Environmental Defense Fund’s Post

This article opens with, "To preserve a 'livable planet,' the Earth can’t warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations warns." As with all reasonable folks, I am concerned about possible anthropogenic harm to the environment. As a Professional Engineer, I also have an ethical obligation to avoid or, if necessary, minimize such harm. Thus, it is important to understand the science and the data underlying what MAY BE happening due to out large and growing global human population and our growing industrial culture. Essential to undertaking the clearly needed ORDERLY transition to globally abundant sustainable energy is adopting scientifically sound foundational assumptions to guide energy and environmental policies, regulations, laws, and treaties. Having been examining the world's need for this transition since 2007, it is clear to me that properly founded assumptions, with respect to possible anthropogenic environmental harms, are very important to set this transition on a path to success. However, a responsible part of establishing these foundational assumptions is evaluating and, when appropriate, dismissing environmental concerns based on faulty scientific data and/or assumptions. This article focuses on the "warming" data used to justify some alarmist claims by the UN and other environmental protection advocates. "Environmental alarmism"—as a means of promoting oneself, one's organization, or one's political goals—has become the social media-driven replacement for cool-headed scientific inquiry and reasoned debate. Much of this alarmism flows from the "wealth" to be obtained by espousing an alarmist position in order to obtain personal financial reward, grant funding, prestige, name awareness, and/or political power. For example, in a recent post, I pointed out a flaw in a social media post implying that humans were causing climate change as if, as I mentioned, natural climate change ended when the steam engine was invented in 1712. Such a claim is an example of unwarranted, IMO, climate alarmism. Has our growing use of fossil carbon fuels caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level? Yes. Scientific measurements of the CO2 parts per million (PPM) level as well as studies of the shifting proportion of Carbon isotope 13 compared to Carbon isotope 12 due to the combustion of these fuels confirm this, IMO. Is the natural "greenhouse" effect driven by atmospheric gases real? Yes, IMO. Does the atmospheric CO2 level, without scientific equivocation, absolutely drive the Earth's global average temperature? No, IMO. For example, the Antartica ice core data going back 800,000 years, shows prolonged periods of thousands of years where the Antartica temperature (presumably a placeholder for the global average temperature) steadily cooled into an ice age EVEN as the CO2 level held constant. IMO, still poorly understood natural climate forcing functions are at work. #climatechange #globalwarming

"... The consequences for climate targets are stark. Even a modest weakening of nature’s ability to absorb carbon would mean the world would have to make much deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to achieve net zero. The weakening of land sinks – which has so far been regional – also has the effect of cancelling out nations’ progress on decarbonisation and progress towards climate goals, something that is proving a struggle for many countries. In Australia, huge soil carbon losses from extreme heat and drought in the vast interior – known as rangelands – are likely to push its climate target out of reach if emissions continue to rise, a study this year found. In Europe, France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Sweden have all experienced significant declines in the amount of carbon absorbed by land, driven by climate-related bark beetle outbreaks, drought and increased tree mortality. Finland, which has the most ambitious carbon neutrality target in the developed world, has seen its once huge land sink vanish in recent years – meaning that despite reducing its emissions across all industries by 43%, the country’s total emissions have stayed unchanged. So far, these changes are regional. Some countries, such as China and the US, are not yet experiencing such declines. “The issue of natural sinks has never really been thought about properly in political and government fields. It’s been assumed that natural sinks are always going to be with us. The truth is, we don’t really understand them and we don’t think they’re always going to be with us. What happens if the natural sinks, which they’ve previously relied on, stop working because the climate is changing?” says Watson. In recent years, several estimates have been published on how the world could increase the amount of carbon that its forests and natural ecosystems absorb. But many researchers say the real challenge is protecting the carbon sinks and stores we already have by halting deforestation, cutting emissions and ensuring they are as healthy as possible. “We shouldn’t rely on natural forests to do the job. We really, really have to tackle the big issue: fossil fuel emissions across all sectors,” says Prof Pierre Friedlingstein of Exeter University, who oversees the annual Global Carbon Budget calculations. “We can’t just assume that we have forests and the forest will remove some CO2, because it’s not going to work in the long term.”"

Using Altmetric data, Carbon Brief has compiled a list of the 25 most talked-about climate-related papers that were published in 2023. #carbon #carbonfootprint #carbonemissions #climate #carbonmarkets #sustainability #conservation

Explore the fascinating world of the greenhouse effect in our latest blog post! 🌿 Discover the science behind this crucial environmental phenomenon and its impact on our planet. Dive deep into the complexities of climate change and learn how we can make a difference. Read now: https://lnkd.in/dAnh3WHB #GreenhouseEffect #ClimateChange #EnvironmentalScience #ScienceBlog #Sustainability

For anyone who wants a very good overall summary of the current state of the voluntary carbon market - its importance, its potential, it challenges and its limitations - the report from the Climate Crisis Advisory Group is worth your time. There's nothing new or earth shattering here, which is why it's useful: it's a good summary of the state of play. It also contains a very clear discussion of the pitfalls of equating carbon credits based on the temporary storage of CO2e with fossil fuel emissions (a thorny subject that the report does a great job of summarizing with simple, everyday language). If I had to sum up the report in a few sentences: 1) the VCM could be an important tool in our struggle to keep planetary warming to 1.5 degrees celsius 2) to become that tool, however, the VCM needs to improve 3) we also need to be clear about what the VCM can do (make critical contributions to mitigation) and what it can't (truly offset fossil fuel emissions in a way that lets us off the hook for decarbonization). As I said, nothing earth shattering for those of us who work in this space - but probably a good report to forward someone who doesn't know a lot about this stuff but wants to learn more. And that in itself is quite a service! (As an aside, kudos to Verra for funding this work, no strings attached. That took courage and conviction, which I appreciate). https://lnkd.in/dt46GehJ

What happens if the natural sinks stop working?’ “The consequences for climate targets are stark. Even a modest weakening of nature’s ability to absorb carbon would mean the world would have to make much deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to achieve net zero. The weakening of land sinks – which has so far been regional – also has the effect of cancelling out nations’ progress on decarbonisation and progress towards climate goals, something that is proving a struggle for many countries.” Credit: Patrick Greenfield at The Guardian If nature’s carbon sinks cease to be effective then our anthropogenic emissions need to be reduced much more quickly. We know what we have to do… #SustainabilityLeadership SDG 13

Can we out-smart climate change? The brightest minds are trying to do just that. "The ocean can play a vital role as a solution to climate change. It naturally absorbs approximately one third of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and it has the potential to hold over 17 times more carbon than soils and land combined. Enhancing the uptake of carbon dioxide into the ocean through marine carbon dioxide removal via a variety of biological, chemical and engineered methods offers great potential for helping maintain a livable climate and may address existing ocean problems such as surface ocean acidification."

The paper referenced here is an important addition to our understanding of the climate/ crisis and broader issues of ecological overshoot. If we persist in vilifying certain industries we will need to expand these to include all of those which prey on our human tendiecies to consume more than we need (so in other words most). But we of course will need to take some responsibility for our own inabilities to curve our behaviours. This is a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma and worthy of a lot more exploration #energy #climateaction .

"'We’re seeing cracks in the resilience of the Earth’s systems. We’re seeing massive cracks on land – terrestrial ecosystems are losing their carbon store and carbon uptake capacity, but the oceans are also showing signs of instability,' Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told an event at New York Climate Week in September." "'Nature has so far balanced our abuse. This is coming to an end,' he said." "Reaching net zero is impossible without nature. In the absence of technology that can remove atmospheric carbon on a large scale, the Earth’s vast forests, grasslands, peat bogs and oceans are the only option for absorbing human carbon pollution, which reached a record 37.4bn tonnes in 2023." "The consequences for climate targets are stark. Even a modest weakening of nature’s ability to absorb carbon would mean the world would have to make much deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to achieve net zero. The weakening of land sinks – which has so far been regional – also has the effect of cancelling out nations’ progress on decarbonisation and progress towards climate goals, something that is proving a struggle for many countries." "'We shouldn’t rely on natural forests to do the job. We really, really have to tackle the big issue: fossil fuel emissions across all sectors,' says Prof Pierre Friedlingstein of Exeter University, who oversees the annual Global Carbon Budget calculations." This means that for those of us working to create / renovate Net Zero, regenerative, healthy built environments, we likely have to reach farther with even less time available to do so than we thought. But that also means we must have elected officials and policy makers in place who recognize the need to actively and aggressively address climate change. This applies to all levels of government, impacting policies, standards, codes, legislation, and educational curriculum. Your votes and candidate support should reflect this - verify where your candidates of choice stand on climate change and climate action. #climateaction #climatechange #emissions #ghg #carbon #carbonsinks #policies #elections2024

The story of natural carbon sinks and their critical role in regulating the Earth's climate is not an easy one to tell or sell. Granted, the topic is not that sexy 🤓 It sounds technical and abstract (what are carbon sinks anyway?). But the truth is that it's actually pretty straight forward and we should probably all care. Or at least those of us in this world who can afford to spend time focusing on the climate crisis. Monitoring natural carbon sinks (i.e. oceans, forests, soils) is basically keeping track of how much carbon our planet 🌍 can naturally absorb vs how much CO2 is emitted. Obviously we want the former to surpass the latter. According to new research unpacked by Patrick Greenfield in The Guardian (see article below 👇) things aren't looking too good. 'Reaching net zero is impossible without nature', we are reminded, once again. The article is well worth a read, Patrick did a great job explaining things simply and clearly 💡 https://lnkd.in/eT_JXxjs And if you wish to learn more, check this animated piece produced by colleagues from the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). There are some helpful graphics in there! https://lnkd.in/e8rKcd4F Scarlett Benson Talia Smith Aline MOSNIER Helen (宏宇) Ding, PhD. Klara Nilsson