainment industry trade newspaper The Hollywood Reporter, Good Energy consults on portraying climate in film and TV. In 2023, the organization expanded its practice to leading workshops, advising entertainment executives, and continues to collaborate on research, including a study with the USC Media Impact Project on the impact of Apple TV+’s Extrapolations, a streaming series focused on climate. == References ==

international centre for integrated mountain development

The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) is a regional intergovernmental learning and knowledge sharing centre serving the eight regional member countries (RMCs) of the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan. The HKH region is a vast area, encompassing mountain ranges stretching from the Hindu Kush range in northern Afghanistan to the Arakan range in Myanmar, with the Himalayan range as its spine, and also includes the Tibetan Plateau. ICIMOD promotes and fosters partnerships amongst the RMCs in an effort to secure a better future for the people and environment of the HKH region. ICIMOD is headquartered at Khumaltar in the city of Lalitpur, which is located in the Kathmandu valley of Nepal. At Godavari in Lalitpur, ICIMOD has a Knowledge Park which exhibits some applications of ICIMOD's theoretical and field research. In addition, ICIMOD has country offices in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ICIMOD's partner organisations include national and international scientific institutions, government agencies, donor agencies, and the private sector, both in within the RMCs and outside. Vision and mission ICIMOD's vision is: "Men, women, and children of the Hindu Kush Himalayas enjoy improved well being in a healthy environment." The organisation's mission is: "To enable sustainable and resilient mountain development for improved and equitable livelihoods through knowledge and regional cooperation."ICIMOD's motto is "For mountains and people". History Origins The idea of creating an institution to promote the ecologically sound development of mountainous regions was discussed at the International Workshop on the Development of Mountain Environment in December 1974 in Munich, Germany, but it was only five years later in 1979 during a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Regional Meeting in Kathmandu, under the framework of the Man and the Biosphere Programme, that concrete commitments were made to establish the centre. The Government of Nepal offered to host the new institution, and the Governments of Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany and UNESCO agreed to act as the founding sponsors. His Majesty's Government of Nepal and UNESCO signed the agreement that provided the legal basis for establishing the Centre in September 1981 in Paris. The centre was finally established and inaugurated on 5 December 1983 with its headquarters in Lalitpur, Nepal, and legitimised through an Act of Parliament in Nepal in the same year. Headquarters For the first 20 years, i.e. from late 1983 till late 2004, ICIMOD was based at a rented premises in Jawalakhel, Lalitpur. On 5 December 2004, the 21st anniversary of ICIMOD, a new headquarters for ICIMOD was inaugurated by King Gyanendra of Nepal at Khumaltar, Lalitpur. The 1.5 hectares for this headquarters campus, worth over US$1 million, were contributed by the Government of Nepal. The governments of China and India contributed US$100,000 each, for the construction of the new headquarters. The government of Pakistan committed US$100,000 for its construction. The government of Bangladesh contributed US$28,300, including a Bangladesh pavilion in the campus. The government of Bhutan contributed in kind, in the form of a Bhutan pavilion in the campus. In the earthquake of 25 April 2015 in Nepal, the headquarters received minor damages, but the Bhutan pavilion completely collapsed. The pavilion was subsequently rebuilt and re-inaugurated in 2016. Directors/Director Generals of ICIMOD Since its inception, ICIMOD has been headed by a Director General. The first head of ICIMOD, Prof. Kenneth Colin Rosser, was designated as the 'Director' of ICIMOD. All subsequent heads have been designated as the 'Director Generals' of ICIMOD. Following is a list of all the Director Generals of ICIMOD till the present: Prof. Kenneth Colin Rosser, from the United Kingdom (1984–1989) Dr. E.F. Tacke, from the Federal Republic of Germany (1989–1994) Mr. Egbert Pelinck, from the Netherlands (1994–2000) Dr. Gabriel Campbell, from the United States of America (2000–2007) Dr. Andreas Schild, from Switzerland (2007–2011) Dr. David Molden, from the United States of America (2011–2020) Dr. Pema Gyamtsho, from the Kingdom of Bhutan (2020–present)Dr. Pema Gyamtsho from Bhutan is the first Director General from an ICIMOD regional member country. Organisational structure Board of Governors The highest governing body of ICIMOD is its Board of Governors, which consists of one high-ranking state official from each of its eight regional member countries, and independent members who are nominated by the ICIMOD Support Group based on their recognized professional expertise and experience. The ICIMOD Support Group consists of representatives from among the organizations and institutions that provide financial contributions to ICIMOD. Funding The programmes and activities of ICIMOD are supported by long-term sponsors, who provide funding to the institution. These include the governments of all the eight RMCs, and the governments of Australia, Austria, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Programme donors include the ADA (Austria), BMZ and BMU (Germany), the UK govt, the EU, SIDA (Sweden), IDRC (Canada), IFAD, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and USAID. Staff ICIMOD draws its core staff from a variety of backgrounds, including researchers, academics, development practitioners, professional in relevant fields, and bureaucrats on deputation. Over the years, the disciplinary backgrounds of its staff have exhibited a wide range, and have included various pure and applied natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities, and professional streams such as journalism and business studies. This interdisciplinary mix aims to holistically shape research and actions which are planned and implemented through ICIMOD's 'Regional Programmes'. Regional Programmes With its large array of partner organisations, ICIMOD organizes its work in six 'Regional Programmes', each of which, in its own way, generates and brings together scientific knowledge, orients research into use, and thereby delivers impacts across areas essential to sustainable mountain development in the HKH region. These six regional programmes are 'Adaptation and Resilience Building', 'Transboundary Landscapes', 'River Basins and Cryosphere', 'Atmosphere', 'Mountain Environment Regional Information Systems', and 'Mountain Knowledge and Action Networks'. ICIMOD's Regional Programmes build on the organisation's long history of engagement in the RMCs. They are formulated to promote transboundary cooperation between the RMCs, meet the capacity-building needs in the region, and support long-term testing, piloting, and monitoring of innovative approaches in sustainable development and managing human-ecology interfaces. Earth Observation Science at ICIMOD ICIMOD actively uses earth observation science and applications for environmental management, disaster risk reduction, and enhanced resilience in the HKH region. Several ICIMOD researchers are involved in their research in different topics of earth observation science. Among the different remote sensing work, the Regional Land Cover Monitoring System (RLCMS) is most mentionable as that provides a series of 30-m resolution annual land cover maps with harmonized land cover data for the years 2000–2018. These regional land cover maps are highly consistent and are designed to serve explicit user-defined objectives. Besides that, ICIMOD is involved in rapid mapping of flood inundation for the Koshi river basin, Bangladesh, Nepal, soil erosion and sedimentation yield spatial distribution and many more mapping activities for the regions. Relevance Role as an apolitical intergovernmental platform A 2021 case study of ICIMOD from the World Bank by Aditya Valiathan Pillai comments on ICIMOD's role as an apolitical intergovernmental platform: In the Himalayas – where national interests are often seen as contradictory to regional interests – regional institutions are forced to devote considerable effort to making their case. ICIMOD’s story demonstrates useful methods of achieving this objective: proactive engagement with political constituencies; efforts at reputation building through research to earn a place in likeminded global and regional networks; and hiring recognized subject experts to carry the institutional flag. These efforts are still a work in progress at ICIMOD, but they seem to be producing results. Role in the aftermath of the April 2015 Nepal Earthquake Immediately after the April 2015 Nepal Earthquake, scientists at ICIMOD began supporting rescue and relief efforts by closely monitoring landslides, glacier lakes and dammed rivers through the analyses of satellite images, and providing the latest information to the Nepalese government and relief agencies. ICIMOD scientists also worked with traffic controllers at the Tribhuvan International airport, Kathmandu, by providing assistance to assess weather and terrain conditions. Teams of volunteers from ICIMOD went to aid relief efforts in villages nearby ICIMOD and Kathmandu. References External links ICIMOD Homepage ICIMOD Publications ICIMOD Data sets

international panel of experts on sustainable food systems

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) is an international non-profit association, with the goal to promote transition to sustainable food systems around the world and it was registered in Belgium in the year 2015. It was founded by Daniel et Nina Carasso, Olivier De Schutter, former UN special rapporteur on the right to food, and Emile Frison, former Director General of Bioversity International to inform debates on food system reforms around the world. It conducts research focused in the domains of political economy, nutrition, climate change, ecology, agronomy, agroecology, and economics, as well as direct involvement in political processes. History IPES-Food is an international non-profit organization (“AISBL” in French) under Belgian law. It is composed of 24 panel members from different disciplines, including environmental scientists, development economists, nutritionists, agronomists, and sociologists, as well as experienced practitioners from civil society and social movements, originating from 18 countries across 5 continents.The panel is co-chaired by Olivier De Schutter, who is also UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, and Lim Li Ching, a senior researcher at Third World Network. 22 further panel members form its General Assembly: Bina Agarwal, Molly Anderson, Jane Battersby, Million Belay, Nicolas Bricas, Joji Carino, Susan Chomba, Jennifer Clapp, Mamadou Goïta, Emile Frison, Shalmali Guttal, Hans Herren, Phil Howard, Melissa Leach, Desmond McNeill, Sofía Monsalve Suárez, Pat Mooney, Raj Patel, Elisabetta Recine, Ricardo Salvador, Jomo Sundaram, Nettie Wiebe. Prominent past members of the panel include: Johan Rockström, Claude Fischler, Martin Kohr, Corinna Hawkes. The experts are appointed by invitation, for a three year renewable mandate. An administrative council is the executive body of the association, and is composed of the two co-chairs plus one to three members elected by the panel. It is supported by a small secretariat of 5 staff located in Brussels, under the responsibility of the co-chairs of IPES-Food. IPES-Food’s work is guided by four principles: a holistic approach that addresses food systems in their entirety; a sustainability approach that includes environmental, health, social, cultural, and economic dimensions; a political economy approach that recognizes the power relations and influences exercised by actors within the food system; and a democratic approach to knowledge that identifies the value of state-of-the-art research in natural and social sciences, while recognizing the importance of experiential, indigenous and traditional knowledge.The main way in which IPES-Food seeks to achieve change is by preparing and disseminating reports on different aspects of the global food system, which are rigorous in both empirical and analytical terms. These reports are heavily critical of the productivist approach to agriculture, demonstrating its negative impacts on the environment and human wellbeing. IPES-Food has advocated for agroecology. Notable publications “The New Science of Sustainable Food Systems” (2015) calls for a joined-up picture of food systems and their political economy as a unit of analysis. “From Uniformity to Diversity” (2016) argues for a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems, and identifies ‘lock-ins’ blocking this transition. “Too Big To Feed” (2017) explores the impacts of mega-mergers, consolidation and concentration of power in the agri-food sector. “Unraveling the Food-Health Nexus” (2017) co-developed with the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, provides insight into the health impacts of industrial food systems and highlights the need for significant human health reforms. “What Makes Urban Food Policy Happen?” (2017) draws lessons from five cities on how to overcome barriers to implementing sustainable food policies at the municipal level. “Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems” (2018) compiles case studies of seven experiences of agroecological transitions around the world. “Towards a Common Food Policy for the EU” (2019) proposes a Common Food Policy for the European Union to replace the Common Agriculture Policy, with policy reforms required in order to deliver sustainable food systems. It draws on the collective intelligence of more than 400 farmers, food entrepreneurs, civil society activists, scientists and policymakers consulted through a three-year process of research and deliberation. This report was endorsed by the European Parliament in a motion adopted in 2021 in favor of a EU farm to fork strategy. “COVID-19 and the Crisis in Food Systems” (2020) draws insights from the weaknesses and inequalities in food systems exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, and proposes structural reforms to build resilience to future shocks. “Money Flows: What is holding back investment in agroecological research for Africa?” (2020) co-developed with Biovision and the Institute of Development Studies, analyzes financial flows in food and agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa. “The Added Value(s) of Agroecology: Unlocking the potential for transition in West Africa” (2020) identifies eight key obstacles to agroecology in West Africa, but also four leverage points. It draws on a three-year participatory research process with family farmers, researchers and policymakers in West Africa. “A Long Food Movement: transforming food systems by 2045” (2021) published with ETC Group lays out a series of strategies for the food movement to build sustainable food systems over 25 years. “The Politics of Protein” (2022) scrutinizes key claims about the future of protein (including livestock and alternative proteins), identifies five ways in which these claims result in oversimplified discussions, and sets out recommendations to reduce polarization. “Another Perfect Storm?” (2022) takes stock of the impacts of the Russo-Ukraine war on global food security, highlighting the vicious cycles of climate change, conflict, poverty, and food insecurity that are leaving millions of people highly vulnerable to shocks. “Smoke and Mirrors” (2022) examines competing framings of food system sustainability: agroecology, regenerative agriculture, and nature-based solutions. “Breaking the Cycle of Unsustainable Food Systems, Hunger, and Debt” (2023) identifies unsustainable food systems as a critical factor behind rising debt and hunger today “Who’s Tipping the Scales?” (2023) examines the implications of the growing influence of large agribusiness corporations on the international governance of food systems for people and the planet, criticizing multi-stakeholder governance. Events At the 2021 U.N. Climate Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, IPES-Food launched the Glasgow Food and Climate Declaration alongside 100 regional and subnational governments pledging to tackle the climate crisis through integrated food policies. During the 2022 U.N. Climate Conference (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, IPES-Food partnered with the Food4Climate Pavilion with Food Tank, Compassion in World Farming, FOUR PAWS, and ProVeg International. In 2023, IPES-Food partnered with Compassion in World Farming and the Institute of Development Studies for the second Extinction Or Regeneration conference on Transforming food systems for human, animal and planetary health. Funding IPES-Food receives funding from the Fondation Daniel et Nina Carasso, the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le progrès de l'Homme, the 11th Hour Foundation, and Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. It does not accept funding from governments or corporations, allowing the panel to deliver independent analysis. References As of this edit, this article uses content from "IPES-Food - International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems", which is licensed in a way that permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. External links IPES-Food website

germanwatch

Germanwatch e.V. usually is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Bonn, Germany. It seeks to influence public policy on trade, the environment, and relations between countries in the industrialized north and underdeveloped south. The organization collates a variety of economic and social data to formulate position papers, often in partnership with other NGOs. Particular areas of interest include trade in food and agricultural policy, climate change, and corporate accountability. Germanwatch was founded 1991 by Christoph Bals. Climate Change Performance Index The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is an annual publication by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and Climate Action Network International. It evaluates the climate protection performance of 63 countries and the EU, which are together responsible for over 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions.Since the CCPI 2018, the CCPI takes into account greenhouse gas emissions (40%), renewable energy (20%), energy use (20%), and climate policy (20%). The climate policy evaluation is unique for the CCPI and consults around 400 experts regarding national and international climate policy performance.In the most recent CCPI 2019, no country has performed well enough to reach one of the top three places. The fourth rank is occupied by Sweden. Global Climate Risk Index Germanwatch also publishes the Global Climate Risk Index. The annually published Global Climate Risk Index analyses to what extent countries have been affected by the impacts of weather-related loss events. The index takes into account lives lost and financial costs incurred due to such events. Slow onset climate risks like rising sea levels and melting glaciers, which occur incrementally and over a long period are not factored in by the index. Events On 9 November 2016, Lutz Weischer of Germanwatch told Deutsche Welle, following the election of Donald Trump as US president, that "Germany's climate and energy policy stances are highly influential globally, and now must be strengthened". References External links Germanwatch, english (2020). Accessed April 28, 2020. Germanwatch, french Archived 2009-09-04 at the Wayback Machine (2009). Accessed July 2, 2009. Germanwatch, german Archived 2009-05-28 at the Wayback Machine (2009). Accessed July 2, 2009. Germanwatch, spanish Archived 2009-09-05 at the Wayback Machine (2009). Accessed July 2, 2009.

carnian pluvial episode

The Carnian pluvial episode (CPE), often called the Carnian pluvial event, was an interval of major change in global climate that was synchronous with significant changes in Earth's biota both in the sea and on land. It occurred during the latter part of the Carnian Stage, a subdivision of the late Triassic period, and lasted for perhaps 1-2 million years (around 234-232 million years ago). The CPE represents a significant episode in the evolution and diversification of many taxa that are important today, among them some of the earliest dinosaurs (which include the ancestors of birds), lepidosaurs (ancestors of modern-day snakes and lizards), pterosaurs and true mammals. In the marine realm it saw the first appearance among the microplankton of coccoliths and dinoflagellates, with the latter linked to the rapid diversification of scleractinian corals through the establishment of symbiotic zooxanthellae within them. The CPE also saw the extinction of many aquatic invertebrate species, especially among the ammonoids, bryozoa, and crinoids.Evidence for the CPE is observed in Carnian strata worldwide, and in sediments of both terrestrial and marine environments. On land, the prevailing arid climate across much of the supercontinent Pangea shifted briefly to a hotter and more humid climate, with a significant increase in rainfall and runoff. In the oceans, there was reduced deposition of carbonate minerals. This may reflect the extinction of many carbonate-forming organisms, but may also be due to a rise in the carbonate compensation depth, below which most carbonate shells dissolve and leave few carbonate particles on the ocean floor to form sediments.Climate change during the Carnian pluvial event is reflected in chemical changes in Carnian strata across the CPE, which suggest that global warming was prevalent at the time. This climate change was probably linked to the eruption of extensive flood basalts as the Wrangellia Terrane was accreted onto the northwestern end of the North American Plate. History and nomenclature Environmental disturbance and high extinction rates were observed for sediments of the Carnian stage long before a global climate perturbation was proposed. Schlager & Schöllnberger (1974) drew attention to a dark siliciclastic layer which abruptly interrupted a long period of carbonate deposition in the Northern Limestone Alps. They termed this stratigraphic "wende" (turning point) the Reingrabener Wende, and it has also been called the Reingraben event or Raibl event. Several Carnian terrestrial formations (namely the Schilfsandstein of Germany and various members of the United Kingdom's Mercia Mudstone Group) are intervals of river sediments enriched with kaolinitic clay and plant debris, despite having been deposited between more arid strata. Humidity-adapted palynomorphs in New Brunswick, karst topography in the U.K., and a carbon isotope excursion in Israel were all reported for the middle of the Carnian prior to 1989. The Julian-Tuvalian boundary experienced high extinction rates among many marine invertebrates, while an extinction among land vertebrates was suggested to occur in the late Carnian.In 1989, a paper by Michael J. Simms and Alastair H. Ruffell combined these disparate observations into a new hypothesis, pointing to an episode of increased rainfall synchronous with significant ecological turnover in the mid-Carnian. The paper was inspired by a conversation between Simms and Ruffell, on 10 November 1987 at Birmingham University, that connected Ruffell's research on lithological changes in the Mercia Mudstone Group to Simms's research on crinoid extinction. A key aspect of their hypothesis was that the evidence used to demonstrate the climate change was entirely independent of the evidence for biotic change; fossils were not used in any way to infer climate climate change. Their hypothesized climatic disturbance, which they named the Carnian pluvial episode, was tentatively considered to be a result of oceanic and/or volcanic instability related to the early rifting of Pangea, but at that time direct evidence of this was lacking. Simms and Ruffell published several more papers in the coming years, but their hypothesis was not widely accepted. A strong critique by Visscher et al. (1994) argued that aridity-adapted pollen stayed abundant through the entire Carnian of Germany, suggesting that the Schilfsandstein was simply indicative of an invading river system rather than widespread climate change. Their critique also coined the term "Carnian pluvial event", which would eventually become among the most widespread names for the climatic disturbance.The obscurity of Simms and Ruffell's hypothesis began to dissipate in the late 2000s, as further support accumulated from studies on Carnian sites in Italy. Interest in the hypothesis was greatly enhanced by a 2008 meeting and workshop on Triassic climate at the Museum of Nature South Tyrol in Bolzano, Italy. However, even as the global nature of the CPE became increasingly accepted, its ultimate cause was still hotly debated going into the 2010s. Even its nomenclature was not agreed upon, with various authors applying names such as the middle Carnian wet intermezzo, Carnian humid episode, Carnian pluvial phase, and Carnian crisis. Carbon and Osmium isotope records published over the coming years supported a strong link between the Carnian climate disturbances and the Wrangellia large igneous province, but many questions remain unanswered. A geological workshop focusing on the CPE met in 2018 at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg (HWK) Institute for Advanced Study in Delmenhorst, Germany. The workshop was intended to spur further research on the mechanisms, impact, and stratigraphy of the CPE, as well as its relevance for understanding modern climate change. It also attempted to standardize the nomenclature of the CPE, rejecting descriptors such as "event" (typically applied to geological processes under a million years in duration) or "middle Carnian" (a nebulous term with no equivalent geological substage). Geological evidence Climate during the Carnian pluvial episode The Carnian pluvial episode introduced markedly more humid conditions across the globe, interrupting the otherwise arid climate of the Late Triassic period. This humidity was related to increased rainfall during the CPE, evidence of which includes: siliciclastic (high silica-content) sediment in sedimentary basins, reflecting a high level of continental weathering and runoff; significant karst conduits (caves) in Palaeozoic limestone inliers beneath the Late Triassic terrestrial unconformity. (the topographic context of these caves is consistent with a Carnian age although some claim a Rhaetian age based on localised occurrence of microfossils) the development of histic and spodic palaeosols, fossil soils which are typical of a tropical humid climate with more water entering through precipitation than leaving through evapotranspiration; hygrophytic palynological assemblages that reflect vegetation more adapted to a humid climate; the widespread presence of amber.This usually wet climate of the CPE was periodically interrupted by drier climates typical of the rest of the Late Triassic period.Global warming was also prevalent during the Carnian pluvial event. This is evidenced by oxygen isotope analyses performed on conodont apatite from the CPE, which show an approximately 1.5‰ negative shift in the stable isotope δ18O, suggesting global warming of 3-4 °C during the CPE and/or a change in seawater salinity. This warming was probably related to extensive volcanic activity at the time, evidenced by carbon isotope trends across the CPE. This volcanic activity was in turn probably related to the formation of the Wrangellia Large igneous province around the same time, which created vast quantities of igneous (volcanic) rocks that were accreted onto the northwest end of the North American Plate (now the Wrangell Mountains, Alaska).There is some evidence for seabed euxinia (no oxygen and high toxic sulfide concentrations) during the CPE. Limestones are enriched in manganese ions near the top of the Zhuganpo Formation of south China. Manganese ions are concentrated and soluble in deep euxinic waters, but precipitate in carbonates at the base of the oxygenated zone. Increasing manganese concentrations indicate a narrowing of the oxygenated zone and a corresponding expansion of euxinic water. Effects on carbonate platforms At the onset of the CPE a sharp change in carbonate platform geometries is recorded in western Tethys. High relief, mainly isolated, small carbonate platforms surrounded by steep slopes, typical of the early Carnian, were replaced by low-relief carbonate platforms featuring low-angle slopes (i.e., ramps). This turnover is related to a major change in the biological community responsible for calcium carbonate precipitation (i.e. carbonate factory). The highly-productive, mainly bacterial-dominated biological community (M-factory) whose action led to the carbonate production on high-relief platforms was substituted by a less productive mollusc-metazoan-dominated community (C-T factories). In the South China block, the demise of carbonate platforms is coupled with the deposition of sediments typical of anoxic environments (black shales). Thanks to low oxygen levels, animal remains were often well-preserved in sedimentary deposits called Lagerstätten. These Lagerstätten are rich in crinoids and reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs. Geochemical traces Carbon The CPE is marked by disruptions to geochemical cycles, most notably the carbon cycle. Sediments corresponding to the base of the episode show a prominent -2 to -4‰ δ13C excursion, indicating the release of a lightweight carbon isotope, carbon-12, into the atmosphere. This excursion was first mentioned regarding carbonates in Israel, and was later reported in more detail from fragments of carbonized wood in the Dolomites. It has been confirmed in various carbon-based sediments throughout Europe and Asia. More precise stratigraphic evaluation of European outcrops has resolved this excursion into three or possibly four major pulses, spanning the late Julian and early Tuvalian. Each pulse can be equated with an interval of abnormal sedimentation on land and sea. The third excursion, at the Julian-Tuvalian boundary, is correlated with major ammonoid and conodont extinctions. Osmium Norwegian shale and Japanese chert from the Ladinian-Carnian boundary show a marked change in the ratio of seawater osmium isotopes. The relative abundance of osmium-187 over osmium-188 declines strongly through most of the Julian before rebounding and stabilizing in the Tuvalian. The decline is attributed to early phases of the Wrangellia LIP enriching the ocean with osmium-188. Osmium-188 is preferentially sourced directly from the mantle, while osmium-187 is a radiogenic isotope supplied from eroded land. Mercury In the Alps, moderate to high concentrations of mercury occur alongside carbon cycle disruptions, just prior to the sediment disruption which marks the CPE. These mercury spikes occur in well-oxygenated mudstones, meaning that they are not a consequence of redox fluctuations. The ratio of mercury to organic carbon is stronger and occurs earlier in areas corresponding to open marine environments. Although the mercury spikes do not correlate with any indicators of terrestrial runoff, runoff could help maintain high mercury concentrations in the ocean through the CPE. The most parsimonious explanation is that the mercury was initially derived from a pulse of volcanic activity, particularly the Wrangellia LIP. This further supports a volcanic cause of the Carnian pluvial episode. Mercury spikes are also found alongside carbon cycle disruptions in both marine and lake sediments in China. These mercury spikes have no trace of mass-independent fractionation, meaning that their isotope distribution is most consistent with a volcanic origin and atmospheric deposition. Biological turnover Conodonts, ammonoids, crinoids, bryozoa and green algae experienced high extinction rates during the CPE. Other organisms radiated and diversified during the interval, such as dinosaurs, calcareous nannofossils, corals and conifers.The oldest dinosaur-bearing fossil assemblage, the Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina, has been radiometrically dated back to 230.3 to 231.4 million years ago. This age is very similar to the minimum age calculated for the CPE (≈230.9 million years ago). Ichnofossil comparisons of various tetrapods between the time before, during and after the CPE suggest an explosive radiation of dinosaurs due to the Carnian humid phase. However, while avemetatarsalian diversity, diversification rate, and size disparity does increase through the Carnian, it increases faster in the Ladinian and Norian, suggesting that the CPE was not a major influence on the rise of dinosaurs.The oldest widespread amber deposition occurred during the CPE. Carnian amber droplets from Italian paleosols are the oldest amber deposits known to preserve arthropods and microorganisms. Amber would not reappear in the fossil record until the Late Jurassic, though it would take until the Early Cretaceous for amber to occur in concentrations equivalent to or exceeding Carnian amber.The first planktonic calcifiers occurred just after the CPE and might have been calcareous dinocysts, i.e., calcareous cysts of dinoflagellates. Possible causes Eruption of Wrangellia flood basalts The recent discovery of a prominent δ13C negative shift in higher plants' n-alkanes suggests a massive CO2 injection in the atmosphere-ocean system at the base of the CPE. The minimum radiometric age of the CPE (≈230.9 Ma) is similar in age to the basalts of the Wrangellia large igneous province (LIP). In the geological record, LIP volcanism is often correlated to episodes of major climate changes and extinctions, which may be caused by pollution of ecosystems with massive release of volcanic gases such as CO2 and SO2. Large release of CO2 in the atmosphere-ocean system by Wrangellia can explain the increased supply of siliciclastic material into basins, as observed during the CPE. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere could have resulted in global warming and consequent acceleration of the hydrological cycle, thus strongly enhancing the continental weathering. Moreover, if rapid enough, a sudden rise of pCO2 levels could have resulted in acidification of seawater with the consequent rise of the carbonate compensation depth (CCD) and a crisis of carbonate precipitation (e.g. demise of carbonate platforms in the western Tethys). Uplift during the Cimmerian orogeny According to an alternative hypothesis, the Carnian pluvial episode was a regional climatic perturbation mostly visible in the western Tethys and related to the uplift of a new mountain range, the Cimmerian orogen, which resulted from the closing of a Tethyan northern branch, east of the present European continent. The new mountain range was forming on the southern side of Laurasia, and acted then as the Himalayas and Asia do today for the Indian Ocean, maintaining a strong pressure gradient between the ocean and continent, and thus generating a monsoon. Summer monsoonal winds were thus intercepted by the Cimmerian mountain range and generated strong rain, thus explaining the switch to humid climate recognized in western Tethys sediments. == References ==

marco tedesco

Marco Tedesco (born 1971) is an Italian climate scientist at the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. Education and career He received his Laurea degree and PhD in Italy, from the University of Naples and the Italian National Research Council. He then spent five years as a postdoc and research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2012. During his time at CCNY, he founded and directed the Cryosphere Processes Laboratory. In January 2016, he joined Columbia University. Research Tedesco's research focuses on the dynamics of seasonal snowpack, ice sheet surface properties and ice dynamics and linkages between surface processes and climate drivers in the polar regions. In 2016 he contributed to the Arctic Report Card.Tedesco and his research about Greenland's melting ice sheets has been featured in Science. Additionally, Tedesco has served as a subject matter expert about climate change for The Washington Post, The New York Times, Wired, National Public Radio, and more. Books Remote Sensing of the Cryosphere. Hoboken: Wiley (2015). ISBN 978-1-118-36885-5 The hidden life of ice: Dispatches from a disappearing world. Pub. 2020 by The Experiment ISBN 978-1-615-19699-9 Discusses ice sheets in the arctic regions of Greenland, what the presence of microorganisms tell us about history, the effects of climate change and more. == References ==

daniel kammen

Daniel Merson Kammen is an American scientist, renewable energy expert, and former government figure. He currently serves as Distinguished Professor of Energy in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley, and holds a dual appointment at the university's Energy and Resources Group (part of the College of Natural Resources) and the Goldman School of Public Policy. Kammen is noted as a coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their report, Climate Change 2007, assessing man-made global warming. In 1998, Kammen was elected a permanent fellow of the African Academy of Sciences, and in 2007 received the Distinguished Citizen Award from the Commonwealth Club of California. Early life and education Originally from Ithaca, New York, Kammen is the son of Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Cornell University professor Michael Kammen. He received his bachelor's degree in physics from Cornell University and his master's degree and PhD in physics from Harvard University. As a postdoctoral researcher at Caltech, Kammen began to transition to energy research, with a focus on the role of energy in developing economies. Career in government On September 15, 2007, Kammen was appointed chief technical specialist for renewable energy and energy efficiency at the World Bank.In 2016, he was selected as a U.S. Science Envoy by the United States State Department. He resigned from this position in 2017, citing what he believed to be President Trump's failure to denounce white supremacists and neo-Nazis. His August 23, 2017, resignation letter went viral, as netizens noticed that the first letter of each paragraph spelled out I-M-P-E-A-C-H.Kammen has been mentioned as a potential Secretary of Energy in a Joe Biden administration. See also Al Gore Amory Lovins Benjamin K. Sovacool Hermann Scheer John A. "Skip" Laitner Lee Schipper Mark Z. Jacobson Renewable energy commercialization Tom Steyer References External links Daniel Kammen publications indexed by Google Scholar

list of sustainable development goal targets and indicators

This List of SDG targets and indicators provides a complete overview of all the targets and indicators for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The global indicator framework for Sustainable Development Goals was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and agreed upon at the 48th session of the United Nations Statistical Commission held in March 2017. The official indicator list below includes all the refinements made as of March 2020. Background Targets and indicators for each SDG This table is the global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development The footnotes are updates from the indicator framework in 2020. Earlier in 2016, as stated in the UN Sustainability Development, the Member States have decided that the report should be produced once every four years to inform the SDG review deliberations; reported from 15 experts who all have representing backgrounds. The official indicator list below includes all updates until the 51st session Statistical Commission in March 2020. Between 15 October 2018 and 17 April 2020, a range of changes have been made to the indicators. Those are not yet reflected in the table below. Sustainable Development Goal indicators should be disaggregated, where relevant, by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location, or other characteristics, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Repeat indicators Indicators in the global indicator framework that repeat are the following: 7.b.1/12.a.1 8.4.1/12.2.1 8.4.2/12.2.2 10.3.1/16.b.1 10.6.1/16.8.1 13.2.1/13.b.1 (with a slight amendment) 15.7.1/15.c.1 15.a.1/15.b.1 1.5.1/11.5.1/13.1.1 1.5.3/11.b.1/13.1.2 1.5.4/11.b.2/13.1.3 4.7.1/12.8.1/13.3.1 Notes fb xcbcbxc == References ==

the shift project

The Shift Project (also called The Shift or TSP) is a French nonprofit created in 2010 that aims to limit both climate change and the dependency of our economy on fossil fuels. Presentation, goals and organization The Shift Project is a French nonprofit created in January 2010 in Paris by energy-climate experts such as Jean-Marc Jancovici, Geneviève Férone-Creuzet and Michel Lepetit. The organization aims to address two issues raised by the use of carbon: climate change and the depletion of fossil fuels. The Shift works as a think tank that shares ideas with economic, political, academic and voluntary actors. The Shift Project is funded by corporate sponsors. Its budget for 2017 was about 600,000 euros.The organization is led by a group of three people elected by the board of directors, which includes members of the sponsoring companies. A group of experts, called the "Expert Committee" (Comité des experts), ensures the scientific validity of the work done by The Shift Project. This group of experts (in economics, finance, climate, physics, history...) includes Alain Grandjean, Gaël Giraud, Hervé Le Treut, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Jacques Treiner. When the think tank was created, the first director was Cédric Ringenbach. He held this position until 2016, when he left The Shift Project and created the nonprofit organization The Climate Collage, which was later renamed to The Climate Fresk. Now headed by Matthieu Auzanneau, The Shift has a team of about ten employees and works with volunteers who are grouped into an independent nonprofit called The Shifters.The Shift examines the dependency of our economy on oil through three angles: the potential return of economic growth, the issues related to the finite amount of oil and, of course, the climate change due to carbon emissions. According to The Shift, although the GDP may have use cases, it is not really useful, especially because it does not consider natural resources (so it does not account for their limited availability) or resulting externalities like greenhouse gas emissions. Projects, events and activities Since 2012, The Shift Project has organized an annual two-day meeting called The Shift Forum with the objective of running a debate between big industrial and financial company leaders and experts on climate, energy and economics. The Shift also organizes many public events, sometimes in collaboration with other organizations like the Business and Climate Summit 2015 or the World Efficiency 2015.The nonprofit also contributed to the National Debate for Energy Transition in France and its president, Jean-Marc Jancovici, is a member of the French Committee on Climate Change. Main publications The Shift mostly works in task forces: for a couple of months or years, a group of experts (from higher education and academic research, NGOs, public sector, companies...) is set up on a well-defined question. When the project ends, the task force writes a report and presents it to concerned actors. The report is then made publicly available. Addressed issues include the building rehabilitation to make them more energy-efficient, the relation between energy and GDP, alternative metrics to GDP, the scientific rigor of energy scenarios, sustainable mobility or the price of carbon.For the price of carbon in Europe, the Shift suggests to set a reservation price to 20 euros and increase it every year.Since 2013, The Shift has been gathering experts on the energy rehabilitation of buildings and made propositions like the Energy Efficiency Passport. In addition to being experimented by the Shift through the nonprofit organization Expérience P2E, this building passport was then included in the Energy Transition Law and is now used by various actors in the building industry.In 2016, at The Shift Project request, the engineer Francisco Luciano gathered a team of experts including the SNCF, Vinci Autoroutes, EDF, the CVTC, start-ups in car sharing, the senior official Olivier Paul-Dubois-Taine and researchers. In September 2017, The Shift published the report "Decarbonize mid-density areas – Less carbon more bond", for which The Shift and the project leader Francisco Luciano were invited by the Ministry for Transportation to attend the Mobility Foundations and various governmental working groups. The report, which is aimed to be well-argued and quantitative, concludes that it is possible to strongly decarbonize mobility in suburban areas thanks to cycling, car sharing and fast public transports. The working group also studied the delivery of goods and remote work. On 4 October 2018, the think tank published a report on the digital economy impact on climate and environment. The report notes that the worldwide energy consumption of the digital economy grows at a very fast rate (about 9% a year) with a worsening energy efficiency, unlike most economic sectors. It concludes by advocating digital sobriety to minimize most of this impact growth. Pledge for climate: The 2017 Decarbonize Europe Manifesto The call for action of the economic actors On 21 March 2017, the think tank made public the signatories of a text called "Decarbonize Europe Manifesto". This text is described as a wake-up call 15 months after the Paris Agreement. It begins with: "We, the signatories of this Manifesto to decarbonize Europe, call upon all European States to immediately implement policies aiming to achieve a level of greenhouse gas emissions close to zero by 2050!" and aims to "guarantee peace". It ends with: "We call upon all European actors – individuals, businesses and public authorities – to implement concrete and coherent strategies which can meet the challenge posed by climate change and the limits of natural resources.http://decarbonizeurope.org/en/" The Shift project claims the decarbonization of Europe is a challenge, but it is necessary for a modern future. It is supported by more than 3,000 citizens including 80 company directors and around forty scientists and political figures. The press mainly mentions the signature of economic leaders like the magazine Challenges: "Climate: Why the company directors (at last) unite to decarbonize Europe".The think tank then called candidates running for president for a commitment in favor of a European plan to fight climate change that would abide by the Paris Agreement Signatories of the Manifesto Company directors who signed the Manifesto include Elisabeth Borne (RATP), Martin Bouygues (Bouygues), Patricia Barbizet (Artémis-Kering), Guillaume Pepy (SNCF), Christophe Cuvillier (Unibail Rodamco), Nicolas Dufourq (BPI France), Pierre Blayau (Caise centrale de réassurance), Stéphane Richard (Orange), Alain Montarant (MACIF), Nicolas Théry (Crédit mutuel), Denis Kessler (SCOR), Xavier Huillard (Vinci), Jean-Dominique Senard (Michelin) and Agniès Ogier (Thalys). Scientists who signed the Manifesto include climatologists like Jean Jouzel, Hervé Le Treut and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; the biologist and senior official Dominique Dron; the mathematician Ivar Ekeland; physicists like Sébastien Balibar, Roger Balian and Yves Bréchet; economists like Gaël Giraud, Roger Guesnerie, Philippe Aghion, Christian de Perthuis, Jean-Marie Chevalier and Jean-Charles Hourcade; directors of grandes écoles like Meriem Fournier (AgroParis-Tech Nancy), Olivier Oger (EDHEC) and Vincent Laflèche (Mines ParisTech). Other people who signed it include former ministers like Arnaud Montebourg, Serge Lepeltier, the Belgian Philippe Maystadt and the president of the union CFE-CGC François Hommeril. Nine proposals The Shift Project published "9 propositions to take Europe to a new area" about as many projects that should be done imperatively to meet the Paris Agreement, according to the Shift. The AFP specifies that these propositions are made "in parallel with the Manifesto" and are not "endorsed by the signatories". The daily economic newspaper Les Échos highlights the "plan for a 'carbon-free' Europe".These propositions concern seven sectors: electricity, transportation, construction, industry, food, agriculture and forestry. They are described in depth in the book "Let's decarbonize!". References External links Official website Decarbonize Europe Manifesto

michael shellenberger

Michael D. Shellenberger (born June 16, 1971) is an American author and former public relations professional who writes about politics, the environment, climate change and nuclear power, as well as how he believes progressivism is linked to homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness, and more recently the lab leak hypothesis and UFO claims. He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition. He is also the founder of Environmental Progress. A controversial figure, Shellenberger disagrees with most environmentalists over the impending threats and the best policies for addressing them. He argues that global warming is "not the end of the world," and that GMO, industrial agriculture, fracking, and nuclear power are actually important tools in protecting the environment.His writing on climate change and environmentalism has received criticism from environmental scientists and academics, who have called his arguments "bad science" and "inaccurate". Response to his work from journalists has been mixed. In a similar manner, many academics criticized Shellenberger's positions and writings on homelessness, and he has received a mixed reception from writers and journalists on the topic.Shellenberger ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California in 2018 and 2022. In 2023, Shellenberger wrote stories on Substack and made appearances on NewsNation about the COVID lab leak hypothesis and UFO claims. Early life and education Shellenberger was born and raised in Colorado to Mennonite parents.He is a 1989 graduate of Greeley Central High School. He earned a BA degree from the Peace and Global Studies program at Earlham College in 1993. Subsequently, he earned an MA degree in anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1996. Career After graduation, Shellenberger moved to San Francisco to work with Global Exchange, where he founded a number of public relations firms, including "Communication Works," "Lumina Strategies" and "American Environics" with future collaborator Ted Nordhaus. Shellenberger co-founded in 2003 the Breakthrough Institute with Nordhaus. While at Breakthrough, Shellenberger wrote a number of articles with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas to critiques of the planetary boundaries hypothesis.In 2008, Time magazine named Shellenberger a Hero of the Environment.In February 2016, Shellenberger left Breakthrough and founded Environmental Progress, which is behind several public campaigns to keep nuclear power plants in operation. Shellenberger has also been called by conservative lawmakers to testify before the U.S. Congress about climate change and in favor of nuclear energy.In December 2022, Shellenberger was one of the authors who released sections of annotated internal Twitter Files authorized by new owner Elon Musk.As of December 2022, he is a writer for The Free Press.In October 2023, Shellenberger was among the signatories of the Westminster Declaration, warning the public of an increasing censorship by governments, media companies and NGOs, that would endanger freedom of speech and undermine the foundational principles of democracy. Writing and reception The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming in a Post-Environmental World In 2004, Nordhaus and Shellenberger co-authored "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World." The paper argued that environmentalism is incapable of dealing with climate change and should "die" so that a new politics can be born. The paper was criticized by members of the mainstream environmental movement. Carl Pope, the former executive director of the Sierra Club, called the essay "unclear, unfair and divisive," claiming it contained multiple factual errors and misinterpretations. However, Adam Werbach, another former Sierra Club president, praised the paper's arguments. John Passacantando, the former Greenpeace executive director, said in 2005 that Shellenberger and Nordhaus "laid out some fascinating data, but they put it in this over-the-top language and did it in this in-your-face way." Michel Gelobter, as well as other environmental experts and academics, wrote The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering transformational politics in the 21st century as a response that criticized "Death" for demanding increased technological innovation instead of addressing the systemic concerns of people of color.Matthew Yglesias of The New York Times said that "Nordhaus and Shellenberger persuasively argue...environmentalists must stop congratulating themselves for their own willingness to confront inconvenient truths and must focus on building a politics of shared hope rather than relying on a politics of fear." Yglesias added that the "Death" paper "is more convincing in its case for a change in rhetoric." Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility In 2007, Shellenberger and Nordhaus published Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. The book is an argument for what its authors describe as a positive, "post-environmental" politics that abandons the environmentalist focus on nature protection for a new focus on technological innovation to create a new economy. They were named Time magazine Heroes of the Environment (2008) after writing the book and received the 2008 Green Book Award from science journalist John Horgan.The Wall Street Journal wrote that "(i)f heeded, Nordhaus and Shellenberger's call for an optimistic outlook —- embracing economic dynamism and creative potential —- will surely do more for the environment than any U.N. report or Nobel Prize."However, environmental scholars Julie Sze and Michael Ziser questioned Shellenberger and Nordhaus's goals in publishing Break Through, noting the "evident relish in their notoriety as the 'sexy'(,) cosmopolitan 'bad boys' of environmentalism (their own words) introduces some doubt about their sincerity and reliability." Sze and Ziser asserted that Break Through failed "to incorporate the aims of environmental justice while actively trading on suspect political tropes," such as blaming China and other nations as large-scale polluters. Furthermore, Sze and Ziser claim that Shellenberger and Nordhaus advocate technology-based approaches that miss entirely the "structural environmental injustice" that natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina make visible. Ultimately, "Shellenberger believes that community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale Environmentalism."Joseph Romm, a former US Department of Energy official now with the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, argued that "(p)ollution limits are far, far more important than R&D for what really matters -- reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and driving clean technologies into the marketplace." Environmental journalist David Roberts, writing in Grist, argued that while the BTI and its founders garner much attention, their policy is lacking, and ultimately they "receive a degree of press coverage that wildly exceeds their intellectual contributions." Reviewers for the San Francisco Chronicle, the American Prospect and the Harvard Law Review argued that a critical reevaluation of green politics was unwarranted because global warming had become a high-profile issue and the Democratic Congress was preparing to act. An Ecomodernist Manifesto In April 2015, Shellenberger joined a group of scholars and Stewart Brand in issuing An Ecomodernist Manifesto. It proposed dropping the goal of "sustainable development" and replacing it with a strategy to shrink humanity's footprint by using natural resources more intensively through technological innovation. The authors argue that economic development is necessary to preserve the environment.According to The New Yorker, "most of the criticism of [the Manifesto] was more about tone than content. The manifesto's basic arguments, after all, are hardly radical. To wit: technology, thoughtfully applied, can reduce the suffering, human and otherwise, caused by climate change; ideology, stubbornly upheld, can accomplish the opposite." At The New York Times, Eduardo Porter wrote approvingly of ecomodernism's alternative approach to sustainable development. In an article titled "Manifesto Calls for an End to 'People Are Bad' Environmentalism", Slate's Eric Holthaus wrote "It's inclusive, it's exciting, and it gives environmentalists something to fight for for a change."An Ecomodernist Manifesto was met with critiques similar to Gelobter's evaluation of "Death" and Sze and Ziser's analysis of Break Through. Environmental historian Jeremy Caradonna and environmental economist Richard B. Norgaard led a group of environmental scholars in a critique, arguing that Ecomodernism "violates everything we know about ecosystems, energy, population, and natural resources," and "Far from being an ecological statement of principles, the Manifesto merely rehashes the naïve belief that technology will save us and that human ingenuity can never fail." Further, "The Manifesto suffers from factual errors and misleading statements."Environmental and Art historian T.J. Demos agreed with Caradonna, and wrote in 2017 that the Manifesto "is really nothing more than a bad utopian fantasy," that functions to support oil and gas industry and as "an apology for nuclear energy." Demos continued that "What is additionally striking about the Ecomodernist document, beyond its factual weaknesses and ecological falsehoods, is that there is no mention of social justice or democratic politics," and "no acknowledgement of the fact that big technologies like nuclear reinforce centralized power, the military-industrial complex, and the inequalities of corporate globalization." Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All In June 2020, Shellenberger published Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, in which the author argues that climate change is not the existential threat it is portrayed to be in popular media and activism. Rather, he posits that technological innovation, if allowed to continue and grow, will remedy environmental issues. According to Shellenberger, the book "explores how and why so many of us came to see important but manageable environmental problems as the end of the world, and why the people who are the most apocalyptic about environmental problems tend to oppose the best and most obvious solutions to solving them."In his book, Shellenberger argues that people shouldn't need to be worried about climate change causing crop failure, famine and consequent mass deaths because he believes that when it comes to food production, humans will be able to produce more food despite the effects of climate change. Shellenberger cites an editorial that is published by a group led by Eric Holt-Giménez to support his statement, however Holt-Giménez later told Snopes that Shellenberger "has either misunderstood our editorial, or is purposefully mischaracterizing our points." Instead Holt-Giménez criticized the industrial farming that Shellenberger advocates, and says that such practices are using a model of overproduction that generates poverty. He explained that people typically don't become hungry because there is not enough food, but that instead they become hungry when they are too poor to afford to buy the food that is produced.Before publication, the book received favorable reviews from climate scientists Tom Wigley and Kerry Emanuel, and from environmentalists such as Steve McCormick, but reviews after publication were mixed. For example, Emanuel said that while he did not regret his original positive review, he wished that "the book did not carry with it its own excesses and harmful baggage."The book has received positive reviews and coverage from conservative and libertarian news outlets and organizations, including Fox News, the Heartland Institute, the Daily Mail, Reason, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and "climate 'truther' websites". In National Review, Alex Trembath generally praised the book, writing that "despite the flaws", "Shellenberger ... do[es] a service in calling out the environmental alarmism and hysteria that obscure environmental debates rather than illuminate them. And they stand as outliers in those debates for precisely the reason that they claim: Abjuring environmentalist orthodoxy carries heavy social and professional penalties, so few are willing to do so." However, Trembath criticized some of the book as "nuclear fetishism". In The Wall Street Journal, John Tierney wrote that "Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of “environmental colonialism.”" In the Financial Times, Jonathan Ford wrote that the book "provide[s] a corrective to many of the green assumptions that dominate the media. And if they make the world a little more questioning of the next polar bear story, that is no bad thing." In the Scientific American, John Horgan said that "Apocalypse Never will make some green progressives mad. But I see it as a useful and even necessary counterpoint to the alarmism being peddled by some activists and journalists, including me", but Horgan criticized the book for arguing too "aggressively for nuclear power" and added that "my main gripe with Shellenberger isn't that he's too optimistic; it's that he's not optimistic enough." The book also received a positive review from Die Welt.In contrast, in reviewing Apocalypse Never for Yale Climate Connections, environmental scientist Peter Gleick argued that "bad science and bad arguments abound" in Apocalypse Never, writing that "What is new in here isn't right, and what is right isn't new." In a review for the Los Angeles Review of Books environmental economist Sam Bliss said that while "the book itself is well written", Shellenberger "plays fast and loose with the facts" and "Troublingly, he seems more concerned with showing climate-denying conservatives clever new ways to own the libs than with convincing environmentalists of anything." Similarly, environmental and technological social scientists Taylor Dotson and Michael Bouchey have argued that as an "Environmental activist" and "ecomodernist", Shellenberger's writing in his books and on his foundation's website "bombards readers with facts that are disconnected, out of context, poorly explained, and of questionable relevance," and ultimately, his "fanatic, scientistic discourse stands in the way of nuclear energy policy that is both intelligent and democratic."A 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promoted Apocalypse Never, was analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feedback fact-checking project. The reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change." Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy for The Breakthrough Institute, wrote that Shellenberger "includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive." The Forbes article was later deleted for violating Forbes' policy against self-promotion. In response, Shellenberger called the deletion censorship and The Daily Wire, Quillette, and Breitbart News re-published all or parts of the article. San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities In 2021, Shellenberger published San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, a criticism of progressive social policies.Manhattan Institute fellow Charles Fain Lehman summarized Shellenberger's topic: "Many major municipalities are marred by violent crime, homelessness, uncontrolled mental illness, and general disorder. This all in spite of an ever-advancing cadre of progressive leaders, who promise their latest tax hike will finally target the 'root causes' of the breakdown." Benjamin Schneider, writing in the San Francisco Examiner, described the book's thesis as "[P]rogressives have embraced 'victimology,' a belief system wherein society’s downtrodden are subject to no rules or consequences for their actions. This ideology, cultivated in cities like San Francisco for decades and widely adopted over the past two years, is the key to understanding, and thus solving, our crises of homelessness, drug overdoses and crime."Wes Enzinna, writing in The New York Times, charged that Shellenberger "does exactly what he accuses his left-wing enemies of doing: ignoring facts, best practices and complicated and heterodox approaches in favor of dogma." Olga Khazan, writing in The Atlantic, said that "The problem—or opportunity—for Shellenberger is that virtually every homelessness expert disagrees with him. ('Like an internet troll that's written a book' is how Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of San Francisco's Coalition on Homelessness, described him to me.)". However, Khazan also noted that "some experts agree with some of Shellenberger's critiques of Housing First. Though they stop short of endorsing Shellenberger or his views". Tim Stanley, writing in The Daily Telegraph, described it as a "revelatory, must-read book", but added "There is much in the argument for liberal readers to contest." Reporting on claims of secretive U.S. government UFO retrieval program Shellenberger has said he is "very interested in the whole UFO phenomenon."Shellenberger has appeared in multiple interviews, including with Brian Entin of NewsNation claiming that he has spoken to "some of the same sources that have been feeding Mr. Grusch information" and that they are saying that the U.S. government possesses "at least 12 to 15 nonhuman aircraft" with "at least four morphologies, different structures" and that "six were in good shape; six were not in good shape". Politics Shellenberger worked with left-wing groups in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990s but has since renounced the Democratic Party. On Twitter, he frequently criticizes "wokeism" and critical race theory. Of his politics, Shellenberger has said, "I'm a liberal in my compassion for the vulnerable. I'm a libertarian in my love of freedom. And I'm a conservative in that I believe you need civilization to protect both of those things." A self-described ecomodernist, Shellenberger believes that economic growth can continue without negative environmental impacts through technological research and development, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. Endorsements In the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, he backed recalling Newsom and endorsed former Mayor of San Diego Kevin Faulconer. 2018 California gubernatorial election Shellenberger was a Democratic candidate for governor in the 2018 California gubernatorial election, placing ninth in a field of twenty-seven candidates with 0.5% of the vote, with 31,692 votes (the winner was Gavin Newsom with 2,343,792 votes). 2022 California gubernatorial election Shellenberger ran as an independent in the 2022 gubernatorial election on a platform calling for homelessness reform via removal of encampments and mandatory treatment for drug addiction and mental illness, advocating for water desalination as an answer to California's water shortage, and increasing use of nuclear power, specifically by keeping the Diablo Canyon Power Plant open and building new power plants. Shellenberger placed third in a field of twenty-six with 4.1% of the vote. A HuffPost profile called Shellenberger a "Centrist": "Shellenberger instead is closer in character to figures like New York Mayor Eric Adams (D), a moderate critic of certain left-wing dogmas". The same article noted his support for "abortion rights, universal health care, gun safety regulation, a $15 minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, and alternatives to incarceration for drug-related crimes". The Wall Street Journal wrote that Shellenberger is a proponent of school choice initiatives. Personal life Shellenberger resides in Berkeley, California, with his wife, sociologist Helen Lee.He is a fan of American musician Lana Del Rey.Raised by Mennonite parents and a congregationalist mother, in adulthood, Shellenberger became irreligious and an existentialist. However, while writing his book Apocalypse Never, he returned to the Christian faith, seeing the religion as the only solution to society's "intense hatred and anger". He describes himself as a Protestant. References External links Official website Michael Shellenberger on Twitter Appearances on C-SPAN "Michael Shellenberger: Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" on YouTube

global cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.In the mid 1970s, the limited temperature series available suggested that the temperature had decreased for several decades up to then. As longer time series of higher quality became available, it became clear that global temperature showed significant increases overall. Introduction: general awareness and concern By the 1970s, scientists were becoming increasingly aware that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend. The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned global warming from greenhouse gases as a counterforce to the cooling effect of aerosols in 1968. By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects. In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a very significant warming of global climate" was probable.Currently, there are some concerns about the possible regional cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be very low, and the IPCC notes, "even in models where the THC weakens, there is still warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive." Physical mechanisms The cooling period is reproduced by current (1999 on) global climate models that include the physical effects of sulfate aerosols, and there is now general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling. At the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing. Aerosols Human activity — mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land use changes — increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the solar radiation reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; current scientific work indicates that global warming is far more likely. Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of better theory and the observed warming, aerosols are thought to have contributed a cooling tendency (outweighed by increases in greenhouse gases) and also have contributed to global dimming. Orbital forcing Orbital forcing refers to the slow, cyclical changes in the tilt of Earth's axis and shape of its orbit. These cycles alter the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by a small amount and affect the timing and intensity of the seasons. This mechanism is thought to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of the mechanism was increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s. The paper of Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" qualified its predictions with the remark that "forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted ... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate".The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who are accustomed to dealing with very long time scales and use "soon" to refer to periods of thousands of years. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age onset (i.e., less than a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. Some creative ways around this were found, notably one championed by Nigel Calder under the name of "snowblitz", but these ideas did not gain wide acceptance. It is common to see it asserted that the length of the current interglacial temperature peak is similar to the length of the preceding interglacial peak (Sangamon/Eem), and from this conclude that we might be nearing the end of this warm period. This conclusion is mistaken. Firstly, because the lengths of previous interglacials were not particularly regular; see figure. Petit et al. note that "interglacials 5.5 and 9.3 are different from the Holocene, but similar to each other in duration, shape and amplitude. During each of these two events, there is a warm period of 4 kyr followed by a relatively rapid cooling". Secondly, future orbital variations will not closely resemble those of the past. Concern pre-1970s In 1923, there was concern about a new ice age and Captain Donald Baxter MacMillan sailed toward the Arctic sponsored by the National Geographical Society to look for evidence of advancing glaciers.In 1926, a Berlin astronomer was predicting global cooling but that it was "ages away".Concerns that a new ice age was approaching was revived in the 1950s. During the Cold War, there were concerns by Harry Wexler that setting off atom bombs could be hastening a new ice age from a nuclear winter scenario.J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940. At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966, Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide ... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants ... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump." Concern in the 1970s 1970s awareness Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then" (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming). This peaking concern is partially attributable to the fact much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports, and "unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973 ... pushed the issue into the public consciousness".In the 1970s, the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun. Spencer R. Weart's history of The Discovery of Global Warming says that: "While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way" [emphasis added].On January 11, 1970, The Washington Post reported that "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age".In 1972, Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps".Also in 1972, a group of glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"; but the volume of Quaternary Research reporting on the meeting said that "the basic conclusion to be drawn from the discussions in this section is that the knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is still lamentably inadequate". George Kukla and Robert Matthews, in a Science write-up of a conference, asked when and how the current interglacial would end; concluding that, unless there were impacts from future human activity, "Global cooling and related rapid changes of environment, substantially exceeding the fluctuations experienced by man in historical times, must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries", but many other scientists doubted these conclusions. 1970 SCEP report The 1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling". 1971 to 1975: papers on warming and cooling factors By 1971, studies indicated that human caused air pollution was spreading, but there was uncertainty as to whether aerosols would cause warming or cooling, and whether or not they were more significant than rising CO2 levels. J. Murray Mitchell still viewed humans as "innocent bystanders" in the cooling from the 1940s to 1970, but in 1971 his calculations suggested that rising emissions could cause significant cooling after 2000, though he also argued that emissions could cause warming depending on circumstances. Calculations were too basic at this time to be trusted to give reliable results.An early numerical computation of climate effects was published in the journal Science in July 1971 as a paper by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate". The paper used rudimentary data and equations to compute the possible future effects of large increases in the densities in the atmosphere of two types of human environmental emissions: greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide; particulate pollution such as smog, some of which remains suspended in the atmosphere in aerosol form for years.The paper suggested that the global warming due to greenhouse gases would tend to have less effect with greater densities, and while aerosol pollution could cause warming, it was likely that it would tend to have a cooling effect which increased with density. They concluded that "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."Both their equations and their data were badly flawed, as was soon pointed out by other scientists and confirmed by Schneider himself. In January 1972, Robert Jay Charlson et al. pointed out that with other reasonable assumptions, the model produced the opposite conclusion. The model made no allowance for changes in clouds or convection, and erroneously indicated that eight times as much CO2 would only cause 2 °C of warming. In a paper published in 1975, Schneider corrected the overestimate of aerosol cooling by checking data on the effects of dust produced by volcanoes. When the model included estimated changes in solar intensity, it gave a reasonable match to temperatures over the previous thousand years and its prediction was that "CO2 warming dominates the surface temperature patterns soon after 1980." 1972 and 1974 National Science Board The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now." But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."The board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead, continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." Discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of humans that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century". The report did not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system." 1975 National Academy of Sciences report There also was a Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action".The report stated (p. 36) that, "The average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880s until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter." It also stated (p. 44) that, "If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2." The report did not predict whether the 25-year cooling trend would continue. It stated (Forward, p. v) that, "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course [so] it does not seem possible to predict climate", and (p. 2) "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know." The Report's "program for action" was a call for creation of a new National Climatic Research Program. It stated (p. 62), "If we are to react rationally to the inevitable climatic changes of the future, and if we are ever to predict their future course, whether they are natural or man-induced, a far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess. It is, moreover, important that this knowledge be acquired as soon as possible." For that reason, it stated, "the time has now come to initiate a broad and coordinated attack on the problem of climate and climatic change." 1974 Time magazine article While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media. In their June 24, 1974, issue, Time presented an article titled "Another Ice Age?" that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists ... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary." 1975 Newsweek article An April 28, 1975, article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article stated "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies ... The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation", "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons", "impossible for starving peoples to migrate", "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler stated that "the story wasn't 'wrong' in the journalistic sense of 'inaccurate.'") Other 1970s sources Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend.In 1977, a popular book on the topic was published, called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age. 1979 WMO conference Later in the decade, at a WMO conference in 1979, F. Kenneth Hare reported: Fig 8 shows ... 1938 the warmest year. They [temperatures] have since fallen by about 0.4 °C. At the end there is a suggestion that the fall ceased in about 1964, and may even have reversed.Figure 9 challenges the view that the fall of temperature has ceased ... the weight of evidence clearly favours cooling to the present date ... The striking point, however, is that interannual variability of world temperatures is much larger than the trend ... it is difficult to detect a genuine trendIt is questionable, moreover, whether the trend is truly global. Calculated variations in the 5-year mean air temperature over the southern hemisphere chiefly with respect to land areas show that temperatures generally rose between 1943 and 1975. Since the 1960-64 period this rise has been strong ... the scattered SH data fail to support a hypothesis of continued global cooling since 1938. [p 65] Late-20th-century cooling predictions 1980s Concerns about nuclear winter arose in the early 1980s from several reports. Similar speculations have appeared over effects due to catastrophes such as asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. 1990s In 1991, a prediction by Carl Sagan and other scientists who had worked on the famous TTAPS study on nuclear winter that massive oil well fires in Kuwait would cause significant effects on climate was incorrect.In January 1999, contrarian Patrick Michaels wrote a commentary offering to "take even money that the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite", on the basis of his view that record temperatures in 1998 had been a blip. Indeed, over that period, satellite-measured temperatures never again approached their 1998 peak. Due to a sharp but temporary dip in temperatures in 1999–2000, a least-squares linear regression fit to the satellite temperature record showed little overall trend. The RSS satellite temperature record showed a slight cooling trend, but the UAH satellite temperature record showed a slight warming trend. Twenty-first century In 2003, the Office of Net Assessment at the United States Department of Defense was commissioned to produce a study on the likely and potential effects of abrupt modern climate change should a shutdown of thermohaline circulation occur. The study, conducted under ONA head Andrew Marshall, modelled its prospective climate change on the 8.2 kiloyear event, precisely because it was the middle alternative between the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. Scientists said that "abrupt climate change initiated by Greenland ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century". Present level of knowledge The concern that cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, has been observed to be incorrect, as was assessed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. More has to be learned about climate. However, the growing records have shown that short term cooling concerns have not been borne out. As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial, while the four most recent interglacials lasted about 10,000 years, the interglacial before that lasted around 28,000 years. Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally in the absence of human perturbations. Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years. A. Berger expressed the opinion in 2005 (EGU presentation) that the present CO2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely. This is consistent with the prediction of David Archer and colleagues who argued in 2005 that the present level of CO2 will suspend the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years and will be the longest duration and intensity of the projected interglacial period and are longer than have been seen in the last 2.6 million years.A 2015 report by the Past Global Changes Project, including Berger, says simulations show that a new glaciation is unlikely to happen within the next approximately 50,000 years, before the next strong drop in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation occurs "if either atmospheric CO2 concentration remains above 300 ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000 Pg C" (i.e. 1000 gigatonnes carbon). "Only for an atmospheric CO2 content below the preindustrial level may a glaciation occur within the next 10 ka. ... Given the continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions, glacial inception is very unlikely to occur in the next 50 ka, because the timescale for CO2 and temperature reduction toward unperturbed values in the absence of active removal is very long [IPCC, 2013], and only weak precessional forcing occurs in the next two precessional cycles." (A precessional cycle is around 21,000 years, the time it takes for the perihelion to move all the way around the tropical year.)As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in subsequent decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979. The ice age fallacy A common argument used to dismiss the significance of human-caused climate change is to allege that scientists showed concerns about global cooling which did not materialise, and there is therefore no need to heed current scientific concerns about global warming. In a 1998 article promoting the Oregon Petition, Fred Singer argued that expert concerns about global warming should be dismissed on the basis that what he called "the same hysterical fears" had supposedly been expressed earlier about global cooling.Bryan Walsh of Time magazine (2013) calls this argument "the Ice Age Fallacy". Illustrating the argument, for several years an image had been circulated of a Time cover, supposedly dated 1977, showing a penguin above a cover story title "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age". In March 2013, The Mail on Sunday published an article by David Rose, showing this same cover image, to support his claim that there was as much concern in the 1970s about a "looming 'ice age'" as there was now about global warming. After researching the authenticity of the magazine cover image, in July 2013, Walsh confirmed that the image was a hoax, modified from a 2007 cover story image for "The Global Warming Survival Guide". See also References Further reading Carslaw, K. S. "The Climate Record: The Last Several Centuries and Last Several Decades. Is the Climate Stable?". ENVI2150 Climate Change: Scientific Issues. Archived from the original on February 20, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2005. unknown. "History of Continental Drift - Before Wegener". Archived from the original on November 23, 2005. Retrieved November 17, 2005. http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=52903 Vanderbilt Television News Archive Johnson, Scott K. (June 7, 2016). "That '70s myth—did climate science really call for a "coming ice age?"". Ars Technica. Retrieved June 8, 2019. External links What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?, summaries for laypeople of research and conspiracy theories by Skeptical Science, described by the marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world". Discussion and quotes from various papers about the "1970s prediction of an imminent ice age", by Wm Connolley SCOPE 13 - The Global Carbon Cycle, SCOPE, 1976. SCOPE 27 - Climate Impact Assessment, 1984. "Another Ice Age?". Time. June 24, 1974. Archived from the original on March 12, 2007. Chambers FM, Brain SA (2002). "Paradigm shifts in late-Holocene climatology?". The Holocene. 12 (2): 239–249. Bibcode:2002Holoc..12..239C. doi:10.1191/0959683602hl540fa. S2CID 128774561. Past Climate Change Beliefs - some newspaper scans A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems - CIA report from 1974 Geohydrological implications of climate change on water resource development, C. W. Stockton and W. R. Boggess, Contract Report DACW 72-78-C-0031, for U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Res. Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, C. W. Stockton & associates, Tucson, May 15, 1979. (See p. 159)

catherine potvin

Catherine Potvin is a tropical forest ecologist and professor at McGill University in the Department of Biology. Her scientific research studies climate change, carbon cycling, and biodiversity in tropical rainforests with an additional focus on community empowerment and climate change policy. She was the first woman to receive the Miroslaw Romanowski Medal from the Royal Society of Canada, in recognition of her "significant contributions to the resolution of scientific aspects of environmental problems". In addition to her scientific research, she works on sustainable development with indigenous communities in Panama and on policy as a former UN climate change negotiator for Panama and leads climate change initiatives in Canada. Early life and education As the granddaughter of farmers, Catherine Potvin grew up with an appreciation for nature. Her motivation to pursue biology stemmed from her fascination and desire to better understand the biodiversity of the Earth and a concern for its degradation. Potvin earned a B.S. (1981) and M.S. (1982) from the University of Montreal in Biology, and later earned her Ph.D. in Botany from Duke University (1985). After her Ph.D., Potvin returned to the University of Montreal for her postdoctoral studies in biostatistics. Research and career Scientific contributions Potvin has published over 100 scientific journal articles and multiple book chapters. In addition to her professorship at McGill University, she is a Trottier Fellow from the Trottier Institute for Science and Public Policy at McGill and holds a Canada Research Chair in Climate Change Mitigation and Tropical Forest. Potvin's research focuses on climate change and carbon cycling in the tropics with an interdisciplinary lens of socioeconomic and policy aspects of land use changes. The unifying theme of her work and laboratory is "Science for empowerment", which has provided an integrative framework for her work with diverse stakeholders including scientists, citizens, indigenous communities, and governments. Her work has received the Miroslaw Romanowski Medal from the Royal Society of Canada in recognition of her scientific work as "significant contributions to the resolution of scientific aspects of environmental problems". Initiatives in Panama Potvin has been working in the rainforests and with indigenous communities of Panama since 1993. She is an Associate Scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama. In the mid-1990s, Potvin laid the foundation for a long and deep partnership with the Ipeti-Embera indigenous community in the Bayano region of eastern Panama. She has paved the way for more collaborative scientist-indigenous community partnerships to promote land conservation, resilient livelihoods, and preservation of cultural traditions. Through co-developing methods for sustainable forest management and carbon storage measurement with the community, her work has helped the Ipeti-Embera continue their traditional house-building using palm, traditional instrument making, and cultural body painting. As a result of this collaborative partnership and forest carbon studies, her work has directly slowed the rate of deforestation in the Ipeti community, with about half of their territory remaining forested in contrast to a neighboring Embera community that has lost its forest. Her work has encouraged Embera leaders to continue forest carbon measuring campaigns with support from the Environmental Defense Fund and the World Bank. In addition to her capacity building work with indigenous communities, she is also a negotiator of the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative on behalf of Panama in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2005-2009). Her environmental protection work in Panama has been recognized as exemplary contributions by the Ministry of the Environment of Panama. Policy work In addition to her research, she is a scientist-activist that has gained experience in national and international climate change and conservation policy. In addition to being a UN climate change negotiator in Panama, she pioneered and leads Sustainable Canada Dialogues, which is a collaborative network of 80+ Canadian scholars mobilizing to craft a national climate action plan. Sustainable Canada Dialogues emphasizes the importance of an energy transition that improves human livelihoods and the environment by opening opportunities for innovation and employment. The scholars come from diverse academic backgrounds, including sociology, business, biology, and engineering, to provide interdisciplinary and evidence-based solutions relevant to all regions of Canada. Their most recent report was sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources Canada which proposed 10 policy orientations to achieve 100% low-carbon electricity by 2035. Major publications As of December 2020, Potvin has an h-index of 44 and has published over 100 scientific articles in journals and book chapters with over 7859 citations. She has published in the areas of tropical forest ecology, global change biology, biostatistics, and forest management. Her most cited works are listed below: Potvin, C., Lechowicz, M. J., & Tardif, S. (1990). The statistical analysis of ecophysiological response curves obtained from experiments involving repeated measures. Ecology, 71(4), 1389-1400.Potvin, C., & Roff, D. A. (1993). Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology, 74(6), 1617-1628.Wilsey, B. J., & Potvin, C. (2000). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: importance of species evenness in an old field. Ecology, 81(4), 887-892.Kirby, K. R., & Potvin, C. (2007). Variation in carbon storage among tree species: implications for the management of a small-scale carbon sink project. Forest Ecology and Management, 246(2-3), 208-221. Awards and honors 2021: Awarded Sir John William Dawson Medal of the Royal Society of Canada for 'important and sustained contributions to interdisciplinary research' 2018: Invited to be a member of Minister McKenna's Independent Working Group for Parks Canada to "review Parks Canada decision-making processses and make recommendations to ensure that maintaining ecological and commemorative integrity are priority considerations in decision-making".2016: Fellow of Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.2016: Named as a Canadian Pioneer by the Canadian Government's Minister for Women and Gender Equality.2015: Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.2014: Awarded the "Bold Vision" for Canada by the Canadian Women's Foundation which selects 23 women for their renowned work in diverse fields of politics, business, culture and sciences.2014: Recipient of a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair, titled Climate Change Mitigation and Tropical Forests, which is "one of Canada's most prestigious research programs is attracting innovative and talented minds to Canada".2013-2015: Trottier Fellow of the Trottier Institute for Science and Public Policy (TISPP) at McGill University.2012: Awarded the Miroslaw Romanowski Medal by the Royal Society of Canada. Press 2018: Montreal Gazette—Opinion: Yes, there is something you can do to fight climate change.2016: Radio-Canada—Catherine Potvin, the tropical biologist expert in climate change.2014: Montreal Gazette—Protests aim to bring attention to need to act on climate change. == References ==

terroir

Terroir (, French: [tɛʁwaʁ]; from terre, "land") is a French term used to describe the environmental factors that affect a crop's phenotype, including unique environment contexts, farming practices and a crop's specific growth habitat. Collectively, these contextual characteristics are said to have a character; terroir also refers to this character.Some artisanal crops for which terroir is studied include wine, cider, coffee, tobacco, olive oil, chocolate, chili peppers, hops, agave (for making tequila and mezcal), tomatoes, heritage wheat, maple syrup, tea, and cannabis. Terroir is the basis of the French wine appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC) system, which is a model for wine appellation and regulation in France and around the world. The AOC system presumes that the land from which the grapes are grown imparts a unique quality that is specific to that growing site (the plants' habitat). The extent of terroir's significance is debated in the wine industry. Origins Over the centuries, French winemakers developed the concept of terroir by observing the differences in wines from different regions, vineyards, or even different sections of the same vineyard. The French began to crystallize the concept of terroir as a way of describing the unique aspects of a place that influence and shape the wine made from it. Long before the French, the wine-making regions of the ancient world had already developed a concept of different regions having the potential to produce very different and distinct wines, even from the same grapes. The Ancient Greeks would stamp amphorae with the seal of the region they came from, and different regions established reputations based on the quality of their wines. For centuries, literate and disciplined members of the Benedictine and Cistercian orders cultivated grapes in much of Burgundy. With vast landholdings, the monks could conduct large-scale observation of the influences that various parcels of land had on the wine it produced. Some legends have the monks going as far as tasting the soil. Over time the monks compiled their observations and began to establish the boundaries of different terroirs - many of which still exist today as the Grand Cru vineyards of Burgundy. Elements While wine experts disagree about the exact definition, particular consideration is given to the natural elements that are beyond the control of humans.Components often described as aspects of terroir include: Climate Soil type Geomorphology Other organisms growing in, on, and around the vine plotsThe interaction of climate and terroir is generally broken down from the macroclimate of a larger area (For example, the Côte de Nuits region of Burgundy), down to the mesoclimate of a smaller subsection of that region (such as the village of Vosne-Romanée) and even to the individual microclimate of a particular vineyard or row of grapevines (like the Grand Cru vineyard of La Grande Rue). The element of soil relates both to the composition and the intrinsic nature of the vineyard soils, such as fertility, drainage and ability to retain heat. Geomorphology refers to natural landscape features like mountains, valleys and bodies of water, which affect how the climate interacts with the region, and includes the elements of aspect and elevation of the vineyard location. Other organisms growing in, on, and around the vine plots refers to the region specific fauna, flora, and microflora present in the vineyards. The microbial populations in vineyards have been described as being a quantifiable aspect of the overall terroir.Mark A. Matthews, a professor of viticulture and plant physiology at University of California, Davis, has described the common conception of terroir as a myth. While Matthews agrees local characteristics can have an effect on plant growth and the wines made from particular grapes, he points out that the term is imprecisely defined, and also proposes the concept of terroir is accepted primarily based on traditional belief, and is not backed by rigorous data or research. Human controlled elements The definition of terroir can be expanded to include elements that are controlled or influenced by humans. This can include the decision of which grape variety to plant, though whether or not that grape variety will produce quality wine is an innate element of terroir that may be beyond human influence. Some grape varieties thrive better in certain areas than in others. The winemaking decision of using wild or ambient yeast in fermentation instead of cultured or laboratory produced yeast can be a reflection of terroir. The use of oak is a controversial element since some will advocate that its use is beneficial in bringing out the natural terroir characteristics while others will argue that its use can mask the influences of the terroir. Vineyard management (e.g., growing grapes organically or biodynamically over a more conventional method of farming) can also be seen as a human controlled aspect of terroir. Influences of viticulture and winemaking Many decisions during the growing and winemaking process can either lessen or increase the expression of terroir in the wine. These include decisions about pruning, irrigation and selecting time of harvest. At the winery, the use of oak, cultured or ambient yeast, length of maceration and time in contact with lees, temperature during fermentation, and processes like micro-oxygenation, chaptalization, clarification with fining agents, and reverse osmosis all have the potential to either reduce or emphasize some aspect derived from the terroir. Winemakers can work between the extremes of producing wine that is terroir-driven and focused on purely expressing the unique aspects of a region's terroir, or winemaking that is done without any consideration given to terroir. Furthermore, aspects of terroir such as climate and soil type may be considered when deciding such things as which grape variety to plant if the goal is to make good wine rather than terroir-driven wine.The importance of these influences depends on the culture of a particular wine region. In France, particularly Burgundy, there is the belief that the role of a winemaker is to bring out the expression of a wine's terroir. The French word for "winemaker," vigneron, is more aptly translated as "wine-grower" rather than "winemaker". The belief that the terroir is the dominant influence in the wine is the basis behind French wine labels emphasizing the region, vineyard, or AOC more prominently than the varietal of grape, and often more prominently than the producer. Impact of climate change As climate change disrupts long-established patterns of temperature and precipitation in wine-growing regions and causes more extreme weather events, there are potential serious impacts on terroir and the wine industry. Hotter temperatures and an earlier growing season can push berries towards a higher sugar content, less acids and differences in secondary compounds that are important for aromas. Growers are attempting to adapt in a variety of ways in response. In 2021, in a controversial move, the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment formally authorized wine producers in the Bordeaux region to experiment on a trial basis with four red and two white vine types selected from other areas of France. The new types can make up no more than 10% of the final wine blend. The rest must be from the six red and eight white grape varieties traditionally cultivated in the region during its 2,000 year history. Another approach to protecting plants against the effects of climate change involves experimenting with rootstocks to develop plants that are resilient, vigorous and use water more efficiently under stressful conditions. Differences in planting, irrigation and harvesting practices are also being studied. Practices developed in warmer climates like Australia, Israel, South America, and Spain are being adapted for use in countries that used to be cooler, as temperatures rise. In other drinks The concept of terroir exists in other drinks, notably in tea (Wuyi rock-essence tea being a notable example) and Cognac where the chalky soil, climate and distance from the ocean are all factors influencing the product. Producers of whiskey, bourbon, rum, and vodka use terroir elements in their production process, including wood flavors derived from barrel aging. In artisan cheese The tenet of terroir has also been applied to the production of artisan cheese, and French authorities have fought to balance traditional cheesemakers terroir cheeses concerns with those of major industrialists.The flavour of cheeses (and other dairy products) is impacted by the production location. For instance, Alpine pastures are composed of a larger variety of grasses, herbs, and flowers, than those in the lowlands. At higher elevations, the flora also changes significantly throughout the grazing period (from spring to autumn), thus also impacting the taste of cheeses produced in different batches. In Switzerland, Alp cheese is typically indicated with a special logo, in addition to the Appellation d'origine protégée (AOP). Appellation systems The influence of terroir means that wines from a particular region are unique, incapable of being reproduced outside that area, even if the grape variety and winemaking techniques are painstakingly duplicated. Winemakers in Burgundy do not believe that they are producing Pinot noir that happens to be grown in Burgundy, but that they are producing unique Burgundian wines that happen to be made from Pinot noir. Appellation systems, such as the French AOC systems, have developed around the concepts of "unique wines from a unique area". These systems have also developed into protected designation of origin across the European Union so that, for example, winemakers from outside a region like Tuscany can not produce a Sangiovese wine and call it a Chianti. While the wine may be made from the same clonal variety of Sangiovese, in the same soil composition as found in the Chianti region with winemakers using the Tuscan method of production, there is an assumption that the two wines will be different due to terroir. The names of these European wine regions are protected so that wines from different regions and different terroir are not confused with wines from that those regions – i.e. A Spanish or Australian "chianti". In the United States there is some confusion over the use of semi-generic names like Champagne and Port but there has been more effort by the American wine industry to recognize the unique association of place names with the wines produced in those places, such as the 2005 Napa Declaration on Place agreement. While appellation systems and the protected designations of origin can be a way of protecting "unique terroir", the commercial importance of terroir has been a much debated topic in the wine industry. In Spain in 2018, networks of vintners joined in a grassroots movement to produce wines with added terroir value with intention to enhance the Spanish rural wine culture. Commercial interests The importance of terroir affects the price of the agricultural product as well as the products made from the product. Branding, variety, and farmer identification affects the price of a product. The Slow Food movement appreciates history of a variety of plant or animal, the story of the farmer who produced it, and ultimately the quality of the product. Chefs and bakers develop their own list of qualities they desire for their creations, and terroir affects these. Wine critics question the value of a Pinot noir wine from a Burgundy Grand Cru vineyard relative to a wine produced from the "lesser terroir" of a Premier Cru vineyard, and whether it merits the higher price. These doubts also arise when the quality of winemaking and other human influences are taken into account, which may be of a higher standard with the "lesser" premier cru. These critics also question the difference between New World and Old World wine and whether modern winemaking techniques – like significant oak influences, over-ripened fruit, cultured yeast, micro-oxygenation, and color pigment additives – obscure or even eliminate the influence of terroir in making different regions unique. Critics often point to the homogenizing effect on mass-produced wines made from popular varietals like Chardonnay, which may have their terroir characteristics hidden by invasive and intensive winemaking. A heavily oaked, over-ripe Chardonnay from California can taste very similar to the same style of wine from elsewhere. The marketability of wines from different regions and producers is affected by the importance accorded to terroir, both by the wine industry and consumer wine markets, with some producers downplaying terroir and its effect on their wines. Outside Europe In the United States, the principles of terroir have been applied in a few limited instances, such as Vidalia onions, whose production area has been defined by the United States Department of Agriculture and Indian River fruit, which can only carry that label if grown within an area defined by the United States Federal Trade Commission.In some East Asian countries, terms like terroir or marriage have been popularised by Japanese manga. A 2008–09 Korean drama, most of whose leading characters work with wine, is titled Terroir after the main setting, a wine restaurant in turn named for the concept. In popular culture The concept of terroir has been discussed in several films and television shows. Jonathan Nossiter's 2004 documentary, Mondovino, explores the globalization of the wine business, and features interviews with a number of small producers, mostly French, who talk about terroir. In the 2006 BBC series, Oz and James's Big Wine Adventure, one episode is almost entirely devoted to Oz Clarke teaching James May about terroir. At the end of the episode, May identifies three wines successfully, placing them in the correct order on the basis of the quality of terroir they come from. Les Blank and Gina Leibrecht's 2007 documentary, All In This Tea, explores the importance of terroir and organic growing methods for the quality and future sustainability of the Chinese tea market. Terroir is also a frequent topic of discussion in the Japanese wine comic Les Gouttes de Dieu. The films French Kiss and A Good Year also make references to terroir. Terroir recognition is a plot turning point in the 1976 French comedy L'aile ou la cuisse (The Wing or the Thigh) with Louis de Funès. In 2014 Keith Carradine starred in John Charles Jopson's Edgar Allan Poe-inspired film Terroir. Terroir(game) created by General Interactive Co. who are a small team of game designers based out of Singapore and the United Kingdom. It was released on May 17, 2017 on Steam Early Access. Terroir is a game that puts the Player in control of their own wine estate. Players grow different varieties of grapes, manage the vineyard, craft wine, oversee the business and expand the estate. See also Ecoregion Genius loci Habitat Plant genetics Old World wine Red Fife wheat Shade-grown coffee References == Further reading ==

human extinction

Human extinction is the hypothetical end of the human species, either by population decline due to extraneous natural causes, such as an asteroid impact or large-scale volcanism, or via anthropogenic destruction (self-extinction), for example by sub-replacement fertility. Some of the many possible contributors to anthropogenic hazard are climate change, global nuclear annihilation, biological warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and ecological collapse. Other scenarios center on emerging technologies, such as advanced artificial intelligence, biotechnology, or self-replicating nanobots. The scientific consensus is that there is a relatively low risk of near-term human extinction due to natural causes. The likelihood of human extinction through humankind's own activities, however, is a current area of research and debate. History of thought Early history of thinking about human extinction Before the 18th and 19th centuries, the possibility that humans or other organisms could become extinct was viewed with scepticism. It contradicted the principle of plenitude, a doctrine that all possible things exist. The principle traces back to Aristotle, and was an important tenet of Christian theology. Ancient Western philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Lucretius wrote of the end of humankind only as part of a cycle of renewal. Marcion of Sinope was a proto-protestant who advocated for antinatalism that could lead to human extinction. Later philosophers such as Al-Ghazali, William of Ockham, and Gerolamo Cardano expanded the study of logic and probability and began wondering if abstract worlds existed, including a world without humans. Physicist Edmond Halley stated that the extinction of the human race may be beneficial to the future of the world.The notion that species can become extinct gained scientific acceptance during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, and by 1800 Georges Cuvier had identified 23 extinct prehistoric species. The doctrine was further gradually undermined by evidence from the natural sciences, particularly the discovery of fossil evidence of species that appeared to no longer exist, and the development of theories of evolution. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin discussed the extinction of species as a natural process and a core component of natural selection. Notably, Darwin was skeptical of the possibility of sudden extinction, viewing it as a gradual process. He held that the abrupt disappearances of species from the fossil record were not evidence of catastrophic extinctions, but rather represented unrecognised gaps in the record.As the possibility of extinction became more widely established in the sciences, so did the prospect of human extinction. In the 19th century, human extinction became a popular topic in science (e.g., Thomas Robert Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population) and fiction (e.g., Mary Shelley's The Last Man). In 1863, a few years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, William King proposed that Neanderthals were an extinct species of the genus Homo. The Romantic authors and poets were particularly interested in the topic. Lord Byron wrote about the extinction of life on Earth in his 1816 poem "Darkness", and in 1824 envisaged humanity being threatened by a comet impact, and employing a missile system to defend against it. Mary Shelley's 1826 novel The Last Man is set in a world where humanity has been nearly destroyed by a mysterious plague. At the turn of the 20th century, Russian cosmism, a precursor to modern transhumanism, advocated avoiding humanity's extinction by colonizing space. Atomic era The invention of the atomic bomb prompted a wave of discussion among scientists, intellectuals, and the public at large about the risk of human extinction. In a 1945 essay, Bertrand Russell wrote that "[T]he prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense." In 1950, Leo Szilard suggested it was technologically feasible to build a cobalt bomb that could render the planet unlivable. A 1950 Gallup poll found that 19% of Americans believed that another world war would mean "an end to mankind". Rachel Carson's 1962 Silent Spring raised awareness of environmental catastrophe. In 1983, Brandon Carter proposed the Doomsday argument, which used Bayesian probability to predict the total number of humans that will ever exist. The discovery of "nuclear winter" in the early 1980s, a specific mechanism by which nuclear war could result in human extinction, again raised the issue to prominence. Writing about these findings in 1983, Carl Sagan argued that measuring the severity of extinction solely in terms of those who die "conceals its full impact", and that nuclear war "imperils all of our descendants, for as long as there will be humans." Post Cold War John Leslie's 1996 book The End of The World was an academic treatment of the science and ethics of human extinction. In it, Leslie considered a range of threats to humanity and what they have in common. In 2003, British Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees published Our Final Hour, in which he argues that advances in certain technologies create new threats to the survival of humankind and that the 21st century may be a critical moment in history when humanity's fate is decided. Edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Ćirković, Global Catastrophic Risks was published in 2008, a collection of essays from 26 academics on various global catastrophic and existential risks. Toby Ord's 2020 book The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity argues that preventing existential risks is one of the most important moral issues of our time. The book discusses, quantifies, and compares different existential risks, concluding that the greatest risks are presented by unaligned artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Causes Potential anthropogenic causes of human extinction include global thermonuclear war, deployment of a highly effective biological weapon, an ecological collapse, runaway artificial intelligence, runaway nanotechnology (such as a grey goo scenario), a scientific accident involving a micro black hole or vacuum metastability disaster, overpopulation and increased consumption pose the risk of resource depletion and a concomitant population crash, population decline by choosing to have fewer children, displacement of naturally evolved humans by a new species produced by genetic engineering or technological augmentation. Natural and external extinction risks include high-fatality-rate pandemic, supervolcanic eruption, asteroid impact, nearby supernova or gamma-ray bursts, extreme solar flare, or alien invasion. Humans (e.g. Homo sapiens sapiens) as a species may also be considered to have "gone extinct" simply by being replaced with distant descendants whose continued evolution may produce new species or subspecies Homo or of hominids. Without intervention by unexpected forces, the stellar evolution of the Sun is expected to make Earth uninhabitable, then destroy it. Depending on its ultimate fate, the entire universe may eventually become uninhabitable. Probability Natural vs. anthropogenic Experts generally agree that anthropogenic existential risks are (much) more likely than natural risks. A key difference between these risk types is that empirical evidence can place an upper bound on the level of natural risk. Humanity has existed for at least 200,000 years, over which it has been subject to a roughly constant level of natural risk. If the natural risk were sufficiently high, then it would be highly unlikely that humanity would have survived as long as it has. Based on a formalization of this argument, researchers have concluded that we can be confident that natural risk is lower than 1 in 14,000 per year (equivalent to 1 in 140 per century, on average).Another empirical method to study the likelihood of certain natural risks is to investigate the geological record. For example, a comet or asteroid impact event sufficient in scale to cause an impact winter that would cause human extinction before the year 2100 has been estimated at one-in-a-million. Moreover, large supervolcano eruptions may cause a volcanic winter that could endanger the survival of humanity. The geological record suggests that supervolcanic eruptions are estimated to occur on average about once every 50,000 years, though most such eruptions would not reach the scale required to cause human extinction. Famously, the supervolcano Mt. Toba may have almost wiped out humanity at the time of its last eruption (though this is contentious).Since anthropogenic risk is a relatively recent phenomenon, humanity's track record of survival cannot provide similar assurances. Humanity has only survived 78 years since the creation of nuclear weapons, and for future technologies, there is no track record at all. This has led thinkers like Carl Sagan to conclude that humanity is currently in a "time of perils" – a uniquely dangerous period in human history, where it is subject to unprecedented levels of risk, beginning from when humans first started posing risk to themselves through their actions. Risk estimates Given the limitations of ordinary observation and modeling, expert elicitation is frequently used instead to obtain probability estimates. Humanity has a 95% probability of being extinct in 7,800,000 years, according to J. Richard Gott's formulation of the controversial doomsday argument, which argues that we have probably already lived through half the duration of human history. In 1996, John A. Leslie estimated a 30% risk over the next five centuries (equivalent to around 6% per century, on average). In 2003, Martin Rees estimated a 50% chance of collapse of civilisation in the twenty-first century. A 2008 survey by the Future of Humanity Institute estimated a 5% probability of extinction by super-intelligence by 2100. They also estimate a 98% risk of 1 million people being killed in the war by 2100, and a 60% risk of 1 million people dying due to a natural pandemic by 2100, meaning 2 million people dying due to disease and war by 2100. The Global Challenges Foundation's 2016 annual report estimates an annual probability of human extinction of at least 0.05% per year (equivalent to 5% per century, on average). They also estimated a 100% risk over the next 2,000 years, meaning it will occur on April 29, 4016. A 2016 survey of AI experts found a median estimate of 5% that human-level AI would cause an outcome that was "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)". In 2019, the risk was lowered to 2%, but in 2022, it was increased back to 5%. In 2023, the risk doubled to 10%. The K2P Blog's article from July 13, 2017 estimated a 90% risk of geomagnetic reversal, a 70% risk of supervolcanic eruption, and a 55% risk of ice age happening within the next 1,000 years, meaning that all 3 of humanity's threats would happen by July 13, 3017. In 2020, Toby Ord estimates existential risk in the next century at "1 in 6" in his book The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. He also estimated a "1 in 10" risk of extinction by unaligned AI within the next century. According to the July 10, 2023 article of The Economist, scientists estimated a 12% chance of AI-Caused catastrophe and a 3% chance of AI-Caused extinction by 2100. They also estimate a 8% chance of Nuclear War causing global catastrophe and a 0.5625% chance of Nuclear War causing Human Extinction. In May 1, 2023, The Treaty on Artificial Intelligence Safety and Cooperation (TAISC) has estimated a 30.5% risk (equivalent to 15.25% per century) of an AI-caused catastrophe by 2200, although they also estimate a 32.2% risk (equivalent to 10.73% annually) of an AI-caused catastrophe by 2026, if there is no 6 month moratorium. As of November 19, 2023, Metaculus users estimate a 1% probability of human extinction by 2100. In a 2010 interview with The Australian, Australian scientist Frank Fenner predicted the extinction of the human race within a century, primarily as the result of human overpopulation, environmental degradation and climate change. According to a 2020 study published in Scientific Reports, if deforestation and resource consumption continue at current rates, they could culminate in a "catastrophic collapse in human population" and possibly "an irreversible collapse of our civilization" in the next 20 to 40 years. According to the most optimistic scenario provided by the study, the chances that human civilization survives are smaller than 10%. To avoid this collapse, the study says, humanity should pass from a civilization dominated by the economy to a "cultural society" that "privileges the interest of the ecosystem above the individual interest of its components, but eventually in accordance with the overall communal interest." Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, argues that it would be "misguided" to assume that the probability of near-term extinction is less than 25% and that it will be "a tall order" for the human race to "get our precautions sufficiently right the first time", given that an existential risk provides no opportunity to learn from failure. Philosopher John A. Leslie assigns a 70% chance of humanity surviving the next five centuries, based partly on the controversial philosophical doomsday argument that Leslie champions. Leslie's argument is somewhat frequentist, based on the observation that human extinction has never been observed, but requires subjective anthropic arguments. Leslie also discusses the anthropic survivorship bias (which he calls an "observational selection" effect on page 139) and states that the a priori certainty of observing an "undisastrous past" could make it difficult to argue that we must be safe because nothing terrible has yet occurred. He quotes Holger Bech Nielsen's formulation: "We do not even know if there should exist some extremely dangerous decay of say the proton which caused the eradication of the earth, because if it happens we would no longer be there to observe it and if it does not happen there is nothing to observe." Jean-Marc Salotti calculated the probability of human extinction caused by a giant asteroid impact. It is between 0.03 and 0.3 for the next billion years, if there is no colonization of other planets. According to that study, the most frightening object is a giant long-period comet with a warning time of a few years only and therefore no time for any intervention in space or settlement on the Moon or Mars. The probability of a giant comet impact in the next hundred years is 2.2E-12. Individual vs. species risks Although existential risks are less manageable by individuals than – for example – health risks, according to Ken Olum, Joshua Knobe, and Alexander Vilenkin, the possibility of human extinction does have practical implications. For instance, if the "universal" doomsday argument is accepted it changes the most likely source of disasters, and hence the most efficient means of preventing them. They write: "... you should be more concerned that a large number of asteroids have not yet been detected than about the particular orbit of each one. You should not worry especially about the chance that some specific nearby star will become a supernova, but more about the chance that supernovas are more deadly to nearby life than we believe." Difficulty Some scholars argue that certain scenarios such as global thermonuclear war would have difficulty eradicating every last settlement on Earth. Physicist Willard Wells points out that any credible extinction scenario would have to reach into a diverse set of areas, including the underground subways of major cities, the mountains of Tibet, the remotest islands of the South Pacific, and even to McMurdo Station in Antarctica, which has contingency plans and supplies for long isolation. In addition, elaborate bunkers exist for government leaders to occupy during a nuclear war. The existence of nuclear submarines, which can stay hundreds of meters deep in the ocean for potentially years at a time, should also be considered. Any number of events could lead to a massive loss of human life, but if the last few (see minimum viable population) most resilient humans are unlikely to also die off, then that particular human extinction scenario may not seem credible. Ethics Value of human life "Existential risks" are risks that threaten the entire future of humanity, whether by causing human extinction or by otherwise permanently crippling human progress. Multiple scholars have argued based on the size of the "cosmic endowment" that because of the inconceivably large number of potential future lives that are at stake, even small reductions of existential risk have great value. In one of the earliest discussions of ethics of human extinction, Derek Parfit offers the following thought experiment: I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three outcomes:(1) Peace. (2) A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world's existing population.(3) A nuclear war that kills 100%. (2) would be worse than (1), and (3) would be worse than (2). Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between (1) and (2). I believe that the difference between (2) and (3) is very much greater. The scale of what is lost in an existential catastrophe is determined by humanity's long-term potential – what humanity could expect to achieve if it survived. From a utilitarian perspective, the value of protecting humanity is the product of its duration (how long humanity survives), its size (how many humans there are over time), and its quality (on average, how good is life for future people).: 273  On average, species survive for around a million years before going extinct. Parfit points out that the Earth will remain habitable for around a billion years. And these might be lower bounds on our potential: if humanity is able to expand beyond Earth, it could greatly increase the human population and survive for trillions of years.: 21  The size of the foregone potential that would be lost, were humanity to become extinct, is very large. Therefore, reducing existential risk by even a small amount would have a very significant moral value.Carl Sagan wrote in 1983: "If we are required to calibrate extinction in numerical terms, I would be sure to include the number of people in future generations who would not be born.... (By one calculation), the stakes are one million times greater for extinction than for the more modest nuclear wars that kill "only" hundreds of millions of people. There are many other possible measures of the potential loss – including culture and science, the evolutionary history of the planet, and the significance of the lives of all of our ancestors who contributed to the future of their descendants. Extinction is the undoing of the human enterprise."Philosopher Robert Adams in 1989 rejects Parfit's "impersonal" views but speaks instead of a moral imperative for loyalty and commitment to "the future of humanity as a vast project... The aspiration for a better society – more just, more rewarding, and more peaceful... our interest in the lives of our children and grandchildren, and the hopes that they will be able, in turn, to have the lives of their children and grandchildren as projects."Philosopher Nick Bostrom argues in 2013 that preference-satisfactionist, democratic, custodial, and intuitionist arguments all converge on the common-sense view that preventing existential risk is a high moral priority, even if the exact "degree of badness" of human extinction varies between these philosophies.Parfit argues that the size of the "cosmic endowment" can be calculated from the following argument: If Earth remains habitable for a billion more years and can sustainably support a population of more than a billion humans, then there is a potential for 1016 (or 10,000,000,000,000,000) human lives of normal duration. Bostrom goes further, stating that if the universe is empty, then the accessible universe can support at least 1034 biological human life-years; and, if some humans were uploaded onto computers, could even support the equivalent of 1054 cybernetic human life-years.Some economists and philosophers have defended views, including exponential discounting and person-affecting views of population ethics, on which future people do not matter (or matter much less), morally speaking. While these views are controversial, even they would agree that an existential catastrophe would be among the worst things imaginable. It would cut short the lives of eight billion presently existing people, destroying all of what makes their lives valuable, and most likely subjecting many of them to profound suffering. So even setting aside the value of future generations, there may be strong reasons to reduce existential risk, grounded in concern for presently existing people.Beyond utilitarianism, other moral perspectives lend support to the importance of reducing existential risk. An existential catastrophe would destroy more than just humanity – it would destroy all cultural artifacts, languages, and traditions, and many of the things we value. So moral viewpoints on which we have duties to protect and cherish things of value would see this as a huge loss that should be avoided. One can also consider reasons grounded in duties to past generations. For instance, Edmund Burke writes of a "partnership ... between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born". If one takes seriously the debt humanity owes to past generations, Ord argues the best way of repaying it might be to 'pay it forward', and ensure that humanity's inheritance is passed down to future generations.: 49–51 There are several economists who have discussed the importance of global catastrophic risks. For example, Martin Weitzman argues that most of the expected economic damage from climate change may come from the small chance that warming greatly exceeds the mid-range expectations, resulting in catastrophic damage. Richard Posner has argued that humanity is doing far too little, in general, about small, hard-to-estimate risks of large-scale catastrophes. Voluntary extinction Some philosophers adopt the antinatalist position that human extinction would not be a bad thing, but a good thing. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always serious harm, and therefore it is better that people do not come into existence in the future. Further, David Benatar, animal rights activist Steven Best, and anarchist Todd May, posit that human extinction would be a positive thing for the other organisms on the planet, and the planet itself, citing, for example, the omnicidal nature of human civilization. The environmental view in favor of human extinction is shared by the members of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and the Church of Euthanasia who call for refraining from reproduction and allowing the human species to go peacefully extinct, thus stopping further environmental degradation. In fiction Jean-Baptiste Cousin de Grainville's 1805 Le dernier homme (The Last Man), which depicts human extinction due to infertility, is considered the first modern apocalyptic novel and credited with launching the genre. Other notable early works include Mary Shelley's 1826 The Last Man, depicting human extinction caused by a pandemic, and Olaf Stapledon's 1937 Star Maker, "a comparative study of omnicide".Some 21st century pop-science works, including The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, and the TV specials Life After People and Aftermath: Population Zero pose a thought experiment: what would happen to the rest of the planet if humans suddenly disappeared? A threat of human extinction, such as through a technological singularity (also called an intelligence explosion), drives the plot of innumerable science fiction stories; an influential early example is the 1951 film adaption of When Worlds Collide. Usually the extinction threat is narrowly avoided, but some exceptions exist, such as R.U.R. and Steven Spielberg's A.I. See also References Sources == Further reading ==

climate one

Climate One is a weekly podcast and radio program, aired on more than 60 public radio stations around the U.S. A special project of The Commonwealth Club of California, Climate One is based in San Francisco, California. Through its podcast, national radio show, and live convenings for thought leaders and concerned members of the public, they create opportunities for dialogue and aim to inspire a more complete understanding the implications of a changing climate on society, energy systems, economy and the natural environment. Founded in 2007 by Greg Dalton, Climate One has brought together over a thousand policymakers, business leaders, scientists, activists, and others to examine the personal and systemic impacts of climate and advance the conversation about a clean energy future. Climate One hosts both online and in-person events, where Dalton facilitates discussions between leaders of differing — sometimes opposing — viewpoints. Speakers representing the United Nations, the fossil fuel industry, environmental advocacy groups, religious faiths, large corporations and labor unions have all appeared on Climate One to address the challenges of climate change. History Climate One founder and Host Greg Dalton served as Vice President of Special Projects at The Commonwealth Club of California from 2001 to 2007. During this time, Dalton hosted discussions with former chief executive officer of AT&T Ed Whitacre, Grateful Dead drummer Mickey Hart, 9/11 Commissioners Slade Gorton and Richard Ben-Veniste, and others prior to founding Climate One. In 2007, Dalton hosted a global warming symposium sponsored by The Commonwealth Club with academic experts and journalists around the Arctic Circle. Dalton was moved by the first-hand experience with the impacts of climate disruption in the region. Upon returning home, he worked with Commonwealth Club chief executive officer Gloria Duffy to launch Climate One, a special project of the Club focused on sustainability, environment, and climate. Speakers and programs The organization hosts multiple talks throughout the year in their San Francisco office at the Commonwealth Club of California, and occasionally at other venues around the U.S. such as at Duke University or Harvard University. At each event, Greg Dalton interviews multiple guests, usually from different fields, to discuss specific aspects of climate change. An open microphone is always provided for audience questions, and post-event receptions allow for mingling and continued conversation. Past speakers at Climate One include: Bill McKibben, environmentalist and co-founder of 350.org Varshini Prakash, director of the Sunrise Movement Jane Goodall, anthropologist and Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute Ai Wei Wei, artist and activist Al Gore, former Vice President Vandana Shiva, environmental activist Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and First Lady Jay Inslee, governor of Washington (state) and former U.S. presidential candidate Patti Poppe, chief executive officer of PG&E Andrew R. Wheeler, Gina McCarthy and William Reilly, former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency Dan Akerson, chief executive officer of General Motors, who announced that GM would withdraw funding for the Heartland Institute. Julian Castro, former US Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Sylvia Earle, National Geographic explorer in residence Gloria Walton, president and chief executive officer of Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE) Robert Fraley, chief technology officer of Monsanto Dr. James E. Hansen, climate scientist Jane Lubchenco, former NOAA administrator Sally Jewell, former U.S. Secretary of the InteriorArnold Schwarzenegger, former California Governor Bill Weihl, former Facebook Director of Sustainability Marvin Odum, former president of Shell Oil Company The Stephen H. Schneider Award The Stephen H. Schneider Award is Climate One's annual award recognizing a social or natural scientist for extraordinary contributions to the field, as well as their ability to communicate their findings to a broad audience. The award was created by Climate One in 2010 in memory of Stephen Henry Schneider, a respected climate scientist. The Schneider Award winner, selected by a jury of other scientists, receives a prize of $15,000. Past Schneider Award Recipients: Richard Alley (2011) James Hansen (2012) Nicholas Stern (2013) Jane Lubchenco (2014) Christopher Field (2015) Naomi Oreskes (2016) Michael Mann (2017) Katharine Hayhoe (2018) Robert Bullard (2019) Anthony Leiserowitz and Edward Maibach (2020) Ayana Elizabeth Johnson (2021) Stefan Rahmstorf (2022) References External links Official website www.commonwealthclub.org

kivalina, alaska

Kivalina (kiv-uh-LEE-nuh) (Inupiaq: Kivalliñiq) is a city and village in Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska, United States. The population was 377 at the 2000 census and 374 as of the 2010 census.The island on which the village lies is threatened by rising sea levels and coastal erosion caused by climate change. As of 2013, it is predicted that the island will be inundated by 2025. In addition to well-publicized impacts of climate change, the Village of Kivalina has been a party in several environmentally related court cases. History Kivalina is an Inupiat community first reported as "Kivualinagmut" in 1847 by Lt. Lavrenty Zagoskin of the Imperial Russian Navy. It has long been a stopping place for travelers between Arctic coastal areas and Kotzebue Sound communities. Three bodies and artifacts were found in 2009 representing the Ipiutak culture, a pre-Thule, non-whaling civilization that disappeared over a millennium ago.It is the only village in the region where people hunt the bowhead whale. The original village was located at the north end of the Kivalina Lagoon, but was relocated. In about 1900, reindeer were brought to the area and some people were trained as reindeer herders. An airstrip was built at Kivalina in 1960. Kivalina incorporated as a second-class city in 1969. During the 1970s, a new school and an electric system were constructed in the city. On December 5, 2014 the only general store in Kivalina burned down. In July 2015, a newer store was opened after months of rebuilding to make the store more convenient and safe. Geography Kivalina is on the southern tip of a 12 km (7.5 mi) long barrier island located between the Chukchi Sea and a lagoon at the mouth of the Kivalina River. It lies 130 km (81 mi) northwest of Kotzebue. According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 3.9 square miles (10 km2), of which, 1.9 square miles (4.9 km2) of it is land and 2.0 square miles (5.2 km2) of it (51.55%) is water. Climate Kivalina has a dry subarctic climate with long very cold winters and short cool summers. August is the wettest month of the year, while December is the snowiest month. Demographics Kivalina first appeared on the 1920 U.S. Census as an unincorporated (native) village. It formally incorporated in 1969. As of the census of 2010, there were 374 people, and 99 households. The population density was 202.1 inhabitants per square mile (78.0/km2). There were 80 housing units at an average density of 42.9 per square mile (16.6/km2). The racial makeup of the village was 3.45% White and 96.55% Native American. The Native Village of Kivalina is a federally recognized tribe with an elected tribal council. The City of Kivalina, organized under the Northwest Arctic Borough under the State of Alaska, has an elected mayor and city administrator and a 7-member city council. Per the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, NANA Corporation owns the surface and sub-surface rights to the city site and surrounding area. Manilaaq Association serves the community as an Alaska Native non-profit regional corporation providing social, tribal and health care services.In 2010, there were 78 households, out of which 61.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 62.8% were married couples living together, 15.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 17.9% were non-families. 16.7% of all households were made up of individuals, and 3.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 4.83 and the average family size was 5.50. In the village the population was spread out, with 44.0% under the age of 18, 13.3% from 18 to 24, 20.7% from 25 to 44, 15.9% from 45 to 64, and 6.1% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 21 years. For every 100 females, there were 106.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 113.1 males. The median income for a household in the village was $30,833, and the median income for a family was $30,179. Males had a median income of $31,875 versus $21,875 for females. The per capita income for the village was $8,360. About 25.4% of families and 26.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 27.9% of those under age 18 and 30.0% of those age 65 or over. Environmental issues Due to severe sea wave erosion during storms, the city hopes to relocate again to a new site 12 km (7.5 mi) from the present site; studies of alternate sites are ongoing. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the estimated cost of relocation runs between $95 and $125 million, whereas the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates it to be between $100 and $400 million.In 2011, Haymarket Books published "Kivalina: A Climate Change Story" by Christine Shearer. Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation The city of Kivalina and a federally recognized tribe, the Alaska Native Village of Kivalina, sued ExxonMobil, eight other oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco on February 26, 2008, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to global warming that threatens the community's existence. The lawsuit estimated the cost of relocation at $400 million. The suit was dismissed by the United States district court on September 30, 2009, on the grounds that regulating greenhouse emissions was a political rather than a legal issue and one that needed to be resolved by Congress and the Administration rather than by courts. Kivalina v Teck Cominco In 2004, Kivalina sued Canadian mining company Teck Cominco, operator of the Red Dog Mine, for polluting its water drinking water source and subsistence fish resources through their discharge of mine waste into the Wulik River. Teck Cominco settled the suit in 2008 by agreeing to build a wastewater pipeline from the mine to the ocean that would bypass discharging into the Wulik River. However, the pipeline was not constructed and the alternative settlement clause was followed. Kivalina v. US EPA In 2010, the Native Village of Kivalina IRA Council brought suit against the US EPA for failing to adequately address public comments in their permitting of the Red Dog Mine discharge plan under the National Pollutant Discharge Elilmination System (NPDES). In 2012, the US Ninth Circuit court upheld the decision of the EPA Appeals Board to not review the permit, citing the insufficiency of the Tribe's argument. Orange goo On August 4, 2011, it was reported that residents of the city of Kivalina had seen a strange orange goo wash up on the shores. According to the Associated Press, "Tests have been conducted on the substance on the surface of the water in Kivalina. City Administrator Janet Mitchell told the Associated Press that the substance has also shown up in some residents' rain buckets." On August 8, 2011, Associated Press reported that the substance consisted of millions of microscopic eggs. Later, officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that the orange colored materials were some kind of crustacean eggs or embryos, but subsequent examination resulted in a declaration that the substance consisted of spores from a possibly undescribed species of rust fungus, later revealed to be Chrysomyxa ledicola. Sea level rise and coastal erosion On numerous occasions the community has been inundated by storm surges and been forced to evacuate. While the risk of inundation from sea water has always existed, storms caused extensive flooding in 1970, 1976, 2002, 2004, and spurred a village-wide evacuation in 2007. To slow erosion, the US Army Corps of Engineers conducted a rip-rap revetment project along the tip of the barrier island and adjacent to the airport. Other climate change impacts In addition to increased flooding from storm surges, bank erosion along the Wulik River causes increased turbidity which affects the city's drinking water source and complicates water treatment. Relocation Due to severe sea wave erosion during storms, the city hopes to relocate again to a new site 12 km (7.5 mi) from the present site. In 2009, Kivalina was identified by a GAO report as one of 31 environmentally threatened communities in Alaska. Relocation to a site off the barrier island to higher ground has had little progress. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the estimated cost of relocation runs between $95 and $125 million, whereas the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates it to be between $100 and $400 million. In 2018, a decision was made to build an evacuation road across the Kivalina Lagoon to provide a means for the community to escape devastating storms that can inundate the barrier island. Additionally, the road will connect the village with the proposed new school site on K-Hill. Kivalina in the media Kivalina's environmental issues were prominently featured in The 2015 Weather Channel documentary "Alaska: State of Emergency" hosted by Dave Malkoff. Kivalina was one of the two towns featured in the Al Jazeera English Fault Lines documentary, When the Water Took the Land. The community, who were originally nomadic, were given an ultimatum that they would have to settle in the permanent community or their children would be taken from them. The village's plight was also examined in Kivalina, an hourlong documentary released as part of the PBS World series America ReFramed. The Atlantic did a photo journalism story documenting climate change in Kivalina in their September 2019 article, The Impact of Climate Change on Kivalina, Alaska. Education The McQueen School, operated by the Northwest Arctic Borough School District, serves the community. As of 2017 it had 141 students, with Alaska Natives making up 100% of the student body. See also Kivalina Airport References Further reading Arnold, Elizabeth (July 29, 2008). "Tale Of Two Alaskan Villages". Day to Day. NPR. "Kivalina: The Canary in the Mine (5 min Snippet)". OneWorldTV. April 23, 2009. Sackur, Stephen (July 30, 2013). "The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade". BBC News. "Alaska: When the Water Took the Land". Fault Lines. Al Jazeera English. December 22, 2015. Shearer, Christine (2011). Kivalina : a climate change story. Chicago, Ill.: Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-60846-171-4. OCLC 754333941.</ref> Kivalina Strategic Management Plan<ref>City of Kivalina (2016). "Kivalina Strategic Management Plan" (PDF). City of Kivalina Local Hazards Mitigation Plan External links Re-Locate Kivalina America ReFramed: Kivalina (documentary) Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program: Kivalina at Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, State of Alaska

nicholas stern, baron stern of brentford

Nicholas Herbert Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford, (born 22 April 1946 in Hammersmith) is a British economist, banker, and academic. He is the IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government and Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE), and 2010 Professor of Collège de France. He was President of the British Academy from 2013 to 2017, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 2014. Education After attending Latymer Upper School, Stern studied the Mathematical Tripos and was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in maths at Peterhouse, Cambridge in 1967. In 1971, his doctorate in economics (DPhilEcon) at Nuffield College, Oxford, with thesis on the rate of economic development and the theory of optimum planning, was supervised by James Mirrlees, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1996. Career and research 1970–2007 He was a lecturer at the University of Oxford from 1970 to 1977 and served as a professor of economics at the University of Warwick from 1978 to 1987. From 1986 to 1993 he taught at the London School of Economics, becoming the Sir John Hicks Professor of Economics. From 1994 until 1999 he was the Chief Economist and Special Counsellor to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. His research focused on economic development and growth, and he also wrote books on Kenya and the Green Revolution in India. Since 1999, he has been a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE). From 1999 until 2000 Stern was Chairman of the consultancy London Economics founded by John Kay. From 2000 to 2003 he was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-president of the World Bank. Stern was then recruited by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to work for the British government where, in 2003, he became second permanent secretary at HM Treasury, initially with responsibility for public finances, and head of the Government Economic Service. Having also been Director of Policy and Research for the Commission for Africa, in July 2005 he was appointed to conduct reviews on the economics of climate change and also of development, which led to the publication of the Stern Review. At the time, he ceased to be a second permanent secretary at the Treasury, though he retained the rank until retirement in 2007; the review team he headed was based in the Cabinet Office. It was reported that Stern's time at the Treasury was marked by tensions with his boss, Gordon Brown: ... several Whitehall sources told The Times that Mr Brown did not like some of the advice he received from Sir Nicholas, including some "home truths" about long-term trends in the economy and he never broke into the chancellor's tight-knit inner circle. ... He subsequently lacked a real role and spent most of his time working on major international reports on global warming and alleviating poverty in Africa. His doom-laden report on the risks of failing to address climate change, published in October, caused tensions within the Government by triggering a debate on environmental taxes and leading to calls for big policy changes. The Stern Review (2005—2006) The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the review, climate change is described as an economic externality, which is a type of market failure. Stern has subsequently referred to the climate change externality as the largest ever market failure: Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming ... The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading, along with pollution permits and property rights, are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change. The review's conclusions were widely reported in the press. Stern's relatively large cost estimates of 'business-as-usual' climate change damages received particular attention. These are the estimated damages that might occur should no further effort be made to cut greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a mixed reaction to the Stern Review from economists. Several economists have been critical of the review, for example, a paper by Byatt et al. (2006) describes the review as "deeply flawed". Some have supported the Review, while others have argued that Stern's conclusions are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is incorrect. The Stern Review team has responded to criticisms of the review in several papers. Stern has also gone on to say that he underestimated the risks of climate change in the Stern Review.Stern's approach to discounting has been debated amongst economists. The discount rate allows economic effects occurring at different times to be compared. Stern used a discount rate in his calculation of the effects of "business-as-usual" climate change damages. A high discount rate reduces the calculated benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Using too low a discount rate wastes resources because it will result in too much investment in cutting emissions (Arrow et al., 1996, p. 130). Too high a discount rate will have the opposite effect, and lead to under-investment in cutting emissions. Most studies on the damages of climate change use a higher discount rate than that used in the Stern Review. Some economists support Stern's choice of discount rate (Cline, 2008; Shah, 2008 Heal, 2008) while others are critical (Yohe and Tol, 2008; Nordhaus, 2007).Another criticism of the Stern Review is that it is a political rather than an analytical document. Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, columnist Charles Moore compared the Stern Review to the UK Government's "dodgy dossier" on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. 2007—present In a speech given in 2007 at the Australian National Press Club, Stern called for one per cent of gross global product to be employed in global warming-related environmental measures. He also joined the Cool Earth advisory board. In 2009, Stern linked recovery from the global economic crisis with an effective response to climate change. His book, Blueprint for a Safer Planet, was published in April 2009. In June 2007, Stern became the first holder of the I. G. Patel Chair at the London School of Economics. In 2007, Nicholas Stern joined IDEAglobal as vice-chairman. In 2008, he was appointed Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, a major new research centre also at LSE. He is Chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at Leeds University and LSE. Stern is co-chair of the Global Commission for the Economy and Climate, with Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Paul Polman.In 2009, he published the non-fiction literary work, The Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of a New Era of Progress and Prosperity. The book examines climate change from an economist's perspective, and outlines the necessary steps toward achieving global economic growth while managing climate change. In 2009, he also became a member of the International Advisory Council of the Chinese sovereign wealth fund China Investment Corporation.Stern is an advocate of vegetarianism as a climate change mitigation element.He is a member of the scientific committee of the Fundacion IDEAS, Spain's Socialist Party's think tank. In 2015, he was co-author of the report that launched the Global Apollo Programme, which calls for developed nations to commit to spending 0.02% of their GDP for 10 years, to fund co-ordinated research to make carbon-free baseload electricity less costly than electricity from coal by the year 2025. After the successful United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (mid-December 2015), Stern appeared optimistic, saying, "If we get this right, it will be more powerful than the industrial revolution. A green race is going on." He also said Where we can, we have to go to zero carbon, because of a growing population and a rising middle class in developing countries which wants the same standard of living the developed world already enjoys. GHGs must be cut by at least 50% around the world by 2050, with the rich, developed countries cutting by 80%, compared to 1990 levels. We are at the beginning of a technical revolution of the magnitude of the railway, the motor car ... The economic crisis is an opportunity to lay the foundation for the future ... You can tell a very positive story here. In November 2015 he was commissioned by the UK Minister of Universities and Science, Jo Johnson, to chair a review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) that is used in assessing the research performance of universities and research institutes in the UK. The report was published in July 2016.In October 2021, Stern released a working paper stating that economists had grossly undervalued young lives in relation to the climate crisis. The manuscript is due to be published in the Economic Journal of the Royal Economic Society. Awards and honours Stern was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1993; he is also an Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Foreign Honorary Member of both the American Economic Association and the American Philosophical Society. In the 2004 Queen's Birthday Honours he was made a Knight Bachelor, for services to Economics. On 18 October 2007, it was announced that Stern would receive a life peerage and was to be made a non-party political peer (i.e. would sit as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords). He was duly created Baron Stern of Brentford, of Elsted in the County of West Sussex and of Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton on 10 December 2007. He is, however, usually addressed as Lord Stern, or Lord Stern of Brentford.In 2006, he was elected as an Honorary Fellow at Peterhouse, Cambridge, and he is also an Honorary Fellow of St Catherine's College, Oxford.Stern was awarded an honorary Doctor of Science degree by the University of Warwick in 2006, an Honorary Doctor of International Relations degree by the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations in 2007, an Honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Sheffield in 2008, an Honorary Doctor by the Technische Universität Berlin in 2009 and also in 2009 an honorary degree of Doctor of Science from the University of Brighton.In 2009, Stern was also awarded the Blue Planet Prize for his contributions to research on global environmental problems.Stern participated in one of the showings of The Age of Stupid at the RSA. At the after-showing webcast panel discussion was director Franny Armstrong, journalist George Monbiot, and the Met Office head of climate impacts Richard Betts. In 2009 Nicholas Stern lent his support to the 10:10 project, a movement encouraging people to take positive action on climate change by reducing their carbon emissions.Stern received the 2010 BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the category of Climate Change for his "pioneering report [that] shaped and focused the discourse on the economics of climate change" and provided "a unique and robust basis for decision-making."On 11 December 2013, Stern was awarded the 2013 Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication by Climate One at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, California.Stern was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2014 in recognition of his work challenging the world view on the economics of climate change. In 2016, he was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS).Stern was appointed Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) in the 2017 Birthday Honours for services to economics, international relations, and tackling climate change.The Kiel Institute for the World Economy announced, that Stern will be awarded the Bernhard Harms Prize 2021. Personal life Stern is the son of the late Bert Stern and Marion Stern and nephew of Donald Swann—half of the Flanders and Swann partnership. Richard Stern, former vice-president of the World Bank, and Brian E Stern, former vice-president of Xerox Corporation, are his brothers, and his sister is Naomi Opalinska. Works A Strategy for Development, World Bank Publications, 2002 (ISBN 978-0821349809). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, 2007 (ISBN 978-0521700801). A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity, Bodley Head, PublicAffairs, 2009 (ISBN 978-1-84792-037-9). The Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of a New Era of Progress and Prosperity, 2009 (ISBN 978-1586486693). Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change, MIT Press, 2015 (ISBN 9780262029186). References Further reading Personal Website Lord Stern of Brentford – LSE Experts entry World Bank biography Lord Stern of Brentford, FBA at CSA Celebrity Speakers Stern at the University of Oxford The man behind the British Treasury’s mammoth climate change report The UK Government's Treasury web pages about the Stern review Article about the Stern review's conclusions on China's development Nicholas Stern interview at The Beaver, 13 February 2007 Speech to the Economics of Climate Change Symposium, Nov 2006 'Green Routes To Growth' article published in the Guardian.co.uk's Comment Is Free Section, 23 October 2008 Launch green economic revolution now, says Stern

axel van trotsenburg

Axel van Trotsenburg (born December 6, 1958) is a dual Dutch-Austrian economist and development expert, serving as Senior Managing Director responsible for the World Bank’s Development Policy and Partnerships. He had several positions at the World Bank including managing director of Operations and acting CEO.van Trotsenburg is responsible of expanding engagement on global public goods, climate change, and debt sustainability, as well as leading the World Bank's engagement with the United Nations, G20, G7, and other international financial institutions. Early life & education van Trotsenburg was born in Bussum, The Netherlands, and moved to Austria when he was 12 years old. He studied International Affairs at The Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe in Bologna, Italy and Economics at the University of Graz in Austria. He continued his graduate studies at Carleton University, earning a master's degree in International Relations, later earning his doctorate in economics at the University of Vienna. Career van Trotsenburg began his career in economic research at the OECD, in Paris. He joined the World Bank as a young professional in 1988 and was soon promoted to Country Economist for Guatemala.While working on Guatemala, van Trotsenburg authored the project report that supported the Guatemala Government Economic Modernization Loan Project. He also authored the 1991 Guatemala Country economic memorandum and as a Senior Country Economist for Côte d'Ivoire in 1993, he authored reports on recommendations for loans to Côte d'Ivoire.In 1996, he was promoted to manager for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC)] where he was in charge of the program that cancelled the debts of the world's poorest countries. He was named Country Director for Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay in 2002 and became the Country Director for Mexico and Colombia in 2007.In 2009, van Trotsenburg assumed the role of Vice President for Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships and in 2013 was named vice president for the East Asia and Pacific Region. Three years later he was appointed vice president for Development Finance. During his time as vice president, he managed the 2018 General Capital Increase and IDA replenishment.In 2019, he was named vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean. The same year, he became acting CEO of the World Bank and was then appointed in September 2019 as managing director of Operations.In 2023, van Trotsenburg was promoted to Senior Managing Director, responsible for the World Bank’s Development Policy and Partnerships. References External links LinkedIn profile

2023 south korea floods

Heavy rainfall during the 2023 East Asian rainy season resulted in severe flooding and landslides across South Korea, primarily affecting residents in the provinces of North Chungcheong and North Gyeongsang. At least 47 people were killed and three are still missing as of 22 July 2023. The downpour is the heaviest in South Korea in 115 years and marked the third heaviest rainfall on record in South Korea. Background The South Korean monsoon season usually begins in June and ends in the beginning of August. The country normally experiences heavy monsoon rains and its mountainous topography increases its vulnerability to landslides; however, the reported casualties this season are higher than usual. According to the Korea Meteorological Administration, the annual monsoon season began on 25 June 2023 and ended on 26 July 2023, with an average precipitation of 648.7 millimetres (25.54 in).Flooding expert Cheong Tae Sung of South Korea's National Disaster Management Research Institute said that the fact that the rains occurred in the rural parts of the country, which are harder to monitor and reach, could be a reason for the higher death toll. He additionally stated that climate change was a possible cause, as rain in South Korea has been coming in more intense bursts rather than spread out over a longer period of time due to warming, making it harder to prepare for floods. Scientists have also mentioned that the climate warming situation has likely resulted in more floods across the world as extreme floods have also hit India, Japan and China. Impact Many people were injured when torrential rains caused landslides and the overflow of a dam in North Chungcheong, and prompting the evacuation of over 9,200 homes and over 14,400 people nationwide. According to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, over 34,000 hectares (84,000 acres) of farmland were damaged or flooded and 825,000 livestock were killed.On 17 July, Yonhap News Agency reported that 628 public facilities and 317 private properties were damaged by the heavy rain. On 19 July, Yonhap reported that 1,101 public buildings and 1,047 private buildings were damaged by the floods, especially around South Chungcheong Province. On 22 July, the reported damage increased to 6,064 public facilities and 2,470 private properties, as reported by the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasure Headquarters. Yonhap also reported that 471 homes were submerged and another 125 were damaged.At least 22 people were killed in North Gyeongsang and four others were killed in South Chungcheong Province. On 15 July, a landslide occurred in the village of Baekseok-ri, Hyoja-myeon, Yecheon County, North Gyeongsang, which killed five seniors. One is currently considered missing. Gungpyeong No. 2 Underpass incident In Osong, a town near Cheongju, 14 people were killed when their vehicles became trapped in the Gungpyeong No. 2 Underpass after the banks of Miho River broke on 15 July. Fire officials estimated that the tunnel had filled with water in two to three minutes, trapping 15 vehicles in the underpass. Nine hundred rescuers, including divers, were involved in the tunnel search.A flood warning had been issued four hours before the accident, leading some to criticize the local authorities and the provincial government for not closing the tunnel. On 28 July, 36 local government and fire officials were referred for investigation in connection with the incident. Dam overflows In Hwasun County, the Dongbok Dam, which provides water supply for nearby Gwangju city, had an overflow of some 800,000 tons per hour. The Hwasun County recommended evacuation to its 10 low-altitude villages. This incident is a repetition of a similar event from 2020, where another overflow caused 30 homes to be flooded. Because of the dam's limited flood control capability (it is primarily a water supply dam), residents have called for redesign of the dam. Cultural heritage sites Fifty Intangible Cultural Heritage sites were damaged by the torrential rain including Joseon-era hanok houses in North Gyeongsang Province, the Manhoe Historic House in Bonghwa County, which suffered damage as a result of a landslide, and the Choganjeong pavilion in Yecheon County. Other damaged sites included Gongsanseong Fortress and Mungyeong Saejae. Government response Prime Minister Han Duck-soo called for the deployment of the Republic of Korea Armed Forces to conduct search and rescue operations due to the disruption of rail services in South Korea. President Yoon Suk Yeol pointed to climate change as a possible cause, stating that "this kind of extreme weather event will become commonplace … we must accept climate change is happening, and deal with it." He added: "We can no longer call such abnormal weather abnormal." He also called for the need to upgrade systems to monitor water levels. Yoon designated thirteen areas "special disaster zones", which would make them eligible for financial support in relief efforts. At a press conference, the Ministry of Unification requested that the North Korean government notify the South Korean government of any plans to release water from the Hwanggang Dam.Since 15 July, general trains and KTX service in affected areas has been suspended. Korail, the railroad operator, announced the affected trains will be resuming operation as soon as the checks for structural damage have been completed. On 17 July, President Yoon visited North Gyeongsang Province. On the same day, his government launched an audit looking into the handling of the flooding, particularly in the underpass incident. On 27 July, the National Assembly passed a bill for preventing flood damage, revising the River Act. See also 2020 Korean floods 2022 South Korean floods Climate change in South Korea == References ==

political positions of donald trump

The political positions of Donald Trump (sometimes referred to as Trumpism), the 45th president of the United States, have frequently changed. Trump is primarily a populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. Political affiliation and ideology Self-described Donald Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987; since that time, he has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party.In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans." In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat."During his 2016 campaign for the presidency, Trump consistently described the state of the United States in bleak terms, referring to it as a nation in dire peril that is plagued by lawlessness, poverty, and violence, constantly under threat, and at risk of having "nothing, absolutely nothing, left". In accepting the Republican nomination for president, Trump said that "I alone can fix" the system, and pledged that if elected, "Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo." He described himself as a "law and order" candidate and "the voice" of "the forgotten men and women". Trump's inaugural address on January 20, 2017, focused on his campaign theme of America in crisis and decline. He pledged to end what he referred to as "American carnage", depicting the United States in a dystopian light—as a "land of abandoned factories, economic angst, rising crime"—while pledging "a new era in American politics".Although Trump was the Republican nominee, he has signaled that the official party platform, adopted at the 2016 Republican National Convention, diverges from his own views. According to a The Washington Post tally, Trump made some 282 campaign promises over the course of his 2016 campaign.In February 2017, Trump stated that he was a "total nationalist" in a "true sense". In October 2018, Trump again described himself as a nationalist.During the last week of his presidential term, Trump was reportedly considering founding a new political party and wanted to call it the Patriot Party. As described by others Trump's political positions are viewed by some as populist. Politicians and pundits alike have referred to Trump's populism, anti-free trade, and anti-immigrant stances as "Trumpism".Liberal economist and columnist Paul Krugman disputes that Trump is a populist, arguing that his policies favor the rich over those less well off. Harvard Kennedy School political scientist Pippa Norris has described Trump as a "populist authoritarian" analogous to European parties such as the Swiss People's Party, Austrian Freedom Party, Swedish Democrats, and Danish People's Party. Columnist Walter Shapiro and political commentator Jonathan Chait describe Trump as authoritarian. Conservative commentator Mary Katharine Ham characterized Trump as a "casual authoritarian," saying "he is a candidate who has happily and proudly spurned the entire idea of limits on his power as an executive and doesn't have any interest in the Constitution and what it allows him to do and what [it] does not allow him to do. That is concerning for people who are interested in limited government." Charles C. W. Cooke of the National Review has expressed similar views, terming Trump an "anti-constitutional authoritarian." Libertarian journalist Nick Gillespie, by contrast, calls Trump "populist rather than an authoritarian". Rich Benjamin refers to Trump and his ideology as fascist and a form of inverted totalitarianism.Legal experts spanning the political spectrum, including many conservative and libertarian scholars, have suggested that "Trump's blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law." Law professors Randy E. Barnett, Richard Epstein, and David G. Post, for example, suggest that Trump has little or no awareness of, or commitment to, the constitutional principles of separation of powers and federalism. Law professor Ilya Somin believes that Trump "poses a serious threat to the press and the First Amendment," citing Trump's proposal to expand defamation laws to make it easier to sue journalists and his remark that the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, would "have problems" if Trump was elected president. Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in an op-ed published in The Washington Post in July 2016 that "Trump's proposed policies, if carried out, would trigger a constitutional crisis. By our reckoning, a Trump administration would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth amendments if it tried to implement his most controversial plans."Prior to his election as president, his views on social issues were often described as centrist or moderate. Political commentator Josh Barro termed Trump a "moderate Republican," saying that except on immigration, his views are "anything but ideologically rigid, and he certainly does not equate deal making with surrender." MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Trump is essentially more like a "centrist Democrat" on social issues. Journalist and political analyst John Heilemann characterized Trump as liberal on social issues, while conservative talk radio host and political commentator Rush Limbaugh said that Heilemann is seeing in Trump what he wants to see. Since he became president, commentators have generally characterized his policy agenda as socially conservative.Trump and his political views have often been described as nationalist. John Cassidy of New Yorker writes that Trump seeks to make the Republican Party "into a more populist, nativist, avowedly protectionist, and semi-isolationist party that is skeptical of immigration, free trade, and military interventionism." The Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt and College of the Holy Cross political scientist Donald Brand describe Trump as a nativist. Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, instead calls Trump an "immigration hawk" and supports Trump's effort to return immigration levels to what Trump calls a "historically average level". Trump is a protectionist, according to free-market advocate Stephen Moore and conservative economist Larry Kudlow. Historian Joshua M. Zeitz wrote in 2016 that Trump's appeals to "law and order" and "the silent majority" were comparable to the dog-whistle and racially-coded terminology of Richard Nixon.According to a 2020 study, voters had the most difficulty assessing the ideology of Trump in the 2016 election out of all presidential candidates since 1972 and all contemporary legislators. Scales and rankings Crowdpac In 2015, Crowdpac gave Trump a ranking of 0.4L out of 10, indicating moderate positions. In 2016, the ranking was changed to 5.1C out of 10, shifting him more to the conservative spectrum. On the issues The organization and website On the Issues has classified Trump in a variety of ways over time, showing the variance of his political beliefs: "Moderate populist" (2003) "Liberal-leaning populist" (2003–2011) "Moderate populist conservative" (2011–2012) "Libertarian-leaning conservative" (2012–2013) "Moderate conservative" (2013–2014) "Libertarian-leaning conservative" (2014–2015) "Hard-core conservative" (2015) "Libertarian-leaning conservative" (2015–2016) "Moderate conservative" (2016–2017) "Hard-core conservative" (2017–present) Politics and policies during presidency As president, Trump has pursued sizable income tax cuts, deregulation, increased military spending, rollbacks of federal health-care protections, and the appointment of conservative judges consistent with conservative (Republican Party) policies. However, his anti-globalization policies of trade protectionism cross party lines. In foreign affairs he has described himself as a nationalist. Trump has said that he is "totally flexible on very, very many issues."Trump's signature issue is immigration, especially illegal immigration, and in particular building or expanding a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.In his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump promised significant infrastructure investment and protection for entitlements for the elderly, typically considered liberal (Democratic Party) policies. In October 2016, Trump's campaign posted fourteen categories of policy proposals on his website, which have been since removed. During October 2016, Trump outlined a series of steps for his first 100 days in office.Trump's political positions, and his descriptions of his beliefs, have often been inconsistent. Politico has described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory." According to an NBC News count, over the course of his campaign Trump made "141 distinct shifts on 23 major issues." Fact-checking organizations reported that during the campaign, Trump made a record number of false statements and lies compared to other candidates, a pattern that has continued – and further increased – in office. Domestic policy Campaign finance While Trump has repeatedly expressed support for "the idea of campaign finance reform", he has not outlined specifics of his actual views on campaign-finance regulation. For example, Trump has not said whether he favors public financing of elections or caps on expenditures of campaigns, outside groups, and individuals.During the Republican primary race, Trump on several occasions accused his Republican opponents of being bound to their campaign financiers, and asserted that anyone (including Trump himself) could buy their policies with donations. He called super PACs a "scam" and "a horrible thing". In October 2015, he said, "All Presidential candidates should immediately disavow their Super PACs. They're not only breaking the spirit of the law but the law itself."Having previously touted the self-funding of his campaign as a sign of his independence from the political establishment and big donors, Trump reversed course and started to fundraise in early May 2016. While Trump systematically disavowed pro-Trump super PACs earlier in the race, he stopped doing so from early May 2016. Civil servants According to Chris Christie (who served briefly as leader of Trump's White House transition team), Trump will seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Obama and will ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers.Trump's former Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, stated in February 2017 that Trump's goal is to "deconstruct the administrative state". Disabled people Trump has provided "little detail regarding his positions on disability-related policies," and his campaign website made no mention of disabled people. As of June 1, 2016, Trump had not responded to the issue questionnaire of the nonpartisan disability group RespectAbility. District of Columbia statehood Trump is opposed to D.C. statehood. In 2020, Donald Trump indicated that if the statehood legislation for Washington, D.C. passes both houses of Congress, he would veto the admission legislation. Education 2016 campaign Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools. On school choice he's commented, "Our public schools are capable of providing a more competitive product than they do today. Look at some of the high school tests from earlier in this century and you'll wonder if they weren't college-level tests. And we've got to bring on the competition—open the schoolhouse doors and let parents choose the best school for their children. Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition—the American way."Trump has blasted the Common Core State Standards Initiative, calling it a "total disaster". Trump has asserted that Common Core is "education through Washington, D.C.", a claim which Politifact and other journalists have rated "false", since the adoption and implementation of Common Core is a state choice, not a federal one.Trump has stated that Ben Carson will be "very much involved in education" under a Trump presidency. Carson rejects the theory of evolution and believes that "home-schoolers do the best, private schoolers next best, charter schoolers next best, and public schoolers worst"; he said that he wanted to "take the federal bureaucracy out of education."Trump has proposed redirecting $20 billion in existing federal spending to block grants to states to give poor children vouchers to attend a school of their family's choice (including a charter school, private school, or online school). Trump did not explain where the $20 billion in the federal budget would come from. Trump stated that "Distribution of this grant will favor states that have private school choice and charter laws." Presidency As president, Trump chose Republican financier Betsy DeVos, a prominent Michigan charter school advocate, as Secretary of Education. The nomination was highly controversial; The Washington Post education writer Valerie Strauss wrote that "DeVos was considered the most controversial education nominee in the history of the nearly 40-year-old Education Department." On the confirmation vote the Senate split 50/50 (along party lines, with two Republican senators joining all Democratic senators to vote against confirmation). Vice President Mike Pence used his tie-breaking vote to confirm the nomination, the first time in U.S. history that occurred. 2024 campaign During his 2024 presidential campaign Trump expressed opposition to the use of academic tenure and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in U.S. educational institutions. Eminent domain In 2015 Trump called eminent domain "wonderful". He repeatedly asked the government to invoke it on his behalf during past development projects. Food safety In September 2016, Trump posted a list on his website of regulations that he would eliminate. The list included what it called the "FDA Food Police" and mentioned the Food and Drug Administration's rules governing "farm and food production hygiene" and "food temperatures". The factsheet provided by Trump mirrored a May report by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It was replaced later that month and the new factsheet did not mention the FDA. Native Americans Colman McCarthy of The Washington Post wrote in 1993 that in testimony given that year to the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Native American Affairs, Trump "devoted much of his testimony to bad-mouthing Indians and their casinos," asserted that "organized crime is rampant on Indian reservations" and that "if it continues it will be the biggest scandal ever." Trump offered no evidence in support of his claim, and testimony from the FBI's organized crime division, the Justice Department's criminal division, and the IRS's criminal investigation division did not support Trump's assertion. Representative George Miller, a Democrat who was the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, stated: "In my 19 years in Congress, I've never heard more irresponsible testimony."Trump bankrolled in 2000 a set of anti-Indian gaming ads in upstate New York that featured "a dark photograph showing hypodermic needles and drug paraphernalia," a warning that "violent criminals were coming to town," and an accusation that the St. Regis Mohawks had a "record of criminal activity." The ad—aimed at stopping the construction of a casino in the Catskills that might hurt Trump's own Atlantic City casinos—was viewed as "incendiary" and racially charged, and at the time local tribal leaders, in response, bought a newspaper ad of their own to denounce the "smear" and "racist and inflammatory rhetoric" of the earlier ad. The ads attracted the attention of the New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying because they failed to disclose Trump's sponsorship as required by state lobbying rules. Trump acknowledged that he sponsored the ads and reached a settlement with the state in which he and his associates agreed to issue a public apology and pay $250,000 (the largest civil penalty ever levied by the commission) for evading state disclosure rules.In 2015, Trump defended the controversial team name and mascot of the Washington Redskins, saying that the NFL team should not change its name and he did not find the term to be offensive. The "Change the Mascot" campaign, led by the Oneida Indian Nation and National Congress of American Indians, condemned Trump's stance.While campaigning in 2016, Trump has repeatedly belittled Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts by calling her "Pocahontas" (a reference to Warren's claim, based on family lore, of Native American ancestry, which she has been unable to document). Trump's comments were criticized by a number of public figures as racist and inappropriate. Gyasi Ross of the Blackfeet Nation, a Native American activist and author, criticized Trump's "badgering of Elizabeth Warren as 'Pocahontas'" as "simply the continuation of his pattern of racist bullying." Questioning Obama's citizenship For several years Trump promoted "birther" conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship.In March 2011, during an interview on Good Morning America, Trump said he was seriously considering running for president, that he was a "little" skeptical of Obama's citizenship and that someone who shares this view should not be so quickly dismissed as an "idiot". Trump added: "Growing up no one knew him"—a claim ranked "Pants on Fire" by Politifact. Later, Trump appeared on The View repeating several times that "I want him (Obama) to show his birth certificate" and speculating that "there's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like." Although officials in Hawaii certified Obama's citizenship, Trump said in April 2011 he would not let go of the issue, because he was not satisfied that Obama had proved his citizenship.After Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, Trump said: "I am really honored and I am really proud, that I was able to do something that nobody else could do." Trump continued to question Obama's birth certificate in the following years, as late as 2015. In May 2012, Trump suggested that Obama might have been born in Kenya. In October 2012, Trump offered to donate five million dollars to the charity of Obama's choice in return for the publication of his college and passport applications before the end of the month. In a 2014 interview, Trump questioned whether Obama had produced his long-form birth certificate. When asked in December 2015 if he still questioned Obama's legitimacy, Trump said that "I don't talk about that anymore."On September 14, 2016, Trump declined to acknowledge whether he believed Obama was born in the United States. On September 15, 2016, Trump for the first time acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States. He gave a terse statement, saying, "President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period." He falsely accused Hillary Clinton of having started the "Birther" movement. He also asserted that he "finished" the birther controversy, apparently referring to Obama's 2011 release of his long-form birth certificate, despite the fact that he continued to question Obama's citizenship in the years that followed. The next day, Trump tweeted a story in The Washington Post with the headline "Donald Trump's birther event is the greatest trick he's ever pulled". The "greatest trick" of the headline referred to the fact that cable networks aired the event live, waiting for a "birther" statement, while Trump touted his new hotel and supporters gave testimonials. In October 2016, Trump appeared to question the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency, referring to him at a rally as the "quote 'president'⁠ ⁠". Social Security and Medicare During his campaign Trump repeatedly promised "I'm not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid." For the first three years of his presidency he said nothing about cutting Social Security or Medicare. In a January 2020 interview he said he planned to "take a look" at entitlement programs like Medicare, but he then said via Twitter "We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal 2021 Budget." His proposed 2021 budget, unveiled in February 2020, included a $45 billion (~$45 billion in 2021) cut to the program within Social Security that supports disabled people, as well as cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. In August 2020, as part of a package of executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, he signed an order to postpone the collection of the payroll taxes that support Social Security and Medicare, paid by employees and employers, for the rest of 2020. He also said that if he wins re-election, he will forgive the postponed payroll taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax, saying he would "terminate the tax", although only Congress can change tax law. Analysts said such an action would threaten Social Security and Medicare by eliminating the dedicated funding which pays for the programs. Veterans 2016 presidential campaign Trump caused a stir in July 2015 when he charged that Senator John McCain had "done nothing to help the vets," a statement ruled false by PolitiFact and the Chicago Tribune. Trump added that McCain is "not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."As a presidential candidate, Trump was critical of the ways in which veterans are treated in the United States, saying "the vets are horribly treated in this country...they are living in hell." He favored eliminating backlogs and wait-lists that had caused a Veterans Health Administration scandal the previous year. He claimed that "over 300,000 veterans have died waiting for care." He said he believed Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities needed to be technologically upgraded, to hire more veterans to treat other veterans, to increase support of female veterans, and to create satellite clinics within hospitals in rural areas. He proposed a plan for reforming the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs with provisions to allow veterans to obtain care from any doctor or facility that accepts Medicare, to increase funding for PTSD and suicide prevention services, and to provide ob/gyn services at every VA hospital. Trump called for greater privatization of veterans' care, although his plan made no direct reference to letting veterans get health care outside the VA system. The Wall Street Journal noted that "such a plan is counter to recommendations from major veterans groups, the VA itself and from the Commission on Care, an independent body established by Congress that last week made recommendations for VA changes." Trump's plan calls "for legislation making it easier to fire underperforming employees, increasing mental-health resources and adding a White House hotline so veterans can bypass the VA and bring problems directly to the president." Trump opposed the current G.I. Bill in 2016.In January 2016, Trump hosted a fundraising rally for veterans (skipping a televised Republican debate to do so). Weeks later, after The Wall Street Journal inquired with the Trump campaign when veterans' groups would receive their checks, the funds began to be disbursed. In April, the Journal reported that the funds had yet to be fully distributed. In May, NPR confirmed directly with 30 recipient charities that they had received their funds, "accounting for $4.27 million of the $5.6 million total," while the remaining 11 charities did not answer the question. Presidency and 2020 campaign In February 2018, the Trump administration initiated a policy known as 'Deploy Or Get Out' (DOGO), ordering the Pentagon to discharge any soldier who would be ineligible for deployment within the next 12 months. This mainly affected disabled soldiers. It also affected HIV-positive soldiers, who are allowed to serve within the US but cannot be deployed overseas; the DOGO policy meant that they could no longer serve within the US, either.In August 2019, Trump credited himself for passing the Veterans Choice Act, a law that had actually been passed under the previous president, Barack Obama, in 2014. Trump did sign an expansion of that Act in 2018.In September 2020, The Atlantic reported that Trump referred to Americans who were casualties of war as "losers" and "suckers", citing multiple people who were present for the statements; later reporting by the Associated Press and Fox News corroborated some of these stories. Veterans expressed scorn over the report's allegations. Trump denied these allegations and called them "disgraceful", adding: "I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes". John Bolton, who was present at the discussion, also said he never heard Trump make such comments. Economy and trade Environment and energy By March 2016, Trump had not released any plans to combat climate change or provided details regarding his approach to energy issues more broadly.In May 2016, Trump asked Republican U.S. representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota—described by Reuters as "one of America's most ardent drilling advocates and climate change skeptics"—to draft Trump's energy policy. California drought In May 2016, Trump said that he could solve the water crisis in California. He declared that "there is no drought", a statement which the Associated Press noted is incorrect. Trump accused California state officials of denying farmers of water so they can send it out to sea "to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish." According to the AP, Trump appeared to be referring to a dispute between Central Valley farming interests and environmental interests; California farmers accuse water authorities of short-changing them of the water in their efforts to protect endangered native fish species. Climate change and pollution Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a "hoax." He has said that "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive," a statement which Trump later said was a joke. However, it was also pointed out that he often conflates weather with climate change.Trump criticized President Obama's description of climate change as "the greatest threat to future generations" for being "naive" and "one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard." A 2016 report by the Sierra Club contended that, were he to be elected president, Trump would be the only head of state in the world to contend that climate change is a hoax. In December 2009, Trump and his three adult children had signed a full-page advertisement from "business leaders" in The New York Times stating "If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet" and encouraging "investment in the clean energy economy" to "create new energy jobs and increase our energy security".Although "not a believer in climate change", Trump has stated that "clean air is a pressing problem" and has said: "There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of climate change. Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water."In May 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump issued an energy plan focused on promoting fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation. Trump promised to "rescind" in his first 100 days in office a variety of Environmental Protection Agency regulations established during the Obama administration to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, which contribute to a warming global climate. Trump has specifically pledged to revoke the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule, which he characterizes as two "job-destroying Obama executive actions."Trump has said "we're practically not allowed to use coal any more", a statement rated "mostly false" by PolitiFact. Trump has criticized the Obama administration's coal policies, describing the administration's moves to phase out the use of coal-fired power plants as "stupid". Trump has criticized the Obama administration for prohibiting "coal production on federal land" and states that it seeks to adopt "draconian climate rules that, unless stopped, would effectively bypass Congress to impose job-killing cap-and-trade." Trump has vowed to revive the U.S. coal economy, a pledge that is viewed by experts as unlikely to be fulfilled because the decline of the coal industry is driven by market forces, and specifically by the U.S. natural gas boom. An analysis by Scientific American found that Trump's promise to bring back closed coal mines would be difficult to fulfill, both because of environmental regulations and economic shifts. An analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance dismissed Trump's claims of a "war on coal": "U.S. coal's main problem has been cheap natural gas and renewable power, not a politically driven 'war on coal'...[coal] will continue being pushed out of the generating mix."Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a cap-and-trade system to control carbon emissions.According to FactCheck.org, over at least a five-year period, Trump has on several occasions made incorrect claims about the use of hair spray and its role in ozone depletion. At a rally in May 2016, "Trump implied that the regulations on hairspray and coal mining are both unwarranted" and incorrectly asserted that hairspray use in a "sealed" apartment prevents the spray's ozone-depleting substances from reaching the atmosphere.In June 2019, the Trump White House tried to prevent a State Department intelligence analyst from testifying to Congress about "possibly catastrophic" effects of human-caused climate change, and prevented his written testimony containing science from NASA and NOAA from being included in the official Congressional Record because it was not consistent with administration positions.In August 2019, Trump described America's coal production as "clean, beautiful", despite coal being a particularly polluting energy source. Although "clean coal" is a specific jargon used by the coal industry for certain technologies, Trump instead generally describes that coal itself is "clean". Opposition to international cooperation on climate change Trump pledged in his May 2016 speech on energy policy to "cancel the Paris climate agreement" adopted at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (in which 170 countries committed to reductions in carbon emissions). Trump pledged to cancel the agreement in his first hundred days in office. This pledge followed earlier comments by Trump, in which he said that as president, he would "at a minimum" seek to renegotiate the agreement and "at a maximum I may do something else." Trump characterizes the Paris Agreement as "one-sided" and "bad for the United States", believing that the agreement is too favorable to China and other countries. In his May 2016 speech, Trump inaccurately said that the Paris Agreement "gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country"; in fact, the Paris Agreement is based on voluntary government pledges, and no country controls the emissions-reduction plan of any other country.Once the agreement is ratified by 55 nations representing 55 percent of global emissions (which has not yet occurred), a four-year waiting period goes into effect for any country wishing to withdraw from the agreement. A U.S. move to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as Trump proposed was viewed as likely to unravel the agreement; according to Reuters, such a move would spell "potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming."In Trump's May 2016 speech on energy policy, he declared that if elected president, he would "stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to global warming programs." This would be a reversal of the U.S. pledge to commit funds to developing countries to assist in climate change mitigation and could undermine the willingness of other countries to take action against climate change.In August 2016, 375 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, issued an open letter warning that Trump's plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Paris Agreement would have dire effects on the fight against climate change. The scientists wrote, in part: [I]t is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. A "Parexit" would send a clear signal to the rest of the world: "The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change. You are on your own." Such a decision would make it far more difficult to develop effective global strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The consequences of opting out of the global community would be severe and long-lasting – for our planet's climate and for the international credibility of the United States. Energy independence In his May 2016 speech on energy policy, Trump stated: "Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence. We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest." The New York Times reported that "experts say that such remarks display a basic ignorance of the workings of the global oil markets." Environmental regulation In January 2016, Trump vowed "tremendous cutting" of the budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if elected. In an October 2015 interview with Chris Wallace, Trump explained, "what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations." When Wallace asked, "Who's going to protect the environment?", Trump answered "we'll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses."Trump has charged that the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service abuses the Endangered Species Act to restrict oil and gas exploration." In 2011, Trump said that would permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska.In July 2016, Trump suggested that he was in favor of state and local bans on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), saying, "I'm in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it. I mean, there's some areas, maybe, they don't want to have fracking. And I think if the voters are voting for it, that's up to them...if a municipality or a state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that." Pipelines Keystone XL Trump promised to construct the Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed project to bring Canadian petroleum to the U.S. Trump pledged that if elected, he would ask TransCanada Corp. to renew its permit application for the project within his first hundred days in office. Trump claimed that Keystone XL pipeline will have "no impact on environment" and create "lots of jobs for U.S.", although in fact the pipeline is projected to create only 35 permanent jobs.In his first days in office, Trump revived the Keystone XL project, signing a presidential memorandum reversing the rejection of the proposed pipeline that President Obama had made. Trump "also signed a directive ordering an end to protracted environmental reviews," pledging to make environmental review " a very short process". Dakota Access Pipeline After months of protest by thousands of protesters, including the largest gathering of Native Americans in 100 years, in December 2016 the United States Army Corps of Engineers under the Obama administration announced that it would not grant an easement for the pipeline, and the Corps of Engineers undertook an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes. However, in February 2017, newly elected President Donald Trump ended the environmental impact assessment and ordered construction to continue. Trump has financial ties to Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66, who are both directly involved in the controversial project. The CEO of Energy Transfer Partners is a campaign donor for Donald Trump. Renewable energy In his 2015 book Crippled America, Trump is highly critical of the "big push" to develop renewable energy, arguing that the push is based on a mistaken belief that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. He writes, "There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy—so-called green energy—from renewable sources. That's a big mistake. To begin with, the whole push for renewable energy is being driven by the wrong motivation, the mistaken belief that global climate change is being caused by carbon emissions. If you don't buy that—and I don't—then what we have is really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves."Despite criticizing wind farms in the past (calling them "ugly"), Trump has said that he does not oppose the wind production tax credit, saying: "I'm okay with subsidies, to an extent." Trump has criticized wind energy for being expensive and for not working without "massive subsidies". He added, "windmills are killing hundreds and hundreds of eagles. One of the most beautiful, one of the most treasured birds—and they're killing them by the hundreds and nothing happens," a claim rated as "mostly false" by PolitiFact since best estimates indicate that about one hundred golden eagles are killed each year by wind turbine blades.In his official platform, Trump claims that he will reduce bureaucracy which would then lead to greater innovation. His platform mentions "renewable energies", including "nuclear, wind and solar energy" in that regard but adds that he would not support those "to the exclusion of other energy".Trump supports a higher ethanol mandate (the amount of ethanol required by federal regulation to be blended into the U.S. gasoline supply). Trump vowed to protect the government's Renewable Fuel Standard and corn-based ethanol.In August 2019, Trump claimed: "if a windmill is within two miles of your house, your house is practically worthless"; this claim is not supported by studies in the United States. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare In October 2016, the Humane Society of the United States denounced Trump's campaign, saying that a "Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere" and that he has "a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries."In February 2017, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) unexpectedly removed from its public website "all enforcement records related to horse soring and to animal welfare at dog breeding operations and other facilities." The decision prompted criticism from animal welfare advocates (such as the Animal Welfare Institute), investigative journalists, and some of the regulated industries (the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the group Speaking of Research said that the move created an impression of non-transparency). Foreign policy and defense Health care Actions while in office Legislation President Trump advocated repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare"). The Republican-controlled House passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in May 2017, handing it to the Senate, which decided to write its own version of the bill rather than voting on the AHCA. The Senate bill, called the "Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017" (BCRA), failed on a vote of 45–55 in the Senate during July 2017. Other variations also failed to gather the required support, facing unanimous Democratic Party opposition and some Republican opposition. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bills would increase the number of uninsured by over 20 million persons, while reducing the budget deficit marginally. Actions to hinder the implementation of ACA President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as: Weakening the individual mandate through his first executive order, which resulted in limiting enforcement of mandate penalties by the IRS. For example, tax returns without indications of health insurance ("silent returns") will still be processed, overriding instructions from the Obama administration to the IRS to reject them. Reducing funding for advertising for the 2017 and 2018 exchange enrollment periods by up to 90%, with other reductions to support resources used to answer questions and help people sign-up for coverage. This action could reduce ACA enrollment. Cutting the enrollment period for 2018 by half, to 45 days. The NYT editorial board referred to this as part of a concerted "sabotage" effort. Issuing public statements that the exchanges are unstable or in a death spiral. CBO reported in May 2017 that the exchanges would remain stable under current law (ACA), but would be less stable if the AHCA were passed.Several insurers and actuary groups cited uncertainty created by President Trump, specifically non-enforcement of the individual mandate and not funding cost sharing reduction subsidies, as contributing 20-30 percentage points to premium increases for the 2018 plan year on the ACA exchanges. In other words, absent Trump's actions against the ACA, premium increases would have averaged 10% or less, rather than the estimated 28-40% under the uncertainty his actions created. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) maintains a timeline of many "sabotage" efforts by the Trump Administration. Ending cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments President Trump announced in October 2017 he would end the smaller of the two types of subsidies under the ACA, the cost sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies. This controversial decision significantly raised premiums on the ACA exchanges (as much as 20 percentage points) along with the premium tax credit subsidies that rise with them, with the CBO estimating a $200 billion increase in the budget deficit over a decade. CBO also estimated that initially up to one million fewer would have health insurance coverage, although more might have it in the long run as the subsidies expand. CBO expected the exchanges to remain stable (e.g., no "death spiral") as the premiums would increase and prices would stabilize at the higher (non-CSR) level.President Trump's argument that the CSR payments were a "bailout" for insurance companies and therefore should be stopped, actually results in the government paying more to insurance companies ($200B over a decade) due to increases in the premium tax credit subsidies. Journalist Sarah Kliff therefore described Trump's argument as "completely incoherent." 2020 campaign In August 2019, at a campaign rally, Trump claimed that his administration "will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions, always." However, his administration had already repeatedly attempted to water down or repeal the ACA's protections for people with preexisting medical conditions, without any proposal on how to restore these protections if the ACA is rendered void. Prior to election According to a report by the RAND Corporation, Trump's proposed health-care policy proposals, depending on specific elements implemented, would result in between 15 and 25 million fewer people with health insurance and increase the federal deficit in a range from zero to $41 billion (~$44 billion in 2021) in 2018. This was in contrast to Clinton's proposals, which would expand health insurance coverage for between zero and 10 million people while increasing the deficit in a range from zero to $90 billion (~$96.6 billion in 2021) in 2018. According to the report, low-income individuals and sicker people would be most adversely affected by his proposed policies, although it was pointed out that not all policy proposals have been modeled. Affordable Care Act and health-care reform As the 2016 campaign unfolded, Trump stated that he favors repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare")—which Trump refers to as a "complete disaster"—and replacing it with a "free-market system". On his campaign website, Trump says, "on day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare." Trump's campaign has insisted that the candidate has "never supported socialized medicine."Trump has cited the rising costs of premiums and deductibles as a motivation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. However, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the after-subsidy premium costs to those with insurance coverage via the Affordable Care Act's exchanges did not change significantly on average from 2016 to 2017, as increases in the subsidies offset pre-subsidy insurance premium increases. For example, after-subsidy costs for a popular "silver plan" remained around $200/month in 2016 and 2017. An estimated 70% of persons on the exchanges could purchase a plan for $75/month after subsidies. Further, in the employer market, health insurance premium cost increases from 2015 to 2016 were an estimated 3% on average, low by historical standards. While deductibles rose 12% on average from 2015 to 2016, more workers are pairing higher-deductible plans with tax-preferred health savings accounts (HSAs), offsetting some of the deductible increase (i.e., lowering their effective deductible).The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2016 that there were approximately 23 million people with insurance due to the law, with 12 million people covered by the exchanges (10 million of whom received subsidies to help pay for insurance) and 11 million made eligible for Medicaid. The CBO also reported in June 2015 that: "Including the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period." CBO also estimated that excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback, repeal of the ACA would increase the deficit by $353 billion over that same period.In the early part of his campaign, Trump responded to questions about his plan to replace the ACA by saying that it would be "something terrific!" Trump subsequently said at various points that he believes that the government should have limited involvement in health care, but has also said that "at the lower end, where people have no money, I want to try and help those people," by "work[ing] out some sort of a really smart deal with hospitals across the country." and has said "everybody's got to be covered." At a February 2016 town hall on CNN, Trump said that he supported the individual health insurance mandate of the ACA, which requires all Americans to have health insurance, saying "I like the mandate. So here's where I'm a little bit different [from other Republican candidates]." In March 2016, Trump reversed himself, saying that "Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to."In March 2016, Trump released his health care plan, which called for allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines and for making Medicaid into a block grant system for the states. He also called for elimination of the individual mandate for health insurance, for allowing health insurance premiums to be deducted on tax returns, and for international competition in the drug market. In the same document, Trump acknowledged that mental health care in the U.S. is often inadequate but offered no immediate solution to the problem, instead stating that "there are promising reforms being developed in Congress." Trump also emphasized the removal of market entry barriers for drug providers and improved access to imported medication corresponding to safety standards.Explaining how he would address the problem of ensuring the people that would lose their insurance coverage if Obamacare were repealed, Trump said, "We have to come up, and we can come up with many different plans. In fact, plans you don't even know about will be devised because we're going to come up with plans—health care plans—that will be so good. And so much less expensive both for the country and for the people. And so much better." His plan has been criticized by Republican health experts as "a jumbled hodgepodge of old Republican ideas, randomly selected, that don't fit together" (Robert Laszewski) providing nothing that "would do anything more than cover a couple million people" (Gail R. Wilensky).In 1999, during his abortive 2000 Reform Party presidential campaign, Trump told TV interviewer Larry King, "I believe in universal health care." In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump reiterated his call for universal health care and focused on a Canadian-style single-payer health care system as a means to achieve it. Though he characterized the Canadian healthcare system as "catastrophic in certain ways" in October 2016 during the second presidential debate, the Trump campaign website wrote in June 2015 about his support for "a system that would mirror Canada's government-run healthcare service" under the title "What does Donald Trump believe? Where the candidate stands on 10 issues". In 2015, Trump also expressed admiration for the Scottish health-care system, which is single payer. Public health Ebola In 2014, after a New York physician returned from treating Ebola patients in West Africa and showed symptoms of the disease, Trump tweeted that if the doctor had Ebola, "Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!" When the doctor was later confirmed to have developed Ebola in New York, Trump tweeted that it was "Obama's fault" and "I have been saying for weeks for President Obama to stop the flights from West Africa. So simple, but he refused. A TOTAL incompetent!" Trump also criticized President Obama's decision to send 3,000 U.S. troops to affected regions to help combat the outbreak (see Operation United Assistance).As doctor Kent Brantly returned to the U.S. for treatment, Trump tweeted that U.S. doctors who went abroad to treat Ebola were "great" but "must suffer the consequences" if they became infected and insisted that "the U.S. must immediately stop all flights from EBOLA infected countries or the plague will start and spread inside our 'borders.'" When an Ebola patient was scheduled to come to the U.S. for treatment, Trump tweeted, "now I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent. KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE!"Trump's suggestion on the Ebola crisis "would go against all the expert advice being offered". Doctors warned "that isolating West Africa would only make the Ebola outbreak much worse" by "potentially denying help and supplies from getting in", and might destabilize the countries and contribute to the disease's spread outside West Africa. Zika On August 3, 2016, Trump called the Zika virus outbreak in Florida "a big problem". He expressed his support for Florida governor Rick Scott's handling of the crisis, saying that he's "doing a fantastic job". When asked if Congress should convene an emergency session to approve Zika funding, Trump answered, "I would say that it's up to Rick Scott." On August 11, 2016, Trump said that he was in favor of Congress setting aside money to combat the Zika virus. Vaccines Trump believed that childhood vaccinations were related to autism, a hypothesis which has been repeatedly debunked. The American Academy of Pediatrics and Autism Speaks have "decried Trump's remarks as false and potentially dangerous."In 2010, the Donald J. Trump Foundation donated $10,000 to Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy's nonprofit organization that advocates the incorrect view that autism and related disorders are primarily caused by vaccines.Despite his prior views, however, Trump did drop his claims of vaccines being related to autism in 2019 after the 2019 measles outbreaks, in saying: "They have to get those shots," as well as "...vaccinations are so important". Immigration Illegal immigration was a signature issue of Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and controversial remarks regarding immigration have also expressed support for a variety of "limits on legal immigration and guest-worker visas," including a "pause" on granting green cards, which Trump says will "allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages."In August 2019, Trump accused Democrats of supporting "open borders" by attempting to use their opposition to his immigration priorities as an example despite no explicit evidence to support his claim. He also claimed that his administration is "building the wall faster and better than ever", but no new barriers were erected by June 2019 at the Mexico–United States border unlike what Trump promised during his 2016 campaign. The only installations have been replacement fencing of old barriers. Trump also falsely claimed that only 2% of migrants who were released instead of detained eventually returned for their immigration hearings. The 2017 statistic is 72% for migrants, and 89% of migrants applying for asylum. Law and order Capital punishment Trump has long advocated for capital punishment in the United States. In May 1989, shortly after the Central Park jogger case received widespread media attention, Trump purchased a full-page ad in four New York City newspapers with the title "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!" Five defendants (the "Central Park Five") were wrongfully convicted in the case and were subsequently exonerated. By October 2016, Trump still maintained that the Central Park Five were guilty.In December 2015, in a speech accepting the endorsement of the New England Police Benevolent Association, Trump said that "One of the first things I do [if elected President] in terms of executive order if I win will be to sign a strong, strong statement that will go out to the country, out to the world, that...anybody killing a police officer—death penalty. It's going to happen, O.K.?" However, the president has no authority over these prosecutions as they usually take place in state court under state law, and over one-third of U.S. states have already abolished the death penalty. Furthermore, mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional, as held by the Supreme Court in Woodson v. North Carolina (1976). Torture Trump has said that he believes that "torture absolutely works". During his campaign, Trump said that "I would bring back waterboarding, and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding". However, during his presidency, he did not bring back waterboarding. Criminal justice As of May 2016, Trump's campaign website made no mention of criminal justice reform, and Trump rarely talked in specifics. Trump has stated that he would be "tough on crime" and criticized Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's criminal justice reform proposals. When asked about specific criminal justice reforms, Trump reportedly often changes the subject back to supporting police or vague answers about needing to be "tough." In January 2016, Trump said that along with veterans, "the most mistreated people in this country are police."Trump supports the use of "stop and frisk" tactics, of the kind once used in New York City. In 2000, Trump also rejected as elitist and naive the arguments of criminal justice reformers that the U.S. criminal justice system puts too many criminals in jail. Trump is in favor of at least one mandatory sentence, where using a gun to commit a crime results in a five-year sentence.Trump on several occasions asserted that crime was rising in the United States. Trump's assertions that crime was rising were false; in fact, both violent and property crimes declined consistently declined in the U.S. from the early 1990s until 2014. Trump's claim that "inner-city crime is reaching record levels" received a "pants-on-fire" rating from PolitiFact. As president, Trump reiterated in February 2017 the false claim that crime was rising, saying, "the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years."In May 2016, Trump stated that the cities of Oakland and Ferguson are "among the most dangerous in the world". In response, CBS News in San Francisco reported that the murder rates in Oakland and Baghdad are comparable, but PolitiFact rated Trump's claim false given that "homicide rates alone are not enough to gauge whether a city is dangerous or not".On November 22, 2015, Trump retweeted a graphic with purported statistics—cited to a nonexistent "Crime Statistics Bureau"—which claimed that African Americans were responsible for 81% of the homicides of White Americans and that police were responsible for 1% of black homicides compared to 4% of white homicides. Trump's retweet earned PolitiFact's "Pants on Fire" rating and was called "grossly inaccurate" by FactCheck.org the next day. Blacks were actually responsible for only 15% of white homicides according to FBI data for 2014. The breakdown of the racial differences in police killings in Trump's retweet was also inaccurate. Based on the percentages, the number of whites killed by police would be almost 4 times greater than the number of blacks. Data from The Washington Post for 2009 to 2013 showed a ratio of 1.5 white deaths by police for each black death. A separate estimate by Peter Moskos, associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice attributed 10% of white homicides to police and 4% to police for blacks. When asked about the statistics, Trump maintained that the statistics came "from sources that are very credible." Drug policy Trump's views on drug policy have shifted dramatically over time.At a luncheon hosted by the Miami Herald in April 1990, Trump told a crowd of 700 people that U.S. drug enforcement policy was "a joke," and that: "We're losing badly the war on drugs. You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars."In his campaign for the presidency in 2015 and 2016, however, Trump adopted "drug warrior" positions and has sought advice on the issue from William J. Bennett, who served as the U.S. first "drug czar" in the 1980s "and has remained a proponent of harsh 1980s-style drug war tactics." Trump told Sean Hannity in June 2015 that he opposes marijuana legalization and that "I feel strongly about that." Trump also claims to have personally never used controlled substances of any kind.Trump has voiced support for medical marijuana, saying that he is "a hundred percent in favor" because "I know people that have serious problems...and...it really, really does help them." When asked about Colorado (where recreational use of marijuana is legal), Trump softened his previously expressed views and essentially said that states should be able to decide on whether marijuana for recreational purposes should be legal.The administration organized the Marijuana Policy Coordination Committee in 2018. Gun regulation In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump wrote that he generally opposed gun control, but supported the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and supported a "slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun." In his book, Trump also criticized the gun lobby, saying: "The Republicans walk the N.R.A. line and refuse even limited restrictions." In 2008, Trump opposed hunting-education classes in schools and called the "thought of voluntarily putting guns in the classroom...a really bad plan."While campaigning for the presidency Trump reversed some of his positions on gun issues, calling for the expansion of gun rights. In 2015 he described himself as a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment and said concealed carry "is a right, not a privilege." He proposed eliminating prohibitions on assault weapons, military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines (which Trump described as "scary sounding phrases" used by gun control advocates "to confuse people"), as well as making concealed carry permits valid nationwide, rather than on the current state-to-state basis. At his campaign website he called for an overhaul of the current federal background check system, arguing that "Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system."On the campaign trail in 2015, Trump praised the National Rifle Association (NRA), and received the group's endorsement after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. He asserted that the presence of more guns in schools and public places could have stopped mass shootings such as those in 2015 in Paris; in San Bernardino, California; and at Umpqua Community College. Trump supported barring people on the government's terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons, saying in 2015: "If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely." On this position, Trump departed from the position of gun-rights groups and most of his 2016 Republican rivals for the presidency and supported a stance backed by Senate Democrats. Trump said that he holds a New York concealed carry permit and that "I carry on occasion, sometimes a lot. I like to be unpredictable." A 1987 Associated Press story said that he held a handgun permit at that time.In January 2016, Trump said: "I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and—you have to—and on military bases...My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There's no more gun-free zones." Trump could not eliminate gun-free school zones by executive order, however, since such zones were created by a federal law that can only be reversed by Congress. In May 2016, Trump made ambiguous comments on guns in classrooms, saying: "I don't want to have guns in classrooms. Although, in some cases, teachers should have guns in classrooms." In May 2016, Trump accused Hillary Clinton of lying when she claimed that "Donald Trump would force schools to allow guns in classrooms on his first day in office." According to The Washington Post fact-checker, Clinton's statement was accurate.In June 2016, Trump said "it would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight" to see Omar Mateen shot in the head by an armed patron in the Orlando nightclub shooting, reiterating his stance that more people should be armed in public places. A few days later, after two top officials of the NRA challenged the notion that drinking clubgoers should be armed, Trump reversed his position, saying that he "obviously" meant that additional guards or employees should have been armed in the nightclub. Security personnel and other staffers at a number of Trump's hotels and golf courses told ABC News that patrons are not permitted to carry guns on the property. A Trump spokesman denied this, saying that licensed persons are permitted to carry guns on the premises.At a rally on August 9, 2016, Trump accused his opponent of wanting to "essentially abolish the Second Amendment", and went on: "By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." These comments were interpreted by critics as suggesting violence against Clinton or her appointees, but Trump's campaign stated that he was referring to gun rights advocates' "great political power" as a voting bloc.One month after his inauguration, Trump reversed an Obama-era regulation that had been intended to prevent weapons purchases by certain people with mental health problems. Had the regulation been allowed to take effect, it would have added 75,000 names, including the names of those who receive federal financial assistance due to a mental illness or who have financial proxies due to a mental illness, to a background check database.Following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February 2018, Trump met with students and others at the White House for a "listening session". Trump suggested arming up to 20% of the teachers to stop "maniacs" from attacking students. The following day Trump called a "gun free" school a "magnet" for criminals and tweeted, "Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches would solve the problem instantly, before police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!"In August 2019, following mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and in Dayton, Ohio, Trump declined to support universal background checks, saying that existing background checks are already "very, very strong," even though "we have sort of missing areas and areas that don't complete the whole circle." He also indicated that he was not interested in working on bipartisan compromises.In a speech at a 2023 NRA convention, Trump expressed support for national concealed carry reciprocity which would allow a person with a concealed carry permit in one state to have their permit apply across state lines nationwide. Judiciary According to The New York Times, many of Trump's statements on legal topics are "extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis," with some appearing "to betray ignorance of fundamental legal concepts." Supreme Court Trump stated he wanted to replace U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who had died, with "a person of similar views and principles". He has released a list of eleven potential picks to replace Scalia. The jurists were widely considered to be conservative. All are white, and eight of the eleven are men. The list included five out of the eight individuals recommended by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Trump had previously insisted that he would seek guidance from conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation when it came to picking Supreme Court candidates. Several of the judges listed by Trump had questioned abortion rights. Six of the eleven judges had clerked for conservative Supreme Court justices.Trump has claimed that he "would probably appoint" justices to the Supreme Court who "would look very seriously" at the Hillary Clinton email controversy "because it's a criminal activity." However, under the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court justices "are neither investigators nor prosecutors."Trump criticized Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, as a "nightmare for conservatives," citing Roberts' vote in the 2015 decision in King v. Burwell, which upheld provisions of the Affordable Care Act. He also blamed Roberts for the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, apparently in error, since in that case Roberts actually dissented from the majority opinion.In February 2016, Trump called on the Senate to stop Obama from filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.An analysis by FiveThirtyEight predicted that, under the assumption that Scalia's vacant seat on the Court would not be filled before Trump's presidency, and taking account of the advanced age of three of the sitting justices, that a Trump presidency would move the Supreme Court "rightward toward its most conservative position in recent memory".Trump ultimately appointed three justices to the court: Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia, Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy, and Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The appointments of Trump's nominees shifted the court to a strongly conservative position. In the period after Trump left office, the court issued several conservative rulings, including declaring that the constitution does not protect abortion, in which Trump's appointees contributed to the majority. Comments on judges and judicial decisions Since taking office, Trump has made a series of "escalating attacks on the federal judiciary" in response to judicial decisions against him. After a federal district judge, James Robart, issued a stay of Trump's executive order on travel, immigration, and refugees, Trump disparaged him on Twitter, referring to him as a "the so-called judge" and writing: "[He] put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"While presidents in the past have sometimes offered muted criticism of judicial opinions, Trump's personal attacks on individual judges are seen as unprecedented in American history. Trump's remarks prompted criticism from his own nominee, Gorsuch, who told Senator Richard Blumenthal that Trump's statements were "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to the federal judiciary. A number of legal scholars feared that Trump's conduct could undermine public confidence in the courts and endanger the independence of the judiciary. Term limits and ethics regulations In October 2016, Trump said that he would push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, so that members of the House of Representatives could serve for a maximum of six years and senators for a maximum of twelve years. Trump also pledged to re-institute a ban on executive branch officials from lobbying for five years after leaving government service and said that he supported Congress instituting a similar five-year lobbying ban of its own, applicable to former members and staff. Under current "cooling-off period" regulations, former U.S. representatives are required to wait one year before they can lobby Congress, former U.S. senators are required to two years, and former executive-branch officials "must wait either two years or one year before lobbying their former agency, depending on how senior they were." Twenty-second Amendment On multiple occasions since taking office in 2017, Trump has questioned presidential term limits and in public remarks has talked about serving beyond the limits of the Twenty-second Amendment. For instance, during an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he joked that he would remain president "at least for 10 or 14 years". Flag desecration During a rally in June 2020, President Trump told supporters that he thinks flag burning should be punishable by one year in prison. Official language In 2015 during a debate, Trump said, "This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish."In June 2019, Senator Steve Daines proposed reviving the previously unsuccessful language amendment, and in doing so received the support of the Trump administration. Video game violence Trump has voiced his opposition to video game violence. After it was erroneously reported that the Sandy Hook shooter frequently played violent video games, Trump tweeted, "Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!"After the 2019 El Paso shooting, Trump said in a speech, "We must stop the glorification of violence in our society. This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop or substantially reduce this and it has to begin immediately." Online gambling Trump supports online gambling, based on the following reasoning: "This has to happen because many other countries are doing it and like usual the U.S. is just missing out." Science and technology See also Climate change and pollution, above.A 2016 report in Scientific American graded Trump and three other top presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein—on science policy, based on their responses to a twenty-question ScienceDebate.org survey. Trump "came in last on all counts" in grading, with scientists and researchers faulting him for a lack of knowledge or appreciation of scientific issues. Space As of October 2016, one of Trump's policy advisors declared that, under Trump, NASA would recreate the National Space Council and pursue a goal of "human exploration of the solar system by the end of the century", to drive technology developments to a stronger degree than a crewed mission to Mars. Other goals would include shifting budget to deep space exploration from Earth science and climate research, and pursuit of small satellites and hypersonic technology. A possibility of China joining the International Space Station program was also considered. A stronger role of crewed Lunar exploration is possible in NASA's quest for a crewed mission to Mars. Prior to that statement, the Trump campaign appeared to have little to no space policy at all. Technology and net neutrality As of June 2016, Trump has published no tech policy proposals. On the campaign trail, Trump frequently antagonized Silicon Valley figures, using his Twitter account to lambast tech leaders such as Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, and Brian Chesky of Airbnb over a series of months. He is particularly concerned about the social breakdown of American culture caused by technology, and said, "the Internet and the whole computer age is really a mixed bag," having "complicated lives very greatly".Trump is opposed to net neutrality, asserting that it is "Obama's attack on the internet" and saying that it "will target the conservative media."Trump has suggested closing "certain areas" of the Internet. Regarding how this relates to freedom of speech, he added "Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."The tech publication Recode reports that Trump has made no public statements on the issues of patent reform or broadband access.The Free Press Action Fund, a group of tech policy activists, rated Trump the worst 2016 presidential candidate for "citizens' digital lives," citing his positions opposing reforming the Patriot Act, favoring Internet censorship, and opposing net neutrality. Social issues and civil liberties Abortion Trump describes himself as pro-life and generally opposes abortion with some exceptions: rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the health of the mother. As a candidate, he said he believes the issue of abortion "would have been better if it were up to the states." He said he was committed to appointing justices who would overturn the ruling in Roe v. Wade.After Roe v. Wade was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Trump took credit for the decision but has not stated whether he supports a federal ban or federal restrictions on abortion. LGBT rights The Trump administration rolled back many existing LGBT protections and also introduced new policies that undermine LGBT rights. Workplace discrimination In early 2017, Trump reversed an Obama-era directive that had required companies with large federal contracts to prove their compliance with LGBT protections.In 2018, Trump signed the United States–Mexico–Canada trade agreement with a footnote exempting the United States from complying with the agreement's call for an end to "sex-based discrimination".The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to eliminate nondiscrimination protections at the level of the Supreme Court, where the Justice Department intervened in three employment lawsuits—Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda; and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC—arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation or "transgender status." However, despite the Trump administration's intervention, the Supreme Court ruled on these three cases on June 15, 2020, that sexual orientation and gender identity are indeed covered under existing protections for "sex discrimination". Healthcare discrimination The Affordable Care Act included an Obama-era nondiscrimination provision that explicitly entitled people to receive care regardless of sex or gender identity, but the Trump administration reversed it. On June 12, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized and revealed its replacement rule. Now, healthcare providers and insurers may decide whether to serve transgender people. Transgender rights One month after taking office, Trump reversed a directive from the Obama administration that had allowed transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity; this reversal allowed public schools to make their own rules about gendered bathrooms. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education threatened to withhold funding from Connecticut school districts that allow transgender girls to compete on girls' teams, claiming that the transgender students' participation is a violation of Title IX.Six months into his presidency, Trump tweeted that transgender individuals would not be allowed to serve "in any capacity" in the U.S. military, an order that took Pentagon officials by surprise. Eventually, in 2019, the Supreme Court—without hearing arguments or explaining its own decision—allowed the Trump administration to move ahead with the ban.In 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services wrote a memo planning to establish a definition of gender based on sex assignment at birth. The memo argued in favor of a definition of gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable" and the government's prerogative to genetically test individuals to determine their sex. If approved by the Justice Department, the definition would apply across federal agencies, notably the departments of Education, Justice, and Labor, which, along with Health and Human Services, are responsible for enforcing Title IX nondiscrimination statutes.The Trump administration also reversed Obama-era guidance on transgender prisoners, ordering the Bureau of Prisons instead to house them according to their "biological sex."In 2019, HUD proposed a new rule to weaken the 2012 Equal Access Rule, which requires equal access to housing regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This could allow homeless shelters to place transgender women in men's housing or to deny transgender people admission altogether.In a 2021 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, Trump referred to transgender women who are athletes as "biological males".In April 2021 Donald Trump attacked Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson for vetoing legislation that would have banned gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.In a video posted on his 2024 campaign website, Trump called gender-affirming care to minors "chemical, physical, and emotional mutilation" and that he would pass a federal law banning it if in office. He also stated that he would have the Department of Justice investigate pharmaceutical companies and hospital networks to determine if they "covered up the long-term side effects of gender transitions" and would remove hospitals who provide gender-affirming care from receiving funds from both Medicare and Medicaid.On his 2024 campaign website Trump states that he would direct Congress to pass a bill that would designate that would mandate the United States only recognize the male and female genders and that they are assigned at birth. Same-sex marriage After several decades of national debate, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015 in the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. After his election, Trump acknowledged that the court had already "settled" the issue. Trump has not, however, been a personal proponent of same-sex marriage, saying as recently as 2011 that he was "not in favor of gay marriage" and saying during his 2016 campaign that he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices who were inclined to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. He had previously supported and been a proponent of civil unions and he included the policy in his 2000 presidential campaign as a Reform Party candidate. During his last year in office, Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign launched "Trump Pride", a coalition within the Trump campaign focused on outreach to LGBTQ voters, and claimed that Trump now supports same-sex marriage. Data collection The Trump administration has made efforts to remove questions about LGBT identity and relationships from the 2020 census, the American Community Survey, the annual National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants, and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. HIV/AIDS In 2017, Trump dissolved the Office of National AIDS Policy and the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, both of which had existed since the 1990s. Every year on World AIDS Day—2017, 2018, 2019—Trump's proclamations have omitted mention of LGBT people. Religion-based exemptions In 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the creation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. Its purpose is to enforce federal laws that related to "conscience and religious freedom"; that is, to enable individuals and businesses to exempt themselves from obeying nondiscrimination laws. In 2019, HHS granted an exemption from an Obama-era nondiscrimination regulation to a foster care agency in South Carolina. HHS cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a basis for allowing federally funded Christian groups to discriminate against non-Christians. Later that year, the Department of Labor, also referencing the RFRA, proposed a new rule to exempt "religious organizations" from obeying employment nondiscrimination law if they invoke "sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs" as their reason to discriminate. In 2020, the Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of another foster care agency in Pennsylvania, defending the agency's right to turn away same-sex couples as part of its "free exercise of religion".In 2019, the State Department created the Commission on Unalienable Rights to initiate philosophical discussions of human rights that are grounded in the Catholic concept of "natural law" rather than modern identities based on gender and sexuality. Most of the twelve members of the commission have a history of anti-LGBT comments. Education In March 2022 Trump said he approved of Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill, also referred to as the "don't say gay" bill, during an interview with The Washington Post that occurred after the bill was signed by Florida governor Ron DeSantis, but did not elaborate as to why he supports it. Diplomacy The Trump administration eliminated the State Department's position for a Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons.In 2018, the Trump administration denied visas to the unmarried same-sex partners of foreign diplomats, even if they were from countries that recognize only civil partnership or that ban same-sex marriage.Richard Grenell, nominated by Trump as the U.S. ambassador to Germany, is openly gay. In February 2019, Grenell was announced as the leader of a new campaign to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide, and he hosted a meeting with 11 European activists. Trump seemed unaware of the initiative when he was asked about it the next day. Several months later, Trump tweeted that, "as we celebrate LGBT Pride Month," Americans should "stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute" people for their sexual orientation. However, that same week, the Trump administration instructed U.S. embassies not to fly the pride flag during Pride Month. Judicial appointments About one-third of Trump's judicial nominees have anti-LGBT records. The U.S. Senate has, as of May 2020, confirmed nearly 400 of Trump's nominees to their new roles. At least one of the confirmed judges, Patrick Bumatay, is openly gay. Marijuana Marijuana and the rights of individual states to legalize recreational and medical marijuana was an issue of Trump's presidential campaign, and he formally stated during his campaign that he believed states should have the right to manage their own policies with regard to medical and recreational marijuana. Following his election, he reversed his position on recreational marijuana and stated he believed medical marijuana should be allowed but stated the Federal Government may seek legal resolutions for those states which regulate the growth and sale of recreational marijuana. However, in April 2018, he once again reversed himself, endorsing leaving the issue to the states; and in June 2018, Trump backed a bill introduced by Republican senator Cory Gardner of Colorado and Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts that would leave the decision to the states. See also Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign#Political positions Social media use by Donald Trump Presidency of Donald Trump == References ==

the 11th hour (2007 film)

The 11th Hour is a 2007 documentary film on the state of the natural environment created, produced, co-written and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio. It was directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners and financed by Adam Lewis and Pierre André Senizergues, and distributed by Warner Independent Pictures. Its world premiere was at the 2007 60th Annual Cannes Film Festival (May 16–27, 2007) and it was released on August 17, 2007, in the year in which the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations global warming panel IPCC was published and about a year after Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, another film documentary about global warming. Synopsis With contributions from over 50 politicians, scientists, and environmental activists, including former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, physicist Stephen Hawking, Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai, journalist Armand Betscher, and Paul Hawken, the film documents the grave problems facing the planet's life systems. Global warming, deforestation, mass species extinction, and depletion of the oceans' habitats are all addressed. The film's premise is that the future of humanity is in jeopardy. The film proposes potential solutions to these problems by calling for restorative action by the reshaping and rethinking of global human activity through technology, social responsibility and conservation. Quotes Global warming is not only the number 1 environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity ... We all have to do our part to raise awareness about global warming and the problems we as a people face in promoting a sustainable environmental future for our planet. People interviewed Environmental views Experts interviewed underlined that everyone must become involved to reverse the destruction and climate change. The role of humans in the destruction of the environment is explained from the viewpoint of several different professional fields including environmental scientists, oceanographers, economic historians, and medical specialists. The many experts called upon in this documentary demonstrate a consensus concerning human-caused climate change, and the many other impacts of industrialization such as the dramatic loss of species (biodiversity). Critical response In March 2008 The 11th Hour was awarded the Earthwatch Environmental Film Award at National Geographic in Washington, DC.The film received generally favorable reviews from critics, with a 67% "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 94 reviews, with an average rating of 6.5/10. The site's critics consensus reads, "Well-researched and swimming in scientific data, this global warming documentary offers some practical and wide-ranging solutions to our climate crisis." It has an average score of 63% on Metacritic based on 30 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".Kevin Crust, a critic from the Los Angeles Times, rated the film highly: The [film] asks why these things are happening and apportions blame in varying degrees to governmental indifference tied to its allegiance to a corporate economy that is addicted to growth at any cost and perhaps, most insinuating of all, to the culture of consumerism. Disposable has trumped sustainable in our society, and we're now paying the price. Thankfully for audiences, "11th Hour" is not without hope. The filmmakers save the most exhilarating portion for last when they ask what's being done about the problems. Experts extol existing technologies and projects as attainable solutions. Progressive designs such as a carbon-neutral city and self-sustaining buildings already offer ideas for a new direction. By mimicking nature's own blueprints, it is possible to create a system of living that heals rather than depletes the Earth. See also Ecological footprint Global catastrophic risks References External links Official website (Moved to Warner Bros. : MOVIES 11th Hour) Official Eleventh Hour Action site The 11th Hour at IMDb Leo Warms to Global-Warming Film (E! Online Article) Vanity Fair Article EarthLab.com

55 tufton street

55 Tufton Street is a four-storey Georgian-era townhouse on historic Tufton Street, in Westminster, London, owned by businessman Richard Smith. Since the 2010s the building has hosted a network of libertarian lobby groups and think tanks related to pro-Brexit, climate science denial and other fossil-fuel lobby groups. Some of the organisations it houses have close connections with those at 57 Tufton Street next door, including the Centre for Policy Studies and CapX.A group of these lobbying organisations, dubbed "The Nine Entities", used the building for biweekly meetings to coordinate policy and public messages. The nine lobby groups—the TaxPayers' Alliance, the office of Peter Whittle (a former deputy leader of UKIP), Civitas, the Adam Smith Institute, Leave Means Leave, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (the UK's principal climate change denial group), BrexitCentral, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs—were accused by former Vote Leave employee Shahmir Sanni of using the meetings to "agree on a single set of right-wing talking points" and "securing more exposure to the public".This network has been linked to major US funders of climate change denial and right-wing political causes including the Koch brothers and Robert Mercer, and to populist far-right parties in Europe, such as the Sweden Democrats and the Brothers of Italy. Ownership The building is owned by Richard Smith, a businessman who runs an aerospace company, the HR Smith Group, and who is a trustee of the Politics and Economics Research Trust founded by Matthew Eliott. He is a major donor to the Conservative Party and pro-Brexit causes. The building was purchased for £4.25 million in 2009 by Specmat, a technology manufacturing company owned by Smith. Residents Civitas Civitas is a think tank that describes itself as "classical liberal" and "non-partisan". The Times and The Daily Telegraph have described it as a "right-of-centre think-tank". Its chair is Alan Rudge. Its director, David G. Green, writes occasionally in The Daily Telegraph and its deputy director, Anastasia de Waal, frequently contributes to The Guardian's "Comment is free" section. The Times has described Civitas as an ally of former Education Secretary Michael Gove. It is opposed to green regulations, to legislation designed to reduce climate change, and to greater reliance on renewable energy. It has been criticised by Transparify for its "opaque" operations. European Foundation The European Foundation is a Eurosceptic think tank based in the United Kingdom. It is chaired by Bill Cash, a Conservative MP. The organisation produces the European Journal. It has been advised by Matthew Elliott. One of its directors is 55 Tufton Street owner Richard Smith. During the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, it published an influential paper promoting skepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Feeding Britain Feeding Britain is a charity set up in October 2015 to implement the recommendations made by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Hunger and Food Poverty. Global Vision Global Vision is a British eurosceptic campaign group. It is an independent, not-for-profit group, with no explicit links with any political party. The "Parliamentary Friends of Global Vision" cross-party group has 24 Members of Parliament, all of whom are Conservatives, two Members of the European Parliament, both of whom are Conservatives, and 17 representative peers, of whom ten are Conservative, six are cross-benchers, and one is independent Labour. Its co-founder and director is Ruth Lea. Global Warming Policy Foundation The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a lobby group in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Its founder is Nigel Lawson and its chair is Alan Rudge. The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial. In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. LGB Alliance The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. It has an office in London at 55 Tufton Street. Migration Watch UK Migration Watch UK is a British think-tank and campaign group which argues for lower immigration into the United Kingdom. Founded in 2001, the group believes that international migration places undue demand on limited resources and that the current level of immigration is not sustainable. New Culture Forum New Culture Forum (NCF) is a right-wing think tank, founded and directed by former UKIP Assembly Member Peter Whittle, advised by Matthew Elliott, whose mission is described as "challenging the cultural orthodoxies dominant in the media, academia, education, and British culture in its widest sense." Speakers at NCF events, including for its annual keynote Smith Lecture, have included Martin Amis, Dame Vivien Westwood, MPs Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove and Ed Vaizey, Nigel Farage, Justin Webb, Sir Anthony Seldon, Petroc Trelawny, Melanie Phillips, and Brendan O'Neill. Writers for the New Culture Forum have included Douglas Murray, Julie Bindel and Ed West. TaxPayers' Alliance The TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) is a right-wing pressure group in the United Kingdom founded by Matthew Elliott in 2004 to campaign for a low tax society. The group had about 18,000 registered supporters as of 2008; it reported 55,000 supporters by September 2010.In 2017 and 2022, both the TPA and Civitas were given the lowest possible grade for financial transparency by Who Funds You?, a British project that rates and promotes transparency of funding sources of think tanks. The TPA has close links and overlap of personnel with other Eurosceptic think tanks based at 55 Tufton Street. Former residents Big Brother Watch Big Brother Watch is a civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation, founded by Matthew Elliot in 2009. Its registered company address was at 55 Tufton Street until May 2019. Business for Britain Business for Britain was a eurosceptic campaign group which sought renegotiation of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The campaign was founded in April 2013 by five hundred business leaders, including Matthew Elliott, Phones 4u co founder John Caudwell and former Marks & Spencer chairman Stuart Rose. The group published non-peer-reviewed and misleading research on the voting record of the United Kingdom in the European Parliament in 2014, called Measuring Britain's influence in the Council of Ministers. In October 2015, the Business for Britain Board unanimously decided to support the Vote Leave Campaign (until 7 October 2015). It closed in September 2016. Leave Means Leave Leave Means Leave was a pro-Brexit, Eurosceptic political pressure group organisation that campaigned and lobbied for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union following the 'Leave' result of the EU referendum on 23 June 2016. The campaign was co-chaired by British property entrepreneur Richard Tice and business consultant John Longworth. The vice-chairman was Leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage. It ceased to operate on 31 January 2020, when the UK left the EU; its website stated that it had "achieved its aims". UK2020 UK2020 is a former resident of the building, a right-wing thinktank founded by Owen Paterson in 2014 and compared with the US Tea Party movement. It called for "a robust, common sense energy policy that would encourage the market to choose affordable technologies to reduce emissions", such as shale gas and small modular nuclear reactors. It also campaigned against climate change–related regulations and subsidies in the energy sector. Matt Ridley of the GWPF was a policy advisor and Tim Montgomerie was a political adviser. Vote Leave Vote Leave was the official pro-Brexit pressure group during the 2016 Referendum, originally based at 55 Tufton Street before moving to larger premises. Members included its chair Nigel Lawson, its chief executive Matthew Elliott, Graham Stringer, Andrea Leadsom, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Influence on UK government policy Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics' Grantham Institute, told The Independent: This zealous ideological clique are trying to imprint their extreme agenda on government policy. It's clear they enjoy preferential access to some parts of government and, considering their small size, they are having a disproportionate impact ... [which] is undermining the democratic process. The Observer describes 55 Tufton Street as the focus of "a network of opaquely funded organisations that centre around Matthew Eliott", and cites a former employee at these organisations who describes them as pursuing "different strands of the same political goals. One of these is the exit of the UK from the EU." They also talk about a "revolving door" between the organisations in terms of staff who move between them. The Independent describes it as "the centre of a network of scepticism towards Europe and climate change, in which the same names keep cropping up", and names Conservative Party politician Nigel Lawson as a key figure. Protests In September 2020, the Extinction Rebellion group Writers Rebel demonstrated outside the building to protest against the influence that the lobby groups and think tanks have on government policy. Environmental campaigner veteran George Monbiot called out the Tufton think tanks for their tactics of denial and confusion over the climate science standing in front of the 55 Tufton Street – their 'heart of darkness'.After the downturn in the financial markets following the announced economic plans by Prime Minister Liz Truss in September 2022, the political campaign group Led By Donkeys placed an oversized blue plaque at 55 Tufton Street, reading "The UK economy was crashed here". In their video they argued that the thinktanks located here were behind the failed policies.In October 2022, Just Stop Oil supporters sprayed paint on the front of the building in protest at the actions of climate change denial group Global Warming Policy Foundation and other fossil-fuel lobby groups based in the building. == References ==

water politics

Water politics, sometimes called hydropolitics, is politics affected by the availability of water and water resources, a necessity for all life forms and human development. Arun P. Elhance's definition of hydropolitics is "the systematic study of conflict and cooperation between states over water resources that transcend international borders". Mollinga, P. P. classifies water politics into four categories, "the everyday politics of water resources management", "the politics of water policy in the context of sovereign states", "inter-state hydropolitics" and "the global politics of water". The availability of drinking water per capita is inadequate and shrinking worldwide. The causes, related to both quantity and quality, are many and varied; they include local scarcity, limited availability and population pressures, but also human activities of mass consumption, misuse, environmental degradation and water pollution, as well as climate change. Water is a strategic natural resource, and scarcity of potable water is a frequent contributor to political conflicts throughout the world. With decreasing availability and increasing demand for water, some have predicted that clean water will become the "next oil"; making countries like Canada, Chile, Norway, Colombia and Peru, with this resource in abundance, the water-rich countries in the world. The UN World Water Development Report (WWDR, 2003) from the World Water Assessment Program indicates that, in the next 20 years, the quantity of water available to everyone is predicted to decrease by 30%. Currently, 40% of the world's inhabitants have insufficient fresh water for minimal hygiene. More than 2.2 million people died in 2000 from diseases related to the consumption of contaminated water or drought. In 2004, the UK charity WaterAid reported that a child dies every 15 seconds from easily preventable water-related diseases; often this means lack of sewage disposal; see toilet. The United Nations Development Program sums up world water distribution in the 2006 development report: "One part of the world, sustains a designer bottled water market that generates no tangible health benefits, another part suffers acute public health risks because people have to drink water from drains or from lakes and rivers." Fresh water—now more precious than ever in our history for its extensive use in agriculture, high-tech manufacturing, and energy production—is increasingly receiving attention as a resource requiring better management and sustainable use. Riparian water rights have become issues of international diplomacy, in addition to domestic and regional water rights and politics. World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin predicted, "Many of the wars of the 20th century were about oil, but wars of the 21st century will be over water unless we change the way we manage water." This is debated by some, however, who argue that disputes over water usually are resolved by diplomacy and do not turn into wars. Another new school of thought argues that "perceived fears of losing control over shared water might contribute towards a constant preparedness to go to war among riparian nations, just in case there is one". Water policy Water politics concepts Hydro-hegemony The framework of hydro-hegemony was postulated by scholars Mark Zeitoun and Jeroen F. Warner in 2006 as a useful analytical paradigm useful to examine the options of powerful or hegemonized riparians and how they might move away from domination towards cooperation.Hydro-hegemony refers to "hegemony at the river basin level, achieved through water resource control strategies such as resource capture, integration and containment. The strategies are executed through an array of tactics (e.g. coercion-pressure, treaties, knowledge construction, etc.) that are enabled by the exploitation of existing power asymmetries within a weak international institutional context". The two pillars of hydro-hegemony are riparian position and exploitation potential. The actor who wins control over the resource is determined through the form of hydro-hegemony that is established, in favor of the most powerful actor ('first among equals'). In 2010, Mark Zeitoun and Ana Elisa Cascão modified the framework to constitute of four overarching pillars of power — geographical power, material power, bargaining power and ideational power. As such, hydro-hegemony can be understood as hegemony at the river basin level that occurs where control over transboundary flows is consolidated by the most powerful actor. Water as a critical resource Most importantly, fresh water is a fundamental requirement of all living organisms, crops, livestock and humanity included. The UNDP considers access to it a basic human right and a prerequisite for peace. The Ex-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in 2001, "Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and, therefore, a basic human right. Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical and social health of all people. It is an affront to human dignity." With increased development, many industries, including forestry, agriculture, mining, manufacturing and recreation require sizable additional amounts of freshwater to operate. This, however, has led to increases in air and water pollution, which in turn have reduced the quality of water supply. More sustainable development practices are advantageous and necessary. According to the WHO, each human being requires a bare minimum of 20 litres of fresh water per day for basic hygiene; this equals 7.3 cubic metres (about 255 ft3) per person, per year. Based on the availability, access and development of water supplies, the specific usage figures vary widely from country to country, with developed nations having existing systems to treat water for human consumption, and deliver it to every home. At the same time however, some nations across Latin America, parts of Asia, South East Asia, Africa and the Middle East either do not have sufficient water resources or have not developed these or the infrastructure to the levels required. This occurs for many varied reasons. It has resulted in conflict and often results in a reduced level or quantity of fresh water per capita consumption; this situation leads toward disease, and at times, to starvation and death. The source of virtually all freshwater is precipitation from the atmosphere, in the form of mist, rain and snow, as part of the water cycle over eons, millennia and in the present day. Freshwater constitutes only 3% of all water on Earth, and of that, slightly over two thirds is stored frozen in glaciers and polar ice caps. The remaining unfrozen freshwater is mainly found as groundwater, with only a small fraction present in the air, or on the ground surface. Surface water is stored in wetlands or lakes or flows in a stream or river, and is the most commonly utilized resource for water. In places, surface water can be stored in a reservoir behind a dam, and then used for municipal and industrial water supply, for irrigation and to generate power in the form of hydroelectricity. Sub-surface groundwater, although stored in the pore space of soil and rock; it is utilized most as water flowing within aquifers below the water table. Groundwater can exist both as a renewable water system closely associated with surface water and as a separate, deep sub-surface water system in an aquifer. This latter case is sometimes called "fossil water", and is realistically non-renewable. Normally, groundwater is utilized where surface sources are unavailable or when surface supply distribution is limited. Rivers sometimes flow through several countries and often serve as the boundary or demarcation between them. With these rivers, water supply, allocation, control, and use are of great consequence to survival, quality of life, and economic success. The control of a nation's water resources is considered vital to the survival of a state. Similar cross-border groundwater flow also occurs. Competition for these resources, particularly where limited, have caused or been additive to conflicts in the past. The highlands of Ethiopia may be considered a water tower region in East Africa. Sovereign control of upland water supply is likely to govern downstream politics for many years. Contamination from human activity Water contamination usually occurs through a series of two mechanisms: point and non-point sources of pollution. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), point source pollution is "any single identifiable source of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, ditch, ship or factory smokestack." Therefore, among the most common examples of point source pollution, poor factory and sewage treatment appear high on the list; although not as frequent, but, nevertheless, equally—if not more—dangerous, oil spills are another famous example of point source of pollution. On the other hand, non-point sources of pollution are those that may come from different sources, among which, poor and badly monitored agricultural activities can negatively affect the quality of any nearby sources of water. Point sources of pollution Industrial products and wastes: Many harmful chemicals are used widely in local business and industry. These can become drinking water pollutants if not well managed. The most common sources of such problems are: Local businesses: Factories, industrial plants, and even small businesses such as gas stations and dry cleaners handle a variety of hazardous chemicals that need careful management. Spills and improper disposal of these chemicals or of industrial wastes can threaten ground water supplies. Leaking underground tanks and piping: Petroleum products, chemicals, and wastes stored in underground storage tanks and pipes may end up in the ground water. Tanks and piping leak if they are constructed or installed improperly. Steel tanks and piping corrode with age. Tanks are often found on farms. The possibility of leaking tanks is great on old, abandoned farm sites. Farm tanks are exempt from the EPA rules for petroleum and chemical tanks. Landfills and waste dumps: Modern landfills are designed to contain any leaking liquids, but floods can carry conaminants over the barriers. Older dumpsites may have a wide variety of pollutants that can seep into ground water. Household wastes: Improper disposal of many common products can pollute ground water. These include cleaning solvents, used motor oil, paints, and paint thinners. Even soaps and detergents can harm drinking water. These are often a problem from faulty septic tanks and septic leaching fields. Lead and copper: Elevated concentrations of lead are rarely found in source water. Lead is commonly found in household plumbing materials. Homes built before 1986 are more likely to have lead pipes, fixtures, and solder. Lead can leach into water systems when these plumbing materials corrode. The acidity or alkalinity of water – or of any solution – is expressed as pH, from 0–14. Anything neutral, for example, has a pH of 7. Acids have a pH less than 7, bases (alkaline) greater than 7. pH greatly affects corrosion. Temperature and mineral content also affect how corrosive it is. Lead in drinking water can cause a variety of adverse health effects. Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause delays in physical and mental development in babies and children. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure. Water treatment chemicals: Improper handling or storage of water-well treatment chemicals (such as disinfectants or corrosion inhibitors) close to your well can cause problems. Non-point sources of pollution Agricultural activities that cause non-point source pollution include: Poorly managed animal feeding operations Overgrazing Overworking the land (for example, plowing too often) Poorly managed and ineffective application of pesticides, irrigation water, and fertilizer. Bacteria and nitrates: These contaminants are found in human and animal wastes. Septic tanks or large numbers of farm animals can also cause bacterial and nitrate pollution. Both septic systems and animal manures must be carefully managed to prevent private well contamination. Concentrated animal feeding operations: The number of concentrated animal feeding operation, often called "factory farms," is growing. On these farms thousands of animals are raised in a small space. The large amounts of animal wastes/manures from these farms can threaten water supplies. Strict and careful manure management is needed to prevent pathogen and nutrient problems in private wells. Salts from high levels of manures can also pollute ground water. Heavy metals: Activities such as mining and construction can release large amounts of heavy metals into nearby ground water sources. Some older fruit orchards may contain high levels of arsenic, once used as a pesticide. At high levels, these metals pose a health risk. Fertilizers and pesticides: Farmers use fertilizers and pesticides to promote growth and reduce insect damage. These products are also used on golf courses and suburban lawns and gardens. The chemicals in these products may end up in ground water. The extent of contamination depends on the types and amounts of chemicals used and how they are applied. Local environmental conditions (such as soil types, seasonal snow, and rainfall) also impact their contamination potential. Groundwater will normally look clear and clean because the ground naturally filters out particulate matter. But, natural and human-induced chemicals can be found in groundwater. As groundwater flows through the ground, metals such as iron and manganese are dissolved and may later be found in high concentrations in the water. Industrial discharges, urban activities, agriculture, groundwater pumpage, and disposal of waste all can affect groundwater quality. Contaminants can be human-induced, as from leaking fuel tanks or toxic chemical spills. Pesticides and fertilizers applied to lawns and crops can accumulate and migrate to the water table. Leakage from septic tanks and/or waste-disposal sites also can introduce bacteria to the water, and pesticides and fertilizers that seep into farmed soil can eventually end up in water drawn from a well. Or, a well might have been placed in land that was once used for something like a garbage or chemical dump site. Polluted runoff is created by rainfall or snow-melt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into watersheds via lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water. In 2002, in the National Water Quality Inventory report to U.S. Congress, the states reported that agricultural non-point source (NPS) pollution is the leading cause of river and stream impairment and the second leading cause of impairment in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Water politics by country OECD countries With nearly 2,000 cubic metres (71,000 cu ft) of water used per person per year, the United States leads the world in water consumption per capita. Among the developed OECD countries, the U.S. is highest in water consumption, then Canada with 1,600 cubic metres (57,000 cu ft) of water per person per year, which is about twice the amount of water used by the average person from France, three times as much as the average German, and almost eight times as much as the average Dane. A 2001 University of Victoria report says that since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%. This is five times faster than the overall OECD increase of 4.5%. In contrast, nine OECD nations were able to decrease their overall water use since 1980 (Sweden, the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland and Denmark). India India–Bangladesh The Ganges is disputed between India and Bangladesh. The water reserves are being quickly depleted and polluted, while the Gangotri glacier that feeds the river is retreating hundreds of feet each year (experts blame climate change) and deforestation in the Himalayas is causing subsoil streams flowing into the Ganges river to dry up. Downstream, India controls the flow to Bangladesh with the Farakka Barrage, 10 kilometers (6 mi) on the Indian side of the border. Until the late 1990s, India used the barrage to divert the river to Calcutta, to keep the city's port from drying up during the dry season. This denied Bangladeshi farmers water and silt, and it left the Sundarban wetlands and mangrove forests at the river's delta seriously threatened. The two countries have now signed an agreement to share the water more equally. Water quality, however, remains a problem, with high levels of arsenic and untreated sewage in the river water. India–Pakistan Recently India starting constructing Kishanganga Dam thus depriving Pakistan of its 33% water coming in Jehlum River. Pakistan is building the same type of dam called Neelum Jehlum Dam. After the Indo Pak Treaty of 1960, Ravi and Sutleg River belong to India while Jehlum, Chenab, Indus belong to Pakistan. But still a growing dissatisfication exist on Pakistani side for sharing its water with India. Kaveri dispute Mexico Mexico has experienced significant issues in preventing contamination and water pollution and in distributing clean water to households and businesses. As society has evolved and urbanization, economic growth, and increased trade have occurred, the demand for clean water has increased. However, pollution associated with economic growth and industrialization combined with the arid climate have restricted access to clean water for many households and firms. The already arid climate is susceptible to droughts with increasing climate change issues, which may further hinder access to water.Mexico relies on groundwater for their water supply which has led to significant exploitation of aquifers and therefore increased costs in accessing water. Mexico City is the largest city and urban center with a very high demand for drinking water. The water supply provided by the "Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de Mexico" (SCAMEX) is only 98% effective and has therefore left about 48,000 households in the city alone without water. However, even those with access to the water provided by the city remain unsatisfied. Even those already connected to SCAMEX experience issues due to water loss and poor water quality. In Mexico City, an estimated 40% of the city's water is lost through leaky pipes built at the turn of the 20th century. According to the results of a 2011 survey, up to 87% of the households in Mexico City would prefer to access water used for cooking and drinking through sources other than the tap. Alternative ways to access water include: purchasing bottled water or filtration devices, or boiling water before drinking. The issue is that these alternative measures are typically significantly more expensive than using the water provided. Middle East In the Middle East, water is an important strategic resource and political issue. By 2025, it is predicted that the countries of the Arabian peninsula will be using more than double the amount of water naturally available to them. According to a report by the Arab League, two-thirds of Arab countries have less than 1,000 cubic metres (35,000 cu ft) of water per person per year available, which is considered the limit. Water politics is not an emerging field within international relations discourse, nor is it a force insignificant in comparison to other political pressures, such as those of critical infrastructure (for example, petroleum for the United States), or that of strategic geopolitical control (for example, control of the Suez canal or the Persian Gulf). In the context of the Middle East, with a multitude of existing national, subnational, ideological, ethnic, religious and pan-national tensions, conflicts and associations, water politics has already been considered to have played a major role in tensions between Iraq, Syria and Turkey in 1990, when Turkey commenced the Southeastern Anatolia Project (also known as GAP) to dam sections of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers north of the Syrian/Turkey border. Finding themselves without control of their waterways, Syria and Iraq formed an alliance, ignoring the previous disputes which had divided them, to confront the issue of water control. Iraq and Syria watched with apprehension the construction of the Atatürk Dam in Turkey and a projected system of 22 dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.Within the Middle East, all major rivers cross at least one international border, with the most important, the Tigris and Euphrates, crossing through three major Middle Eastern nations. This means that the nations, cities and towns downstream from the next are hugely effected by the actions and decisions of other groups they have little practical control over. In particular this is evident with the cutting of water supply from one nation to the next, just as issues of air pollution affect the states surrounding that which is producing the pollution initially. It is believed that up to 50% of water required for any specific state within the Middle East finds its source in another state. According to the BBC, the list of 'water-scarce' countries in the region grew from three in 1955 to eight in 1990 with another seven expected to be added within 20 years, including three Nile nations (the Nile is shared by nine countries). According to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the only conceivable flashpoint Egypt may encounter in the 21st century is the control of fresh water resources. With substantial, but falling rates of fertility, the issue of water distribution in the Middle East will not be easily dismissed. A recent report "Water Cooperation for a Secure World" published by Strategic Foresight Group shows that active water cooperation between countries sharing trans-boundary water resources is directly correlated with security and peace of nations involved. Conversely, absence of active water cooperation is directly correlated with risk of war between countries sharing trans-boundary water resources. This conclusion is reached after examining trans-boundary water relations in over 200 shared river basins in 148 countries. Countries in the Middle East face the risk of war as they have avoided regional cooperation for too long. The report provides examples of successful cooperation, which can be used by countries in the Middle East. Jordan has little water, and dams in Syria have reduced its available water sources over the years. Confronted by this lack of water, Jordan is preparing new techniques to use non-conventional water resources, such as second-hand use of irrigation water and desalinization techniques, which are very costly and are not yet used. A desalinization project will soon be started in Hisban, south of Amman. The Disi groundwater project, in the south of Jordan, will cost at least $250 million to bring out water. Along with the Al-Wehda Dam on the Yarmouk River, it is one of Jordan's largest strategic projects. The dam was first proposed in 1953 as part of the Johnston mission's Unified Plan; however, political differences between Israel and Jordan prevented construction from beginning until 2004. The dam is currently listed as a "Work in Progress" on the website of the Turkish contractor Ozaltin.Under the 1994 Israel–Jordan peace treaty, Israel has agreed to provide 50 million cubic metres (1.8 billion cubic feet) of water to Jordan annually. According to the treaty the two countries would cooperate in order to allow Jordan better access to water resources, notably through dams on the Yarmouk River.The Golan Heights provide 770 million cubic metres (27 billion cubic feet) of water per annum to Israel, which represents a third of its annual consumption. The Golan's water flows into the Sea of Galilee—Israel's largest reserve—which is then redistributed throughout the country by the National Water Carrier. Water is an important issue in the Arab–Israeli conflict—indeed, according to former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, it was one of the causes of the 1967 Six-Day War. In practice access to water has been a casus belli for Israel. Article 40 of the appendix B of the September 28, 1995 Oslo accords stated that "Israel recognizes Palestinians' rights on water in the West Bank".Israel obtains water from four sources: rainwater that flows naturally into the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River (c. 36%), the mountain aquifers (c. 28%), the coastal aquifer (c. 14%), and water recycling (c. 23%). Almost all the water used in the Palestinian areas other than rainwater is drawn from the underground aquifers (mountain aquifer c. 52%, coastal aquifer c. 48%). The Palestinian Authority has not developed any significant wastewater treatment facilities. The mountain aquifers lie mostly under the West Bank and the coastal aquifer mostly under the Israeli coastal plain. Israel took control of the West Bank in 1967, including the recharge areas for aquifers that flow west and northwest into Israel and limits were placed on the amount withdrawn from each existing well. Currently, a total of 150 million cubic meters per year is consumed by its residents—115 million cubic meters per year by Palestinians and 35 million cubic meters per year by Israelis. Water usage issues have been part of a number of agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. For these reasons, the question of water supply for both Israel and a potential future state of Palestine is a very serious issue in a comprehensive agreement. Egypt The dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the $4.5 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam — Africa's largest, with a reservoir about the size of London – has become a national preoccupation in both countries. Egypt has opposed the dam, fearing that it will reduce the amount of water it receives from the Nile. South America The Guaraní Aquifer, located between the Mercosur countries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with a volume of about 40,000 km3, is an important source of fresh potable water for all four countries. It is replenished by water from rains and small rivers and streams, mainly on its margins. As populational growth in its area is still relatively high (the feeder areas of the aquifer, especially the wettest ones, may locate even important and big metropolitan areas such as São Paulo and Curitiba), monitoring is required to avoid deplenishing, and pollution, that would be associated with the still very weak environmental legislation concerning farming and with the still low performance of the coverage of sanitation (mainly in the form of discharge of untreated sewage and exposed untreated garbage, including urban, what potentializes problems associated with flooding), in the countries affected. United States The Water Justice movement is a largely grassroots US movement, with small groups of citizens taking the issue into their own hands by means of protesting, petitioning, fundraising, or donating items such as water filters in order to broaden access to clean water. Some well-known people have used their exposure to further the cause of water justice: Erin Brockovich, media personality and environmental activist has spoken against Flint officials' mishandling of the water crisis there. Actress Shailene Woodley was arrested at a Dakota Access Pipeline protest, writing afterwards about her experience: "If you are a human who requires water to survive, then this issue directly involves you."Another key player arguing to defend access to clean water in the Standing Rock protests is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman, Dave Archambault II, who has spoken to the Human Rights Council at the U.N. in Geneva on behalf of his tribe. In a separate statement, Archambault thanked those who fought the pipeline "in the name of protecting our water."The Water Justice movement has also moved globally, encompassing a wide array of diverse groups such as the Global Water Justice Movement, Friends of the Right to Water, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Food and Water Watch, and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. Groups such as these believe that water is part of the global commons, and thus argue against the privatization of water resources and give the state the responsibility of ensuring the right to water. Legal acts To prevent increased pollution, environmental damage, and to keep drinking water clean, various Legal acts have been signed into law. The Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act was signed into law in 1948 under the name Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with expanded recognition and amendments in 1972. Amendments included: Outlawing of any pollutant being released anywhere that would lead to large bodies of water. Regulation of pollutants entering bodies of water. Provided funding for sewage treatment plants. Empowered the EPA with the authority to enforce water regulation rules. The Ocean Dumping Act: The Ocean Dumping Act was signed into law in 1972 to prevent excess pollution from entering the ocean. The EPA has the authority to fine no more than $50,000 for each breach of permit. The act also allows for general research and EPA research into ridding the ocean of pollutant dumping.Shore Protection Act (SPA): The Shore Protection Act comes from title IV of the Ocean Dumping Act. It forbids vessels from carrying waste within coastal waters without a permit. Right To Water: Also known as the Human Right to Water and Sanitation, it was established by the United Nations on July 28, 2010. It was added to international law when the UN recognized water and general sanitation as a basic human right. It requires states and nations to provide clean, accessible drinking water to their people. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): The Safe Drinking Water Act was put into law in 1974. It provides protection to water both above and below ground. In 1996, amendments were added requiring the EPA to assess risks and costs when creating standards for this law. Activism When it comes to America alone, there has been much activity surrounding the issues of water in Standing Rock, ND and Flint, Michigan. When the issue arose of a pipeline being implemented on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation of North Dakota, residents began to take action almost immediately. When the pipeline was proposed in January 2016, the Sioux tribe released a petition that garnered almost half a million signatures within 3 months. This postponed the construction of the pipeline, but the action did not stop there. In July of the same year, the tribe attempted to sue the Army Corps of Engineers with the argument that it would harm the area's water supply. This only led the Energy Transfer Partners to file a counter lawsuit, saying that the group was hindering their work. 2016 presidential candidate Jill Stein led movements against the construction, which included spray painting a bulldozer with the phrase, "I approve this message". Adding to the publication of the issue, actress Shailene Woodley was arrested for blocking the construction of the pipeline. The debate on whether or not the pipeline will actually be built is still in progress. The water crisis in Flint, Michigan has also led activists to focus on getting clean water to the people. After the 2014 decision to make the Flint River the primary water source of the town, residents quickly noticed the quality of their water declining. The American Civil Liberties Union filed multiple lawsuits against the administration in Flint, saying that the levels of lead in the water is absurd, and demanded the pipes be replaced. This has yet to happen, and the people of Flint continue to struggle for clean water. Related organizations and programs Several state and national organizations and programs are dedicated to the access of safe water. The scope of these organizations are varied by their outreach (from focusing on a small county to working globally) and the aspects of water justice they are contributing to. Many of these organizations work within governmental systems while others work outside of them. These organizations have helped aid in the understanding and knowledge of water related issues, how they affect individuals and communities, and have found solutions to improve safe water access. Categories of water justice organizations and programs include: Education: The United States of America has some of the safest drinking water supplies in the world. Despite this, there are several cases and outbreaks of illnesses and related health issues due to contaminated water reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention every year. Several organizations work to educate communities about proper water safety procedures and places emphasis on individuals and communities to understand where their water supply comes from. Industry: Many water justice organizations work within industries related to community water to create safer water infrastructure. Many provide certification to certain professions to ensure work and product quality related to water. Additionally, many organizations have created groups for professions that deal with water infrastructure and safety. Some of these profession include public health professionals, engineers, and scientific researchers. Research: Several of these organizations also promote environmental and public health related research and aid in funding and education of these projects. Governmental:Many organizations related to water justice work with or within the government to enact change in water policy and management. This can include city and state governments, to the federal government, to Tribal governments. Case studies: Africa Obuasi, Ghana is the home of one of the world's top gold mining sites. It was in 1897 when the first machinery was used to mine the gold from the region. As the years went by, new strategies were needed to establish out ways to "treat the ores". By 1908, A leading chemist was brought in to help with the strategies and brought his Australian method of "dry crushing and roasting preparatory to treatment with cyanide". Many rivers, fishing areas, and irrigation systems have been either slightly or permanently damaged. The mining industry has tried to compensate by building standpipes but for many, they have been to no use. The average amount of contamination in the water system of Obuasi was over 10–38 times the maximum amount that is allowable by law. The two main sources of the contamination is the arsenic powder that flows out from the mills and the extensive amount of run-off water that is disposed of through dams. "Thus in the processing of the ore for gold, the dust may contain particles of the ore, ferric oxide, oxides of arsenic and sulphur". The dust will then get carried into the atmosphere and settle on the soil, humans, and rivers. In Obuasi, they receive a high annual rainfall due to the tropical rainforest that surrounds it (Smedley, 1996, 464). During precipitation or rainfall, the dust "may be oxidized to the trioxide by the air and be converted to the sulphate in dew and rainwater". The soil is the main target of contamination because the soil is contaminated and whatever vegetation grows and decays goes right back in the soil which results in the contamination of the groundwater. However, the groundwater is not as polluted as the streams or rivers mainly due to the high dissolving process of the arsenic and due to the basement rocks that lie between the groundwater and the soil. "The only disadvantage is that whatever is deposited on the surface soil may be carried to greater depths with time by rainwater (Gish et al, 2010, 1973)". The most extensively damaged areas are the ones closest to the mines, but with the wind carrying the dust, areas hundreds of miles away are getting contaminated by the chemicals. Due to the extensive output of the chemicals from the mining mills and un resolved toxic spills, many rivers, streams, lakes and irrigation systems have been damaged or obsolete. The local residents have been affected greatly by this phenomenon. Residents have seen the environmental changes especially in the water. Sludge floats down on streams that were once main sources of drinking water according to local residents. All the marine life in the rivers and streams has died due to the high amounts of chemicals in the water. According to Action Aid, residents have seen pipes that run straight into local streams and rivers that were depositing the waste directly sometimes causing flooding of the streams and rivers (2006, 11). Many local farmers suffered the hardest with the contamination of the water. Due to the irrigation systems using the contaminated water to irrigate all of the soil were then contaminated as well. The soil was no longer usable, causing the killing off their crops that were used for their business as well as for their own families. Children have also been targeted and affected by the pollution. According to Action Aid, many schools have been flooded with the over flow of the local streams, causing the children to leave school, sometimes permanently. AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) has put up standpipes to compensate for the contaminated water supplies, but these have also been useless to the locals. Standpipes were installed in the 1940s and 50's that have now been contaminated with arsenic from the mills. AGA staff claim it is because of them being made of iron, but studies have shown large amounts of arsenic in the water. Many standpipes have been either broken or obsolete. This leads to the residents to walk at least 1.5 miles to go get clean water. All the work the local people have to go through to get clean water is uncalled for. No compensation has been giving to the local residents for the damage they have done to their water and environment. Economy Global economy Globalization has benefitted the economy greatly through increased trade and production of food, energy, and goods. However, the increase of trade and production of goods requires large quantities of water, in fact the OECD countries predict that by 2050, the global demand for water will increase by 55%. Multiple countries and organizations have declared a water crisis. Water is a finite resource that is shared between nations, within nations, multiple interest groups and private organizations. Roughly 50% of all water available is located between two or more nation states. Water politics and management requires efficient water allocation through policies and cooperation between nations. Poor water politics and practices can result in water conflict, which is more common surrounding freshwater due to its necessity for survival. Countries that have a greater supply of water have greater economic success due to an increase in agricultural business and the production of goods, whereas countries, which have limited access to water, have less economic success. This gap in economic success due to water availability can also result in water conflict. The World Trade Organization has emerged as a key figure in the allocation of water in order to protect the agricultural trade. Water is an essential commodity in the global market for economic success. Jordan River The Jordan River conflict, otherwise known as the War over Water is an example of transboundary conflict between Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. This water conflict begun in 1953 as a result of poor water politics and management between nation states and negotiations are ongoing. The conflict begun with Jordan's intention to irrigate land using a shared basin for agriculture and economic purposes, in response, Israel closed the gates of a dam in the Sea of Galilee, draining the water available. Negotiations started with the Bunger Plan that would allocate water from the Jordan River fairly among the surrounding nations, however Israel declared its riparian rights were not recognized. The consequences of the Jordan River conflict has resulted in economic damages to irrigation, agriculture, production, and resources to all of the nation states involved. The World Health Organization records that the total global economic loss associated with inadequate water politics, supply and sanitation is estimated at $260 billion annually USD. The Jordan River conflict demonstrates a lack of efficient transboundary water politics, which has contributed to this annual global economic loss. Currently, negotiations have attempted to establish a fair divide and share of the Jordan River, but have had little success. Aral Sea The water conflict in the Aral Sea is an ongoing transboundary conflict starting from 1991 between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Social causes such as economic development, population growth, electricity demand, and pollution has resulted in water scarcity. The water scarcity has resulted in limited availability to allocate water efficiently between the neighboring countries. The water scarcity has impacted many aspects of life and resources such as; fish, biodiversity, water, air pollution, forestry, agricultural land and ecosystem availability. The impact of poor water politics and management has negatively influenced the economy of the surrounding countries and has created stress on resources that are crucial to the agricultural sector. Research indicates that water scarcity can cost regions up to 6% of their GDP and cause migration, which negatively impacts the local economy. There have been multiple attempts to resolve the conflict from different organizations such as The Interstate Commission for Water Coordination, Interstate Council of the Aral Sea, and The Aral Sea Basin Program, but the issue is still ongoing. Local economy Water politics is present within nations, otherwise known as subnational. The shared jurisdiction of access to water between intergovernmental actors is crucial to efficient water politics. Inefficient water politics at the subnational level has a greater impact on the local economy through increased costs for businesses, increased costs for the agricultural sector, decreased local competitiveness, decrease in local jobs and infrastructure costs. For instance, Texas plans to build reservoirs to combat water shortages; these reservoirs will cost more than $600 per acre-foot for construction. Subnational states have a crucial role in water politics through managing local water sources and addressing issues concerning water politics such as allocation, scarcity and water pollution. Colorado River basin The Colorado River basin is transboundary basin shared between the United States and Mexico. However at the subnational level within United States, the basin is shared between Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California. The Colorado River Basin demonstrates intergovernmental conflict over the autonomy of water politics. Intergovernmental water politics has many actors such as private organizations and interest groups. Cooperation in subnational water politics can result in economic benefits through shared costs and risk for infrastructure. In addition, efficient water politic management results in profitable allocations of water that can sustain irrigation and the agricultural sector. Human Rights Water is an absolute necessity in human sustainability and human survival. There is no human activity that can be sustained without the use of water whether it be at a direct or indirect level. The United Nations declared access to water as a fundamental basic human right under articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant, which identifies and protects rights at an international level. In addition, the Millennium Development Goals of 2000 includes the sharing and fair allocation of water as a major goal. The United Nations and Millennium Development Goals oppose water privatization because water is a human right and every human being is entitled to water use. Equal access to water entails that no individual should be given privilege over the other at the absolute basic level. The sale of water cannot be permitted or justified under the United Nations at the basic level because water is seen as a universal human right. The right to water was created specifically to assist poor individuals in developing countries through attaining equitable access to water to prevent illness and death. Additionally, water rights are also associated with protecting the environment, strengthening the economy and strengthening the water delivery system.There have been many agreements set in place to try and avoid inequality and conflict with the use of water. Still, international leaders are struggling with incorporating bilateral and multilateral agreements to ensure efficient and fair water allocation. For instance, there are approximately 275 river basins and 270 ground water aquifers with policies that manage the sharing of the resource by two or more nations. Despite the use of policies in the shared management of water, there have been multiple conflicts between nations because of poor water allocation. Likewise, there has been over 300 water treaties signed internationally in dealing with water sharing yet the management and allocation of water is still unresolved. Currently, policies and agreements intended to address water politics and allocation between nation states are insufficient. The United Nations has not presented an initiative to create a strategic framework to penalize nations, which have water conflicts. Without enforcement of such policies and frameworks nations feel minimal pressure in complying with policies, resulting in continued inefficient practice of water politics. There has been a demand from countries and interest groups for the United Nations to set out a policy with rules and boundaries on water sharing and allocation. This policy must include clear-cut penalties for countries that go against the policies.As the availability of water decreases daily, the demand for policies and agreements to address water allocation and sharing increases. Bilateral and multilateral agreements are most important for third world countries since water is a scarce resource, and they will be the first to face water shortages. The purpose of agreements is to ensure that all individuals have access to water as part of their fundamental basic human rights. Developed countries can offer resources to trade for water but third world countries are not as well off as developed countries and will lag behind. If agreements are not set in place many third world countries will have no choice but to turn to warfare in order to secure water. Water wars can arise over the necessity of water for survival; a lack of water can result in economic consequences, biodiversity consequences, environmental consequences, illness and even death. The United Nations emphasizes and prioritizes water as a human right. However, the United Nations fails to create a policy that appropriately creates balance in terms of water-sharing and allocation. Hydropsychology The creation of policies and agreements becomes even more difficult when the matter of hydropsychology is factored in. Hydropsychology is known as the use of water at the micro-level or at the individual level. Hydropsychology is advantageous because it studies the use of water at the smaller scale. Hydropsychology is noted as the bottom-up approach whereas hydropolitics (water politics) is the top-down approach. Historically, hydropsychology was not given much attention because international leaders focused on international water sharing and allocation rather than domestic use. Currently, international leaders are now requesting urgent and increased attention from the international community on the matter of hydropsychology because it greatly impacts water scarcity. For example, the United States has a large abundance of water; as a result the United States micro-level management of water provides the ability for the United States to have recreational activities such as water parks that provides economic advantages. Whereas, many third world countries do not have access to clean water and their situation will only worsen as the water supply lessens. Hydropsychology is important because it determines how much of the world's water supply is being used at the micro-level. Furthermore, the usage of water for recreational activity instead of sustainability creates a significant increase in the attention that hydropsychology is now receiving as there are drastic gaps between the availability of water in countries. Some countries use water freely for recreation, whereas other countries had limited supplies for survival, efficient water politics addresses this issue through good water allocation and management. Hydropsychology indicates that the interest of certain individuals and communities in certain countries takes precedence over the importance of equality and water as a human right. However countries can utilize resources however they please, international agreements exist to avoid water conflict between nations through efficient water allocation practices. There has been a proposition in a more balanced approach for water-sharing and allocation through a combination of large scale politics on the international level and smaller scale politics (hydropsychology) rather than focusing strictly one a singular approach. This balanced approach would include policies created at community levels and national levels in order to address the issue of water-sharing and allocation. Currently, hydropolitics only studies water at the international level and hydropsychology studies water at local level. The failure of hydropolitics on its own is demonstrated through the conflicts that have occurred in the past and present between nations that share and manage water together. Thus the combination of hydropolitics and hydropsychology would assist international leaders with addressing water-sharing. Both hydropolitics and hydropsychology have different approaches on dealing with the matter and the different ideas can merge to create a more complete solution. The combination of hydropsychology and hydropolitics will also assist in dealing with matters such as virtual water trading, river linking scheme, large dams, and climate change. The advantage is based on the premise that the use of water starts at the individual level, which eventually impacts the actions of governments and major institutions. The international level pays minimal attention to local affairs but has extensive knowledge on international policies. Subsequently, the local level pays minimal attention to international affairs but has major knowledge on local water use. Thus, the combination of the two make up for the lack of attention each level gives to the other. It is also important to note that the individual level has an impact on the governmental level, which affects the abundance of water, and international agreements that will be created. The reconciliation of hydropolitics and hydropsychology must be considered in dealing with water-sharing. The importance of hydropsychology was neglected in the past but its importance is extremely evident for the present and future. Privatization Privatization of water companies has been contested on several occasions because of poor water quality, increasing prices, and ethical concerns. In Bolivia for example, the proposed privatization of water companies by the International Monetary Fund was met by popular protests in Cochabamba in 2000, which ousted Bechtel, a US engineering firm based in San Francisco. Suez has started retreating from South America because of similar protests in Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, and Córdoba, Argentina. Consumers took to the streets to protest water rate hikes of as much as 500% mandated by Suez. In South and Central America, Suez has water concessions in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico. "Bolivian officials fault Suez for not connecting enough households to water lines as mandated by its contract and for charging as much as $455 a connection, or about three times the average monthly salary of an office clerk", according to The Mercury News.South Africa also made moves to privatize water, provoking an outbreak of cholera that killed 200.In 1997, World Bank consultants assisted the Philippine government in the privatization of the city of Manila's Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS). By 2003, water price increases registered at 81% in the east zone of the Philippines and 36% in the west region. As services became more expensive and inefficient under privatization, there was reduced access to water for poor households. In October 2003, the Freedom from Debt Coalition reported that the diminished access to clean water resulted in an outbreak of cholera and other gastrointestinal diseases.Water privatization is a strategy utilized to deliver a secure and sustainable supply of water from private organizations rather than having the public sector provide this service. Privatization of water politics entails a reorganization of water allocation from the public sector to the private sector through privatization and commercialization of water. The government forfeits the management of water politics to a private organization. Private organizations allocate water based on capitalism mechanisms. The commercialization of water politics in the private sector distributes water based on rationales that concern economic profitability.Historically, water privatization has resulted in civil disputes, protests and wars. The United Nations classifies access to clean drinking water as a universal human right. Mexico City Water privatization has been adopted in Mexico City to combat the growing concern of poor water politics offered by the public sector. Under the public sector, it was estimated that Mexico City lost up to 40% of its water through leaky pipes. In 1994, Mexico City privatized its water services through the Distrito Federal to tackle water shortages. The environmental and economic scenario at the time pressured the Party of the Democratic Revolution to adapt water privatization in order to address water shortages. Mexico City is one of few examples of a successful privatization of water services. From 1994 to 2003 multinational water corporations provided an increase of water quality services, while the public sector held control of infrastructure. However, recently Mexico City has faced some hardships in water privatization due to contract negotiations between the public and private sector, which has resulted in stalled efficiency of water services. Bolivia Bolivia privatized its water supply in the city of Cochabamba in 1999 to Sempa, a multinational private water organization. Afterwards, Bolivia signed a $2.5 billion contract, behind closed doors for Cochabamba's water system to Aguas del Tunari. The privatization of Cochabamba's water supply resulted in The Cochabamba Water War, which started in 1999 and concluded in 2000. The Cochabamba Water War resulted in multiple protests and violent outbreaks in response to the privatization of water. Aguas del Tunari promised to provide electricity and irrigation to Cochabamba. In addition, Bechtel, a major shareholder of Aguas del Tunari, ensured that water and sewage services would increase dramatically under private management. However, Cochabamba citizens were told that these services would result in a 35% increase in costs for water. The Bolivian government enacted Law 2029 which provided a regime of concessions regarding the provision of water, Law 2029 essentially gave the private sector the water monopoly and exclusive rights to water within Cochabamba. The goal of law 2029 was to provide more efficient water services to areas in Cochabamba that had a population over 10,000 citizens through water privatization. The situation in Cochabamba was exacerbated when the cost of water doubled, and even tripled in certain areas. The rise in costs was due to the construction of the Misicuni dam project and the debt left behind by Sempa. The drastic increase in cost for water supply resulted in protests that shut down the city for four days. Peaceful protests lead by Oscar Olivera quickly became violent causing multiple protests that lasted days resulting in the Bolivian government declaring a state of emergency The Cochabamba water war concludes with President Huge Banzer resigning from office, leaving Bolivia in similar conditions before the privatization of water See also Drainage law Water management Water exports International waters, Territorial waters, Internal waters Hydropolitics in the Nile Basin Mekong River Commission Water scarcity in Africa Water supply terrorism US: United States groundwater law Clean Water Protection Act Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act California Water Wars Colorado River Compact Ogallala Aquifer Navajo Indian Irrigation Project References Bibliography "Gold Rush" (PDF). Action Aid. 2006. Retrieved 29 March 2010. Golow, A.A; A Schlueter; S Amihere-Mensah; H.L.K. Granson; M.S Tetteh (1996). "Distribution of Arsenic and Sulphate in the Vicinity of Ashanti Goldmine at Obuasi, Ghana". Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 56 (5): 703–710. doi:10.1007/s001289900103. PMID 8661851. S2CID 44760105.. Serageldin, I. "Water: conflicts set to arise within as well as between states", Nature, Vol. 459, p. 163. 2009. Rahaman, M. M. (Editor) in need Issue: Water Wars in 21st Century along International Rivers Basins: Speculation or Reality?, International Journal of Sustainable Society, Vol. 4, Nos. 1/2, 193 pages. 2012 Copeland, Claudia. Ocean Dumping Act: A Summary of the Law. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1999. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. Congressional Research Service, 15 December 2015. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "Drinking Water National and State Organizations and Programs". Drinking Water National and State Organizations and Programs. National Environmental Services Center, 2013. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "Drinking Water Safety". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 May 2014. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "History of the Clean Water Act". EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 25 May 2016. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "HRW, Decade, Water for Life, 2015, UN-Water, United Nations, MDG, Water, Sanitation, Financing, Gender, IWRM, Human Right, Transboundary, Cities, Quality, Food Security, General Comment, BKM, Albuquerque". United Nations, July 2010. Retrieved 2 March. 2017. "Human Health and Contaminated Water". EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 7 June 2016. Retrieved 2 March 2017. Perlman, Howard. "Contaminants Found in Groundwater". Contaminants Found in Groundwater, USGS Water Science School. The USGS Water Science School, 2 December 2016. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "Summary of the Shore Protection Act". EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 30 December 2016. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act". EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 7 February 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "Tribal Climate Change Guide". National Tribal Environmental Council. University of Oregon, 20 October 2015. Retrieved 2 March 2017. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Nonpoint Source Pollution". NOAA's National Ocean Service Education. U.S. Department of Commerce, 19 December 2004. Retrieved 2 March 2017. "Water Contamination". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 October 2016. Retrieved 2 March 2017. External links ISARM Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management Water Wars Multimedia on water scarcity and hydropolitics in East Africa Israel Ministry of the Environment Israel's Chronic Water Problem Water and Environmental Racism. Lesson by Matt Reed and Ursula Wolfe-Rocca.

pepetua latasi

Pepetua Election Latasi is a Tuvaluan civil servant. She is the Director for Climate Change and Disaster Coordinator under the Office of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu. Her position involves working with the climate change policy of Tuvalu and serving as the country's representative in climate change negotiation abroad.Latasi began her career in Tuvalu's Department of Environment, where she worked for ten years before becoming Director of Department of Climate Change and Disaster. After temporarily taking a break from this work, she obtained an undergraduate degree in climate change policy and environment management in 2008. She later chaired the United Nations Least Developed Countries Expert Group, a twelve-member committee established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and co-chaired the Executive Committee on the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage with Shereen D'Souza of the United States. At the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, she served as the Chief Negotiator for Tuvalu. == References ==

earth day

Earth Day is an annual event on April 22 to demonstrate support for environmental protection. First held on April 22, 1970, it now includes a wide range of events coordinated globally by EARTHDAY.ORG (formerly Earth Day Network) including 1 billion people in more than 193 countries. The official theme for 2023 is Invest In Our Planet.In 1969 at a UNESCO Conference in San Francisco, peace activist John McConnell proposed a day to honor the Earth and the concept of peace, to first be observed on March 21, 1970, the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. This day of nature's equipoise was later sanctioned in a proclamation written by McConnell and signed by Secretary General U Thant at the United Nations. A month later, United States Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed the idea to hold a nationwide environmental teach-in on April 22, 1970. He hired a young activist, Denis Hayes, to be the National Coordinator. Nelson and Hayes renamed the event "Earth Day". Denis and his staff grew the event beyond the original idea for a teach-in to include the entire United States. More than 20 million people poured out on the streets, and the first Earth Day remains the largest single-day protest in human history. Key non-environmentally focused partners played major roles. Under the leadership of labor leader Walter Reuther, for example, the United Auto Workers (UAW) was the most instrumental outside financial and operational supporter of the first Earth Day. According to Hayes: "Without the UAW, the first Earth Day would have likely flopped!" Nelson was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom award in recognition of his work.The first Earth Day was focused on the United States. In 1990, Denis Hayes, the original national coordinator in 1970, took it international and organized events in 141 nations. On Earth Day 2016, the landmark Paris Agreement was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and 120 other countries. This signing satisfied a key requirement for the entry into force of the historic draft climate protection treaty adopted by consensus of the 195 nations present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris. Numerous communities engaged in Earth Day Week actions, an entire week of activities focused on the environmental issues that the world faces. On Earth Day 2020, over 100 million people around the world observed the 50th anniversary in what is being referred to as the largest online mass mobilization in history. A similar but separate event, World Environment Day, is organized by the United Nations and observed annually on June 5. 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill On January 28, 1969, a well called Platform A, drilled by Union Oil 6 miles (10 km) off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, blew out. More than 3 million U.S. gallons (2.5 million imperial gallons; 11 million liters) of oil spilled, killing more than 10,000 seabirds, dolphins, seals, and sea lions. As a reaction to this disaster, activists were mobilized to create environmental regulation, environmental education, and Earth Day. Among the proponents of Earth Day were the people in the front lines of fighting this disaster, Selma Rubin, Marc McGinnes, and Bud Bottoms, founder of Get Oil Out. Denis Hayes, organizer of the first Earth Day, said that Senator Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin was inspired to create Earth Day upon seeing an 800-square-mile (2,100 km2) oil slick from an airplane in the Santa Barbara Channel. Santa Barbara's Environmental Rights Day 1970 On the first anniversary of the oil blowout, January 28, 1970, Environmental Rights Day was created, and the Declaration of Environmental Rights was read. It had been written by Rod Nash during a boat trip across the Santa Barbara Channel while carrying a copy of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The organizers of Environmental Rights Day, led by Marc McGinnes, had been working closely over a period of several months with Congressman Pete McCloskey (R-CA) to consult on the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the first of many new environmental protection laws sparked by the national outcry about the blowout/oil spill and on the Declaration of Environmental Rights. Both McCloskey (Earth Day co-chair with Senator Gaylord Nelson) and Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, along with Senator Alan Cranston, Paul Ehrlich, David Brower and other prominent leaders, endorsed the Declaration and spoke about it at the Environmental Rights Day conference. According to Francis Sarguis, "the conference was sort of like the baptism for the movement." According to Hayes, this was the first giant crowd he spoke to that "felt passionately, I mean really passionately, about environmental issues." Hayes also thought the conference might be the beginning of a real movement. Nash, Garrett Hardin, McGinnes and others went on to develop the first undergraduate Environmental Studies program of its kind at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Earth Day 1970 The seeds that grew into the first Earth Day were planted by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. An ardent conservationist and former two-term governor of Wisconsin, Nelson had long sought ways to increase the potency of the environment as a political issue. The extraordinary attention garnered by Rachel Carson's 1962 book, Silent Spring, the famous 1968 Earthrise NASA photograph of the Earth from the Moon, the saturation news coverage given to the Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River catching fire in early 1969 led Nelson to think the time was ripe for an environmental initiative. As a result of interactions with his staff and with Fred Dutton, a prominent Democratic operative who had been Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign manager, Nelson became convinced that environmental teach-ins on college campuses could serve as such a vehicle.Teach-ins had been held on hundreds of college campuses to debate the war in Vietnam. They generally reflected the divide between those who thought of Vietnam as a bulwark to stop additional countries falling to communism like dominos, versus those who believed that the war was the latest stage of a nationalist, anti-colonialist campaign by Vietnamese who had fought against China, then France, Japan, France again, and now the United States. These debates elevated arguments over the war in the public consciousness and enlisted a generation of student activists.Nelson asked public interest lawyer Anthony Roisman to establish a non-profit, Environmental Teach-In, Inc., to manage the campaign, and recruited a small board of directors. He asked Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey to co-chair the board to ensure it was bipartisan and bicameral.On September 20, 1969, Senator Nelson first announced his plans for an "environmental teach-In" in a little-publicized talk at the University of Washington. "I am convinced that the same concern the youth of this nation took in changing this nation's priorities on the war in Vietnam and on civil rights can be shown for the problem of the environment. That is why I plan to see to it that a national teach-in is held."Senator Nelson went on to encourage teach-ins at many more speeches. A November talk at Airlie House had a New York Times reporter in the audience. The resulting front-page article was a turning point. Letters of inquiry from across the country began to pour into Nelson's Senate office. The article piqued the interest of Denis Hayes, then a graduate student at Harvard. Hayes traveled to Washington, D.C., and arranged a 10-minute visit with Senator Nelson (which stretched into two hours). Hayes returned to Harvard with the charter to organize Boston. After a few days of reference checks, he was asked to drop out of Harvard to become executive director of the national campaign.Because of the non-hierarchical tenor of the times, Hayes suggested that people be designated coordinators rather than directors. He became the national coordinator, and he quickly hired various regional coordinators, a press coordinator, a K-12 coordinator, a volunteer coordinator, etc. At its peak, the national office had a few dozen paid staff, each earning a flat $375/month (equivalent to $2,993 in 2022), plus more than 100 regular volunteers.As the talented regional coordinators fanned out across the country, however, they immediately encountered two problems. First, by 1970, the concept of "teach-ins" had become passé. Moreover, teach-ins generally involved debates, and no one was pro-pollution. Second, and more troubling, leading activists on college campuses were deeply involved in the anti-war and civil rights movements. They tended to view the environment as a distraction. The "Earth Day" name The solution to the first problem came from an unexpected direction. Shortly after the turn of the year, Julien Koenig stopped by the national offices and volunteered to help. Koenig was a Madison Avenue giant. His campaign for Volkswagen, "Think Small," was later cited by Advertising Age as the "greatest advertising campaign of the 20th century."Over coffee, Hayes confided that the "teach-in" moniker was not working and asked whether Koenig had any ideas. Koenig asked for a few days. A week later, he returned with an assortment of mock-ups for ads, laid out around the announcement of "Ecology Day," "Environment Day," "Earth Day," and "E Day." Koenig said that his personal favorite was Earth Day – in part because April 22 happened to be his birthday, and "birthday" rhymes with "Earth Day." Hayes immediately agreed. Koenig offered to prepare a fully refined ad. Hayes insisted that it include a small coupon soliciting funds for the threadbare operation. Koenig's ad was visually arresting, and perfectly summed up the issues and values, the feisty-but-welcoming tone that the campaign had adopted. Hayes loved it and decided to bet the farm. He committed about half of all the money in the campaign's bank account to buy a full page in the Sunday New York Times opinion section.The ad was a huge success. Overnight, "Earth Day" became the almost-universally-used name for the upcoming event. The ad generated more than enough revenue to repay its cost, and thousands of potential organizers sent in their names and addresses along with their checks. In future months, magazines and alternative newspapers ran the ad for free, generating still more names and more financial support. The national office started using Environmental Action, rather than Environmental Teach-in, on its letterhead and publications to promote Earth Day.At this point, Hayes made a far-reaching decision. In those early days, it would have been easy to obtain trademark protection for Earth Day and force compliance with a set of standards by anyone using it. Hayes decided, however, that he wanted the name to be broadly used by anyone who planned to focus on environmental issues that spring.Although "Earth Day" swiftly replaced Environmental Teach-in, the second problem proved more complicated. College activists, for the most part, viewed anything other than ending the war as a distraction. A majority of the Earth Day staff had cut their teeth as organizers against the war and saw no conflict. The war appeared to be winding down, and they felt it was prudent to start paying attention to the far more profound changes needed to produce a healthy, sustainable America. But time was short, and college activists were not responding.Hayes spent a day reviewing the letters Senator Nelson had received, and discovered that very few were from college students. Most were from women who appeared to be college-educated homemakers who wanted to do something to improve the world for their children. Another large share was from K-12 teachers.Hayes decided to shift the campaign's focus from colleges and universities to community organizing. Building off the successful strategies of the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement, he decided to promote large urban rallies, focused on major environmental issues, while also encouraging environmental education at the K-12 level.Bryce Hamilton, who had been Midwest coordinator, was shifted to K-12 coordinator, and it proved to be a great choice. Hamilton reached out to the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association to enlist their members; he provided materials to thousands of educators who wrote to the group directly; and he distributed the most creative ideas he received from anyone to everyone else. In April, more than 10,000 primary and secondary schools engaged in Earth Day activities, mostly education and service actions like beach clean-ups, tree planting, and recycling.Walt Kelly created an anti-pollution poster featuring his comic strip character Pogo with the quotation "We have met the enemy and he is us" to promote the 1970 Earth Day. Environmental groups have sought to make Earth Day into a day of action to change human behavior and provoke policy changes.The first Earth Day "brought 20 million Americans out into the spring sunshine for peaceful demonstrations in favor of environmental reform." Earth Day is now observed in 192 countries, and coordinated by the nonprofit EARTHDAY.ORG (formerly Earth Day Network). According to Denis Hayes, the first Earth Day 1970 organizer and current Board Chair Emeritus of EARTHDAY.ORG, Earth Day is now "the largest secular day of protest in the world, and more than a billion people participate in Earth Day actions every year."By far the largest source of funding for the first Earth Day was organized labor. Walter Reuther had led the United Auto Workers (UAW) since 1946, and he was a progressive supporter of civil rights, opposed the war, and championed the environment. He was a founding member of the Coalition for Clean Air, which successfully lobbied for the Clean Air Act of 1970. Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, made the first donation to support the first Earth Day in the amount of $2,000 (equivalent to $15,071 in 2022). Under his leadership, the UAW also funded telephone capabilities so that the organizers could communicate and coordinate with each other from all across the United States. The UAW also financed, printed, and mailed all of the literature and other materials for the first Earth Day and mobilized its members to participate in the public demonstrations across the country. According to Denis Hayes, "The UAW was by far the largest contributor to the first Earth Day" and "Without the UAW, the first Earth Day would have likely flopped!" Hayes further said, "Walter's presence at our first press conference utterly changed the dynamics of the coverage—we had instant credibility."At a meeting of the Environmental Teach-In board of directors, the finance committee chair arrived with a check for $20,000 (equivalent to $150,711 in 2022) from Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil). That would have provided an effective measure of financial relief for the financially strapped group. But Hayes declined the check, convincing the board that it would destroy the credibility of the nascent organization. He said that he would be delighted to accept money from clean sources, but no other corporate money was ever raised for the national organization.Individual donations were a significant source of funding, generally accompanied by a contribution slip from the Earth Day Ad providing the donor's name and address. Larry Rockefeller persuaded Robert Rauschenberg to create and donate a batch of Earth Day lithographs, but the Earth Day staff lacked contacts in the art world who were able to sell them for their $2,000 market value, so they were provided to donors for much less.The sale of standard posters and especially pins brought in additional revenue. The staff refused to sell bumper strips because they would be attached to cars. The Dirty Dozen The staff of Environmental Teach-In resigned immediately after Earth Day, and most moved directly to a new organization, Environmental Action, with a tax status that permitted lobbying and a more activist stance. EA immediately confronted a problem that had been looming in the background throughout the campaign. Some of the staff had been drawn to the movement through science and culture and felt that politics was inherently dirty and government was irredeemably compromised. This group believed that by living lives of voluntary simplicity, employing tools like those that filled the resolutely-nonpolitical Whole Earth Catalog, they could force the world to adapt to them. Their theory of change was modeled loosely on the southern African Americans who sat at segregated lunch counters, drank from segregated lunch counters, and sat in the front of the bus, it ignored the role of strategic litigation federal legislation, and electoral politics in cementing lasting change. Other staff members had worked in the Robert Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, and various congressional campaigns before Earth Day. They believed that lasting progress could only come through institutional change. The year 1970 was a congressional election year. They had just organized the largest demonstration in the nation's history in order to support environmental values. Former Lindsay organizer, Steve Haft, summed up this faction's attitude at an Environmental Action staff meeting, "We had 20 million people in the streets in an election year, and you plan to sit out the election? Are you nuts?"In order to square the circle, Hayes proposed that the group not endorse any candidates but that it try to defeat 12 of the worst. If having a terrible environmental record became a political liability, it would inevitably lead to better environmental legislation. Haft was selected to coordinate the Dirty Dozen campaign. With just $50,000 to defeat 12 incumbent members of the House, the odds were long.To improve the odds, the group selected candidates who not only had lousy environmental records—which were plentiful—but who also had won their most recent race by a narrow margin; who were on the wrong side of an important environmental issue in their districts; and who lived in areas where talented Earth Day organizers resided. In the end, seven of the original Dirty Dozen were defeated—five Republicans and two Democrats. And the first to fall was George Fallon, chairman of the hugely powerful House Public Works Committee.Representative Pete McCloskey, Earth Day co-chair, credits the Dirty Dozen's defeat of key congressional leaders with the unstoppable wave of environmental legislation that immediately followed: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and others. The University of Michigan teach-in As the tone of major planned Earth Day activities shifted to become less academic and more confrontational, and the Environmental Action newsletter emphasized the need for broad structural change, interest in the event began to mount among college student activists.One place where the interest in a teach-in was robust from the beginning was the University of Michigan. The very first teach-in on the Vietnam War had been held at the University of Michigan in March 1965, and a group of students, led by Doug Scott, decided to mark the five-year anniversary with an environmental teach-in on March 11–14, 1970. The Michigan teach-in presented a series of speeches dealing with various environmental problems, along with some debate over the best tactics and solutions. No one, including the president of Dow Chemical, argued for more environmental destruction. After the University of Michigan teach-in, there was an explosion of interest on other college campuses. Upwards of 2,000 universities, colleges, and junior colleges ultimately put on events. By the end, the national staff had a hard time merely keeping up with the colleges that called to register events. The focus on pollution The delicate line straddled by organizers was to attract seasoned activists who would demand far-reaching change without alienating the middle class whose active participation and political support were seen as essential. The greatest environmental insults were visited on the poor. Factories and power plants were located in the poorest neighborhoods. Freeways were plowed through the poorest neighborhoods. Toxic waste dumps were situated in the poorest neighborhoods. But these problems tended not to affect the middle class.The solution was to promote an overarching concern with air and water pollution, which affected everyone, while encouraging each community to pay attention to whatever other issues were of most concern to it. Earth Day included events that focused on fighting freeways, protecting the ozone layer, organic food, whales and endangered species, oil spills, the military use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, overpopulation, peeling lead paint in ghetto housing, opposition to the supersonic transport, and myriad other topics. At one event, college students would pound an automobile apart with sledgehammers, or, wearing gas masks, would block traffic on a freeway. At other events, grade-school students would plant trees, pick up litter in city parks, or identify birds. Earth Day welcomed them all.Regional coordinators focused heavily on finding and enlisting the best local leadership in major metropolitan areas. For instance, Hayes flew to Chicago to help organize a subtle coup, replacing a pro-business Earth Day organization with a Saul Alinsky affiliated group called Campaign Against Pollution. CAP abruptly shifted the focus away from recycling to focus on two issues: opposition to a massive proposed freeway program, the Crosstown Expressway, and protesting the uncontrolled air pollution Commonwealth Edison was pouring into Chicago's air—more sulfur pollution than all other companies combined. Although mailings went out to thousands of communities of all sizes, the campaign focused especially hard on large cities. New York City In the winter of 1969–1970, a group of students met at Columbia University to hear Denis Hayes talk about his plans for Earth Day. Among the group were Fred Kent, Pete Grannis, and Kristin and William Hubbard. This group agreed to head up the New York City activities within the national movement. Fred Kent took the lead in renting an office and recruiting volunteers. The liberal Republican mayor of New York, John Lindsay, saw the environment as an issue that could help unite his then-troubled city. Moreover, he viewed the environment as a progressive wedge issue that would position him as clearly distinct from President Nixon's ultra-conservative "Southern Strategy," in a struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. He became fully engaged in supporting the event, and he delegated many of the talented young staff who had been drawn to his administration to help as well. "The big break came when Mayor Lindsay agreed to shut down Fifth Avenue for the event. A giant cheer went up in the office on that day," according to Kristin Hubbard (now Kristin Alexandre). "From that time on we used Mayor Lindsay's offices and even his staff. I was Speaker Coordinator but had tremendous help from Lindsay staffer Judith Crichton." Mayor Lindsay completely closed down Fifth Avenue to traffic from E. 14th Street to West 59th Street (Central Park)—more than 2 miles—and 14th Street between 3rd and 7th Avenues. An estimated one million participants took part—right in the nerve center of the nation's communications complex.In addition to shutting down Fifth Avenue, Mayor John Lindsay made Central Park available for Earth Day. In Union Square, the New York Times estimated crowds of up to 20,000 people at any given time and, perhaps, more than 100,000 over the course of the day. Since Manhattan was also the home of NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Time, and Newsweek, it provided the best possible anchor for national coverage from their reporters throughout the country. Philadelphia U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie was the keynote speaker on Earth Day in Fairmount Park in Philadelphia. Other notable attendees included consumer protection activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, landscape architect Ian McHarg, Nobel prize-winning Harvard biochemist George Wald, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, and poet Allen Ginsberg. Earth Day 1980 The 1970s were a period of substantial environmental legislation, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Superfund, Toxics Substances Control Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It had seen the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the banning of DDT and of lead in gasoline. Jimmy Carter was president. The 1980 Earth Day effort was led by Mike McCabe and Byron Kennard, and the general mood was festive and celebratory. The principal Washington, D.C., event was a festival held in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House. Earth Day 1990 to 1999 Mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting the status of environmental issues onto the world stage, Earth Day activities in 1990 gave a huge boost to recycling efforts worldwide and helped pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Unlike the first Earth Day in 1970, this 20th Anniversary was waged with stronger marketing tools, greater access to television and radio, and multimillion-dollar budgets. Two separate groups formed to sponsor Earth Day events in 1990: The Earth Day 20 Foundation, assembled by Edward Furia (Project Director of Earth Week in 1970), and Earth Day 1990, assembled by Denis Hayes (National Coordinator for Earth Day 1970). Senator Gaylord Nelson, the original founder of Earth Day, was honorary chairman for both groups. The two did not combine forces over disagreements about leadership of combined organization and incompatible structures and strategies. Among the disagreements, key Earth Day 20 Foundation organizers were critical of Earth Day 1990 for including on their board Hewlett-Packard, a company that at the time was the second-biggest emitter of chlorofluorocarbons in Silicon Valley and refused to switch to alternative solvents. In terms of marketing, Earth Day 20 had a grassroots approach to organizing and relied largely on locally based groups like the National Toxics Campaign, a Boston-based coalition of 1,000 local groups concerned with industrial pollution. Earth Day 1990 employed strategies including focus group testing, direct mail fundraising, and email marketing.The Earth Day 20 Foundation highlighted its April 22 activities in George, Washington, near the Columbia River with a live satellite phone call with members of the historic Earth Day 20 International Peace Climb who called from their base camp on Mount Everest to pledge their support for world peace and attention to environmental issues. The Earth Day 20 International Peace Climb was led by Jim Whittaker, the first American to summit Mt. Everest (many years earlier), and marked the first time in history that mountaineers from the United States, Soviet Union, and China had roped together to climb a mountain, let alone Mt. Everest. The group also collected more than two tons of trash (transported down the mountain by support groups along the way) that was left behind on Mount Everest from previous climbing expeditions. The master of ceremonies for the Columbia Gorge event was the TV star, John Ratzenberger, from Cheers, and the headlining musician was the "Father of Rock and Roll", Chuck Berry.Warner Bros. Records released an Earth Day-themed single in 1990 entitled "Tomorrow's World", written by Kix Brooks (who would later become one-half of Brooks & Dunn) and Pam Tillis. The song featured vocals from Lynn Anderson, Butch Baker, Shane Barmby, Billy Hill, Suzy Bogguss, Kix Brooks, T. Graham Brown, The Burch Sisters, Holly Dunn, Foster & Lloyd, Vince Gill, William Lee Golden, Highway 101, Shelby Lynne, Johnny Rodriguez, Dan Seals, Les Taylor, Pam Tillis, Mac Wiseman, and Kevin Welch. It charted at number 74 on the Hot Country Songs chart dated May 5, 1990. Earth Day 2000–2019 Earth Day 2000 As the millennium approached, Hayes agreed to spearhead another campaign, this time focusing on global warming and pushing for clean energy. The April 22 Earth Day in 2000 combined the big-picture feistiness of the first Earth Day with the international grassroots activism of Earth Day 1990. For 2000, Earth Day had the internet to help link activists around the world. By the time April 22 came around, 5,000 environmental groups worldwide were on board, reaching out to hundreds of millions of people in a record 184 countries. Events varied: A talking drum chain traveled from village to village in Gabon, Africa, for example, while hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., USA. Earth Day 2001 Google's first Earth Day doodle was in 2001. Earth Day 2003 The theme for Earth Day 2003 was the Water for Life Campaign. This year, Earth Day Network developed a water quality project called "What's in Your Water?" Water-related events were held on every continent, including water workshops, exhibitions, concerts, and more in Togo, Egypt, the Cook Islands, Jordan, Palestine, Japan, Venezuela, Slovenia, Nigeria, and Canada. Educational curricula, teacher's guides, water testing kits, and posters focused on water. Campaign for Communities, an initiative led by NAACP, Latino organizations including Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, and other organizations focused on environmental justice, created events focused on low-income communities around the U.S. These events were also focused on building support among low-income communities through clean-ups, park revitalization, and town halls focused on integrating the environmental movement with community and social justice causes. Earth Day 2004 In the U.S. in 2004, Earth Day Network and its partners focused on voter registration for Earth Day, registering hundreds of thousands of voters. Major tree planting events also took place. Other prominent U.S. Earth Day events included an annual cleanup in Dayton, Ohio and the 3rd Annual Community Based Solutions to Environmental Health & Justice Conference in Seattle, Washington. Earth Day 2005 The theme for Earth Day 2005 was Healthy Environments for Children. Earth Day 2006 Earth Day 2006 focused on science and faith. Earth Day expanded into Europe for Earth Day 2006, and events and speeches were held in most of the EU countries. Key events included the "Festival on Climate Change" in Utrecht, the Netherlands, which was focused on "How to break away from the oil dependence," and included Earth Day founder Denis Hayes and members of the Dutch and E.U. parliament, NGOs, local authorities, and media representatives. In the first of two years of Earth Day events in Ukraine, Denis Hayes also attended and spoke at the "Chernobyl 20 Remembrance for the Future" conference in Kyiv, Ukraine. 2006 also saw events in China organized between Earth Day Network and Global Village Beijing educating communities about energy savings, the first-ever coordinated Earth Day events in Moscow, Russia, a scientific panel and a religious response panel on climate change throughout the U.S., and a "Conserve Your Energy" event in Philadelphia. Earth Day 2007 Thousands of Earth Day projects were held across the globe that ranged from energy efficiency events, protests, letter writing campaigns, civic and environmental k-12 education trainings, urban and rural cleanups, and water projects with a particular focus on building a broader and more diverse environmental movement. Major events took place in Kyiv, Ukraine; Caracas, Venezuela; Tuvalu; Philippines; Togo; and Madrid, Spain.In the US, civil rights, religious, and social justice leaders joined Earth Day Network the week of April 16 through April 20 to demand Congress on behalf of their communities and their constituencies that there be no "grandfathering" of pollution permits, that an immediate reduction in carbon emissions be imposed through legislation and that all revenues generated from a carbon tax or a government auction of carbon permits be used for public benefit. Earth Day Network partnered with Green Apple Music & Arts Festival to mark Earth Day with weekend-long events featuring music and entertainment in New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. More than 200,000 people attended the events and millions of people were reached through the media. The Global Warming in the Pulpit Pledge campaign which mobilized priests, ministers, rabbis, and other faith leaders across the U.S. and Canada to make a commitment to preach on global climate change as a moral issue was launched. Later in 2007, Live Earth, a global music event, was held across the world. Earth Day 2008 Earth Day 2008 galvanized millions of people around the world in a Call For Climate. In the U.S., the campaign challenged the public to make one million calls to Congress about pushing for climate change legislation. 2008 also included large climate rallies in eight major U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., New York, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, to which around 350,000 people attended. Washington, D.C., hosted actor Edward Norton, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, and James Hansen of NASA to deliver a strong global warming message and call for tough and fair climate action by Congress. O.A.R., Umphrey's McGee, Warren Haynes, Mambo Sauce, and Blake Lewis of American Idol entertained enthusiastic crowds, and the event was covered live by CNN and The Weather Channel, plus scores of other media that carried the Call for Climate message. Many Earth Day events were held around the world from the Earth Day on Campus campaign. Earth Day 2009 The 2009 National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions reached college campuses, civic organizations, and faith groups across the U.S. As part of this event, members of Congress addressed college and high school campuses in their districts via video conference. Earth Day 2010 (40th anniversary) An estimated one billion people around the world took action for the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. An estimated 20,000 partners took action on climate change and other environmental issues through climate rallies, Billion Acts of Green™, and by engaging civil leaders in plans to build a green economy, connected through the online action center at EARTHDAY.ORG. Through the Global Day of Conversation, more than 200 elected officials in more than 39 countries took part in active dialogues with their constituents about their efforts to create sustainable green economies and reduce their carbon footprints. Students around the world participated in school greenings, featuring community clean-ups, solar energy systems, school gardens, and environmental curriculum. Earth Day Network announced a partnership with Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment's Avatar Home Tree Initiative to plant one million trees in 15 countries by the end of 2010.The Climate Rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., drew in more than 150,000 activists to demand that U.S. Congress pass comprehensive climate legislation in 2010. The nine-hour event featured more than 70 high-profile speakers, including leadership from the faith, labor, civil rights, environmental communities, the private sector, leading climate scientists, celebrities, Cabinet Secretaries, international political leaders, and local government officials.In partnership with the Peace Corps, Earth Day Network worked with local volunteers to implement environmental and civic education programs, tree plantings, village clean-ups, and recycling seminars in rural areas in Ukraine, the Philippines, Georgia, Albania, and Kolkata, India. In 2010, Earth Day Network also established a satellite office in Kolkata, India.As part of a nationwide commemoration of the 40th anniversary in Morocco, the government announced a unique National Charter for the Environment and Sustainable Development, the first commitment of its kind in Africa and the Arab world, which will inform new environmental laws for the country. The Kingdom of Morocco also pledged to plant one million trees. Earth Day 2011 2011 Earth Day events included an environmental forum for local political leaders and the first-ever Earth Day celebration in Tunis City and primary school events throughout Iraq. In 17 of the world's most severely deforested countries, Earth Day Network completed a project to plant over 1.1 million trees. Across the globe, more than 100 million Billion Acts of Green were registered. In September 2011, at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Clinton recognized this project as an exemplary approach to addressing global challenges. Earth Day 2012 A Billion Acts of Green were achieved on Earth Day 2012, with Earth Day Network announcing the accomplishment at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio. A Billion Acts of Green is billed as the world's largest environmental service campaign, inspiring and rewarding both simple individual acts and larger organizational initiatives that further the goal of measurably reducing carbon emissions and supporting sustainability. The Campaign for Communities engaged elected officials in finding solutions to local environmental challenges. Faith programs saw Catholic parishes and churches across the U.S. take action on Earth Day through sermons and other activities, including four events at the National Cathedral and a conference at the St. Sophia Cathedral and National Religious Coalition on Creation Care (NRCC). Mobilize the Earth™ events throughout all of India's states and geographic regions, coordinated by Earth Day Network India, included rallies, concerts, competitions, seminars, art shows, plantation drives, signature campaigns, and workshops. Earth Day 2013 The goal of Earth Day 2013 was to personalize the massive challenge that climate change presents while uniting people around the globe into a powerful call to action with the theme: The Face of Climate Change. To illustrate that climate change is not a remote problem for our leaders but is impacting real people, animals, and places everywhere, EDN collected images sent into #faceofclimate and displayed them in a collage at thousands of events around the world—from schools to parks to government buildings. High level organizations and individuals participated in the campaign, including the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, US Secretary of State, and many more.Meanwhile, stories of hope inspired communities to take action and MobilizeU, a program to educate and activate college students around Earth Day and environmental issues, expanded in 2013 to 296 universities in 51 countries on six continents and in 46 US states.In Washington, D.C., EDN presented Earth Month at Union Station, a four-week series of events that featured an environmental film festival, renewable energy demonstrations, farmers markets, NASA educational exhibits, and public talks by scientists and astronauts. In partnership with Washington, D.C. Public Schools, EDN also presented a STEM Fair at Union Station. Earth Day 2014 The goal of Earth Day 2014 was to dramatically personalize the massive challenges surrounding global climate change and weave that into both Earth Day 2014 and the five-year countdown to Earth Day 2020, the 50th anniversary. It was an opportunity to unite people worldwide into a common cause and call for action.The theme of Earth Day 2014 was Green Cities. Earth Day Network launched the Green Cities campaign in the fall of 2013 to help cities worldwide become more sustainable and reduce their carbon footprint. Focused on three key elements – buildings, energy, and transportation – the campaign aims to help cities accelerate their transition to a cleaner, healthier, and more economically viable future through improvements in efficiency, investments in renewable technology, and regulation reform. Earth Day 2015 To recognize the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, the 2015 global theme was termed "It's Our Turn to Lead."That year, Earth Day was a part of the steady drumbeat towards Paris for the UNFCCC COP 21 climate talks that December. With a binding treaty on climate change expected from this conference, this is a pivotal year for the environmental movement. Earth Day Network's (EDN) campaigns focused on instigating environmental advocacy, as well as strengthening climate communication and education.EDN designed and executed four campaigns for its major constituencies: Green Cities, MobilizeU, Climate Education Week, and Faith Mobilization, all of which concentrated on the organization's theme: "It's Our Turn to Lead". In addition, EDN hosted Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day, in partnership with Global Poverty Project (GPP) on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. This venue allowed EDN and GPP to inspire and activate a new generation of global activists. The event worked to establish the intersection between eradicating global poverty and stopping climate change. Earth Day Network worked directly with major partners to garner large-scale commitments to stop climate change. Earth Day 2016 The theme for Earth Day 2016 was Trees for Earth. India, the Caribbean, Vietnam, and Morocco made substantial government commitments. The Black Lives Matter organization, which was created in 2013, also engaged with EarthDay.org in community panels. Close to 700 million community members, organizations, and school children took part in Earth Day 2016. Over 36 million trees were planted in India. "Earth Day Network" (now EARTHDAY.ORG) was accepted as an entry on Baidu Baike, a major online cyclopedia in China.Hundreds of mayors across the world participated in Earth Day 2016 primarily focused on urban planning and reforestation. Signing of the Paris Agreement at the UN It was no accident that the United Nations selected Earth Day to sign the most significant climate accord in the history of the climate movement. On Earth Day 2016, world leaders from 175 nations broke a record by doing exactly that. Earth Day 2017 For Earth Day 2017, Earth Day Network launched the goal of global environmental and climate literacy by 2020. EDN envisioned a world that is fluent in the concepts of climate change and aware of its unprecedented threat to our planet. Environmental and climate literacy is the engine not only for creating green voters and advancing environmental and climate laws and policies but also for accelerating green technologies and jobs. To that end, the 2017 Earth Day theme is environmental and climate education. EDN knows that education is the foundation for progress. Before we can solve the dire environmental threats facing us in the 21st century, we must build a global citizenry knowledgeable in environmental science and fluent in local and global ecological issues. A world with a more educated populace internalizes values – such as environmental protection – and is empowered to act in defense of these values. To support this Earth Day theme, EDN promoted teach-ins as an activity to educate communities on global environmental issues and how global environmental issues impact local communities. EDN teach-ins strove to empower attendees with real, tangible actions they could take for the environment. EDN developed an extensive global outreach strategy to promote Earth Day and assist organizations with producing a variety of actions, including teach-ins, in their own communities. Staff sent thousands of emails and made hundreds of phone calls, and revamped the organization's social media. Additionally, EDN created five teach-in toolkits, with accompanying translations in four languages, to help constituencies organize and mobilize their communities. Finally, EDN hosted the flagship March for Science march, rally, and teach-ins on Earth Day on the Washington Monument Grounds in Washington D.C. This event rallied and empowered attendees to support science and evidence-based policy. Approximately 100,000 people attended. Earth Day 2018 Earth Day 2018's theme, End Plastic Pollution, was dedicated to building a world of educated citizens who understand the environmental, climate, and health consequences of using plastic. Through an online Plastics Pollution Calculator, consumers calculated how much disposable plastic they used in a year and planned how to reduce this amount of waste. A Plastic Pollution Primer and Action Toolkit also educated consumers about actions to reduce their plastic footprint. Events worldwide in The Gambia, Italy, Thailand, Japan, India, the U.S., among others, included plastic cleanups, teach-ins, and festivals in which 10,000 partners participated. In April 2018, the Google search for "Plastic Pollution" saw the highest trends in the previous five years, 5.5 million pages in 17 languages were created on the internet about "Earth Day 2018" and "plastics," and global media outlets with a combined audience of 450+ million people covered the campaign. The phrase "plastic pollution" on social media in the U.S. alone reached more than 155 million people. As a result, over 23,0000+ plastic cleanups were registered on Google, 60 countries introduced single-use plastic bans and legislation, and companies such as Coca-Cola and Starbucks announced steps to eliminate and significantly reduce plastic pollution. Earth Day 2019 Earth Day 2019's theme was Protect Our Species. For this campaign, events and programs spread information about the causes and consequences of growing species extinctions. Earth Day Network partnered with Keep America Beautiful and National Cleanup Day for the inaugural nationwide Earth Day Clean Up. Cleanups were held in all 50 States, 5 U.S. Territories, 5,300 sites and had more than 500,000 volunteers. Thousands of locations featured ads with vivid photos of important species. Viewers were encouraged to share photos of ads on social media with the tag #ProtectOurSpecies. Earth Day 2019 also encouraged participants to protect threatened species through educational resources, tree plantings, and a climate action guide. Earth Day 2020–2030 Earth Day 2020 Earth Day 2020 is the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day. Celebrations included activities such as the Great Global CleanUp, Citizen Science, Advocacy, Education, and art. The theme for Earth Day 2020 was "climate action". Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the planned activities were moved online. Notably, a coalition of youth activist organized by the Future Coalition hosted Earth Day Live, a three-day livestream commemorating the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in the United States. Celebratory activities centered around five components: citizen science, volunteering, community engagement, education, and the role of art in furthering the cause. Earth Day 2021 The Earth Day 2021 theme is Restore Our Earth and features five primary programs: The Canopy Project, Food and Environment, Climate Literacy, the Global Earth Challenge, and The Great Global CleanUp. During the week of Earth Day, EARTHDAY.ORG and lead organizers, Education International, Hip Hop Caucus, and Earth Uprising organized three separate parallel climate action summits on climate literacy, environmental justice, and youth-led climate-focused issues. EARTHDAY.ORG also organized the second-annual Earth Day Live livestream event (April 22, 2021) featuring global activists, international leaders, and influencers.The Biden administration organized a 2021 Leaders' Climate Summit. This virtual Zoom-like meeting featured 40 world leaders and dozens of speakers, including Pope Francis, Xiye Bastida, Danielle Merfeld, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, GE Renewable Energy, Anna Borg, President and CEO, Vattenfall, and Abdullah Subai, Minister of Municipality and Environment, Qatar. Earth Day 2022 The Earth Day 2022 theme is Invest in Our Planet and features five primary programs: The Great Global Cleanup, Sustainable Fashion, Climate and Environmental Literacy, Canopy Project, Food and Environment, and the Global Earth Challenge. EARTHDAY.ORG announced the continuation of the "Invest in our Planet" theme for 2023 and that more than one billion citizens participated in Earth Day 2022. Earth Day 2023 On Earth Day (22 April) 2023, a collection of images to date of Earth taken from various deep space distances in the Solar System was published. Earth Day Canada The first Canadian Earth Day (French: Jour de la Terre) was held on Thursday, September 11, 1980, and was organized by Paul D. Tinari, then a graduate student in Engineering Physics/Solar Engineering at Queen's University. Flora MacDonald, then MP for Kingston and the Islands and former Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, officially opened Earth Day Week on September 6, 1980, with a ceremonial tree planting and encouraged MPs and MPPs across the country to declare a cross-Canada annual Earth Day. The principal activities taking place on the first Earth Day included educational lectures given by experts in various environmental fields, garbage and litter pick-up by students along city roads and highways, and tree plantings to replace the trees killed by Dutch elm disease. History of the Equinox Earth Day (March 20) The equinoctial Earth Day is celebrated on the March equinox (around March 20) to mark the arrival of astronomical spring in the Northern Hemisphere, and of astronomical autumn in the Southern Hemisphere. An equinox in astronomy is that point in time (not a whole day) when the Sun is directly above the Earth's equator, occurring around March 20 and September 23 each year. In most cultures, the equinoxes and solstices are considered to start or separate the seasons, although weather patterns evolve earlier. John McConnell first introduced the idea of a global holiday called "Earth Day" at the 1969 UNESCO Conference on the Environment. The first Earth Day proclamation was issued by San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto on March 21, 1970. Celebrations were held in various cities, such as San Francisco and in Davis, California with a multi-day street party. UN Secretary-General U Thant supported McConnell's global initiative to celebrate this annual event; and on February 26, 1971, he signed a proclamation to that effect, saying: May there be only peaceful and cheerful Earth Days to come for our beautiful Spaceship Earth as it continues to spin and circle in frigid space with its warm and fragile cargo of animate life. United Nations secretary-general Kurt Waldheim observed Earth Day with similar ceremonies on the March equinox in 1972, and the United Nations Earth Day ceremony has continued each year since on the day of the March equinox (the United Nations also works with organizers of the April 22 global event). Margaret Mead added her support for the equinox Earth Day, and in 1978 declared: Earth Day is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space. Earth Day draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way – which is also the most ancient way – by using the Vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the Earth. To this point in the annual calendar, EARTH DAY attaches no local or divisive set of symbols, no statement of the truth or superiority of one way of life over another. But the selection of the March Equinox makes planetary observance of a shared event possible and a flag that shows the Earth, as seen from space, appropriate. At the moment of the equinox, it is traditional to observe Earth Day by ringing the Japanese Peace Bell, which Japan donated to the United Nations. Over the years, celebrations have occurred in various places worldwide at the same time as the UN celebration. On March 20, 2008, in addition to the ceremony at the United Nations, ceremonies were held in New Zealand, and bells were sounded in California, Vienna, Paris, Lithuania, Tokyo, and many other locations. The equinox Earth Day at the UN is organized by the Earth Society Foundation.Earth Day ringing the peace bell is celebrated around the world in many towns, ringing the Peace Bell in Vienna, Berlin, and elsewhere. A memorable event took place at the UN in Geneva, celebrating a Minute for Peace ringing the Japanese Shinagawa Peace Bell with the help of the Geneva Friendship Association and the Global Youth Foundation, directly after in deep mourning about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant catastrophe ten days before. Besides the Spring Equinox for the Northern Hemisphere, the observance of the Spring Equinox for the Southern Hemisphere in September is of equal importance. The International Day of Peace is celebrated on September 21, and can thus be considered to accord with the original intentions of John McConnell, U Thant and others. April 22 observances Growing eco-activism before Earth Day 1970 In 1968, Morton Hilbert and the U.S. Public Health Service organized the Human Ecology Symposium, an environmental conference for students to hear from scientists about the effects of environmental degradation on human health. This was the beginning of Earth Day. For the next two years, Hilbert and students worked to plan the first Earth Day. In April 1970—along with a federal proclamation from U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson—the first Earth Day was held.Project Survival, an early environmentalism-awareness education event, was held at Northwestern University on January 23, 1970. This was the first of several events held at university campuses across the United States in the lead-up to the first Earth Day. Also, Ralph Nader began talking about the importance of ecology in 1970. The 1960s had been a very dynamic period for ecology in the US. Pre-1960 grassroots activism against DDT in Nassau County, New York, and widespread opposition to open-air nuclear weapons tests with their global nuclear fallout, had inspired Rachel Carson to write her influential bestseller, Silent Spring (1962). Significance of April 22 Nelson chose the date to maximize participation on college campuses for what he conceived as an "environmental teach-in". He determined the week of April 19–25 was the best bet as it did not fall during exams or spring breaks. Moreover, it did not conflict with religious holidays such as Easter or Passover, and was late enough in spring to have decent weather. More students were likely to be in class, and there would be less competition with other mid-week events—so he chose Wednesday, April 22. The day also fell after the anniversary of the birth of noted conservationist John Muir. The National Park Service, John Muir National Historic Site, has a celebration every year on or around Earth Day (April 21, 22 or 23), called Birthday-Earth Day, in recognition of Earth Day and John Muir's contribution to the collective consciousness of environmentalism and conservation.Unbeknownst to Nelson, April 22, 1970, was coincidentally the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin, when translated to the Gregorian calendar (which the Soviets adopted in 1918). Time reported that some suspected the date was not a coincidence, but a clue that the event was "a Communist trick", and quoted a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution as saying, "subversive elements plan to make American children live in an environment that is good for them." J. Edgar Hoover, director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, may have found the Lenin connection intriguing; it was alleged the FBI conducted surveillance at the 1970 demonstrations. The idea that the date was chosen to celebrate Lenin's centenary still persists in some quarters, an idea borne out by the similarity with the subbotnik instituted by Lenin in 1920 as days on which people would have to do community service, which typically consisted in removing rubbish from public property and collecting recyclable material. Subbotniks were also imposed on other countries within the compass of Soviet power, including Eastern Europe, and at the height of its power the Soviet Union established a nationwide subbotnik to be celebrated on Lenin's birthday, April 22, which had been proclaimed a national holiday celebrating communism by Nikita Khrushchev in 1955. Criticisms "Critics of Earth Day claim that the environmental movement is a middle class, anti-business movement that deals in mainstream conservation politics. It allegedly overlooks the needs of minorities and the poor who are victims of environmental racism and classism."Another criticism of Earth Day is that after so many years, it's continued, repetitious existence promotes the illusion that current human efforts are enough to eliminate future environmental disaster. Further reading Sophie Yeo (April 21, 2023). "How the largest environmental movement in history was born". BBC. See also References External links Earth Day Network – Coordinating worldwide events for Earth Day The Great Global CleanUp – CleanUp Website including Global Map, Signup to CleanUp and Find a CleanUp United States Earth Day – The U.S. government's Earth Day site Earth Day Canada – The Canadian Official Site for Earth Day Earth Day at The History Channel Gaylord Nelson and Earth Day: The Making of the Modern Environmental Movement – a narrative account of the origins of Earth Day, Nelson's political career, as well as online access to documents from the Wisconsin Historical Society's Nelson Papers collection Earth Society Foundation – Official organization arranging annual equinox Earth Day celebration at the United Nations

lucy verasamy

Lucy Verasamy (born 2 August 1980) is a British weather forecaster for ITV Weather, ITV Racing and ITV's Good Morning Britain. Early life and education Verasamy was born in King's Lynn, Norfolk, and attended Silfield Primary School in Wymondham, Framlingham College Junior School in Suffolk and King Edward VII School in King's Lynn, where she studied A-level geography. She graduated with a BSc (Hons) degree in geography from Brunel University in 2001. Career After graduation, Verasamy trained and worked as a meteorologist at the Press Association’s weather centre (Later renamed Meteogroup – Europe’s Largest private weather company) – writing national and international weather forecasts for TV, radio, and Newspapers. Having previously completed a work experience placement at the Sky Weather Centre before becoming a weather forecaster, Verasamy joined Sky and became the regular weather presenter on the Sky News breakfast show Sunrise. In 2007, the Sky News website started a feature entitled Climate Clinic – Ask Lucy as part of their Green Britain campaign, where Verasamy answered questions put forward by members of the public regarding climate change. She also contributed to Sky News The Weather Girls blog.On 6 September 2010, she joined the newly launched ITV Breakfast programme Daybreak, as a weather forecaster and environment correspondent, alongside Kirsty McCabe. On 7 February 2012, McCabe left the programme, leaving Verasamy the sole weather forecaster. On 2 August 2012, she too left the programme. Since 2012, Verasamy has fronted the national weather forecasts for ITV.In addition, as of 2017, Verasamy is part of the ITV Racing team as a weather expert. She also joined Good Morning Britain as a relief weather presenter from August. In 2019 she fronted the M & S Fresh Food Market promotions.In March 2020, Verasamy was to co-present the then upcoming ITV travel show How to Spend It Well on Holiday with Phillip Schofield. The show was pulled from airing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and with the expectation of being shown at a later date.In November 2020, Verasamy began presenting on ITV's digital series Climate Crisis: Our Changing World, alongside fellow ITV weather presenters Laura Tobin and Alex Beresford.In 2021, Verasamy fronted Marks & Spencer's "Fresh Market Update" advertising campaign, featuring cooked produce from Marks & Spencer's own growers and producers locations, ranging from North Scotland to Jersey. Filmography References External links Lucy Verasamy on itv.com Lucy Verasamy on Twitter Lucy Verasamy at IMDb Climate Clinic – Ask Lucy

atlantic meridional overturning circulation

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is part of a global thermohaline circulation in the oceans and is the zonally integrated component of surface and deep currents in the Atlantic Ocean. It is characterized by a northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic, and a southward flow of colder, deep waters. These "limbs" are linked by regions of overturning in the Nordic and Labrador Seas and the Southern Ocean, although the extent of overturning in the Labrador Sea is disputed. The AMOC is an important component of the Earth's climate system, and is a result of both atmospheric and thermohaline drivers. Climate change has the potential to weaken the AMOC through increases in ocean heat content and elevated freshwater flows from the melting ice sheets. Oceanographic reconstructions generally suggest that the AMOC is already weaker than it was before the Industrial Revolution, although there is a robust debate over the role of climate change versus the circulation's century-scale and millennial-scale variability. Climate models consistently project that the AMOC would weaken further over the 21st century,: 19  which would affect average temperature over areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift, as well as accelerate sea level rise around North America and reduce primary production in the North Atlantic.Severe weakening of the AMOC has the potential to cause an outright collapse of the circulation, which would not be easily reversible and thus constitute one of the tipping points in the climate system. A shutdown would have far greater impacts than a slowdown on both the marine and some terrestrial ecosystems: it would lower the average temperature and precipitation in Europe, slashing the region's agricultural output, and may have a substantial effect on extreme weather events. Earth system models used in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project indicate that shutdown is only likely after high levels of warming are sustained well after 2100, but they have been criticized by some researchers for what they saw as excessive stability, and a number of lower-complexity studies argue that a collapse can happen considerably earlier. One of those lower-complexity projections suggests that AMOC collapse could happen around 2057, but many scientists are skeptical of the claim. On the other hand, paleoceanographic research suggests that the AMOC may be even more stable than what is predicted by most models. Overall structure The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is part of a global thermohaline circulation in the oceans and is the zonally integrated component of surface and deep currents in the Atlantic Ocean. The general thermohaline circulation is a pattern of water flow through the world's oceans. Warm water flows along the surface until it reaches one of a few special spots near Greenland or Antarctica. There, the water sinks, and then crawls across the bottom of the ocean, miles/kilometers deep, over hundreds of years, gradually rising in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Northward surface flow transports a substantial amount of heat energy from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere toward the North Atlantic, where the heat is lost to the atmosphere due to the strong temperature gradient. Upon losing its heat, the water becomes denser and sinks. This densification links the warm, surface limb with the cold, deep return limb at regions of convection in the Nordic and Labrador Seas. The limbs are also linked in regions of upwelling, where a divergence of surface waters causes Ekman suction and an upward flux of deep water.AMOC consists of upper and lower cells. The upper cell consists of northward surface flow as well as southward return flow of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). The lower cell represents northward flow of dense Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) – this bathes the abyssal ocean.AMOC exerts a major control on North Atlantic sea level, particularly along the Northeast Coast of North America. Exceptional AMOC weakening during the winter of 2009–10 has been implicated in a damaging 13 cm sea level rise along the New York coastline.There may be two stable states of the AMOC: a strong circulation (as seen over recent millennia) and a weak circulation mode, as suggested by atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation models and Earth systems models of intermediate complexity. A number of Earth system models do not identify this bistability, however. Effects on climate The net northward heat transport in the Atlantic is unique among global oceans, and is responsible for the relative warmth of the Northern Hemisphere. AMOC carries up to 25% of the northward global atmosphere-ocean heat transport in the northern hemisphere. This is generally thought to ameliorate the climate of Northwest Europe, although this effect is the subject of debate.As well as acting as a heat pump and high-latitude heat sink, AMOC is the largest carbon sink in the Northern Hemisphere, sequestering approximately 0.7 Pg (0.7 Gt) C/year. This sequestration has significant implications for evolution of anthropogenic global warming – especially with respect to the recent and projected future decline in AMOC vigor. Thermohaline circulation and fresh water Heat is transported from the equator polewards mostly by the atmosphere but also by ocean currents, with warm water near the surface and cold water at deeper levels. The best known segment of this circulation is the Gulf Stream, a wind-driven gyre, which transports warm water from the Caribbean northwards. A northwards branch of the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Drift, is part of the thermohaline circulation (THC), transporting warmth further north to the North Atlantic, where its effect in warming the atmosphere contributes to warming Europe.The evaporation of ocean water in the North Atlantic increases the salinity of the water as well as cooling it, both actions increasing the density of water at the surface. Formation of sea ice further increases the salinity and density, because salt is ejected into the ocean when sea ice forms. This dense water then sinks and the circulation stream continues in a southerly direction. However, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is driven by ocean temperature and salinity differences. But freshwater decreases ocean water salinity, and through this process prevents colder waters sinking. This mechanism possibly caused the cold ocean surface temperature anomaly currently observed near Greenland (Cold blob (North Atlantic)).Global warming could lead to an increase in freshwater in the northern oceans, by melting glaciers in Greenland, and by increasing precipitation, especially through Siberian rivers.Studies of the Florida Current suggest that the Gulf Stream weakens with cooling, being weakest (by ~10%) during the Little Ice Age. Regions of overturning Convection and return flow in the Nordic Seas Low air temperatures at high latitudes cause substantial sea-air heat flux, driving a density increase and convection in the water column. Open ocean convection occurs in deep plumes and is particularly strong in winter when the sea-air temperature difference is largest. Of the 6 sverdrup (Sv) of dense water that flows southward over the GSR (Greenland-Scotland Ridge), 3 Sv does so via the Denmark Strait forming Denmark Strait Overflow Water (DSOW). 0.5-1 Sv flows over the Iceland-Faroe ridge and the remaining 2–2.5 Sv returns through the Faroe-Shetland Channel; these two flows form Iceland Scotland Overflow Water (ISOW). The majority of flow over the Faroe-Shetland ridge flows through the Faroe-Bank Channel and soon joins that which flowed over the Iceland-Faroe ridge, to flow southward at depth along the Eastern flank of the Reykjanes Ridge. As ISOW overflows the GSR (Greenland-Scotland Ridge), it turbulently entrains intermediate density waters such as Sub-Polar Mode water and Labrador Sea Water. This grouping of water-masses then moves geostrophically southward along the East flank of Reykjanes Ridge, through the Charlie Gibbs Fracture Zone and then northward to join DSOW. These waters are sometimes referred to as Nordic Seas Overflow Water (NSOW). NSOW flows cyclonically following the surface route of the SPG (sub-polar gyre) around the Labrador Sea and further entrains Labrador Sea Water (LSW).Convection is known to be suppressed at these high latitudes by sea-ice cover. Floating sea ice "caps" the surface, reducing the ability for heat to move from the sea to the air. This in turn reduces convection and deep return flow from the region. The summer Arctic sea ice cover has undergone dramatic retreat since satellite records began in 1979, amounting to a loss of almost 30% of the September ice cover in 39 years. Climate model simulations suggest that rapid and sustained September Arctic ice loss is likely in future 21st century climate projections. Convection and entrainment in the Labrador Sea Characteristically fresh LSW is formed at intermediate depths by deep convection in the central Labrador Sea, particularly during winter storms. This convection is not deep enough to penetrate into the NSOW layer which forms the deep waters of the Labrador Sea. LSW joins NSOW to move southward out of the Labrador Sea: while NSOW easily passes under the NAC at the North-West Corner, some LSW is retained. This diversion and retention by the SPG explains its presence and entrainment near the GSR (Greenland-Scotland Ridge) overflows. Most of the diverted LSW however splits off before the CGFZ (Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone) and remains in the western SPG. LSW production is highly dependent on sea-air heat flux and yearly production typically ranges from 3–9 Sv. ISOW is produced in proportion to the density gradient across the Iceland-Scotland Ridge and as such is sensitive to LSW production which affects the downstream density More indirectly, increased LSW production is associated with a strengthened SPG and hypothesized to be anti-correlated with ISOW This interplay confounds any simple extension of a reduction in individual overflow waters to a reduction in AMOC. LSW production is understood to have been minimal prior to the 8.2 ka event, with the SPG thought to have existed before in a weakened, non-convective state. There is debate about the extent to which convection in the Labrador Sea plays a role in AMOC circulation, particularly in the connection between Labrador sea variability and AMOC variability. Observational studies have been inconclusive about whether this connection exists. New observations with the OSNAP array show little contribution from the Labrador Sea to overturning, and hydrographic observations from ships dating back to 1990 show similar results. Nevertheless, older estimates of LSW formation using different techniques suggest larger overturning. Atlantic upwelling For reasons of conservation of mass, the global ocean system must upwell an equal volume of water to that downwelled. Upwelling in the Atlantic itself occurs mostly due to coastal and equatorial upwelling mechanisms. Coastal upwelling occurs as a result of Ekman transport along the interface between land and a wind-driven current. In the Atlantic, this particularly occurs around the Canary Current and Benguela Current. Upwelling in these two regions has been modelled to be in antiphase, an effect known as "upwelling see-saw".Equatorial upwelling generally occurs due to atmospheric forcing and divergence due to the opposing direction of the Coriolis force either side of the equator. The Atlantic features more complex mechanisms such as migration of the thermocline, particularly in the Eastern Atlantic. Southern Ocean upwelling North Atlantic Deep Water is primarily upwelled at the southern end of the Atlantic transect, in the Southern Ocean. This upwelling comprises the majority of upwelling normally associated with AMOC, and links it with the global circulation. On a global scale, observations suggest 80% of deepwater upwells in the Southern Ocean.This upwelling supplies large quantities of nutrients to the surface, which supports biological activity. Surface supply of nutrients is critical to the ocean's functioning as a carbon sink on long timescales. Furthermore, upwelled water has low concentrations of dissolved carbon, as the water is typically 1000 years old and has not been sensitive to anthropogenic CO2 increases in the atmosphere. Because of its low carbon concentration, this upwelling functions as a carbon sink. Variability in the carbon sink over the observational period has been closely studied and debated. The size of the sink is understood to have decreased until 2002, and then increased until 2012.After upwelling, the water is understood to take one of two pathways: water surfacing near to sea-ice generally forms dense bottomwater and is committed to AMOC's lower cell; water surfacing at lower latitudes moves further northward due to Ekman transport and is committed to the upper cell. Trends Reconstructions Climate reconstructions generally support the hypothesis that the AMOC is already weaker now than it was in the early 20th century. For instance, a 2010 statistical analysis found an ongoing weakening of the AMOC since the late 1930s, with an abrupt shift of a North Atlantic overturning cell around 1970. Climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State and Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research suggested that the observed cold pattern during years of temperature records is a sign that the Atlantic Ocean's Meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) may be weakening. They published their findings in 2015, and concluded that the AMOC circulation was slowing throughout the 20th century, and that the weakness it demonstrated after 1975 was unprecedented over the last millennium. They suggested that even though the AMOC had experienced partial recovery after 1975, future Greenland ice sheet melt would be likely to weaken it further still. Another 2015 study suggested that the AMOC has weakened by 15–20% in 200 years. In 2018, another reconstruction suggested a weakening of around 15% since the mid-twentieth century. However, all these findings were challenged by 2022 research which indicated that between 1900 and 2019, a climate change-induced trend did not begin to emerge until 1980, and it is still faint relative to the circulation's natural variability.Some studies attempt to go deeper into the preindustrial past. In 2018, one such paper suggested that the last 150 years of AMOC showed exceptional weakness when compared to the previous 1500 years, and it indicated a discrepancy in the modeled timing of AMOC decline after the Little Ice Age. In February 2021, a study published in Nature Geoscience reported that the preceding millennium had seen an unprecedented weakening of the AMOC, an indication that the change was caused by human actions. Its co-author said that AMOC had already slowed by about 15%, with impacts now being seen: "In 20 to 30 years it is likely to weaken further, and that will inevitably influence our weather, so we would see an increase in storms and heatwaves in Europe, and sea level rises on the east coast of the US." In February 2022, Nature Geoscience published a "Matters Arising" commentary article co-authored by 17 scientists, which disputed those findings and argued that the long-term AMOC trend remains uncertain. The journal had also published a response from the authors of 2021 study to "Matters Arising" article, where they defended their findings.In February 2021, a study had reconstructed the past 30 years of AMOC variability and found no evidence of decline. In August 2021, a study published in Nature Climate Change showed significant changes in eight independent AMOC indices, and suggested that they could indicate "an almost complete loss of stability". However, while it drew on over a century of ocean temperature and salinity data, it was forced to omit all data from 35 years before 1900 and after 1980 to maintain consistent records of all eight indicators. In April 2022, another study published in Nature Climate Change used nearly 120 years of data between 1900 and 2019 and found no change between 1900 and 1980, with a single-sverdrup reduction in AMOC strength not emerging until 1980 – a variation which remains within range of natural variability. A March 2022 review article concluded that while there may be a long-term weakening of the AMOC caused by global warming, it remains difficult to detect when analyzing its evolution since 1980, as that time frame presents both periods of weakening and strengthening, and the magnitude of either change is uncertain (in range between 5% and 25%). The review concluded with a call for more sensitive and longer-term research. Observations Direct observations of the strength of the AMOC have been available only since 2004 from the RAPID array, an in situ mooring array at 26°N in the Atlantic, leaving only indirect evidence of the previous AMOC behavior. While climate models predict a weakening of AMOC under global warming scenarios, they often struggle to match observations or reconstructions of the current. In particular, observed decline in the period 2004–2014 was of a factor 10 higher than that predicted by climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5): however, some scientists attributed this to a larger-than-anticipated interdecadal variability of the circulation, rather than a climate-forced trend, suggesting that the AMOC would recover from it in only a few years. In February 2021, a study indicated that the AMOC did in fact recover from that decline, and found no evidence of an overall AMOC decline over the past 30 years. Likewise, a Science Advances study published in 2020 found no significant change in the AMOC circulation relative to 1990s, in spite of the substantial changes in the North Atlantic Ocean over the same period. 2010 and earlier In April 2004, the hypothesis that the Gulf Stream is switching off received a boost when a retrospective analysis of U.S. satellite data seemed to show a slowing of the North Atlantic Gyre, the northern swirl of the Gulf Stream.In May 2005, Peter Wadhams reported in The Times (London) about the results of investigations in a submarine under the Arctic ice sheet measuring the giant chimneys of cold dense water, in which the cold dense water normally sinks down to the sea bed and is replaced by warm water, forming one of the engines of the North Atlantic Drift. He and his team found the chimneys to have virtually disappeared. Normally there are seven to twelve giant columns, but Wadhams found only two giant columns, both extremely weak.In 2005 a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream was observed from the last such measurement in 1992. The authors noted uncertainties in the measurements. Following media discussions, Detlef Quadfasel pointed out that the uncertainty of the estimates of Bryden et al. is high, but says other factors and observations do support their results, and implications based on palaeoclimate records show drops of air temperature up to 10 °C within decades, linked to abrupt switches of ocean circulation when a certain threshold is reached. He concluded that further observations and modelling are crucial for providing early warning of a possible devastating breakdown of the circulation. In response Quirin Schiermeier concluded that natural variation was the culprit for the observations but highlighted possible implications.In 2008, Vage et al. reported "the return of deep convection to the subpolar gyre in both the Labrador and Irminger seas in the winter of 2007–2008," employing "profiling float data from the Argo program to document deep mixing," and "a variety of in situ, satellite and reanalysis data" to set the context for the phenomenon. This might have a lot to do with the observations of variations in cold water chimney behaviour. Slowdown or possible shutdown of the thermohaline circulation The slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation is a hypothesized effect of climate change on a major ocean circulation. The Gulf Stream is part of this circulation, and is part of the reason why northern Europe is warmer than it would normally be; Edinburgh has the same latitude as Moscow. The Thermohaline Circulation influences the climate all over the world. The impacts of the decline and potential shutdown of the AMOC could include losses in agricultural output, ecosystem changes, and the triggering of other climate tipping points. Other likely impacts of AMOC decline include reduced precipitation in mid-latitudes, changing patterns of strong precipitation in the tropics and Europe, and strengthening storms that follow the North Atlantic track. Finally, a decline would also be accompanied by strong sea level rise along the eastern North American coast. AMOC stability Atlantic overturning is not a static feature of global circulation, but rather a sensitive function of temperature and salinity distributions as well as atmospheric forcings. Paleoceanographic reconstructions of AMOC vigour and configuration have revealed significant variations over geologic time complementing variation observed on shorter scales.Reconstructions of a "shutdown" or "Heinrich" mode of the North Atlantic have fuelled concerns about a future collapse of the overturning circulation due to global climate change. The physics of a shutdown would be underpinned by the Stommel Bifurcation, where increased freshwater forcing or warmer surface waters would lead to a sudden reduction in overturning from which the forcing must be substantially reduced before restart is possible. In 2022, a study suggested that the strongly increasing "memory" of the past multidecadal variations in the system's circulation could act as an early warning indicator of a tipping point.An AMOC shutdown would be fuelled by two positive feedbacks, the accumulation of both freshwater and heat in areas of downwelling. AMOC exports freshwater from the North Atlantic, and a reduction in overturning would freshen waters and inhibit downwelling. Similar to its export of freshwater, AMOC also partitions heat in the deep-ocean in a global warming regime – it is possible that a weakened AMOC would lead to increasing global temperatures and further stratification and slowdown. However, this effect would be tempered by a concomitant reduction in warm water transport to the North Atlantic under a weakened AMOC, a negative feedback on the system. Moreover, a paleoceanographic reconstruction from 2022 found only a limited impact from massive freshwater forcing of the final Holocene deglaciation ~11,700–6,000 years ago, when the sea level rise amounted to around 50 metres. It suggested that most models overestimate the impact of freshwater forcing on AMOC.To complicate the issue of positive and negative feedbacks on temperature and salinity, the wind-driven component of AMOC is still not fully constrained. A relatively larger role of atmospheric forcing would lead to less dependency on the thermohaline factors listed above, and would render AMOC less vulnerable to temperature and salinity changes under global warming. Multiple equilibria versus single equilibrium As well as paleoceanographic reconstruction, the mechanism and likelihood of collapse has been investigated using climate models. Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) have historically predicted a modern AMOC to have multiple equilibria, characterised as warm, cold and shutdown modes. This is in contrast to more comprehensive models, which bias towards a stable AMOC characterised by a single equilibrium. However, doubt is cast upon this stability by a modelled northward freshwater flux which is at odds with observations. An unphysical northward flux in models acts as a negative feedback on overturning and falsely biases towards stability. On the other hand, it was also suggested that the stationary freshwater forcing used in the classic EMICs is too simplistic, and a 2022 study which modified a Stommel's Bifurcation EMIC to use more realistic transient freshwater flux found that this change delayed tipping behavior in the model by over 1000 years. The study suggested that this simulation is more consistent with the reconstructions of AMOC response to Meltwater pulse 1A, when a similarly long delay was observed. Impacts of a slowdown Don Chambers from the University of South Florida College of Marine Science mentioned: "The major effect of a slowing AMOC is expected to be cooler winters and summers around the North Atlantic, and small regional increases in sea level on the North American coast." James Hansen and Makiko Sato stated: AMOC slowdown that causes cooling ~1 °C and perhaps affects weather patterns is very different from an AMOC shutdown that cools the North Atlantic several degrees Celsius; the latter would have dramatic effects on storms and be irreversible on the century time scale. A 2005 paper suggested that a severe AMOC slowdown would collapse North Atlantic plankton counts to less than half of their pre-disruption biomass due to the increased stratification and the severe drop in nutrient exchange amongst the ocean layers. In 2019, a study suggested that the observed ~10% decline in the phytoplankton productivity in the North Atlantic may provide evidence for this hypothesis.Downturn of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has been tied to extreme regional sea level rise. A 2015 paper simulated global ocean changes under AMOC slowdown and collapse scenarios and found that it would greatly decrease dissolved oxygen content in the North Atlantic, even as it would slightly increase globally due to greater increases across the other oceans. In 2018, AMOC slowdown was also tied to increasing coastal deoxygenation. In 2020, it was linked to increasing salinity in the South Atlantic.A study published in 2016 found further evidence for a considerable impact of a slowdown on sea level rise around the U.S. East Coast. The study confirms earlier research findings which identified the region as a hotspot for rising seas, with a potential to divert 3–4 times in the rate of rise, compared to the global average. The researchers attribute the possible increase to an ocean circulation mechanism called deep water formation, which is reduced due to AMOC slow down, leading to more warmer water pockets below the surface. Additionally, the study noted, "Our results suggest that higher carbon emission rates also contribute to increased [sea level rise] in this region compared to the global average." In 2021, another paper had also suggested that the slowdown had played a role in the northeastern coast of the United States ending up as one of the fastest-warming regions of North America.In 2020, a study evaluated the effects of projected AMOC weakening in the 21st century under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, which portrays a future of continually increasing emissions. In this scenario, a weakened AMOC would also slow down Arctic sea ice decline and delay the emergence of an ice-free Arctic by around 6 years, as well as preventing over 50% of sea ice loss on the edges of Labrador Sea, Greenland Sea, Barents Sea, and Sea of Okhotsk in the years 2061–2080. It also found a southward displacement of Intertropical Convergence Zone, with the associated rainfall increases to the north of it over the tropical Atlantic Ocean and decreases to the south, but cautioned that those trends would be dwarved by the far larger changes in precipitation associated with RCP 8.5. Finally, it found that this slowdown would further deepen Icelandic Low and Aleutian Low due to the displacement of westerly jets. In 2021, a conceptual network model was developed, connecting the AMOC, Greenland ice sheet, West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Amazon rainforest (all well-known climate tipping points) through a set of simplified equations. It suggested that while changes to AMOC are unlikely to trigger tipping behaviour in those other elements of the climate system on their own, any other climate element transitioning towards tipping would also affect the others through a connection mediated by the AMOC slowdown, potentially initiating a tipping cascade across multi-century timescales. Consequently, AMOC slowdown would reduce the global warming threshold beyond which any of those four elements (including the AMOC itself) could be expected to tip, as opposed to thresholds established from studying those elements in isolation.A 2021 assessment of the economic impact of climate tipping points found that while tipping points in general would likely increase the social cost of carbon by about 25%, with a 10% chance of tipping points more than doubling it, AMOC slowdown is likely to do the opposite and reduce the social cost of carbon by about −1.4%, since it would act to counteract the effects of warming in Europe, which is more developed and thus represents a larger fraction of the global GDP than the regions which would be impacted negatively by the slowdown. The following year, this finding, and the broader findings of the study, were severely criticized by a group of scientists including Steve Keen and Timothy Lenton, who considered those findings to be a severe underestimate. The authors have responded to this criticism by noting that their paper should be treated as the starting point in economic assessment of tipping points rather than the final word, and since most of the literature included in their meta-analysis lacks the ability to estimate nonmarket climate damages, their numbers are likely to be underestimates. Impacts of a shutdown The possibility that the AMOC is a bistable system (which is either "on" or "off") and could collapse suddenly has been a topic of scientific discussion for a long time. In 2004, The Guardian publicized the findings of a report commissioned by Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, which suggested that the average annual temperature in Europe would drop by 6 Fahrenheit between 2010 and 2020 as the result of an abrupt AMOC shutdown.In general, a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (THC) caused by global warming would trigger cooling in the North Atlantic, Europe, and North America. This would particularly affect areas such as the British Isles, France and the Nordic countries, which are warmed by the North Atlantic drift. Major consequences, apart from regional cooling, could also include an increase in major floods and storms, a collapse of plankton stocks, warming or rainfall changes in the tropics or Alaska and Antarctica, more frequent and intense El Niño events due to associated shutdowns of the Kuroshio, Leeuwin, and East Australian Currents that are connected to the same thermohaline circulation as the Gulf Stream, or an oceanic anoxic event — oxygen (O2) below surface levels of the stagnant oceans becomes completely depleted – a probable cause of past mass extinction events.In 2002, a study had suggested that an AMOC shutdown may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which occurred during the last glacial period: a series of Dansgaard-Oeschger events – rapid climate fluctuations – may be attributed to freshwater forcing at high latitude interrupting the THC. 2002 model runs in which the THC is forced to shut down do show cooling – locally up to 8 °C (14 °F). A 2017 review concluded that there is strong evidence for past changes in the strength and structure of the AMOC during abrupt climate events such as the Younger Dryas and many of the Heinrich events.A 2015 study led by James Hansen found that the shutdown or substantial slowdown of the AMOC, besides possibly contributing to extreme end-Eemian events, will cause a more general increase of severe weather. Additional surface cooling from ice melt increases surface and lower tropospheric temperature gradients, and causes in model simulations a large increase of mid-latitude eddy energy throughout the midlatitude troposphere. This in turn leads to an increase of baroclinicity produced by stronger temperature gradients, which provides energy for more severe weather events. This includes winter and near-winter cyclonic storms colloquially known as "superstorms", which generate near-hurricane-force winds and often large amounts of snowfall. These results imply that strong cooling in the North Atlantic from AMOC shutdown potentially increases seasonal mean wind speed of the northeasterlies by as much as 10–20% relative to preindustrial conditions. Because wind power dissipation is proportional to the cube of wind speed, this translates into an increase of storm power dissipation by a factor ~1.4–2,. However, the simulated changes refer to seasonal mean winds averaged over large grid-boxes, not individual storms.In 2017, a study evaluated the effects of a shutdown on El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), but found no overall impact, with divergent atmospheric processes cancelling each other out. In 2021, a study using a Community Earth System Model suggested that an AMOC slowdown could nevertheless increase the strength of El Niño–Southern Oscillation and thus amplify climate extremes, especially if another Meridional Overturning Circulation develops in the Pacific Ocean in response to AMOC slowdown. In contrast, a 2022 study showed that an AMOC collapse is likely to accelerate the Pacific trade winds and Walker circulation, while weakening Indian and South Atlantic subtropical highs. The next study from the same team showed that the result of those altered atmospheric patterns is a ~30% reduction in ENSO variability and a ~95% reduction in the frequency of extreme El Niño events. Unlike today, El Niño events become more frequent in the central rather than eastern Pacific El Niño events. At the same time, this would essentially make a La Nina state dominant across the globe, likely leading to more frequent extreme rainfall over eastern Australia and worse droughts and bushfire seasons over southwestern United States.In 2020, a study had assessed the impact of an AMOC collapse on farming and food production in Great Britain. It estimated that AMOC collapse would reverse the impact of global warming in Great Britain and cause an average temperature drop of 3.4 °C. Moreover, it would lower rainfall during the growing season by around <123mm, which would in turn reduce the land area suitable for arable farming from the 32% to 7%. The net value of British farming would decline by around £346 million per year, or over 10%.A 2021 study used a simplified modelling approach to evaluate the impact of a shutdown on the Amazon rainforest and its hypothesized dieback and transition to a savannah state in some climate change scenarios. It suggested that a shutdown would enhance rainfall over the southern Amazon due to the shift of an Intertropical Convergence Zone and thus would help to counter the dieback and potentially stabilize at least the southern part of the rainforest. Projections The research around the future strength of the AMOC is shown below in chronological order. It is primarily based on Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models projections, although large reviews like the IPCC reports are also informed by the present-day observations and historical reconstructions, which allows them to take a wider range of possibilities into account and assign likelihood to the events not explicitly covered by the models. Around 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report projected high confidence that the THC would tend to weaken rather than stop, and that the warming effects would outweigh the cooling, even over Europe.When the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report was published in 2014, a rapid transition of the AMOC was considered very unlikely, and this assessment was offered at a high confidence level. That assessment had several limitations, such a reported bias of CMIP models towards AMOC stability, and the insufficient analysis of the impacts on circulation caused by Greenland ice sheet meltwater intrusion. In 2016, a study aimed to redress this shortcoming by adding Greenland ice sheet melt estimates to the projections from eight state-of-the-art climate models. It found that by 2090–2100, the AMOC would weaken by around 18% (with a range of potential weakening between 3% and 34%) under the "intermediate" Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, while it would weaken by 37% (with a range between 15% and 65%) under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, which presents a scenario of continually increasing emissions. When the two scenarios are extended past 2100, AMOC stabilized under RCP 4.5, but continues to decline under RCP 8.5, with an average decline of 74% by 2290–2300 and a 44% likelihood of an outright collapse.In 2017, another study applied bias correction to Community Climate System Model and simulated an idealized scenario where CO2 concentrations abruptly double from 1990 levels and remain stable afterwards: according to the authors, such concentrations would result in a warming approximately between RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0. The AMOC remained stable in a standard model, but collapsed after 300 years of simulation in a bias-corrected model. In 2020, a study ran simulations of RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 between 2005 and 2250 in a Community Earth System Model integrated with an advanced ocean physics module which allowed for a more realistic representation of Antarctic ice sheet meltwater. Freshwater input was between 4 and 8 times higher in the modified RCP 4.5 scenario compared to the control run (an increase from 0.1 to 0.4–0.8 sverdrup), and 5 to 10 times stronger in the modified RCP 8.5 scenario (from 0.2 to an average of 1 sverdrup, with the peak values over 2 sverdrup around 2125 due to the collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf). In both RCP 4.5 simulations, AMOC declines from its current strength of 24 sverdrup to 19 sverdrup by 2100: after 2200, it begins to recover in the control simulation but stays at 19 sverdrup in the modified simulation. Under both RCP 8.5 simulations, there's a near-collapse of the current as it declines to 8 sverdrup past 2100 and stays at that level until the end of the simulation period: in the modified simulation, it takes 35 years longer to reach 8 sverdrup than in the control run.Another study published in 2020 analyzed how the AMOC would be impacted by temperature stabilizing at 1.5 degrees, 2 degrees (the two Paris Agreement goals, both well below the warming under of RCP 4.5) or 3 degrees by 2100 (slightly above the expected warming by 2100 under RCP 4.5). In all three cases, the AMOC declines for an additional 5–10 years after the temperature rise ceases, but it does not come close to collapse, and recovers its strength after about 150 years.In 2021, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report again assessed that the AMOC is very likely to decline within the 21st century, and expressed high confidence that changes to it would be reversible within centuries if the warming was reversed.: 19  Unlike the Fifth Assessment Report, it had only expressed medium confidence rather than high confidence in AMOC avoiding a collapse before the end of the century. This reduction in confidence was likely influenced by several review studies drawing attention to the circulation stability bias within general circulation models, as well as simplified ocean modelling studies suggesting that the AMOC may be more vulnerable to abrupt change than what the larger-scale models suggest.In 2022, a study performed modelling experiments with three climate models participating in Aerosol and Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project, and it found that very aggressive mitigation of air pollution like particulates and ground-level ozone could weaken AMOC circulation by 10% by the end of the century if it happened on its own, due to the reduction in climate-cooling stratospheric sulfur aerosols. The authors recommended pairing air pollution mitigation with the mitigation of methane emissions to avoid this outcome, as both methane (a strong warming agent) and sulfate aerosols (a cooling agent) are similarly short-lived in the atmosphere, and a simultaneous reduction of both would cancel out their effects.In 2022, an extensive assessment of all potential climate tipping points identified 16 plausible climate tipping points, including a collapse of the AMOC. It suggested that a collapse would most likely be triggered by 4 degrees Celsius of global warming, but that there's enough uncertainty to suggest it could be triggered at warming levels as low as 1.4 degrees, or as high as 8 degrees. Likewise, it estimates that once AMOC collapse is triggered, it would most likely take place over 50 years, but the entire range is between 15 and 300 years. Finally, it concludes that this collapse would lower global temperatures by around 0.5 degrees Celsius, while regional temperatures in Europe would go down by between 4 and 10 degrees Celsius. That assessment also treated the collapse of the Northern Subpolar Gyre as a potential separate tipping point, which could occur at between 1.1 degrees and 3.8 degrees of warming (although this is only simulated by a fraction of climate models). The most likely figure is 1.8 degrees, and once triggered, the collapse of the gyre would most likely take 10 years from start to end, with a range between 5 and 50 years. The loss of this convection is estimated to lower the global temperature by 0.5 degrees, while the average temperature in Europe decreases by around 3 degrees. There are also substantial impacts on regional precipitation. In July 2023, a paper from a pair of University of Copenhagen researchers suggested that AMOC collapse would most likely happen around 2057, with the 95% confidence range between 2025 - 2095. However, it relied on a lower-complexity model, and its findings have been very controversial amongst the rest of the scientific community. While some have described this research as "worrisome" and a "valuable contribution" to existing literature even while cautioning its results could apply to a slowdown as much as to a complete collapse, others questioned the accuracy and relevance of proxy data chosen as the basis for the paper, with one scientist saying that the projection had "feet of clay" as the result. Society and culture In popular culture The film The Day After Tomorrow and the British TV Series Ice both explore exaggerated scenarios related to the AMOC shutdown. An Inconvenient Truth includes reference to the potential shutdown of the AMOC and its impact on temperatures in Europe if ice sheets were to melt and cause elevated freshwater flows in the North Atlantic. Kim Stanley Robinson's science-fiction novel Fifty Degrees Below, a volume in his Science in the Capital series, depicts a shutdown of thermohaline circulation and mankind's efforts to counteract it by adding great quantities of salt to the ocean. In Ian Douglas' Star Corpsman novels, an AMOC shutdown triggers an early glacial maximum, covering most of Canada and northern Europe in ice sheets by the mid-22nd century. See also 8.2-kiloyear event Climate security Cold blob Loop Current of the Gulf of Mexico Anoxic event Pacific decadal oscillation Paleosalinity, changes in which are thought to slow down the THC West Greenland Current Younger Dryas References External links Project THOR University of Hamburg project to study the thermohaline circulation "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (2003 study) What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down? Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global Experiment (1999 study) Why is there a thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic but not the Pacific? (2005 technical report) Original article at the Encyclopedia of Earth

geography of kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan is a landlocked nation in Central Asia, west of the People's Republic of China. Less than a ninth the size of Kazakhstan, at 199,951 square kilometers, Kyrgyzstan is one of the smaller Central Asian states. The national territory extends about 900 km (560 mi) from east to west and 410 km (250 mi) from north to south.Kyrgyzstan is bordered on the east and southeast by China, on the north by Kazakhstan, on the west by Uzbekistan and on the south by Tajikistan. The borders with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the Fergana Valley are rather difficult. One consequence of the Stalinist division of Central Asia into five republics is that many ethnic Kyrgyz people do not live in Kyrgyzstan. Three enclaves, legally part of the territory of Kyrgyzstan but geographically removed by several kilometers, have been established, two in Uzbekistan and one in Tajikistan.The terrain of Kyrgyzstan is dominated by the Tian Shan and Pamir mountain systems, which together occupy about 65% of national territory. The Alay range portion of the Tian Shan system dominates the southwestern crescent of the country, and, to the east, the main Tian Shan range runs along the boundary between southern Kyrgyzstan and China before extending farther east into China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Kyrgyzstan's average elevation is 2,750 m (9,020 ft), ranging from 7,439 m (24,406 ft) at Peak Jengish Chokusu to 394 m (1,293 ft) in the Fergana Valley near Osh. Almost 90% of the country lies more than 1,500 m (4,900 ft) above sea level. Topography and drainage The mountains of Kyrgyzstan are geologically young, so that the physical terrain is marked by sharply uplifted peaks separated by deep valleys. There is also considerable glaciation, with the largest glacier being the Engilchek Glacier. Kyrgyzstan's 6,500 distinct glaciers are estimated to hold about 650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) of water and cover 8,048 square kilometers (5,000 square miles) or 4.2% of Kyrgyzstan. Only around the Chüy, Talas, and Fergana valleys is there relatively flat land suitable for large-scale agriculture.Because the high peaks function as moisture catchers, Kyrgyzstan is relatively well watered by the streams that descend from them. None of the rivers of Kyrgyzstan are navigable, however. The majority are small, rapid, runoff streams. Most of Kyrgyzstan's rivers are tributaries of the Syr Darya, which has its headwaters in the western Tian Shan along the Chinese border. Another large runoff system forms the Chu (Chüy), which arises in northern Kyrgyzstan, then flows northwest and disappears into the deserts of southern Kazakhstan. Ysyk-Köl is the second largest body of water in Central Asia, after the Aral Sea, but the saline lake has been shrinking steadily, and its mineral content has been rising gradually. Kyrgyzstan has a total of about 2,000 lakes with a total surface area of 7,000 square kilometres (2,700 sq mi), mostly located at altitudes of 3,000 to 4,000 meters. Only the largest three, however, occupy more than 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) each. The second- and third-largest lakes, Song-Köl and Chatyr-Köl (the latter of which also is saline), are located in the Naryn River Basin.Natural disasters have been frequent and varied. Overgrazing and deforestation of steep mountain slopes have increased the occurrence of mudslides and avalanches, which occasionally have swallowed entire villages. In August 1992, a severe earthquake left several thousand people homeless in the southwestern city of Jalal-Abad. Climate The country's climate is influenced chiefly by the mountains, Kyrgyzstan's position near the middle of the Eurasian landmass, and the absence of any body of water large enough to influence weather patterns. Those factors create a distinctly continental climate that has significant local variations. Although the mountains tend to collect clouds and block sunlight (reducing some narrow valleys at certain times of year to no more than three or four hours of sunlight per day), the country is generally sunny, receiving as much as 2,900 hours of sunlight per year in some areas. The same conditions also affect temperatures, which can vary significantly from place to place. In January the warmest average temperature (−4 °C or 25 °F) occurs around the southern city of Osh, and around Ysyk-Köl. The latter, which has a volume of 1,738 cubic kilometers (417 cu mi), does not freeze in winter. Indeed, its name means "hot lake" in Kyrgyz. The coldest temperatures are in mountain valleys. There, readings can fall to −30 °C (−22 °F) or lower; the record is −53.6 °C (−64.5 °F). The average temperature for July similarly varies from 27 °C (80.6 °F) in the Fergana Valley, where the record high is 44 °C (111 °F), to a low of −10 °C (14 °F) on the highest mountain peaks. Precipitation varies from 2,000 millimeters (78.7 in) per year in the mountains above the Fergana Valley to less than 100 millimeters (3.9 in) per year on the west bank of Ysyk-Köl. Climate change Environmental issues Kyrgyzstan has been spared many of the enormous environmental problems faced by its Central Asian neighbors, primarily because its designated roles in the Soviet system involved neither heavy industry nor large-scale cotton production. Also, the economic downturn of the early 1990s reduced some of the more serious effects of industrial and agricultural policy. Nevertheless, Kyrgyzstan has serious problems because of inefficient use and pollution of water resources, land degradation, and improper agricultural practices. The country is prone to earthquakes, and major flooding occurs during the snow melt. Water resources The Kyrgyz Republic is the only Central Asian state where water resources are fully generated within its own territory. The water originates from the often glacier covered mountain ranges and its abundance is a vital component for agriculture and the production of hydro‐electric power. The mountainous Kyrgyz Republic is an essential "water tower" for irrigated arable farming on arid plain territories. In addition, the impressive glacierized mountain landscape implies a considerable potential for tourism. Although Kyrgyzstan has abundant water running through it, its water supply is determined by a post-Soviet sharing agreement among the five Central Asian republics. As in the Soviet era, Kyrgyzstan has the right to 25% of the water that originates in its territory, but the new agreement allows Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan unlimited use of the water that flows into them from Kyrgyzstan, with no compensation for the nation at the source. Kyrgyzstan uses the entire amount to which the agreement entitles it, but utilization is skewed heavily in favor of agricultural irrigation. During the Soviet era, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan shared their abundant water resources with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan during summer, and these three nations shared oil and gas with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in winter. According to the International Crisis Group, the skewed system that is currently in place could cause irreversible regional destabilization, and needs to be dealt with by international actors to avoid a crisis in Central Asia. In 1994 agriculture accounted for about 88% of total water consumption, compared with 8% by industry and 4% by municipal water distribution systems. According to World Bank experts, Kyrgyzstan has an adequate supply of high-quality water for future use, provided the resource is prudently managed. However, in Central Asia water problems are on the rise. The Kyrgyz Republic exports water to irrigate the neighbouring states Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. To prevent conflicts, water allocation and use, and in particular the role of agriculture as major water user, have become very important questions in the development discourse in recent years, and will continue to be in the future.Irrigation is extremely wasteful of water because the distribution infrastructure is old and poorly maintained. In 1993 only an estimated 5% of required maintenance expenditures was allocated. As of 1997, an estimated 70% of the nation's water supply network is in need of repair or replacement. The quality of drinking water from this aging system is poorly monitored—the water management staff has been cut drastically because of inadequate funds. Further, there is no money to buy new water disinfection equipment when it is needed. Some aquifers near industrial and mining centers have been contaminated by heavy metals, oils, and sanitary wastes. In addition, many localities rely on surface sources, making users vulnerable to agricultural runoff and livestock waste, which seep gradually downward from the surface. The areas of lowest water quality are the heavily populated regions of the Chui Valley and Osh and Jalal-Abad Regions, and areas along the rivers flowing into Ysyk-Köl.In towns, wastewater collection provides about 70% of the water supply. Although towns have biological treatment equipment, as much as 50% of such equipment is rated as ineffective. The major sources of toxic waste in the water supply are the mercury mining combine at Haidarkan; the antimony mine at Kadamzai; the Kadzyi Sai uranium mine, which ceased extraction in 1967 but which continues to leach toxic materials into nearby Ysyk Köl; the Kara-Balta Uranium Recovery Plant; the Min Kush deposit of mine tailings; and the Kyrgyz Mining and Metallurgy Plant at Orlovka. Land management The most important problems in land use are soil erosion and salinization in improperly irrigated farmland. An estimated 60% of Kyrgyzstan's land is affected by topsoil loss, and 6% by salinization, both problems with more serious long-term than short-term effects. In 1994 the size of livestock herds averaged twice the carrying capacity of pasturage land, continuing the serious overgrazing problem and consequent soil erosion that began when the herds were at their peak in the late 1980s. Uncertain land tenure and overall financial insecurity have caused many private farmers to concentrate their capital in the traditional form—livestock—thus subjecting new land to the overgrazing problem.The inherent land shortage in Kyrgyzstan is exacerbated by the flooding of agricultural areas for hydroelectric projects. The creation of Toktogul Reservoir on the Naryn River, for example, involved the flooding of 130 km² of fertile land. Such projects have the additional effect of constricting downstream water supply; Toktogul deprives the lower reaches of the Syr Darya in Uzbekistan and the Aral Sea Basin of substantial amounts of water. Because the Naryn Basin, where many hydroelectric projects are located, is very active seismically, flooding is also a danger should a dam be broken by an earthquake.Environment - current issues: Nuclear waste left behind by the Soviet Union in many open-air pits in hazardous locations. Water pollution; many people get their water directly from contaminated streams and wells; as a result, water-borne diseases are prevalent; increasing soil salinity from faulty irrigation practices. Illegal hunting of very rare species such as the snow leopard and the Marco Polo sheep. Environment - international agreements: party to: Air Pollution, Biodiversity, Desertification, Hazardous Wastes, Ozone Layer Protection, Wetlands Aral Sea In response to the internationally recognized environmental crisis of the rapid desiccation of the Aral Sea, the five states sharing the Aral Sea Basin (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) are developing a strategy to end the crisis. The World Bank and agencies of the United Nations (UN) have developed an Aral Sea Program, the first stage of which is funded by the five countries and external donors. That stage has seven areas of focus, one of which—land and water management in the upper watersheds—is of primary concern to Kyrgyzstan. Among the conditions detrimental to the Aral Sea's environment are erosion from deforestation and overgrazing, contamination from poorly managed irrigation systems, and uncontrolled waste from mining and municipal effluents. Kyrgyzstan's National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) has addressed these problems as part of its first-phase priorities in cooperation with the Aral Sea Program. Environmental policy making The NEAP, adopted in 1994, is the basic blueprint for environmental protection. The plan focuses on solving a small number of critical problems, collecting reliable information to aid in that process, and integrating environmental measures with economic and social development strategy. The initial planning period is to end in 1997. The main targets of that phase are inefficient water resource management, land degradation, overexploitation of forest reserves, loss of biodiversity, and pollution from inefficient mining and refining practices.Because of severe budget constraints, most of the funds for NEAP operations come from international sources, including official institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and numerous international nongovernmental organizations. Implementation is guided by a committee of state ministers and by a NEAP Expert Working Group, both established in 1994 by executive order. A NEAP office in Bishkek was set up with funds from Switzerland.The main environmental protection agency of the Kyrgyzstan government is the State Committee on Environmental Protection, still known by its Soviet-era acronym, Goskompriroda. Established by the old regime in 1988, the agency's post-Soviet responsibilities have been described in a series of decrees beginning in 1991. In 1994 the state committee had a central office in Bishkek, one branch in each of the seven regions, and a total staff of about 150 persons. Because of poorly defined lines of responsibility, administrative conflicts often occur between local and national authorities of Goskompriroda and between Goskompriroda and a second national agency, the Hydrometeorological Administration (Gidromet), which is the main monitoring agency for air, water, and soil quality. In general, the vertical hierarchy structure, a relic of Soviet times, has led to poor coordination and duplication of effort among environmental protection agencies. Specially protected areas A number of protected nature areas have been designated by the government of the republic. As of the end of 2004, they included: Eight state nature reserves (zapovedniks), with the total area of 2,880 km²; Nine state nature national parks (2,760 km²); Ten forest, twenty-three floral, eighteen geological, and two general-purpose protected areas (zakazniks), as well as fourteen game reserves, with the total area of 3,250 km²; Lake Issyk Kul (so designated since 1998) and Sary-Chelek biosphere reserve (since 1978), together occupying the area of 282 km². Area and boundaries Area: total: 198,951 km² land: 191,801 km² water: 8,150 km² Land boundaries: total: 5,473 km border countries: the People's Republic of China 1,063 km, Kazakhstan 1,212 km, Tajikistan 984 km, Uzbekistan 1,314 km Coastline: 0 km (landlocked) Elevation extremes: lowest point: Kara-Darya 132 m highest point: Peak Jengish Chokusu 7,439 m Resources and land use Terrain: peaks of Tien Shan and associated valleys and basins encompass entire nation Natural resources: abundant hydropower; significant deposits of gold and rare earth metals; locally exploitable coal, petroleum, and natural gas; other deposits of nepheline, mercury, bismuth, lead, and zinc. Land use: arable land: 6.7% permanent crops: 0.4% permanent pasture: 48.3% forest: 5.1% other: 93.24% (2011) note: Kyrgyzstan has the world's largest natural growth walnut forest, Arslanbob, located in Jalal-Abad Region with an enormous variety of different genetic characteristics. It is believed that most of the world's walnut varieties derive from the original species still found here. Irrigated land: 10,210 km² (2005) Total renewable water resources: 23.62 km3 (2011) References This article incorporates public domain material from The World Factbook. CIA.

southwestern north american megadrought

The southwestern North American megadrought is an ongoing megadrought in the southwestern region of North America that began in 2000. At least 23 years in length, the drought is the driest multi-decade period the region has seen since at least 800 CE. The megadrought has prompted the declaration of a water shortage at Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States. Climate change models project drier conditions in the region through the end of the 21st century, though climate change mitigation may avoid the most extreme impacts. Furthermore, global La Niña meteorological events are generally associated with drier and hotter conditions and further exacerbation of droughts in California and the Southwestern United States and to some extent Southeastern United States. Meteorological scientists have observed that La Niñas have become more frequent over time. Background The southwestern region of North America (SWNA) is defined as the areas between 30 and 40 degrees North and 105 and 125 degrees West, comprising areas within Northern Mexico and the Southwestern United States. This area is roughly bounded by central Chihuahua to the southeast, the northwest coast of Baja California to the southwest, the Northern California coast to the northwest, and northcentral Colorado to the northeast. This area includes much of the Basin and Range Province, which contains the four deserts on the continent: the Chihuahuan Desert, the Sonoran Desert, the Mojave Desert, and the Great Basin Desert, as well as the Colorado Plateau, which is largely high desert. Megadroughts, a term used to describe periods of multidecadal drought, are a recurring feature of the North American Southwest over the past millennium. For example, droughts lasting at least a decade occurred in Texas in each century of the past millennium. Researchers used tree ring chronologies to reconstruct summer soil moisture and snow water equivalents back to 800 CE. This allowed the identification of 40 SWNA drought events of at least 19-years duration. Of these, four megadroughts were 0.25 standard deviations drier than any experienced in the 20th century: 863–884, 1130–1151, 1276–1297, and 1571–1592. The droughts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries bracketed the Ancestral Puebloans' Pueblo III Period, with the thirteenth century drought coinciding with the abandonment of Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, and other settlements in the Four Corners region. The sixteenth century megadrought may be associated with the 1576 cocoliztli epidemic in New Spain. Climate change The megadrought that began in 2000 was preceded by the wettest period in at least 1200 years. From 1980 to 1998, climate models begin projecting increased decadal precipitation swings in the SWNA starting in the latter half of the twentieth century as a result of climate change, but with an overall drying trend as a result of warming. Models indicate that the years 2000–2018 would have trended towards megadrought conditions regardless of climate change, with a predicted severity of the 11th worst period of drought since 800. However, anthropogenic warming pushed conditions into a severe megadrought. From 2000 to 2021, mean annual precipitation in the region was 8.3% below the 1950–1999 average and the temperature was 0.91 °C above average. The megadrought that began in 2000 was the driest 22-year period since at least 800 and, if it persists through 2022, will match the duration of the severe late-1500s megadrought. Both 2002 and 2021 were drier than any of the previous nearly 300 years and were, respectively, the 11th and 12th driest years between 800 and 2021.The drought is largely driven by temperature, which increases the rate of evaporation, with some contribution from the lack of precipitation. The several wet years since 2000 were not sufficient to end the drought. Researchers calculated that without climate change-induced evaporation, the precipitation in 2005 would have broken the drought. While monsoon rains in the desert Southwest in mid-2021 and heavy rain and snow in California in late 2021 had raised hope of ending the drought, January 2022 was characterized by record dry conditions across much of the West. Researchers noted that even in wet years in the Colorado River watershed, water from melting snows is soaked up by dry soils before it can reach the river.Throughout history, California has experienced many droughts, such as 1841, 1864, 1924, 1928–1935, 1947–1950, 1959–1960, 1976–1977, 1986–1992, 2006–2010, 2011–2017, 2018, and 2020- 2021. Precipitation in California is limited to a single, fairly short wet season, with the vast majority of rain and snowfall occurring in the winter months across the state. This delicate balance means that a dry rainy season can have lasting consequences. California is the most populous state and largest agricultural producer in the United States, and as such, drought in California can have a severe economic as well as environmental impact. The historical and ongoing droughts in California are caused by lack of rainfall (or snowfall), higher average temperatures, and drier air masses in the atmosphere. This leads to less water availability in the natural environment and in snowpack, rivers, and reservoirs for human use; these water shortages can have major impacts on agriculture and other water-intensive land uses. The 2017 Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) noted that, under the worst-case scenario of RCP8.5, the annual average temperature of the Southwestern United States was projected to increase 8.6 °F (4.8 °C) by 2100. The southern Southwest could receive 45 additional days per year above 90 °F (32 °C). NCA4 noted that higher temperatures increased the probability of both droughts and megadroughts in the region. Effects From 2012 to 2015, the Central Valley and South Coast of California experienced dryness that was unprecedented in the instrumental record going back to 1896 and, when compared to the paleoclimate record, was the driest since at least the later sixteenth century. Some areas lost more than two years of moisture from their soils during this period. Recovery to pre-2012 soil moisture levels in the most affected areas was predicted to require several decades of average rainfall. Even without increasing temperatures, predicted low precipitation would be sufficient to produce unprecedented dry conditions, but with higher temperatures could create megadroughts as not seen since medieval times. The reduced water supplies along the Mexican-American border area have caused tensions. The 1944 water treaty that is administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) divides the waters of 450,000 square miles (1,200,000 km2) the Colorado River and Rio Grande basins between the two countries. However, the 1940s were a period of abnormally high precipitation; this built-in administrative deficit for subsequent years, coupled with a twentyfold increase in the population along the border, climate change, and aging water infrastructure means that there is not enough water to meet regional demand. In 2003, Mexican ambassador Alberto Szekely criticized what he saw as a focus on acts of political will to resolve water disputes and a failure to recognize that the fundamental issue was a lack of sufficient water and insufficient mechanisms for sustainable management through the IBWC. On 8 September 2020, thousands of Mexican farmers in Chihuahua, fearing for their own livelihoods, took control of the La Boquilla Dam to stop Mexican Federal authorities from releasing reservoir waters to the Rio Grande. Later that month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott asked the Federal government to intervene to force the release of Mexican waters from the Rio Conchos that would be used by farmers in South Texas.In March 2021, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission took the unprecedented step of asking farmers along the Rio Grande and Rio Chama not to farm; while agriculture uses 76% of water withdrawals in the state, it makes up 3% of the state GDP. In August 2021, the United States Bureau of Reclamation declared a water shortage at Lake Mead for the first time in its history. This followed a forecast that, by the end of 2021, Lake Mead would be reduced to a level not seen since the building of the Hoover Dam in the 1930s. Lake Mead is one of the main reservoirs of the Colorado River and the declaration triggers cuts to the water supply for farmers in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Without an alleviation of the drought conditions, The New York Times stated that further cuts affecting the 40 million people who rely upon the Colorado River for water were likely. It was anticipated that the cuts would prompt some farmers to increase pumping of limited groundwater supplies. In August 2021, the Edward Hyatt Power Plant, which provides hydroelectric power to up to 800,000 homes in California, was forced to shut down for the first time after waters at Lake Oroville fell to 24% of capacity, a historic low. In February 2022, the Bureau of Reclamation released projections for Lake Powell, the second largest artificial reservoir in the United States; the lower range of forecasts would result in a water level by the end of 2022 that would prohibit hydroelectric generation at the Glen Canyon Dam, which provides enough power for 400,000 homes. In 2023, the drought situation on the Colorado River remains dire. Some states that rely on the river for water supplies have been required by the US Bureau of Reclamation to reduce their annual allocations. Arizona saw the steepest cuts, losing nearly 20 percent of its annual allocation.A 2021 study noted that increased drought conditions were now inevitable for the region, but that the most extreme modeled effects can still be avoided by climate change mitigation. However, climate change adaptation to the drier conditions will be needed. Dave D. White of Arizona State University, the lead author of the Southwest Chapter of the Fifth National Climate Assessment to be published in 2023, called for "bold solutions that match the scale of the challenges," including agricultural water conservation, coastal water desalination, technology innovations, and sustainable water management. The Santa Fe New Mexican called for New Mexico to learn from the driest counties how to conserve water and start preparing for a drier and hotter future.Importation of water from the Missouri River has also been proposed. References External links National Integrated Drought Information System (NDIS) at Drought.gov Western Regional Climate Center of the Desert Research Institute "Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on an Emerging North American Megadrought," NDIS webinar on 13 May 2020 "Coping With Megadrought in the Colorado River Basin," NDIS webinar on 27 May 2020

global environment facility

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a multilateral environmental fund that provides grants and blended finance for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), mercury, sustainable forest management, food security, and sustainable cities in developing countries. It is the largest source of multilateral funding for biodiversity globally, and distributes more than $1 billion a year on average to address inter-related environmental challenges. The GEF was established ahead of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and includes 184 countries in partnership with international institutions, civil society organizations, and the private sector. It supports country-driven sustainable development initiatives in developing countries that generate global environmental benefits. To date, the GEF has provided more than $22 billion in grants and mobilized another $120 billion in co-financing for more than 5,200 projects and programs. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has provided support to nearly 27,000 civil society and community initiatives in 136 countries. In June 2022, donors to the GEF pledged a record $5.33 billion in support for its latest four-year replenishment cycle, which runs until June 2026. In addition to funding projects through grants and blended finance, the GEF also serves as financial mechanism for the following conventions: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Minamata Convention on MercuryThe GEF also supports implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (MP). Structure The GEF has a governing structure organized around an Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, 18 Agencies, a Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), and the Independent Evaluation Office. The GEF Assembly is composed of all 184 member countries, or Participants. It meets every three to four years at the ministerial level to review general policies; review and evaluate the GEF's operation based on reports submitted to Council; review the membership of the Facility; and consider, for approval by consensus, amendments to the Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured GEF on the basis of recommendations by the Council. Ministers and high-level government delegations of all GEF member countries take part in the meetings. The Assembly combines plenary meetings and high-level panels, exhibits, side events, and GEF project site visits. Prominent environmentalists, parliamentarians, business leaders, scientists, and NGO leaders discuss global environmental challenges within the context of sustainable development and other international development goals. The GEF Council is the main governing body of the GEF. It comprises 32 members appointed by constituencies of GEF member countries (14 from developed countries, 16 from developing countries and 2 from economies in transition). Council Members rotate every three years or until the constituency appoints a new Member. The Council, which meets twice annually, develops, adopts, and evaluates the operational policies and programs for GEF-financed activities. It also reviews and approves the work program (projects submitted for approval), making decisions by consensus. The GEF Secretariat is based in Washington, D.C., and reports directly to the GEF Council and Assembly, ensuring that their decisions are translated into effective actions. The Secretariat coordinates the formulation of projects included in the work programs, oversees its implementation, and makes certain that operational strategy and policies are followed. The CEO and Chairperson, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez heads the Secretariat. The GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) provides the GEF with scientific and technical advice on policies, operational strategies, programs, and projects. The Panel consists of six members, who are internationally recognized experts in the GEF's key areas of work. They are supported by a global network of experts and institutions. In addition, the STAP interacts with other relevant scientific and technical bodies, particularly with the subsidiary bodies of the environmental conventions. The GEF Independent Evaluation Office (GEF IEO) reports directly to the Council. It is headed by a Director, appointed by the Council, who coordinates a team of specialized evaluators. It works with the Secretariat and the GEF Agencies to share lessons learned and best practices. The IEO undertakes independent evaluations of GEF impact and effectiveness. These are typically on focal areas, institutional issues, or cross-cutting themes. GEF Agencies are the operational arm of the GEF. They work closely with project proponents—government agencies, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders—to design, develop and implement GEF-funded projects and programs. The GEF works with 18 agencies.United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) World Bank Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Asian Development Bank (ADB) African Development Bank (AfDB) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) World Wildlife Fund – US (WWF-US) Conservation International (CI) West African Development Bank (BOAD) Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) Foreign Economic Cooperation Office, Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (FECO) Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) History The Global Environment Facility was established in October 1991 under the chairmanship of Mohamed El-Ashry as a $1 billion pilot program in the World Bank to enable developing countries to take action on environmental challenges and to promote sustainable development. The GEF would provide new and additional grants and concessional funding to cover the "incremental" or additional costs associated with transforming a project with national benefits into one with global environmental benefits. The United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Bank were the three initial partners implementing GEF projects. In 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, the GEF was restructured and established as a permanent, separate institution. The decision to make the GEF an independent organization enhanced the involvement of developing countries in the decision-making process and in implementation of the projects. Since 1994, the World Bank has served as the Trustee of the GEF Trust Fund and provides administrative services. As part of the restructuring, the GEF was entrusted to become the financial mechanism for both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In partnership with The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the GEF started funding projects that enable the Russian Federation and nations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to phase out their use of ozone-destroying chemicals. In 1998, the GEF Council decided to expand beyond the initial three implementing agencies, including the International Finance Corporation, to broaden its ability to enable innovating financing mechanisms and better leverage private sector investment. The GEF subsequently was also selected to serve as financial mechanism for three more international conventions: The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (2003), and the Minamata Convention on Mercury (2013). Areas of work The GEF work focuses on six main areas, including biodiversity, climate change (mitigation and adaptation), chemicals and waste, international waters, land degradation, and sustainable forest management. Biodiversity: Biodiversity is under heavy threat. Reducing and preventing further biodiversity loss are considered among the most critical challenges to humankind. Of all the problems the world faces in managing “global goods,” only the loss of biodiversity is irreversible. The GEF supports projects that address the key drivers of biodiversity loss which focus on the highest leveraging opportunities to achieve sustainable biodiversity conservation. Climate change: Climate change from human-induced emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) is a critical global issue, requiring substantial action. These actions include investment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and adaptation to climate changes including variability. The early impacts of climate change have already appeared, and scientists believe that further impacts are inevitable. Many of the most serious and negative impacts of climate change will be disproportionately borne by the poorest people in developing countries. The GEF supports projects in developing countries. Climate change mitigation: Reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of renewable energy; energy efficiency; sustainable transport; and management of land use, land-use change, and forestry. Climate change adaptation: Aiming at developing countries to become climate-resilient by promoting immediate and longer-term adaptation measures in development policies, plans, programs, projects, and actions.Chemicals: Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are pesticides, industrial chemicals, or unwanted by-products of industrial processes that have been used for decades but have more recently been found to share a number of disturbing characteristics, including: Persistence – they resist degradation in air, water, and sediments; Bio-accumulation – they accumulate in living tissues at concentrations higher than those in the surrounding environment; Long-range transport – they can travel great distances from the source of release through air, water, and migratory animals, often contaminating areas thousands of kilometers away from any known source.The GEF supports projects working to eliminate the production and use of specific POPs, taking measures to ensure that they are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner, identifying the sources, and reducing releases of POPs byproducts. Circular Economy: GEF has hosted events on the circular economy, which shifts from a take-make-waste economy to one that seeks to use no non-renewable source materials and produce zero waste. GEF is a member of the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE).International waters: Diversions of water for irrigation, bulk supply, and potable use, together with the pollution of common water bodies are creating cross-border tensions. These tensions also persist across the oceans, with three-quarters of fish stocks being overfished, fished at their maximum, or in a depleted state. The GEF supports projects in helping countries work together to overcome these tensions in large water systems and to collectively manage their transboundary surface water basins, groundwater basins, and coastal and marine systems in order to share the benefits from them. Land degradation: Land degradation is a major threat to biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and society's ability to function. Because of the interconnectivity between ecosystems across scales, land degradation triggers destructive processes that can have cascading effects across the entire biosphere. Loss of biomass through vegetation clearance and increased soil erosion produces greenhouse gases that contribute global warming and climate change. The GEF supports projects in reversing and preventing desertification/land degradation and in mitigating the effects of drought in affected areas in order to support poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. Sustainable forest management / Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation+: Forests cover almost one-third of the world's land area. They have a unique potential to produce multiple global environmental benefits such as biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and protection against desertification. Sustainably managed forests can enhance the provision of wood and non-timber forest products for about 1.6 billion people depending on forests for their livelihoods. Forest ecosystems are also expected to play a key role in helping people in developing countries to adapt to the effects of climate change. The GEF supports projects in forest conservation (primarily protected areas and buffer zones), sustainable use of forests (forest production landscapes, sustainable forest management), and addressing forests and trees in the wider landscape. In addition to these thematic areas, the GEF has works to support: Capacity development Debt-for-nature swaps Gender equality Indigenous Peoples and traditional knowledge Results and learning Small Island Developing States Small Grants Programme The GEF runs a Small Grants Programme that provides financial and technical support to projects which embody a community-based approach. The GEF sees community based projects as the cornerstone for addressing local and global environmental and sustainable development challenges. See also Climate finance Green Climate Fund Climate Investment Funds Paris Agreement Notes and references External links GEF official website GEF International Waters Resource Center Independent academic research-based critiques of the GEF Archived 2020-08-09 at the Wayback Machine Global Environment Facility Profile on database of market governance mechanisms

group of two

The Group of Two (G-2 or G2) was a proposed informal special relationship between the People's Republic of China and the United States of America. Originally initiated in 2005 by C. Fred Bergsten as primarily an economic relationship, it began to gain wider currency and scope from foreign policy experts as a term recognizing the centrality of the Sino-American relations near the beginning of the Obama Administration. Prominent advocates include former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, historian Niall Ferguson, former World Bank President Robert Zoellick and former chief economist Justin Yifu Lin. As two of the most influential and powerful countries in the world, there have been increasingly strong suggestions within American political circles of creating a G-2 relationship where the United States and China would work out solutions to global problems together, and to prevent another cold war. History The concept of a G-2 was first raised by noted economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005. In 2009, Bergsten made the following arguments for such a relationship: China will shortly pass Japan to become the world's second largest economy behind the United States; the two together accounted for almost one half of all global growth during the four-year boom prior to the crisis; they are the two largest economies; they are the two largest trading nations; they are the two largest polluters; they are on opposite ends of the world's largest trade and financial imbalance: the United States is the largest deficit and debtor country while China is the largest surplus country and holder of dollar reserves; and they are the leaders of the two groups, the high-income industrialized countries and the emerging markets/developing nations, that each now account for about one half of global output. Zbigniew Brzezinski had been a vocal advocate for the concept. He publicly advanced the notion in Beijing in January 2009 as the two countries celebrated the 30th anniversary of establishing formal diplomatic ties. He views the informal G-2 as helpful in finding solutions to the global financial crisis, climate change (see Politics of global warming), North Korea's nuclear program, Iran's nuclear program, the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, United Nations peacekeeping, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear disarmament. He called the principle of "harmony" a "mission worthy of the two countries with the most extraordinary potential for shaping our collective future".Historian Niall Ferguson has also advocated the G-2 concept. He coined the term Chimerica to describe the symbiotic nature of the U.S.-China economic relationship. Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank, and Justin Yifu Lin, the Bank's former chief economist and senior vice president, have stated that the G-2 is crucial for economic recovery and that the U.S. and China must work together. They state that "without a strong G-2, the G-20 will disappoint".While widely discussed, the concept of a G-2 has not been fully defined. According to Brzezinski, G-2 described the current realities, while for former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a G-2 could emerge in the foreseeable future. Miliband proposes EU integration as a means to create a potential G-3 that consists of the United States, China and the European Union. Former President Barack Obama and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been very supportive of good relations between the two countries and more cooperation on more issues more often. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has stated that U.S.–China relationship should be "taken to a new level". Some experts have disagreed with the effectiveness of a G-2. However, Clinton has said that there is no G-2.On June 2023, ideas on the G2 has resurfaced as a potential way to guide Sino-US relations. The G-2 concept has been often evoked in international media during major bilateral meetings such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue and state visits as well as during global summits like the G-20 meetings and the Copenhagen Summit. See also Chimerica China–United States relations United States–China security cooperation East Asia island arcs EU three G7 G8 G20 Most favoured nation State capitalism U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue == References ==

global climate observing system

The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) was established in 1992 as an outcome of the Second World Climate Conference, to ensure that the observations and information needed to address climate-related issues are obtained and made available to all potential users. The GCOS is co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In order to assess and monitor the adequacy of in-situ observation networks as well as satellite-based observing systems, GCOS regularly reports on the adequacy of the current climate observing system to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and thereby identifies the needs of the current climate observing system. GCOS is a system that comprises the climate-relevant components of many contributing observing systems and networks. Its mission is to help ensure that these contributing systems, taken as a whole, provide the comprehensive information on the global climate system that is required by users, including individuals, national and international organizations, institutions and agencies. The programme promotes the sustained provision and availability of reliable physical, chemical and biological observations and data records for the total climate system - across the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial domains, including the hydrological cycle, the carbon cycle and the cryosphere. Structure The primary observing systems contributing to the GCOS are the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS), the Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW), and the World Hydrological Cycle Observing System (WHYCOS), and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission-led Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). A number of other domain-based and cross-domain research and operational observing systems also provide important contributions and encompass both in-situ and satellite observations. GCOS is both supported by and supports the international scientific and technical community, and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) co-sponsors the expert panels set up by GCOS for the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial domains. The composite observing system designated by GCOS serves as the climate-observation component of the broader Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), and at the same time a number of specific observing-system initiatives of GEOSS contribute to the GCOS. Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) GCOS has identified 50 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) considered to be feasible for global climate observation and to have a high impact on the requirements of the UNFCCC and other stakeholders. There is a strong need for sustained observation of these ECVs, as the observations are needed for the generation and updating of global climate products and derived information. GCOS and its partners are developing ways of improving the generation and supply of data products relating to the ECVs. Expert Panels Three expert panels have been established by the GCOS Steering Committee to define the observations needed in each of the main global domains - Atmosphere, oceans, and land - to prepare specific programme elements and to make recommendations for implementation. GCOS is both supported by and supports the international scientific community, and therefore the three expert panels are co-sponsored by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The Atmospheric, Ocean, and Terrestrial Observation Panel for Climate gather scientific and technical experts in the respective areas to generate inputs from these fields to the climate observing community. Those expert panels report to the GCOS Steering Committee, and have been established to define the observations needed in each of the main global domains to prepare scientific programme-elements and to make recommendations for implementation. Atmospheric Observation Panel for Climate (AOPC) AOPC was established in recognition of the need for specific scientific and technical input concerning atmospheric observations for climate. Its aim is to ensure the quality, long-term homogeneity and continuity of data needed. AOPC supports and is supported by the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS). Key activities of AOPC are: - Assessing the current state of the atmospheric component of the global observing system for climate and identify its gaps and adequacies; - Securing the implementation of designated GCOS Networks and promote the establishment and enhancement of new and current systems to provide long-term and consistent data and information for Essential Climate Variables, such as earth radiation budget, surface radiation, greenhouse gases, water vapour, clouds and aerosols; - Liaising with relevant research, operational and end-user bodies in order to determine and maintain the requirements for data to monitor, understand and predict the dynamical, physical and chemical state of the atmosphere and its interface on seasonal and multi-decadal time scales, on both global and regional levels; - Promoting the transfer and accessibility to the user community, as well as the rehabilitation of historical observational and proxy climate data sets. Ocean Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC) OOPC, co-sponsored by GOOS, as well as GCOS and WCRP, is a scientific and technical advisory group charged with making recommendations for a sustained global ocean observing system for climate in support of the goals of its sponsors. This includes recommendations for phased implementation. The Panel also aids in the development of strategies for evaluation and evolution of the system and of its recommendations, and supports global ocean observing activities by interested parties through liaison and advocacy for the agreed observing plans. OOPC recognizes the need for sustainable ocean observations, and the increased need to connect to societal issues in the coastal zone. OOPC's role has evolved to oversee the ocean component of the GCOS, and the physical variables for GOOS, while defining long-term observing requirements for climate research of WCRP. Key activities of OOPC are: - Providing advice on scientific and technical requirements to the Joint WMO-IOC Technical Commission on Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), which is responsible for the coordination and implementation of platform-based observing system components; - Coordinate ocean observing networks that contribute to ocean ECVs by encouraging GOOS Regional Alliances (GRAs) and national commitments to global observing networks, and promoting common best practices and observing standards; - Reviewing and prioritizing requirements for sustained ocean observations of the physical Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs), and ocean ECVs, to engage the broad stakeholder community, to assess the readiness of observing technologies and adequacy of present global key variable observations, and to provide a source of technical advice on the development of national coastal and ocean observing requirements and observing system implementation plans. Terrestrial Observation Panel for Climate (TOPC) TOPC was set up to develop a balanced and integrated system of-in situ and satellite observations of the terrestrial ecosystem. The Panel focuses on the identification of terrestrial observation requirements, assisting the establishment of observing networks for climate, providing guidance on observation standards and norms, facilitating access to climate data and information and its assimilation, and promoting climate studies and assessments. Key activities of TOPC are: - Identification of measurable terrestrial (biosphere, cryosphere, and hydrosphere) properties and key variables (ECVs) that control the physical, biological and chemical processes affecting climate, and are indicators of climate change; - Coordination of activities with other global observing system panels and task groups to ensure the consistency of requirements with the overall programmes; - Assessing and monitoring the adequacy of terrestrial observing networks such as the Global Terrestrial Networks (GTNs), and promoting their integration and development to measure and exchange climate data and information; - Identification of gaps in present observing systems and designs to ensure long-term monitoring of terrestrial ECVs. Networks One of the first tasks of the GCOS programme was to define a subset of the World Weather Watch (WWW) stations appropriate for basic climate monitoring. The subset of roughly 1000 baseline surface stations became the GCOS Surface Network (GSN), while a subset of 150 upper air stations was designated as the GCOS Upper-Air Network (GUAN). These were built on existing WMO classifications and became the initial baseline components of the atmospheric networks. Considerations for selection of GSN included spatial distribution, length and quality of record, long-term commitment, and degree of urbanization. Similar considerations were used for GUAN. Designation of these networks benefited both the GCOS and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS). For NMHSs, designation of a station as part of the global climate network helped sustain support for these sites with long-term records. The networks provided the foundation for the Regional Basic Climatological Network, which provides far greater spatial detail on the variability of climate. Recognizing that a balance has to be struck between standards and completeness of ground-based measurement, the GCOS programme recognized a hierarchy of observational networks and systems, comprising comprehensive, baseline and reference networks based on assumptions of spatial sampling needs. An example of a particularly successful step forward in implementing a global observing system for climate is the initiation of a reference network for upper-air observations - the GCOS Reference Upper-Air Network (GRUAN). The network is the prototype of a hybrid observing system, combining operational upper-air measurement sites with research sites and providing high-quality reference data for atmospheric profiles. GRUAN sites are undertaking high-quality atmospheric profile measurements that will help understand trends in upper-air ECVs, assist in investigating processes in the upper-troposphere and lower stratosphere, and provide data for calibrating satellite measurements and validating independent climate analyses and models. At GRUAN sites, the principles of quality, traceability and complete error characterization have been heeded, for at least part of the observing programme. The network is planned to grow over its initial size of 15 stations in coming years; introducing climate quality standards to a larger number of sites. See also Ecology portal Environment portal World portal References External links GCOS website GOOS website website of AOPC website of OOPC website of TOPC website of the Global Observing Systems Information Center - GOSIC

clivar

CLIVAR (climate variability and predictability) is a component of the World Climate Research Programme. Its purpose is to describe and understand climate variability and predictability on seasonal to centennial time-scales, identify the physical processes responsible for climate change and develop modeling and predictive capabilities for climate modelling.Dr Antonietta Capotondi was elected as PICES WG-49 co-chair representing CLIVAR in 2023. History The following is an approximate timeline of CLIVAR and its precedents: 1985: The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) initiated the TOGA (Tropical-Ocean Global Atmosphere) (1985-1995), to study interannual variability driven by the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropics. 1990: The WCRP began the first observational phase of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (1990-1997) 1991: Joint Scientific Committee (JSC) called on a group of experts to come together and consider the possible future directions for climate research, building on the foundation laid by TOGA and WOCE. 1992: The deliberations of the Joint Scientific Committee were published in 1992 in a brochure entitled ‘CLIVAR – a study of Climate Variability and Predictability’. 1993: The WCRP JSC decided to undertake CLIVAR as a major activity. 1995: CLIVAR was officially launched, initially as a 15-year project. The launch coincided with the end of TOGA. 1997: The first CLIVAR implementation plan was published. Panels and working groups CLIVAR has a number of panels and working groups based on the study of climate variability and predictability of different components of the global climate system. Global panels CLIVAR has three global panels: Global Synthesis and Observation Panel (GSOP) Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices (ETCCDI) Working Group on Ocean Model Development (WGOMD) Regional panels Regional panels focus on specific aspects of the climate system. Since the different regions of the ocean are qualitatively different, and given the important role of the oceans in controlling climate over the interannual, decadal, and centennial scales considered by CLIVAR, the subdivision into panels is largely based on regions of the ocean system. Specifically, the following is the list of regional panels: Asian-Australian Monsoon Panel (AAMP) Atlantic Implementation Panel (AIP) CLIVAR/GEWEX Africa Climate Panel (ACP) CLIVAR/CliC/SCAR Southern Ocean Panel (SOP) CLIVAR/IOC-GOOS Indian Ocean Panel (IOP) Pacific Panel (PP) Variations of the American Monsoon Systems (VAMOS) National programmes There are four national CLIVAR programmes, that run largely autonomously but contribute to the international CLIVAR program: US CLIVAR: This contributes directly to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) by coordinating and advancing research within the US to improve the documentation, understanding, modeling and prediction of variations in global and regional climate. It is supported by participating programs in five United States Government agencies: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Department of Energy (DOE), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). CLIVAR-España in Spain Canadian CLIVAR Research Network UK CLIVAR See also The VAMOS Ocean Cloud Atmosphere Land Studies References External links Official website

jean-marc jancovici

Jean-Marc Jancovici (born 1962) is a French engineering consultant, energy and climate expert, professor, conference speaker, writer, and independent columnist. He is co-founder and associate at the Carbone 4 consultancy firm, and the founding president of the think-tank The Shift Project. Biography He graduated from the École polytechnique in 1984 and from the Ecole nationale supérieure des télécommunications de Paris in 1986. He is the author and the main developer of the main French carbon accounting method, the Bilan Carbone assessment tool for the French Inter-ministerial Greenhouse Gas Mission. He collaborated with Nicolas Hulot for 11 years, and co-authored the Pacte écologique, a book that directly led to the Grenelle Environnement during the first years of Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency. He is a member of the SOeS Scientific Committee (MEEDDEM observation and statistics department) and a member of the Fondation Nicolas-Hulot Strategic Committee.He is the founding president of The Shift Project, a corporate sponsored think tank established in 2010, which advocates a progressive phase out of fossil fuels from our economy. In 2007 he founded the Carbone 4 consultancy with the economist Alain Grandjean. Carbone 4 is a Paris-based consultancy employing around 30 people, which has specialized in adapting human activities (especially economic activities) to any kind of energy constraint (lack of oil, lack of gas, lack of electricity, rising prices, rising constraints on greenhouse gas emissions, new norms or regulations, etc.) He founded two other organisations focused on spreading scientific knowledge about energy and climate change (still active), and is currently chairing the environment section of his alumni, X Environnement. He teaches at Mines ParisTech to first year students on energy and climate change basics. He is a member of the association ASPO France, which studies the oil peak and its consequences. Personal life He is married and has two daughters. He eats little meat, uses public transport, has no cellphone and avoids air travel whenever possible. Media, lectures, internet, website He is the author of eight books and has written for a number of French media (France Info, TF1, Les Echos). His book "Le monde sans fin" is translated into multiple languages. Positions Jancovici is a vocal proponent of nuclear energy, and advocates for nuclear power to become a dominant energy source. He believes the climate urgency requires closing all coal power plants worldwide within 30 years. He argues that non-nuclear renewable energies will never be sufficient to transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Publications "Le monde sans fin" with Christophe Blain (Dargaud, 2021, ISBN 9782205088168), English translation: "World without end" (Europe Comics, 2022) "Dormez tranquilles jusqu'en 2100, et autres malentendus sur le climat et l'énergie" (Odile Jacob, 2015, ISBN 9782738136411) "Transition énergétique pour tous" (2011, Odile Jacob, ISBN 9782738129796) "C’est maintenant ! 3 ans pour sauver le monde" with Alain Grandjean (Janvier 2009, Le Seuil, ISBN 9782020987684) "Le changement climatique expliqué à ma fille" (Janvier 2009, Le Seuil, ISBN 9782021365740) "Le Plein s’il vous plaît" with Alain Grandjean (Le Seuil, Février 2006, ISBN 9782020857925) "L'effet de serre, allons-nous changer le climat ?" with Hervé Le Treut (Flammarion, 2004, ISBN 9782080300201) "L'avenir climatique, quel temps ferons-nous ?" (Le Seuil, 2002, ISBN 9782020788182) References External links Official website Short talk "Energy: basic facts for an informed debate" on YouTube

mercator research institute on global commons and climate change

The Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) conducts research and fosters dialogue about how the global commons, such as the atmosphere and the oceans, might be used and shared by many yet nevertheless be protected. In 2021, the International Center for Climate Governance ranked MCC among the top ten think tanks worldwide for the fourth consecutive year. Organization Based in Berlin, the institute was founded in 2012 by Stiftung Mercator and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The research team is composed of an interdisciplinary group of scientists from economics and the social sciences. Directed by the climate economist Ottmar Edenhofer, MCC currently employs some 50 staff. In 2015 the MCC was designated as the world's second best climate think tank. Work The work of MCC falls into two main areas: research and policy dialogue. The aim is to gain interdisciplinary insights and to provide a basis for decision-making in politics, industry and civil society. The theme spanning across all the work is the global commons (i.e., natural resources such as the atmosphere, land, oceans and forests) and the premise that international cooperation is indispensable for the sustainable use of the commons. For example, when the atmosphere is understood as a global commons, it is seen to belong to everybody despite its physical presence at the national, local and regional levels. In this case, overarching rules are needed to prevent this resource from being overused (see "tragedy of the commons"). Other examples include the overfishing of the oceans or the exploitation of wildlife. The lack of availability of public goods, which provide access to health care, education, clean water and much more, the so-called social commons, comprises a core focus of the work of MCC. Based on scientific findings, potential solutions are identified, evaluated and provided. Research The research of MCC is divided into seven working groups and one task force: Economic growth and human development: Analysis of the relationships between economic growth, greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption. Land use and urbanization: Investigation of the relationships between urbanization and global environmental changes, especially the sustainable development of cities from a social and ecological perspective. Sustainable resource management and global change: Analysis of possible solutions for sustainable resource management and the provision of public goods. Polycentric governance: Study of the institutional preconditions for achieving the 2 °C target, including of the instruments allowing for the prompt adoption of a sustainable climate policy. Scientific assessments, ethics and politics: Evaluation with respect to the handling of ethical aspects and diverse interests in integrated environment-related policy assessments. Geographic production and consumption patterns: Analysis of geographic production and consumption patterns as well as of the extraction and trade of raw materials in the global economy, and the visualization thereof. Climate change and development: The importance of expanding industrial structures and infrastructure for economic development and the resulting climate-related dependencies. Task Force "Public Economics for the Global Commons": Identification of implementable political measures for achieving an efficient and fair access to the global commons.In addition to scientific research, policy advice is central to the work of MCC. Moreover, these two focal points build on each other and give rise to a self-perpetuating cycle: The scientific research findings form the basis of the consulting work ("policy dialogue"), while the consulting becomes the subject of research in that it is subjected to scientific evaluation. Policy dialogue Climate protection and sustainable development are areas that are intricately interwoven over the long term. For example, using biomass to produce "clean" energy to limit global warming could potentially result in increasing deforestation, biodiversity loss or rising food prices. The complexity of the possible consequences of these (climate) policy actions requires a forward-looking, international perspective. Here, the role of science could be to provide a sound informational basis without prescribing policy decisions. The target groups of the policy advice of MCC are, among others, decision-makers from international organizations, parliaments and public administration as well as stakeholders from private-sector companies and NGOs. Bibliography Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N. H., Berndes, G., et al.: Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. In: GCB Bioenergy. Vol. 5, Issue 7, 2015, pp. 916–944. (PDF 1,26 MB, English. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12205) Creutzig, F., Baiocchi, G.; et al.: A Global Typology of Urban Energy Use and Potentials for an Urbanization Mitigation Wedge. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 20, Issue 112, 2015, pp. 6283–6288. (PDF 954 kB, English. doi:10.1073/pnas.1315545112) Edenhofer, O., Flachsland, C., Jakob, M., Lessmann, K.: The atmosphere as a global commons: challenges for international cooperation and governance. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Macroeconomics of Global Warming. Oxford 2015, Oxford Univ. Press, ISBN 978-0-19-985697-8, pp. 260–296. Edenhofer, O., Jakob, M., Creutzig, F., Flachsland, C., et al.: Closing the emission price gap. In: Global Environmental Change. Issue 31, 2015, pp. 132–143. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.003 Revised manuscript (PDF 692 kB, English) Edenhofer, O., Kowarsch, M.: Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. In: Environmental Science & Policy. Issue 51, 2015, pp. 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.017 Summary, English. Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., et al.: Betting on negative emissions. In: Nature Climate Change. Vol. 10, Issue 4, 2014, pp. 850–853. doi:10.1038/nclimate2392 Jakob, M., Chen, C., Fuss, S., Marxen, A., Rao, N., Edenhofer, O.: Carbon Pricing Revenues Could Close Infrastructure Access Gaps. In: World Development. Issue 84, August 2016, pp. 254–265. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.001 Jakob, M., Edenhofer, O., 2014. Green growth, degrowth, and the commons. In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Issue 30, 2014, pp. 447–468. doi:10.1093/oxrep/gru026 Abstract English Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Edenhofer, O., Lessmann, K.: Infrastructure and Inequality: Insights from Incorporating Key Economic Facts about Household Heterogeneity. Working Paper Version (PDF, 383 kB, English) Klenert; D., Mattauch, L.: How to make a carbon tax reform progressive: The role of subsistence consumption. In: Economics Letters. Issue 138, January 2016, pp. 100–103. (PDF; 341 kB, English) doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2015.11.019 Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change: MCC Evaluation Report. Berlin March 2016. (PDF; 6 MB, English, Archived from the original on May 30, 2016.) Steckel, J. C., Edenhofer, O., Jakob, M.: Drivers for the renaissance of coal. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Issue 112 of Volume 29, July 2015, pp. E3775-E3781. (PDF, 1,13MB, English) doi:10.1073/pnas.1422722112 Von Stechow, C., McCollum, D., Riahi, K., Minx, J. C., et al.: Integrating global climate change mitigation goals with other sustainability objectives: a synthesis. In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 40, 2015, pp. 363–394. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021113-095626 References External links Official Website Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Stiftung Mercator

desmog

DeSmog, (formerly The DeSmogBlog) founded in January 2006, is a journalistic and activist website that focuses on topics related to climate change. The site was founded, originally in blog format, by James Hoggan, president of a public relations firm based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.DeSmog states that its primary function is to investigate and report on misinformation campaigns and organizations opposing climate science and action. DeSmog is a partner in the Covering Climate Now project which organizes and assists news organizations cover climate change worldwide. DeSmog also maintains several databases of persons and organizations engaged in misinformation and lobbying against addressing climate change. Content Mission and audience The blog was co-founded in January 2006 by James Hoggan, president of the public relations firm Hoggan and Associates. In a February 2007 interview with the Vancouver Sun, Hoggan conveys his anger at industry interests who he believes mislead the public about the scientific understanding of global warming. He referred to this alleged misrepresentation of the facts as, "public relations at its sleaziest". Hoggan used his public relations skills to start a blog that would "clear the PR pollution that clouds the science of climate change" and expose organizations and individuals which he considered to be unethical. DeSmog says it reports on the credibility of experts who appear to misrepresent the science of global warming in the media by investigating their scientific background, funding sources, and industry interests. The site originally targeted a Canadian audience but is now involved in global climate change coverage.Contributors to the site assist in researching organizations that the site's staff believe are phony grassroots organizations, or astroturf groups, sponsored directly or indirectly by industries seeking to thwart climate change-related legislation. Organizations alleged by the blog to be astroturfs include Friends of Science, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Global Climate Coalition, and International Climate Science Coalition. Individuals that the site has identified as pushing an anti-climate change point of view are listed in the site's "Denial Database", with accompanying information about their industry affiliations and professional biographies. In a Financial Post column, Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon stated that the organization was, in Solomon's words, "specifically created for the purpose of discrediting skeptics".In a 2007 report in The Globe and Mail, Hoggan stated that the most frequent visitors to the site came from Calgary, Ottawa, and Washington D.C. Notable issues or media mentions In one instance, the site responded to a 2006 open letter opposing the Canadian Government's climate-change plans, claimed to be signed by "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines", by analyzing the list of the signatories. The site concluded that those checked had few peer-reviewed publications on the topic and/or had fossil-fuel industry connections.DeSmog has criticized Financial Post editor and columnist Terence Corcoran, claiming he impedes progress on climate change and environmental protection legislation in Canada. In turn, Corcoran has criticized Hoggan and his website, accusing both of serving the interests of large corporations hoping to make money on emissions trading.The blog has been referenced in The Guardian by George Monbiot, who most recently cited a study by the website showing that in 2008 "the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled". In another column, Monbiot noted that DeSmog posted a video critical of Anthony Watts's blog Watts Up With That that Watts had deleted from YouTube for copyright reasons. Monbiot has also mentioned DeSmog's efforts to expose efforts by oil, coal, and electricity companies to manipulate media views on climate change. Heartland Institute documents In February 2012, DeSmog posted a number of internal documents purportedly from The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank. According to a statement posted on the Heartland Institute website, "Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered ... the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed." Days after the document posting, blogger and journalist Megan McArdle wrote on The Atlantic website of a comment to a blog post that suggested that one of the documents, a memo titled "2012 Heartland Climate Strategy", was likely a fake based on the document being a scan which included metadata with a US west coast time zone. DeSmog responded that they had "no evidence supporting Heartland's claim that the Strategic document is fake" and then included a number of references to McArdle's first piece on the topic. McArdle then said of the DeSmog response that "The first two links are to my post, and they are an egregious misrepresentation of what I said", and goes on to note that "the stubborn willingness to ignore obvious problems becomes the story."On February 20, 2012, Peter Gleick issued a statement in the Huffington Post explaining that he had received an anonymous document in the mail that seemed to contain details on the climate program strategy of the Heartland Institute. He admitted to soliciting and receiving additional material from the institute "under someone else's name", calling his actions "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics". Founder and staff The site's co-founder, James Hoggan, is president of the Vancouver-based public relations firm James Hoggan & Associates, chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, a trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education, and an executive member of the Urban Development Institute. He is the author (with Richard Littlemore) of the 2009 book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8), which criticizes global warming denial and conspiracy theories. The sources do not identify the site's other co-founder.The website names John Lefebvre as a benefactor. Frequent early writers for the blog included Ross Gelbspan and Richard Littlemore, a science writer formerly of the Vancouver Sun. The site's project manager was Kevin Grandia, who left to become the Director of Online Strategy at Greenpeace. As of 2022 the site lists a staff of eleven, with executive director Brendan DeMelle. Awards The site was recognized in December 2007 by three British Columbia chapters of the Canadian Public Relations Society, the Vancouver, Victoria (CPRS-vi) and Northern Lights in Prince George, with an award for demonstrating "The highest ethical and professional standards while performing outstanding work". In a CPRS press release which accompanied the award, Hoggan stated that the site had been viewed by 520,000 people over its history, had been cited as a source by 24 media outlets, and mentioned in more than 4,500 other blogs. According to the press release, the blog was selected for the award by a panel of journalists and public relations professionals in Victoria, Vancouver, and Prince George.DeSmog was also listed by Time magazine as one of the "best blogs of 2011" in June 2011. See also Climate change denial Global warming controversy RealClimate Skeptical Science Watts Up With That References External links Official website

kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan, officially the Kyrgyz Republic, is a landlocked country in Central Asia, lying in the Tian Shan and Pamir mountain ranges. Bishkek is the capital and largest city of the country. Kyrgyzstan is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the south, and China to the east and southeast. With a population of 6.7 million, Kyrgyzstan is the 34th-most populous country in Asia, and the 4th-most populous country in Central Asia. Ethnic Kyrgyz make up the majority of the country's seven million people, followed by significant minorities of Uzbeks and Russians.Kyrgyzstan's history spans a variety of cultures and empires. Although geographically isolated by its highly mountainous terrain, Kyrgyzstan has been at the crossroads of several great civilizations as part of the Silk Road along with other commercial routes. Inhabited by a succession of tribes and clans, Kyrgyzstan has periodically fallen under larger domination, for example the Turkic nomads, who trace their ancestry to many Turkic states. It was first established as the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Later, in the 13th century, Kyrgyzstan was conquered by the Mongols; it regained independence, but was later invaded by Dzungar Khanate. After the fall of Dzhungars, Kyrgyz and Kipchaks were an integral part of Kokand Khanate. In 1876, Kyrgyzstan became part of the Russian Empire, and in 1936, the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic was formed to become a constituent republic of the Soviet Union. Following Mikhail Gorbachev's democratic reforms in the USSR, in 1990 pro-independence candidate Askar Akayev was elected president. On 31 August 1991, Kyrgyzstan declared independence from the USSR and a democratic government was established. Kyrgyzstan attained sovereignty as a nation state after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. After independence, Kyrgyzstan was officially a unitary presidential republic; after the Tulip Revolution it became a unitary parliamentary republic, although it gradually developed an executive president and was governed as a semi-presidential republic before reverting to a presidential system in 2021. Throughout its existence, the country has continued to endure ethnic conflicts, revolts, economic troubles, transitional governments and political conflict.Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organisation of Turkic States, the Türksoy community and the United Nations. It is a developing country ranked 118th in the Human Development Index, and is the second poorest country in Central Asia after neighbouring Tajikistan. The country's transitional economy is heavily dependent on deposits of gold, coal and uranium. Etymology Kyrgyz is derived from the Turkic word for "We are forty", believed to refer to the forty clans of Manas, a legendary hero who united forty regional clans. -Stan is a suffix in Persian meaning "place of". The 40-ray sun on the flag of Kyrgyzstan is a reference to those same forty tribes and the graphical element in the sun's center depicts the wooden crown, called tunduk, of a yurt—a portable dwelling traditionally used by nomads in the steppes of Central Asia. The country's official name is Kyrgyz Republic, used in international arenas and foreign relations. In the English-speaking world, the spelling Kyrgyzstan is commonly used, while its former name Kirghizia is rarely used. History Early history The Kyrgyz state reached its greatest expansion after defeating the Uyghur Khaganate in 840 AD. From the tenth century the Kyrgyz migrated as far as the Tian Shan range and maintained their dominance over this territory for about 200 years. There is a storytelling tradition of the Epic of Manas, which involves a warrior who unified all of the scattered tribes into a single nation in the 9th century. The trilogy, an element of the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List, expresses the memory of the nomadic peoples.In the 12th century, the Kyrgyz dominion had shrunk to the Altay Range and Sayan Mountains as a result of the Mongol expansion. With the rise of the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth century, the Kyrgyz migrated south. The Kyrgyz peacefully became a part of the Mongol Empire in 1207. Issyk Kul Lake was a stopover on the Silk Road, a land route for traders, merchants, and other travelers from the Far East to Europe. Kyrgyz tribes were overrun in the 17th century by the Mongols, in the mid-18th century by the Manchu-led Qing dynasty of China, and in the early 19th century by the Uzbek Khanate of Kokand. In 1842, the Kyrgyz tribes broke away from Kokand and united into the Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate, led by Ormon Khan. Following Ormon's death in 1854, the khanate disintegrated. Russian conquest In the late nineteenth century, the eastern part of what is today Kyrgyzstan, mainly the Issyk-Kul Region, was ceded to the Russian Empire by Qing China through the Treaty of Tarbagatai. The territory, then known in Russian as "Kirghizia", was formally incorporated into the Empire in 1876. The Russian takeover was met with numerous revolts, and many of the Kyrgyz opted to relocate to the Pamir Mountains and Afghanistan. In addition, the suppression of the 1916 rebellion against Russian rule in Central Asia caused many Kyrgyz later to migrate to China. Since many ethnic groups in the region were, and still are, split between neighboring states at a time when borders were more porous and less regulated, it was common to move back and forth over the mountains, depending on where life was perceived as better; this might mean better rains for pasture or better government during oppression. Soviet Kyrgyzstan (1919–1991) Soviet power was initially established in the region in 1919, and the Kara-Kyrgyz Autonomous Oblast was created within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR). The phrase Kara-Kirghiz was used until the mid-1920s by the Russians to distinguish them from the Kazakhs, who were also referred to as Kirghiz. On 5 December 1936, the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic was established as a constituent Union Republic of the Soviet Union. After the Russian Civil War, the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP), began, which lasted roughly to 1928. The Bolsheviks made an effort to establish a standardized tax system, with higher taxes for nomads to discourage the wandering livelihood and they divided the Central Asia region into five nation-states. Kyrgyzstan developed considerably in cultural, educational, and social life, literacy was greatly improved. Economic and social development also was notable. Under Stalin a great focus was put on Kyrgyz national identity. The Soviet state was fighting tribalism: its social organization based on patrilineal kinship contradicted the concept of the modern nation state. In a region that did not previously know national institutions or consciousness, the process of nation-building was, from the indigenous perspective, a difficult and ambivalent one.By the end of the 1920s, the Soviet Union developed a series of five-year plans, centered around industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture, including the creation of huge "kolkhoz" collective farming systems, needed to feed the new workers in the industries. Because of the plan's reliance on rapidity, major economic and cultural changes had to occur, which led to conflicts. In Kyrgyzstan, Russian settlers acquired the best pasture land, creating much hardship for most of its original inhabitants, Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Turkmen nomads, who were also forced to settle down on soil that hadn't enough agricultural potential. The changes caused unrest, and between 1928 and 1932, nomads and peasants made it clear through methods like passive resistance that they did not agree with these policies, in the Kirgiziya area also guerrilla opposition occurred. The region suffered relatively more deaths from collectivization than any other. The early years of glasnost, in the late 1980s, had little effect on the political climate in Kyrgyzstan. However, the Republic's press was permitted to adopt a more liberal stance and to establish a new publication, Literaturny Kirghizstan, by the Union of Writers. Unofficial political groups were forbidden, but several groups that emerged in 1989 to deal with the acute housing crisis were permitted to function. According to the last Soviet census in 1989, ethnic Kyrgyz made up only 22% of the residents of the northern city of Frunze (now Bishkek), while more than 60% were Russians, Ukrainians, and people from other Slavic nations. Nearly 10% of the capital's population were Jewish (a rather unique fact, for almost any place in the Soviet Union, except the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). In June 1990, ethnic tensions between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz surfaced in the Osh Region (southern Kyrgyzstan), where Uzbeks form a minority of the population. The tensions between Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks in Osis led to 186 deaths. Attempts to appropriate Uzbek collective farms for housing development triggered the Osh Riots. A state of emergency and curfew were introduced and Askar Akayev, the youngest of five sons born into a family of collective farm workers (in northern Kyrgyzstan), was elected president in October of that same year. By then, the Kyrgyzstan Democratic Movement (KDM) had developed into a significant political force with support in Parliament. On 15 December 1990, the Supreme Soviet voted to change the republic's name to the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. The following January, Akayev introduced new government structures and appointed a new cabinet composed mainly of younger, reform-oriented politicians. In February 1991, the name of the capital, Frunze, was changed back to its pre-revolutionary name of Bishkek.Despite these political moves toward independence, economic realities seemed to work against secession from the Soviet Union. In a referendum on the preservation of the Soviet Union in March 1991, 88.7% of the voters approved the proposal to retain the Soviet Union as a "renewed federation". Nevertheless, secessionist forces pushed Kyrgyzstan's independence through in August of that same year. On 19 August 1991, when the State Emergency Committee assumed power in Moscow, there was an attempt to depose Akayev in Kyrgyzstan. After the coup collapsed the following week, Akayev and Vice President German Kuznetsov announced their resignations from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and the entire bureau and secretariat resigned. This was followed by the Supreme Soviet vote declaring independence from the Soviet Union on 31 August 1991 as the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 62% of Kyrgyz people say that the collapse of the Soviet Union harmed their country, while only 16% said that the collapse benefitted it. Independence In October 1991, Akayev ran unopposed and was elected president of the new independent Republic by direct ballot, receiving 95 percent of the votes cast. Together with the representatives of seven other Republics that same month, he signed the Treaty of the Economic Community. The new leaders of three out of four Soviet Union's founding republics, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, on 8 December 1991 signed the Belavezha Accords, denouncing the Union Treaty of 1922, declaring that the Union would cease to exist and proclaimed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place.On 21 December 1991, Kyrgyzstan agreed with the other four Central Asian Republics, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan to the Alma-Ata Protocols, formally entering the Commonwealth with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine. Finally, Kyrgyzstan gained full independence on 25 December 1991. The following day, on 26 December 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. In 1992, Kyrgyzstan joined the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). On 5 May 1993, the official name changed from the Republic of Kyrgyzstan to the Kyrgyz Republic following the adoption of a new constitution.In 2005, an uprising known as the "Tulip Revolution", took place after the parliamentary elections in March 2005, forced President Askar Akayev's resignation on 4 April 2005. Opposition leaders formed a coalition, and a new government was formed under President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and Prime Minister Felix Kulov. The nation's capital was looted during the protests. Political stability appeared to be elusive, however, as various groups and factions allegedly linked to organized crime jockeyed for power. Three of the 75 members of Parliament elected in March 2005 were assassinated, and another member was assassinated on 10 May 2006 shortly after winning his murdered brother's seat in a by-election. All four are reputed to have been directly involved in major illegal business ventures. April 2010 crisis On 6 April 2010, civil unrest broke out in the town of Talas after a demonstration against government corruption and increased living expenses. The protests became violent, spreading to Bishkek by the following day. Protesters attacked President Bakiyev's offices, as well as state-run radio and television stations. There were conflicting reports that Interior Minister Moldomusa Kongatiyev had been beaten. On 7 April 2010, President Bakiyev imposed a state of emergency. Police and special services arrested many opposition leaders. In response, protesters took control of the internal security headquarters (former KGB headquarters) and a state television channel in the capital, Bishkek. Reports by Kyrgyzstan government officials indicated that at least 75 people were killed and 458 hospitalized in bloody clashes with police in the capital. Reports say that at least 80 people died as a result of clashes with police. A transition government had been established, led by former foreign minister Roza Otunbayeva (Social Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan), that by 8 April 2010 had taken control of state media and government facilities in the capital, but Bakiyev had not resigned from office.President Bakiyev returned to his home in Jalal-Abad and stated his terms of resignation at a press conference on 13 April 2010. On 15 April 2010, Bakiyev left the country and flew to neighboring Kazakhstan, along with his wife and two children. The country's provisional leaders announced that Bakiyev signed a formal letter of resignation prior to his departure.Prime Minister Daniar Usenov accused Russia of supporting the protests; this accusation was denied by Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin. Opposition members also called for the closing of the US-controlled Manas Air Base. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev ordered measures to ensure the safety of Russian nationals and tighten security around Russian sites in Kyrgyzstan to protect them against possible attacks. The 2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic clashes occurred between the two main ethnic groups—the Uzbeks and Kyrgyz—in Osh, the second-largest city in the country, on 11 June 2010. The clashes incited fears that the country could be heading towards a civil war.Interim leader Otunbayeva sent a letter to the Russian president, Dimitry Medvedev, asking him to send Russian troops to help the country control the situation. Medvedev's Press Attaché, Natalya Timakova, said in a reply to the letter, "It is an internal conflict and for now Russia does not see the conditions for taking part in its resolution". The clashes caused a shortage of food and other essential commodities with more than 200 killed and 1,685 people hurt, as of 12 June 2010. The Russian government, however, said it would be sending humanitarian aid to the troubled nation.According to local sources, there was a clash between two local gangs and it did not take long for the violence to spread to the rest of the city. There were also reports that the armed forces supported ethnic Kyrgyz gangs entering the city, but the government denied the allegations.The riots spread to neighboring areas, and the government declared a state of emergency in the entire southern Jalal-Abad region. To control the situation, the interim government gave special shoot-to-kill powers to the security forces. The Russian government decided to send a battalion to the country to protect Russian facilities. Otunbayeva accused the family of Bakiyev of "instigating the riots". AFP reported "a veil of smoke covering the whole city". Authorities in neighboring Uzbekistan said at least 30,000 Uzbeks had crossed the border to escape the riots. Osh became relatively calm on 14 June 2010, but Jalal-Abad witnessed sporadic incidents of arson. The entire region was still under a state of emergency as Uzbeks were reluctant to leave their houses for fear of attacks by the mobs. The United Nations decided to send an envoy to assess the situation. Temir Sariyev, deputy chief of the interim government, said there were local clashes and that it was not possible [for the government] to fully control the situation. He added that there were not sufficient security forces to contain the violence. Media agencies reported on 14 June 2010 that the Russian government was considering a request by the Kyrgyz government. An emergency meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) was held on the same day (14 June) to discuss the role it could play in helping to end the violence. Ethnic violence waned, according to the Kyrgyz government, by 15 June 2010 and Kyrgyz president Roza Otunbayeva held a news conference that day and declared that there was no need for Russia to send in troops to quell the violence. There were at least 170 people left dead by 15 June 2010 but Pascale Meige Wagner of the International Committee of the Red Cross said the [official] death toll was an underestimate. The UN High Commissioner told reporters in Geneva that evidence suggested that the violence seemed to have been staged up. Ethnic Uzbeks threatened to blow up an oil depot in Osh if they failed to get guarantees of protection. The United Nations said it believed that the attacks were "orchestrated, targeted and well-planned". Kyrgyz officials told the media that a person suspected to be behind the violence in Jalal-Abad had been detained.On 2 August 2010, a Kyrgyz government commission began investigating the causes of the clashes. Members of the National Commission, led by former parliament speaker Abdygany Erkebaev, met with people from the predominantly ethnic Uzbek villages of Mady, Shark, and Kyzyl-Kyshtak in the Kara-Suu district of Osh Oblast. This National Commission, including representatives of many ethnic groups, was established by a presidential decree. President Roza Otunbayeva also said in August 2010 that an international commission would be formed to investigate the clashes. The international commission conducted an extensive investigation and prepared a report—The Independent international commission of inquiry into the events in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 (KIC). It stated that "The Provisional Government, which had assumed power two months before the events, either failed to recognize or underestimated the deterioration in inter-ethnic relations in southern Kyrgyzstan". The KIC concluded that the "Provisional Government had the responsibility to ensure that the security forces were adequately trained and appropriately equipped to deal with situations of civil unrest" but were unable to take necessary measures. As of today, Kyrgyzstan celebrates its Independence Day annually on August 31, the anniversary of its declaration of independence in 1991. Since independence, Kyrgyzstan has made developments such as creating genuinely free news media and fostering an active political opposition.In late April 2021, a conflict over water escalated into one of the most serious border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since independence in 1991.In September 2022 armed clashes, including the use of artillery, erupted along much of the border between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Geography Kyrgyzstan is a landlocked country in Central Asia, bordering Kazakhstan, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It lies between latitudes 39° and 44° N, and longitudes 69° and 81° E. It is farther from the sea than any other individual country, and all its rivers flow into closed drainage systems which do not reach the sea. The mountainous region of the Tian Shan covers over 80% of the country (Kyrgyzstan is occasionally referred to as "the Switzerland of Central Asia", as a result), with the remainder made up of valleys and basins. Issyk-Kul Lake, or Ysyk-Köl in Kyrgyz, in the north-eastern Tian Shan is the largest lake in Kyrgyzstan and the second largest mountain lake in the world after Titicaca. The lowest point is in Kara-Daryya (Karadar'ya) at 132 meters and the highest peaks are in the Kakshaal-Too range, forming the Chinese border. Peak Jengish Chokusu, at 7,439 m (24,406 ft), is the highest point and is considered by geologists to be the northernmost peak over 7,000 m (22,966 ft) in the world. Heavy snowfall in winter leads to spring floods which often cause serious damage downstream. The runoff from the mountains is also used for hydro-electricity. Kyrgyzstan has significant deposits of metals including gold and rare-earth metals. Due to the country's predominantly mountainous terrain, less than 8% of the land is cultivated, and this is concentrated in the northern lowlands and the fringes of the Fergana Valley. Bishkek in the north is the capital and largest city, with 937,400 inhabitants (as of 2015). The second city is the ancient town of Osh, located in the Fergana Valley near the border with Uzbekistan. The principal river is the Kara Darya, which flows west through the Fergana Valley into Uzbekistan. Across the border in Uzbekistan it meets another major Kyrgyz river, the Naryn. The confluence forms the Syr Darya, which originally flowed into the Aral Sea. As of 2010, it no longer reaches the sea, as its water is withdrawn upstream to irrigate cotton fields in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and southern Kazakhstan. The Chu River also briefly flows through Kyrgyzstan before entering Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan contains seven terrestrial ecosystems: Tian Shan montane conifer forests, Alai-Western Tian Shan steppe, Gissaro-Alai open woodlands, Tian Shan foothill arid steppe, Pamir alpine desert and tundra, Tian Shan montane steppe and meadows, and Central Asian northern desert. It had a 2019 Forest Landscape Integrity Index mean score of 8.86/10, ranking it 13th globally out of 172 countries. Climate The climate varies regionally. The low-lying Fergana Valley in the southwest is subtropical and extremely hot in summer, with temperatures reaching 40 °C (104 °F). The northern foothills are temperate and the Tian Shan varies from dry continental to polar climate, depending on elevation. In the coldest areas, winter temperatures drop below freezing for approximately 40 days, and even some desert areas experience constant snowfall during this period. In the lowlands the temperature ranges from around −6 °C (21 °F) in January to 24 °C (75 °F) in July. Glaciers and climate change Enclaves and exclaves There is one exclave, the tiny village of Barak (population 627), in the Fergana Valley. The village is surrounded by Uzbek territory. It is located on the road from Osh (Kyrgyzstan) to Khodjaabad (Uzbekistan) about 4 kilometres (2 miles) north-west from the Kyrgyz–Uzbek border in the direction of Andijan. Barak is administratively part of Kara-Suu District in Kyrgyzstan's Osh Region. There are four Uzbek enclaves within Kyrgyzstan. Two of them are the towns of Sokh, with an area of 325 km2 (125 sq mi) and a population of 42,800 in 1993, although some estimates go as high as 70,000 (99% are Tajiks, the remainder Uzbeks); and Shakhimardan (also known as Shahimardan, Shohimardon, or Shah-i-Mardan), with an area of 90 km2 (35 sq mi) and a population of 5,100 in 1993; 91% are Uzbeks, and the remaining 9% are Kyrgyz; the other two are the tiny territories of Chong-Kara (roughly 3 km (2 mi) long by 1 km (0.6 mi) wide) and Jangy-ayyl (a dot of land barely 2–3 km (1–2 mi) across). Chong-Kara is on the Sokh river, between the Uzbek border and the Sokh enclave. Jangy-ayyl is about 60 kilometres (37 mi) east of Batken, in a northward projection of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek border near Khalmion. There are also two enclaves belonging to Tajikistan on the Kyrgyz-Tajik border: Vorukh, and Lolazor. Vorukh has an area between 95–130 km2 (37–50 sq mi), and a population estimated between 23,000 and 29,000, 95% Tajiks and 5% Kyrgyz. It is distributed among 17 villages and is located around 45 kilometres (28 mi) south of Isfara on the right bank of the river Karavshin. Lolazor (Western Qalacha or Kayragach) is a small settlement near the Kyrgyz railway station of Kairagach. Politics Political system The 1993 constitution defines the form of government as a democratic unicameral republic. The executive branch includes a president and prime minister. The parliament currently is unicameral. The judicial branch comprises a supreme court, local courts and a chief prosecutor. In March 2002, in the southern district of Aksy, five people protesting the arbitrary arrest of an opposition politician were shot dead by police, sparking nationwide protests. President Askar Akayev initiated a constitutional reform process which initially included the participation of a broad range of government, civil and social representatives in an open dialogue, leading to a February 2003 referendum marred by voting irregularities. The amendments to the constitution approved by the referendum resulted in stronger control by the president and weakened the parliament and the Constitutional Court. Parliamentary elections for a new, 75-seat unicameral legislature were held on 27 February and 13 March 2005, but were widely viewed as corrupt. The subsequent protests led to a bloodless coup on 24 March 2005, after which Akayev fled the country with his family and was replaced by acting president Kurmanbek Bakiyev. On 10 July 2005, acting president Bakiyev won the presidential election in a landslide, with 88.9% of the vote, and was inaugurated on 14 August. However, initial public support for the new administration substantially declined in subsequent months as a result of its apparent inability to solve the corruption problems that had plagued the country since its independence from the Soviet Union, along with the murders of several members of parliament. Large-scale protests against president Bakiyev took place in Bishkek in April and November 2006, with opposition leaders accusing the president of failing to live up to his election promises to reform the country's constitution and transfer many of his presidential powers to parliament.Kyrgyzstan is also a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a league of 57 participating states committed to peace, transparency, and the protection of human rights in Eurasia. As an OSCE participating state, Kyrgyzstan's international commitments are subject to monitoring under the mandate of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. In December 2008, the state-owned broadcast KTRK announced that it would require prior submission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty programmes, which KTRK are required to retransmit according to a 2005 agreement. KTRK had stopped retransmitting RFE/RL programming in October 2008, a week after it failed to broadcast an RFE/RL programme called Inconvenient Questions which covered the October elections, claiming to have lost the missing material. President Bakiyev had criticised this programme in September 2008, while KTRK told RFE/RL that its programming was too negative. Reporters Without Borders, which ranks Kyrgyzstan 111th out of 173 countries on its Press Freedom Index, strongly criticised the decision. On 3 February 2009, President Bakiyev announced the imminent closure of the Manas Air Base, the only US military base remaining in Central Asia. The closure was approved by Parliament on 19 February 2009 by a vote of 78–1 for the government-backed bill. However, after much behind-the-scenes negotiation between Kyrgyz, Russian and American diplomats, the decision was reversed in June 2009. The Americans were allowed to remain under a new contract, whereby rent would increase from $17.4 million to $60 million annually. Kyrgyzstan is among the fifty countries in the world with the highest perceived level of corruption: the 2016 Corruption Perception Index for Kyrgyzstan is 28 on a scale of 0 (most corrupt) to 100 (least corrupt).In 2010 another revolution erupted in the country (see: April uprising). President Bakiyev, together with his relatives, including his son Maksim and brother Janish—were forced to flee to Kazakhstan and then sought asylum in Belarus. Roza Otunbayeva, who was appointed interim president, announced that she did not intend to run for the Presidential elections in 2011. The election was held in November and won by Prime Minister Almazbek Atambayev, leader of the Social Democratic Party, and Atambayev was sworn in as president on 1 December 2011. Omurbek Babanov was appointed prime minister on the same day and was confirmed on 23 December 2011.In 2015 Kyrgyzstan became a full-fledged member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EES) after it formally abolished customs controls along its border with Kazakhstan, other members are the former Soviet republics Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia. In October 2017, Sooronbay Jeenbekov, a former prime minister backed by incumbent Almazbek Atambayev, was elected as the new President of Kyrgyzstan. In foreign policy he saw the Kremlin as the country's "main strategic partner" and China as an "important strategic and trade partner", but he intended to seek more collaborative bilateral ties with European partners. On 7 August 2019, the Special Forces of Kyrgyzstan launched an operation against the residence of former President Almazbek Atambayev, supposedly based on charges of corruption made against him. In a meeting of the Security Council, President Jeenbekov accused Atambayev of violating the constitution. In October 2020, President Sooronbay Jeenbekov resigned after protests caused by irregularities in parliamentary elections on 4 October 2020.In January 2021, Sadyr Japarov was elected as the new president after winning the presidential election by a landslide.In April 2021, the majority of voters approved in the constitutional referendum a new constitution that will give new powers to the president, significantly strengthening the power of the presidency. Administrative divisions Kyrgyzstan is divided into seven regions (Kyrgyz: облустар). The regions are subdivided into 44 districts (Kyrgyz: аймактар, aymaqtar;). The districts are further subdivided into rural districts at the lowest level of administration, which include all rural settlements (aýyl ökmötü) and villages without an associated municipal government. The cities of Bishkek and Osh have status "state importance" and do not belong to any region. Each region is headed by an akim (regional governor) appointed by the president. District akims are appointed by regional akims. The regions, and independent cities, are as follows, with subdivisions: City of Bishkek Lenin District Oktyabr District Birinchi May District Sverdlov District Batken Region Batken District Kadamjay District Leylek District Chüy Region Alamüdün District Chüy District Jayyl District Kemin District Moskva District Panfilov District Sokuluk District Ysyk-Ata District Jalal-Abad Region Aksy District Ala-Buka District Bazar-Korgon District Chatkal District Nooken District Suzak District Toguz-Toro District Toktogul District Naryn Region Ak-Talaa District At-Bashy District Jumgal District Kochkor District Naryn District Osh Region Alay District Aravan District Chong-Alay District Kara-Kulja District Kara-Suu District Nookat District Özgön District Talas Region Bakay-Ata District Kara-Buura District Manas District Talas District Issyk-Kul Region Ak-Suu District Issyk-Kul District Jeti-Ögüz District Tong District Tüp District City of Osh Military The armed forces of Kyrgyzstan were formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union and consist of the Land Forces, Air Forces, internal troops, National Guard, and the border guard. The military works with the US Armed Forces, which leased a facility named the Transit Center at Manas at Manas International Airport near Bishkek until June 2014. In recent years, the armed forces have begun developing better relations with Russia including signing modernization deals worth $1.1bn and participating in more exercises with Russian troops. The Agency of National Security works with the military and serves similar purposes to its Soviet predecessor, the KGB. It oversees an elite counterterrorism special forces unit known as "Alfa", the same name used by other former Soviet countries, including Russia and Uzbekistan. The police are commanded by the Ministry of the Interior Affairs, along with the border guard. Human rights Kyrgyzstan is classified as a "hybrid regime" in the Democracy Index, ranking 107th out of 167 for 2020. Kyrgyzstan was also ranked "not free" in the 2021 Freedom in the World report with a score of 28/100. In 2020, it was ranked "partly free" with a score of 39/100.After the installment of a more democratic government, many human rights violations still take place. In a move that alarmed human-rights groups, dozens of prominent Uzbek religious and community leaders were arrested by security forces following the 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots, including journalist and human-rights activist Azimzhan Askarov. A law banning women under the age of 23 from traveling abroad without a parent or guardian, with the purpose of "increased morality and preservation of the gene pool" passed in the Kyrgyz parliament in June 2013. American diplomats expressed concern in October 2014 when Kyrgyzstan lawmakers passed a law that imposes jail terms on gay-rights activists and others, including journalists, who create "a positive attitude toward non-traditional sexual relations."Kyrgyzstani activist and journalist Azimzhan Askarov was sentenced to life in prison in 2010. On 24 January 2017, a Kyrgyz court has reinstated a sentence of life imprisonment for Askarov. Economy The National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic serves as the central bank of Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan was the ninth poorest country in the former Soviet Union, and is today the second poorest country in Central Asia after Tajikistan. 22.4% of the country's population lives below the poverty line.Despite the backing of major Western lenders, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, Kyrgyzstan has had economic difficulties following independence. Initially, these were a result of the breakup of the Soviet trade bloc and resulting loss of markets, which impeded the republic's transition to a demand economy. The government has reduced expenditures, ended most price subsidies and introduced a value-added tax. Overall, the government appears committed to the transition to a market economy. Through economic stabilization and reform, the government seeks to establish a pattern of long-term consistent growth. Reforms led to Kyrgyzstan's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 20 December 1998. The Kyrgyz economy was severely affected by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting loss of its vast market. In 1990, some 98% of Kyrgyz exports went to other parts of the Soviet Union. Thus, the nation's economic performance in the early 1990s was worse than any other former Soviet republic except war-torn Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan, as factories and state farms collapsed with the disappearance of their traditional markets in the former Soviet Union. While economic performance has improved considerably in the last few years, and particularly since 1998, difficulties remain in securing adequate fiscal revenues and providing an adequate social safety net. Remittances of around 800,000 Kyrgyz migrants working in Russia contribute to the economy however in recent years, remittances have decreased.Agriculture is an important sector of the economy in Kyrgyzstan (see agriculture in Kyrgyzstan). By the early 1990s, the private agricultural sector provided between one-third and one-half of some harvests. In 2002, agriculture accounted for 35.6% of GDP and about half of employment. Kyrgyzstan's terrain is mountainous, which accommodates livestock raising, the largest agricultural activity, so the resulting wool, meat and dairy products are major commodities. Main crops include wheat, sugar beets, potatoes, cotton, tobacco, vegetables, and fruit. As the prices of imported agrichemicals and petroleum are so high, much farming is being done by hand and by horse, as it was generations ago. Agricultural processing is a key component of the industrial economy as well as one of the most attractive sectors for foreign investment. Kyrgyzstan is rich in mineral resources but has negligible petroleum and natural gas reserves; it imports petroleum and gas. Among its mineral reserves are substantial deposits of coal, gold, uranium, antimony, and other valuable metals. Metallurgy is an important industry, and the government hopes to attract foreign investment in this field. The government has actively encouraged foreign involvement in extracting and processing gold from the Kumtor Gold Mine and other regions. The country's plentiful water resources and mountainous terrain enable it to produce and export large quantities of hydroelectric energy. The principal exports are nonferrous metals and minerals, woollen goods and other agricultural products, electric energy and certain engineering goods. Imports include petroleum and natural gas, ferrous metals, chemicals, most machinery, wood and paper products, some foods and some construction materials. Its leading trade partners include Germany, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. After Beijing launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, China has expanded its economic presence and initiated a number of sizable infrastructure projects in Kyrgyzstan.In regards to telecommunication infrastructure, Kyrgyz Republic ranks last in Central Asia in the World Economic Forum's Network Readiness Index (NRI)—an indicator for determining the development level of a country's information and communication technologies. Kyrgyz Republic ranked number 118 overall in the 2014 NRI ranking, unchanged from 2013 (see Networked Readiness Index). Kyrgyzstan is ranked 78th among countries for economic freedom by the Heritage Institute.The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have a significant negative impact on the Kyrgyz economy that is reliant on services, remittances and natural resources. As a result, in order to mitigate the economic shock and preserve much of the development progress achieved in recent years the World Bank will provide support by financing several projects in the country. Tourism One of the most popular tourist destination points in Kyrgyzstan is the lake Issyk-Kul. Numerous hotels, resorts and boarding houses are located along its northern shore. The most popular beach zones are in the city of Cholpon-Ata and the settlements nearby, such as Kara-Oi (Dolinka), Bosteri and Korumdy. The number of tourists visiting the lake was more than a million a year in 2006 and 2007. However, due to the economic and political instability in the region, the number has declined in recent years. Science and technology The headquarters of the Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences is located in Bishkek, where several research institutes are located. Kyrgyz researchers are developing useful technologies based on natural products, such as heavy metal remediation for purifying waste water. Kyrgyzstan was ranked 106th in the Global Innovation Index in 2023, down from 90th in 2019. Demographics Kyrgyzstan's population is estimated at 6,586,600 in August 2020. Of those, 34.4% are under the age of 15 and 6.2% are over 65. The country is rural: only about one-third of the population live in urban areas. The average population density is 25 people per km2. Ethnic groups The nation's largest ethnic group are the Kyrgyz, a Turkic people, who comprise 74.1% of the population. Other ethnic groups include Russians (5.0%) concentrated in the north and Uzbeks (14.8%) living in the south. Small but noticeable minorities include Dungans (1.1%), Uyghurs (0.9%), Tajiks (0.9%), Kazakhs (0.6%), and Ukrainians (0.1%) and other smaller ethnic minorities. The country has over 80 ethnic groups.The Kyrgyz have historically been semi-nomadic herders, living in round tents called yurts and tending sheep, horses and yaks. This nomadic tradition continues to function seasonally (see transhumance) as herding families return to the high mountain pasture (or jailoo) in the summer. The sedentary Uzbeks and Tajiks traditionally have farmed lower-lying irrigated land in the Fergana valley.Kyrgyzstan has undergone a pronounced change in its ethnic composition since independence. The percentage of ethnic Kyrgyz has increased from around 50% in 1979 to over 70% in 2013, while the percentage of ethnic groups, such as Russians, Ukrainians, Germans and Tatars dropped from 35% to about 7%. Since 1991, a large number of Germans, who in 1989 numbered 101,000 persons, have emigrated to Germany. Languages Kyrgyz is the state language of Kyrgyzstan. Russian is additionally an official language. Kyrgyzstan is one of five former Soviet republics to have Russian as a de jure official language, along with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. After the division of the Soviet Union into countries, Kyrgyz was adopted as the "state language" of Kyrgyzstan in 1991. Kyrgyzstan adopted Russian as an "official language" in 1997. The languages have different legal statuses. Kyrgyz is a Turkic language of the Kipchak branch, closely related to Kazakh, Karakalpak, and Nogay Tatar. It was written in the Arabic alphabet until the twentieth century. The Latin script was introduced and adopted on Stalin's orders in 1928, and was subsequently replaced by Cyrillic script in 1941. A reformed Perso-Arabic alphabet, created by the Kyrgyz intellectual and scientist Kasym Tynystanov is the official script of the Kyrgyz language in the People's Republic of China. As a result of the pending language reform in neighboring Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan will be the only independent Turkic-speaking country in a few years that exclusively uses the Cyrillic alphabet. In April 2023, Russia suspended dairy exports to Kyrgyzstan after the chairman of Kyrgyzstan's National Commission for the State Language and Language Policies, Kanybek Osmonaliev, proposed to change the official script from Cyrillic to Latin to bring the country in line with other Turkic-speaking nations. Osmonaliev was reprimanded by President Sadyr Japarov who then clarified that Kyrgyzstan had no plans to replace the Cyrillic alphabet.In 2009, 4.1 million people spoke Kyrgyz as native or second language and 2.5 million spoke Russian as native or second language. Uzbek is the second most common native language with 700,000 native speakers. Russian TV media enjoy enormous popularity in Kyrgyzstan, especially in the deeply russified city of Bishkek and the Chüy Region, despite that the percentage of Russians today is a fraction of that in 1989. Russian media outlets have an enormous influence on public opinion in Kyrgyzstan, especially in areas such as human rights and international political developments.Many business and political affairs are carried out in Russian. Until recently, Kyrgyz remained a language spoken at home and was rarely used during meetings or other events. However, most parliamentary meetings today are conducted in Kyrgyz, with simultaneous interpretation available for those not speaking Kyrgyz. According to an RFE/RL article from 2014, despite the attempts to raise the status of Kyrgyz, thousands of Kyrgyz are russifying their names every year (around 40,000), mostly for career prospects, and to remove themselves from the Russian blacklists (people who are to be deported upon entrance) by registering different names. There are also many Russian-language medium schools that are supported from the Russian foundations via the embassy of Russia in Bishkek which are better funded than the Kyrgyz language medium schools. Due to this, many ethnic Kyrgyz go to Russian language medium schools. Many high school students change their surnames annually; for example 800 such changes were recorded in high school students in the region of Naryn. Urban centres Religion Islam is the dominant religion of Kyrgyzstan. The CIA World Factbook estimates that as of 2017, 90% of the population is Muslim, with the majority being Sunni; 7% are Christian, including 3% Russian Orthodoxy, and the remainder are other religions. A 2009 Pew Research Center report indicated 86.3% of Kyrgyzstan's population adhering to Islam. The great majority of Muslims are Sunni, adhering to the Hanafi school of thought, although a 2012 Pew survey report showed that only 23% of respondents to a questionnaire chose to identify themselves as Sunni, with 64% volunteering that they were "just a Muslim". There are a few Ahmadiyya Muslims, though unrecognised by the country. Later figures show a rise in the number of agnostics in the country.During Soviet times, state atheism was encouraged. Today, however, Kyrgyzstan is a secular state, although Islam has exerted a growing influence in politics. For instance, there has been an attempt to arrange for officials to travel on hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca) under a tax-free arrangement. While Islam in Kyrgyzstan is more of a cultural background than a devout daily practice for many, public figures have expressed support for restoring religious values. For example, human rights ombudsman Tursunbay Bakir-Ulu noted, "In this era of independence, it is not surprising that there has been a return to spiritual roots not only in Kyrgyzstan, but also in other post-communist republics. It would be immoral to develop a market-based society without an ethical dimension." Additionally, Bermet Akayeva, the daughter of Askar Akayev, the former President of Kyrgyzstan, stated during a July 2007 interview that Islam is increasingly taking root across the nation. She emphasized that many mosques have recently been built and that the Kyrgyz are increasingly devoting themselves to Islam, which she noted was "not a bad thing in itself. It keeps our society more moral, cleaner." There is a contemporary Sufi order present which adheres to a somewhat different form of Islam than the orthodox Islam. The other faiths practiced in Kyrgyzstan include Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox versions of Christianity, practiced primarily by Russians and Ukrainians respectively. A community of 5000 to 10,000 Jehovah's Witnesses gather in both Kyrgyz and Russian-speaking congregations, as well as some Chinese- and Turkish-speaking groups. A small minority of ethnic Germans are also Christian, mostly Lutheran and Anabaptist as well as a Roman Catholic community of approximately 600.A few Animistic traditions survive, as do influences from Buddhism such as the tying of prayer flags onto sacred trees, though some view this practice rooted within Sufi Islam. There is also a small number of Bukharian Jews living in Kyrgyzstan, but during the collapse of the Soviet Union most fled to other countries, mainly the United States and Israel. In addition, there is a small community of Ashkenazi Jews, who fled to the country from eastern Europe during the Second World War.On 6 November 2008, the Kyrgyzstan parliament unanimously passed a law increasing the minimum number of adherents for recognizing a religion from 10 to 200. It also outlawed "aggressive action aimed at proselytism", and banned religious activity in schools and all activity by unregistered organizations. It was signed by President Kurmanbek Bakiyev on 12 January 2009.There have been several reported police raids against peaceful minority religious meetings, as well as reports of officials planting false evidence, but also some court decisions in favour of religious minorities. Culture Traditions Manas, an epic poem; the plot revolves around a series of events that coincide with the history of the region in the 9th century, primarily the interaction of the Kyrgyz people with other Turkic and Chinese people. Komuz, a three-stringed lute Tush kyiz, large, elaborately embroidered wall hangings Shyrdak and Ala-kiyiz carpets, manufactured by the process of felting, used for yurts. Inscribed in 2012 on the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Other textiles, especially made from felt Ala kachuu, "bride kidnapping", traditional form of marriage in Kyrgyzstan FalconryIllegal, but still practiced, is the tradition of bride kidnapping. It is debatable whether bride kidnapping is actually traditional. Some of the confusion may stem from the fact that arranged marriages were traditional, and one of the ways to escape an arranged marriage was to arrange a consensual "kidnapping". Flag The 40-rayed yellow sun in the center of the national flag represent the 40 tribes that once made up the entirety of Kyrgyz culture before the intervention of Russia during the rise of the Soviet Union. The lines inside the sun represent the crown or tündük (Kyrgyz түндүк) of a yurt, a symbol replicated in many facets of Kyrgyz architecture. The red portion of the flag represents peace and openness of Kyrgyzstan. Under Soviet rule and before 1992, it had the flag of the Soviet Union with two big blue stripes and a white thin stripe in the middle. Public holidays In addition to celebrating the New Year each 1 January, the Kyrgyz observe the traditional New Year festival Nowruz on the vernal equinox. This spring holiday is celebrated with feasts and festivities such as the horse game Ulak Tartish. This is the list of public holidays in Kyrgyzstan: 1 January – New Year's Day 7 January – Orthodox Christmas 23 February – Fatherland Defender's Day 8 March – Women's Day 21–23 March – Nooruz Mairamy, Persian New Year (spring festival) 7 April – Day of National Revolution 1 May – Labor Day 5 May – Constitution Day 8 May – Remembrance Day 9 May – Victory Day 31 August – Independence Day 7–8 November – Days of History and Commemoration of AncestorsTwo additional Muslim holidays Orozo Ayt and Qurman (or Qurban) Ayt are defined by the lunar calendar. Sports Football is the most popular sport in Kyrgyzstan. The official governing body is the Football Federation of Kyrgyz Republic, which was founded in 1992, after the split of the Soviet Union. It administers the Kyrgyzstan national football team.Wrestling is also very popular. In the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, two athletes from Kyrgyzstan won medals in Greco-Roman wrestling: Kanatbek Begaliev (silver) and Ruslan Tyumenbayev (bronze).Ice hockey was not as popular in Kyrgyzstan until the first Ice Hockey Championship was organized in 2009. In 2011, the Kyrgyzstan men's national ice hockey team won 2011 Asian Winter Games Premier Division dominating in all six games with six wins. It was the first major international event that Kyrgyzstan's ice hockey team took part in. The Kyrgyzstan men's ice hockey team joined the IIHF in July 2011. Bandy is becoming increasingly popular in the country. The Kyrgyz national team took Kyrgyzstan's first medal at the Asian Winter Games, when they captured the bronze. They played in the Bandy World Championship 2012, their first appearance in that tournament.Martial Arts: Valentina Shevchenko is a Kyrgyzstani–Peruvian professional mixed martial artist who competes in the women's flyweight division of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), where she was formerly the Women's Flyweight champion. Boxing: Dmitry Bivol is a Kyrgyzstani Professional Boxer from Tokmok, who competes in the Light Heavyweight Division. Since 2017, he has held the World Boxing Association Light Heavyweight Title. As of August 2019, Bivol is ranked as the world's best active light-heavyweight by the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board and BoxRec, and third by The Ring Magazine. Kyrgyzstan's national basketball team had its best performance at the official 1995 Asian Basketball Championship where the team surprisingly finished ahead of favorites such as Iran, Philippines and Jordan. XXI International Issyk-Kul Sports Games (SCO + CIS) was held in 9–17 September 2022 in Baktuu-Dolonotu village (Issyk-Kul). The first three World Nomad Games were held in Cholpon-Ata, Kyrgyzstan. The 6th International Sports Festival Pearl of Kyrgyzstan were held in Issyk-Kul region from June 15 to July 3, 2022. Horse riding The traditional national sports reflect the importance of horse riding in Kyrgyz culture. Very popular, as in all of Central Asia, is Ulak Tartysh, a team game resembling a cross between polo and rugby in which two teams of riders wrestle for possession of the headless carcass of a goat, which they attempt to deliver across the opposition's goal line, or into the opposition's goal: a big tub or a circle marked on the ground. Other popular games on horseback include: At Chabysh – a long-distance horse race, sometimes over a distance of more than 50 km Jumby Atmai – a large bar of precious metal (the "jumby") is tied to a pole by a thread and contestants attempt to break the thread by shooting at it, while at a gallop Kyz Kuumai – a man chases a girl in order to win a kiss from her, while she gallops away; if he is not successful she may in turn chase him and attempt to beat him with her "kamchi" (horsewhip) Oodarysh – two contestants wrestle on horseback, each attempting to be the first to throw the other from his horse Tyin Emmei – picking up a coin from the ground at full gallop Education The school system in Kyrgyzstan includes primary (grades 1 to 4, some schools have optional 0 grade), secondary (grades 5 to 9) and high (grades 10 to 11) divisions within one school. Children are usually accepted to primary schools at the age of 6 or 7. It is required that every child finishes 9 grades of school and receives a certificate of completion. Grades 10–11 are optional, but it is necessary to complete them to graduate and receive a state-accredited school diploma. To graduate, a student must complete the 11-year school course and pass 4 mandatory state exams in writing, maths, history, and a foreign language. There are 77 public schools in Bishkek (capital city) and more than 200 in the rest of the country. There are 55 higher educational institutions and universities in Kyrgyzstan, out of which 37 are state institutions.In September 2016, the University of Central Asia was launched in Naryn, Kyrgyzstan.There are also various Russian-language medium schools in Bishkek, Osh and other areas. Because of the better funding that they receive in comparation with Kyrgyz state schools, many Kyrgyz go there. In March 2021 Russia announced its plans to create approximately 30 new Russian-language schools in Kyrgyzstan. Teachers from Russia are also working here. However, the existence of these schools has been criticised, for reasons such as the fact that Russian language education has flaws compared to the Turkish and American schools in the country, but also because many ethnic Kyrgyz born after Kyrgyz independence in 1991 can't speak Kyrgyz, but only Russian, according to a Bishkek resident. Libraries Kyrgyzstan is home to 1,066 libraries. The National Library of the Kyrgyz Republic is the oldest library in the country, which was established in 1934. Kyrgyz Libraries are working towards expanding access to communities, evident in projects such as the signing of the Marrakesh VIP Treaty and the Open access Portal. Transport Transport in Kyrgyzstan is severely constrained by the country's alpine topography. Roads have to snake up steep valleys, cross passes of 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) altitude and more, and are subject to frequent mudslides and snow avalanches. Winter travel is close to impossible in many of the more remote and high-altitude regions. Additional problems come from the fact that many roads and railway lines built during the Soviet period are today intersected by international boundaries, requiring time-consuming border formalities to cross where they are not completely closed. Horses are still a much-used transport option, especially in more rural areas; Kyrgyzstan's road infrastructure is not extensive, so horses are able to reach locations that motor vehicles cannot, and they do not require expensive, imported fuel. Airports At the end of the Soviet period there were about 50 airports and airstrips in Kyrgyzstan, many of them built primarily to serve military purposes in this border region so close to China. Only a few of them remain in service today. The Kyrgyzstan Air Company provides air transport to China, Russia, and other local countries. Manas International Airport near Bishkek is the main international airport, with services to Moscow, Tashkent, Almaty, Ürümqi, Istanbul, Baku, and Dubai. Osh Airport is the main air terminal in the south of the country, with daily connections to Bishkek, and services to Moscow, Krasnoyarsk, Almaty and more international places. Jalal-Abad Airport is linked to Bishkek by daily flights. The national flag carrier, Kyrgyzstan, operates flights on BAe-146 aircraft. During the summer months, a weekly flight links Jalal-Abad with the Issyk-Kul Region. Other facilities built during the Soviet era are either closed down, used only occasionally or restricted to military use (e.g., Kant Air Base near Bishkek, which is used by the Russian Air Force). Banned airline status Kyrgyzstan appears on the European Union's list of prohibited countries for the certification of airlines. This means that no airline that is registered in Kyrgyzstan may operate services of any kind within the European Union, due to safety standards that fail to meet European regulations. Railways The Chüy Valley in the north and the Fergana valley in the south were endpoints of the Soviet Union's rail system in Central Asia. Following the emergence of independent post-Soviet states, the rail lines which were built without regard for administrative boundaries have been cut by borders, and traffic is therefore severely curtailed. The small bits of rail lines within Kyrgyzstan, about 370 km (230 mi) (1,520 mm (59.8 in) broad gauge) in total, have little economic value in the absence of the former bulk traffic over long distances to and from such centres as Tashkent, Almaty, and the cities of Russia. In 2022, construction began on a new 186 km extension of the existing railway from Balykchy to Karakeche. Its primary purpose will be to carry coal from mines at Karakeche to Bishkek. There are vague plans about extending rail lines from Balykchy in the north or from Osh in the south into China, but the cost of construction would be enormous. In 2022, the president of Kyrgyzstan, Zhaparov, has told local media that he expects construction of the 523 km China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan (CKU) Railway to begin next year. The CKU Railway would comprise 213 km (132 mi) in China, 260 km (162 mi) in Kyrgyzstan and 50 km (31 mi) in Uzbekistan. Rail connections with adjacent countries Highways With support from the Asian Development Bank, a major road linking the north and southwest from Bishkek to Osh has recently been completed. This considerably eases communication between the two major population centres of the country—the Chüy Valley in the north and the Fergana Valley in the South. An offshoot of this road branches off across a 3,500 meter pass into the Talas Valley in the northwest. Plans are now being formulated to build a major road from Osh into China. total: 34,000 km (21,127 mi) (including 140 km (87 mi) of expressways) paved: 22,600 km (14,043 mi) (includes some all-weather gravel-surfaced roads) unpaved: 7,700 km (4,785 mi) (these roads are made of unstabilized earth and are difficult to negotiate in wet weather) (1990) Ports and harbours Balykchy (Ysyk-Kol or Rybach'ye) on Issyk Kul Lake. See also Outline of Kyrgyzstan Index of Kyrgyzstan-related articles Chinghiz Aitmatov Notes References Further reading External links GovernmentPresident of Kyrgyzstan official site Government of Kyrgyzstan official site Parliament of Kyrgyzstan official site Laws of the Kyrgyz RepublicGeneral informationCountry Profile from BBC News Kyrgyzstan. The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Kyrgyzstan at UCB Libraries GovPubs Kyrgyz Publishing and Bibliography Key Development Forecasts for Kyrgyzstan from International Futures Language Policy in Kyrgyzstan from University of Pannonia, HungaryMaps Wikimedia Atlas of Kyrgyzstan

don't look up

Don't Look Up is a 2021 American apocalyptic political satire black comedy film written, co-produced, and directed by Adam McKay from a story he co-wrote with David Sirota. It stars an ensemble cast featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Rob Morgan, Jonah Hill, Mark Rylance, Tyler Perry, Timothée Chalamet, Ron Perlman, Ariana Grande, Kid Cudi, Himesh Patel, Melanie Lynskey, Cate Blanchett, and Meryl Streep. The film tells the story of two astronomers attempting to warn humanity about an approaching comet that will destroy human civilization. The impact event is an allegory for climate change, and the film is a satire of government, political, celebrity, and media indifference to the climate crisis.Produced by McKay's Hyperobject Industries and Bluegrass Films, the film was announced in November 2019. Originally set for a theatrical release by Paramount Pictures, the distribution rights were acquired by Netflix several months later. Lawrence became the first member of the cast to join, with DiCaprio signing on after his discussions with McKay on adjustments to the script; the rest of the cast was added through 2020. Filming was initially set to begin in April 2020 in Massachusetts, but it was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; it eventually began in November 2020 and wrapped in February 2021.Don't Look Up began a limited theatrical release on December 10, 2021, before streaming on Netflix on December 24. It was praised for the cast's performances and the musical score, but critics were divided on the merits of McKay's satire; some found it deft, while others criticized it as smug and heavy-handed. The film was received more positively by scientists. Don't Look Up was named one of the top ten films of 2021 by the National Board of Review and American Film Institute. It received four Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture), four Golden Globe Award nominations (including Best Picture – Musical or Comedy), six Critics' Choice Award nominations, (including Best Picture), and also won Best Original Screenplay at the 74th Writers Guild of America Awards. The film set a new record for the most viewing hours in a single week on Netflix, and went on to become the second-most-watched movie on Netflix within 28 days of release. Plot Kate Dibiasky, a doctoral candidate in astronomy at Michigan State University, discovers an unknown comet. Her professor, Doctor Randall Mindy, confirms that it will collide with Earth in approximately six months and is large enough to cause a global extinction event. NASA verifies the findings, and Dr. Teddy Oglethorpe, head of their Planetary Defense Coordination Office, accompanies Dibiasky and Mindy to present their findings to the White House. However, they are met with apathy from President Janie Orlean and her Chief of Staff Jason Orlean, who is also her son. Oglethorpe encourages Dibiasky and Mindy to leak the news to the media, which they do so on The Daily Rip, a popular morning talk show. When hosts Jack Bremmer and Brie Evantee treat the topic lightly, Dibiasky loses her temper and angrily rants about the threat before she flees the scene. Mindy receives public approval for his looks, while Dibiasky becomes the subject of negative memes for her on-air behavior. Actual news about the comet's threat receives little public attention, and the danger is denied by Orlean's NASA Director Jocelyn Calder, a top donor to Orlean with no background in astronomy. When news of Orlean's sex scandal with her Supreme Court nominee Sheriff Conlon is exposed, she distracts from the bad publicity by finally confirming the threat and announcing a project to strike and divert the comet using nuclear weapons. The mission successfully launches, but Orlean abruptly aborts it when Peter Isherwell, the billionaire CEO of BASH Cellular and another top donor, discovers that the comet contains trillions of dollars worth of rare-earth elements. The White House agrees to commercially exploit the comet by fragmenting and recovering it from the ocean, using technology proposed by BASH in a scheme that has not undergone peer review. Orlean sidelines Dibiasky and Oglethorpe while hiring Mindy as the National Science Advisor. Dibiasky attempts to mobilize public opposition to the scheme but gives up under threat from Orlean's administration. Mindy becomes a prominent voice advocating for the comet's commercial opportunities and begins an affair with Evantee. World opinion is divided among people who believe the comet is a severe threat, those who decry alarmism and believe that mining a destroyed comet will create jobs, and those who deny that the comet even exists. When Dibiasky returns home to Illinois, her parents kick her out of the house and she begins a relationship with a young man named Yule, a shoplifter she meets at her retail job. After Mindy's wife confronts him about his infidelity, she returns to Michigan without him. Mindy questions whether Isherwell's technology will be able to break apart the comet, angering the billionaire. Becoming frustrated with the administration, Mindy finally rants on national television, criticizing Orlean for downplaying the impending apocalypse and questioning humanity's indifference. Cut off from the administration, Mindy reconciles with Dibiasky as the comet becomes visible from Earth. Mindy, Dibiasky, and Oglethorpe organize a protest campaign on social media, telling people to "Just Look Up" and call on other countries to conduct comet interception operations. Simultaneously, Orlean starts an anti-campaign telling people "Don't Look Up". Orlean and BASH cut Russia, India, and China out of the rights for the comet-mining deal, so they prepare their own joint deflection mission, only for their spacecraft to explode. As the comet becomes larger in the sky, Orlean's supporters start turning on her administration. BASH's attempt at breaking the comet apart goes awry, and everyone realizes that humanity is doomed. Isherwell, Orlean, and others in their elite circle board a sleeper spaceship designed to find an Earth-like planet, inadvertently leaving Jason behind. Orlean offers Mindy two places on the ship, but he declines, choosing to spend a final evening with his friends and family. As expected, the comet strikes off the coast of Chile, causing a worldwide disaster and triggering an extinction-level event. The shockwave strikes Mindy's house, killing everyone inside. In a mid-credits scene, the 2,000 people who left Earth before the comet's impact land on a lush alien planet 22,740 years later, ending their period of suspended animation. They exit their spacecraft naked and admire the habitable world; however, Orlean is suddenly killed by a bird-like predator, one of a pack that surrounds the planetary newcomers. In a post-credits scene back on Earth, it is revealed that Jason managed to survive the impact. He records himself, declaring himself the "last man on Earth" and asking any viewers to "like and subscribe". Cast Leonardo DiCaprio as Dr. Randall Mindy, an astronomy professor at Michigan State University (MSU) and Kate's teacher Jennifer Lawrence as Kate Dibiasky, an MSU doctoral candidate in astronomy. Meryl Streep as Janie Orlean, the President of the United States Cate Blanchett as Brie Evantee, co-host of The Daily Rip Rob Morgan as Dr. Teddy Oglethorpe, head of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office Jonah Hill as Jason Orlean, Chief of Staff and President Orlean's son. Mark Rylance as Peter Isherwell, the billionaire CEO of the fictitious tech company BASH and one of Orlean's top donors Tyler Perry as Jack Bremmer, the co-host of The Daily Rip Timothée Chalamet as Yule, a young shoplifter whom Kate befriends Ron Perlman as Colonel Benedict Drask, war veteran and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient who is sent up with the initial launch to divert the comet Ariana Grande as Riley Bina, an international music star Kid Cudi (credited as his real name Scott Mescudi) as DJ Chello, an international music star who becomes Riley's fiancé on The Daily Rip Himesh Patel as Phillip Kaj, a journalist at Autopsy and Kate's boyfriend Melanie Lynskey as June Mindy, Dr. Randall Mindy's wife Michael Chiklis as Dan Pawketty, host of the conservative Patriot News Network Tomer Sisley as Adul Grelio, senior editor at the New York Herald Paul Guilfoyle as US Air Force Lieutenant General Stuart Themes, The Pentagon liaison to the White House Robert Joy as Congressman Tenant, a congressman and follower of JanieOther cast members include Kevin Craig West as the Secretary of State, Erik Parillo as Sheriff Conlon, Orlean's choice for Supreme Court Justice who ends up in a sex scandal with Orlean; Jon Glaser as Meow Man; Sarah Nolen as the puppeteer of Sammy; Allyn Burrows as Mr. Dibiasky, the father of Kate; and Tori Davis Lawlor as Mrs. Dibiasky, the mother of Kate. Additionally, Robert Hurst Radochia and Conor Sweeney appear as Randall and June's sons, Evan and Marshall Mindy. Hettienne Park appears as Dr. Jocelyn Calder, the Administrator of NASA. Chris Everett appears as Paula Woods, chief editor at the New York Herald. There are cameo appearances by Liev Schreiber as the BASH narrator, journalist Ashleigh Banfield as Dalia Hensfield, Sarah Silverman as comedian Sarah Benterman, Bollywood actor Ishaan Khatter as Raghav Manavalan, and Chris Evans in an uncredited role as film actor Devin Peters, who stars in the film Total Devastation and attempts to be a centrist about whether or not to worry about the failure to divert the comet when humanity had the chance. Matthew Perry and Gina Gershon were cast for undisclosed roles in the film, but their scenes were cut. Production Produced by Hyperobject Industries and Bluegrass Films, the film was announced in November 2019 and sold by Paramount Pictures to Netflix several months later. Lawrence became the first member of the cast to join, with DiCaprio signing on after his discussions with McKay on adjustments to the script; the rest of the cast was added through 2020.This movie came from my burgeoning terror about the climate crisis and the fact that we live in a society that tends to place it as the fourth or fifth news story, or in some cases even deny that it's happening, and how horrifying that is, but at the same time preposterously funny. After Vice was released, David Sirota asked Adam McKay to use his "superpowers of humor and writing" to create a climate change movie that would be different from the Mad Max-type post-apocalyptic films that had previously been released. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, McKay described how he and Sirota came up with the premise of Don't Look Up while discussing the existential threat of climate change and their frustration over the lack of media coverage it was receiving: I started talking to a lot of [climate] scientists. I kept looking for good news, and I never got it. Everything I was hearing was worse than what I was hearing on the mainstream media. So I was talking to [David Sirota], and we were both just like, "can you believe that this isn't being covered in the media? That it's being pushed to the end of the story? That there's no headlines?" And Sirota just offhandedly said, "it's like a comet is heading to Earth and it's going to destroy us all and no one cares." And I was like, "that's the idea!" McKay has described the film as a "blend of broad comedy" with elements of disaster films and horror films.Astronomer Amy Mainzer, principal investigator of NASA's NEOWISE mission that tracks near-Earth objects, served as an "astrotech adviser" for the film. She provided scientific advice and supported with writing scenes from an early stage of production.On November 8, 2019, it was announced that Paramount Pictures would distribute the film, with Adam McKay writing, directing, and producing under his Hyperobject Industries banner. On February 19, 2020, Netflix acquired the film from Paramount and Jennifer Lawrence was cast in the film. On May 12, 2020, it was announced that Cate Blanchett had joined the film. In September 2020, Rob Morgan joined the cast. In October 2020, Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep, Jonah Hill, Himesh Patel, Timothée Chalamet, Ariana Grande, Kid Cudi (Scott Mescudi), and Tomer Sisley were added. McKay wrote the part of Dibiasky specifically for Lawrence, and spent four to five months going over ideas with DiCaprio, tweaking the script before the actor ultimately signed on. In November 2020, Tyler Perry, Melanie Lynskey, and Ron Perlman joined the cast. Mark Rylance and Michael Chiklis were revealed as part of the cast in February 2021. Paul Guilfoyle was announced in May. Matthew Perry was also cast and had scenes filmed with Hill that were ultimately cut from the final film due to health issues. Gina Gershon also filmed a scene with DiCaprio and Blanchett that was cut from the film. Leonardo DiCaprio received top billing on the film's posters and the trailers while Jennifer Lawrence was accorded top billing at the beginning of the film itself. This was also the case with earlier productions The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) with James Stewart and John Wayne and All the President's Men (1976) with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Principal photography was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Filming commenced on November 18, 2020, at various locations in Boston, Massachusetts. Part of the film takes place in New York City with Boston standing in as New York. Filming also took place in other Massachusetts cities including Brockton, Framingham, and Westborough. On February 5, 2021, Jennifer Lawrence was mildly injured during filming when a controlled glass explosion went awry. Filming wrapped on February 18, 2021. Music To promote the film, on December 3, 2021, Ariana Grande and Kid Cudi released the single "Just Look Up", which is also performed in the film. The original score for the film is composed by Nicholas Britell, who previously scored McKay's The Big Short (2015), Vice (2018) and the HBO television series Succession (2019–2022); McKay served as an executive producer of the latter. He used a wide range of instrumentation that reflect varied music styles and genres. He did this so as to give a remainder on the existential crisis on the planet following a catastrophic event as well as the absurdity of how people react to it. Apart from "Just Look Up", the film also featured "Second Nature" by Bon Iver, which was released along with Britell's score album on December 10, by Republic Records. Reception Box office and VoD On February 19, 2020, it was announced that Netflix planned to release the film in 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, filming and release of the film were delayed. The film premiered in New York City on December 5, 2021. It received a limited theatrical release on December 10, and began streaming on Netflix on December 24. The film made an estimated $260,000 from 500 theaters on its first day, and a total of $700,000 in its opening weekend.Don't Look Up was the most-streamed English-language film on Netflix during its first week of release with a viewership of 111.03 million hours, the second highest viewership for a movie during its debut weekend on Netflix. It was the second most-streamed-film of the week in the United States according to TV Time. Per Nielsen, the film had a viewership of 1.6 billion minutes in the United States. In the second week, it retained its first position with a viewership of 152.29 million hours, which also set the record for highest weekly viewership for any film ever on Netflix.For its first 28 days, the film culminated a viewership of 359.8 million hours, making it the second most-watched film within 28 days of release on Netflix during this period of time. By March 20, the film had been streamed in 10.3 million households in the United States according to Samba TV, including 641,000 since the Oscar nomination announcements on February 8. Critical response On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 55% of 301 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.3/10. The website's consensus reads: "Don't Look Up aims too high for its scattershot barbs to consistently land, but Adam McKay's star-studded satire hits its target of collective denial square on." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 49 out of 100, based on 52 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle praised the film and wrote, "Don't Look Up might be the funniest movie of 2021. It's the most depressing too, and that odd combination makes for a one-of-a-kind experience... McKay gives you over two hours of laughs while convincing you that the world is coming to an end." Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 2.5 out of 4 stars and said: "From Streep and DiCaprio and Lawrence through the supporting players, Don't Look Up is filled with greatly talented actors really and truly selling this material—but the volume remains at 11 throughout the story when some changes in tone here and there might have more effectively carried the day." Reviewing the film for the Los Angeles Times, Justin Chang wrote, "Nothing about the foolishness and outrageousness of what the movie shows us—no matter how virtuosically sliced and diced by McKay's characteristically jittery editor, Hank Corwin—can really compete with the horrors of our real-world American idiocracy." Amit Katwala of Wired concluded that "Don't Look Up nails the frustration of being a scientist." Linda Marric of The Jewish Chronicle gave the film 4/5 stars, writing: "There is something genuinely endearing about a film that doesn't seem to care one bit about coming across as silly as long as its message is heard". Shruti Kotiya of Sportskeeda, suggests that "Don't Look Up also feels similar to Mike Judge's Idiocracy, which is set in 2505 America, where mindless entertainment and violence are what really matter. It also sheds light on how the world's collective IQ has hit its lowest, which is why Don't Look Up is like a 21st-century version of it."In a negative review, David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter called the film "A cynical, insufferably smug satire stuffed to the gills with stars that purports to comment on political and media inattention to the climate crisis but really just trivializes it. Dr. Strangelove it ain't." Peter Debruge of Variety called the film a "smug, easy-target political satire" and wrote, "Don't Look Up plays like the leftie answer to Armageddon—which is to say, it ditches the Bruckheimer approach of assembling a bunch of blue-collar heroes to rocket out to space and nuke the approaching comet, opting instead to spotlight the apathy, incompetence and financial self-interest of all involved." In The Guardian, Charles Bramesco wrote that the "script states the obvious as if everyone else is too stupid to realize it and does so from a position of lofty superiority that would drive away any partisans who still need to be won over." In The Sociological Review, Katherine Cross accused the film of "smug condescension" and wrote that the film "is designed to flatter a certain type of liberal viewer into feeling like they're the last sane person in the world, surrounded by morons."Reviews from right-wing publications were nearly unanimously negative. Madeline Fry Schultz of the American conservative publication Washington Examiner wrote that "McKay manages to deliver nothing more than a derivative and meandering 'satire' of capitalism, Donald Trump, and climate deniers that will be forgotten in less than six months." Kyle Smith of American conservative publication National Review wrote that the film "expends 140 brain-injuriously unfunny minutes... propelling low-velocity spitballs at social media, Washington, tech moguls, Trumpism, and (this detail feels thrown in last minute) anti-vaxxers."Nathan J. Robinson, editor of American progressive publication Current Affairs, believes that "critics were not only missing the point of the film in important ways, but that the very way they discussed the film exemplified the problem that the film was trying to draw attention to. Some of the responses to the movie could have appeared in the movie itself." Slavoj Žižek, writing in Compact, said that "critics were displeased by the light tone of Don't Look Up!, claiming it trivializes the ultimate apocalypse. What really bothered these critics is the exact opposite: The film highlights trivialization that permeates not only the establishment, but even the protesters." In The Guardian, Catherine Bennett viewed the film as astute and was caustic about the critical reviews. British journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that "no wonder journalists have slated it ... it's about them" and added that for environmental activists like himself, the film, while fast‑paced and humorous, "seemed all too real".Bong Joon-ho, director of Snowpiercer and Parasite, included Don't Look Up as one of his favorite films of 2021. Reception amongst scientists Since the film's release, numerous climate scientists and climate communicators have offered positive opinions on the film.In an opinion piece published in The Guardian, climate scientist Peter Kalmus remarked, "Don't Look Up is satire. But speaking as a climate scientist doing everything I can to wake people up and avoid planetary destruction, it's also the most accurate film about society's terrifying non-response to climate breakdown I've seen." Climate scientist Michael E. Mann also expressed support for the film, calling it "serious sociopolitical commentary posing as comedy". In an article for Scientific American, Rebecca Oppenheimer questioned the film's use of a comet impact as an effective metaphor for climate change, given the large differences in timescale of these differing potential extinction crisis events and the nature of their impacts, but praised its depiction of science denialism and depiction of a botched attempt to address a "planet-killer" comet. Climate policy expert Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and McKay wrote a joint op-ed in The Guardian advocating for the value of humour in promoting action on climate change, in contrast with other media coverage.Writing in Physics World, Laura Hiscott said that this "genuinely funny and entertaining film" would appeal to scientists, who would appreciate the "nods to academia such as the importance of peer review, the 'publish or perish' problem and the issue of senior academics getting the credit for their PhD students' discoveries".One of the scenes in the film was compared on social media to a situation in Brazil. In that situation, microbiologist and science communicator Natália Pasternak Taschner criticized a news report made by TV Cultura on a live broadcast in December 2020. They told the Brazilian population to face the COVID-19 pandemic with "lightness", minimizing the risks. They also put pressure on the public to be content and uncritical of the Jair Bolsonaro administration's lack of effective response to the pandemic. Hearing about the comparisons, Pasternak thanked McKay, DiCaprio and Lawrence on Twitter, with the video subtitled in English, for the "incredible" film. Accolades Analysis and themes The topic of science communication is at the forefront of the film, as it revolves around Mindy and Dibiasky, two scientists, struggling to share the news of their discovery with politicians, talk show hosts, and civilians who are ignorant about the scientific facts of humanity's impending destruction by Comet Dibiasky. Many academic scholars of media and communication have written commentaries that analyze and critique the portrayal of science communication in the film. U.S. centrism In the Journal of Science Communication, Niels G. Mede writes "the film depicts sharp partisan divides, strong affective polarization, high distrust toward science within certain social milieus, and pronounced news media sensationalism, which have been found to be characteristic of the United States but not, or to a lesser extent, of several countries other than the US." From the same journal, writer Julie Doyle remarked that, "yet, as the film critiques existing structures and systems it does not imagine an alternative set of realities, nor explain the comet's cause. In focusing upon the fictional stories of scientists, politicians, and media celebrities, the film fails to center any marginalized voices, continuing to privilege global north perspectives, even as these are satirised." Doyle comments that "climate communication needs to keep in place both climate mitigation and adaptation, making the historical and structural inequalities of capitalism and colonialism the interconnected stories of both." Media training for scientists One solution to Mindy and Dibiasky's failed attempts to communicate the severity of the upending comet is undergoing media training, which was brought up in the film multiple times, such as at the conference room at the New York Herald where the Chief Editor proposes media training to Mindy before the show. The concept of media training can come in different forms. Samer Angelone, in a commentary journal on science communication, writes, "The style that scientists use to communicate science to peer scientists is mostly objective, complex, and full of technical jargon, which is difficult for the general public to connect to—even if it is in the same language." Another way to mitigate science skepticism is through storytelling. Mede writes, "The film also illustrates that storytelling can be a promising strategy to mitigate these reservations... showing how Mindy is advised before a TV interview that he is 'just telling a story' and must 'keep it simple.'" Gendered emotions in scientific communication Gendered discourse on emotions and mental health make its way into the film through the portrayal of the public's reaction to Mindy and Dibiasky's various media appearances. The scientists share their discovery on a morning talk show, The Daily Rip, in which Dibiasky has an emotional outburst over the show hosts' persistent attempts to sugarcoat the devastating news of the doomsday comet. Professor of media and communication Julie Doyle writes, "Gendered norms affect Mindy and Dibiasky's public credibility and the mitigatory comet actions they promote. Following his own emotional outburst on TV, Mindy is subsequently recuperated through processes of celebritisation... hailed as a 'sexy' scientist offering rational and calm advice to the viewers; becoming chief science advisor to the White House to monitor the drone activities of tech billionaire Peter Isherwell; and embarking on a sexual affair with Evantee. In contrast, Dibiasky is discredited and side-lined from rational public commentary through (climate) memes." Easter eggs Throughout the film, many historic figures from science and politics can be spotted, adding to the film's nuanced discussion about the relationship between science and politics. The opening scene of the film features a figure of Carl Sagan on Dibiasky's desk. In a journal commentary for Science Communication, Samer Angelone writes that "Sagan was an astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, and astrobiologist but, above all, he was an upholder of scientific credibility and communication." Sagan advocated for the urgency to battle climate change, and many viewers see the film as an allegory for him, but his image is juxtaposed by a painting of George W. Bush, "who later tried to downplay this urgency." The film also "references the affinity of anti-science resentment and populism, showing how President Orlean and her team slander Mindy and Dibiasky using populist rhetoric...and gather in an Oval Office that has a portrait of the anti-establishment science skeptic Andrew Jackson."The film ends with a scene that reflects the Last Supper. Dr. Mindy, his family, Kate, Yule, and Teddy all sit around a dinner table and engage in a hand-held prayer, spoken by Yule. After the prayer, Kate Dibiasky gives Yule a kiss, and moments later Comet Dibiasky destroys Earth. The scene also resembles a Hieronymus Bosch painting. See also Double Asteroid Redirection Test – a real NASA mission to test deflection of an asteroid in 2022 Climate change in popular culture Notes References External links Don't Look Up at IMDb Don't Look Up at Rotten Tomatoes Don't Look Up on Netflix Official screenplay

climate feedback

Climate Feedback (CF) is a web-based content annotation tool that allows qualified scientists to comment on stories online, adding context and noting inaccuracies. It is one of three websites under the Science Feedback parent organization that fact-checks media coverage. Science Feedback is a non-profit organization registered in France.The CF website asks climate scientists in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change. The website published its first review in 2015. The website was founded by Emmanuel Vincent, who has a PhD in Oceanography & Climate from Université Pierre et Marie Curie. Vincent partnered with the non-profit Hypothes.is, who created a free Internet browser plug-in that allows users to make sentence-level comments on web pages, to create an evaluation of content. Climate Feedback, an application of the Hypothes.is platform to climate science communication, allows active climate scientists to add comments. Process Typically, a story will be reviewed for CF by five or six scientists, but on one story there were 17 reviewers. According to Climate Feedback, each reviewer has to hold a PhD in a relevant discipline, and have at least one published article on climate science or climate change impacts in a top-tier peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years. However, summaries are written by an editor rather than by a reviewer.The method was called "expert crowdsourcing" or a form of "elevated crowdsourcing" by Poynter's International Fact-Check Network. History The website published its first review in March 2015. In 2016, Climate Feedback raised about $30,000 with Indigogo crowdfunding, which bolstered one of the efforts to conduct fact-checking via web annotation. Others like PolitiFact have also been experimenting with annotation methods for politicians’ posts on the blogging platform Medium, using a $140,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.In 2017 Dana Nuccitelli, in a Guardian article on the role of denialist blogs in undermining public acceptance of anthropogenic global warming, described Climate Feedback as "a highly respected and influential resource."The website has identified errors in content published by outlets, such as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Mail on Sunday and New York magazine. The website is included in the database of global fact-checking sites by the Reporters' Lab at Duke University. Currently, Emmanuel Vincent serves as director.As a project of the Science Feedback non-profit organization, Climate Feedback reviews are used in Facebook's fact-checking partnership to identify false news articles and show them lower in its News Feed. Science Feedback is annually certified by the International Fact Checking Network at the Poynter Institute.In September 2021, journalist John Stossel filed a libel lawsuit against Facebook, along with Climate Feedback and Science Feedback, for labeling two of his videos on climate change "misleading" and "partly false". Stossel's lawsuit said the labels misrepresented his views. A judge dismissed Stossel's lawsuit in October 2022, ruling that the labels were First Amendment-protected statements of opinion. See also Climate change denial References External links Science Feedback Official website Climate Feedback Official website Health Feedback Official website

emergency leaders for climate action

Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA) is an organization of ex-fire and emergency chiefs in Australia. They have a particular interest in addressing the underlying causes of extreme weather events, focusing especially on climate change. Background Emergency Leaders for Climate Action was launched on 10 April 2019. ELCA was created by a group of senior leaders who previously directed fire and emergency services in every state and territory in Australia. The 23 founders created ELCA to address climate change, which they understand to be the underlying cause of increasing extreme weather events, though they felt constrained from discussing it while working in the public service.During the launch, former National Parks and Wildlife Service (New South Wales) fire manager, Bob Conroy, announced that, "Climate change is upon us, it's perilous and we need to do more about it." They also issued a joint letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The 23 signatories of the letter called for a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss “unconstrained by their former employers, how climate change risks are rapidly escalating.” Former NSW Fire and Rescue commissioner, Climate Council Councillor, and founder of Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, Greg Mullins stated, "We are deeply concerned about the lack of climate action at a national level and felt obligated to speak out," and that we have a “duty to tell people how climate change is super-charging our natural disaster risks.”Mullins also stated that the summer of 19-20 was going to be "the worst I have ever seen" and encouraged the Federal Government to urgently introduce measures to address climate change such as limiting the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.Emergency Leaders for Climate Action is a project supported by the Climate Council. Black Summer During the summer 2019-20 bushfire season, Australia experienced months of devastating bushfires across the nation, unprecedented in their scale, duration, and intensity, prompting it to be called the "summer from hell". Many records were broken over the summer. Overall, 26 people lost their lives, almost 2,500 homes were lost, and more than 5.5 million hectares were burnt. Almost 80% of Australians were impacted - directly or indirectly - by the bushfires, and the Gospers Mountain fire, "the Monster", was Australia's largest forest fire ever recorded, burning more than 500,000 hectares.Throughout the duration of the bushfires, members of ELCA regularly appeared in the media to provide commentary on the conditions and consistently linked the cause of the unprecedented bushfires to climate change. Greg Mullins penned an op-ed during the worst of the fires that stated, “In the past I have heard some federal politicians dodge the question of the influence of climate change on extreme weather and fires by saying, 'It's terrible that this matter is being raised while the fires are still burning.' But if not now, then when?” In another op-ed he stated that, “The Federal Government’s failure to address climate change will increasingly place Australian lives and property in danger.”Former ACT Emergency Services Authority commissioner Peter Dunn said that, “What I'm seeing is an absolute crisis in the leadership that we do not have right now in this country. Our leadership is asleep at the wheel. In fact, in some areas, I think it's on life support."During the summer of 2019–20, ELCA was mentioned over 78,000 times in the media reaching over 100 million people. This included 14,000 times in traditional media and 64,000 times on social media. National Bushfire and Climate Summit Prompted by their “huge disappointment in the lack of national leadership during a bushfire crisis”, ELCA members announced in December 2019 that they would convene their own summit, once the bushfire season was over, to discuss how Australia should better prepare for and resource bushfire emergencies. In relation to the announcement, Mullins announced, “What we feel is that there’s just still this denial of [climate change] and where we have denial of the problem, there’s not going to be any action. So we’ll go it alone. We’ll arrange a national summit that will look at building standards, fuel management practices, response capability and national coordination arrangements.”The National Bushfire and Climate Summit was convened during June and July 2020. It consisted of four roundtable discussions with experts including climate scientists, former and current emergency leaders, Indigenous fire practitioners, doctors, veterinarians, farmers, community leaders, social service providers, economists, mayors, bushfire survivors, and more. This was in addition to two public panels hosted by Greg Mullins and Kerry O’Brien.The Summit culminated in the release of The Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan. The document consists of 165 recommendations to better protect Australians from bushfires. The first recommendation states that “The Federal Government must address the root cause of the climate crisis and worsening bushfires through a national commitment to net zero emissions, strengthening of Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction targets, and the managed phase-out of all fossil fuels.” Other key recommendations from the plan include: more large aerial firefighting capability, better fuel management, an Indigenous-led National Cultural Fire Strategy, better coordinating wildlife recovery and better utilisation of the Australian Defence Force. The report also called on the Federal Government to set up a national climate disaster fund, paid for by creating a levy for the fossil fuel industry, to pay for the impact of natural disasters. External links Official website The Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan == References ==

stephen schneider (scientist)

Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. Schneider's research included modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and the effect of global climate change on biological systems. Schneider was the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers and other publications. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report and was engaged as a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the time of his death. During the 1980s, Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. In 2006 Professor Schneider was an Adelaide Thinker in Residence advising the South Australian Government of Premier Mike Rann on climate change and renewable energy policies. In ten years South Australia went from zero to 31% of its electricity generation coming from renewables. An annual award for outstanding climate science communication was created in Schneider's honor after his death, by the Commonwealth Club of California. The Stephen Schneider Memorial Lecture of the American Geophysical Union honors Schneider's life and work. Early work Schneider grew up on Long Island, New York. He studied engineering at Columbia University, receiving his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1966. In 1971, he earned a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and plasma physics. Schneider studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Schneider was awarded the Marshall Scholarship. In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. Ichtiaque Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded that: [I]t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 K. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production. Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was lower than other estimates by a factor of about three, as noted in a footnote to the paper. The story made headlines in The New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.In a 1976 book The Genesis Strategy he discusses both long-term warming due to carbon dioxide and short-term cooling due to aerosols, and advocated for adopting policies that are resilient to future changes in climate. Media contributions Schneider was a frequent contributor to commercial and noncommercial print and broadcast media on climate and environmental issues, e.g., Nova, Planet Earth, Nightline, Today Show, The Tonight Show, Bill Maher's shows, Good Morning America, Dateline, The Discovery Channel, as well as appearances on the British, Canadian and Australian Broadcasting Corporations.Schneider commented about the frustrations and difficulties involved with assessing and communicating scientific ideas. In a January 2002 Scientific American article, he wrote: I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming. In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.) For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996. Honors 1991 AAAS Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology. 1992 MacArthur Fellow "Genius Award". 2002 Elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Section on Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences (1999–2001). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to which Schneider made very significant contributions, shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Personal Schneider was married to the biologist Terry Root. Schneider was a survivor of an aggressive cancer, mantle cell lymphoma. He documented his struggle to conquer the condition, including applying his own knowledge of science to design his own treatment regime, in a self-published 2005 book, The Patient from Hell. He died unexpectedly on July 19, 2010, after suffering a pulmonary embolism while returning from a scientific meeting in Käringön, Sweden. Selected publications Michael D. Mastrandrea; Stephen H. Schneider (October 2010). Preparing for Climate Change. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01488-5. Stephen H. Schneider, Tim Flannery introduction (2009) Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate. National Geographic Society (November 3, 2009) ISBN 978-1-4262-0540-8 Stephen H. Schneider, James R. Miller, Eileen Crist and Penelope J. Boston (Eds, 2008). Scientists debate Gaia: the next century. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-2621-9498-3 Stephen H. Schneider, Janica Lane (2005) The Patient from Hell: How I Worked with My Doctors to Get the Best of Modern Medicine and How You Can Too. Da Capo Lifelong Books. Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, John O. Niles (eds., 2002), Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Island Press, 368 pp; June 2002. Stephen H. Schneider and Terry L. Root (Editors, 2001), Wildlife Responses to Climate Change: North American Case Studies, Island Press; December 2001. Stephen H. Schneider (1997), Laboratory Earth: the Planetary Gamble We Can't Afford to Lose, HarperCollins; January 1997 Stephen H. Schneider (Editor, 1996), Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, Oxford University Press; May 1996. Stephen H. Schneider, Penelope J. Boston (Eds, 1992), Scientists on Gaia, MIT Press; February 1992 Stephen H. Schneider (1989), Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century?, Sierra Club Books; October 1989 Stephen H. Schneider, Randi Londer (1984), Coevolution of Climate and Life, Sierra Club Books; May 1984 Stephen H. Schneider, Lynne E. Mesirow (1976), The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival, Plenum Pub Corp; April 1976. See also Point Paterson Desalination Plant Politics of global warming References Further reading "The Bulletin Interview: Stephen Schneider". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 65 (4): 5–13. Jul–Aug 2009. Bibcode:2009BuAtS..65d...5.. doi:10.2968/065004002. S2CID 218771807. Johnson, Dan (Jul–Aug 1997). "Earth's Changing Climate". The Futurist. 31 (4): 6. ISSN 0016-3317. Santer, B. and Ehrlich, P. 2014. Stephen Schneider: a biographical essay. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. External links Stephen Schneider at IMDb Biography of Dr. Schneider (stanford.edu) Dr. Schneider's 1997 testimony to the U.S. Senate is no longer available on the U.S. Senate web site, but is available on the Archived August 29, 2000, at the Wayback Machine Exchange between Schneider and Richard Lindzen is no longer available on the Cato Institute web site, but is available on the Archived March 3, 2001, at the Wayback Machine New York Times announcing his death Climate Change: Is the Science Settled? on YouTube a presentation made at Stanford University in February 2010. Science and Distortion on YouTube by Climate One One climate change scientist takes on a roomful of sceptics on YouTube Schneider talked to a sceptical audience, recorded by SBS Australia in June 2010. He died a few weeks later.

carbon pollution reduction scheme

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (or CPRS) was a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme for anthropogenic greenhouse gases proposed by the Rudd government, as part of its climate change policy, which had been due to commence in Australia in 2010. It marked a major change in the energy policy of Australia. The policy began to be formulated in April 2007, when the federal Labor Party was in Opposition and the six Labor-controlled states commissioned an independent review on energy policy, the Garnaut Climate Change Review, which published a number of reports. After Labor won the 2007 federal election and formed government, it published a Green Paper on climate change for discussion and comment. The Federal Treasury then modelled some of the financial and economic impacts of the proposed CPRS scheme. The Rudd government published a final White Paper on 15 December 2008, and announced that legislation was intended to take effect in July 2010; but the legislation for the CPRS (aka ETS) failed to gain the numbers in the Senate and was twice rejected creating a double dissolution election trigger. A bitter political debate within the Coalition Opposition saw Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull lose the leadership to the anti-CPRS Tony Abbott. The Rudd government did not call an election and in April 2010, Rudd deferred plans for the CPRS. After the 2010 federal election, the Gillard government was able to get the Carbon Pricing Mechanism passed into law as part of the Clean Energy Futures Package (CEF) in 2011, and became effective on 1 July 2012. However, after the 2013 federal election there was a change in government, and the Abbott government repealed the CEF package on 17 July 2014. Due to the great deal of policy uncertainty surrounding the scheme, organizations in Australia responded in a rather informal and tepid manner and largely withheld from making any large-scale investments in emissions reductions technology during the scheme's operation. History In the 2007 election year, both the Liberal-led Coalition government and the Labor opposition promised to introduce carbon trading. Opposition leader Rudd commissioned the Garnaut Climate Change Review on 30 April 2007, while Prime Minister John Howard announced his own plan for a carbon trading scheme on 4 June 2007, after the final report of the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading. Labor won the election on 24 November 2007. Green Paper The draft Garnaut Report, issued on 4 July 2008, was only one of many inputs into the policy-making process. The Labor government also issued a "Green Paper" on 16 July 2008 that described the intended design of the carbon trading scheme.The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, was a market-based approach to greenhouse gas pollution, to be implemented in 2010 (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 9). The main concern for the Australian government was getting the design of such a scheme correct, so that it would have complemented the integrated economic policy framework, and would have been consistent with the Government's commercial strategy (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 10). The objective of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was to meet Australia's emissions reduction targets in the most flexible and cost-effective way; to support an effective global response to climate change; and to provide for transitional assistance for the most affected households and firms (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 14). The basis of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was a cap and trade system, and was a way of limiting greenhouse gas pollution, as well as giving individuals and businesses incentives to reduce their emissions (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 11). The Australian Government would have set a cap on carbon emissions, consistent with longer-term goals of reducing Australia's emissions by 60% compared with 2000 levels by 2050 (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 11). There were two definite elements of the cap and trade scheme: the cap itself, and the ability to trade (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 12). The cap is the limit on greenhouse gas emissions imposed by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The system aims at achieving the environmental outcome of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the idea being that capping emissions creates a price for carbon and the ability to trade ensures that emissions are reduced at the lowest possible price (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 12). Setting a limit means that the right to emit greenhouse gases becomes scarce, and scarcity entails a price. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would have put a price on carbon in a systematic way throughout the economy (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 13). The 'covered' sectors are sources of emissions subject to the cap, which were specified in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 12). After setting the cap, the Government would have then issued permits that are equal to the cap. The Green Paper gives the example "if the cap were to limit emissions to 100 million tonnes of CO2-e in a particular year, 100 million 'permits' would be issued that year" (2008, 12). For every tonne of emissions emitted, a source of emissions would have been required to acquire and surrender a permit (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 12). About one thousand firms were expected to have obligations from the Scheme. The price of emissions would increase the cost of those goods and services that are most emissions-intensive (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 13). This means that there will be a change across the prices of goods and services across the economy, reflecting how emission-intensive the goods or service is. That therefore provides businesses and consumers with incentives to use and invest in low-emissions technologies. The second essential element of a cap and trade scheme is the ability to trade. Since carbon pollution permits will be tradable, the price of permits will be determined by the market (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 13). The main idea behind this part of the scheme is that a firm who can undertake abatement more cheaply than the permit price will do so, and that a company will pay for permits if the cost to it of lowering its emissions exceeds the cost of the permits. By trading among themselves, firms achieve the scheme cap at the least cost to the economy (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 13). The cap would only achieve the desired environmental objectives if it is enforced. This means that firms responsible for emissions covered by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme must monitor their emissions and report them accurately to government (Department of Climate Change, 2008, 12). The reported emissions data would need to be monitored and verified. Treasury report on the economics of climate change mitigation The Australian Treasury's report on the economics of climate change mitigation was released on 30 October 2008. The report was a key input in determining the structure and targets for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Treasury's modeling demonstrated that early global action to reduce carbon emissions would be less expensive than later action and stated that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future as emissions fall. The report also stated that: many of Australia's industries would maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change even ambitious goals would have limited impact on national and global economic growth Australia and the world can continue to prosper while making the emission cuts required to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change. Households would face increased prices for emission-intensive products such as electricity and gas, however real household income would continue to grow. Strong coordinated global action would reduce the economic cost of achieving environmental objectives, reduce distortions in trade-exposed sectors, and provide insurance against climate change uncertainty. There are advantages to Australia acting early if emission pricing expands gradually across the world: economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers. Australia's aggregate economic costs of mitigation are small, although the costs to sectors and regions vary. Growth in emission-intensive sectors slows and growth in low- and negative-emission sectors accelerates. Allocation of some free permits to emission-intensive trade-exposed sectors, as the Government proposes, eases their transition to a low-emission economy in the initial years. Broadly based market-oriented policies, such as emissions trading, allow the market to respond as new information becomes available. White Paper The White Paper was released on 15 December 2008. The White Paper included the Rudd Labor government's targets for Greenhouse gas emission reductions, 5% below 2000 by 2020 on a unilateral basis or up to 15% below 2000 by 2020 if also agreed by the other major emitters. This compares to the 25 to 40% cut compared to 1990 emissions recommended by the IPCC as needing to be made by developed countries to keep CO2 below 450 ppm and to have a reasonable chance of keeping global warming at less than a 2-degree Celsius increase above pre-industrial times. The White Paper also set an indicative national emissions trajectory for the first few years of the scheme: in 2010–11, 109% of 2000 levels; in 2011–12, 108% of 2000 levels; in 2012–13, 107% of 2000 levels.For comparison, in 2006, Australia's emissions were 104% of 2000 levels (under Kyoto accounting).Some of the features of the emissions trading scheme proposed were: an output as opposed to consumption based scheme A modelled carbon price range of AUD 20 to AUD 40 per tonne of carbon. Less than 1,000 businesses will have to account for their emissions and buy or be allocated free permits. AUD 4.8 billion of assistance (in the form of free permits) for the most polluting electricity generators. Financial assistance to compensate low and middle income families from increased costs. Free permits to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses - such as aluminium producers, iron and steel makers, petrol refiners and LNG producers, initially totaling 25% to 33% of permits and rising to 45% by 2020. There will be total offset of the impact on fuel prices on households for 3 years. Agricultural emissions are not included initially but may be included from 2015. There will be a price cap on emissions, that will start at AUD 40 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. Firms will be able to purchase unlimited quantities of emissions allocations (including CERs under the clean development mechanism) from the international market, but will not be able to sell them during the initial years. Reforestation can count as carbon credit, but deforestation and forest degradation do not count as a liability. Criticism The national Climate Action Summit of 500 participants representing 140 climate groups Australia wide has condemned the CPRS and agreed to campaign to prevent it becoming law. Major concerns included announced targets, granting of property rights to pollute and providing free permits to major polluters. Summit participants were joined by 2,000 other people in surrounding parliament house to express dissatisfaction with the Rudd government climate change policies. Criticism of the targets Several organisations criticised the choice of emission reduction targets in the CPRS. Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society and the Climate Institute were joined by the Greens and other environmentalists in calling for more ambitious 2020 targets of 25 to 45 per cent reductions. Professor Andy Pitman described the targets as inadequate. Professor Barry Brook, the Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, stated that "the 14% cut in our total emissions by 2020 announced today is such a pitifully inadequate attempt to stop dangerous climate change that we may as well wave the white flag now." Dr Regina Betz, Joint Director of the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at UNSW, stated "The proposed 2020 targets of emission reductions of 5 to 15% are, according to the climate science, entirely inadequate for an equitable global response to avoid dangerous global warming." Dr Frank Jotzo, deputy director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, and former advisor to the Garnaut Climate Change Review, said "ruling out a 25% reduction is a mistake, since Australia's overwhelming interest is strong global climate action. An international agreement with deep cuts has just become a little bit more unlikely, as a result of Australia not putting a compatible offer on the table" and "the Treasury modelling has shown that even deep cuts won't carry big economic costs for Australia, if the policies are sound." Industry criticism Australian industrialists were concerned about cost impacts. Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry chief executive Peter Anderson said his members were "apprehensive" about the scheme because it was "too risky" and warned the costs would be borne not only by emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries but also by "small and medium businesses through higher energy costs and the flow-on from restructuring of larger industries".Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout said the scheme was "a big ask and will have a big impact on the Australian economy" and estimated it would add about $7 billion to business costs by 2010. Other criticism Other sources of criticism included concerns over coverage of agriculture, impacts on the minerals sector and implications for international agreements. Dr Hugh Saddler, Managing Director of Energy Strategies Pty Ltd, stated "the white paper does not include measures to reduce emissions from the major non-energy sectors such as agriculture and land clearing. While it is a good decision not to include these emission sources within the CPRS, it is essential that there be other strong programs specifically directed at these sectors."Mitch Hooke, the head of the Minerals Council of Australia, said his organisation was "profoundly disappointed that the white paper was not better aligned with progress towards a global agreement on reduction commitments, new low emissions technologies and emissions trading schemes in other countries" South Africa's environment minister, Marthinus Van Schalkwyk, described the scheme as an inadequate "opening bid", and warned that it is not "nearly good enough to bring developing countries to the table".Professor Ross Garnaut, previously an adviser to the Government on climate change, 'damned' the Rudd government's carbon policy because of the gross over-compensation of coal-fired electricity generators; the possibility of taking 25% emission reduction targets off the table when they are in Australia's best interest; the lack of a principled basis for support of trade-exposed industries and the potential threat to public finances of the proposed compensation to industry. Support Statements of support included: The United Nations climate negotiator Yvo de Boer told ABC Radio "Australia's now put a figure on the table, something countries have been calling for a long time".Gerard Henderson, the former Chief-of-Staff to John Howard, has described Rudd's emissions targets as "responsible".After changes announced in May 2009, some business and environment groups announced that the CPRS, although weak, was now worth supporting. May 2009 changes On 4 May 2009, the government announced a number of modifications to the proposed Scheme, including a delayed start, a deeper conditional target (25% by 2020, in the event of a global agreement aiming at 450 ppm), more assistance for industry, and a "carbon trust" to enable voluntary action by households. November 2009 changes There were a number of significant changes made to the scheme in November 2009 after Malcolm Turnbull negotiated with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. These changes included large increases in compensation for polluting industries, including the coal and aluminium smelting industries. $4 billion was proposed for the manufacturing sector and $1.5 billion was proposed for electricity generators. Rejection and withdrawal of bill Without a majority in the Senate, and without the support of the Opposition, Labor needed support from the undecided cross-bench members, the Greens, Family First and independent senators. On 30 November 2009, the Senate failed to pass the CPRS (Senate Hansard page 9602), giving Kevin Rudd a potential reason for calling a double dissolution election.On 27 April 2010, the Prime Minister Rudd announced that the Government had decided to delay the implementation of the CPRS until after the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (which ended in 2012). The Government cited the lack of bipartisan support for the CPRS and slow international progress on climate action for the delay. The Prime Minister announced that the CPRS would be introduced only when there was greater clarity on the actions of other major economies including the US, China and India. In June 2010, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, told Sky News Australia that he first learned of the scrapping of the CPRS when he read about it in a newspaper after it was leaked by a Government source.The delay in implementing the CPRS drew strong criticism of Rudd and the Labor Party from the Federal Opposition, and from community and grassroots action groups such as GetUp. On 5 April 2011, Rudd stated that he believed it had been a mistake to delay the ETS during his term as Prime Minister.In February 2011, the Gillard government announced the Clean Energy Bill 2011, an emissions trading scheme to replace the CPRS. This bill was passed into law later that year, paving the way for a carbon price to be introduced on 1 July 2012. See also Carbon pricing in Australia List of climate change initiatives Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Australia) Energy policy of Australia § Green paper on Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Asia-Pacific Emissions Trading Forum Notes Bibliography "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper" (PDF). Department of Climate Change. 16 July 2008. Retrieved 20 July 2011. "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low Pollution Future (The White Paper)". Department of Climate Change. 15 December 2008. Archived from the original on 27 July 2009. Retrieved 30 July 2011.

delphi method

The Delphi method or Delphi technique ( DEL-fy; also known as Estimate-Talk-Estimate or ETE) is a structured communication technique or method, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts. The technique can also be adapted for use in face-to-face meetings, and is then called mini-Delphi. Delphi has been widely used for business forecasting and has certain advantages over another structured forecasting approach, prediction markets.Delphi can also be used to help reach expert consensus and develop professional guidelines. It is used for such purposes in many health-related fields, including clinical medicine, public health, and research.Delphi is based on the principle that forecasts (or decisions) from a structured group of individuals are more accurate than those from unstructured groups. The experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator or change agent provides an anonymised summary of the experts' forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer. Finally, the process is stopped after a predefined stopping criterion (e.g., number of rounds, achievement of consensus, stability of results), and the mean or median scores of the final rounds determine the results.Special attention has to be paid to the formulation of the Delphi theses and the definition and selection of the experts in order to avoid methodological weaknesses that severely threaten the validity and reliability of the results. History The name Delphi derives from the Oracle of Delphi, although the authors of the method were unhappy with the oracular connotation of the name, "smacking a little of the occult". The Delphi method assumes that group judgments are more valid than individual judgments. The Delphi method was developed at the beginning of the Cold War to forecast the impact of technology on warfare. In 1944, General Henry H. Arnold ordered the creation of the report for the U.S. Army Air Corps on the future technological capabilities that might be used by the military. Different approaches were tried, but the shortcomings of traditional forecasting methods, such as theoretical approach, quantitative models or trend extrapolation, quickly became apparent in areas where precise scientific laws have not been established yet. To combat these shortcomings, the Delphi method was developed by Project RAND during the 1950-1960s (1959) by Olaf Helmer, Norman Dalkey, and Nicholas Rescher. It has been used ever since, together with various modifications and reformulations, such as the Imen-Delphi procedure.Experts were asked to give their opinion on the probability, frequency, and intensity of possible enemy attacks. Other experts could anonymously give feedback. This process was repeated several times until a consensus emerged. A research protocol explaining the rigorous approach to applying the Delphi method were originally published in the BMJ Open in 2015. This research protocol is generally used and cited now by any research applying the Delphi method as it is the first time a clear protocol has been described for the application of the methodology in practice. In 2021, a cross-disciplinary study by Beiderbeck et al. focused on new directions and advancements of the Delphi method, including Real-time Delphi formats. The authors provide a methodological toolbox for designing Delphi surveys including among others sentiment analyses of the field of psychology. Key characteristics The following key characteristics of the Delphi method help the participants to focus on the issues at hand and separate Delphi from other methodologies: in this technique a panel of experts is drawn from both inside and outside the organisation. The panel consists of experts having knowledge of the area requiring decision making. Each expert is asked to make anonymous predictions. Anonymity of the participants Usually all participants remain anonymous. Their identity is not revealed, even after the completion of the final report. This prevents the authority, personality, or reputation of some participants from dominating others in the process. Arguably, it also frees participants (to some extent) from their personal biases, minimizes the "bandwagon effect" or "halo effect", allows free expression of opinions, encourages open critique, and facilitates admission of errors when revising earlier judgments. Structuring of information flow The initial contributions from the experts are collected in the form of answers to questionnaires and their comments to these answers. The panel director controls the interactions among the participants by processing the information and filtering out irrelevant content. This avoids the negative effects of face-to-face panel discussions and solves the usual problems of group dynamics. Regular feedback The Delphi method allows participants to comment on the responses of others, the progress of the panel as a whole, and to revise their own forecasts and opinions in real time. Role of the facilitator The person coordinating the Delphi method is usually known as a facilitator or Leader, and facilitates the responses of their panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus. During the past decades, facilitators have used many different measures and thresholds to measure the degree of consensus or dissent. A comprehensive literature review and summary is compiled in an article by von der Gracht. Applications Use in forecasting First applications of the Delphi method were in the field of science and technology forecasting. The objective of the method was to combine expert opinions on likelihood and expected development time, of the particular technology, in a single indicator. One of the first such reports, prepared in 1964 by Gordon and Helmer, assessed the direction of long-term trends in science and technology development, covering such topics as scientific breakthroughs, population control, automation, space progress, war prevention and weapon systems. Other forecasts of technology were dealing with vehicle-highway systems, industrial robots, intelligent internet, broadband connections, and technology in education. Later the Delphi method was applied in other places, especially those related to public policy issues, such as economic trends, health and education. It was also applied successfully and with high accuracy in business forecasting. For example, in one case reported by Basu and Schroeder (1977), the Delphi method predicted the sales of a new product during the first two years with inaccuracy of 3–4% compared with actual sales. Quantitative methods produced errors of 10–15%, and traditional unstructured forecast methods had errors of about 20%. (This is only one example; the overall accuracy of the technique is mixed.) The Delphi method has also been used as a tool to implement multi-stakeholder approaches for participative policy-making in developing countries. The governments of Latin America and the Caribbean have successfully used the Delphi method as an open-ended public-private sector approach to identify the most urgent challenges for their regional ICT-for-development eLAC Action Plans. As a result, governments have widely acknowledged the value of collective intelligence from civil society, academic and private sector participants of the Delphi, especially in a field of rapid change, such as technology policies. Use in patent participation identification In the early 1980s Jackie Awerman of Jackie Awerman Associates, Inc. designed a modified Delphi method for identifying the roles of various contributors to the creation of a patent-eligible product. (Epsilon Corporation, Chemical Vapor Deposition Reactor) The results were then used by patent attorneys to determine bonus distribution percentage to the general satisfaction of all team members. Use in policy-making From the 1970s, the use of the Delphi technique in public policy-making introduces a number of methodological innovations. In particular: the need to examine several types of items (not only forecasting items but, typically, issue items, goal items, and option items) leads to introducing different evaluation scales which are not used in the standard Delphi. These often include desirability, feasibility (technical and political) and probability, which the analysts can use to outline different scenarios: the desired scenario (from desirability), the potential scenario (from feasibility) and the expected scenario (from probability); the complexity of issues posed in public policy-making tends to increase weighting of panelists’ arguments, such as soliciting pros and cons for each item along with new items for panel consideration; likewise, methods measuring panel evaluations tend to increase sophistication such as multi-dimensional scaling.Further innovations come from the use of computer-based (and later web-based) Delphi conferences. According to Turoff and Hiltz, in computer-based Delphis: the iteration structure used in the paper Delphis, which is divided into three or more discrete rounds, can be replaced by a process of continuous (roundless) interaction, enabling panelists to change their evaluations at any time; the statistical group response can be updated in real-time, and shown whenever a panelist provides a new evaluation. According to Bolognini, web-based Delphis offer two further possibilities, relevant in the context of interactive policy-making and e-democracy. These are: the involvement of a large number of participants, the use of two or more panels representing different groups (such as policy-makers, experts, citizens), which the administrator can give tasks reflecting their diverse roles and expertise, and make them to interact within ad hoc communication structures. For example, the policy community members (policy-makers and experts) may interact as part of the main conference panel, while they receive inputs from a virtual community (citizens, associations etc.) involved in a side conference. These web-based variable communication structures, which he calls Hyperdelphi (HD), are designed to make Delphi conferences "more fluid and adapted to the hypertextual and interactive nature of digital communication".One successful example of a (partially) web-based policy Delphi is the five-round Delphi exercise (with 1,454 contributions) for the creation of the eLAC Action Plans in Latin America. It is believed to be the most extensive online participatory policy-making foresight exercise in the history of intergovernmental processes in the developing world at this time. In addition to the specific policy guidance provided, the authors list the following lessons learned: "(1) the potential of Policy Delphi methods to introduce transparency and accountability into public decision-making, especially in developing countries; (2) the utility of foresight exercises to foster multi-agency networking in the development community; (3) the usefulness of embedding foresight exercises into established mechanisms of representative democracy and international multilateralism, such as the United Nations; (4) the potential of online tools to facilitate participation in resource-scarce developing countries; and (5) the resource-efficiency stemming from the scale of international foresight exercises, and therefore its adequacy for resource-scarce regions." Use in health settings The Delphi technique is widely used to help reach expert consensus in health-related settings. For example, it is frequently employed in the development of medical guidelines and protocols. Use in public health Some examples of its application in public health contexts include non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, iodine deficiency disorders, building responsive health systems for communities affected by migration, the role of health systems in advancing well-being for those living with HIV, and in creating a 2022 paper on recommendations to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Use in reporting guidelines Use of the Delphi method in the development of guidelines for the reporting of health research is recommended, especially for experienced developers. Since this advice was made in 2010, two systematic reviews have found that fewer than 30% of published reporting guidelines incorporated Delphi methods into the development process. Online Delphi systems A number of Delphi forecasts are conducted using web sites that allow the process to be conducted in real-time. For instance, the TechCast Project uses a panel of 100 experts worldwide to forecast breakthroughs in all fields of science and technology. Another example is the Horizon Project, where educational futurists collaborate online using the Delphi method to come up with the technological advancements to look out for in education for the next few years. Variations Traditionally the Delphi method has aimed at a consensus of the most probable future by iteration. Other versions, such as the Policy Delphi, is instead a decision support method aiming at structuring and discussing the diverse views of the preferred future. In Europe, more recent web-based experiments have used the Delphi method as a communication technique for interactive decision-making and e-democracy. The Argument Delphi, developed by Osmo Kuusi, focuses on ongoing discussion and finding relevant arguments rather than focusing on the output. The Disaggregative Policy Delphi, developed by Petri Tapio, uses cluster analysis as a systematic tool to construct various scenarios of the future in the latest Delphi round. The respondent's view on the probable and the preferable future are dealt with as separate cases. The computerization of Argument Delphi is relatively difficult because of several problems like argument resolution, argument aggregation and argument evaluation. The computerization of Argument Delphi, developed by Sadi Evren Seker, proposes solutions to such problems. Accuracy Today the Delphi method is a widely accepted forecasting tool and has been used successfully for thousands of studies in areas varying from technology forecasting to drug abuse. Overall the track record of the Delphi method is mixed. There have been many cases when the method produced poor results. Still, some authors attribute this to poor application of the method and not to the weaknesses of the method itself. It must also be realized that in areas such as science and technology forecasting, the degree of uncertainty is so great that exact and always correct predictions are impossible, so a high degree of error is to be expected. An important challenge for the method is ensuring sufficiently knowledgeable panelists. If panelists are misinformed about a topic, the use of Delphi may only add confidence to their ignorance.One of the initial problems of the method was its inability to make complex forecasts with multiple factors. Potential future outcomes were usually considered as if they had no effect on each other. Later on, several extensions to the Delphi method were developed to address this problem, such as cross impact analysis, that takes into consideration the possibility that the occurrence of one event may change probabilities of other events covered in the survey. Still the Delphi method can be used most successfully in forecasting single scalar indicators. Delphi vs. prediction markets Delphi has characteristics similar to prediction markets as both are structured approaches that aggregate diverse opinions from groups. Yet, there are differences that may be decisive for their relative applicability for different problems.Some advantages of prediction markets derive from the possibility to provide incentives for participation. They can motivate people to participate over a long period of time and to reveal their true beliefs. They aggregate information automatically and instantly incorporate new information in the forecast. Participants do not have to be selected and recruited manually by a facilitator. They themselves decide whether to participate if they think their private information is not yet incorporated in the forecast.Delphi seems to have these advantages over prediction markets: Participants reveal their reasoning It is easier to maintain confidentiality Potentially quicker forecasts if experts are readily available. Delphi is applicable in situations where the bets involved might affect the value of the currency used in bets (e.g. a bet on the collapse of the dollar made in dollars might have distorted odds).More recent research has also focused on combining both, the Delphi technique and prediction markets. More specifically, in a research study at Deutsche Börse elements of the Delphi method had been integrated into a prediction market. See also Computer supported brainstorming DARPA's Policy Analysis Market Horizon scanning Nominal group technique Planning poker Reference class forecasting Wideband delphi The Wisdom of Crowds References Further reading External links RAND publications on the Delphi Method Downloadable documents from RAND concerning applications of the Delphi Technique.

geography of iran

Geographically, the country of Iran is located in West Asia and borders the Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf, and Gulf of Oman. Topographically, it is predominantly located on the Persian Plateau. Its mountains have impacted both the political and the economic history of the country for several centuries. The mountains enclose several broad basins, on which major agricultural and urban settlements are located. Until the 20th century, when major highways and railroads were constructed through the mountains to connect the population centers, these basins tended to be relatively isolated from one another. Typically, one major town dominated each basin, and there were complex economic relationships between the town and the hundreds of villages that surrounded it. In the higher elevations of the mountains rimming the basins, tribally organized groups practiced transhumance, moving with their herds of sheep and goats between traditionally established summer and winter pastures. There are no major river systems in the country, and historically transportation was by means of caravans that followed routes traversing gaps and passes in the mountains. The mountains also impeded easy access to the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. With an area of 1,648,000 square kilometres (636,000 sq mi), Iran ranks seventeenth in size among the countries of the world. Iran shares its northern borders with several post-Soviet states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. These borders extend for more than 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi), including nearly 650 kilometres (400 mi) of water along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. Iran's western borders are with Turkey in the north and Iraq in the south, terminating at the Arvand Rud. The Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman littorals form the entire 1,770 kilometres (1,100 mi) southern border. To the east lie Afghanistan on the north and Pakistan on the far south. Iran's diagonal distance from Azerbaijan in the northwest to Sistan and Baluchestan Province in the southeast is approximately 2,333 kilometres (1,450 mi). Topography The topography of Iran consists of rugged, mountainous rims surrounding high interior basins. The main mountain chain is the Zagros Mountains, a series of parallel ridges interspersed with plains that bisect the country from northwest to southeast. Many peaks in the Zagros exceed 3,000 metres (9,843 ft) above sea level, and in the south-central region of the country there are at least five peaks that are over 4,000 metres (13,123 ft). As the Zagros continue into southeastern Iran, the average elevation of the peaks declines dramatically to under 1,500 metres (4,921 ft). Rimming the Caspian Sea littoral is another chain of mountains, the narrow but high Alborz Mountains. Volcanic Mount Damavand, 5,610 metres (18,406 ft), located in the center of the Alborz, is not only the country's highest peak but also the highest mountain on the Eurasian landmass west of the Hindu Kush. The center of Iran consists of several closed basins that collectively are referred to as the Central Plateau. The average elevation of this plateau is about 900 metres (2,953 ft), but several of the mountains that tower over the plateau exceed 3,000 metres (9,843 ft). The eastern part of the plateau is covered by two salt deserts, the Dasht-e Kavir (Great Salt Desert) and the Dasht-e Lut. Except for some scattered oases, these deserts are uninhabited. Parts of northwestern Iran are part of the Armenian highlands, which adjoins it topographically with other parts of neighbouring Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.Iran has only two expanses of lowlands: the Khuzestan Plain in the southwest and the Caspian Sea coastal plain in the north. The former is a roughly triangular-shaped extension of the Mesopotamia plain and averages about 160 kilometres (99 mi) in width. It extends for about 120 kilometres (75 mi) inland, barely rising a few meters above sea level, then meets abruptly with the first foothills of the Zagros. Much of the Khuzestan plain is covered with marshes. The Caspian plain is both longer and narrower. It extends for some 640 kilometres (400 mi) along the Caspian shore, but its widest point is less than 50 kilometres (31 mi), while at some places less than 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) separate the shore from the Alborz foothills. The Persian Gulf coast south of Khuzestan and the Gulf of Oman coast have no real plains because the Zagros in these areas come right down to the shore. There are no major rivers in the country. Of the small rivers and streams, the only one that is navigable is the 830 kilometres (520 mi)-long Karun, which shallow-draft boats can negotiate from Khorramshahr to Ahvaz, a distance of about 180 kilometres (110 mi). Other major rivers include the Karkheh, spanning 700 kilometres (430 mi) and joining the Tigris; and the Zayandeh River, which is 300 kilometres (190 mi) long. Several other permanent rivers and streams also drain into the Persian Gulf, while a number of small rivers that originate in the northwestern Zagros or Alborz drain into the Caspian Sea. On the Central Plateau, numerous rivers—most of which have dry beds for the greater part of the year—form from snow melting in the mountains during the spring and flow through permanent channels, draining eventually into salt lakes that also tend to dry up during the summer months. There is a permanent salt lake, Lake Urmia (the traditional name, also cited as Lake Urmiyeh, to which it has reverted after being called Lake Rezaiyeh under Mohammad Reza Shah), in the northwest, whose brine content is too high to support fish or most other forms of aquatic life. There are also several connected salt lakes along the Iran-Afghanistan border in the province of Baluchestan va Sistan. Iran's highlands are home to some of the world's most unexpected glaciers. Their appearance in the dry environment is advantageous for those who depend on glacial ice as a supply of fresh water. In an expedition, Klaus Thymann together with the environmental charity Project Pressure produced a series of archive and expedition photographs that depict the urgency of the situation surrounding climate change and the individuals who rely on such natural ice forms to sustain life in remote areas. A recent global remote sensing analysis suggested that there were 1,481 km2 of tidal flats in Iran, making it the 22nd ranked country in terms of tidal flat area. Climate Iran has a variable climate. In the northwest, winters are cold with heavy snowfall and subfreezing temperatures. Spring and fall are relatively mild, while summers are dry and hot. In the south, winters are mild and the summers are very hot, having average daily temperatures in July exceeding 38 °C (100.4 °F). On the Khuzestan Plain, summer heat is accompanied by high humidity. In general, Iran has a temperate climate in which most of the relatively scant annual precipitation falls from October through April. In most of the country, yearly precipitation averages 400 millimetres (15.7 in) or less. The major exceptions are the higher mountain valleys of the Zagros and the Caspian coastal plain, where precipitation averages at least 600 millimetres (24 in) and is in the form of snow at high altitudes. In the western part of the Caspian, rainfall exceeds 1,500 millimetres (59 in) annually and is distributed relatively evenly throughout the year. This contrasts with some basins of the Central Plateau that receive 100 millimetres (4 in) or less of precipitation. Iran is considered colder than neighboring countries such as Iraq and Turkmenistan, due to its higher elevation. Examples Flora and fauna 7% of the country is forested. The most extensive growths are found on the mountain slopes rising from the Caspian Sea, with stands of oak, ash, elm, cypress, and other valuable trees. On the plateau proper, areas of scrub oak appear on the best-watered mountain slopes, and villagers cultivate orchards and grow the plane tree, poplar, willow, walnut, beech, maple, and mulberry. Wild plants and shrubs spring from the barren land in the spring and afford pasturage, but the summer sun burns them away. According to FAO reports, the major types of forests that exist in Iran and their respective areas are: Caspian forests of the northern districts – 19,000 km2 (7,300 sq mi) Limestone mountainous forests in the northeastern districts (Juniperus forests) – 13,000 km2 (5,000 sq mi) Pistachio forests in the eastern, southern and southeastern districts – 26,000 km2 (10,000 sq mi) Oak forests in the central and western districts – 35,000 km2 (14,000 sq mi) Shrubs of the Kavir (desert) districts in the central and northeastern part of the country – 10,000 km2 (3,900 sq mi) Sub-tropical forests of the southern coast, like the Hara forests – 5,000 km2 (1,900 sq mi)Wildlife of Iran is diverse and composed of several animal species including bears, gazelles, wild pigs, wolves, jackals, panthers, Eurasian lynx, and foxes. Domestic animals include, sheep, goats, cattle, horses, water buffalo, donkeys, and camels. The pheasant, partridge, stork, eagles and falcon are also native to Iran. As of 2001, 20 of Iran's mammal species and 14 bird species are endangered. Among them are the Baluchistan bear (Ursus thibetanus gedrosianus), a subspecies of Asian black bear, Persian fallow deer, Siberian crane, hawksbill turtle, green turtle, Oxus cobra, Latifi's viper, dugong and dolphins. The Asiatic cheetah is a critically endangered species which is extinct elsewhere and now can only be found in central to northeastern parts of Iran. Iran lost all its Asiatic lions and Caspian tigers by the earlier part of the 20th century. The Syrian wild ass has become extinct. Syrian brown bears in the mountains, wild sheep and goats, gazelles, Persian onagers, wild pigs, Persian leopards, and foxes abound. Domestic animals include sheep, goats, cattle, horses, water buffalo, donkeys, and camels. The pheasant, partridge, stork, and falcon are native to Iran. The Persian leopard is said to be the largest of all the subspecies of leopards in the world. The main range of this species in Iran closely overlaps with that of bezoar ibex. Hence, it is found throughout Alborz and Zagros mountain ranges, as well as smaller ranges within the Iranian plateau. The leopard population is very sparse, due to loss of habitat, loss of natural prey, and population fragmentation. Apart from bezoar ibex, wild sheep, boar, deer, (either Caspian red deer or roe deer), and domestic animals constitute leopards' diet in Iran. Ecosystem and biosphere Iran's bio-diversity ranks 13th in the world. There are 272 conservation areas around Iran for a total of 17 million hectares under the supervision of the Department of Environment (Iran), variously named national parks, protected areas, and natural wildlife refuges, all meant to protect the genetic resources of the country. There are only 2,617 rangers and 430 environmental monitoring units engaged in protecting these vast areas, which amounts to 6,500 hectares to cover for each ranger. Environmental concerns Natural hazards: periodic droughts, floods; dust storms, sandstorms; earthquakes along western border and in the northeast Environment – current issues: air pollution, especially in urban areas, from vehicle emissions, refinery operations, and industrial effluents; deforestation; desertification; oil pollution in the Persian Gulf; wetland losses from drought; soil degradation (salination); inadequate supplies of potable water in some areas; water pollution from raw sewage and industrial waste; urbanization. Resources and land use Natural resources: petroleum, natural gas, coal, chromium, copper, iron ore, lead, manganese, zinc, sulfur arable land: 10.87% permanent crops: 1.19% other: 87.93% (2012 est.) Irrigated land: 87,000 km2 (34,000 sq mi) (2009) Total renewable water resources: 137 km3 (2011) Freshwater withdrawal (domestic/industrial/agricultural): total: 93.3 km3/yr (7%/1%/92%) per capita: 1,306 m3/yr (2004) Area and boundaries Area: total: 1,648,195 km2 (636,372 sq mi) land: 1,531,595 km2 (591,352 sq mi) water: 116,600 km2 (45,000 sq mi) Land boundaries: total: 5,894 kilometres (3,662 mi) border countries: Afghanistan 921 kilometres (572 mi), Armenia 44 kilometres (27 mi), Azerbaijan-proper 432 kilometres (268 mi), Azerbaijan-Nakhchivan exclave 179 kilometres (111 mi), Iraq 1,599 kilometres (994 mi), Pakistan 909 kilometres (565 mi), Turkey 534 kilometres (332 mi), Turkmenistan 1,148 kilometres (713 mi). Maritime boundaries: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman Coastline: 2,815 kilometres (1,749 mi) note: Iran also borders the Caspian Sea, for 740 kilometres (460 mi) Maritime claims: territorial sea: 12 nmi (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) contiguous zone: 24 nmi (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) exclusive economic zone: 168,718 km2 (65,142 sq mi) with bilateral agreements, or median lines in the Persian Gulf continental shelf: natural prolongation Elevation extremes: lowest point: Caspian Sea −28 metres (−92 ft) highest point: Mount Damavand 5,610 metres (18,410 ft) International territorial disputes Iran is currently engaged in international territorial disputes with several neighbouring countries. The country protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods of drought. The lack of a maritime boundary in the Persian Gulf with Iraq also prompts jurisdictional disputes beyond the mouth of the Arvand Rud. Iran and the United Arab Emirates have a territorial dispute over the Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa islands, which are administered by Iran. Iran currently insists on dividing the Caspian Sea resources equally among the five littoral states, after the Russian-backed former soviet breakaway republics refused to respect the 50-50 agreements between Iran and the Soviet Union (despite their international obligation). Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan continue to claim territorial waters thus regarding the Caspian Sea as open international body of water, dismissing its geographically lake nature. Photo gallery See also Notes References This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Iran: A Country Study. Federal Research Division. This article incorporates public domain material from The World Factbook. CIA. External links Geography of Persia, Encyclopædia Iranica: i. Evolution of geographical knowledge. ii. Human geography. iii. Political geography. iv. Cartography of Persia. Iran in Maps – BBC (population, land, infrastructure) Iran Geography Flora of Iran by Pr Ahmad GHAHREMAN Archived 3 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine Persia (Iran), Afghanistan and Baluchistan is a map from 1897

teresa ribera

Teresa Ribera Rodríguez (born 19 May 1969) is a Spanish jurist, university professor, and politician who has served as the Minister for the Ecological Transition of Spain since 2018, after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez coming into power following the successful no-confidence motion against Mariano Rajoy. In 2020, she was appointed Fourth Deputy Prime Minister and in 2021 she was promoted to Third Deputy Prime Minister. Between 2008 and 2011 Ribera held the position of Secretary of State for Climate Change in the second administration of Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Between 2014 and 2018, she was director of the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations, based in Paris. Early years and education Ribera graduated from the Complutense University of Madrid with a degree in legal studies, with further studies at the Center for Constitutional Studies attaining her another degree in constitutional law and political science. Early career Ribera belongs to the Superior Body of Civil Administrators of the State of which she has been a surplus official since 2012. Ribera has been an associate professor of the Department of Public Law and Philosophy of Law at the Autonomous University of Madrid.Ribera has held various technical positions in public administration, such as the position of Chief of Coordination of the Ministry of Development and of Technical Adviser in the Cabinet of the Assistant Secretary for the Environment and Head of the Compliance and Development area. Between 2004 and 2008 she was general director of the Office of Climate Change and between 2008 and 2011 she assumed the Secretary of State for Climate Change (in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment) during the government of president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. International work Ribera is also a member of several advisory councils, including the Global Leadership Council of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN), the global climate change advisory council of the World Economic Forum, and the Momentum For Change initiative of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); belongs to the international council of the BC3, to the advisory council of the Institut pour la Recherche du Développement (IRD) and to the patronages of Fundipax and Fundación Alternativas. In September 2013, she began to collaborate with the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), based in Paris, and in June 2014 she assumed its direction. The organization is dedicated to the analysis of strategic issues related to sustainable development, climate change, protection of biodiversity, food security and management of the urbanization process.In May 2014, the prosecutor's office denounced the development of a gas storage site, called Project Castor, which was halted because of seismic activity. Environmental prevaricación was alleged, and one of the accusations was directed against Teresa Ribera, because when the project was approved by the Government in 2008, she occupied the State Secretariat of Climate Change and was the person who signed the environmental impact assessment by which the project was authorized. In 2015, 18 people were charged from the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain and the General Directorate of Quality and Environmental Evaluation. However, they held posts of a technical nature and no politicians were charged, including Ribera. In 2015, she joined Pedro Sánchez's expert panel to prepare the Socialist Party's electoral program. Political career Minister for the Ecological Transition In June 2018, it was announced that Ribera would be the Minister for the Ecological Transition of the Sánchez government, following the motion of censure that the PSOE presented against the previous government of Mariano Rajoy (PP) and that was approved by the Congress of Deputies. On 1 June 2018, Sánchez appointed her as Minister in new Spanish government. Felipe VI sanctioned by royal decree of June her appointment as holder of the portfolio of Minister for the Ecological Transition. On 7 June she took office as Minister before the King at Palace of Zarzuela.The first measures that Ribera carried out as minister was to end the so-called "sun tax" to allow the free production of power in an effort to increase ecological power and to reduce the price of electricity. In an effort to end coal pollution and to transform the power production of Spain, Ribera reached an agreement with unions to close most of the coal mines that still survived in the north of the country by making an investment of €250 million to avoid a fall in the miners’ standard of living and to restore the environmental balance of the area.In a letter sent to their counterparts in the European Commission – Miguel Arias Cañete and Pierre Moscovici – in May 2019, Ribera and Budget Minister María Jesús Montero called on the European Union to assess a potential carbon tax on power imports to protect the bloc’s interests and help it to pursue its environmental targets amid growing public concern over climate change.Under Ribera's leadership, the Spanish government stepped in to host the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference after riots over inequality prompted Chile to withdraw with just one month’s notice. Deputy Prime Minister On 13 January 2020, Ribera assumed the office of Fourth Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge before the King in Zarzuela Palace in the Sánchez second cabinet. It was the first time in the history of Spain that a government would have four vice-presidencies.In April 2020, the Prime Minister commissioned Ribera to carry out the plan to ease the lockdown, that is, the way in which the country would exit the State of Alarm activated due to the COVID-19 viral pandemic. For this objective, Ribera organized a group of experts in all areas, from economics to epidemiologists. In statements to EFE news agency in April, Ribera said that the recovery should be done with "green" and "solidary" measures. She then called for a "Green New Deal" for Spain to both further environmentalism and help the country get out of the national lockdown. She stated in May that tourism, which accounts for 12% of Spanish GDP, was of "particular concern" when it came to the impending economic recession in Spain due to the coronavirus.On 15 December 2020, Ribera was one of the first European ministers to declare that if it was not possible to make the Energy Charter Treaty compatible with the Paris Agreement, there would be no choice but to withdraw from it.In July 2021, after the resignation of Second DPM Pablo Iglesias, Ribera's post was suppressed and she was appointed Third Deputy Prime Minister.In May 2021, the Spanish parliament passed the Climate Change and Energy Transition Act. In late 2021, the cabinet approved Ribera’s 16.3 billion euro energy plan, which is to allocate 6.9 billion euros ($7.8 billion) to renewables, green hydrogen and energy storage over two years and to attract another 9.45 billion euros in private funding under its COVID-19 recovery plan.Ribera, along with Shauna Aminath, led the working group at the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference that facilitated consultations on mitigation. Recognition 2018 – Climate Reality Project Award in the category of 'Public Personality', awarded by the Climate Reality Project See also List of Complutense University of Madrid people == References ==

our choice

Our Choice is a 2009 book written by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and published by Rodale, Inc. in Emmaus, Pennsylvania.Originally titled The Path to Survival, it follows An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, a companion book to the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. All profits of the book (printed on 100% recycled paper) go to the Alliance for Climate Protection, which Gore founded in 2006. Reception In September 2009, Nature Reports Climate Change called the book one of its "Must-reads for Copenhagen". Reviewing the book for Nature Reports Climate Change, Joseph Romm described its content: Whereas An Inconvenient Truth framed the crisis that climate negotiations are tackling, this followup spells out what needs to be done. Based on 30 of Gore's 'Solutions Summits' as well as one-on-one discussions with leading experts across multiple disciplines, the book aims, in Gore's words, "to gather in one place all of the most effective solutions that are available now". Gore naturally focuses on energy, the source of most anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and discusses many underappreciated strategies such as concentrated solar thermal power and cogeneration. He also devotes a full chapter to soil, a major carbon sink that is gradually degrading. Farming strategies for restoring soil carbon are described, including biochar, a porous charcoal that can potentially enhance the soil sink while providing a source of low-carbon power. ... Our Choice is replete with lush photos and simple but powerful charts. This a must-read book for those who want a primer on all the key solutions countries will be considering at Copenhagen. Newsweek magazine published a feature on Gore and the new book on October 31, 2009, calling it "authoritative, exhaustive, reasoned, erudite, and logical, a textbooklike march through solar and wind power, geothermal energy, biofuels, carbon sequestration, nuclear energy, the potential of forests to soak up carbon dioxide, energy efficiency, and the regulatory tangle that impedes the development of a super-efficient, continent-wide system of transmission lines. Nuclear power Our Choice has a chapter entitled "The Nuclear Option". Gore explains that nuclear power was once "expected to provide virtually unlimited supplies of low-cost electricity", but the reality is that it has been "an energy source in crisis for the last 30 years". Worldwide growth in nuclear power has slowed in recent years, with no new reactors and an "actual decline in global capacity and output in 2008". In the United States, "no nuclear power plants ordered after 1972 have been built to completion". Carbon capture and storage Gore explains that the idea of "carbon capture and sequestration" (CCS) seems compelling, but the reality is that "decades after CCS was first proposed, no government or company in the world has built a single commercial-scale demonstration project capturing and sequestering large amounts of carbon dioxide from a power plant". See also Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation Renewable energy commercialization Efficient energy use Reinventing Fire References External links Our Choice website Our Choice app website Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate Elizabeth Kolbert: Al Gore and Our Choice

margaret klein salamon

Margaret Klein Salamon is an American climate activist who is the Executive Director of the Climate Emergency Fund, and the founder and principal of Climate Awakening. In 2014, she co-founded The Climate Mobilization. She is the author of the book, "Facing the Climate Emergency: How to Transform Yourself with Climate Truth." She is an advocate for an "all hands on deck" mobilization against climate change.Salamon was one of the originators of the Climate Emergency Declaration movement. She developed the strategy as well as helping to implement the first local declarations in Hoboken New Jersey and Montgomery County, Maryland, as well as working on a National level for a declaration of Climate Emergency. Salamon is the author of the white paper: "Leading the Public into Emergency Mode: A New Strategy for the Climate Movement". Biography Margaret Klein Salamon was born in Ann Arbor Michigan in 1986.A trained clinical psychologist, Salamon co-founded The Climate Mobilization in 2014 to advocate for a transformation of the economy, politics, and society to respond to the climate emergency. Salamon felt that there were no organizations telling the full truth of the climate emergency.Salamon has highlighted the importance of processing climate grief the psychological reluctance of individuals to see the climate emergency as a threat, and the importance of empowerment self-defense.Her essays have appeared in The New York Times, Ecowatch, Grist, and The Hill.In 2020, Salamon published Facing the Climate Emergency: How to Transform Yourself with Climate Truth, a self-help guide about the climate emergency. A second edition of the book is set to be published on May 30, 2023, with a foreword by filmmaker and philanthropist Adam McKay (Don't Look Up). In 2021, Salamon became the Executive Director of the Climate Emergency Fund. The group funds "more aggressive" non-violent civil disobedience about climate change. White Paper "Leading the Public into Emergency Mode" According to Stanford University's, The Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB), the white paper, originally published in April 2016, under the title, Leading the Public into Emergency Mode: A New Strategy for the Climate Movement "introduced a new paradigm for climate action: emergency mode. In it, Salamon argued that, in order to protect humanity and the living world, the climate movement must tell the truth about the climate emergency, and act as though that truth is real — employing emergency communications, militant tactics, and demanding an emergency mobilization from the government and all society, as the policy response." Per MAHB, since publication, Salamon's recommendations "have been largely adopted by several new climate groups — Extinction Rebellion, School Strikers, Sunrise Movement, and more — leading to tremendous breakthroughs." This paper was updated in May 2019 in order to combine the theoretical discussion of emergency mode with an overview of the emerging Climate Emergency Movement. Organisations The Climate Emergency Fund (CEF) is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to fund and support individual activists and organizations working to educate the public on the threat of climate change and demand action from policy makers. The organization began operations in 2019. According to GivingCompass.org, CEF "supports only nonviolent, legal activities that reinforce the goal of constructively building public pressure and demanding urgent action from governments and corporations to address the climate emergency."Climate Awakening offers free “Climate Emotions Conversations” online, in which participants are taken through a series of explanatory videos and prompts that help them articulate and share their feelings about the climate emergency.The Climate Mobilization is a movement of people across the United States who seek to reclaim the future by initiating an emergency-speed, whole-society Climate Mobilization, reversing global warming and restoring a safe climate. It was founded by Salamon and Ezra Silk at the People’s Climate March in 2014, when there was no climate group publicly organizing around the scale an all-of-society, emergency-speed mobilization to zero emissions, with a level of government economic intervention and public investment not seen since WWII. Media appearances Salamon has been cited as an expert and commentator on the climate emergency. She speaks regularly on: The need for a widescale consciousness shift to prioritize climate mobilization That “operating in emergency mode is incredibly powerful once you get there”, as seen in World War Two The psychological defenses being used during this climate emergency, such as compartmentalization, wilful ignorance and intellectualization The self-growth from “really trying to face the climate emergency and process it emotionally”, then becoming an activist The drive to action from the “combination of morality with something new…like enlightened self interest.”On May 1, 2022, Salamon published a guest op-ed essay in The New York Times entitled: "A ‘Life-Affirming’ Remedy for Climate Despair", regarding the Earth Day self-immolation of climate activist, Wynn Bruce. Works "Leading the Public into Emergency Mode: A New Strategy for the Climate Movement" - https://margaretkleinsalamon.medium.com/leading-the-public-into-emergency-mode-b96740475b8f Facing the Climate Emergency: How to Transform Yourself With Climate Truth, ISBN 9780865719415 References External links Climate Awakening Climate Emergency Fund Articles on psychologytoday.com

organisation internationale des constructeurs d'automobiles

The International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA; French: Organisation internationale des constructeurs automobiles), founded 1919 in Paris, is an international trade association whose members are 39 national automotive industry trade associations. OICA facilitates communication among its member national automotive industry trade associations and advocates for policies and position of mutual interest to its members at the international level and to the general public. UNECE OICA hosts on its web site the working documents from various United Nations expert groups, including World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Climate change OICA recognizes anthropogenic climate change as "probably the greatest challenge facing society in the twenty-first century." OICA identifies motor vehicles as a significant factor, contributing about 16% of global man-made carbon dioxide emissions. OICA advocates for an integrated, global approach to global warming. Auto shows The OICA coordinates scheduling for the following major auto shows. Bold denotes one of the "big five" , most prestigious shows. Note that only the passenger car segment is included in this list, while other exhibitions exist for heavy commercial vehicles: See also List of auto shows and motor shows by continent List of automobile manufacturers World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) List of countries by motor vehicle production in the 2010s List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production References External links Official website

tom rivett-carnac

Thomas Charles Rivett-Carnac (born 1977) is a former political strategist for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is also an author on climate change policy, a podcaster and an advisor to corporations and governments on climate solutions. Early life Rivett-Carnac was born in Hammersmith, London, England in November 1977. He is the eldest son of Christopher Charles Rivett-Carnac, a descendant of Sir James Rivett-Carnac, 1st Baronet. His mother, Sara Catherine Hutchinson, a daughter of Dr. R. J. C. Hutchinson, married his father in West Somerset in 1974.Growing up he travelled widely, living in Indonesia, Tunisia, UAE and Australia and went to Allhallows College at the age of 13. He attended Bath Spa University, graduating BSc in Environment and Economics, and Schumacher College-Plymouth University, where he took a master's degree in Holistic Science and graduated in the same class as Nigel Topping, who went on to become the UK's High Level Champion for Climate Action for COP26. After graduating, Rivett-Carnac spent three years living as a Buddhist monk in Thailand and Myanmar. Career After positions at consultants CarbonSense and engineering firm Dyson Rivett-Carnac joined CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) in 2006. He was part of the team that set up the original CDP Supply Chain and CDP Cities programs. In 2012 he moved to New York to become President and CEO of CDP North America.In 2013 he was approached by Christiana Figueres and shortly afterwards moved to Bonn, Germany in the position of Senior Advisor to the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change His responsibility was the political strategy towards achieving binding international agreements. He is seen as one of the architects of the Paris Climate Accord of December 2015.In 2016 Rivett-Carnac left the United Nations together with Christiana Figueres and they co-founded Global Optimism. From that position he advises a wide range of corporations and governments. This includes serving as a co-founder of the Climate Pledge together with Amazon, and a Fellow at the Bezos Earth Fund. He is also on the Expert Review Panel for the Earthshot Prize. He is a former Senior Fellow at Stanford Law SchoolRivett-Carnac is the co-host of the podcast Outrage and Optimism and co-author of the bestselling book The Future we Choose:The Stubborn Optimist’s Guide to the Climate Crisis: His TED Talk has been viewed 3 million times.During the global lockdown of 2020, Rivett-Carnac wrote a children’s book called When We All Stopped, illustrated by his sister, Bee Rivett-Carnac. Ted-Ed made the book into an animation, voiced by Jane Goodall, which has since been viewed more than 1.3 million times.Rivett-Carnac was awarded an Honorary PhD from Knox College, Illinois in 2021.He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2022 Birthday Honours for services to tackling climate change. Personal life Rivett-Carnac married Natasha Walter of Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, in August 2007. They have two children; Zoe (2011) and Arthur (2013). They divide their time between Devon and London. Books Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis. Description & arrow-searchable preview. (Manilla Press, 2020) ASIN B07Y7HZLX8 External links Global Optimism TED Talk: How to shift your mindset and choose your future == Notes ==

pier vellinga

Pier Vellinga (April 17, 1950) is an environmental scientist and one of the Netherlands' experts on the impacts of climate change. Career He was among the first scientists to publish on climate change and its implications regarding water and energy in the eighties. His education and training includes a Fulbright scholarship in the US in 1967–68, an Msc (1976) and doctors degree at Delft University of Technology (1984). His 1986 environmental science PhD on Beach Erosion and Dune Erosion During Storm provided the basis for the coastal safety evaluation (the Dutch Delta Plan). In 1988, in a newly created position, he became advisor to the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment on the issue of Climate Change and the development of international CO2 policies. In this role he was key negotiator during the Netherlands EU-presidency of 1988. He was also one of the experts of the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. For this advisory body he also chaired with Peter Gleick the “Targets and Indicators of Climatic Change” working group. In 1991, Vellinga published an article with Robert Swart that became a cornerstone in the definition of the 2 °C target, than adopted by UNFCCC COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. This article also proposed for the first time a traffic-light visualization - based on red, yellow, green colours - that since then has been largely employed in risk management and climate change communication. In 1991/1992 he was one of the architects of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in 1989 was actively involved in setting up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as vice chairman in its first bureau. He was as an author of various IPCC chapters (the work of the IPCC, including the contributions of many scientists, was recognised by the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize). From 1995 to 1998 he combined his work as director of the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (a position which he held from 1991 to 2001) with a part-time position at the World Bank, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as Chairman of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). From 1991 to 2006 he has been a professor of earth sciences at the Vrije Universiteit. Joyeeta Gupta, Richard Tol, Robert Swart and Hasse Goosen were among his first PhD students. He is Professor in Climate Change and Water Safety at Wageningen University.In 2009 he initiated the international Delta Alliance, a collaboration among low-lying coastal areas in the world vulnerable to climate change. This initiative is still going on. As of 2009, Vellinga is the chairman of the Knowledge for Climate research program and vice chairman of the Climate Changes Spatial Planning program. These programs support the Dutch government and companies with operational knowledge required for investment decisions related to climate change adaptation and mitigation. He has a chair in Climate and Water at Wageningen University (WUR), where he is director of the Wageningen University climate program, and has a part-time chair in Societal Impacts of Climate Change at the Institute of Environmental Studies of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Other activities In 2003 he presented the Erasmus Liga Lecture on Climate Change and the safety of the Netherlands. This triggered national debate on the vulnerability of the Netherlands with regard to flooding and the need to update the Delta Plan. He was advisor to the second Delta Committee (2008) on sea level rise and coastal protection. He is a member of the “Uffizio di Piano”, a high level committee of scientists and policy makers charged by the Italian prime minister to supervise the high water protection and lagoon rehabilitation works in Venice. He is also a member of the supervisory board of the FMO-Bank (finance and development) At a national level he is chairman of the board of the Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ) and a member of the Energy Transition - Creative Energy platform. Lastly he is a member of the board of Urgenda. As of 2020, Vellinga has published 28 scientific papers. In addition, he has more than 100 articles as author or co-author in books, scientific reports and proceedings of a more general nature. He has frequently appeared in news media and participated in several interviews and scientific documentaries made by national and international broadcasting cooperation's including BBC, ABC, CNN and Discovery. In August 2009, the Dutch weekly Elsevier choose him as the no. 1 climate alarmist of the Netherlands. Views on climate change Vellinga's views on climate change are set out in his SID-lecture from 2008 and his 2008 inaugural lecture "Hoogtij in de Delta" at Wageningen UR. Selected publications and lectures Bouwer, Laurens M.; Vellinga, Pier (2006). "On the Flood Risk in The Netherlands". In Begum, S.; Stive, Marcel J.F.; Hall, James W. (eds.). Flood Risk Management in Europe: Innovation in Policy and Practice. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research. Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-1-4020-4199-0. Kabat, P.; Vierssen, W. van; Veraart, J. A.; Vellinga, P.; Aerts, J. (2005). "Climate proofing the Netherlands". Nature. 438 (7066): 283–284. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..283K. doi:10.1038/438283a. hdl:1871/31845. PMID 16292285. S2CID 5363010. Vellinga, P.; Swart, R. J. (1991). "The Greenhouse Marathon: Proposal for a Global Strategy". In Jager, J.; Ferguson, H. L. (eds.). Climate Change: Science Impact and Policy, proceedings of the Second World Climate Conference. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-41631-3. Klimaatopwarming maakt voorbereiding in Nederland urgent [Global warming makes preparation in the Netherlands urgent] (Speech) (in Dutch). 2008. Archived from the original on 2012-09-05. Retrieved 2012-01-10. SID-lecture (in Dutch) Erasmus Lecture on Climate Change and Safety at Vrije Universiteit References External links Knowledge for Climate program [2] Climate Changes Spatial Planning program [3][4] Institute for Environmental Studies Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam [5] Earth system science group Wageningen University [6] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [7] Stichting Urgenda [8] Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ)[9]

john a. church

John Alexander Church (born 1951) is an expert on sea level and its changes. He was co-convening lead author (with Jonathan M. Gregory) for the chapter on Sea Level in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. He was also a co-convening lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. He is a member of the Joint Scientific Committee of the WCRP. He was a project leader at CSIRO, until 2016. He is currently a professor with the University of New South Wales' Climate Change Research Centre. Biography Church graduated from the University of Queensland with a BSc in Physics in 1972. He obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in 1979. Church has led a number of programs, including: CSIRO Division of Oceanography; Program Leader of the Oceanography Program of the Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions; Project Leader, Southern Ocean Processes Project; CSIRO Division of Marine and atmospheric Research, Polar Waters Program, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. On an international level, Church has been the Principal Investigator for the NASA/CNES TOPEX/Poseidon Extended Satellite Mission. Currently, Church is chair of the scientific committee of the World Climate Research Programme studying sea-level rise, and is leader of the Sea level Rise Project at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. (2007) Awards 2006 Roger Revelle Medal by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 2006 CSIRO Medal for Research Achievement 2007 Eureka Prize for Scientific Research 2008 Presented the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society R.H. Clarke Lecture 2018 BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the category of Climate Change jointly with Anny Cazenave and Jonathan M. Gregory for their outstanding contributions, the committee states, “to detecting, understanding and projecting the response of global and regional sea level to anthropogenic climate change.” 2022 James Cook MedalChurch is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and the American Meteorological Society, and is a Member of the Australian Institute of Physics. He was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in the 2022 Australia Day Honours for "distinguished service to climate science through oceanographic and sea-level research and publications". Publications Christopher Watson, Richard Coleman, Neil White, John Church and Ramesh Govind, 2003. Absolute Calibration of TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 using GPS Buoys in Bass Strait, Australia. Marine Geodesy (Special Issue on Jason-1 Calibration/Validation, Part 1), 26 (3-4), 285-304. McDougall, T. J., J. A. Church and D. R. Jackett, 2003: Does the nonlinearity of the equation of state impose an upper bound on the buoyancy frequency? Journal of Marine Research, 61, 745-764. Church, J.A. N.J. White, R. Coleman, K. Lambeck, and J.X. Mitrovica, 2004. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950 to 2000 period. Journal of Climate, 17 (13), 2609-2625. Christopher Watson, Richard Coleman, Neil White, John Church and Ramesh Govind, 2004. TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1: absolute calibration in Bass Strait, Australia. Marine Geodesy (Special Issue on Jason-1 Calibration/Validation, Part 1), 27 (1-2), 107-131. K.J.E. Walsh, H. Betts, J. Church, A.B. Pittock, K. L. McInnes, D.R. Jackett, T.J. McDougall, 2004 Using sea level rise projections for urban planning in Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(2), 586-598. Yoshikawa, Yasushi, John A. Church, Hiroshi Uchida and Neil J. White, 2004. Near bottom currents and their relation to the transport in the Kuroshio Extension, Geophysical Research Letters, 31(16), L16309, doi:10.1029/2004/GL020068. White, Neil J., John A. Church and Jonathan M. Gregory, 2005. Coastal and global averaged sea-level rise for 1950 to 2000. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(1), L01601, dio:10.1029/2004GL021391. Aoki, Shigeru, Nathaniel L. Bindoff and John A. Church, 2005. Interdecadal water mass changes in the Southern Ocean between 30ºE and 160ºE. Geophysical Research Letters, 32 (7), L07607, 7607-7607 Apr 14 2005 Liu, Yun, Ming Feng, J ohn Church and Dongxiao Wang, 2005. Effect of salinity on estimating geostrophic transport of the Indonesian Throughflow along the IX1 XBT section. Journal of Oceanography, 61, 795-801. John A. Church, Neil J. White and Julie Arblaster, 2005. Significant decadal-scale impact of volcanic eruptions on sea level and ocean heat content. Nature, 438, 74-77 doi:10.1038/Nature04237. Church, J. A., and N. J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826. Domingues, Catia M., Susan E. Wijffels, Mathew E. Maltrud, John A. Church, Matthias Tomczak, 2006. The role of eddies in cooling the Leeuwin Current, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L05603, doi:10.1029/2005GL025216. Mata, Mauricio M., Susan Wijffels, John A. Church, Matthias Tomczak, 2006. Statistical description of the East Australian Current low-frequency variability from the World Ocean Circulation Experiment PCM3 Current Meter Array. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 57, 273-290. John A. Church, Neil J. White and John R. Hunter, 2006. Sea-level Rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Global and Planetary Change, 53, 155-168. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.04.001 Mata, Mauricio M., Susan E. Wijffels, John A. Church, Matthias Tomczak, 2006. Eddy shedding and energy conversions in the East Australian Current. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111 (C9), C09034 doi:10.1029/2006JC003592. John Church, Neil White, John Hunter and Kathleen McInnes, 2006. Sea Change threatened by climate change. Australasian Science, November/December, 19-22. W. Cai, D. Bi, J. Church, T. Cowan, M. Dix, and L. Rotstayn, 2006. Pan-oceanic response to increasing anthropogenic aerosols: impacts on the Southern Hemisphere oceanic circulation. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L21707, doi:10.1029/2006GL027513. John A. Church, John R. Hunter, Kathleen McInnes and Neil J. White, 2006. Sea-level rise around the Australian coastline and the changing frequency of extreme events. Australian Meteorological Magazine, 27 (Nov/Dec), 19-22. Church, J., Wilson, S., Woodworth, P. and Aarup, T. 2007. Understanding sea level rise and variability. Meeting report. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 88(4), 23 January 2007, 43. References External links Church, John (17 April 2005). "Understanding 20th Century Sea-level Rise and Projections for the Future". Australian Academy of Technical Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) -Looking South: Managing Technology, Opportunities and the Global Environment. Archived from the original on 17 April 2005. Retrieved 27 January 2019. Church, John (16 June 2005). "Our Programs : Sea Level Rise". Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center. Archived from the original on 16 June 2005. Retrieved 27 January 2019. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center (20 April 2004). "More storms, surges with warmer conditions". CSIRO Marine Research. Archived from the original on 22 June 2005. Retrieved 27 January 2019. "The future of oceanography - Review of Ocean Circulation and Climate by Dr. John Church". CSIRO. 19 March 2002. Archived from the original on 19 March 2002. Retrieved 27 January 2019.

mainau declaration

The Mainau Declaration is either of two socio-political appeals by Nobel laureates who participated in the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings, the annual gathering with young scientists at the German town of Lindau. The name denotes that these declarations were presented on Mainau Island in Lake Constance, the traditional venue of the last day of the one-week meeting. Mainau Declaration 1955 The first Mainau Declaration was an appeal against the use of nuclear weapons. Initiated and drafted by German nuclear scientists Otto Hahn and Max Born, it was circulated at the 5th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting (11–15 July 1955) and presented on Mainau Island on 15 July 1955. The declaration was initially signed by 18 Nobel laureates. Within a year, the number of supporters rose to 52 Nobel laureates. Full text We, the undersigned, are scientists of different countries, different creeds, different political persuasions. Outwardly, we are bound together only by the Nobel Prize, which we have been favored to receive. With pleasure we have devoted our lives to the service of science. It is, we believe, a path to a happier life for people. We see with horror that this very science is giving mankind the means to destroy itself. By total military use of weapons feasible today, the earth can be contaminated with radioactivity to such an extent that whole peoples can be annihilated. Neutrals may die thus as well as belligerents. If war broke out among the great powers, who could guarantee that it would not develop into a deadly conflict? A nation that engages in a total war thus signals its own destruction and imperils the whole world. We do not deny that perhaps peace is being preserved precisely by the fear of these weapons. Nevertheless, we think it is a delusion if governments believe that they can avoid war for a long time through the fear of these weapons. Fear and tension have often engendered wars. Similarly it seems to us a delusion to believe that small conflicts could in the future always be decided by traditional weapons. In extreme danger no nation will deny itself the use of any weapon that scientific technology can produce. All nations must come to the decision to renounce force as a final resort. If they are not prepared to do this, they will cease to exist. Signatories The initial 18 signatories were: Kurt Alder Max Born Adolf Butenandt Arthur H. Compton Gerhard Domagk Hans von Euler-Chelpin Otto Hahn Werner Heisenberg George Hevesy Richard Kuhn Fritz Lipmann Hermann Joseph Muller Paul Hermann Müller Leopold Ruzicka Frederick Soddy Wendell M. Stanley Hermann Staudinger Hideki Yukawa Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change was presented on Mainau Island, Germany, on the occasion of the last day of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on Friday 3 July 2015. It is an urgent warning of the consequences of climate change and was initially signed by 36 Nobel laureates. In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration. As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015. The text of the declaration states that although more data needs to be analysed and further research has to be done, the climate report by the IPCC still represents the most reliable scientific assessment on anthropogenic climate change, and that it should therefore be used as a foundation upon which policymakers should discuss actions to oppose the global threat of climate change. Full text We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude. Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity. In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process. Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2 °C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2 °C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades. Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk. Signatories and supporters The following Nobel laureates have thus far signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 or expressed their full support after its presentation. 36 Nobel laureates (left column) signed the declaration on 3 July 2015 on the final day of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting; 40 agreed later on for their names to be listed as signatories. See also Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings References External links Mainau Declaration Official Website Video of Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt presenting the Mainau Declaration 2015

ali zaidi (lawyer)

Ali A. Zaidi (born 1987/1988) is a Pakistani-American lawyer and political advisor serving as the second White House National Climate Advisor since 2022. He was the New York deputy secretary for energy and environment. Zaidi held climate policy positions in the Obama administration including United States Domestic Policy Council deputy director for energy policy and associate director for natural resources, energy, and science at the Office of Management and Budget. Zaidi was a policy aide to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. He served as the first White House Deputy National Climate Advisor from 2021 to 2022. Early life and education Zaidi was born in Pakistan and moved to Edinboro, Pennsylvania with his family in 1993. He graduated from General McLane High School in 2004. Zaidi completed a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard College and a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center. He was editor of The Georgetown Law Journal. Career Obama administration Beginning in February 2009, Zaidi served for eight years in a number of roles within the Obama administration, including the White House Domestic Policy Council’s (DPC) deputy director for energy policy and policy aide to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and as special projects coordinator at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).As the DPC deputy director for energy policy, Zaidi handled a range of issues on the White House's domestic policy team. Zaidi worked on the design and implementation of federal policies and the development of public and private sector partnerships to increase U.S. energy security and cut harmful carbon pollution. His portfolio covered policy matters related to supply of and demand for energy - including policies that reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by promoting responsible federal-lands production and adoption of alternative fuels; and policies that create jobs by advancing research and deployment of clean energy and energy efficiency technologies - as well as the intersection of these matters with the President's Climate Action Plan.Zaidi was associate director for natural resources, energy, and science at the Office of Management and Budget. Zaidi supported development and execution of the President's economic and environmental policy, and led a team of experts overseeing a wide array of policy, budget, and management issues – including issues related to energy, agriculture, infrastructure, conservation, and technology – across a nearly $100 billion portfolio. In this role, Zaidi also served as OMB's chief policy official for implementation of the President's Climate Action Plan, which he helped design and draft. Private sector In February 2017, Zaidi joined the law firm Morrison & Foerster as a senior advisor in their Washington, D.C. office. He was a Precourt Scholar and adjunct professor at Stanford University before joining the Biden administration. Zaidi was the New York deputy secretary for energy and environment, where he worked with the governor of New York on climate policy and finance. Biden administration Zaidi began in the administration as Deputy White House National Climate Advisor, where he served under Gina McCarthy. The White House announced that Zaidi would succeed McCarthy as the White House National Climate Advisor following her resignation on September 16, 2022. In December 2020, The Economic Times noted that Zaidi is the highest-ranking Pakistani-American in the Biden administration. References External links Appearances on C-SPAN

the energy and resources institute

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) is a research institute in New Delhi that specializes in the fields of energy, environment and sustainable development. Established in 1974, it was formerly known as the Tata Energy Research Institute. As the scope of its activities widened, it was renamed The Energy and Resources Institute in 2003. History The origins of TERI lie in Mithapur, a remote town in Gujarat, where a TATA engineer, Darbari Seth, was concerned about the enormous quantities of energy his factory spent on desalination. He proposed the idea of a research institute to tackle the depletion of natural resources and energy scarcity. J. R. D. Tata, chairman of the TATA Group, liked the idea and accepted the proposal. TERI was set up with a modest corpus of 35 million rupees. On the invitation of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, TERI was registered in Delhi in 1974 as the Tata Energy Research Institute. Locations TERI initially began its operations in the Bombay House, Mumbai, headquarters of Tata. In 1984, it moved to Delhi where it continued to operate out on the rented premises (which included the India International Centre) for almost a decade. In 1993, the organization set up its permanent base in Darbari Seth Block, named after its founder, in the India Habitat Centre complex located at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Today TERI has a global presence with many centres in India and abroad. Headquarters at the India Habitat Center, New Delhi. Southern Regional Centre, Bangalore Western Regional Centre, Goa North - Eastern Regional Centre, Guwahati Himalayan Centre, Mukteshwar TERI Mumbai, Navi Mumbai TERI Japan, Tokyo TERI North America, Washington, D.C. TERI Europe, London TERI South East Asia, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaIn October 2011, Princess Máxima of the Netherlands opened the European headquarters of TERI in Utrecht.TERI established a research base in Africa to provide technical assistance as well as to facilitate exchange of knowledge amongst the communities in various African states.In 2016–17, TERI set up the world's biggest facility for Mycorrhiza production in Gual Pahari, Gurugram, Haryana. Staff TERI has over 1250 employees, with research professionals from disciplines pertaining to issues of environment and energy. The institute's present director general is Dr Vibha Dhawan. Activities The scope of the organisation's activities includes climate change, energy efficiency, renewable energy, biotechnology, and social transformation. World Sustainable Development Summit (WSDS) - An annual summit which facilitates the exchange of knowledge on diverse aspects of global sustainable development. Green Olympiad - Conducted in association with MoEF, it is an international environment examination that is annually organized for middle and high-school students. Publications TERI Press, TERI's publishing arm releases publications out of which some vaguely noteworthy publications are : TERI Energy Data Directory and Yearbook (TEDDY) : Launched in 1986, it is a compilation of energy and environment data. It is a reference document and a source of information on energy supply sectors (coal and lignite, oil and gas, power, and renewable energy sources) as well as energy-consuming sectors (agriculture, industry, transport, residential, and commercial sectors). GRIHA Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) was conceived by TERI and developed with Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, is a national rating system for green buildings in India. TERI School of Advanced Studies TERI School of Advanced Studies was established on 19 August 1998, and was recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as a deemed-to-be University in 1999. Set-up as the TERI School of Advanced Studies in 1998, the institution was subsequently renamed TERI University. TERI Prakriti School Established in January 2015 to provide sustainability education and help create environmental awareness among children at an early age. Inaugurated by Union Minister for Environment and Forests Prakash Javadekar, the K–12 school is affiliated to CBSE. See also Rajendra K. Pachauri World Sustainable Development Summit TERI University TERI-Deakin Nanobiotechnology Centre == References ==

global catastrophe scenarios

Scenarios in which a global catastrophic risk creates harm have been widely discussed. Some sources of catastrophic risk are anthropogenic (caused by humans), such as global warming, environmental degradation, and nuclear war. Others are non-anthropogenic or natural, such as meteor impacts or supervolcanoes. The impact of these scenarios can vary widely, depending on the cause and the severity of the event, ranging from temporary economic disruption to human extinction. Many societal collapses have already happened throughout human history. Anthropogenic Experts at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford and the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge prioritize anthropogenic over natural risks due to their much greater estimated likelihood. They are especially concerned by, and consequently focus on, risks posed by advanced technology, such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Artificial intelligence The creators of a superintelligent entity could inadvertently give it goals that lead it to annihilate the human race. It has been suggested that if AI systems rapidly become super-intelligent, they may take unforeseen actions or out-compete humanity. According to philosopher Nick Bostrom, it is possible that the first super-intelligence to emerge would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome it valued, as well as to foil virtually any attempt to prevent it from achieving its objectives. Thus, even a super-intelligence indifferent to humanity could be dangerous if it perceived humans as an obstacle to unrelated goals. In Bostrom's book Superintelligence, he defines this as the control problem. Physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and SpaceX founder Elon Musk have echoed these concerns, with Hawking theorizing that such an AI could "spell the end of the human race".In 2009, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) hosted a conference to discuss whether computers and robots might be able to acquire any sort of autonomy, and how much these abilities might pose a threat or hazard. They noted that some robots have acquired various forms of semi-autonomy, including being able to find power sources on their own and being able to independently choose targets to attack with weapons. They also noted that some computer viruses can evade elimination and have achieved "cockroach intelligence". They noted that self-awareness, as depicted in science-fiction, is probably unlikely, but there are other potential hazards and pitfalls. Various media sources and scientific groups have noted separate trends in differing areas which might together result in greater robotic functionalities and autonomy, and which pose some inherent concerns.A survey of AI experts estimated that the chance of human-level machine learning having an "extremely bad (e.g., human extinction)" long-term effect on humanity is 5%. A 2008 survey by the Future of Humanity Institute estimated a 5% probability of extinction by super-intelligence by 2100. Eliezer Yudkowsky believes risks from artificial intelligence are harder to predict than any other known risks due to bias from anthropomorphism. Since people base their judgments of artificial intelligence on their own experience, he claims they underestimate the potential power of AI. Biotechnology Biotechnology can pose a global catastrophic risk in the form of bioengineered organisms (viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants, or animals). In many cases the organism will be a pathogen of humans, livestock, crops, or other organisms we depend upon (e.g. pollinators or gut bacteria). However, any organism able to catastrophically disrupt ecosystem functions, e.g. highly competitive weeds, outcompeting essential crops, poses a biotechnology risk. A biotechnology catastrophe may be caused by accidentally releasing a genetically engineered organism from controlled environments, by the planned release of such an organism which then turns out to have unforeseen and catastrophic interactions with essential natural or agro-ecosystems, or by intentional usage of biological agents in biological warfare or bioterrorism attacks. Pathogens may be intentionally or unintentionally genetically modified to change virulence and other characteristics. For example, a group of Australian researchers unintentionally changed characteristics of the mousepox virus while trying to develop a virus to sterilize rodents. The modified virus became highly lethal even in vaccinated and naturally resistant mice. The technological means to genetically modify virus characteristics are likely to become more widely available in the future if not properly regulated.Biological weapons, whether used in war or terrorism, could result in human extinction. Terrorist applications of biotechnology have historically been infrequent. To what extent this is due to a lack of capabilities or motivation is not resolved. However, given current development, more risk from novel, engineered pathogens is to be expected in the future. Exponential growth has been observed in the biotechnology sector, and Noun and Chyba predict that this will lead to major increases in biotechnological capabilities in the coming decades. They argue that risks from biological warfare and bioterrorism are distinct from nuclear and chemical threats because biological pathogens are easier to mass-produce and their production is hard to control (especially as the technological capabilities are becoming available even to individual users). In 2008, a survey by the Future of Humanity Institute estimated a 2% probability of extinction from engineered pandemics by 2100.Noun and Chyba propose three categories of measures to reduce risks from biotechnology and natural pandemics: Regulation or prevention of potentially dangerous research, improved recognition of outbreaks, and developing facilities to mitigate disease outbreaks (e.g. better and/or more widely distributed vaccines). Chemical weapons By contrast with nuclear and biological weapons, chemical warfare, while able to create multiple local catastrophes, is unlikely to create a global one. Choice to have fewer children Population decline through a preference for fewer children. If developing world demographics are assumed to become developed world demographics, and if the latter are extrapolated, some projections suggest an extinction before the year 3000. John A. Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German or Japanese level the extinction date will be 2400. However, some models suggest the demographic transition may reverse itself due to evolutionary biology. Climate change Human-caused climate change has been driven by technology since the 19th century or earlier. Projections of future climate change suggest further global warming, sea level rise, and an increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events and weather-related disasters. Effects of global warming include loss of biodiversity, stresses to existing food-producing systems, increased spread of known infectious diseases such as malaria, and rapid mutation of microorganisms. A common belief is that the current climate crisis could spiral into human extinction. In November 2017, a statement by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries indicated that increasing levels of greenhouse gases from use of fossil fuels, human population growth, deforestation, and overuse of land for agricultural production, particularly by farming ruminants for meat consumption, are trending in ways that forecast an increase in human misery over coming decades. An October 2017 report published in The Lancet stated that toxic air, water, soils, and workplaces were collectively responsible for nine million deaths worldwide in 2015, particularly from air pollution which was linked to deaths by increasing susceptibility to non-infectious diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. The report warned that the pollution crisis was exceeding "the envelope on the amount of pollution the Earth can carry" and "threatens the continuing survival of human societies". Carl Sagan and others have raised the prospect of extreme runaway global warming turning Earth into an uninhabitable Venus-like planet. Some scholars argue that much of the world would become uninhabitable under severe global warming, but even these scholars do not tend to argue that it would lead to complete human extinction, according to Kelsey Piper of Vox. All the IPCC scenarios, including the most pessimistic ones, predict temperatures compatible with human survival. The question of human extinction under "unlikely" outlier models is not generally addressed by the scientific literature. Factcheck.org judges that climate change fails to pose an established "existential risk", stating: "Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet." Cyberattack Cyberattacks have the potential to destroy everything from personal data to electric grids. Christine Peterson, co-founder and past president of the Foresight Institute, believes a cyberattack on electric grids has the potential to be a catastrophic risk. She notes that little has been done to mitigate such risks, and that mitigation could take several decades of readjustment. Death cult ReligiousTolerance.org says that Aum Shinrikyo is the only religion known to have planned Armageddon for non-believers. Their intention to unleash deadly viruses is covered in Our Final Hour, and by Aum watcher, Akihiko Misawa. Aum's collection of nuclear physicists presented a doomsday threat from nuclear destruction as well, especially as the cult included a rocket scientist. Environmental disaster An environmental or ecological disaster, such as world crop failure and collapse of ecosystem services, could be induced by the present trends of overpopulation, economic development, and non-sustainable agriculture. Most environmental scenarios involve one or more of the following: Holocene extinction event, scarcity of water that could lead to approximately half the Earth's population being without safe drinking water, pollinator decline, overfishing, massive deforestation, desertification, climate change, or massive water pollution episodes. Detected in the early 21st century, a threat in this direction is colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that might foreshadow the imminent extinction of the Western honeybee. As the bee plays a vital role in pollination, its extinction would severely disrupt the food chain. An October 2017 report published in The Lancet stated that toxic air, water, soils, and workplaces were collectively responsible for nine million deaths worldwide in 2015, particularly from air pollution which was linked to deaths by increasing susceptibility to non-infectious diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. The report warned that the pollution crisis was exceeding "the envelope on the amount of pollution the Earth can carry" and "threatens the continuing survival of human societies".A May 2020 analysis published in Scientific Reports found that if deforestation and resource consumption continue at current rates they could culminate in a "catastrophic collapse in human population" and possibly "an irreversible collapse of our civilization" within the next several decades. The study says humanity should pass from a civilization dominated by the economy to a "cultural society" that "privileges the interest of the ecosystem above the individual interest of its components, but eventually in accordance with the overall communal interest." The authors also note that "while violent events, such as global war or natural catastrophic events, are of immediate concern to everyone, a relatively slow consumption of the planetary resources may be not perceived as strongly as a mortal danger for the human civilization." Evolution Some scenarios envision that humans could use genetic engineering or technological modifications to split into normal humans and a new species – posthumans. Such a species could be fundamentally different from any previous life form on Earth, e.g. by merging humans with technological systems. Such scenarios assess the risk that the "old" human species will be outcompeted and driven to extinction by the new, posthuman entity. Experimental accident Nick Bostrom suggested that in the pursuit of knowledge, humanity might inadvertently create a device that could destroy Earth and the Solar System. Investigations in nuclear and high-energy physics could create unusual conditions with catastrophic consequences. All of these worries have so far proven unfounded. For example, scientists worried that the first nuclear test might ignite the atmosphere. Early in the development of thermonuclear weapons there were some concerns that a fusion reaction could "ignite" the atmosphere in a chain reaction that would engulf Earth. Calculations showed the energy would dissipate far too quickly to sustain a reaction.Others worried that the RHIC or the Large Hadron Collider might start a chain-reaction global disaster involving black holes, strangelets, or false vacuum states. It has been pointed out that much more energetic collisions take place currently in Earth's atmosphere.Though these particular concerns have been challenged, the general concern about new experiments remains. Mineral resource exhaustion Romanian American economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, a progenitor in economics and the paradigm founder of ecological economics, has argued that the carrying capacity of Earth—that is, Earth's capacity to sustain human populations and consumption levels—is bound to decrease sometime in the future as Earth's finite stock of mineral resources is presently being extracted and put to use; and consequently, that the world economy as a whole is heading towards an inevitable future collapse, leading to the demise of human civilization itself.: 303f  Ecological economist and steady-state theorist Herman Daly, a student of Georgescu-Roegen, has propounded the same argument by asserting that "all we can do is to avoid wasting the limited capacity of creation to support present and future life [on Earth].": 370 Ever since Georgescu-Roegen and Daly published these views, various scholars in the field have been discussing the existential impossibility of allocating Earth's finite stock of mineral resources evenly among an unknown number of present and future generations. This number of generations is likely to remain unknown to us, as there is no way—or only little way—of knowing in advance if or when mankind will ultimately face extinction. In effect, any conceivable intertemporal allocation of the stock will inevitably end up with universal economic decline at some future point. Nanotechnology Many nanoscale technologies are in development or currently in use. The only one that appears to pose a significant global catastrophic risk is molecular manufacturing, a technique that would make it possible to build complex structures at atomic precision. Molecular manufacturing requires significant advances in nanotechnology, but once achieved could produce highly advanced products at low costs and in large quantities in nanofactories of desktop proportions. When nanofactories gain the ability to produce other nanofactories, production may only be limited by relatively abundant factors such as input materials, energy and software.Molecular manufacturing could be used to cheaply produce, among many other products, highly advanced, durable weapons. Being equipped with compact computers and motors these could be increasingly autonomous and have a large range of capabilities.Chris Phoenix and Treder classify catastrophic risks posed by nanotechnology into three categories: From augmenting the development of other technologies such as AI and biotechnology. By enabling mass-production of potentially dangerous products that cause risk dynamics (such as arms races) depending on how they are used. From uncontrolled self-perpetuating processes with destructive effects.Several researchers say the bulk of risk from nanotechnology comes from the potential to lead to war, arms races, and destructive global government. Several reasons have been suggested why the availability of nanotech weaponry may with significant likelihood lead to unstable arms races (compared to e.g. nuclear arms races): A large number of players may be tempted to enter the race since the threshold for doing so is low; The ability to make weapons with molecular manufacturing will be cheap and easy to hide; Therefore, lack of insight into the other parties' capabilities can tempt players to arm out of caution or to launch preemptive strikes; Molecular manufacturing may reduce dependency on international trade, a potential peace-promoting factor; Wars of aggression may pose a smaller economic threat to the aggressor since manufacturing is cheap and humans may not be needed on the battlefield.Since self-regulation by all state and non-state actors seems hard to achieve, measures to mitigate war-related risks have mainly been proposed in the area of international cooperation. International infrastructure may be expanded giving more sovereignty to the international level. This could help coordinate efforts for arms control. International institutions dedicated specifically to nanotechnology (perhaps analogously to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA) or general arms control may also be designed. One may also jointly make differential technological progress on defensive technologies, a policy that players should usually favour. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology also suggests some technical restrictions. Improved transparency regarding technological capabilities may be another important facilitator for arms-control. Gray goo is another catastrophic scenario, which was proposed by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation and has been a theme in mainstream media and fiction. This scenario involves tiny self-replicating robots that consume the entire biosphere (ecophagy) using it as a source of energy and building blocks. Nowadays, however, nanotech experts—including Drexler—discredit the scenario. According to Phoenix, a "so-called grey goo could only be the product of a deliberate and difficult engineering process, not an accident". Nuclear war Some fear a hypothetical World War III could cause the annihilation of humankind. Nuclear war could yield unprecedented human death tolls and habitat destruction. Detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons would have an immediate, short term and long-term effects on the climate, potentially causing cold weather known as a "nuclear winter" with reduced sunlight and photosynthesis that may generate significant upheaval in advanced civilizations. However, while popular perception sometimes takes nuclear war as "the end of the world", experts assign low probability to human extinction from nuclear war. In 1982, Brian Martin estimated that a US–Soviet nuclear exchange might kill 400–450 million directly, mostly in the United States, Europe and Russia, and maybe several hundred million more through follow-up consequences in those same areas. In 2008, a survey by the Future of Humanity Institute estimated a 4% probability of extinction from warfare by 2100, with a 1% chance of extinction from nuclear warfare.The scenarios that have been explored most frequently are nuclear warfare and doomsday devices. Mistakenly launching a nuclear attack in response to a false alarm is one possible scenario; this nearly happened during the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident. Although the probability of a nuclear war per year is slim, Professor Martin Hellman has described it as inevitable in the long run; unless the probability approaches zero, inevitably there will come a day when civilization's luck runs out. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. president John F. Kennedy estimated the odds of nuclear war at "somewhere between one out of three and even". The United States and Russia have a combined arsenal of 14,700 nuclear weapons, and there is an estimated total of 15,700 nuclear weapons in existence worldwide. World population and agricultural crisis The Global Footprint Network estimates that current activity uses resources twice as fast as they can be naturally replenished, and that growing human population and increased consumption pose the risk of resource depletion and a concomitant population crash. Evidence suggests birth rates may be rising in the 21st century in the developed world. Projections vary; researcher Hans Rosling has projected population growth to start to plateau around 11 billion, and then to slowly grow or possibly even shrink thereafter. A 2014 study published in Science asserts that the human population will grow to around 11 billion by 2100 and that growth will continue into the next century.The 20th century saw a rapid increase in human population due to medical developments and massive increases in agricultural productivity such as the Green Revolution. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The Green Revolution in agriculture helped food production to keep pace with worldwide population growth or actually enabled population growth. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon-fueled irrigation. David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in their 1994 study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says the study.The authors of this study believe the mentioned agricultural crisis will begin to have an effect on the world after 2020 and will become critical after 2050. Geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer claims that coming decades could see spiraling food prices without relief and massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before.Since supplies of petroleum and natural gas are essential to modern agriculture techniques, a fall in global oil supplies (see peak oil for global concerns) could cause spiking food prices and unprecedented famine in the coming decades.Wheat is humanity's third-most-produced cereal. Extant fungal infections such as Ug99 (a kind of stem rust) can cause 100% crop losses in most modern varieties. Little or no treatment is possible and the infection spreads on the wind. Should the world's large grain-producing areas become infected, the ensuing crisis in wheat availability would lead to price spikes and shortages in other food products.Human activity has triggered an extinction event often referred to as the sixth "mass extinction", which scientists consider a major threat to the continued existence of human civilization. The 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, asserts that roughly one million species of plants and animals face extinction from human impacts such as expanding land use for industrial agriculture and livestock rearing, along with overfishing. A 1997 assessment states that over a third of Earth's land has been modified by humans, that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased around 30 percent, that humans are the dominant source of nitrogen fixation, that humans control most of the Earth's accessible surface fresh water, and that species extinction rates may be over a hundred times faster than normal. Ecological destruction which impacts food production could produce a human population crash. Non-anthropogenic Of all species that have ever lived, 99% have gone extinct. Earth has experienced numerous mass extinction events, in which up to 96% of all species present at the time were eliminated. A notable example is the K-T extinction event, which killed the dinosaurs. The types of threats posed by nature have been argued to be relatively constant, though this has been disputed. A number of other astronomical threats have also been identified. Asteroid impact An impact event involving a near-Earth object (NEOs) could result in localized or widespread destruction, including widespread extinction and possibly human extinction.Several asteroids have collided with Earth in recent geological history. The Chicxulub asteroid, for example, was about ten kilometers (six miles) in diameter and is theorized to have caused the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. No sufficiently large asteroid currently exists in an Earth-crossing orbit; however, a comet of sufficient size to cause human extinction could impact the Earth, though the annual probability may be less than 10−8. Geoscientist Brian Toon estimates that while a few people, such as "some fishermen in Costa Rica", could plausibly survive a ten-kilometer (six-mile) meteorite, a hundred-kilometer (sixty-mile) meteorite would be large enough to "incinerate everybody". Asteroids with around a 1 km diameter have impacted the Earth on average once every 500,000 years; these are probably too small to pose an extinction risk, but might kill billions of people. Larger asteroids are less common. Small near-Earth asteroids are regularly observed and can impact anywhere on the Earth injuring local populations. As of 2013, Spaceguard estimates it has identified 95% of all NEOs over 1 km in size. None of the large "dinosaur-killer" asteroids known to Spaceguard pose a near-term threat of collision with Earth.In April 2018, the B612 Foundation reported "It's a 100 per cent certain we'll be hit [by a devastating asteroid], but we're not 100 per cent sure when." Also in 2018, physicist Stephen Hawking, in his final book Brief Answers to the Big Questions, considered an asteroid collision to be the biggest threat to the planet. In June 2018, the US National Science and Technology Council warned that America is unprepared for an asteroid impact event, and has developed and released the "National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy Action Plan" to better prepare. According to expert testimony in the United States Congress in 2013, NASA would require at least five years of preparation before a mission to intercept an asteroid could be launched. Planetary or interstellar collision In April 2008, it was announced that two simulations of long-term planetary movement, one at the Paris Observatory and the other at the University of California, Santa Cruz, indicate a 1% chance that Mercury's orbit could be made unstable by Jupiter's gravitational pull sometime during the lifespan of the Sun. Were this to happen, the simulations suggest a collision with Earth could be one of four possible outcomes (the others being Mercury colliding with the Sun, colliding with Venus, or being ejected from the Solar System altogether). Collision with or a near miss by a large object from outside the Solar System could also be catastrophic to life on Earth. Interstellar objects, including asteroids, comets, and rogue planets, are difficult to detect with current technology until they enter the Solar System, and could potentially do so at high speed. If Mercury or a rogue planet of similar size were to collide with Earth, all life on Earth could be obliterated entirely: an asteroid 15 km wide is believed to have caused the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, whereas Mercury is 4,879 km in diameter. The destabilization of Mercury's orbit is unlikely in the foreseeable future.A close pass by a large object could cause massive tidal forces that triggered anything from minor earthquakes to liquification of the Earth's crust to Earth being torn apart, becoming a disrupted planet. Stars and black holes are easier to detect from a longer distance, but are much more difficult to deflect. Passage through the solar system could result in the destruction of the Earth or the Sun by being directly consumed. Astronomers expect the collision of the Milky Way Galaxy with the Andromeda Galaxy in about four billion years, but due to the large amount of empty space between them, most stars are not expected to collide directly.The passage of another star system into or close to the outer reaches of the Solar System could trigger a swarm of asteroid impacts as the orbit of objects in the Oort Cloud is disturbed, or objects orbiting the two stars collide. It also increases the risk of catastrophic irradiation of the Earth. Astronomers have identified fourteen stars with a 90% chance of coming within 3.26 light years of the Sun in the next few million years, and four within 1.6 light years, including HIP 85605 and Gliese 710. Observational data on nearby stars was too incomplete for a full catalog of near misses, but more data is being collected by the Gaia spacecraft. Physics hazards Strangelets, if they exist, might naturally be produced by strange stars, and in the case of a collision, might escape and hit the Earth. Likewise, a false vacuum collapse could be triggered elsewhere in the universe. Gamma-ray burst Another interstellar threat is a gamma-ray burst, typically produced by a supernova when a star collapses inward on itself and then "bounces" outward in a massive explosion. Under certain circumstances, these events are thought to produce massive bursts of gamma radiation emanating outward from the axis of rotation of the star. If such an event were to occur oriented towards the Earth, the massive amounts of gamma radiation could significantly affect the Earth's atmosphere and pose an existential threat to all life. Such a gamma-ray burst may have been the cause of the Ordovician–Silurian extinction events. This scenario is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Astroengineering projects proposed to mitigate the risk of gamma-ray bursts include shielding the Earth with ionised smartdust and star lifting of nearby high mass stars likely to explode in a supernova. A gamma-ray burst would be able to vaporize anything in its beams out to around 200 light-years. The Sun A powerful solar flare, solar superstorm or a solar micronova, which is a drastic and unusual decrease or increase in the Sun's power output, could have severe consequences for life on Earth. The Earth will naturally become uninhabitable due to the Sun's stellar evolution, within about a billion years. In around 1 billion years from now, the Sun's brightness may increase as a result of a shortage of hydrogen, and the heating of its outer layers may cause the Earth's oceans to evaporate, leaving only minor forms of life. Well before this time, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be too low to support plant life, destroying the foundation of the food chains. See Future of the Earth. About 7–8 billion years from now, if and after the Sun has become a red giant, the Earth will probably be engulfed by an expanding Sun and destroyed. Uninhabitable universe The ultimate fate of the universe is uncertain, but is likely to eventually become uninhabitable, either suddenly or gradually. If it does not collapse into the Big Crunch, over very long time scales the heat death of the universe may render life impossible. The expansion of spacetime could cause the destruction of all matter in a Big Rip scenario. If our universe lies within a false vacuum, a bubble of lower-energy vacuum could come to exist by chance or otherwise in our universe, and catalyze the conversion of our universe to a lower energy state in a volume expanding at nearly the speed of light, destroying all that is known without forewarning. Such an occurrence is called vacuum decay, or the "Big Slurp". Extraterrestrial invasion Intelligent extraterrestrial life, if it exists, could invade Earth, either to exterminate and supplant human life, enslave it under a colonial system, exploit the planet's resources, or destroy it altogether.Although the existence of sentient alien life has never been conclusively proven, scientists such as Carl Sagan have posited it to be very likely. Scientists consider such a scenario technically possible, but unlikely.An article in The New York Times Magazine discussed the possible threats for humanity of intentionally sending messages aimed at extraterrestrial life into the cosmos in the context of the SETI efforts. Several public figures such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have argued against sending such messages, on the grounds that extraterrestrial civilizations with technology are probably far more advanced than, and could therefore pose an existential threat to, humanity.Invasion by microscopic life is also a possibility. In 1969, the "Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law" was added to the United States Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14, Section 1211) in response to the possibility of biological contamination resulting from the U.S. Apollo Space Program. It was removed in 1991. Natural pandemic A pandemic involving one or more viruses, prions, or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Epidemic diseases that have killed millions of people include smallpox, bubonic plague, influenza, HIV/AIDS, COVID-19, cocoliztli, typhus, cholera. Endemic tuberculosis and malaria kill over a million people each year. Sudden introduction of various European viruses decimated indigenous American populations. A deadly pandemic restricted to humans alone would be self-limiting as its mortality would reduce the density of its target population. A pathogen with a broad host range in multiple species, however, could eventually reach even isolated human populations. U.S. officials assess that an engineered pathogen capable of "wiping out all of humanity", if left unchecked, is technically feasible and that the technical obstacles are "trivial". However, they are confident that in practice, countries would be able to "recognize and intervene effectively" to halt the spread of such a microbe and prevent human extinction.There are numerous historical examples of pandemics that have had a devastating effect on a large number of people. The present, unprecedented scale and speed of human movement make it more difficult than ever to contain an epidemic through local quarantines, and other sources of uncertainty and the evolving nature of the risk mean natural pandemics may pose a realistic threat to human civilization.There are several classes of argument about the likelihood of pandemics. One stems from history, where the limited size of historical pandemics is evidence that larger pandemics are unlikely. This argument has been disputed on grounds including the changing risk due to changing population and behavioral patterns among humans, the limited historical record, and the existence of an anthropic bias.Another argument is based on an evolutionary model that predicts that naturally evolving pathogens will ultimately develop an upper limit to their virulence. This is because pathogens with high enough virulence quickly kill their hosts and reduce their chances of spreading the infection to new hosts or carriers. This model has limits, however, because the fitness advantage of limited virulence is primarily a function of a limited number of hosts. Any pathogen with a high virulence, high transmission rate and long incubation time may have already caused a catastrophic pandemic before ultimately virulence is limited through natural selection. Additionally, a pathogen that infects humans as a secondary host and primarily infects another species (a zoonosis) has no constraints on its virulence in people, since the accidental secondary infections do not affect its evolution. Lastly, in models where virulence level and rate of transmission are related, high levels of virulence can evolve. Virulence is instead limited by the existence of complex populations of hosts with different susceptibilities to infection, or by some hosts being geographically isolated. The size of the host population and competition between different strains of pathogens can also alter virulence.Neither of these arguments is applicable to bioengineered pathogens, and this poses entirely different risks of pandemics. Experts have concluded that "Developments in science and technology could significantly ease the development and use of high consequence biological weapons", and these "highly virulent and highly transmissible [bio-engineered pathogens] represent new potential pandemic threats". Natural climate change Climate change refers to a lasting change in the Earth's climate. The climate has ranged from ice ages to warmer periods when palm trees grew in Antarctica. It has been hypothesized that there was also a period called "snowball Earth" when all the oceans were covered in a layer of ice. These global climatic changes occurred slowly, near the end of the last Major Ice Age when the climate became more stable. However, abrupt climate change on the decade time scale has occurred regionally. A natural variation into a new climate regime (colder or hotter) could pose a threat to civilization.In the history of the Earth, many Ice Ages are known to have occurred. An ice age would have a serious impact on civilization because vast areas of land (mainly in North America, Europe, and Asia) could become uninhabitable. Currently, the world is in an Interglacial period within a much older glacial event. The last glacial expansion ended about 10,000 years ago, and all civilizations evolved later than this. Scientists do not predict that a natural ice age will occur anytime soon. The amount of heat-trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.On a long time scale, natural shifts such as Milankovitch cycles (hypothesized quaternary climatic oscillations) could create unknown climate variability and change. Volcanism A geological event such as massive flood basalt, volcanism, or the eruption of a supervolcano could lead to a so-called volcanic winter, similar to a nuclear winter. Human extinction is a possibility. One such event, the Toba eruption, occurred in Indonesia about 71,500 years ago. According to the Toba catastrophe theory, the event may have reduced human populations to only a few tens of thousands of individuals. Yellowstone Caldera is another such supervolcano, having undergone 142 or more caldera-forming eruptions in the past 17 million years. A massive volcano eruption would eject extraordinary volumes of volcanic dust, toxic and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with serious effects on global climate (towards extreme global cooling: volcanic winter if short-term, and ice age if long-term) or global warming (if greenhouse gases were to prevail). When the supervolcano at Yellowstone last erupted 640,000 years ago, the thinnest layers of the ash ejected from the caldera spread over most of the United States west of the Mississippi River and part of northeastern Mexico. The magma covered much of what is now Yellowstone National Park and extended beyond, covering much of the ground from Yellowstone River in the east to Idaho falls in the west, with some of the flows extending north beyond Mammoth Springs.According to a recent study, if the Yellowstone caldera erupted again as a supervolcano, an ash layer one to three millimeters thick could be deposited as far away as New York, enough to "reduce traction on roads and runways, short out electrical transformers and cause respiratory problems". There would be centimeters of thickness over much of the U.S. Midwest, enough to disrupt crops and livestock, especially if it happened at a critical time in the growing season. The worst-affected city would likely be Billings, Montana, population 109,000, which the model predicted would be covered with ash estimated as 1.03 to 1.8 meters thick.The main long-term effect is through global climate change, which reduces the temperature globally by about 5–15 °C for a decade, together with the direct effects of the deposits of ash on their crops. A large supervolcano like Toba would deposit one or two meters thickness of ash over an area of several million square kilometers. (1000 cubic kilometers is equivalent to a one-meter thickness of ash spread over a million square kilometers). If that happened in some densely populated agricultural area, such as India, it could destroy one or two seasons of crops for two billion people.However, Yellowstone shows no signs of a supereruption at present, and it is not certain that a future supereruption will occur.Research published in 2011 finds evidence that massive volcanic eruptions caused massive coal combustion, supporting models for the significant generation of greenhouse gases. Researchers have suggested that massive volcanic eruptions through coal beds in Siberia would generate significant greenhouse gases and cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Massive eruptions can also throw enough pyroclastic debris and other material into the atmosphere to partially block out the sun and cause a volcanic winter, as happened on a smaller scale in 1816 following the eruption of Mount Tambora, the so-called Year Without a Summer. Such an eruption might cause the immediate deaths of millions of people several hundred kilometers (or miles) from the eruption, and perhaps billions of death worldwide, due to the failure of the monsoons, resulting in major crop failures causing starvation on a profound scale.A much more speculative concept is the verneshot: a hypothetical volcanic eruption caused by the buildup of gas deep underneath a craton. Such an event may be forceful enough to launch an extreme amount of material from the crust and mantle into a sub-orbital trajectory. See also Great Filter Notes References === Works cited ===

elise buckle

Elise Breyton Buckle is a French environmental policy expert and lecturer. She is the co-president of Climate & Sustainability, co-founder of SHE Changes Climate and board member of the Climate Action Accelerator. Buckle is a professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies for the Executive Programme Graduate Institute of Geneva. She also teaches Sustainability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Glion Institute of Business Education. She was a local appointee in the municipal government of Nyon, Switzerland. Education Buckle holds a master's degree of International Relations and Development from the Institute of Political Science - Sciences Po Paris and Master of Science in Environmental Policy Planning and Regulation from the London School of Economics. She also holds a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education, International from the University of Nottingham. Career Buckle advised Ambassador Khan as Chief Negotiator for the UNFCCC COP23 Fiji Presidency leading to the successful adoption of the COP23 Decision for the Talanoa Dialogue aimed at raising climate ambition. She was also senior advisor to David Nabarro appointed by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres as co-facilitator of the Nature-Based Solutions coalition.Buckle coordinated the Planetary Emergency Partnership. She advised scientist and professor Johan Rockström with a focus on planetary boundaries as well as economist Sandrine Dixson-Declèveon a paradigm shift "Beyond GDP growth". She also worked with Dixson-Declève as a senior advisor on Resilience for the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021.Buckle is part of the Jury of the Financial Times which selected the best climate essay on women empowerment in 2022.At UNFCCC Climate COP26, she hosted the city day on nature. For UNFCCC COP27, she became officially accredited by the UN as head of delegation. She led the SHE Changes Climate and delivered an official statement to the COP27 Presidency on gender day. Political career From 2018 to 2022, Buckle served as Member of the City Council for the Green Party and as Member of the Executive team for the City of Nyon, in charge of the energy transition and Human Resources. She also organized several participatory Citizens Forums on climate and sustainability at the local level. At the Municipality, she worked on women empowerment, equal salaries, inclusion, diversity, well-being, personal integrity and health at workplace. She developed the second legislation on water resilience and climate adaptation for the city and the region. Selected publications Le Sommet de Copenhague: un séisme politique nécessaire, Editions Ecoles des Mines, Paris, Responsabilité et Environnement: Après Copenhague, Juin 2009 Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reform in 24 OECD countries, European Parliament, Brussels, May 2012 Le Voyage de Lucien et Léa, Editions Jets d'Encre, Paris, July 2015 Voyage de Lucien et Léa Climate Change and Labour: impacts of heat in the workforce, UNDP report, April 2016 UNDP report on Heat Lola, l'Arbre de la Féminité, Editions Jets d'Encre Juin 2017 Lola, l'Arbre de la Féminitié Emerging From Emergency Publication References External links Elise Buckle on LinkedIn She Changes Climate

arctic basecamp

Arctic Basecamp is a not-for-profit science outreach organisation. It was founded in 2017. It works to promote awareness of the global risks of climate change in the Arctic to world leaders from business, policy and civil society. World Economic Forum at Davos Arctic Basecamp hosts an annual event at Davos alongside the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting. An expedition tent acts as its workplace during the day and its dormitory at night, with scientists and campaigners camping in sub-zero temperatures. COP26 In 2021, Arctic Basecamp brought an iceberg from Greenland to COP26 in Glasgow to highlight climate change in the Arctic. Controversies Arctic Basecamp is funded by Quadriture Climate Group, a charity linked to fossil fuel investments. Despite the organisation's message, there is no evidence that they have influential engagement with decisionmakers. Key people Arctic Basecamp was founded by Professor Gail Whiteman, Professor of Sustainability at the University of Exeter’s Business School. Arctic Basecamp’s scientific advisers include Professor Julienne Stroeve, Professor of Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL, Dr Jennifer Francis, Acting Deputy Director at Woodwell Climate Research Center, Professor Alun Hubbard, a glaciologist and climate scientist at the Arctic University of Norway, Professor Jason Box, Professor of Glaciology and Climate at the Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Dr Jennifer Watts, an Assistant Scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center, Dr Dmitry Yumashev, a climate policy specialist, and Dr Susana Hancock, an Arctic climate researcher.Celebrities who have supported Arctic Basecamp’s work include Rainn Wilson who is a member of the Advisory Board of Arctic Basecamp, Greta Thunberg, Ellie Goulding, Lily Cole, Billie Eilish, Robert Downey Jr, and Chuck Tatham. Arctic Risk Platform In 2022, Arctic Basecamp launched the Arctic Risk Platform, a website publishing live scientific data from the Arctic. == References ==

forest dieback

Forest dieback (also "Waldsterben", a German loan word, pronounced [ˈvaltˌʃtɛʁbn̩] ) is a condition in trees or woody plants in which peripheral parts are killed, either by pathogens, parasites or conditions like acid rain, drought, and more. These episodes can have disastrous consequences such as reduced resiliency of the ecosystem, disappearing important symbiotic relationships and thresholds. Some tipping points for major climate change forecast in the next century are directly related to forest diebacks. Definition Forest dieback refers to the phenomenon of a stand of trees losing health and dying without an obvious cause. This condition is also known as forest decline, forest damage, canopy level dieback, and stand level dieback. This usually affects individual species of trees, but can also affect multiple species. Dieback is an episodic event and may take on many locations and shapes. It can be along the perimeter, at specific elevations, or dispersed throughout the forest ecosystem.Forest dieback presents itself in many ways: falling off of leaves and needles, discolouration of leaves and needles, thinning of the crowns of trees, dead stands of trees of a certain age, and changes in the roots of the trees. It also has many dynamic forms. A stand of trees can exhibit mild symptoms, extreme symptoms, or even death. Forest decline can be viewed as the result of continued, widespread, and severe dieback of multiple species in a forest. Current forest decline can be defined by: rapid development on individual trees, occurrence in different forest types, occurrence over a long duration (over 10 years), and occurrence throughout the natural range of affected species. History A lot of research was done in the 1980s when a severe dieback occurred in Germany and the Northeast United States. Previous diebacks were regionally limited, however, starting at the end of the 1970s, a decline took over the forests in Central Europe and parts of North America. The forest damage in Germany, specifically, was different as the decline was severe: the damage was widespread across various tree species. The percentage of affected trees increased from 8% in 1982 to 50% in 1984 and stayed at 50% through 1987. Many hypotheses have been proposed for this dieback, see below. In the 20th century, North America was hit with five notable hardwood diebacks. They occurred following the maturation of the forest and each episode had lasted about eleven years. The most severe temperate forest dieback targeted white birch and yellow birch trees. They experienced an episode that started between 1934 and 1937 and ended between 1953 and 1954. This followed a wave pattern that first appeared in Southern regions and moved to Northern regions, where a second wave was evident between 1957 and 1965 in Northern Quebec.Dieback can also affect other species such as ash, oak, and maple. Sugar maple, particularly, experienced a wave of dieback in parts of the United States during the 1960s. A second wave occurred primarily in Canada in the 1980s, but also managed to reach the United States. These diebacks were numerically analyzed to exclude natural tree mortality. It is hypothesized that a mature forest is more susceptible to extreme environmental stresses. Potential causes of forest dieback The components of a forest ecosystem are complex and identifying specific cause–effect relationships between dieback and the environment is a difficult process. Over the years, a lot of research has been conducted and some hypotheses have been agreed upon such as: Bark beetle: Bark beetles use the soft tissues of a tree for shelter, subsistence and nesting. Their arrival usually also includes other organisms such as fungi and bacteria. Together, they form symbiotic relationships where the condition of the tree gets exacerbated. Their life cycle is dependent on the presence of a tree as they lay their eggs in them. Once hatched, the larva can form a parasitic relationship with the tree, where it lives off it and cuts the circulation of water and nutrients from the roots to the shoots. Groundwater conditions: A study conducted in Australia found that conditions such as depth and salinity could potentially help predict diebacks before they occur. In one bioregion, when both depth and salinity concentrations increased, standing of forests increased. However, in another bioregion in the same study area, when depth increased but the water had lower concentrations of salts (i.e. freshwater), diebacks increased. Drought and heat stress: Drought and heat stress are hypothesized to cause dieback. Their apparent reason comes from two mechanisms. The first one, hydraulic failure, results in transportation failure of water from the roots to the shoots of a tree. This can cause dehydration and possibly death. The second, carbon starvation, occurs as a plant's response to heat is to close its stomata. This phenomenon cuts off entry of carbon dioxide, thereby making the plant rely on stored compounds like sugar. If the heat event is long and if the plant runs out of sugar, it will starve and die. Pathogens are responsible for many diebacks. It is difficult to isolate and identify exactly which pathogens are responsible and how they interact with the trees. For instance Phomopsis azadirachtae is a fungus of the genus Phomopsis that has been identified as responsible for the dieback in Azadirachta indica (Neem) in the regions of India. Some experts consider dieback as a group of diseases with incompletely understood origins influenced by factors which predispose trees under stress to invasion.Some other hypotheses could explain the causes and effects of dieback. As agreed upon between the scientific exchanges of Germany and the United States in 1988: Soil acidification/aluminum toxicity: As a soil becomes more acidic, aluminum gets released, damaging the tree's roots. Some of the observed effects are: a reduction of uptake and transport of some cations, reduction in root respiration, damage to fine feeder roots and root morphology, and reduction in elasticity of the cell walls. This was is proposed by Professor Bernhard Ulrich in 1979. Complex High-Elevation Disease: The combination of high ozone levels, acid deposition and nutrient deficiencies at high elevations kills trees. High ozone concentrations damage the leaves and needles of trees and nutrients get leached from the foliage. The chain of events gets magnified over time. This was proposed by a group of professors: Bernhard Prinz, Karl Rehfuess, and Heinz Zöttl. Red-needle disease of spruce: This disease causes needle drop and crown thinning. Needles turn a rust color and fall off. This is caused by foliar fungi, which are secondary parasites attacking already weakened trees. This was proposed by Professor Karl Rehfuess. Pollution: The increased concentration level of atmospheric pollutants hurts the root system and leads to the accumulation of toxins in new leaves. Pollutants can alter the growth, reduce the photosynthetic activity, and reduce the formation of secondary metabolites. It is believed that low concentrations levels can be considered are toxic. This was proposed by a group of professors led by Peter Schütt.Organic Air Pollutants: this subsection focuses on organic compounds. The three compounds seriously discussed are ethylene, aniline, and dinitrophenol. Even at low levels, these organic chemical compounds have caused: abnormal dropping of foliage, twisted foliage, and killing of seedlings. This was proposed by Fritz Führ. Excess Nitrogen Deposition: The increased level of nitrogen and ammonium, both commonly found in fertilizer, could have the following possible effects: it could inhibit beneficial fungi, delay chemical reactions, disturb normal balances between shoot growth and root growth, and increase soil leaching. However, there is no experimental proof. This was proposed by Carl Olaf Tamm. See also: Nutrient pollution Consequences of forest dieback Forest dieback can be caused by a multitude of factors, however, once they occur, they can have certain consequences. Fungal community: Ectomycorrhizal fungi form a symbiotic relationship with trees. Following a bark beetle outbreak, dieback can occur. This process can decrease photosynthesis, nutrient availability and decomposition rates and processes. Once this occurs, the symbiotic relationship, previously mentioned, gets negatively affected: the ectomycorrhizal fungi community decreases and then the relationship disappears altogether. This is problematic as certain plants depend on their presence for survival. Soil chemistry: Soil chemistry can change following a dieback episode. It can result in the increase of base saturation as biomass left behind set free certain ions such as calcium, magnesium and potassium. This can be considered a positive consequence as base saturation is essential for plant growth and soil fertility. Therefore, this signifies that soil chemistry following a dieback even could aid in recovering acidic soils. Climate change Changes in mean annual temperature and drought are major contributing factors to forest dieback. As more carbon is released from dead trees, especially in the Amazon and Boreal forests, more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Increased levels of greenhouse gases increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Projections for dieback vary, but the threat of global climate change only stands to increase the rate of dieback. Reduced resiliency: Trees can be resilient. However, that can be changed when the ecosystem is hit with a drought episode. This results in trees becoming more susceptible to insect infestations, thereby triggering a dieback event. This is a problem as climate change is predicted to increase drought in certain regions of the world. Thresholds: A number of thresholds exist in relation to forest dieback such as "biodiversity ..., ecological condition ... and ecosystem function". As climate change has the power to cause diebacks through multiple processes, these thresholds are becoming more and more achievable where, in some cases, they have the ability to induce a positive feedback process: when the basal area in an ecosystem decreases by 50%, species richness of ectomycorrhizal fungi follows. As mentioned earlier, ectomycorrhizal fungi are important for the survival of certain plants, turning dieback into a positive feedback mechanism. Tipping points: Scientists do not know the exact tipping points of climate change and can only estimate the timescales. When a tipping point is reached, a small change in human activity can have long-term consequences on the environment. Two of the nine tipping points for major climate changes forecast for the next century are directly related to forest diebacks. Scientists are worried that forest dieback in the Amazon rain forest and the Boreal evergreen forest will trigger a tipping point in the next 50 years. See also Bark beetle Birch dieback Forest pathology Heat wave Hymenoscyphus fraxineus – cause of ash dieback Kauri dieback Permanent wilting point == References ==

p8 group

The P8 Group brings together senior leaders from some of the world's largest public pension funds to develop actions relating to global issues and particularly climate change. It is an initiative of the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) and HRH Prince of Wales’s Business and Environment Programme (BEP) supported by the Environmental Capital Group (ECG) and the Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation.The P8 Group involves ten leading global pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, including representatives from Europe, Asia, Australasia and North America. They represent over $3 trillion of investment capital and as pension funds have an inherently long term focus. In November 2007 the first P8 Summit was held. This brought together leaders from eight of the world's largest public pension funds with key experts including Vice President Al Gore and HRH Prince of Wales. The P8 Summit was a critical start in getting pension funds to lead in the move toward a low-carbon economy. Participants agreed to continue working together to address climate change, both within their organizations and as a group to influence policy and markets. The group, at this point 10 pension funds, met again in July 2008 to further develop their strategy. At this meeting HRH Prince of Wales welcomed their continued "determination to put substantial money into investments that address climate change."This organisation has now disbanded, and was replaced in 2010 by the P80 Group Foundation. Members of P8 CalPERS CalSTRS New York State British Columbia AP7 APG UK Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) ACSI Korean National Pension Fund Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund See also Bali roadmap References External links Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership

alexis rockman

Alexis Rockman (born 1962) is an American contemporary artist known for his paintings that provide depictions of future landscapes as they might exist with impacts of climate change and evolution influenced by genetic engineering. He has exhibited his work in the United States since 1985, including a 2004 exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, and internationally since 1989. He lives with his wife, Dorothy Spears in Warren, CT and NYC. Life Rockman was born and raised in New York City. Rockman's stepfather, Russell Rockman, an Australian jazz musician, brought the family to Australia frequently. As a child, Rockman frequented the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where his mother, Diana Wall, worked briefly for anthropologist Margaret Mead.Growing up, Rockman had an interest in natural history and science, and developed fascination for film, animation, and the arts. From 1980 to 1982, Rockman studied animation at the Rhode Island School of Design, and continued studies at the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan, receiving a BFA in fine arts in 1985.Aside from his art career, Rockman has taken on requests from conservation groups, including the Riverkeeper project and the Rainforest Alliance. He lives with his wife, Dorothy Spears in Warren, CT and NYC. Career Early career 1985–1993 Rockman began exhibiting his work at the Jay Gorney Modern Art gallery in New York City in 1986 and was represented by the gallery from 1986 to 2005. Rockman also had exhibitions at galleries in Los Angeles, Boston, and Philadelphia in the late 1980s.Early work was inspired by natural history iconography. In Phylum, Rockman draws upon the work of Ernst Haeckel, an artist and proponent of Darwinism. A series of works by Rockman in the early 1990s, including Barnyard Scene (1990), Jungle Fever (1991), and The Trough (1992), use dark humor in depicting different species mating with one another. In Barnyard Scene, Rockman depicts a raccoon mating with a rooster, and Jungle Fever shows a praying mantis mating with a chipmunk. In 1993, Rockman created Still Life, a still life depiction of a pile of fish and marine specimens, evoking reference to 1935 horror James Whale film Bride of Frankenstein and films by Luis Buñuel. In Still Life, Rockman alludes to the Wunderkammer, placing "aberrant contents" amidst a Baroque still life scene, which traditionally is abundant with wealth and goods from Dutch and Spanish colonies.In 1992, Rockman painted his first large scale painting, Evolution, which was exhibited at Sperone Westwater Gallery in 1992, the Carnegie Museum of Art and the Venice Biennale in 1993.The Biosphere series, referencing Douglass Trumbull's seminal 1971 film Silent Running', envisions a situation where the Earth has become too toxic for human life, and the last vestiges of nature are placed in geodesic domes on space ships roaming the outer reaches of our solar system. Biosphere also references the quasi-scientific experiment Biosphere 2 in Arizona. Second Nature Illinois State University, University Galleries, Normal Illinois, August 17- September 29, 1995. Curated by Barry Blinderman, this is the first museum survey of Rockman's paintings featuring thirty works ( 18 large scale paintings and 12 smaller works) from 1986 to 1994, with catalog essays by Barry Blinderman, Douglas Blau, Stephen Jay Gould, Prudence Roberts, and Peter Ward. The exhibition traveled to the Portland Art Museum (June 5 - July 23, 1995), Cincinnati Art Museum(Oct. 22 - Dec. 31, 1995), the Tweed Museum of Art (Feb. 6 - March 17, 1996) and The Cranbrook Art Museum (September 20 - October 27, 1996). Travels Many of Alexis Rockman's works have been inspired by his travels around the world, including to Costa Rica, Brazil, Madagascar, Guyana, Tasmania, the Galapagos and Antarctica. Rockman traveled to Guyana in 1994 with fellow artist Mark Dion, resulting in numerous paintings of the flora and fauna that he observed. For the 1994 trip, he strictly painted works that depicted what he saw, with particular interest in various types of insects. Neblina (1995), one of the last works resulting from the Guyana trip, was painted after the collapse of a tailings dam at the Omni gold mine in Guyana, resulting in cyanide leaking into the waterway. Neblina shows wildlife huddled together high in tree branches. Rockman returned to Guyana in 1998, and his works from that trip focused on aspects of ecotourism. Rockman traveled to Antarctica in 2008 with Dorothy Spears, and works resulting from this voyage were featured in the "Badlands: New Horizons in Landscape" exhibit at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art. Dioramas 1996-97 Dioramas involved a pointed move away from painting: each of the nine works in the exhibition combines paint with collage elements, including photographs, readymade and found objects ( dead animals, etc.), each encases in a block of transparent Envirotex resin between three and a quarter and five inches thick. The Farm, Wonderful World and Future Evolution 1999–2004 Rockman's painting The Farm was commissioned by Creative Time and exhibited at the Exit Art Gallery in New York City in 2000, as part of the "Paradise Now: Picturing Genetic Revolution" exhibition. The work depicts domestic and agricultural animals and plants, and how they may appear in the future, as a result of genetic engineering. The work examines how our culture perceives and interacts with plants and animals and the role culture plays in impacting the direction of natural history. In his painting, The Farm, rows of soybean plants extend toward the horizon. "The way I constructed it is that, as in a lot of Western cultures, we read things from left to right.". "On the left side of the image are the ancestral species of the chicken, the pig, the cow, and the mouse"; on the right, their contemporary versions. Farther to the right are "permutations of what things might look like in the future." The choice of a soybean field as his subject is fitting since soybeans are the most common, genetically modified crop. A pig becomes obese with images of a heart, lungs, and liver imposed on its side. A tiny hairless mouse scavenges while a human ear grows out of its back. A rooster sits upon a fence pole, its six wings pressed against its side. For this work, Rockman consulted with molecular biologist Rob DeSalle at the American Museum of Natural History. "The Farm" lead to a residency and a body of work of four other 8x10' paintings called "Wonderful World", which was shown at the Camden Art Center in London in 2004.In Rockman's wonderful world series he describes a possible future of the Pet Store, Sea World, Hot House and Soccer.Rockman's interest in science lead to a book collaboration with paleontologist and author Peter Douglass Ward "Future Evolution", in 2001. Rockman and Ward co-authored the project, with Ward writing the text and Rockman creating the images. Rockman and Ward portray the future as abundant with plants and animals, that are descendants of weedy species or feral domestics.In 2004, the Monacelli Press publishes an exhaustive monograph with essays by Stephen Jay Gould, Jonathan Crary, David Quammen, and an interview with Dorothy Spears. Manifest Destiny 2004 In 2004, the Brooklyn Museum featured Manifest Destiny, an 8-by-24-foot oil-on-wood painting by Rockman as a centerpiece for the second-floor Mezzanine Gallery and marking the opening of the renovated Grand Lobby and plaza at the museum. Manifest Destiny imagines the Brooklyn waterfront several hundred years in the future, after climate change has caused catastrophic sea level rise. Rockman sketched out initial ideas for the painting in January 2000, and Brooklyn Museum director Arnold L. Lehman officially requested the painting in 2002. Rockman began work on the mural in March 2003, consulting with experts in various fields, including Peter Ward, James Hansen and Cynthia Rosenzweig and scientists at Columbia University's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as well as architects Diane Lewis and Chris Morris. Rockman shows the outcome several hundred years in the future, depicting both tropical migrants and invasive plants and animals amidst the ruins of the Brooklyn Bridge, the wrecks of a Dutch sailing ship and a 20th-century submarine, a myriad of failed sea walls and other infrastructure designed to mitigate the rising waters. Rockman's project suggests what the remote geological, botanical, and zoological future might bring, predicting the ecosystem of the area. This painting was exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum (April 17–September 12, 2004), at Grand Arts in Kansas City (14 January – 26 February 2005), at the Addison Gallery of American Art in Andover, MA (12 March – 5 June 2005) at the RISD Museum in Providence, RI(June 17 - September 18, 2005) and was reproduced at scale at the Wexner Center for the Arts ( October 2005 - February 2006). It is now in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum. American Icons (2005-2006) In this series, Rockman imagines some of America's most famous landmarks and monuments as ruins overtaken by the implications of climate change- sea level rise, ravaged by sand and dust storms and invasive plants and animals. Baroque Biology 2007 Cincinnati's Contemporary Arts Center hosted a two-person show with works by Rockman and Tony Matelli in the 2007 exhibition, "Baroque Biology". In Romantic Attachments, Rockman portrays, a male Homo georgicus together with a female human in a romantic encounter. The Homo georgicus dates from 1.8 million years ago, intermediate in the evolutionary timeline between Homo habilis and H. erectus. I Rockman references Gian Lorenzo Bernini's sculpture Ecstasy of Saint Theresa, depicting the torch-bearing male Homo georgicus in place of Bernini's spear-bearing androgynous angel hovering over a female, who in both Bernini's and Rockman's work is portrayed erotically. Sculptor and paleoartist Viktor Deak created two reference models for Rockman of a male Homo georgicus. Smithsonian American Art Museum exhibition In November 2010, the Smithsonian American Art Museum mounted a survey Alexis Rockman: A Fable for Tomorrow, from November 2010 to May 8, 2011, which traveled to Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, OH (September 29 - December 30, 2011). The exhibition, presented 47 paintings by Rockman. The title of the exhibition refers to the title of the first chapter of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. Rubicon (2012-2014) A series of oil paintings and watercolors depicting an apocalyptic, post- human New York City, Rockman shows that human disasters, though often tragic, occasionally offer opportunities for other creatures. Imagining a post human cityscape where the dark past, present and future ecologies collapse, the Bronx Zoo, the New York City sewer system, Newtown Creek and the Gowanus Canal reveal their cryptic secrets. Life of Pi in 2005, Ang Lee asked Rockman to be an "Inspirational Artist" in his adaptation of Life of Pi.(2012) over the course of three years, He completed several dozen watercolor concept paintings and developed with associate producer Jean Castelli, the "Tiger Vision" sequence. Rockman's watercolors for the Life of Pi "served as the backbone for much of the film’s aesthetic." Battle Royale 2011 Battle Royale was executed for the international show Prospect 2 and conceived specifically for the city of New Orleans. The painting depicts fifty-four native and invasive species fighting for dominance in a Louisiana swamp. Non-native plants and animals are placing increasing stress on the state's ecosystems, and the warfare Rockman depicts is quietly taking place all over the state. It is in the permanent collection of the New Orleans Museum of Art. Works on Paper: Watercolors and Weather Drawings From his earliest watercolors in the 1980s, often of hybrid and mutated animals, the ominously beautiful and apocalyptic oil on paper Weather Drawings, painterly works on paper relating to his epic The Great Lakes Cycle, Rockman's works on paper have been ongoing. The artist's graphic work is as critical to the understanding of a visionary oeuvre made at the intersection of art, nature and science as his paintings. Field Drawings Rockman's Field Drawings, which first started in Guyana in 1994, have led him around the world from New Mexico, Tasmania, La Brea Tar Pits, Madagascar, Central Park, Antarctica and The Great Lakes. These drawings are not created on site, but are of the site. Over the years, Rockman has collected samples of organic material, sand, leaves, soil as well as less predictable material such as wombat fecal matter or sperm whale spermaceti. Selected species of flora and fauna relating directly to each site are depicted, some long extinct, some on the brink, while others have a bright future as invasive species. Great Lakes Cycle The Great Lakes Cycle is a series of five monumental paintings and six large format watercolors and 28 Field Drawings investigating the past, present and future of these bodies of water. "I wanted to do a sort of populist project about the Great Lakes and how precious they are. And how little we really consider them, in terms of what a valuable resource they have been and how incredibly valuable they will be in the future" Each 6 x 12 foot painting is read from left to right, chronicling geologic time from the past to the present, continuing to visions of the near future. That future might be challenging as the Great Lakes have long been affected by human activity, and the impact of cities, fishing, industry, farming and invasive species is likely to increase. Rockman traveled extensively around the Great Lakes region doing research, collecting source imagery, and learning about important issues affecting the lakes on the ground. The series, curated by Dana Friis Hansen, director of the Grand Rapids Art Museum, has traveled from The Grand Rapids Art museum (January 27 – April 29, 2018), to the Chicago Cultural Center (June 2—October 1, 2018), the Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland (October 19, 2018 — January 27, 2019), The Haggerty Museum of Art at Marquette University, Milwaukee (February 8 to May 19, 2019), the Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (October 11, 2019 - January 5, 2020) and the Flint Institute of Arts ( June 11 - September 27, 2020). Each painting explores one aspect of the lakes’ history and ecology from the ice age, some 15,000 years ago, to the near future. Film and animation Rockman is fascinated by film and animation, and has admiration for the work of various film designers. Rockman admires the work of Syd Mead, fantasy art and science fiction illustrator Chesley Bonestell, and stop motion animators including Willis O'Brien, Ray Harryhausen, Brothers Quay, Jan Švankmajer and Phil Tippet ; and various Eastern European avant-garde filmmakers. Other influences Charles R. Knight has a special place in Rockman's heart, as he almost single-handedly created the genre of reconstructions of extinct ecosystems. Rockman also drew inspiration from Chesley Bonestell's 1950 Collier's magazine illustration Atom Bombing of New York City, which depicts Manhattan amidst destruction and a glowing orange aura of an atomic bomb. See also Climate change art Publications Alexis Rockman: New Mexico Field Drawings. Exhibition catalogue with essay by Lucy R. Lippard. Santa Fe: SITE Santa Fe, 2018. ISBN 0985660260 Friis-Hansen, Dana. Alexis Rockman: The Great Lakes Cycle. Exhibition catalogue. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2018. ISBN 1611862914 A Natural History of New York City. Exhibition catalogue. New York: Salon 94, 2016. Essay by Jonathan Lethem. Alexis Rockman: East End Field Drawings. Exhibition catalogue. Water Mill, NY: Parrish Art Museum, 2015. Interview by Terrie Sultan. ISBN 0943526752 Rush, Michael, ed (2008). The Weight of Air. The Rose Art Museum. ISBN 0-9761593-6-8. Distel, Matt, ed (2007). Romantic Attachments. Contemporary Arts Center, Cincinnati. ISBN 0-917562-79-8. Big Weather, American Icons. Leo Koenig Inc.. 2006. Fresh Kills. Gary Tatintsian Gallery Inc.. 2005. (in English & Russian) Alexis Rockman. The Monacelli Press. 2004. ISBN 1-58093-118-9. Manifest Destiny. Gorney Bravin + Lee / Brooklyn Museum. 2004. ISBN 0-87273-151-0. Wonderful World. Camden Arts Centre. 2004. ISBN 1-900470-32-2. Mittelbach, Margaret (2005). Carnivorous Nights: On the Trail of the Tasmanian Tiger. Text Publishing. ISBN 978-1-920885-94-6. Rockman's 2004 journeys in Tasmania are recorded in the book Carnivorous Nights, with his accompanying artwork. Ward, Peter (2002). Future Evolution. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 0-7167-3496-6. Rockman did the illustrations for the book Future Evolution, by Peter Douglas Ward. Dioramas. Contemporary Arts Museum, Houston. 1997. Dion, Mark; Alexis Rockman (1997). Concrete Jungle: A Pop Media Investigation of Death and Survival in Urban Ecosystems. Juno Books. ISBN 0-9651042-2-2. Guyana. Twin Palms Publishers. 1996. ISBN 0-944092-41-1. Blinderman, Barry, ed. Second Nature. University Galleries of Illinois State University. ISBN 0-945558-23-6. Evolution. Sperone Westwater. 1992. Blau, Douglas (1992). Alexis Rockman. Jay Gorney Modern Art, New York and Thomas Solomon's Garage. Decter, Joshua (1991). Alexis Rockman. John Post Lee Gallery. References Further reading Small World: Dioramas in Contemporary Art / essays by Toby Kamps and Ralph Rugoff. San Diego, Calif. : Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, 2000. ISBN 0-934418-54-3 Gardner, Paul (2001). "Flora, Fauna and Fossils in the Drawings of Alexis Rockman". On Paper: The Journal of Prints, Drawings, and Photography. 6 (2): 58–63. Mitchell, W. J. Thomas (September 2003). "The Work of Art in the Age of Biocybernetic Reproduction" (PDF). Modernism/Modernity. 10 (3): 481–500. doi:10.1353/mod.2003.0067. S2CID 145380349. External links "Artist's official site". Archived from the original on 22 October 2010. Retrieved October 14, 2010. "Art and Science Lecture Series: Alexis Rockman". Smithsonian American Art Museum. January 12, 2011. Archived from the original on 2011-02-03. Retrieved January 26, 2011. "Alexis Rockman interview". Gothamist. Archived from the original on April 4, 2015. Retrieved October 14, 2010. "Manifesting Ecologic and Microbial Connections – Emerging Infectious Diseases (CDV)". Archived from the original on 4 November 2010. Retrieved October 14, 2010. "Alexis Rockman: Our True Nature". Greenpeace. Retrieved October 14, 2010. "Alexis Rockman". Frieze Magazine. September–October 1997. Archived from the original on February 29, 2012. Retrieved October 25, 2010. Articles about Alexis Rockman. New York Times Alexis Rockman on artnet

history

History (derived from Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía) 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation') is the systematic study and documentation of the human past.The period of events before the invention of writing systems is considered prehistory. "History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events. Historians seek knowledge of the past using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, art and material artifacts, and ecological markers. History is incomplete and still has debatable mysteries. History is an academic discipline which uses a narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect. Historians debate which narrative best explains an event, as well as the significance of different causes and effects. Historians debate the nature of history as an end in itself, and its usefulness in giving perspective on the problems of the present.Stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources (such as the tales surrounding King Arthur), are usually classified as cultural heritage or legends. History differs from myth in that it is supported by verifiable evidence. However, ancient cultural influences have helped create variant interpretations of the nature of history, which have evolved over the centuries and continue to change today. The modern study of history is wide-ranging, and includes the study of specific regions and certain topical or thematic elements of historical investigation. History is taught as a part of primary and secondary education, and the academic study of history is a major discipline in universities. Herodotus, a 5th-century BC Greek historian, is often considered the "father of history", as one of the first historians in the Western tradition, though he has been criticized as the "father of lies". Along with his contemporary Thucydides, he helped form the foundations for the modern study of past events and societies. Their works continue to be read today, and the gap between the culture-focused Herodotus and the military-focused Thucydides remains a point of contention or approach in modern historical writing. In East Asia, a state chronicle, the Spring and Autumn Annals, was reputed to date from as early as 722 BC, though only 2nd-century BC texts have survived. Etymology The word history comes from historía (Ancient Greek: ἱστορία, romanized: historíā, lit. 'inquiry, knowledge from inquiry, or judge'). It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his History of Animals. The ancestor word ἵστωρ is attested early on in Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and in Boeotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness", or similar). The Greek word was borrowed into Classical Latin as historia, meaning "investigation, inquiry, research, account, description, written account of past events, writing of history, historical narrative, recorded knowledge of past events, story, narrative". History was borrowed from Latin (possibly via Old Irish or Old Welsh) into Old English as stær ("history, narrative, story"), but this word fell out of use in the late Old English period. Meanwhile, as Latin became Old French (and Anglo-Norman), historia developed into forms such as istorie, estoire, and historie, with new developments in the meaning: "account of the events of a person's life (beginning of the 12th century), chronicle, account of events as relevant to a group of people or people in general (1155), dramatic or pictorial representation of historical events (c. 1240), body of knowledge relative to human evolution, science (c. 1265), narrative of real or imaginary events, story (c. 1462)".It was from Anglo-Norman that history was brought into Middle English, and it has persisted. It appears in the 13th-century Ancrene Wisse, but seems to have become a common word in the late 14th century, with an early attestation appearing in John Gower's Confessio Amantis of the 1390s (VI.1383): "I finde in a bok compiled | To this matiere an old histoire, | The which comth nou to mi memoire". In Middle English, the meaning of history was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "the branch of knowledge that deals with past events; the formal record or study of past events, esp. human affairs" arose in the mid-15th century. With the Renaissance, older senses of the word were revived, and it was in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the late 16th century, when he wrote about natural history. For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy).In an expression of the linguistic synthetic vs. analytic/isolating dichotomy, English like Chinese (史 vs. 诌) now designates separate words for human history and storytelling in general. In modern German, French, and most Germanic and Romance languages, which are solidly synthetic and highly inflected, the same word is still used to mean both "history" and "story". Historian in the sense of a "researcher of history" is attested from 1531. In all European languages, the substantive history is still used to mean both "what happened with men", and "the scholarly study of the happened", the latter sense sometimes distinguished with a capital letter, or the word historiography. The adjective historical is attested from 1661, and historic from 1669. Description Historians write in the context of their own time, and with due regard to the current dominant ideas of how to interpret the past, and sometimes write to provide lessons for their own society. In the words of Benedetto Croce, "All history is contemporary history". History is facilitated by the formation of a "true discourse of past" through the production of narrative and analysis of past events relating to the human race. The modern discipline of history is dedicated to the institutional production of this discourse. All events that are remembered and preserved in some authentic form constitute the historical record. The task of historical discourse is to identify the sources which can most usefully contribute to the production of accurate accounts of past. Therefore, the constitution of the historian's archive is a result of circumscribing a more general archive by invalidating the usage of certain texts and documents (by falsifying their claims to represent the "true past"). Part of the historian's role is to skillfully and objectively use the many sources from the past, most often found in the archives. The process of creating a narrative inevitably generates debate, as historians remember or emphasize different events of the past.The study of history has sometimes been classified as part of the humanities, other times part of the social sciences. It can be seen as a bridge between those two broad areas, incorporating methodologies from both. Some historians strongly support one or the other classification. In the 20th century the Annales school revolutionized the study of history, by using such outside disciplines as economics, sociology, and geography in the study of global history.Traditionally, historians have recorded events of the past, either in writing or by passing on an oral tradition, and attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents and oral accounts. From the beginning, historians have used such sources as monuments, inscriptions, and pictures. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. But writing is the marker that separates history from what comes before. Archaeology is especially helpful in unearthing buried sites and objects, which contribute to the study of history. Archeological finds rarely stand alone, with narrative sources complementing its discoveries. Archeology's methodologies and approaches are independent from the field of history. "Historical archaeology" is a specific branch of archeology which often contrasts its conclusions against those of contemporary textual sources. For example, Mark Leone, the excavator and interpreter of historical Annapolis, Maryland, US, has sought to understand the contradiction between textual documents idealizing "liberty" and the material record, demonstrating the possession of slaves and the inequalities of wealth made apparent by the study of the total historical environment. There are varieties of ways in which history can be organized, including chronologically, culturally, territorially, and thematically. These divisions are not mutually exclusive, and significant intersections are present. It is possible for historians to concern themselves with both the very specific and the very general, though the trend has been toward specialization. The area called Big History resists this specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends. History has often been studied with some practical or theoretical aim, but may be studied out of simple intellectual curiosity. Prehistory Human history is the memory of the past experience of Homo sapiens sapiens around the world, as that experience has been preserved, largely in written records. By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record. Since the 20th century, the study of prehistory is considered essential to avoid history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Historians in the West have been criticized for focusing disproportionately on the Western world. In 1961, British historian E. H. Carr wrote: The line of demarcation between prehistoric and historical times is crossed when people cease to live only in the present, and become consciously interested both in their past and in their future. History begins with the handing down of tradition; and tradition means the carrying of the habits and lessons of the past into the future. Records of the past begin to be kept for the benefit of future generations. This definition includes within the scope of history the strong interests of peoples, such as Indigenous Australians and New Zealand Māori in the past, and the oral records maintained and transmitted to succeeding generations, even before their contact with European civilization. Historiography Historiography has a number of related meanings. Firstly, it can refer to how history has been produced: the story of the development of methodology and practices (for example, the move from short-term biographical narrative toward long-term thematic analysis). Secondly, it can refer to what has been produced: a specific body of historical writing (for example, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" means "Works of medieval history written during the 1960s"). Thirdly, it may refer to why history is produced: the philosophy of history. As a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past, this third conception can relate to the first two in that the analysis usually focuses on the narratives, interpretations, world view, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians. Historians debate whether history can be taught as a single coherent narrative or a series of competing narratives. Methods The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources, and other evidence, to research and write history. Herodotus, from the 5th-century BC, has been acclaimed as the "father of history". However, his contemporary Thucydides is credited with having first approached history with a well-developed historical method in the History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides, unlike Herodotus, regarded history as the product of the choices and actions of humans, and looked at cause and effect, rather than the result of divine intervention (though Herodotus was not wholly committed to this idea himself). In his historical method, Thucydides emphasized chronology, a nominally neutral point of view, and that the human world was the result of human actions. Greek historians viewed history as cyclical, with events regularly recurring.There was sophisticated use of historical method in ancient and medieval China. The groundwork for professional historiography in East Asia was established by court historian Sima Qian (145–90 BC), author of the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) and posthumously known as the Father of Chinese historiography. Saint Augustine was influential in Christian and Western thought at the beginning of the medieval period. Through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, history was often studied through a sacred or religious perspective. Around 1800, German philosopher and historian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel brought philosophy and a more secular approach in historical study.In the preface to his book, the Muqaddimah (1377), the Arab historian and early sociologist, Ibn Khaldun, warned of 7 mistakes he thought historians committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past. Ibn Khaldun criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data". He introduced a scientific method to the study of history, and referred to it as his "new science". His method laid the groundwork for the observation of the role of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, and so is considered to be the "father of historiography" or the "father of the philosophy of history".In the West, historians developed modern methods of historiography in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and Germany. In 1851, Herbert Spencer summarized these methods:"From the successive strata of our historical deposits, they [historians] diligently gather all the highly colored fragments, pounce upon everything that is curious and sparkling and chuckle like children over their glittering acquisitions; meanwhile the rich veins of wisdom that ramify amidst this worthless debris, lie utterly neglected. Cumbrous volumes of rubbish are greedily accumulated, while those masses of rich ore, that should have been dug out, and from which golden truths might have been smelted, are left untaught and unsought." By the "rich ore" Spencer meant scientific theory of history. Meanwhile, Henry Thomas Buckle expressed a dream of history becoming one day a science: "In regard to nature, events apparently the most irregular and capricious have been explained and have been shown to be in accordance with certain fixed and universal laws. This has been done because men of ability and, above all, men of patient, untiring thought have studied events with the view of discovering their regularity, and if human events were subject to a similar treatment, we have every right to expect similar results. Contrary to Buckle's dream, the 19th-century historian with greatest influence on methods became Leopold von Ranke in Germany. He limited history to "what really happened" and by this directed the field further away from science. For Ranke, historical data should be collected carefully, examined objectively and put together with critical rigor. But these procedures "are merely the prerequisites and preliminaries of science. The heart of science is searching out order and regularity in the data being examined and in formulating generalizations or laws about them." As Historians like Ranke and many who followed him have pursued it, no, history is not a science. Thus if Historians tell us that, given the manner in which he practices his craft, it cannot be considered a science, we must take him at his word. If he is not doing science, then, whatever else he is doing, he is not doing science. The traditional Historian is thus no scientist and history, as conventionally practiced, is not a science. In the 20th century, academic historians focused less on epic nationalistic narratives, which often tended to glorify the nation or great men, to more objective and complex analyses of social and intellectual forces. A major trend of historical methodology in the 20th century was to treat history more as a social science rather than art, which traditionally had been the case. Leading advocates of history as a social science were a diverse collection of scholars which included Fernand Braudel and E. H. Carr. Many are noted for their multidisciplinary approach e.g. Braudel combined history with geography. Nevertheless, these multidisciplinary approaches failed to produce a theory of history. So far only one theory of history came from a professional historian. Whatever other theories of history exist, they were written by experts from other fields (for example, Marxian theory of history). The field of digital history has begun to address ways of using computer technology, to pose new questions to historical data and generate digital scholarship. In opposition to the claims of history as a social science, historians such as Hugh Trevor-Roper argued the key to historians' work was the power of the imagination, and hence contended that history should be understood as art. French historians associated with the Annales school introduced quantitative history, using raw data to track the lives of typical individuals, and were prominent in the establishment of cultural history (cf. histoire des mentalités). Intellectual historians such as Herbert Butterfield have argued for the significance of ideas in history. American historians, motivated by the civil rights era, focused on formerly overlooked ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups. A genre of social history to emerge post-WWII was Alltagsgeschichte (History of Everyday Life). Scholars such as Ian Kershaw examined what everyday life was like for ordinary people in 20th-century Germany, especially in Nazi Germany. Marxist historians sought to validate Karl Marx's theories by analyzing history from a Marxist perspective. In response to the Marxist interpretation of history, historians such as François Furet have offered anti-Marxist interpretations of history. Feminist historians argued for the importance of studying the experience of women. Postmodernists have challenged the validity and need for the study of history on the basis all history is based on the personal interpretation of sources. Keith Windschuttle's 1994 book, The Killing of History defended the worth of history. Today, most historians begin their research in the archives, on either a physical or digital platform. They often propose an argument and use research to support it. John H. Arnold proposed that history is an argument, which creates the possibility of creating change. Digital information companies, such as Google, have sparked controversy over the role of internet censorship in information access. Marxian theory The Marxist theory of historical materialism theorises that society is fundamentally determined by the material conditions at any given time – in other words, the relationships which people have with each other in order to fulfill basic needs such as feeding, clothing and housing themselves and their families. Overall, Marx and Engels claimed to have identified five successive stages of the development of these material conditions in Western Europe. Marxist historiography was once orthodoxy in the Soviet Union, but since the communism's collapse there, its influence has significantly reduced. Potential shortcomings in the production of history Many historians believe that the production of history is embedded with bias because events and known facts in history can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Constantin Fasolt suggested that history is linked to politics by the practice of silence itself. He said: "A second common view of the link between history and politics rests on the elementary observation that historians are often influenced by politics." According to Michel-Rolph Trouillot, the historical process is rooted in the archives, therefore silences, or parts of history that are forgotten, may be an intentional part of a narrative strategy that dictates how areas of history are remembered. Historical omissions can occur in many ways and can have a profound effect on historical records. Information can also purposely be excluded or left out accidentally. Historians have coined multiple terms that describe the act of omitting historical information, including: "silencing", "selective memory", and erasures. Gerda Lerner, a twentieth century historian who focused much of her work on historical omissions involving women and their accomplishments, explained the negative impact that these omissions had on minority groups.Environmental historian William Cronon proposed three ways to combat bias and ensure authentic and accurate narratives: narratives must not contradict known fact, they must make ecological sense (specifically for environmental history), and published work must be reviewed by scholarly community and other historians to ensure accountability. Areas of study Periods Historical study often focuses on events and developments that occur in particular blocks of time. Historians give these periods of time names in order to allow "organising ideas and classificatory generalisations" to be used by historians. The names given to a period can vary with geographical location, as can the dates of the beginning and end of a particular period. Centuries and decades are commonly used periods and the time they represent depends on the dating system used. Most periods are constructed retrospectively and so reflect value judgments made about the past. The way periods are constructed and the names given to them can affect the way they are viewed and studied. Prehistoric periodization The field of history generally leaves prehistory to archeologists, who have entirely different sets of tools and theories. In archeology, the usual method for periodization of the distant prehistoric past is to rely on changes in material culture and technology, such as the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age, with subdivisions that are also based on different styles of material remains. Here prehistory is divided into a series of "chapters" so that periods in history could unfold not only in a relative chronology but also narrative chronology. This narrative content could be in the form of functional-economic interpretation. There are periodizations, however, that do not have this narrative aspect, relying largely on relative chronology, and that are thus devoid of any specific meaning. Despite the development over recent decades of the ability through radiocarbon dating and other scientific methods to give actual dates for many sites or artefacts, these long-established schemes seem likely to remain in use. In many cases neighboring cultures with writing have left some history of cultures without it, which may be used. Periodization, however, is not viewed as a perfect framework, with one account explaining that "cultural changes do not conveniently start and stop (combinedly) at periodization boundaries" and that different trajectories of change need to be studied in their own right before they get intertwined with cultural phenomena. Geographical locations Particular geographical locations can form the basis of historical study, for example, continents, countries, and cities. Understanding why historic events took place is important. To do this, historians often turn to the methods and theory from the discipline of geography. According to Jules Michelet in his book Histoire de France (1833), "without geographical basis, the people, the makers of history, seem to be walking on air". Weather patterns, the water supply, and the landscape of a place all affect the lives of the people who live there. For example, to explain why the ancient Egyptians developed a successful civilization, studying the geography of Egypt is essential. Egyptian civilization was built on the banks of the Nile River, which flooded each year, depositing soil on its banks. The rich soil could help farmers grow enough crops to feed the people in the cities. That meant everyone did not have to farm, so some people could perform other jobs that helped develop the civilization. There is also the case of climate, which historians like Ellsworth Huntington and Ellen Churchill Semple cited as a crucial influence on the course of history. Huntington and Semple further argued that climate has an impact on racial temperament. Regions History of Africa begins with the first emergence of modern human beings on the continent, continuing into its modern present as a patchwork of diverse and politically developing states. History of the Americas is the collective history of North and South America, including Central America and the Caribbean. History of North America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's northern and western hemisphere. History of Central America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's western hemisphere. History of the Caribbean begins with the oldest evidence where 7,000-year-old remains have been found. History of South America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's southern and western hemispheres.History of Antarctica emerges from early Western theories of a vast continent known as Terra Australis, believed to exist in the far south of the globe. History of Eurasia is the collective history of several distinct peripheral coastal regions: the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Europe, linked by the interior mass of the Eurasian steppe of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. History of Europe describes the passage of time from humans inhabiting the European continent to the present day. History of Asia can be seen as the collective history of several distinct peripheral coastal regions, East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, linked by the interior mass of the Eurasian steppe. History of East Asia is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation in East Asia. History of the Middle East begins with the earliest civilizations in the region now known as the Middle East that were established around 3000 BC, in Mesopotamia (Iraq). History of India is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation in the sub-Himalayan region. History of Southeast Asia has been characterized as interaction between regional players and foreign powers. History of Oceania is the collective history of Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands. History of Australia starts with the documentation of the Makassar trading with Indigenous Australians on Australia's north coast. History of New Zealand dates back at least 700 years to when it was discovered and settled by Polynesians, who developed a distinct Māori culture centered on kinship links and land. History of the Pacific Islands covers the history of the islands in the Pacific Ocean. Political Political history covers the type of government, the branches of government, leaders, legislation, political activism, political parties, and voting. Military Military history concerns warfare, strategies, battles, weapons, and the psychology of combat. The "new military history" since the 1970s has been concerned with soldiers more than generals, with psychology more than tactics, and with the broader impact of warfare on society and culture. Religious The history of religion has been a main theme for both secular and religious historians for centuries, and continues to be taught in seminaries and academe. Leading journals include Church History, The Catholic Historical Review, and History of Religions. Topics range widely from political and cultural and artistic dimensions, to theology and liturgy. This subject studies religions from all regions and areas of the world where humans have lived. Social Social history, sometimes called the new social history, is the field that includes history of ordinary people and their strategies and institutions for coping with life. In its "golden age" it was a major growth field in the 1960s and 1970s among scholars, and still is well represented in history departments. In two decades from 1975 to 1995, the proportion of professors of history in American universities identifying with social history rose from 31% to 41%, while the proportion of political historians fell from 40% to 30%. In the history departments of British universities in 2007, of the 5723 faculty members, 1644 (29%) identified themselves with social history while political history came next with 1425 (25%). The "old" social history before the 1960s was a hodgepodge of topics without a central theme, and it often included political movements, like Populism, that were "social" in the sense of being outside the elite system. Social history was contrasted with political history, intellectual history and the history of great men. English historian G. M. Trevelyan saw it as the bridging point between economic and political history, reflecting that, "Without social history, economic history is barren and political history unintelligible." While the field has often been viewed negatively as history with the politics left out, it has also been defended as "history with the people put back in". Subfields The chief subfields of social history include: Black history Demographic history Ethnic history Gender history History of childhood History of education History of the family Labor history LGBT history Rural history Urban history American urban history Women's history Cultural Cultural history replaced social history as the dominant form in the 1980s and 1990s. It typically combines the approaches of anthropology and history to look at language, popular cultural traditions and cultural interpretations of historical experience. It examines the records and narrative descriptions of past knowledge, customs, and arts of a group of people. How peoples constructed their memory of the past is a major topic. Cultural history includes the study of art in society as well is the study of images and human visual production (iconography). Diplomatic Diplomatic history focuses on the relationships between nations, primarily regarding diplomacy and the causes of wars. More recently it looks at the causes of peace and human rights. It typically presents the viewpoints of the foreign office, and long-term strategic values, as the driving force of continuity and change in history. This type of political history is the study of the conduct of international relations between states or across state boundaries over time. Historian Muriel Chamberlain notes that after the First World War, "diplomatic history replaced constitutional history as the flagship of historical investigation, at once the most important, most exact and most sophisticated of historical studies". She adds that after 1945, the trend reversed, allowing social history to replace it. Economic Although economic history has been well established since the late 19th century, in recent years academic studies have shifted more and more toward economics departments and away from traditional history departments. Business history deals with the history of individual business organizations, business methods, government regulation, labour relations, and impact on society. It also includes biographies of individual companies, executives, and entrepreneurs. It is related to economic history. Business history is most often taught in business schools. Environmental Environmental history is a new field that emerged in the 1980s to look at the history of the environment, especially in the long run, and the impact of human activities upon it. It is an offshoot of the environmental movement, which was kickstarted by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in the 1960s. World World history is the study of major civilizations over the last 3000 years or so. World history is primarily a teaching field, rather than a research field. It gained popularity in the United States, Japan and other countries after the 1980s with the realization that students need a broader exposure to the world as globalization proceeds. It has led to highly controversial interpretations by Oswald Spengler and Arnold J. Toynbee, among others. The World History Association publishes the Journal of World History every quarter since 1990. The H-World discussion list serves as a network of communication among practitioners of world history, with discussions among scholars, announcements, syllabi, bibliographies and book reviews. People's A people's history is a type of historical work which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people. A people's history is the history of the world that is the story of mass movements and of the outsiders. Individuals or groups not included in the past in other types of writing about history are the primary focus, which includes the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, and the otherwise forgotten people. The authors are typically on the left and have a socialist model in mind, as in the approach of the History Workshop movement in Britain in the 1960s. Intellectual Intellectual history and the history of ideas emerged in the mid-20th century, with the focus on the intellectuals and their books on the one hand, and on the other the study of ideas as disembodied objects with a career of their own. Gender Gender history is a subfield of History and Gender studies, which looks at the past from the perspective of gender. The outgrowth of gender history from women's history stemmed from many non-feminist historians dismissing the importance of women in history. According to Joan W. Scott, "Gender is a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes, and gender is a primary way of signifying relations of power", meaning that gender historians study the social effects of perceived differences between the sexes and how all genders use allotted power in societal and political structures. Despite being a relatively new field, gender history has had a significant effect on the general study of history. Gender history traditionally differs from women's history in its inclusion of all aspects of gender such as masculinity and femininity, and today's gender history extends to include people who identify outside of that binary. LGBT history deals with the first recorded instances of same-sex love and sexuality of ancient civilizations, and involves the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) peoples and cultures around the world. Public Public history describes the broad range of activities undertaken by people with some training in the discipline of history who are generally working outside of specialized academic settings. Public history practice has quite deep roots in the areas of historic preservation, archival science, oral history, museum curatorship, and other related fields. The term itself began to be used in the United States and Canada in the late 1970s, and the field has become increasingly professionalized since that time. Some of the most common settings for public history are museums, historic homes and historic sites, parks, battlefields, archives, film and television companies, and all levels of government. Historians Professional and amateur historians discover, collect, organize, and present information about past events. They discover this information through archeological evidence, written primary sources, verbal stories or oral histories, and other archival material. In lists of historians, historians can be grouped by order of the historical period in which they were writing, which is not necessarily the same as the period in which they specialized. Chroniclers and annalists, though they are not historians in the true sense, are also frequently included. Judgement Since the 20th century, Western historians have disavowed the aspiration to provide the "judgement of history". The goals of historical judgements or interpretations are separate to those of legal judgements, that need to be formulated quickly after the events and be final. A related issue to that of the judgement of history is that of collective memory. Pseudohistory Pseudohistory is a term applied to texts which purport to be historical in nature but which depart from standard historiographical conventions in a way which undermines their conclusions. It is closely related to deceptive historical revisionism. Works which draw controversial conclusions from new, speculative, or disputed historical evidence, particularly in the fields of national, political, military, and religious affairs, are often rejected as pseudohistory. Teaching Scholarship vs teaching A major intellectual battle took place in Britain in the early twentieth century regarding the place of history teaching in the universities. At Oxford and Cambridge, scholarship was downplayed. Professor Charles Harding Firth, Oxford's Regius Professor of history in 1904 ridiculed the system as best suited to produce superficial journalists. The Oxford tutors, who had more votes than the professors, fought back in defense of their system saying that it successfully produced Britain's outstanding statesmen, administrators, prelates, and diplomats, and that mission was as valuable as training scholars. The tutors dominated the debate until after the Second World War. It forced aspiring young scholars to teach at outlying schools, such as Manchester University, where Thomas Frederick Tout was professionalizing the History undergraduate programme by introducing the study of original sources and requiring the writing of a thesis.In the United States, scholarship was concentrated at the major PhD-producing universities, while the large number of other colleges and universities focused on undergraduate teaching. A tendency in the 21st century was for the latter schools to increasingly demand scholarly productivity of their younger tenure-track faculty. Furthermore, universities have increasingly relied on inexpensive part-time adjuncts to do most of the classroom teaching. Nationalism From the origins of national school systems in the 19th century, the teaching of history to promote national sentiment has been a high priority. In the United States after World War I, a strong movement emerged at the university level to teach courses in Western Civilization, so as to give students a common heritage with Europe. In the U.S. after 1980, attention increasingly moved toward teaching world history or requiring students to take courses in non-western cultures, to prepare students for life in a globalized economy.At the university level, historians debate the question of whether history belongs more to social science or to the humanities. Many view the field from both perspectives. The teaching of history in French schools was influenced by the Nouvelle histoire as disseminated after the 1960s by Cahiers pédagogiques and Enseignement and other journals for teachers. Also influential was the Institut national de recherche et de documentation pédagogique (INRDP). Joseph Leif, the Inspector-general of teacher training, said pupils children should learn about historians' approaches as well as facts and dates. Louis François, Dean of the History/Geography group in the Inspectorate of National Education advised that teachers should provide historic documents and promote "active methods" which would give pupils "the immense happiness of discovery". Proponents said it was a reaction against the memorization of names and dates that characterized teaching and left the students bored. Traditionalists protested loudly it was a postmodern innovation that threatened to leave the youth ignorant of French patriotism and national identity. Bias in school teaching In several countries history textbooks are tools to foster nationalism and patriotism, and give students the official narrative about national enemies.In many countries, history textbooks are sponsored by the national government and are written to put the national heritage in the most favorable light. For example, in Japan, mention of the Nanking Massacre has been removed from textbooks and the entire Second World War is given cursory treatment. Other countries have complained. Another example includes Turkey, where there is no mention of the Armenian Genocide in Turkish textbooks as a result of the denial of the genocide.It was standard policy in communist countries to present only a rigid Marxist historiography.In the United States, textbooks published by the same company often differ in content from state to state. An example of content that is represented different in different regions of the country is the history of the Southern states, where slavery and the American Civil War are treated as controversial topics. McGraw-Hill Education for example, was criticized for describing Africans brought to American plantations as "workers" instead of slaves in a textbook.Academic historians have often fought against the politicization of the textbooks, sometimes with success.In 21st-century Germany, the history curriculum is controlled by the 16 states, and is characterized not by superpatriotism but rather by an "almost pacifistic and deliberately unpatriotic undertone" and reflects "principles formulated by international organizations such as UNESCO or the Council of Europe, thus oriented towards human rights, democracy and peace." The result is that "German textbooks usually downplay national pride and ambitions and aim to develop an understanding of citizenship centered on democracy, progress, human rights, peace, tolerance and Europeanness." See also Glossary of history Outline of history References Further reading External links Official website of BestHistorySites Official website of BBC History Internet History Sourcebooks Project See also Internet History Sourcebooks Project (Collections of public domain and copy-permitted historical texts for educational use)

m. k. stalin

Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin (, Tamil pronunciation: ['mut̪ːuʋeːl kaɾuˈɳaːniði sʈaːˈlin] , born 1 March 1953) is an Indian politician serving as the 8th and current Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The son of the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, Stalin has been the president of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party since 28 August 2018. He served as the 45th Mayor of Chennai from 1996 to 2002 and 1st Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 2009 to 2011. Stalin was placed 24th on the list of India's Most Powerful Personalities in 2022 by The Indian Express. Early life and family Stalin is the third son of 2nd Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and DMK Chief M. Karunanidhi, and was born to his wife, Dayalu Ammal. Stalin was born in Madras, now Chennai, on 1 March 1953. Karunanidhi was addressing a condolence meeting for Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who died only four days after his child was born, and thus decided to name his son after Stalin.Stalin studied at the Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School. He completed a pre-university course at Vivekananda College, and obtained a history degree from Presidency College, Chennai of University of Madras in 1973. Stalin was conferred an Honorary Doctorate by Anna University on August 1, 2009.Stalin married Durga (alias Shantha) on August 20, 1975, and has two children. His son is Udhayanidhi Stalin, an actor and politician. Udhayanidhi is married to Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi, an Indian Tamil film director. His daughter is Senthamarai Sabareesan, an entrepreneur and educationist. She is the director of Sunshine Schools, Chennai. Senthamarai is married to Sabareesan Vedamurthy, an entrepreneur and political strategist.Like his father, Stalin has publicly disclosed that he is an atheist. But he also said that he is not against any religious beliefs. Politics His political career began in his early teens when he started the DMK Gopalapuram Youth Wing with several friends. As a 14 year old, he campaigned for his uncle, Murasoli Maran, in the 1967 elections. In 1973, Stalin was elected to the General committee of the DMK.He came to the limelight when he was jailed in Central Prison, Madras under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) for protesting against the Emergency in 1976. He was beaten up in custody and a fellow DMK prisoner C. Chittibabu died of injuries and police torture while protecting him. He wrote his final year BA exams while in prison. Stalin formed the DMK youth wing. In 1982 Stalin became the youth wing secretary of DMK, a post he held for more than four decades. Youth Wing In 1968, Stalin started the DMK Youth Wing in Gopalapuram in a barber shop with his friends. In 1983, he transformed the Gopalapuram Youth Wing into a Statewide phenomenon and led the frontal as a Secretary, a position he held for more than four decades. During the early stages of the Youth Wing, he travelled across Tamil Nadu with other members to mentor fellow youth of the state in key areas of active politics at the grassroots level. Member of legislative assembly Stalin contested the Assembly polls unsuccessfully from Thousand Lights constituency in Chennai. In 1989 Stalin contested Assembly polls from Thousand Lights constituency again, and won. The DMK government got dismissed in 1991 before completing its full five-year term. In 1991, he contested for the third time from the same Assembly constituency, but lost to K. A. Krishnaswamy of the AIADMK. Again in 1996, Stalin won the election as an MLA from the Thousand Lights constituency. In 2003, Stalin became Deputy General Secretary of the DMK. In 2011 Stalin changed his constituency for the first time in his political career, moving from Thousand Lights to Kolathur constituency on the outskirts of Chennai city. Mayor of Chennai Stalin became the city's first directly elected mayor in 1996. He coined a pet project called Singara Chennai (Beautiful Chennai), lauded for improving Chennai's infrastructure. His efforts in improving city infrastructure earned him the title of Managara Thanthai (father of the city).During his tenure as mayor, Stalin was well received by the people of Chennai. He modernized the garbage disposal system of the city of Chennai by giving priority to cleaning works. He implemented integrated development projects such as health, public construction and schools. He solved the congestion of the city of Chennai by building huge flyovers. During his first tenure, 9 major flyovers and 49 short bridges were built. He also improved the standard of Corporation Schools to be on par with private schools. In addition, parks and fountains were set up at 18 major junctions. 81 parks were cleaned and properly maintained. Saplings were planted at the Chennai Marina, the second largest beach in the world. The slaughterhouse at Perambur have been modernized to avoid polluting the environment. During his tenure, it was decided to build flyovers on 10 congested roads before the end of his term. ₹95 crores have been allocated for the construction of flyovers. However, 30% of the funds were left over when the flyovers were opened according to him. He was re-elected Mayor for the 2nd time in 2001.However, the then Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa enacted the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, in 2002, which prevents a person from holding two elected posts in the government. This law was applied retroactively to Stalin's case (he was an elected Thousand Lights MLA) in a move widely seen as aimed at removing him as Chennai's mayor. However, the Madras High Court struck down the law stating that legislative bodies were not "prevented" from making laws affecting the "substantive rights" of persons retrospectively. However, the court held that under Madras (now Chennai) City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, a person cannot be mayor for two consecutive terms, though unlike Stalin, earlier mayors were not directly elected. MK Stalin did not appeal in the Supreme Court. Minister In the 2006 Assembly Elections, the DMK regained control of the state assembly, partly due to Stalin's efforts. Stalin became the Minister for Rural Development and Local Administration in the Government of Tamil Nadu and retained this office throughout his term. During his tenure, he developed his skills as an administrator, he was instrumental in the extensive spread of Women Self-Help Groups across the State by establishing 1,75,493 Women SHGs. He also established various comprehensive drinking water projects such as Hogenakkal and Ramanathapuram water schemes. In 2008, he became treasurer of DMK. Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu On 29 May 2009, Stalin was nominated as Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by Governor Surjit Singh Barnala. He was first Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Opposition leader During the 2016 Assembly election, Stalin went on a statewide tour titled Namakku Naame to appeal to the youth. Stalin won the Kolathur constituency and was appointed as the opposition leader. In 2017, Stalin went on another Namakku Naame tour. In 2018, his father Karunanidhi died, leaving Stalin the president of the DMK. Secular Progressive Alliance (2019 general election – present) Stalin formed the Secular Progressive Alliance in Tamil Nadu and led the alliance in 2019 general election in the state. The Secular Progressive Alliance won 39 out of 40 Parliament seats, and 12 out of 21 in the Assembly by-election, with 52% of the vote. It was his first victory since taking charge as DMK President. Ondrinaivom Vaa The COVID-19 pandemic and the consequences of the lockdown inflicted immense misery and suffering on people of Tamil Nadu in 2020. Stalin and members from the DMK party undertook relief measures across Tamil Nadu from Day 1 to help those in need of basic essentials.Owing to the scale of the suffering in the State, Stalin called upon his cadres and ministers to come together as one, and Ondrinaivom Vaa was born out of this vision. The campaign was officially launched in 20 April 2020 where he set up a helpline as a single point of contact for anyone in need in Tamil Nadu.The Helpline received over 18 lakh calls in 40 days, and the cadres, ministers efficiently tended to the requests to ensure timely delivery of services. Stalin through 'Ondrinaivom Vaa' also launched the campaign 'Feed the Poor' where NGO partners in collaboration with the Kitchen partners served over 28 lakh cooked meals. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu In the 2021 Assembly elections, Stalin led the campaign for the Secular Progressive Alliance. They won 159 seats out of 234, with the DMK itself winning an absolute majority with 132 seats. Stalin took his oath as chief minister on 7 May 2021 along with the rest of his cabinet.Having taken oath amid the second wave of the pandemic, Stalin started a war room to monitor the status of beds, ambulances, and oxygen supply. He attended an SOS call of a lady, spoke with her for 30 minutes, and arranged for her a bed at a hospital. He wore a PPE suit and visited the COVID-19 patients at their wards "against advice" in Government ESI Medical College Hospital. A new economic advisory council was set up with leading economists, including Esther Duflo, Raghuram Rajan, Jean Drèze, Arvind Subramanian, and former Finance Secretary S Narayan. Tamil Nadu was branded as a state with highest novel coronavirus vaccine wastage in the previous government but the Stalin government made the state to top in the list of states with lowest COVID-19 wastage policy.Stalin handed over appointment orders of the HR & CE Department to trained aspirants of all castes as temple priests in August 2021. Stalin quoted the reformist leader Periyar in an official release which said Periyar fought for equal rights in worship for all those who believe in God. In August 2021, Stalin ranked first among all Chief ministers of India with 42% in favour, in the "Mood of the Nation" survey done by the India Today magazine. Stalin changed the name of Sri Lankan Tamil refugee camps to called ‘rehabilitation camps' and said "They are not orphans, we are there for them". In September 2021, he announced that Periyar's birth anniversary will be celebrated as Social Justice Day every year.In June 2021, Stalin announced that the state law ministry will review the legal cases filed by the previous government. In September 2021, Stalin's government withdrew over 5570 legal cases filed by the previous AIADMK government from the past 10 years against the journalists and the protestors seeking the repeal of the three farm laws promulgated by the Union government, Citizenship Amendment Act, methane extraction, neutrino project, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and the Chennai-Salem Expressway project.In May 2022, Stalin hailed the release of Perarivalan, convicted in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, and hugged him on his visit of gratitude at the Chennai Airport. Committee assignments of 16th Tamil Nadu AssemblyMember (2021–23) Business Advisory Committee Member (2021–23) Committee on Rules Ungal Thoguthiyil Mudhalamaichar One of the key achievements of Stalin as the Chief Minister is the 'Ungal Thoguthiyil Mudhalamaichar' (Chief Minister in your Constituency), which is a robust grievance redressal service set up to resolve petitions and problems raised by the constituents. The timely redressal system took the state by storm as over 2.30 lakh out of 4.57 lakh grievances had been addressed by Stalin in his first 100 days of taking office. The department originated from a programme 'Ungal Thoguthiyil Stalin', which was initiated by DMK President Stalin during his election campaign. Stalin had collected grievances from the citizens and assured them that their issues would be addressed in 100 days once he took office. Experts and journalist Govi Lenin called the scheme a direct reflection of the DMK's core principle, 'Makkalidam Sel' (Go to the People) coined by the party's founding member, C. N. Annadurai. Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam Stalin launched the 'Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam Scheme' on 5 August 2021, to provide essential healthcare services at the doorstep of the people in Tamil Nadu. Since its launch the scheme has transformed the mode of preliminary healthcare delivery and rung in an era where essential medical services are well within the access of the poor, by delivery at their own homes. The scheme has undertaken screening for those above 45 years of age and others with infirmities through routine door-to-door check-ups and detect non-communicable diseases that are also seen to cause sudden mortalities and impact the quality of life. The scheme will hinge on women public health workers, women health volunteers (WHVs), physiotherapists and nurses, who will provide healthcare at the doorstep.Through the scheme, high blood pressure and diabetes, both of which go largely undetected in the villages, has been screened and monthly medicines are provided at the door-step. Similarly, physiotherapy is also given to those that are in need of care. The scheme has included screening of kidney ailments and congenital defects in children and will be followed up through hospital treatment. Stalin assured that in due course, dialysis will also be provided to those with kidney ailments through portable machines. As part of the program, a 108 ambulance for exclusive emergency response in remote tribal terrains have also been established. Tamil Nadu's first agriculture budget Stalin released Tamil Nadu’s first ever agricultural budget on 14 August 2021, which was dedicated to farmers protesting against the farm laws passed by the Union Government. The one of a kind budget was prepared after consulting farmers from 18 districts of the state and it predominantly aimed at increasing the cultivable land from the existing 60 percent to 75 percent. At present, about 10 lakh hectares of land is under cultivation and the agriculture budget promises to increase it to 11.75 lakh hectare.Under the budget, the newly launched ‘Kalaignarin Anaithu Grama Orunginaindha Velan Valarchi Thittam’, has been introduced to convert wasteland into cultivable land. Highlights The government will distribute 76 lakh Palm seeds and 1 lakh saplings in 30 districts during the current year 2021. The Palm tree which is the state’s tree will be protected in all regards, and that it is mandatory to seek the district collector’s permission before felling any palm tree. Distribution of Palm jaggery will be carried out through the public distribution system. A traditional paddy varieties conservation mission will be set up in memory of Nel Jayaraman, a farmer who preserved numerous traditional rice varieties. A separate organic farming wing will be set up under the agriculture department. Farmers who adopt organic methods of cultivation will be given input subsidies. The government has launched ‘Millet Mission’ with special focus on low rainfall districts such as Cuddalore, Villupuram, Kallakuruchi, Vellore and Tirupathur. Cooperative societies will procure minor millet rice and distribute it through a public distribution system in cities like Chennai and Coimbatore. Government to pay ₹42.50 per tonne to the sugarcane farmers as an incentive during the current crushing season. A budget of ₹40 crore has been allocated to implement the scheme. The Chief Minister’s Solar Powered Pump set Scheme has been introduced for farmers to install a total of 5,000 solar pump sets of 10 horse power capacity with 70 per cent subsidy. An allocation of ₹114.68 crore has been made for the purpose. In addition, 1,000 farmers who own less than three acres of land will get a subsidy assistance of ₹10,000 for purchasing new motor pump sets or replacing the old inefficient ones. A budget of ₹1 crore has been allocated. Illam Thedi Kalvi Stalin launched the ‘Illam Thedi Kalvi’ scheme on 19 October 2021, notably India’s largest volunteer-based education program”, where over 3.3 million students across 92,000 habitations are being taught by 200,000 women volunteers for 90 minutes every day.Domain experts and Data scientists have praised the ingenuity of the scheme stating that over 24% of the total recovery from learning loss can be attributed to the ‘Illam Thedi Kalvi’ sessions and that the recovery has been a lot more progressive among the disadvantaged group. Innuyir Kappom - Nammai Kakkum 48 Stalin launched ‘Innuyir Kappom-Nammai Kakkum 48’ on 18 November 2021 through which the State government will bear the expenses of emergency care for accident victims for the first 48 hours. Rolling out the scheme at Stalin said that the government was paying special attention to reducing road accidents, preventing fatalities and improving road safety. The scheme is aimed at reducing deaths due to road accidents. A total of 609 hospitals including 201 government hospitals and 408 private hospitals are linked to the scheme. All persons injured in road accidents whether they are covered or not under the Chief Minister’s Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme (CMCHIS), or even those who belong to other States or countries that occur in Tamil Nadu limits would receive treatment for the first 48 hours free of charge. As many as 81 treatment packages have been identified for accident victims in the hospitals where they shall be were admitted for the first 48 hours with a ceiling of ₹1 lakh per individual. One of the key highlights of the scheme is that the government would bear the emergency treatment expenses for the first 48 hours in private hospitals, as majority of the lives could be saved if treated appropriately within 48 hours. Chief Minister's Dashboard Stalin launched the ‘CM Dashboard Monitoring System’ at his office. On 23 December 2021 which will enable him to track all welfare schemes, including the status of their implementation, fund allocation and the number of beneficiaries. The dashboard is set to help in proper monitoring, more efficiency, elimination of delays and prompt decision making. It will also update the Chief Minister on the water storage level in key dams, rainfall patterns, daily report on crimes, progress of housing schemes, employment trends, civil supplies in the State. The dashboard will display the status of pleas and representations made on the Chief Minister Helpline and under the ‘CM In Your Constituency’ scheme. Naan Mudhalvan Stalin launched the ‘Naan Mudhalvan’ scheme, on 1 March 2022, which aims to equip about 10 lakh youth across the State annually with skills that will help them realise their talents for the benefit of the country. He also launched a new portal for this scheme. The scheme aims to identify, train and offer career and academic guidance to talented students in government-run and State-aided educational institutions. It also aims to offer spoken English lessons to enable students to face interview panels successfully. The scheme will offer training capsules in coding and robotics to keep pace with technological advancements. Psychological counsellors and medical doctors will offer guidance on nutrition, physical fitness and overall development of the student’s personality. Green Tamil Nadu Mission Stalin launched the Green Tamil Nadu Mission on 24 September 2022, that aims at increasing the green cover in the state from 23.7% to 33% in the next ten years. The mission will facilitate tree planting initiatives, online seedlings purchase via the Green Tamil Nadu Mission portal. Pudhumai Penn Stalin launched the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance scheme titled 'Pudhumai Penn' at a function in Chennai on 5 September 2022, in the presence of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The scheme was transformed from Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme to the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme after recognising that in higher education, the enrolment ratio of girls from government schools was quite low. During the event Kejriwal unveiled 26 schools of excellence and 15 model schools set up by the Tamil Nadu government. Under Pudhumai Penn scheme, girl students, who studied from Class V to Class XII in state government schools would be paid a monthly assistance of ₹1,000 till they complete their graduation or diploma. Through the scheme, about six lakh girls would be benefited every year. The State government allocated ₹698 crore in the 2022-23 Budget for the scheme.Stalin also announced that 25 schools run by Municipal Corporations would be elevated as Schools of Excellence in the first phase at a cost of ₹171 crore. The classrooms in these Schools of Excellence would be modernised and art, literature, music, dance, sports among others would be promoted among students. Chief Minister's Breakfast Scheme Stalin launched the ‘Chief Minister’s Breakfast Scheme’ on 15 September 2022 to prevent hunger and nutritional deficiency in children. The scheme is set to improve the nutritional status of students, eliminate deficiencies such as malnutrition and anemia, and encourage children in poor households to attend schools.The cause of concern for Anemia among children as a major health problem in Tamil Nadu was highlighted in the National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS) (2019–21) report. Stalin’s Breakfast Scheme is set to minimise, if not eliminate, this inadequacy. The breakfast scheme will be implemented at a cost of ₹33.56 crore in more than 1,500 government-run schools across the state where over 1.14 lakh primary government school children will benefit from it. It is Stalin’s hope that the education-nutrition matrix will be an inspiring model for other states. Governing Council on Climate Change Stalin set up a 22-member Tamil Nadu Governing Council on Climate Change (GCCC) on 23 October 2022. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, economist; Nandan M Nilekani, co-founder and chairman of Infosys Board; Erik Solheim, Sixth Executive Director of United Nations Environment Programme; Dr Ramesh Ramachandran, founder-director of National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management; G Sundarrajan, co-ordinator of Poovulagin Nanbargal) and Nirmala Raja, Chairperson, Ramco Community Services are among the members.The GCCC council has been formed to provide a policy directive to the Tamil Nadu Climate Change Mission, advise on climate adaptation and mitigation activities, provide guidance to the Tamil Nadu State Action Plan on climate change and guide the implementation strategy on climate action.The terms of reference of the GCCC includes providing guidance to the Climate Change Mission and long-term climate-resilient development pathways, strategies and action plan which will help improve livelihoods, social and economic well-being and responsible environmental management. The council will periodically monitor outcomes and deliverables based on the strategies being followed. Besides, it will give a continued and sustained push for research, collaboration, and interdisciplinary work, in close coordination with researchers and policymakers. The council will evaluate the efficacy of existing policies on climate change and learn from sustainable practices across the country and the world for suitable adaptation. The State Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department Secretary Supriya Sahu will be the convenor of the council.It is imperative to note that, Tamil Nadu has been spearheading several path-breaking initiatives in the field of climate change and has set up three key missions viz., Tamil Nadu Green Mission, Tamil Nadu Climate Change Mission and the Tamil Nadu Wetlands Mission. Egalitarianism and social justice in Tamil Nadu Stalin initiated the process to appoint persons of all castes (contrary to the hereditary Brahmin priests) as archakas (priests) for the temples in the State on 15 August 2021, and assured steps will be taken to appoint those trained by the government during the previous DMK government.Stalin maintained that the move will fulfill the dream of former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, and Periyar who wanted people of all castes to become temple priests. As a move seen as controversial by many, this policy however garnered him acclaim for it being the right step at a social revolution and combating discrimination at all levels. Public image and reception Stalin’s career in the political arena has seen its ups and downs. From a challenger to an emerging pragmatic leader, the people of Tamil Nadu have credited his administrative skills and firm rejection of sycophancy. A classic example of this is when M.K Stalin asked the Education Minister, Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhil not to print his photographs on 65 lakh bags meant for distribution among schoolchildren in the state, opting to retain pictures of his political adversaries from the previous government that had sanctioned the project.Stalin was commended by domain experts and other ministers across the country for not using public money to enhance his popularity among the “masses”.On September 2, 2021 the Actor turned former Union Minister K. Chiranjeevi met with Stalin to commend him on governance efficacy and said he proved his mettle in handling the grave situation of Covid-19 pandemic. The Media houses in Kerala lauded Stalin on his policies and efforts in controlling the spread of Coronavirus during the second wave, provision of free bus pass for women and ₹4,000 as a pandemic relief for ration card holders.The Shiv Sena Parliamentarian Sanjay Raut, in his weekly column Rokthok in party mouthpiece Saamana praised Stalin’s governance style and criticized the Centre’s move to omit Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s picture from ICHR’s Independence day poster ‘Azadi Ke Amrit Mahotsav.’ Raut said the central government is practising the politics of revenge and should learn a lesson from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin, who allowed the distribution of 6.5 million school bags carrying photos of political rivals former chief ministers J Jayalalitha and E Palaniswami of the AIADMK, to ensure public money is not being spent on political vendetta.Karnataka Chief Minister, Basavaraj Bommai commended Stalin's nuanced policies and continual effort in controlling the spread of covid-19 at the peak of the second wave. Awards and accolades Anna University conferred an honorary doctorate for Stalin for his contributions to governance and community development. The Kentucky Colonel Award, the highest award given by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the United States, was given to Stalin for his public service. Stalin was also honored as Kentucky's Goodwill Ambassador. It is imperative to note that the honor was formerly bestowed to notable personalities such as, Former US Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Nobel laureate Winston Churchill and world-famous boxer Mohammed Ali. The Government of Tamil Nadu on 23 Feb 2011 received the Special Award for Best State among the Largest States in India and the Diamond State Award for Best State in 3 categories namely Civil Safety, Drinking Water and Sanitation and Women's Development. In the year 2006-2007, the Panchayat Department of Tamil Nadu won one of the top five places in India and won a cash prize of ₹86 lakh. The Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department received the first prize of ₹1 crore cash from the Ministry of Panchayat Raj of the Central Government in the year 2007-2008. The Tamil Nadu Municipal Department was awarded the International Certificate of ISO-9000 for the year 2008 for outstanding management skills. The Supreme Court commended the Government of Tamil Nadu for its excellent implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Scheme and said that other states should follow Tamil Nadu's example. Cuddalore, Sivagangai, Dindigul, Nagapattinam and Villupuram Districts were recognised by the Union Government for their outstanding implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the years 2007 -2008, 2009 – 2010 respectively. Tamil Nadu won the most number of Nirmal Gram Awards for its exceptional role in maintaining sanitation in the villages in the state. This prestigious award was received during Stalin's tenure as Minister of Rural and Local Administrator. Electoral performance Filmography Actor Ore Raththam (1987) Makkal Aanayittal (1988) Kurinji Malar- TV Series (late 1988?) Suriya — TV SeriesProducer Nambikkai Natchathram (1978) See also M. K. Stalin ministry References External links Tamil Nadu Assembly Profile

life cycle climate performance

Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP) is an evolving method to evaluate the carbon footprint and global warming impact of heating, ventilation, air conditioning (AC), refrigeration systems, and potentially other applications such as thermal insulating foam. It is calculated as the sum of direct, indirect, and embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated over the lifetime of the system “from cradle to grave,” i.e. from manufacture to disposal. Direct emissions include all climate forcing effects from the release of refrigerants into the atmosphere, including annual leakage and losses during service and disposal of the unit. Indirect emissions include the climate forcing effects of GHG emissions from the electricity powering the equipment. The embodied emissions include the climate forcing effects of the manufacturing processes, transport, and installation for the refrigerant, materials, and equipment, and for recycle or other disposal of the product at end of its useful life.LCCP is more inclusive than previous metrics such as Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI), which considers direct and indirect GHG emissions but overlooks embodied emissions, and Life Cycle Warming Impact (LCWI), which considers direct, indirect and refrigerant manufacturing emissions but overlooks appliance manufacturing, materials, transport installation and recycle. Enhanced and Localized Life Cycle Climate Performance (EL-LCCP) is the latest and most comprehensive carbon metric and takes into account: 1) real-world operating conditions, including the actual hour-by-hour carbon intensity of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, which is degraded by high ambient temperature; 2) specific conditions of AC condensers located within urban heat islands and in locations with poor air circulation (mounted to close to buildings, clustered and stacked), as well of refrigerators and refrigerated display cases located against walls, inside cabinets, and other locations that compromise energy efficiency; 3) local climate conditions, such as higher ambient temperature at the location of the equipment than at the weather monitoring stations, which typically are located away from human influence.TEWI was developed by experts at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract from Allied Signal (now Honeywell) and was a step forward as a complement and enhancement of previous metrics like coefficient of performance (COP) and Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER), which consider energy use but not global warming potential (GWP) and emissions of refrigerants. Development LCCP was developed in 1999 by an expert working for the United States Environmental Protection Agency and serving on the Montreal Protocol Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), who noticed that TEWI ignored the substantial emissions of unwanted hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-23 byproducts of hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 production. The byproduct emissions increased the climate forcing GWP of ozone-depleting HCFC-22 by up to 20%, depending on the efficiency of the chemical manufacturing process. At the time, all fluorocarbon manufacturers merely discharged the hazardous HFC-23 chemical waste to the atmosphere. In 2005, a joint committee of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the TEAP endorsed the LCCP metric for use in evaluating low carbon refrigeration and AC equipment. Calculation The equations to calculate LCCP for mobile and stationary equipment are similar, with the exception that the calculation for mobile equipment includes the energy consumption necessary to transport the weight of the AC in the vehicle, whether in operation or not. L C C P = D i r e c t E m i s s i o n s + I n d i r e c t E m i s s i o n s + E m b o d i e d E m i s s i o n s {\displaystyle LCCP=DirectEmissions+IndirectEmissions+EmbodiedEmissions} D i r e c t E m i s s i o n s = C ∗ ( L ∗ A L R + E O L ) ∗ ( G W P + A d p . G W P ) {\displaystyle DirectEmissions=C*(L*ALR+EOL)*(GWP+Adp.GWP)} I n d i r e c t E m i s s i o n s = L ∗ A E C ∗ E M + Σ ( m ∗ M M ) {\displaystyle IndirectEmissions=L*AEC*EM+\Sigma (m*MM)} E m b o d i e d E m i s s i o n s = Σ ( m r ∗ R M ) + C ∗ ( 1 + L ∗ A L R ) ∗ R F M + C ∗ ( 1 − E O L ) ∗ R F D {\displaystyle EmbodiedEmissions=\Sigma (mr*RM)+C*(1+L*ALR)*RFM+C*(1-EOL)*RFD} where: C = Refrigerant Charge (kg), L=Average Lifetime of Equipment (yr), ALR = Annual Leakage Rate (% of Refrigerant Charge), EOL = End of Life Refrigerant Leakage (% of Refrigerant Charge), GWP = Global Warming Potential (kg CO2e/kg), Adp. GWP = GWP of Atmospheric Degradation Product of the Refrigerant (kg CO2e/kg), AEC = Annual Energy Consumption (kWh), EM = CO2 Produced/kWh (kg CO2e/kWh), m = Mass of Unit (kg), MM = CO2e Produced/Material (kg CO2e/kg), mr = Mass of Recycled Material (kg), RM = CO2e Produced/Recycled Material (kg CO2e/kg), RFM = Refrigerant Manufacturing Emissions (kg CO2e/kg), RFD = Refrigerant Disposal Emissions (kg CO2e/kg). Refrigerant GWP values are typically from the IPCC (2013) for the 100-year timeline. Applications Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (MAC) LCCP was perfected for motor vehicle air conditioning (MAC) by a technical committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (now SAE International) and named (Global Refrigerants Energy and ENvironmental – Mobile Air Conditioning – Life Cycle Climate Performance (GREEN-MAC-LCCP©). The GREEN-MAC-LCCP model was approved and assigned SAE Technical Standard J-J2766. The global automotive community used the SAE metric to choose next-generation refrigerant hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234yf (ozone safe; GWP<1) to replace hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a (ozone safe; GWP=1300), which was a temporary replacement for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12 (ozone depletion potential (ODP)=1; GWP=1300) when fast action was needed to avoid a stratospheric ozone tipping point, i.e., destruction at a level that may have been irreversible within human time dimensions.LCCP was perfected for stationary air conditioning applications by a technical committee of the International Institute of Refrigeration (IIR) chaired by experts from University of Maryland Center for Environmental Energy Engineering (UMD CEEE).EL-LCCP was developed for room ACs by experts from the UMD CEEE and the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) working in cooperation with the Government of Morocco and guided by a technical advisory team and ad hoc committee of refrigeration and air conditioning engineers from Brazil, Costa Rica, China, France, and the United States. Moroccan government partners included the Morocco National Ozone Unit; Ministre de l'Énergie, des Mines et du Développement Durable; and Agence Marocaine de l’Efficacité Énergétique (AMEE). == References ==

jim salinger

Michael James Salinger (born 25 April 1947) is a New Zealand climate change researcher and teacher who has worked for a range of universities in his home country and around the world. He was a senior climate scientist for a Crown Research Institute, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and President of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). He has received several awards and other honours for his work with climate change and is involved in researching and monitoring past and current climate trends. Within his area of specialist scientific knowledge, Salinger has co-authored and edited a range of reports, articles and books. He was involved in an employment dispute and elements of his theory and practice were at the centre of a case against NIWA. Career Salinger was a scientist at the University of Otago Medical School from 1972–1975. He then lectured in geography at Victoria University of Wellington, (1976–1979), and was a senior research associate at the University of East Anglia in England, (1980–1981). He worked for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand from 1982 until 1992, initially as the senior agricultural meteorologist, and later in the role of principal scientist, and from 1986 to 2010, was New Zealand's principal delegate to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Agricultural Meteorology (CAgM). From 2006 to 2010, he served as its ninth president, and in 2018, won an award for his exceptional service.Between 2004 and 2007, Salinger was an honorary associate professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland and within that timeframe, became a principal scientist for the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). In 2011 he was an honorary research fellow, at the University of Tasmania, Australia, the Lorry I. Lokey Visiting Professor, Woods Institute for the Environment, at Stanford University in 2012, and from February to March 2014, a visiting scholar, at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. At that time he was a Ernst Frohlich Fellow CSIRO Marine Sciences, Hobart In 2018 Salinger was a visiting professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Haifa, Israel, and from February – May 2019, a visiting scholar in the Department of Meteorology at The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA. Between August – December 2019 he served as a visiting professor at the Institute of Biometeorology, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, University of Florence, Rome, Italy.Salinger was research associate for the Tasmanian Institute for Agriculture at the University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia in (2019–2020) and is currently the international climate change expert for the Climate Reference Group, Queenstown New Zealand-Lakes District Council. As of 2020, he has been adjunct research fellow at School of Geography, Environmental and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Public policy positions IPPC and NIWA Reports A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) was prepared in 2018 following the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2016. In the New Zealand news media, the report was discussed in terms of how it may impact the achievement of the goals in the Paris Agreement. During the discussion, Jim Salinger said the report showed the difference between the impacts of 1.5 °C and 2 °C is earth-shattering and as an example "coral reefs would decline by 70 to 90 per cent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas more than 99 per cent would be lost with two degrees". Salinger further said species loss and extinction are projected to be significantly lower at 1.5 °C of global warming compared to 2 °C. The NIWA Annual Climate Summary (2018), confirmed the concerns about the increase in temperature in New Zealand and Salinger noted that the NIWA Seasonal Climate Outlook foreshadowed increased temperatures. Melting of glaciers Salinger has expressed concerns about the heatwave in New Zealand in 2017/18, in particular warning against the glaciers in that country melting and flowing into the rivers. He explained the climate effect on glaciers from Southern Annular Mode (SAM), a ring of climate variability around the South Pole with "alternating windiness and storm activity ...[that can]...increase the risk or unsettled weather conditions". According to Salinger, the effects of the Southern Annular Mode had caused the record hot summer of 2017/18 and triggered a large ice melt. The research also showed the effect the heatwave had on the seawater temperatures around the South Island of New Zealand, disrupting the patterns of fish movements and negatively impacting the kelp forests along the Otago coastline. It concluded that it was most likely the heatwave would not have happened without anthropogenic climate change (man-made) influence. Concerns about the extreme weather continued to be shared by Salinger and he noted that in 2018, New Zealand had its warmest year ever since the first records in 1867, and this was accompanied by warm seas for all months of the year, with sea surface temperatures well above average. After the UK Met Office predicted that 2019 would be close to a record, Salinger claimed this to be "due to global heating, and the added effect of the El Niño in the Tropical Pacific". NZ Government tree planting plan In October 2018, the NZ Labour Government, a coalition with NZ First, announced a goal to plant one billion trees over 10 years (between 2018 and 2017). The Forestry Minister, Shane Jones said applicants for the grants "could be looking to plant for reduced erosion, improved water quality, the development of Māori-owned land or to diversify productive land uses". It was also claimed that this programme would allow greater absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into wood which would hold carbon for as much as hundreds of years and that it would also reduce erosion. The government said this was an acknowledgement of the commitment to the Paris 21 Agreement. Salinger challenged this, noting that in the first year of the programme only 12 per cent were native trees, and "ideally 90 per cent of the trees planted would be native species as they store more carbon". The Forestry Minister Mr Jones, answered that it was a lot cheaper to plant pines. Calls for action A letter from Salinger to his grandchildren in October 2020, stated that the "current summer is an example of the future that we baby boomers are bequeathing you if we keep continuing the emissions of greenhouse gases that we have been doing in the late 20th and early 21st century". In an interview with the NZ Herald newspaper in 2019, Salinger had previously urged action on climate change and to heed the "dire warning that we must hasten our action on reducing emissions as time [was] running out". This supported a similar call for action by Salinger in 2012 for New Zealand to honour its global obligations. In 2020, concerned with the lack of action on climate change during the COVID-19 pandemic, Salinger worked with Sir Alan Mark, James Renwick and a group of climate activists to create a video calling for the New Zealand government to "put climate change at the forefront of every decision made". As a follow-up to this, on behalf of the nine Intergenerational Climate Ambassadors – Sir Alan Mark, Jim Salinger, James Renwick, Lucy Lawless, Chloe van Dyke, Florence van Dyke, Bethany Mataiti, Sophie Handford, and Mãia Wijohn – Salinger confirmed that the Intergenerational Open Letter For Climate Change Now would be delivered, after the 2020 election, to the New Zealand Government with speeches outside Parliament. The press release concluded with: Through the response to COVID-19, we have seen the power of people to act as a collective. It is time to see climate action and climate justice, this really is our moment across all generations. We are out of time – we have had the Pandemic – and it is time for action by all. On Wednesday 10 December 2020, members of the Intergenerational Climate Ambassadors group, including Salinger, met with James Shaw, the Climate Change Minister in the New Zealand government. Salinger expressed frustration at the lack of action by successive New Zealand governments in responding to climate change, noting that floods in Napier in 2020 highlighted the effects of weather-related disasters. He stressed the importance of actions such as agreeing to implement the Climate Change Commission's recommendations and providing support to farmers in switching to regenerative agriculture so that New Zealand will not be seen as a "global perpetrator because of their huge emissions". Shaw said that he would take the group's sentiments to Parliament. Continued concerns about heatwaves Concerns were raised by Salinger and James Renwick in January 2019 about how the heatwaves from 2018 were "leading to early grape harvests and killing farmed fish in parts of New Zealand...[and]...if emissions [kept] increasing as they have done in recent years, last summer [would] seem cool by the standards of 2100".In July 2020, Salinger and Lisa Alexander, (Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, New South Wales, Australia), noted that based on research, New Zealand and Australia were experiencing extremes of rain and temperatures and "a major global update based on data from more than 36,000 weather stations around the world [confirmed] that, as the planet [continued] to warm, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and heavy rainfall [were] now more frequent, more intense, and longer". In an article in the New Zealand Herald, in September 2020, Salinger also said the "chances of a La Niña climate system playing with our weather over coming months was now highly likely, while the potential for a marine heatwave certainly has our attention".In October 2020, a major forest fire ripped through the Mackenzie Basin New Zealand, and resulted in the evacuation of Lake Ohau Alpine Village, with several homes destroyed by the flames. The Science Reporter in the NZ Herald (5 October 2020) shared information from a fire scientist, Grant Pearce who thought that the fire may have come from a spark on powerlines, but had more likely been fuelled by dry pastures at a time when a La Niña climate system was bringing "stronger westerly to north-westerly winds, instead of south-westerly winds usually seen at [that] time of year". In the same article, Salinger indicated a clear link to climate change, with local temperatures much higher than normal for this time of the year, possibly confirming La Niña. Awards and honours 1994 NZ Science and Technology medal from the Royal Society of New Zealand.2001 Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand (CRSNZ) for Services to the Society, and the promotion of climate and climate science to the public.2007 IPCC Nobel Peace Prize contributor.2016 Semi-Finalist, New Zealander of the Year Awards.2018 World Meteorological Organization Award for Exceptional Service and Outstanding Contributions to the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology.2019 Jubilee Medal, the premier award from the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science for lifetime achievements in climate and agricultural science. Controversies Employment issue On 23 April 2009, Salinger was dismissed by NIWA, ostensibly for breaching NIWA's media policy. Salinger had represented NIWA to the public and media for many years and the dismissal caused a "wide public outcry" according to the Otago Daily Times. In late May 2009, Salinger stated that mediation with NIWA over the dismissal had failed and that he would be lodging a claim with the Employment Relations Authority. On 19 October 2009, the Employment Relations Authority in Auckland began a hearing into Salinger's dismissal. During the hearing it emerged the Salinger had suffered from depression. In December 2009, the Employment Relations Authority upheld Salinger's dismissal. Case against NIWA On 5 July 2010, The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET), associated with the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, filed a legal case against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claiming that the organisation had used a methodology to adjust historic temperature data that was not in line with received scientific opinion. The Coalition lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to rule that the official temperatures record of NIWA were invalid. The Coalition later claimed that the "1degC warming during the 20th century was based on adjustments taken by Niwa from a 1981 student thesis by then student Jim Salinger...[and]...the Salinger thesis was subjective and untested and meteorologists more senior to Salinger did not consider the temperature data should be adjusted". The case was dismissed, with the judgement concluding that the "plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in the issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant". On 11 November 2013, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed an appeal by the Trust against the award of costs to NIWA. NIWA Chief Executive John Morgan said the organisation was pleased with the outcome, stating that there had been no evidence presented that might call the integrity of NIWA scientists into question.There was concern in 2014 that the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust had not paid the amount of $89,000 to NIWA as ordered by the High Court, and this was a cost to be borne by the taxpayers of New Zealand. Trustee Bryan Leyland, when asked about its assets, said: "To my knowledge, there is no money. We spent a large amount of money on the court case, there were some expensive legal technicalities...[and that]...funding had come from a number of sources, which are confidential." Shortly after that, the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) was put into formal liquidation. On 23 January 2014, Salinger stated that this "marked the end of a four-year epic saga of secretly-funded climate denial, harassment of scientists and tying-up of valuable government resources in New Zealand". He also explained the background to the issue around the Seven-station New Zealand temperature series (7SS) and how he felt this had been misrepresented by the Trust. Selected publications Climate Change 2001 – Synthesis Report (2001). While with the IPCC, in his role with NIWA, Salinger worked with scientists from around the world on producing this document which provided information for policymakers. Climate Change in New Zealand: Scientific and Legal Assessments (2002). In his review of this book which was co-authored by Salinger, Michael Jeffery QC, Professor of Law at Macquarie University concluded that the book "affords both the expert and the non-expert a concise and focused insight into the core issues underlying the phenomenon of climate change from a scientific perspective and then proceeds to discuss in an ordered fashion how these issues are likely to be addressed by New Zealand in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol". Increasing climate variability and change: reducing the vulnerability of agriculture and foresty (2005). Annual Climate Summaries (2000–2007). These documents were completed when Salinger was in his role as principal scientist, NIWA National Climate Centre, Auckland. He worked with a climatologist and a communications manager, and coordinated each report which contained information on a single year's overall climate conditions, sunshine, temperature, soil moisture and temperature in New Zealand. Prediction of Fire Weather and Fire Danger (2007). Salinger co-authored this publication that was commissioned for the New Zealand Fire Commission to "provide methods for forward prediction of severe fire weather". Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report (2007). Salinger was a lead author of this when working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organisation which was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". Climate Trends, Hazards and Extremes – Taranaki Synthesis Report (2008). When working for NIWA, Salinger co-authored this report that was prepared for the New Plymouth District Council, the Taranaki Regional Council and South Taranaki District Council, for the purpose of identifying "climate trends, hazards and extremes that [were] likely to impact on the region as a result of climate warming during the 21st century". Living in a Warmer World. How a Changing Climate will Affect Our Lives (2013). This book was edited by Salinger with contributions from notable scientists. One reviewer acknowledged that "Salinger has drawn on all the relationships he has built up over a 40-year career as a climate scientist, including a spell as president of the WMO Commission for Agricultural Meteorology, to bring together some of the world's leading experts on climate impacts". Brian Giles, reviewing the book in the Weather and Climate Journal, concluded that "the book does give a useful insight into the way that global warming will affect humankind in the 21st century as viewed in 2011 and 2012". New Zealand climate: patterns of drought 1941/42 – 2012/13 (2014). This is an article co-authored by Salinger and submitted in Weather and Climate, the official journal of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand in 2014. In the Abstract, the authors noted that despite New Zealand's maritime location, drought was still an issue and responses to this needed to be on a regional level due to "New Zealand's complex geography...[which gave]...distinctive regional climatic responses to variations in atmospheric circulation". The unprecedented coupled ocean-atmosphere summer heatwave in the New Zealand region 2017/18: drivers, mechanisms and impacts (2019). This was co-edited by Salinger who noted in the publication that "the impacts from such heatwaves are dire – for example, last summer's warm conditions caused massive ice loss in South Island glaciers...[and]...life in the oceans around us was significantly disrupted: coastal seaweed forests struggled to grow, farmed salmon in the Marlborough Sounds died and Queensland groper occurred in Northland – 3000km out of range...yet another dire warning that we must hasten our action on reducing emissions as time is running out". Shifting Jewry 2019 (GEN19) A Survey of the New Zealand Jewish Community (2019). Salinger was one of a team who completed four surveys on the New Zealand Jewish community on behalf of B'nai B'rith, an international not-for-profit Jewish community services organisation that supports human rights and anti-discrimination Unparalleled coupled ocean-atmosphere summer heatwaves in the New Zealand (2020). Co-edited by Salinger, this article recorded and interpreted data to show how intense heatwaves on land and sea surfaces were resulting in the rapid melting of snow in the Southern Alps of New Zealand; below-average berry numbers and bunch masses of Sauvignon blanc and Pinot noir wine grapes; earlier harvest than normal of cherries and apricots; lower yields of grain and potatoes; and species disruption in marine ecosystems. In the Abstract, it was stated, hindcasts indicate that the heatwaves were either atmospherically driven or arose from combinations of atmospheric surface warming and oceanic heat advection". Surface temperature trends and variability in New Zealand and surrounding oceans: 1871–2019 (2020). Co-authored by Salinger, this study compared maximum, minimum, and mean air temperature averaged over New Zealand for the period 1871–2019 with data gathered from the surrounding ocean. The study showed that temperatures over the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone had increased by 0.66 °C from 1871–2019. NZ Herald Science Reporter, Jamie Morton said the study showed that there were specific cyclical changes in the Pacific ocean-atmospheric system which affected the New Zealand climate, resulting in swings between La Niña years which resulted in above-average temperatures with more northeasterly winds, and El Niño periods when temperatures were cooler due to southwesterly winds. Salinger explained in the Herald article how the temperatures were affected by Southern Annular Mode and volcanic eruptions but confirmed that clear trends had emerged with climate change and when these trends came in "tandem with natural drivers that had historically made for balmier conditions, New Zealand saw extremely warm years" References External links Google Scholar Google Scholar records of publications. "Twelve Questions: Dr Jim Salinger". New Zealand Herald. 26 January 2015. "Jim Salinger on Climate Change, Global Warming, Denialism & email hacking". ourplanet.org. 26 November 2009. Archived from the original on 26 January 2021. "Two key caveats on Govt's tree planting initiative". Stuff.co.nz. August 2020.

2023 european drought

In 2023, Europe has experienced drought-like conditions amid heat waves. France The Pyrénées-Orientales Department of Southern France officially declared itself at a drought "crisis" level on the 10th May. A dry winter limited replenishment of water tables, depleted in the 2022 European drought. Agriculture in France has been impacted. Italy At Lake Garda, where the water level is 70cm (27in) lower than average, the Alps have reportedly had 63% less snow than usual. As a result of water shortages, rice production has been cut. Canals in Venice dried up. Spain In Catalonia, the Sau reservoir has been at 9 per cent of its total capacity. 2023 has been Catalonia's worse drought in decades. The April 2023 heat wave has also exacerbated drought problems. The Fuente de Piedra Lagoon went dry for the first time in 20 years due to the heatwave.The Doñana National Park is being threatened by drought. United Kingdom Drought warnings are in place for the summer. It was the driest February since 1993. Scientists said that this increased the drought risk for other regions of England.It was the wettest March in over 40 years for England and Wales. According to South West Water, Devon and Cornwall are experiencing the driest conditions in nearly 90 years. From 25 April 2023, South West Water will extend a hosepipe ban to parts of Devon. See also Climate change in Europe 1540 European drought 2022 heat waves 2022 European heat waves 2022 European drought 2023 European heat waves 2020–2023 North American drought == References ==

climate and clean air coalition to reduce short-lived climate pollutants

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) was launched by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and six countries—Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico, Sweden, and the United States—on 16 February 2012. The CCAC aims to catalyze rapid reductions in short-lived climate pollutants to protect human health, agriculture and the environment. To date, more than $90 million has been pledged to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition from Canada, Denmark, the European Commission, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. The program is managed out of the United Nations Environmental Programme through a Secretariat in Paris, France. Short-lived climate pollutants Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) have relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere – a few days to a few decades – and a powerful warming influence on climate. The main short-lived climate pollutants are black carbon, methane and tropospheric ozone, which are the most important contributors to the human enhancement of the global greenhouse effect after CO2. These short-lived climate pollutants are also dangerous air pollutants, with various detrimental impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems. Other short-lived climate pollutants include some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). While HFCs are currently present in small quantity in the atmosphere, their contribution to climate forcing is projected to climb to as much as 19% of global CO2 emissions by 2050.Black carbon is a major component of soot and is produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and biomass. It is emitted from various sources including diesel cars and trucks, ships, residential stoves, forest fires, agricultural open burning and some industrial facilities. It has a warming impact on climate 460-1500 times stronger than CO2. Its lifetime varies from a few days to a few weeks. When deposited on ice and snow, black carbon causes both atmospheric warming and an increase of melting rate. It also influences cloud formation and impacts regional circulation and rainfall patterns. In addition, black carbon impacts human health. It is a primary component of particulate matter in air pollution that is the major environmental cause of premature death globally.Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that is over 20 times more potent than CO2, and has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. It is produced through natural processes (i.e. the decomposition of plant and animal waste), but is also emitted from many man-made sources, including coal mines, natural gas and oil systems, and landfills. Methane directly influences the climate system and also has indirect impacts on human health and ecosystems, in particular through its role as a precursor of tropospheric ozone.HFCs are man-made greenhouse gases used in air conditioning, refrigeration, solvents, foam blowing agents, and aerosols. Many HFCs remain in the atmosphere for less than 15 years. Though they represent a small fraction of the current total greenhouse gases (less than one percent), their warming impact is particularly strong and, if left unchecked, HFCs could account for nearly 20 percent of climate pollution by 2050.Tropospheric or ground-level ozone (O3) is the ozone present in the lowest portion of the atmosphere (up to 10–15 km above the ground). It is responsible for a large part of the human enhancement of the global greenhouse effect and has a lifetime of a few days to a few weeks. It is not directly emitted but formed by sunlight-driven oxidation of other agents, called ozone precursors, in particular methane (CH4) but also carbon monoxide (CO), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Tropospheric ozone is a harmful pollutant that has detrimental impacts on human health and plants and is responsible for important reductions in crop yields. Potential Results of SLCP Mitigation Health. Action to reduce SLCPs has the potential to achieve multiple benefits. For example, each year, more than 6 million people die prematurely from indoor and outdoor air pollution. Short-lived climate pollutants are largely to blame. Fast actions on short-lived climate pollutants, such as the widespread adoption of advanced cook stoves and clean fuels, have the potential to prevent over 2 million of premature deaths each year.Agriculture. Reducing methane and black carbon could also prevent major crop losses. Present day global relative yield losses due to tropospheric ozone exposure range between 7-12 percent for wheat, 6-16 percent for soybean, 3-4 percent for rice, and 3-5 percent for maize . In addition, black carbon influences the formation of clouds that have a negative effect on the photosynthesis that impacts plant growth. Rapidly reducing short-lived climate pollutants, for instance through the collection of landfill gas or the recovery of methane from coal mines, has the potential to avoid the annual loss of more than 30 million tons of crops.Climate. Reducing SLCPs could slow down the warming expected by 2050 by about 0.4 to 0.5 °C, almost halving projected near-term warming as compared to a baseline scenario. However, this applies to the simultaneous reduction of short and long lived climate forcers. Reducing short-lived climate forcers without reducing long-lived emissions, especially CO2, would not substantially reduce the amount of warming beyond some decades. Therefore, long-term climate change mitigation implies that reduction in emissions of long-lived forcers cannot be replaced with reduction in short-lived forcers. This is a risk in a framework of emission trading and/or objectives based on aggregated emissions, which implies that reducing a certain amount of a given forcer is equivalent to reducing another amount of another forcer.SLCP reduction is likely to have enhanced climate benefits in many vulnerable regions, such as elevated snow- and ice-covered regions, and is also likely to reduce regional disruption of traditional rainfall patterns. Though HFCs currently represent a small fraction of total greenhouse gases, their warming impact is particularly strong, and their emissions are projected to increase nearly twentyfold in the next three decades if their growth is not reduced. The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a, which is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system then carbon dioxide. HFC emissions could offset much of the climate benefits from the Montreal Protocol. They are projected to rise to about 3.5 to 8.8 Gt CO2eq in 2050, comparable to total current annual emissions from transport, estimated at around 6-7 Gt annually. There are options available that could avoid or replace high-GWP HFCs in many sectors and also ways to reduce emissions. Objectives The Coalition's objectives are to address short-lived climate pollutants by: Raising awareness of short-lived climate pollutant impacts and mitigation strategies; Enhancing and developing new national and regional actions, including by identifying and overcoming barriers, enhancing capacity, and mobilizing support; Promoting best practices and showcasing successful efforts; and Improving scientific understanding of short-lived climate pollutant impacts and mitigation strategies. Actions Since its launch in February 2012, the Coalition has been working to identify actions that will help bring the health, agricultural, environmental and climate benefits of reducing SLCPs. As of March 2014 the CCAC has undertaken ten initiatives:Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and Engines Working to reduce the climate and health impacts of black carbon and particulate matter (PM) emissions, particularly in the transport sector. A Green Freight Call to Action was issued in late 2013. Mitigating Black Carbon and Other Pollutants From Brick Production Addressing emissions of black carbon and other pollutants from brick production to reduce the harmful climate, air pollution, economic, and social impacts from the sector Mitigating SLCPs from the Municipal Solid Waste Sector Addressing methane, black carbon, and other air pollutant emissions across the municipal solid waste sector through work with cities and national governments Promoting HFC Alternative Technology and Standards Targeting governments and the private sector in an effort to address rapidly growing HFC emissions Accelerating Methane and Black Carbon Reductions from Oil and Natural Gas Production Working with key stakeholders to encourage cooperation and support the implementation of new and existing measures to substantially reduce methane emissions from natural gas venting, leakage, and flaring. The CCAC Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, involving the public sector and private companies, is expected to be launched in 2014. Addressing SLCPs from Agriculture Aiming to reduce emissions of methane and black carbon from the agricultural sector, not only helping to address climate change but also to strengthen food security Reducing SLCPs from Household Cooking and Domestic Heating Working through advocacy and education to raise awareness of the harmful effect of emissions from this sector on human health climate, agriculture and climate Cross-cutting efforts The Coalition has also identified cross-cutting efforts to be undertaken in order to accelerate emissions reductions across all short-lived climate pollutants. To date these actions are: Financing of SLCP mitigation In order to take advantage of all mitigation opportunities, this initiative seeks to act as a catalyst of scaled-up SLCP mitigation financing and will work with governments, the private sector, donors, financial institutions, expert groups and investors’ networks to bolster these financial flows. Supporting NAtional Planning for action on SLCPs (SNAP) This initiative has developed a program to support national action plans for SLCPs, including national inventory development, building on existing air quality, climate change and development agreements, and assessment, prioritization, and demonstration of promising SLCP mitigation measures. Regional Assessments of SLCPs The CCAC believes there is a need for in-depth assessments of SLCPs in key regions to help shape regional cooperation as well as the action of national governments, and to encourage new action. The Latin American and Caribbean region is the first target for this initiative. Partners Founding Partners United Nations Environment Programme United States ($6 million USD initial donation $2.5 million USD in 2013) Bangladesh Canada ($3 million USD initial donation, $10 million USD CAD in 2013) Ghana Mexico Sweden ($1.7 million USD initial donation, $2.5 million USD in 2013) Additional Donor Countries (received and pledged as of February 2014) Denmark ($1.8 million USD) EU ($1.4 million USD) Germany ($0.4 million USD) Japan ($5.4 million USD) Netherlands ($0.5 million USD) Norway ($11.8 million USD) Country Partners (March 2014) Non-State Partners (March 2014) See also Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and accompanying Kyoto Protocol (CO2 Regulations) 2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions Green Climate Fund Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and accompanying Montreal Protocol (Ozone Regulation - Context) == References ==

global carbon reward

The global carbon reward is a proposed international policy for establishing and funding a new global carbon market for decarbonising all sectors of the world economy, and for establishing and funding a new economic sector dedicated to carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The policy is market-based, and it will offer proportional financial rewards in exchange for verifiable climate mitigation services and co-benefits. The policy approach was first presented in 2017 by Delton Chen, Joël van der Beek, and Jonathan Cloud to address the 2015 Paris Agreement, and it has since been refined.The policy employs a carbon currency to establish a global reward price for mitigated carbon. The carbon currency will not convey ownership of mitigated carbon, and consequently the carbon currency cannot function as a carbon offset credit. The carbon currency will function as a financial asset and incentive. A supranational authority is needed to implement the policy and to manage the supply and demand of the carbon currency. This authority is referred to as the carbon exchange authority. One of the authority's key functions is to coordinate the operations of major central banks in order to give the carbon currency a guaranteed floor price. A predictable rising floor price will attract private investment demand for the currency, and it will transfer a significant portion of the mitigation cost into currency markets. The policy will not result in any direct costs for governments, businesses or citizens. Consequently, the policy has scope to create a new socioeconomic pathway to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Background Since the start of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—a dominant anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)—has risen steadily, as shown by the Keeling Curve. Despite numerous Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings and several treaties, CO2 and other GHG emissions have continued at dangerously high levels. A major hurdle to a rapid clean energy transition and global economic decarbonisation, is the need to mobilise large amounts of investment finance. According to a study of renewable energy systems by ARENA, the financial shortfall for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement is about US $27 trillion for the 2016-2050 period. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimate that investments in clean energy will need to increase to about US $5 trillion per year by 2030 in order to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.Further complicating the economics of climate change is the possibility that cumulative residual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels could reach 850–1,150 GtCO2 for the period 2016–2100 even if stringent policies and carbon taxes are implemented. For these and other reasons there is an apparent need for new policies that can accelerate the transition to low-carbon energy systems and provide large-scale CDR. The shortfall in climate finance and lack of political cooperation inspired Delton Chen, a civil engineer, to found a climate policy initiative in 2014 with the goal of combining a market mechanism with monetary policy. Seminal ideas for the policy first appeared at the 2015 Earth System Governance conference, Canberra, and in MIT’s Climate Co-Lab competitions where the policy was awarded two prizes. Between 2017–2019, Chen and his colleagues published two policy papers and in 2018 Guglielmo Zappalà wrote a thesis that compares the new policy with existing central bank policies. In 2019, Chen described the global carbon reward policy in terms of required central bank remits and operations, and the possible application of blockchain technologies. A website for the global carbon reward was launched on World Environment Day 2021. Policy name The generic name of the climate policy is simply 'carbon reward' or 'global carbon reward', written with lower-case letters. When the policy name is written with capital letters—Global Carbon Reward—then the name is referring to a specific policy development project that has adopted 'Global Carbon Reward' as its brand name. This brand name refers to specific policy versions and associated assets and partnerships. The Global Carbon Reward project was originally called the 'Global 4C Risk Mitigation Policy' or simply 'Global 4C', where 4C is an acronym that stands for complementary currencies for climate change. Policy type The global carbon reward is a market-based climate policy combined with a monetary standard for mitigated carbon. The global carbon reward is justified in terms of a market hypothesis that posits a need to create a positive externality, designed to manage the systemic risks associated with anthropogenic carbon emissions. The term 'reward' is used to distinguish the market incentive from other more conventional incentives, such as carbon taxes, cap and trade, subsidies, and carbon offsets.The market-based instrument is called a carbon currency. The policy instrument is a type of representative money that will be managed with a new monetary policy that can coordinate the world's major central banks to establish a predictable floor price for the carbon currency. The new monetary policy is called carbon quantitative easing, and it is a supranational policy because it will coordinate the quantitative easing and currency trading by central banks on a global level. Pricing mitigated carbon There are three typical methods for pricing anthropogenic GHGs that have been mitigated. The first method is to use a market policy to price the mass of avoided carbon emissions in relation to an emissions' baseline. The second method is to use a market policy to price the mass of carbon that is removed from the ambient atmosphere using negative emissions technologies. The third method is to let the marketplace price the GHGs that have been turned into saleable commodities. For example, the conversion of CO2 into plant products or graphene for the manufacture of durable goods.The global carbon reward employs the first two methods, and it has scope to incentivise the third method by registering the resulting durable goods as a co-benefit. Not a subsidy The term "reward" is used to differentiate the global carbon reward from government subsidies. The global carbon reward is different to a government subsidy because (1) the reward is issued with a representative currency and not with a national currency; (2) the reward is funded with international monetary policy and private currency trading, and not through fiscal spending; and (3) the reward is performance-based whereas subsidies are not necessarily dependent on performance.The global carbon reward aims to create a price signal with a carbon currency, and as such the reward is not a Pigovian subsidy. Market participants are invited to trade the carbon currency as an investment. If the Coase theorem is applied, then it may be assumed that market participants will discover the reward price in a way that shares the mitigation costs in a Pareto optimal outcome. The global carbon reward is a new kind of performance-based grant system. It is also a new kind of results-based climate financing (RBCF). According to the World Bank, RBCF is "...a well-established financing modality in the health and education sectors but it is still in an early stage of deployment in the area of climate change". Not a carbon offset The global carbon reward is not a carbon offset credit. A carbon offset is a recorded reduction in CO2 or other greenhouse gas emissions that is used to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. The reward is issued as a currency that does not convey ownership of the mitigated carbon. All of the mitigated carbon that is awarded will be immediately retired from carbon markets and will be held by the authority for the policy, called the carbon exchange authority. Carbon stock take The carbon currency will be directly indexed to the carbon stock take for the policy, meaning that one unit of the carbon currency will directly correspond to a specific mass of CO2e that is mitigated for a specific duration. This indexing relationship is defined by the unit of account of the carbon currency, which is 1 tCO2e mitigated for a 100-year duration. The total supply of the carbon currency will thus remain proportional to the carbon stock take. The carbon stock take will be owned and managed by the carbon exchange authority. This is analogous to the U.S. Department of the Treasury holding gold for the gold window of the Bretton Woods system except that the carbon currency is not redeemable for mitigated carbon. If the carbon stock take falls as a result of individual enterprises defaulting on their service-level agreements, then the supply of the carbon currency can be reduced proportionally with a negative interest rate charge, otherwise called a demurrage fee. Causal mechanisms The effectiveness of the global carbon reward policy will depend on a set of causal mechanisms that can remove financial bottlenecks and trigger a major shift in market behaviour for the scaling-up of effective climate action. The policy relies on a chain of causal mechanisms that are social, informational, financial and political. These include (1) the provision of globally available performance-based grants for mitigated carbon, (2) the provision of a global database for mitigation technologies and the statistics that describe their effectiveness and profitability, (3) the channeling of the mitigation cost into the foreign exchange currency market to resolve conflicts over cost sharing, and (4) the provision of individual service-level agreements for tracking and managing the carbon stock take over the long-term. The policy can also be integrated with other market and non-market policies in a (5) 'carrot and stick' approach for maximising societal cooperation. Current status The theoretical background to the global carbon reward is presented in several publications and a thesis, but the policy has yet to be reviewed by policy institutions or government officials. Popular culture The American science fiction writer, Kim Stanley Robinson, embraced the idea of a 'carbon coin' in his climate change novel The Ministry for the Future. The novel portrays a series of events that lead to the establishment of a transnational organisation that is mandated to deploy carbon coins to address the Paris Agreement. The author’s inspiration for using carbon coins is attributed in the novel to Delton Chen, via the phrase “Chen’s papers”. Policy design Policy objectives The main objective of the global carbon reward is to avoid passing specific levels of average global surface warming. The climate objective needs to be defined in terms of global average temperature changes and associated probabilities of success. For example, the climate objective could be to avoid a maximum of 1.5 °C, 2.0 °C, and 2.5 °C of global warming with confidence levels of 50%, 67%, 90%, respectively. The policy’s main objective is normative, and it may be aligned with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Secondary objectives of the global carbon reward are to maximise the co-benefits and to minimise the harms that are directly associated with the actions that are rewarded under the policy. These co-benefits may be divided into (1) energy reliability, (2) community wellbeing, and (3) ecological health, and they may also be categorised using the UN’s sustainable development goals. Policy instrument The carbon currency is the economic instrument of the proposed market policy. The carbon currency will be used to (a) financially reward enterprises for mitigating carbon under the policy rules, (b) create a predictable global reward price for mitigated carbon, and (c) record the carbon stock take for the policy.The carbon currency will be a type of representative money with a unit of account of 1 tCO2e mitigated for a 100-year duration, or similar. The carbon currency will act primarily as a store of value, and not as a medium of exchange. It will not be used as a medium of exchange in the sense that it will not be accepted for paying taxes or for making regular business transactions. The carbon currency will be readily tradable for other currencies via foreign exchange providers and remittance dealers. The supply and floor price of the carbon currency will be used to monitor progress on global economic decarbonisation and the associated systemic risks. Pricing mechanism The pricing mechanism for the global carbon reward is understood in terms of the supply and demand functions for the carbon currency. The supply function is the rate at which the carbon currency is created and issued in order to reward enterprises that have successfully mitigated carbon under the rules of the policy. The demand function is underpinned by a floor price that is guaranteed by central banks, and by private demand for the currency in response to a rising or falling trend in the floor price. Floor price As indicated above, the demand function for the carbon currency is underpinned by a guaranteed floor price. This floor price will be enforced by central banks through a reflexive monetary policy that triggers currency trades/swaps in open markets when necessary. It is important to note that the floor price for the carbon currency will be the price signal that incentivises market actors to invest in mitigation projects. The price signal will be communicated as a combination of (a) the spot price for the carbon currency, and (b) the future floor price that will span a rolling 100-year period. The spot price may rise to any level under market forces, but it will never fall below the floor price because the monetary policy, called carbon quantitative easing (CQE), will be enacted to defend the floor price. The future floor price for a rolling 100-year period will be divided into two parts: a rolling guaranteed period that spans a decade or two, followed by a rolling non-guaranteed period that spans the remainder of the 100-years. The future floor price constitutes the forward guidance that will be communicated to markets so that enterprises can make informed decisions when decarbonising their operations. It is presumed that enterprises that decarbonise will develop their own financial plans that account for the required capital investment, technological innovations, and other design factors. Given that rapid decarbonisation might introduce operational and financial risks, the purpose of the floor price is to de-risk the investments by providing a predictable revenue source that may be designated as debt-free and bankable. Currency demand Private demand for the carbon currency will be generated by a rising floor price. The ideal floor price will be calibrated to achieve the climate objective, and the technical name for this ideal floor price is the risk cost of carbon (RCC). Private demand for the carbon currency will be highest when the floor price is rising most quickly, and it will be least when the floor price is falling most quickly. If at any time this private demand is not sufficient to maintain the floor price, central banks will make up the shortfall by buying the carbon currency via CQE. Currency supply As indicated above, the supply function for the carbon currency is based on assessing the mass of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) that has been mitigated at the project level. This will involve setting emissions baselines, and applying standardised methods of measurement, reporting and verification. The adopted baselines and standards will be specified in service-level agreements.The carbon currency may be offered for four kinds of mitigation service: (i) the supply of cleaner energy in specific energy markets; (ii) the consumption of cleaner energy, goods and services by businesses and households; (iii) the removal of carbon from the ambient atmosphere, and (iv) the implementation of ethical population management.The gross amount of carbon currency that will be offered to enterprises will be proportional to the notional mass of carbon that each enterprise can verifiably mitigate over the long-term. The adjusted amount of carbon currency that will be offered to enterprises will equal the gross reward plus/minus any positive/negative adjustments. The positive adjustments are to reflect socio-ecological co-benefits, and the negative adjustments are to reflect socio-ecological harms. Funding model The funding model for the policy is based on the above mentioned demand function for the carbon currency. This funding model will not result in any direct costs for governments, businesses or citizens because the mitigation cost will be channelled into the foreign exchange currency market when the world's major national currencies are devalued relative to the carbon currency. One advantage of this funding model is that it will allow governments to focus more on national priorities, such as climate adaptation, because global markets will be motivated and coordinated to achieve the agreed climate objective. The policy is designed in such a way as to create a self-funding administrative system. The cost of the policy's administration and policing will be recovered through fees and commissions that will be charged to enterprises that earn the carbon currency as a reward. Institutional Framework The institutional framework for implementing the global carbon reward will need to have the capacity to establish a supranational institution for managing the carbon currency with carbon quantitative easing (CQE). The proposed supranational institution is notionally called the carbon exchange authority. One option is to establish the carbon exchange authority under the auspices of the UNFCCC and in response to the Paris Agreement. Unlike previous treaties and agreements under the UNFCCC, the carbon exchange authority will interface with central banks via protocols for CQE, and this may require new channels for intergovernmental coordination, new mandates for central banks, and new legal structures for policy governance, international trade, and dispute resolution. Social principles Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) is the guiding principle of the UNFCCC. The CBDR principle was formalised at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992. CBDR acknowledges that all states have a shared obligation to address environmental destruction, and that countries that have produced the most greenhouse gases should contribute proportionally more to climate change mitigation. CBDR is therefore consistent with the polluter pays principle. The polluter pays principle has limitations when there is insufficient cooperation over cost sharing for the goal of protecting the global commons. Delton Chen and his colleagues propose that a new social principle is needed, called the preventative insurance principle, to explain the social context of the global carbon reward. This principle states that in order to protect the global commons — including the climate system and the planetary ecosystem — it is necessary to maximise societal cooperation by managing the mitigation costs in a way that avoids direct taxation and avoids fiscal spending by governments. The preventative insurance principle acknowledges that effective climate mitigation should be a priority given that future climate damages could be systemic, extreme, and irreversible if not adequately mitigated. The preventative insurance principle is combined with the polluter pays principle to justify a policy toolkit that consists of complementary 'carrot' and 'stick' policies. Economic theory Holistic market hypothesis Under standard economic theory, as elaborated by leading economists such as Nicholas Stern and William Nordhaus, the market failure in carbon has resulted in a negative externality, called the social cost of carbon (SCC). According to standard theory, the SCC is a measure of the time-discounted climate-related damages caused by 1 tCO2 emitted in a given year. The SCC is used to estimate the ideal carbon tax under cost-benefit analysis. Delton Chen, Joël van der Beek and Jonathan Cloud articulate an alternative theory, called the Holistic Market Hypothesis (HMH), that proposes that the standard theory is incomplete because the systemic risks that are structurally linked to the anthropogenic carbon balance are not addressed using the welfare theory of Arthur Cecil Pigou. The HMH states that systemic risks are probabilistic at the first order, and are therefore different to climate damages. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines risk as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives” giving credence to the notion that systemic risks are not the same as social costs. The HMH expands on the theory of Pigou by further proposing that the systemic risks associated with the anthropogenic carbon balance are unusually large and should be associated with a second externality — a positive externality. Under the HMH, the systemic risks associated with anthropogenic carbon are addressed with a second explicit price — a reward price. The reward price should be managed independently of carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, subsidies and carbon offsets. Risk cost of carbon Under the HMH, the market failure in anthropogenic carbon is revised at the conceptual level to include a positive externality. The HMH thus makes the claim that the market failure in carbon consists of two externalised costs—the social cost of carbon (SCC) and the risk cost of carbon (RCC)—which are opposite and complementary. The RCC is used to quantify the positive externality, and it is evaluated using risk-effectiveness analysis. The RCC is then priced into the marketplace with a carbon currency, which is used to reward enterprises for their positive climate action. The RCC is conceptualised as the cost of managing systemic risks that are coupled to the anthropogenic carbon balance. The RCC includes the cost of overcoming or bypassing societal systems that act as barriers to the decarbonisation of the world economy. These societal system may include monetary systems, financial systems, political systems, legal systems, etc. The RCC also includes the cost of responding preemptively to Earth systems that can produce positive climate feedbacks on carbon emissions and possible tipping points. These Earth systems include the atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and pedosphere, and their interactions. The RCC is assessed as the average marginal cost of mitigating 1 tonne of CO2e for a 100-year duration, such that the global rate of mitigation is sufficient to achieve the agreed climate objective. The value of the RCC is used to establish the ideal floor price of the carbon currency. The carbon currency is an essential tool of the policy because the carbon currency can be used to bypasses the existing financial system and avoid financial intermediaries and bottlenecks. The RCC is created ex post to the introduction of the global carbon reward policy. This differs to the SCC, which is generated ex ante to the introduction of the carbon tax. The internalisation of the RCC into the economy should produce a positive externality because it will create a new global carbon market that has the qualities of a global public good. The positive externality is a global public good because it will produce benefits that are non-rivalrous, non-excludable, and available worldwide. Relational diagram for market policies The manner in which the SCC and RCC are addressed in the HMH, is explained using a relational diagram that identifies four market-based policies as the principal options for pricing carbon. The relational diagram classifies market-based policies according to two important policy functions: (a) unit of account, and (b) store of value. The relational diagram is a matrix with two columns and two rows. The two columns refer to 'fiat units' or 'carbon units' as the binary option for the unit of account of the policy tool. The two rows refer to ‘sticks’ or ‘carrots’ as the binary option for the policy tool, whereby a stick has a negative store of value, and a carrot has a positive store of value. Delton Chen calls this relational diagram the carbon pricing matrix. The matrix denotes four market policies: the (1) carbon tax, (2) carbon subsidy, (3) cap and trade, and (4) global carbon reward. The left side of the carbon pricing matrix is consistent with Arthur C. Pigou’s 1920 treatise on externalised costs and his proposed method of pricing negative externalities with taxes, and pricing positive externalities with subsidies. The objective of the carbon tax is ostensibly to achieve allocative efficiency by internalising the SCC. In standard economics there is no mention of an explicit objective when using the carbon subsidy, although such subsidies have been used, such as the 45Q tax credit in the United States for carbon oxide capture and sequestration.The right side of the carbon pricing matrix is linked to the Coase theorem for private bargaining because the policies on the right employ tradable permits and tokens with carbon units. The advantage of using tradable permits and tokens is the ability to achieve a Pareto optimal outcome. Cap and trade (e.g. South Korea's emissions trading scheme) aims to internalise the SCC via the trading of emissions permits however the objective of cap and trade policies is not explicit because the stringency of the cap is subject to other considerations besides the SCC. The right side of the carbon pricing matrix frames the ideation of the global carbon reward. 'Carbon currency' is the name given to the tradable token that is the reward. For this particular policy, the strategy is to assign a floor price to the carbon currency in order to target the required mitigation rate. The currency is then issued to market actors who successfully mitigate carbon. The actual price of the carbon currency is then discovered by allowing the currency to be traded above its assigned floor price. The approach will invite private currency trading—an example of Coasian bargaining—for achieving a Pareto optimal outcome with regards to the distribution of the mitigation cost. The RCC will be fully internalised into the economy when sufficient carbon mitigation is provided to achieve the policy's main objective. The HMH is a theory that claims that the market failure in carbon is not a classical market failure because of the large systemic risks that are inherent to the fast carbon cycle. The HMH also says that ‘carrot and stick’ carbon pricing is needed to correct the market failure in carbon. The two explicit carbon prices that are recommended, are as follows: (1) a 'stick' to maximise the efficiency of the marketplace according to the marginal social welfare theory of Pigou, and (2) a 'carrot' to manage the systemic risks associated with the anthropogenic carbon balance. The HMH ultimately says that correcting the market failure in carbon requires a trade-off between the two main objectives, such that some economic efficiency could be sacrificed in order to limit the systemic risks. Resolving temporal paradoxes The estimation of the SCC has attracted considerable attention from economists and it is often controversial because of the sensitivity of the SCC to the social discount rate (SDR). A relatively high SDR will result in a lower carbon tax, short-term planning, and less regard for future generations. The narrative surrounding the SDR is often split between two sides, with one side favouring a descriptive SDR and a relatively low carbon tax, and the other side favouring an ethical (i.e. prescriptive) SDR and a relatively high carbon tax. The HMH offers a resolution to this problem by introducing a second policy tool (i.e. the carbon currency) and a second policy objective of internalising the RCC into the economy (i.e. to manage the climate-related systemic risk). The RCC is determined independently of marginal social welfare and the SDR, and so it is not affected by time discounting. The Tragedy of the Horizon paradoxes are anecdotes presented by Marc Carney in reference to the short planning horizon of central banks in relation to risk management. They also refer to the more general problem that the current generation is weakly incentivised to fix the climate problem for future generations. Delton Chen infers that the rising floor price for the carbon currency — based on the RCC — will produce a secular bull market in the carbon currency for resolving these paradoxes. In other words, Chen’s solution is to “…convert tomorrow’s risk into today’s profits”. This may be restated as follows: the carbon currency will act as a negative feedback on global warming because it is an investment-grade currency that is pro-cyclical with the climate risk. Policy for net-zero carbon Delton Chen and his co-authors propose that the carbon currency can be used to create a new roadmap to net-zero carbon emissions. They propose that the world economy can be reconfigured as a dual-market system, comprising (a) existing markets that use national fiat currencies to price goods and services, and (b) a global market for carbon mitigating services and for receiving the carbon currency as a reward. Existing markets are framed by official national currencies, whereas the new global market will be framed by the carbon currency which does not act as a medium-of-exchange but instead acts as a price signal and store-of-value. Furthermore, they propose that the global annual mitigation rate, △ Q {\displaystyle \bigtriangleup \!Q} , that earns the carbon currency can be sub-divided into: (1) the portion that is economically coupled to existing markets, ( 1 − ω ) △ Q {\displaystyle (1-\omega )\bigtriangleup \!Q} ; and (2) the portion that is economically decoupled from existing markets, ω △ Q {\displaystyle \omega \bigtriangleup \!Q} . The mitigation rate that is decoupled, ω △ Q {\displaystyle \omega \bigtriangleup \!Q} , will be dependent on the economic value of the carbon currency given that this currency will be the primary source of funding for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Modified Kaya identity The original Kaya identity relates global CO2 emissions to various factors, including gross world product, denoted as G. If the global carbon reward is fully implemented, then the carbon currency should be available as a reward in every country, but the carbon currency will not have the status of legal tender (i.e. it is not a medium of exchange). Subsequently, the trading of goods and services with the carbon currency will not be allowed, and so the carbon currency will not factor in the calculation of gross domestic product (GDP) or G. However, the carbon currency will influence G because the currency will be used to increase the marginal value of the goods and services that have utility for reducing CO2 emissions or for removing CO2 from the ambient atmosphere. Delton Chen and his co-authors propose that the total mass of anthropogenic CO2 that will be emitted globally can be described using a modified version of the Kaya identity, as shown below. In this modified version of the Kaya identity, that portion of mitigated CO2 that is decoupled from the economy, ω △ Q {\displaystyle \omega \bigtriangleup \!Q} , is subtracted from the original Kaya identity: F = P ⋅ G P ⋅ E G ⋅ F E − ω △ Q {\displaystyle F=P\cdot {\frac {G}{P}}\cdot {\frac {E}{G}}\cdot {\frac {F}{E}}-\omega \bigtriangleup \!Q} Where: F is global CO2 emissions from human sources P is global population G is world GDP E is global energy consumption ω {\displaystyle \omega } is the economic decoupling factor △ {\displaystyle \bigtriangleup } Q is the global mitigated CO2 that is rewarded with carbon currencyAnd: G/P is the GDP per capita E/G is the energy intensity of the GDP F/E is the carbon footprint of energy ω △ {\displaystyle \omega \bigtriangleup } Q is the economically-decoupled carbon dioxide removal (CDR)Delton Chen and his co-authors propose that ω △ Q {\displaystyle \omega \bigtriangleup \!Q} will be significant because carbon dioxide removal (CDR) constitutes a new economic sector that is mostly unrelated to previous economic activity. Also, various negative emissions technologies (NETs) can be powered directly by the sun and other kinds of renewable energy, and as such a certain portion of CDR will be self-reliant in terms of energy inputs. With reference to the above formula, the global carbon reward can be used to reduce F in absolute terms by incentivising the following: ethical reductions in global population, P, relative to a baseline reductions in the average carbon intensity of goods and services, F/G, relative to a baseline reductions in the average carbon intensity of energy supplied, F/E, relative to a baseline increases in global CDR and its planned decoupling from the mainstream economy, ω △ {\displaystyle \omega \bigtriangleup } QThe above four activities may be undertaken to increase absolute reductions in F until net-zero carbon (i.e. F = 0) is achieved. Delton Chen names the economic growth pattern that will result from these activities as optimal growth. By giving the carbon currency a predictable rising floor price, the carbon currency will attract investment demand from institutional investors and households. Furthermore, projects that are effective at mitigating carbon will report higher revenue and higher profits, and as such the carbon currency can act as an index for the profitability and effectiveness of low-carbon investments. By inviting households to invest in the carbon currency, the resulting increase in the average savings rate of the participating households could help reduce household consumption. All of the above mentioned effects, when combined, might indirectly reduce G and E, but optimal growth does not include incentives for explicitly reducing G or E. The global carbon reward only treats G and E as a dependent variables, given that economic decarbonisation will influence G and E. Observed changes in the quantity and the quality of G and E will be used in a feedback loop in the assessment of the carbon currency's floor price, and in the design of the reward rules.If reducing G or E in absolute terms were to be adopted as an explicit policy objective, then this would constitute a different policy approach, called economic de-growth. According to a quantitative assessment by Keyßer and Lenzen, de-growth scenarios appear less risky than technology-driven pathways that support more consumption and economic growth. Economic de-growth and solar geoengineering are two additional mitigation strategies that could be considered if the global carbon reward and conventional policies are insufficient for achieving the desired climate objective. The global carbon reward policy does not financially reward economic de-growth or solar geoengineering, and as such implementing these strategies will require additional policies. References External links https://globalcarbonreward.org

grattan institute

Grattan Institute is an Australian public policy think tank, established in 2008. The Melbourne-based institute is non-aligned, defining itself as contributing "to public policy in Australia as a liberal democracy in a globalised economy." It is partly funded by a $34 million endowment, with major contributions from the Federal Government, the Government of Victoria, the University of Melbourne and BHP.Grattan Institute currently focuses on six key policy areas: Budgets and Government, Transport and Cities, Energy and Climate Change, Health and Aged Care, Education, and Economic Policy. These programs were chosen with the belief that research into these areas, in line with principles of evidence-based policy could make a demonstrable difference to Australia’s public policy. Grattan Institute also makes provision for experts in other fields to work under its umbrella. History Grattan Institute began with pressure from senior figures in the Victorian Public Service, academic institutions, and broader business and non-government leaders, who believed that Australian political life lacked a heavyweight independent think tank. Through the course of 2005 this idea was fleshed out by several people in the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, including discussions with a number of Australia’s corporate leaders. At the end of 2005 the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, met with the Federal Treasurer Peter Costello to define the theme for the think tank: Australia as a liberal democracy in a globalised economy. The phrase has since been enshrined in the Constitution of Grattan Institute.Links between the University of Melbourne, Victorian Government and corporate Australia, along with a supportive report from McKinsey & Company, were the basis for then Victorian Premier Bracks and Treasurer John Brumby in early 2007 to promise significant Victorian Government funding for the idea. Melbourne University was also asked to assist.In April 2008, Commonwealth and Victorian Governments announced matching funding, along with support in kind from the University of Melbourne. Commitments followed soon after from BHP and National Australia Bank. Grattan receives money from its endowment supporters and affiliates, which include Susan McKinnon Foundation, Scanlon Foundation, The Myer Foundation, Origin Energy Foundation, Third Link Growth Fund, Cuffe Family Foundation, Medibank Private, Trawalla Foundation, Wesfarmers, Maddocks, McKinsey & Company, Ashurst, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Urbis, and Westpac.Grattan Institute was incorporated in November 2008, and its founding Chief Executive, John Daley, commenced in January 2009. Executive Executive (as of May 2023): CEO Danielle WoodProgram Heads Health and Aged Care - Peter Breadon Energy and Climate Change - Tony Wood Education - Jordana Hunter Transport - Marion Terrill Budgets and Government - Danielle Wood Economic Policy - Brendan Coates Board of directors Board members (as of May 2023) were: Mr Lindsay Maxsted (Chair) Ms Carol Austin Dr Andrew Cuthbertson AO Ms Geraldine Doogue AO Ms Kathryn Fagg AO Mr Ian Marshman AM Prof Duncan Maskell Ms Jillian Segal AO Dr Ian Watt AC References External links Grattan Institute website A list of Grattan's reports to date

knowledge broker

A knowledge broker is an intermediary (an organization or a person), that aims to develop relationships and networks with, among, and between producers and users of knowledge by providing linkages, knowledge sources, and in some cases knowledge itself, (e.g. technical know-how, market insights, research evidence) to organizations in its network. While the exact role and function of knowledge brokers are conceptualized and operationalized differently in various sectors and settings, a key feature appears to be the facilitation of knowledge exchange or sharing between and among various stakeholders, including researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. A knowledge broker may operate in multiple markets and technology domains. The concept of knowledge brokers is closely related to the concept of knowledge spillovers. In the fields of public health, applied health services research, and social sciences, knowledge brokers are often referred to as bridges or intermediaries that link producers of research evidence to users of research evidence as a means of facilitating collaboration to identify issues, solve problems, and promote evidence-informed decision making (EIDM), which is the process of critically appraising and incorporating the best available research evidence, along with evidence from multiple other sources into policy and practice decisions.Using a knowledge broker to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and the adoption of insights is one strategy in the broader field of Knowledge Management. Function Knowledge brokers facilitate the transfer and exchange of knowledge from where it is abundant to where it is needed, thereby supporting co-development and improving the innovative capability of organizations in their network. In the field of public health, knowledge brokers facilitate the appropriate use of the best available research evidence in decision making processes, enhancing individual and organizational capacity to participate effectively in evidence-informed decision making. In this setting, knowledge brokers promote research use.Knowledge brokers are typically involved in the following activities below: Assessing barriers and establishing access to knowledge (i.e. screening and recognizing valuable knowledge across organizations and industries) Learning (e.g. internalizing experiences from a diverse range of perspectives including those of industry, technology or health disciplines) Linking of separate knowledge pools (e.g. through joint research, consulting services, and developing a mutual understanding of goals and cultures Supporting knowledge and skill development Facilitating individual/organizational capacity development for knowledge use (e.g., assessing current knowledge use, absorptive and receptive capacity, and readiness for change) Implementing knowledge in new settings (e.g. combining existing knowledge in new ways) Expertise Knowledge brokers provide a link between the producers and users of knowledge. To facilitate this knowledge exchange, knowledge brokers are required to build rapport with their target audiences and forge new connections across domains.Research into effective knowledge brokers, conducted by University of Oxford researchers, found that committed knowledge leadership is key to mobilizing research across organisational boundaries and embedding it in practice. In the longitudinal research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the study found three variations of knowledge leadership, of transposing, appropriating and contending academic research.A successful knowledge broker will possess: Expertise in synthesizing and adapting information for use in different local contexts A non-judgmental, respectful manner Excellent written and oral communication skills Strong interpersonal and networking skills An understanding of the context, processes, and key influencers of both the producers and users of knowledge Critical thinking skills Critical reflection abilities and practices Strategic planning skills and experience An understanding of (higher-)education principles and practicesKnowledge brokers possess a portfolio of intellectual capital or expertise typically spanning the "specialized jargon, knowledge, and form(s) of reasoning" of multiple disciplines. Assuming that expertise lends itself to interdisciplinary exchange, the adequacy of a knowledge broker's understanding of a field can also be understood in terms of their possession of varieties of intellectual autonomy concerning the field, as suggested by Nguyen (2018): Direct autonomy is "where we seek to understand arguments and reasons for ourselves." Delegational autonomy is "where we seek to find others to invest with our intellectual trust when we cannot understand." Management autonomy, is "where we seek to encapsulate fields, in order to manage their overall structure and connectivity."Nguyen (2018) responds to Elijah Millgram's The Great Endarkenment, where Millgram proposes between-field translation to reduce the internal and mutual incomprehensibility (i.e., for experts in a discipline, and between respective disciplines) of hyperspecialized disciplines. The goal of translation is intellectual transparency, or making clear the models, values, defeaters, and trade-offs of arguments in and between disciplines. Intellectual transparency is currently scarce due to both the above cited incomprehensibility problems, and the inevitability of mistakes (out of anyone's purview, due to resource constraints in personal and group knowledge management) accruing in "modern scientific practical arguments," draped across many fields" that are already individually difficult to keep tabs on. Nguyen argues that "intellectual transparency will help us achieve direct autonomy, but many intellectual circumstances require that we exercise delegational and management autonomy. However, these latter forms of autonomy require us to give up on transparency" (pp. 1). Examples of knowledge brokers Every individual or organization, which has access to knowledge from several, unconnected entities, can theoretically act as a knowledge broker. Certain types of organizations have been identified to be acting primarily as knowledge brokers: Dedicated knowledge brokers (i.e. ESADE Creapolis, IMCG Archived 2013-11-13 at the Wayback Machine and Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação) Venture capitalists Consulting firms Evidence-informed decision making support organizations (e.g., Health Evidence, which offers dedicated knowledge brokers to mentor or facilitate evidence-informed decision making in public health organizations, and the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, which has knowledge brokers facilitating a public health Community of Practice Climate change knowledge broker initiative A project funded by the Climate & Development Knowledge Network is aiming to integrate sources of climate change information and tailor data into relevant information products. Access to reliable information and data, and the ability to share lessons and experience, are considered key ingredients in tackling climate change, particularly within developing countries. However, although numerous websites, portals and online platforms have been set up to provide such information, the ‘knowledge infrastructure’ within the climate and development sector is still weak. The project aims to fill some of the gaps and provide bridges between isolated initiatives.A study by IISD investigated the value of knowledge brokers within the climate change sphere. Interviews and surveys were conducted with more than 200 online climate change information users to understand their needs, preferences and behaviours. The findings were published in the paper "A user-oriented analysis of online knowledge brokering platforms for climate change and development". This publication identifies potential areas for innovation in online knowledge brokering and highlights the need for taking climate knowledge brokering beyond its online functions. == References ==

2020s in climate history

2020s in climate history refers to major events pertaining to the climate, this includes extreme weather, as well as new scientific phenomena and occurrences which pertain to the climate. This article will be structured by category of data, and then chronologically within those broader sections. Overview of climate topics This section summarizes and delineates the scope of topics included under the broad heading of "climate." Natural events 2022 Europe United Kingdom The 2022 United Kingdom heat wave was a period of unusually hot weather across much of the United Kingdom, reaching its expected peak with a heat wave from 17 to 20 July that reached temperatures of 40 degrees in parts of England on 19 July. It is part of the wider 2022 European heat waves. The Met Office released the first heat health warnings in response to rising temperatures on 8 July. On 15 July, it declared a national emergency as the UK's first red extreme heat weather warning was put in place for much of central and southern England. The heat wave was unprecedented; the hottest temperature ever recorded in the UK was observed on 19 July 2022, exceeding 40 °C (104 °F) for the first time in British history and surpassing a previous record set in 2019.The heat wave caused substantial disruptions to transportation and sparked wildfires in some parts of the country. North America 2023 Europe Human activity The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, "COP26", was delayed for a year by the COVID-19 pandemic; it led to the Glasgow Climate Pact. Participating countries were expected to increase their pledged action towards climate change mitigation, as part of the conference's five-year 'ratchet mechanism'. China pledged to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2060, and India by 2070. Countries that include 85% of the world's forests pledged to end deforestation by 2030. However, fossil fuel industry representatives formed the largest bloc at the conference, and India and China secured the change of a coal phase-out pledge to a "phasing down" of coal. Protests against the conference were the largest in the UK since the protests against the Iraq War, with criticisms of the pledges lacking accountability and not sufficiently or urgently addressing the climate crisis. == References ==

how to blow up a pipeline (film)

How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a 2022 American action-thriller film directed by Daniel Goldhaber, who co-wrote the screenplay with Ariela Barer and Jordan Sjol. It relies on ideas advanced in Andreas Malm's 2021 book of the same name, published by Verso Books. Malm's nonfiction work examines the history of social justice movements and argues for property destruction as a valid tactic in the pursuit of environmental justice. The film stars Barer, Kristine Froseth, Lukas Gage, Forrest Goodluck, Sasha Lane, Jayme Lawson, Marcus Scribner, Jake Weary and Irene Bedard. Set primarily in West Texas, the film follows a fictional group of eight young individuals who decide to blow up an oil pipeline at two key locations. It explores the moral validity of extreme actions in addressing the climate crisis, the question of terrorism, and the use of property damage and sabotage as activist tactics. The production of the film spanned 19 months, from conception to completion, with principal photography taking place in New Mexico. The film premiered on September 10, 2022, at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival and was released in the United States on April 7, 2023. Receiving generally favorable reviews from critics, How to Blow Up a Pipeline was praised for its eco-thriller premise, its exploration of moral and psychological challenges, and the complexity of its antiheroes. However, a few critics expressed concerns regarding the perceived promotion of terrorism and violence in the film's narrative. Plot A young woman, Xochitl, cuts the tires of an SUV and leaves a bright yellow one-page manifesto on the window. In Long Beach, California, Xochitl and her friend Theo witness the devastating effects of climate change. Xochitl's mother dies during a heat wave in a city plagued by pollution from oil refineries. Frustrated by the slow progress of their campus divestment campaign, Xochitl expresses a desire for more radical environmental action. Theo is diagnosed with terminal cancer caused by the pollution, adding a sense of urgency to their cause. Theo and Xochitl convince Theo's skeptical girlfriend, Alisha, and a number of other individuals, to plot an act of environmental terrorism. Shawn, a film student who met Xochitl through the divestment movement, introduces the group to Dwayne, a blue-collar Texan with deep resentment towards an oil company that used eminent domain laws to seize his family's ancestral land, depriving him and his pregnant wife of their home. The team also recruits Michael, a Native American self-taught explosives expert from a North Dakota reservation. Completing the group are Rowan and Logan, an adventurous young couple drawn to the cause. United by their shared belief that non-disruptive action is insufficient, the group devises a plan to strategically detonate homemade explosives along an unguarded section of a recently constructed oil pipeline in West Texas. The pipeline is partially built on Dwayne's land; his intimate knowledge of the targeted area helps the group plan the attack. They hope that the destruction of the segment will force the company to shut down its Texas operations for a period of time, causing crude oil prices worldwide to spike due to their indexing to West Texas crude. The group gathers at a remote cabin, where they begin manufacturing explosives and digging up a section of the pipeline. While executing their plan, the group encounters several setbacks and challenges. Members of the crew are distracted by alcohol, Michael accidentally detonates a primer charge during preparation, a surveillance drone monitors their activities, and Alisha fractures her leg when a barrel of explosives falls on her. Rowan and Logan, entrusted to prevent local pollution by shutting off the pipeline flow, find themselves unexpectedly confronted by armed company property inspectors. Logan successfully distracts them while Rowan completes the task. In the process, he sustains a gunshot wound. Despite these challenges, the group successfully blows up the pipeline. Xochitl broadcasts a triumphant message on Instagram calling others to action. Following the explosion, the group scatters and Rowan tends to Logan's injuries, removing bullet fragments from his shoulder. She then discreetly meets with two FBI agents. Xochitl knowingly included Rowan, an FBI informant, in their plan, enabling them to outwit federal and local police by convincing them that only Theo and Xochitl were involved in the sabotage. Rowan secures her freedom (having previously faced legal consequences following her involvement in a similar incident) and receives a substantial reward for her information. Michael, Alisha, Shawn, and Dwayne quickly establish alibis placing them away from the scene. The police find the cabin where the group had manufactured the explosives just moments after Theo and Xochitl detonate a final bomb inside. The duo peacefully surrenders as planned. Theo and Xochitl are sentenced to lengthy prison terms, though Theo dies shortly afterwards. While the other group members remain free, family members suspect their involvement, federal agents monitor their actions, and they reflect on their decisions. Finally, another act of sabotage is shown. Inspired by the West Texas group, a trio of masked individuals plant a bomb in a Miami yacht, leaving behind the same manifesto seen earlier. Cast Ariela Barer as Xochitl Kristine Froseth as Rowan Lukas Gage as Logan Forrest Goodluck as Michael Sasha Lane as Theo Jayme Lawson as Alisha Marcus Scribner as Shawn Jake Weary as Dwayne Irene Bedard as Joanna Production According to director and producer Daniel Goldhaber, the production of the film spanned 19 months, from conception to completion and premiere. Goldhaber worked alongside a team of seven credited producers. The accelerated timeline was motivated by the urgency of the political conversation surrounding climate change, with the need for immediate action being a key factor. The filmmakers aimed to contribute to the cultural dialogue and believed that a swift production would align with the film's themes and purpose. Additionally, industry timing considerations, such as the opportunity to showcase the film at the Toronto International Film Festival, influenced the decision to complete the project within a short timeframe. The film has been described as small-budget.Published in January 2021, Andreas Malm's work of nonfiction, How to Blow Up a Pipeline, published by Verso Books, deeply influenced Goldhaber, who was grappling with a sense of creative and political helplessness. Joined by Jordan Sjol, Goldhaber partnered with Ariela Barer to co-write the screenplay following her abandonment of another project. The film wholeheartedly embraces the book's central argument, positing that the pressing climate crisis warrants sabotage as a legitimate means of self-defense against the activities of powerful energy entities. The trio completed the script within four months, after two months of research. The filmmakers conducted extensive interviews with climate activists and pipeline experts, incorporating their experiences into the creation of characters like Theo, who was influenced by a friend's leukemia diagnosis attributed to living near a chemical plant. They were also inspired by real-life cases, such as Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya's imprisonment for vandalizing the Dakota Access Pipeline. Casting meetings commenced before the script was finalized. Despite initial challenges in securing financial backing, Goldhaber and Barer successfully obtained support from a financier acquainted with Goldhaber during the Cannes Film Festival. The film was produced and financed by Lyrical Media and Spacemaker Prods., in collaboration with the production company Chrono.Filming spanned 22 days, primarily in New Mexico, with a key sequence filmed in North Dakota on the reservation where actor Forest Goodluck's family lived. Additional scenes were shot in California. The filmmakers opted for 16 mm film to capture the desired quality in daylight exterior scenes, and to give the footage a more cinematic feel. The shooting ratio averaged around 21 or 22 to one.The team collaborated with a government contractor specializing in counterterrorism for realistic depictions of bomb-making scenes, while certain steps were omitted for dramatic purposes. The film's explosion sequence combined practical effects with CGI augmentation. A 150-foot mock-up structure made of industrial cardboard and wood was detonated to create the desired explosive and fire effects. Post-production involved six months of editing.Composer Gavin Brivik flew to the film set to capture music samples, including banging on oil drums in the desert. These sounds became the foundation for the film's opening track. Brivik drew inspiration from early Michael Mann films and musique concrète. The score blends raw oil drum recordings with distorted synths, mirroring the gritty cinematography. Brivik considers the film's score to be one of the most challenging he has ever written. Release The film had its world premiere on September 10, 2022, at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, where it was showcased in the Platform Prize program and received critical acclaim. Shortly after the premiere, Neon acquired the distribution rights for North America, with plans for a theatrical release, through negotiations facilitated by CAA Media Finance. Leading up to its debut at the American Film Market in November 2022, Charades, a French distributor, finalized several distribution agreements for the film. The company then successfully sold the rights to multiple territories, including France (Tandem), the United Kingdom (Vertigo Releasing), German-speaking Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and Germany (Plaion), Benelux (The Searchers), Turkey (Fabula), and Latin America (Impacto). The film made its release in the United States on April 7, 2023, and in the United Kingdom and Ireland on April 21. Box office How to Blow Up a Pipeline grossed $750,010 in the United States with an additional $174,042 in other territories for a total of $924,052 worldwide.During its domestic theatrical run, How to Blow Up a Pipeline was shown in theaters for 107 days, equivalent to 15 weeks. At its peak, the film was screened in 530 theaters during the week of April 21, 2023. In its opening week, the film made $153,475 across 12 theaters, achieving a per-theater average of $12,789. During its widest release, the per-theater average dropped to $482.Internationally, the film grossed $23,955 in Norway, where it reached its peak presence in 52 theaters and ran for 8 weeks. In Turkey, it earned $1,863, with a peak presence in 3 theaters and a run time of 3 weeks. In the United Kingdom, the film grossed $106,520, with a peak presence in 144 theaters and a run time of 13 weeks. Reception Critical response On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 94% based on 159 critic reviews, with an average rating of 7.8/10. The site's critics consensus reads, "An explosive adaptation of Andreas Malm's treatise, How to Blow Up a Pipeline delivers a high-stakes eco-thriller ignited by riveting and complex antiheroes." Metacritic assigned the film a score of 76 out of 100 based on 29 reviews indicating "generally favorable reviews".TheWrap lauded Goldhaber's directorial approach, likening it to Steven Soderbergh's style, and praised the ensemble cast and the film's ability to ignite a sense of urgency in activism. Vulture characterized the film as unapologetically confrontational, wearing its intentions boldly and employing an authentic approach, while Variety commended the film but acknowledged that it may face criticism from climate change deniers.In a review for The New York Times, Peter C. Baker called the film a "cultural landmark" for its uniquely sympathetic portrayal of eco-terrorism. In another review for the newspaper, Ben Kenigsberg wrote that the film had "a degree of suspense and efficiency that are becoming all too rare in the mainstream." However, he criticized it for packaging itself as having a deeper message while avoiding grappling with the characters' ideologies. He also questioned the placement of flashbacks, which he noted seem to serve primarily as plot twists.In his review for RogerEbert.com, Matt Zoller Seitz gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, praising it as "one of the most original American thrillers in years." Seitz commended the film for its thought-provoking nature and its exploration of the moral and psychological challenges faced by individuals involved in underground activist movements. He highlighted the film's ability to connect various systemic problems and lauded its approach to shedding light on these issues. He also commended the performances of the cast, particularly Jayme Lawson and Forrest Goodluck. In another review for RogerEbert.com, film critic Brian Tallerico praised How to Blow Up a Pipeline as a unique and intense film that breaks away from the polished mainstream. He highlighted the personal passion of director Daniel Goldhaber, and noted that the film effectively transforms the concept of climate change into a thrilling heist narrative, which he believed would resonate with younger viewers.The Washington City Paper noted that the film is not an instruction manual but "a way to illuminate genuine moral objections", and described its cast as "a much more intense, combustible version of The Breakfast Club." A pair of reviews by Wendy Ide in The Observer and Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian each gave the film four out of five stars; Ide wrote that the film functions as both a "nervy thriller" and "a lightning rod for the mounting anger of climate-conscious audiences", while Bradshaw praised it as a "fiercely watchable thriller" and drew comparisons with Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. He also noted the film's departure from traditional heist films, where the pipeline destroyers are portrayed as the "good guys," which he found to be an intriguing genre twist. Clarisse Loughrey of The Independent gave the film 4 out of 5 stars and called it a "radical Marxist thriller that speaks to a generation’s anger."Some writers and critics, including Jesse Kline of The National Post, offered less favorable reviews of the film and its underlying message. Kline specifically criticized the film's perceived attempt to normalize terrorism. He questioned the positive reception given by critics and raised the potential controversy if a similar approach were applied to justifying the actions of Islamist terrorists in a film titled "How to Fly Planes Into a Building." While acknowledging the film's entertainment value in terms of its plot and tension, Kline critiqued its heavy emphasis on what he calls "environmental propaganda" and its promotion of a morally objectionable message that supports vigilante violence and the destruction of private property in the name of the collective good. In his review for National Review, Armond White also criticized the film for promoting violence and terrorism under the guise of "diversity of tactics," viewing it as a cold-blooded portrayal rather than a cautionary tale. White argued that the generally positive reception to the film reflected a self-hatred within Western media.Author Andreas Malm, whose book inspired the film, stated that the film would be able to reach a broader audience than his work, and hoped it would begin a conversation, rather than directly inspiring imitations of the film's plot. Concerns raised by authorities The film raised concerns among federal and provincial agencies in North America, fearing it may inspire climate activists to resort to sabotage. A "Take Action" section on the film's official website includes a detailed map of pipeline locations in the United States and Canada. Upon the film's release in the United States, 23 federal and state entities issued a total of 35 warnings. FBI documents obtained by Rolling Stone revealed concerns about the potential for the film to inspire terrorist attacks on energy targets. The alerts mentioned the possibility of attacks or disruptions on critical infrastructure, leading to increased security measures. Law enforcement agencies were advised to monitor individuals attempting to access facilities for photography or video recording. The Alberta Energy Regulator warned that the film should not be taken lightly, urging increased surveillance and security measures by pipeline operators and licensees. The RCMP acknowledged the film's concerning subject in an email with The Globe and Mail, but noted that they determined enforcement actions based on evidence and intelligence. Themes The film supports the book's argument that the climate threat justifies sabotage as self-defense against powerful energy interests. Through the protagonists' perspective, the film raises questions about the validity of extreme actions in addressing the urgent climate crisis, as well as the label of terrorism. The film also explores the theme of property damage and sabotage as legitimate activist tactics, particularly in the context of climate change and the destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. The film challenges the narrative of individual responsibility for climate change and instead focuses on the systemic nature of the issue.The film's setting in West Texas serves as a symbolic reference to Westerns and their depiction of wide-open Americana. By incorporating Western tropes and themes, such as heists and the concept of outsiders reclaiming agency, the movie connects itself to a narrative of resistance in American culture. The film also seeks to represent diverse voices and communities affected by the climate change crisis, highlighting the need for broad access points and different tactics in addressing the issue. It also touches on topics such as the health consequences of living in a toxic environment, property rights violations, indigenous land rights, and the impact of disruptive actions on ordinary citizens.Peter C. Baker of The New York Times highlighted the film's examination of uncertainty and the question of how future generations will judge present actions. He noted the sympathetic treatment of the protagonists and the deliberate creation of a historical feel. Baker underscored the film's emphasis on the moral stakes of decision-making and the unpredictable nature of the future. See also List of environmental films Eco-terrorism in fiction Climate fiction References External links Official website How to Blow Up a Pipeline at IMDb How to Blow Up a Pipeline at Rotten Tomatoes How to Blow Up a Pipeline at Metacritic How to Blow Up a Pipeline at Box Office Mojo

nik family of kelantan

The Nik Family refers to the people who have the Nik (Jawi: نىٔ‎) title in front of their names in Malaysia. The Nik family largely originated from the state of Kelantan, which is located on the east coast of the Malaysian Peninsula. As Nik is part of the Malay Title by inheritance, it is customary for the title to be passed on to the children of a father who has the Nik title. Rarely, the title is also passed on from a mother having the Nik title. According to the history of Kelantan, the first recognised Sultan of Kelantan, Sultan Muhammad I, was also known as Nik Muhammadiah. The first king of Reman in Upper Pattani and Upper Perak was also known as Tok Nik Leh. According to Ustaz Abdullah Nakula, a well-known writer in Kelantan, the Niks in Kelantan, Pattani (now part of southern Thailand) are believed to be the offspring of Nik Ali, who was an important official under the rulers of Pattani. Nik Ali was also known as Fakih Ali Malbari (Fakih meaning islamic jurist) and studied Islam in India. Also it is customary in Kelantan and Pattani that when a princess marries a common man, their children will bear the Nik title. Notable members of the Nik family Nik Abdul Aziz bin Nik Mat, former Menteri Besar of Kelantan. Nik Ahmad Kamil bin Nik Mahmud, former Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat Nik Abduh bin Nik Abdul Aziz, son of Nik Abduk Aziz and Member of Parliamentary seat of Pasir Mas. Nik Umar bin Nik Abdul Aziz, son od Nik Abdul Aziz and chairman of Islamic Da'wah Foundation Malaysia (Malay:Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia) YADIM. Nik Hashim bin Nik Abdul Rahman, Federal Court of Malaysia judge Nik Abdul Rashid bin Nik Abdul Majid, former Director of Institute Teknologi MARA (ITM) Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad, Member of Dewan Rakyat for Setiawangsa, Minister of Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change Nik Ramlah binti Nik Mahmood, managing director of the Securities Commission Nik Zainiah binti Nik Abd. Rahman, director general of the Malaysia Productivity Corporation. Nik Mustapha bin Raja Abdullah, vice-chancellor of Universiti Putra Malaysia Nik Abdul Rashid @ Nik Idris bin Nik Ismail (deceased), Independent Non-Executive Director/Chairman of Kosmo Technology Industrial Berhad. Former Head of Faculty of Business Department Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). former deputy vice-chancellor (UKM), co-chairman of Besta Distributors Sdn Bhd. Nik Anuar bin Nik Mahmud, former Professor of History at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Nik Safiah binti Nik Abdul Karim, Educationist and champions for women development and rights. Nik Muhammad Farith Adruce bin Nik Adelin, TV host and actor Nik Ahmad Fadly bin Nik Leh, footballer Nik Zul Aziz bin Nik Nawawi, footballer Nik Mohd Shahrul Azim bin Nik Abdul Halim, footballer Nik Esah binti Nik Ahmed Kamil, compiler of the book Nik's Kitchen, special menus of the Kelantan cuisine. Nik Saiful Adli bin Burhan @ Jaohari, Chairman of Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) Negeri Kelantan, Asst Secretary of Higher Education Committee of Majlis Belia Malaysia, The Chairman & Founder of Himpunan Siswazah Kelantan UiTM & Penolong Pengarah BTN Jabatan Perdana Menteri Nik Faizah binti Mustapha, Ketua Pergerakan Pandu Puteri Malaysia Nik Elin Zurina binti Nik Abdul Rashid, Lawyer and human rights activist. Also the daughter of Dato' Nik Abdul Rashid bin Nik Abdul Majid Dr. Nik Muhammad Hanis, Phd of Education, Education Consultant Nik Fadzli Nik Saleh Raja Ahmad, Founder Asakelate Foundation Nik Zulashraf Aizad, crypto currency investor Nik Mohammad Izzul Azfar, Founder Cakna Kewangan Nik Ahmad Kamal Nik Hashim (PokNik), Dropship Expert Nik Iman Salahudin Nik Nur Madihah Nik Mohd Kamal, greatest students which scored 19 A1 in 2008 SPM. Nik Aliff Qisthi Ahmad Qazzafi, Malaysian Youth Professor Emeritus Dato Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Bin Nik Abdul Rahman,merupakan pakar arkeologi dari UKM dan Timbalan Pengarah Akademi Tamadun Melayu (Atma),Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia(UKM). Nik Muhammad Hazim bin Nik Mohamed Hazmi, Chairman of Pertubuhan Kebajikan Nasionalis Insan Jalinan Akrab Malaysia (Ninja Society Malaysia). Nik Muhammad Muzakkir Bin Nik Mat, Seafarer. Nik Muhammad Mustaqim Bin Nik Zaidi, Mechanical Engineering student in University of Liverpool, UK. References External links Official website of the Kelantan state government Archived 2011-04-14 at the Wayback Machine

michael schlesinger

Dr. Michael Earl Schlesinger (February 23, 1943 – April 11, 2018) was a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and director of the Climate Research Group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his Ph.D. (meteorology) in 1976 from the University of California, Los Angeles. Michael Schlesinger was an expert in the modeling, simulation and analysis of climate and climate change, with interests in simulating and understanding the climates of the geologic past and possible future climates resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and human-made aerosols. He was instrumental in developing a range of simple and complex climate models, which have been used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Energy Modeling Forum. His research focused on: (1) simulating and understanding the effects on climate of a human-induced melting of the Greenland ice sheet; (2) simulating and understanding the coupled climate-chemistry system, including the influences of the Sun – both irradiance and energetic electron precipitation – and volcanoes; (3) understanding and reducing the uncertainty in the estimation of climate sensitivity and climate feedbacks; and (4) performing integrative assessment of climate change, including further development of the robust adaptive decision strategy for mitigating and adapting to human-induced climate change. He is known for his work on oscillations in the global climate system, on estimating the climate sensitivity, and on seasonal climate change.He edited four books, most recently Human-induced climate change: An interdisciplinary assessment. He regularly appeared in the media. References External links Home page Google Scholar

arctic resources race

The Arctic resources race is the competition between global entities for newly available natural resources of the Arctic. Under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, five nations have the legal right to exploit the Arctic's natural resources within their exclusive economic zones: Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and the United States (though the U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty, it considers the treaty to be customary international law and abides by it). In the early 21st century, controversies about the Arctic region and its resources created greater potential for conflicts between nations that have long had conflicting territorial claims and differing opinions of how to manage the area. The Arctic region is also home to an estimated 400,000 indigenous people. If the ice continues to melt at the current rate, then these indigenous people are at risk of being displaced. The acceleration of ice depletion will contribute to climate change as a whole: melting ice releases methane, ice reflects incoming solar radiation, and without it will cause the ocean to absorb more radiation (albedo effect), heating up the water causing more ocean acidification, and melting ice will cause a rise in sea level. Background The Arctic consists of multiple sub-regions: Russian Arctic, Canadian Arctic, Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat), Northern Alaska (USA), Svalbard (Norway), Iceland, Fennoscandia. In addition to these sub-regions, the Arctic Ocean and its multiple seas—Greenland Sea, Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea, Chuckchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, etc.-- make the arctic a vast region with a variety of natural resources. Resources Oil and gas The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that undiscovered oil and gas reserves in the Arctic amount to 22% of the world's total, about 412 billion barrels of oil. A Brookings Institution summary reported: By the mid to late 2000s, interest in offshore hydrocarbons had surged owing to receding sea ice making more of the region accessible, rising global energy demand, U.S. Government estimates of large undiscovered oil and gas reserves throughout the Arctic, and a more politically stable investment climate relative to other global regions with large hydrocarbon resources. These factors have spurred the Arctic coastal states to support offshore oil and gas development... The first offshore oil platform in the Arctic was Prirazlomnaya in the Pechora Sea off Russia, operated by the Russian company Gazprom; it began production in late 2013. Russia jailed 30 Greenpeace activists protesting the platform and seized their ship. The largest Arctic platform in the Arctic is Goliat in the Barents Sea off Norway, co-owned by Eni Norge AS and Statoil; it began production in 2015. Royal Dutch Shell had $7 billion project to extract oil from the Chukchi Sea off Alaska, Polar Pioneer, but abandoned the project in 2015 after determining that it was "not sufficient to warrant further exploration". Contributing to these decision was the record-low price of oil and the high operating costs of operating in a remote region with extreme weather.Arctic oil production is costly; in October 2015, the break-even point (price required to cover the cost of production) of known but undeveloped Arctic oil reservoirs was $78.6 per barrel; this was more expensive to produce than all other forms of oil except for oil sands. Minerals The Arctic has vast deposits of economically valuable mineral resources. Significant deposits of phosphate, bauxite, diamonds, iron ore, and gold are located in the Arctic region. Deposits of silver, copper, and zinc also exist in the Arctic. Resource extraction is extremely difficult, however.In Greenland, retreating ice caps revealed deposits of rare-earth metals and other minerals, sparking a race between Europe and China over access to this resource. While in 2012 Greenland had only one operating mine, more than a hundred new sites were being planned. The Barentsburg coal mine on the Norwegian island of Svalbard is open, but has operated at a loss for many years. Fish Emerging fisheries are another resource in the Arctic. Many marine species have traditional cultural value to Alaska Natives; these marine species are being threatened by climate change.In 2015, the five nations with waters adjacent to the central Arctic High Seas agreed upon "interim measures on control of commercial fishing" in the central Arctic High Seas. A December 2015 meeting of these states, plus an additional five cooperating nations, "reaffirmed that, although commercial fishing in the high seas area of the central Arctic Ocean appears unlikely to occur in the near future, the state of currently available scientific information needs to be improved in order to reduce the substantial uncertainties associated with Arctic fish stocks." In April 2016, representatives of the nations again met to negotiate and discuss commercial fishing in the Arctic high seas. Bioprospecting By 2009, more than 40 companies were engaging in bioprospecting in the Arctic. Trade routes Trade routes in the Arctic are debatably one of the most valuable resources. Currently, three shipping passage are in operation: the Northeast Passage (NEP), the Northwest Passage (NWP), and the Transpolar Passage (TPP). While these passages are currently in use, other passages that previously were inaccessible are now becoming accessible due to climate change and sea ice melting. The Arctic Ocean fosters shorter trade routes between 80 percent of the most industrialized nations. The consequences of these shorter trade routes are less fuel consumption, less carbon emissions and faster transportation of goods. Undiscovered resources The U.S. Geological Survey conducted research on the undiscovered resources north of the Arctic Circle. The research revealed that a least 50 million barrels of natural gas and oil have accumulation underneath the arctic seabed. Tourism Some cruise ships offer visits to the Arctic Ocean. Stakeholders Under UNCLOS, five nations have exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the Arctic region. These nations have the legal right to exploit the resources within their EEZs. Russia In August 2007, in an "openly choreographed publicity stunt" extensively covered by Russian state-controlled television, two Russian submersibles in the Arktika 2007 expedition planted a Russian flag on the sea bottom at the North Pole, in a bid to symbolically bolster Russia's disputed claim to "nearly half of the floor of the Arctic Ocean and potential oil or other resources there". However, no other Arctic nations recognized this stunt as having legal significance. In 1915, Russia became the first nation to drill in the Arctic and has continued to drill in the region since. Since oil and natural gas account for a large portion of Russia's federal budget revenue and exports, Russia has been very interested in extracting these resources from the region. Russia's share of the oil reserves in the Arctic Ocean has been estimated to account for half of the undiscovered oil in the region. Furthermore, 20% of Russia's GDP is generated in the Arctic. Russia has also significantly increased its military presence in the Arctic region, creating tension amongst nations. Russia currently (when?) has 40 icebreakers, making it the world leader in icebreakers. Canada On December 20, 2016, U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a joint statement indefinitely banning drilling in the Arctic, which will be reviewed every five years based on a climate and marine science life-cycle assessment. This ban encompasses most of the U.S. waters and all of the Canadian waters in the Arctic.Canada has a fleet of 15 icebreakers. The Kingdom of Denmark The Kingdom of Denmark has expressed interest in resource exploitation, but has stressed the need to do so in a manner that respects the Arctic's nature and environment. In its Arctic strategy report, Denmark acknowledged the importance of practicing the "highest international standards of safety, health, environment, preparedness and response" when extracting resources in the region. The report also included the nation's intent to "seize the many opportunities in the Arctic to create more growth and development" and acknowledged that it needed to realize the region's economic potential.Denmark has four icebreakers. Norway Norway has a history of Arctic drilling, and continues to express interest in it. Drilling in the Norwegian Continental Shelf began in 1966 and has continued to be a huge part of Norway's economic growth. Over the years since drilling began in the region, the industry has created values in excess of NOK 12,000 billion, and in 2012 alone, the petroleum sector accounted for 23 percent of value creation in the country. A BP report declared Norway to be the seventh largest natural gas producer in the world in 2015. It has also been projected that Norwegian gas production will increase substantially in the near future. Norway has also taken advantage of the Arctic tourism opportunities that have just recently been made possible. There are currently many Arctic cruise options to choose from, including one to the North Pole.Norway has two icebreakers. United States In November 2016, citing the need for environmental protection, the U.S. Department of the Interior instituted a ban on drilling in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea of the Arctic between 2017 and 2022. One month later, in a joint statement with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama used his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 to extend the protections permanently.It is unclear where the U.S. stands on Arctic resource exploitation under the administration of Donald Trump, who took office in January 2017. During his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly denied climate change, called for an energy policy focused on fossil fuels, and pledged to repeal environmental regulations. In April 2017, it was reported that Trump was preparing an order to reverse the U.S.'s Arctic drilling ban. It is not entirely clear whether Trump has the authority to unilaterally withdrawal the outer continental shelf protection; most legal experts believe that the protection may only be withdrawn by an act of Congress. Adding to the uncertainty of this issue is the fact that under this new administration, U.S. Secretary of State and former CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, was on the U.S. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.The United States currently has two icebreakers. Indigenous people There are approximately 4 million people living in the Arctic, 10% of which are indigenous peoples. Indigenous people have permanent representation in the Arctic Council. Although most indigenous communities fear resource exploitation will lead to negative environmental impacts that will negatively affect their well-being, some see it as an important economic opportunity for those who are struggling to adapt to changes in the regional climate. Other nations As the Arctic's many resources become more available for exploitation, other nations with no legal exploitation rights are trying to stake a claim in the resource race. Many have argued that the Arctic region is a "global commons" and cannot be governed by a few countries. Particularly, non-Arctic nations are concerned with the effects that changes in the Arctic climate will have on global climate change. In terms of environmental degradation, the negative effects of resource extraction in the Arctic region are not limited to the borders of the countries in which they originated. For example, melting polar ice caps contribute to sea level rise, which threaten coastal regions and low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Netherlands. The climatic changes in the Arctic region have significant impacts on the rest of the world, as "northern ecosystems are increasingly linked to the rest of the globe through myriad physical, biological, cultural, and economic ties."China has argued for governance rights in the region, arguing that it is a "near Arctic" country and is affected by the climate effects of the region. China was granted observer status in the Arctic Council in 2013. In 2016, China indicated that it planned to ship cargo through the Northwest Passage, setting up a conflict with Canada, which asserts sovereignty over the area.In addition to China, 11 other non-Arctic nations have observer status in the Arctic Council: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and India. Impacts on indigenous communities Accelerated climate change in the Arctic- as a direct result from resource exploitation and increased anthropogenic activity in the region- will drastically alter the livelihoods of indigenous people in this Arctic. Indigenous people depend heavily on the natural environment for necessities such as hunting, harvesting, fishing, and herding. Melting sea ice and extreme weather patterns threaten the animals that survive off the established conditions and thus threaten the people that depend on such animals for food. Changes in this natural environment will have impacts on their economy, society, culture and health. Indigenous people have listed contaminants, land use, climate, security and access as their main points of concerns.Historically, many indigenous communities believe that their "land has been expropriated and resources exploited without due regard to indigenous peoples". However, indigenous people have recently had their political organizations recognized by international communities and the human rights of indigenous people have solidified in those communities as well. Alaska In 2003 it was identified by the Army Corps of Engineers that four Alaskan villages would need to relocate because of risk of flooding and erosion. More villages have been added to that list from the time frame between 2003 and 2016. One of these villages, Shishmaref, number 650 people and they are at risk of becoming the first American community climate refugees. However, relocation is proving difficult because there is no governmental institutional framework that exists for the aid of climate refugees in the United States. the Obama administration promised to fund $50.4 billion to help with relocation efforts in 2016. Sami people The Sami people live primarily in north Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Russia and have survived for generations fishing and hunting. The changes in climate has caused unpredictable conditions in the ice, which the Sami people have come to rely on and predict so that they and their herds can move across it. In one instance, 300 of their reindeer sank in the ice and drowned. Land grabs by the Swedish government are also prevalent and lacks in communication between them and the Sami people. Displacement Increased anthropogenic activity in the Arctic region, attributed to the resource race, has contributed to the threat of indigenous displacement: as the climate changes in the region, local animals’ normal patterns are disrupted, affecting the communities’ food supplies; melting permafrost and erosion has damaged local infrastructure, including homes, buildings, sewage systems, etc.; unstable and unpredictable ice patterns have affected mobility vital for transportation, hunting, travel, and communication. Furthermore, the changes and variability in the climate have left indigenous communities who rely on traditional knowledge vulnerable and essentially "strip arctic residents of their considerable knowledge, predictive ability, and self-confidence in making a living from their resources." Environmental degradation It has been argued that Arctic trade routes will decrease global greenhouse gas emissions from shipping because these routes would be much shorter than the current routes. However, it is important to note that increased shipping in the region will contribute to Arctic environmental degradation and will severely impact indigenous communities. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Potential impacts from shipping include: the release of oil through accidental or illegal discharge, ship strikes on marine mammals, the introduction of alien species, disruption of migratory patterns of marine mammals, increased anthropogenic noise and increased atmospheric emissions.” Additionally, marine vessels are a large source of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, which impact local air quality and human health.Offshore drilling in the Arctic also poses huge threats to the regional ecosystem and indigenous communities. Pollution from the offshore drilling industry can damage marine animals and disrupt their migratory patterns, destroy flora and fauna, and interfere with subsistence lifestyles of indigenous communities. There have already been several cases in which it was determined that anthropogenic activity in the Arctic region resulted in environmental damage. In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined Shell $1.1 million for air quality violations on several offshore drilling vessels in the Arctic. Economic implications While some indigenous communities believe that the resource race will provide economic opportunity, others are skeptical of how much it will actually benefit them economically. In the past, economic benefits of resource extraction in the Arctic has created revenue for governments and private entities, while relatively little if any of its wealth was directly returned to improve the economic and social well-being of the local people in the regions where extraction occurred. Food security The changing climate in the Arctic is affecting food security in indigenous communities. When the ice is unsuitable to travel on, it is impossible to hunt for food. Additionally, food security is vulnerable to climate change because the food supply consists of local species that are themselves sensitive to climatic changes. There is also concern over the toxins found in local species and the risk of oil contamination in indigenous communities' food supplies. Climate change and the Arctic Climate change has a worldwide effect, but many studies show that warmer trends are more intense in higher latitudes. Since the Arctic resides in a higher latitude, its communities are more vulnerable. Thus far, average temperatures have risen almost twice as fast as in the rest of the world. Records show changes in various parts of the biophysical environment of the Arctic, such as sea-ice extent, area of permafrost and depth, river hydrology, geophysical processes, and the distribution of marine and terrestrial species of the Arctic. The warming of the earth's atmosphere and surface is mainly attributed to the greenhouse effect. The gases that have a role in the greenhouse effect are mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Even though carbon dioxide is the abundant greenhouse gas, these other gases actually absorb radiation more efficiently and persist in the atmosphere longer than carbon dioxide, so their warming effects increase with time.Climate change is making Arctic resources more accessible. For example, in Denmark the retreating of the ice caps has exposed mineral deposits, such as rare-earth metals, that can be extracted and used for technologies like cell phones or military guidance systems. Another effect of climate change on the Arctic will include the creation of new trade waterways through the north, further exploiting the area. Changes in the Arctic will affect resource competition and conflict in the upcoming years.Changes in the Arctic will have worldwide impacts. The Arctic basin is an ice-covered ocean that has strong feedback effects on many parts of the climate system. Since the arctic regulates heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere, the sea ice decline is expected to affect atmospheric circulation and weather patterns. Other effects can also include diminished rainfall in many parts of the world, leading to desertification in many areas and a decline in their ability to sustain agriculture. These changes indirectly create more conflict in water scarcity and will increase migration of communities. More direct effects of the degradation of the Arctic include significant rise in global sea levels, which will displace low coastal areas around the world and result in loss of agricultural lands. See also Save the Arctic Arctic sanctuary == References ==