Arquivo da tag: Mudanças climáticas

Mudanças climáticas já causam queda da produtividade agrícola no mundo (Fapesp)

Avaliação é de Jerry Hatfield, diretor do Laboratório Nacional de Agricultura e Meio Ambiente do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos (foto:Eduardo Cesar/FAPESP)

03/06/2014

Por Elton Alisson

Agência FAPESP – As mudanças climáticas têm causado alterações nas fases de reprodução e de desenvolvimento de diferentes culturas agrícolas, entre elas milho, trigo e café. E os impactos dessas alterações já se refletem na queda da produtividade no setor agrícola em países como Brasil e Estados Unidos.

A avaliação foi feita por pesquisadores participantes do Workshop on Impacts of Global Climate Change on Agriculture and Livestock , realizado no dia 27 de maio, no auditório da FAPESP.

Promovido pelo Programa FAPESP de Pesquisa sobre Mudanças Climáticas Globais, o objetivo do evento foi reunir pesquisadores do Brasil e dos Estados Unidos para compartilhar conhecimentos e experiências em pesquisas sobre o impactos das mudanças climáticas globais na agricultura e na pecuária.

“Sabemos há muito tempo que as mudanças climáticas terão impactos nas culturas agrícolas de forma direta e indireta”, disse Jerry Hatfield, diretor do Laboratório Nacional de Agricultura e Meio Ambiente do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos (USDA, na sigla em inglês). “A questão é saber quais serão o impacto e a magnitude dessas mudanças nos diferentes países produtores agrícolas”, disse o pesquisador em sua palestra no evento.

De acordo com Hatfield, um dos principais impactos observados nos Estados Unidos é a queda na produtividade de culturas como o milho e o trigo. O país é o primeiro e o terceiro maior produtor mundial desses grãos, respectivamente. “A produção de trigo [nos Estados Unidos] não atinge mais grandes aumentos de safra como os obtidos entre as décadas de 1960 e 1980”, afirmou.

Uma das razões para a queda de produtividade dessa e de outras culturas agrícolas no mundo, na avaliação do pesquisador, é o aumento da temperatura durante a fase de crescimento e de polinização.

As plantas de trigo, soja, milho, arroz, algodão e tomate têm diferentes faixas de temperatura ideal para os períodos vegetativo – de germinação da semente até o crescimento da planta – e reprodutivo – iniciado a partir da floração e formação de sementes.

O milho, por exemplo, não tolera altas temperaturas na fase reprodutiva. Já a soja é mais tolerante a temperaturas elevadas nesse estágio, comparou Hatfield.

O que se observa em diferentes países, contudo, é um aumento da frequência de dias mais quentes, com temperatura até 5 ºC mais altas do que a média registrada em anos anteriores, justamente na fase de crescimento e de polinização.

“Observamos diversos casos de fracasso na polinização de arroz, trigo e milho em razão do aumento da temperatura nessa fase. E, se o aumento de temperatura ocorrer com déficit hídrico, o impacto pode ser exacerbado”, avaliou.

Segundo Hatfield, a temperatura noturna mínima tem aumentado mais do que a temperatura máxima à noite. A mudança causa impacto na respiração de plantas à noite e reduz sua capacidade de fotossíntese durante o dia, apontou.

Pesquisas com milho

Em um estudo realizado no laboratório de Hatfield no USDA em um rizontron – equipamento para a análise de raízes de plantas no meio de cultivo –, pesquisadores mantiveram três diferentes variedades de milho em uma câmara 4 ºC mais quente do que outra com temperatura normal, para avaliar o impacto do aumento da temperatura nas fases vegetativa e reprodutiva da planta.

“Constatamos que a fisiologia da planta é muito afetada por aumento de temperatura principalmente na fase reprodutiva”, contou o pesquisador.

Em outro experimento, os pesquisadores mantiveram uma variedade de milho cultivada nos Estados Unidos em uma câmara com temperatura 3 ºC acima da que a planta tolera na fase de crescimento, em que é determinado o tamanho da espiga.

O aumento causou uma redução de 15 dias no período de preenchimento dos grãos de milho e interrupção na capacidade da planta de completar esse processo, o que se refletiu em queda de produtividade.

“Observamos que, se as plantas forem expostas a uma temperatura noturna relativamente alta no período de preenchimento dos grãos, essa fase de desenvolvimento é interrompida”, afirmou Hatfield.

“O problema não é a temperatura média a que a planta pode ficar exposta na fase reprodutiva, mas a temperatura mínima. Precisamos entender melhor essa interação das culturas agrícolas com o ambiente e o clima para aumentar a resiliência delas à elevação da temperatura e à frequência de eventos climáticos extremos”, avaliou.


Impactos no Brasil

No Brasil, as mudanças climáticas já modificam a geografia da produção agrícola, afirmou Hilton Silveira Pinto, diretor do Centro de Pesquisas Meteorológicas e Climáticas Aplicadas à Agricultura (Cepagri), da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp).

O ano passado foi o mais seco desde 1988 – quando o Cepagri iniciou suas medições climáticas. Registrou-se uma média de 1.186 milímetros de chuva contra 1.425 milímetros observados nos anos anteriores. O mês mais crítico do ano foi dezembro, quando choveu 83 milímetros. A média para o mês é 207 milímetros, comparou Silveira Pinto.

“O final de ano muito seco atrapalhou bastante a agricultura em São Paulo, porque a época de plantio dos agricultores daqui é justamente no período entre outubro e novembro”, disse Silveira Pinto durante sua palestra.

“O plantio de algumas culturas deverá ser atrasado, porque há uma variabilidade bastante sensível no regime pluviométrico das áreas em que determinadas culturas podem ser plantadas”, afirmou.

Segundo o pesquisador, a partir dos anos 2000 não foi registrada mais geada em praticamente nenhuma região de São Paulo, evidenciando um aumento da temperatura no estado.

Um reflexo dessa mudança é a migração da produção do café em São Paulo e Minas Gerais para regiões mais elevadas, com temperaturas mais propícias para o florescimento da planta. A cada 100 metros de altitude, a temperatura diminui cerca de 0,6 ºC, segundo Silveira Pinto.

Durante o período de florescimento do café, quando os botões florais tornam-se grãos de café, a planta não pode ser submetida a temperaturas acima de 32 ºC. Apenas uma tarde com essa temperatura nesse período é suficiente para que a flor seja abortada e não forme o grão.

“O registro de temperaturas acima de 32 ºC tem ocorrido com mais frequência na região cafeeira de São Paulo. Com o aquecimento global, deverá aumentar entre 5 e 10 vezes a incidência de tardes quentes no florescimento da planta”, disse Silveira Pinto. “Isso pode fazer com que não seja mais viável produzir café nas partes mais baixas de São Paulo nas próximas décadas.”

“A produção do café no Brasil deve migrar para a Região Sul”, afirmou. “O café brasileiro deverá ser produzido nos próximos anos em estados como Paraná e Santa Catarina.”

Abelhas “biônicas” vão ajudar a monitorar mudanças climáticas na Amazônia (O Globo)

JC e-mail 4966, de 04 de junho de 2014

Microssensores instalados em insetos vão colher dados sobre seu comportamento e do ambiente

Nas suas idas e vindas das colmeias, as abelhas interagem com boa parte do ambiente em sua volta, além de realizarem um importante trabalho de polinização de plantas que muito contribui para a manutenção da biodiversidade e a produção de alimentos em todo mundo. Agora, enxames delas vão assumir um outro papel, o de estações meteorológicas “biônicas”, para ajudar a monitorar os efeitos das mudanças climáticas na Amazônia e em seu próprio comportamento.

Desde a semana passada, pesquisadores do Instituto Tecnológico Vale (ITV) e da CSIRO, agência federal de pesquisas científicas da Austrália, estão instalando microssensores em 400 abelhas de um apiário no município de Santa Bárbara do Pará, a uma hora de distância de Belém, na primeira fase da experiência, que também visa descobrir as causas do chamado Distúrbio de Colapso de Colônias (CCD, na sigla em inglês), que só nos Estados Unidos já provocou a morte de 35% desses insetos criados em cativeiro.

– Não sabemos como as abelhas vão se comportar diante das projeções de aumento da temperatura e mudanças no clima devido ao aquecimento global – conta o físico Paulo de Souza, pesquisador-visitante do ITV e da CSIRO e responsável pela experiência. – Assim, entender como elas vão se adaptar a estas mudanças é importante para podermos estimar o que pode acontecer no futuro.

Souza explica que os microssensores usados no experimento são capazes de gerar a própria energia e captar e armazenar dados não só do comportamento das abelhas como da temperatura, umidade e nível de insolação do ambiente. Tudo isso espremido em um pequeno quadrado com 2,5 milímetros de lado com peso de 5,4 miligramas, o que faz com que as abelhas, da espécie Apis mellifera africanizadas, com em média 70 miligramas de peso, sintam como se estivessem “carregando uma mochila nas costas”.

– Mas isso não afeta o comportamento delas, que se adaptam muito rapidamente à instalação dos microssensores – garante.

Já a partir no próximo semestre, os pesquisadores deverão começar a instalar os microssensores, que custam US$ 0,30 (cerca de R$ 0,70) cada, em espécies nativas da Amazônia não dotadas de ferrão. Segundo Souza, estas abelhas são ainda mais importantes para a polinização das plantas da região, e são também mais sensíveis a mudanças no ambiente. Assim, a escala da experiência deve aumentar, com a utilização de 10 mil dos pequenos aparelhos ao longo de várias gerações de abelhas, que vivem em média dois meses.

O tamanho dos atuais sensores, porém, não permite que o dispositivo seja instalado em insetos menores, como mosquitos. Por isso, o grupo de Paulo de Souza já trabalha numa nova geração de microssensores com um décimo de milímetro, ou o equivalente a um grão de areia. Segundo o pesquisador, os novos sensores, que devem ficar prontos em quatro anos, terão as mesmas capacidades dos atuais, com a vantagem de serem “ativos”, isto é, vão poder transmitir em tempo real os dados coletados.

– Quando tivermos os sensores deste tamanho, poderemos aplicá-los na forma de spray nas colmeias, além de usá-los para monitorar outras espécies de insetos, como mosquitos transmissores de doenças – diz. – Mas a vantagem principal é que com eles vamos poder fazer das abelhas e outros insetos verdadeiras estações meteorológicas ambulantes, permitindo um monitoramento ambiental numa escala sem precedentes, já que cada abelha ou mosquito vai atuar como um agente de campo.

(Cesar Baima / O Globo)
http://oglobo.globo.com/sociedade/ciencia/abelhas-bionicas-vao-ajudar-monitorar-mudancas-climaticas-na-amazonia-12712798#ixzz33gDI4XQy

Sociedade pode opinar em contribuição brasileira para acordo do clima (MCTI)

JC e-mail 4967, de 05 de junho de 2014

A consulta pública disponível no site do Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE)

Uma consulta sobre mudanças climáticas está disponível no site do Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE). O objetivo da consulta à sociedade civil é subsidiar o processo de preparação da contribuição que o Brasil levará à mesa de negociações do novo acordo sob a Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança do Clima (UNFCCC, na sigla em inglês), de forma a ampliar a transparência do processo e dar oportunidade a que todos os setores interessados da sociedade participem e opinem.

A consulta será realizada em duas fases. Esta primeira, aberta até 18 de julho, busca definir devem ser os elementos principais da chamada “contribuição nacionalmente determinada” brasileira. São perguntas abertas com base em um questionário orientador, e comentários adicionais podem ser enviados por e-mail.

Com base nos aportes recebidos, será elaborado um relatório preliminar com indicação de possíveis opções e modalidades para a contribuição nacional – compromisso a ser assumido pelo Brasil no contexto da negociação internacional. Na segunda fase, esse documento será submetido a uma nova rodada de consultas.

Estão em andamento negociações de um novo acordo sob a convenção, a serem finalizadas em 2015, para entrada em vigor a partir de 2020. Nesse contexto, a 19ª Conferência das Partes na UNFCCC (COP-19, realizada em Varsóvia, Polônia) instou os países signatários a iniciar ou intensificar as preparações domésticas de suas pretendidas contribuições ao novo acordo e a comunicá-las antes da COP-21.

(Ascom do MCTI, com informações do MRE)

Humans, not climate, to blame for Ice Age-era disappearance of large mammals, study concludes (Science Daily)

Date: June 4, 2014

Source: Aarhus University

Summary: Was it humankind or climate change that caused the extinction of a considerable number of large mammals about the time of the last Ice Age? Researchers have carried out the first global analysis of the extinction of the large animals, and the conclusion is clear — humans are to blame. The study unequivocally points to humans as the cause of the mass extinction of large animals all over the world during the course of the last 100,000 years.

Skeleton of a giant ground sloth at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, circa 1920. Credit: Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Was it humankind or climate change that caused the extinction of a considerable number of large mammals about the time of the last Ice Age? Researchers at Aarhus University have carried out the first global analysis of the extinction of the large animals, and the conclusion is clear — humans are to blame. A new study unequivocally points to humans as the cause of the mass extinction of large animals all over the world during the course of the last 100,000 years.

“Our results strongly underline the fact that human expansion throughout the world has meant an enormous loss of large animals,” says Postdoctoral Fellow Søren Faurby, Aarhus University.

Was it due to climate change?

For almost 50 years, scientists have been discussing what led to the mass extinction of large animals (also known as megafauna) during and immediately after the last Ice Age.

One of two leading theories states that the large animals became extinct as a result of climate change. There were significant climate changes, especially towards the end of the last Ice Age — just as there had been during previous Ice Ages — and this meant that many species no longer had the potential to find suitable habitats and they died out as a result. However, because the last Ice Age was just one in a long series of Ice Ages, it is puzzling that a corresponding extinction of large animals did not take place during the earlier ones.

Theory of overkill

The other theory concerning the extinction of the animals is ‘overkill’. Modern man spread from Africa to all parts of the world during the course of a little more than the last 100,000 years. In simple terms, the overkill hypothesis states that modern man exterminated many of the large animal species on arrival in the new continents. This was either because their populations could not withstand human hunting, or for indirect reasons such as the loss of their prey, which were also hunted by humans.

First global mapping

In their study, the researchers produced the first global analysis and relatively fine-grained mapping of all the large mammals (with a body weight of at least 10 kg) that existed during the period 132,000-1,000 years ago — the period during which the extinction in question took place. They were thus able to study the geographical variation in the percentage of large species that became extinct on a much finer scale than previously achieved.

The researchers found that a total of 177 species of large mammals disappeared during this period — a massive loss. Africa ‘only’ lost 18 species and Europe 19, while Asia lost 38 species, Australia and the surrounding area 26, North America 43 and South America a total of 62 species of large mammals.

The extinction of the large animals took place in virtually all climate zones and affected cold-adapted species such as woolly mammoths, temperate species such as forest elephants and giant deer, and tropical species such as giant cape buffalo and some giant sloths. It was observed on virtually every continent, although a particularly large number of animals became extinct in North and South America, where species including sabre-toothed cats, mastodons, giant sloths and giant armadillos disappeared, and in Australia, which lost animals such as giant kangaroos, giant wombats and marsupial lions. There were also fairly large losses in Europe and Asia, including a number of elephants, rhinoceroses and giant deer.

Weak climate effect

The results show that the correlation between climate change — i.e. the variation in temperature and precipitation between glacials and interglacials — and the loss of megafauna is weak, and can only be seen in one sub-region, namely Eurasia (Europe and Asia). “The significant loss of megafauna all over the world can therefore not be explained by climate change, even though it has definitely played a role as a driving force in changing the distribution of some species of animals. Reindeer and polar foxes were found in Central Europe during the Ice Age, for example, but they withdrew northwards as the climate became warmer,” says Postdoctoral Fellow Christopher Sandom, Aarhus University.

Extinction linked to humans

On the other hand, the results show a very strong correlation between the extinction and the history of human expansion. “We consistently find very large rates of extinction in areas where there had been no contact between wildlife and primitive human races, and which were suddenly confronted by fully developed modern humans (Homo sapiens). In general, at least 30% of the large species of animals disappeared from all such areas,” says Professor Jens-Christian Svenning, Aarhus University.

The researchers’ geographical analysis thereby points very strongly at humans as the cause of the loss of most of the large animals.

The results also draw a straight line from the prehistoric extinction of large animals via the historical regional or global extermination due to hunting (American bison, European bison, quagga, Eurasian wild horse or tarpan, and many others) to the current critical situation for a considerable number of large animals as a result of poaching and hunting (e.g. the rhino poaching epidemic).

Journal Reference:

  1. C. Sandom, S. Faurby, B. Sandel, J.-C. Svenning. Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate changeProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2014; 281 (1787): 20133254 DOI:10.1098/rspb.2013.3254

Plantas brasileiras podem ajudar a enfrentar impactos das mudanças climáticas (Fapesp)

Estudo do genoma de espécies do Semiárido e do Cerrado (como opequi) que são tolerantes a temperaturas elevadas e à escassez hídrica pode contribuir para o melhoramento genético de culturas como soja, milho, arroz e feijão, diz pesquisador da Embrapa (foto: Wikipedia)

02/06/2014

Por Noêmia Lopes

Agência FAPESP – A seriguela e o umbuzeiro, árvores comuns do Semiárido nordestino, e a sucupira-preta, do Cerrado, fazem parte de um grupo de plantas brasileiras que poderão desempenhar um papel importante para a agricultura no enfrentamento das consequências das mudanças climáticas. Elas estão entre as espécies do país com grande capacidade adaptativa, tolerantes à escassez hídrica e a temperaturas elevadas.

De acordo com Eduardo Assad, pesquisador do Centro Nacional de Pesquisa Tecnológica em Informática para a Agricultura (CNPTIA) da Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), o estudo do genoma dessas espécies pode ajudar a tornar culturas como soja, milho, arroz e feijão tão resistentes quanto elas aos extremos climáticos. Assad foi um dos palestrantes no quarto encontro do Ciclo de Conferências 2014 do programa BIOTA-FAPESP Educação, realizado no dia 22 de maio, em São Paulo.

“O Cerrado já foi muito mais quente e seco e árvores como pau-terra, pequi e faveiro, além da sucupira-preta, sobreviveram. Precisamos estudar o genoma dessas árvores, identificar e isolar os genes que as tornam tão adaptáveis. Isso pode significar, um dia, a chance de melhorar geneticamente culturas como soja e milho, tornando-as igualmente resistentes”, disse. “Não é fácil, mas precisamos começar.”

Assad destaca que o Brasil é líder em espécies resistentes. “O maior armazém do mundo de genes tolerantes ao aquecimento global está aqui, no Cerrado e no Semiárido Nordestino”, disse em sua palestra O impacto potencial das mudanças climáticas na agricultura.

Os modelos de pesquisa realizados pela Embrapa, muitos deles feitos em colaboração com instituições de outros 40 países, apontam que a redução de produtividade de culturas como milho, soja e arroz decorrente das mudanças climáticas deve se acentuar nas próximas décadas. “Isso vale para as variedades genéticas atuais. Uma das soluções é buscar genes alternativos para trabalhar com melhoramento”, disse Assad.

Outras plantas do Cerrado com grande capacidade adaptativa lembradas pelo pesquisador são a árvore pacari e os frutos do baru e da cagaita. No Semiárido Nordestino, árvores como a seriguela, o umbuzeiro e a cajazeira foram apontadas como opções importantes não só para estudos genéticos como também para programas voltados à geração de renda pela população local.

“Em vez de produzir culturas exóticas à região, é preciso investir naquelas que já fazem parte da biodiversidade nordestina e têm potencial de superar as consequências do aquecimento global”, adiantou Assad.

Para o melhoramento de espécies, de forma a que se tornem tolerantes ao estresse abiótico, a Embrapa planeja lançar, em 2015, uma soja resistente à deficiência hídrica, produzida a partir de um gene existente em uma planta do Japão. “Testamos essa variedade este ano, no Paraná, em um período sem chuvas. Ainda há estudos a serem feitos, mas ela está se saindo muito bem”, disse o pesquisador.

Assad também citou avanços empreendidos pelo Instituto Agronômico do Paraná (Iapar), que já lançou quatro cultivares de feijão com tolerância a temperaturas elevadas, além de pesquisas feitas no município de Varginha (MG) em busca de variáveis mais tolerantes para o café.


Prejuízos e mudanças no sistema produtivo

Cálculos da Embrapa feitos com base na produtividade média da soja mostram que somente esse grão acumulou mais de US$ 8,4 bilhões em perdas relacionadas às mudanças climáticas no Brasil entre 2003 e 2013. Já a produção de milho perdeu mais de US$ 5,2 bilhões no mesmo período.

A área considerada de baixo risco para o cultivo do café arábica deve diminuir 9,45% até 2020, causando prejuízos de R$ 882 milhões, e 17,15% até 2050, elevando as perdas para R$ 1,6 bilhão, de acordo com análises feitas na Embrapa e na Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp).

Diante dos prejuízos, outra solução apontada por Assad é a revisão do modelo produtivo agrícola. “A concentração de gases de efeito estufa na atmosfera aumentou mais de 20% nos últimos 30 anos, tornando indispensável a implantação de sistemas produtivos mais limpos”, disse à Agência FAPESP.

“O Brasil é muito respeitado nesse tema, em especial porque reduziu o desmatamento na Amazônia e, ao mesmo tempo, ampliou a produtividade na Região Amazônica”, disse.

Segundo Assad, isso abre canais de diálogo sobre a sustentabilidade na agricultura e sobre a adoção de estratégias como integração entre lavoura, pecuária e floresta, plantio direto na palha, uso de bactérias fixadoras de nitrogênio no solo, rochagem (uso de micro e macronutrientes para melhorar a fertilidade dos solos), aplicação de adubos organominerais, além do melhoramento genético.

“O confinamento do gado é outro ponto que está em discussão por pesquisadores e criadores em diversas partes do mundo. Ele pode resultar em menos emissão de gases de efeito estufa, mas torna o rebanho mais vulnerável à doença da vaca louca. Nesse caso, uma alternativa é a recuperação de pastos degradados”, afirmou Assad.

Estudos feitos na Embrapa Agrobiologia mostram que um quilo de carne produzido em pasto degradado emite mais de 32 quilos de CO2 equivalente por ano. Já em pasto recuperado a partir do que a agricultura de baixa emissão de carbono preconiza, a emissão por quilo de carne pode ser reduzida a três quilos de CO2 equivalente anuais.

“Isso mostra que ambientalistas, ruralistas, governo e setor privado precisam sentar e decidir o que fazer daqui em diante – qual sistema de produção adotar? Com ou sem pasto? Com ou sem árvores? Rotacionado ou não? São mudanças difíceis, de longo prazo, mas muitos agricultores já estão preocupados com essas questões, com os prejuízos que o aquecimento global pode trazer, e começam a buscar soluções”, disse.

Setor privado é essencial para adaptação às mudanças climáticas (Fapesp)

Para Laura Canevari, da Acclimatise, engajar empresas em discussões sobre o tema significa criar uma economia resiliente, assegurar empregos e desenvolvimento. Para isso, no entanto, cientistas devem traduzir conceitos em experiências reais (foto:Rogério Lima)

28/05/2014

Por Karina Toledo, de Fortaleza

Agência FAPESP – As mudanças climáticas são uma realidade cada vez mais difícil de ser ignorada e à humanidade resta adaptar-se para reduzir seu grau de vulnerabilidade. Diante dessa necessidade premente, cientistas têm se esforçado para engajar os formuladores de políticas públicas nas discussões sobre o tema. No entanto, pouca atenção é dada a um importante ator da sociedade: o setor privado.

A análise foi feita pela colombiana Laura Canevari, consultora em adaptação às mudanças climáticas, durante a conferência internacional Adaptation Futures 2014, ocorrida entre 12 e 16 de maio em Fortaleza. Formada em Ciências Marinhas, com mestrado em Manejo de Mudanças Climáticas pela University of Oxford, no Reino Unido, Canevari já atuou como militante, defendendo a necessidade de adaptação das zonas costeiras contra a elevação do nível do mar.

Atualmente, trabalha para a Acclimatise, empresa britânica que presta assistência técnica a instituições governamentais e empresas privadas no entendimento de riscos relacionados às mudanças climáticas e ajuda a identificar soluções de adaptação viáveis.

Na avaliação de Canevari, o setor público tem o importante papel de regulamentar e criar um ambiente adequado para que ações de adaptação aconteçam, mas é o setor privado que vai colocá-las em prática. A fim de engajar as empresas na empreitada, porém, os cientistas terão de adaptar sua linguagem e traduzir os conceitos científicos em experiências reais do cotidiano.

Leia abaixo trechos da entrevista concedida por ela à Agência FAPESP.

Agência FAPESP – Qual é a sua formação e área de atuação na Acclimatise? 
Laura Canevari – Sou formada em Ciências Marinhas e fiz mestrado em Manejo de Mudanças Climáticas na University of Oxford, no Reino Unido. Antes de começar a trabalhar na Acclimatise eu era uma grande defensora da necessidade de adaptação da zona costeira contra a elevação do nível do mar.

Agência FAPESP – Vocês trabalham mais com o setor público ou o privado?
Canevari – Inicialmente nosso foco era o setor privado, mas temos nos voltado mais ao setor público, pois as negociações internacionais estão mais focadas em adaptação e os governos estão mais preocupados com as mudanças climáticas. Recentemente, ajudamos a elaborar o Plano Nacional de Adaptação do Quênia, por exemplo. Ajudamos a desenvolver a estratégia de adaptação das cidades de Londres e Leeds [ambas no Reino Unido], Moscou e outras cinco na Rússia. Muitas vezes, o que fazemos para os governos é fomentar a capacidade institucional, ajudar a identificar lacunas e necessidades em nível institucional. Se um país quer começar a pensar em mudanças climáticas, quais são as coisas que as instituições têm de ser capazes de lidar, como coordenar informação entre diferentes ministérios, como coletar e armazenar informações, como usar serviços meteorológicos para obter dados precisos sobre mudanças climáticas. Atuamos em diferentes setores, como energia, transporte, varejo e cadeias de abastecimento.

Agência FAPESP – Em sua palestra você afirmou que a academia, no que se refere às discussões sobre adaptação às mudanças climáticas, está muito focada no setor público e deveria prestar mais atenção ao setor privado. Por que pensa assim? 
Canevari – Não penso que devemos parar de investir tempo e energia no setor público. Ele é importante, pois permite regular as ações de adaptação às mudanças climáticas necessárias e criar o suporte e o ambiente favorável para que elas aconteçam. Mas não deveríamos olhar para o setor público como o implementador dessas medidas. Quem realmente vai colocar em prática as soluções de adaptação é o setor privado. O setor público deve permitir às empresas investir mais seguramente nesse tipo de tópico. Não é a primeira vez que falo da necessidade de os acadêmicos mudarem sua mentalidade sobre quais são os mais importantes setores da sociedade com quem temos de dialogar. Mas nós, cientistas, tendemos a ficar em nossas zonas de conforto, onde falamos todos a mesma linguagem e lidamos com os problemas da mesma forma. E dialogar com o setor privado requer uma mudança no discurso sobre as questões climáticas. Falamos do ponto de vista de políticas públicas e com uma mentalidade acadêmica e isso não vai funcionar. Precisamos mudar a forma como concebemos os problemas e as soluções.

Agência FAPESP – Como os cientistas conseguirão o engajamento do setor privado? 
Canevari – Primeiro, precisamos reconhecer que esse é um importante ator, pois isso nos fará ter curiosidade sobre como ele pensa. Os acadêmicos costumam ficar muito fechados na academia, mas viram rapidamente a necessidade de disseminar a informação para os governos. Fizeram, então, o esforço de compreender o que ressoa com a governança para discutir questões que vêm da ciência e transformá-las em políticas públicas. Mas os acadêmicos precisam entender que o setor privado tem diferentes formas de conceber riscos e lidar com eles. Para um homem de negócios, lidar com riscos significa a continuidade de sua produção. Então falar sobre a continuidade do negócio é uma forma de abordar questões de adaptação sem usar esse termo. É preciso traduzir a linguagem. Falamos muito aqui sobre o cenário de “4 graus Celsius” [de elevação da temperatura terrestre até 2100] e parece que todos entendemos o que isso significa sob um ponto de vista ambiental. Mas o que os 4 graus Celsius significam para uma empresa? Nós fizemos uma análise de risco para um porto na Colômbia na qual olhamos o impacto do aumento das temperaturas na performance do maquinário que retira a carga dos barcos e leva para o estoque. Essas máquinas são sensíveis ao estresse térmico e não trabalham tão bem com muito calor. Em vez de ir para o setor privado e dizer: “Há uma ameaça de subir 4 graus Celsius”, devemos dizer que os maquinários vão começar a trabalhar de forma mais lenta e não serão tão eficientes em realizar o trabalho e isso vai afetar os lucros. No fim das contas, é preciso abordar a questão do lucro e de como a mudança climática vai afetar a performance empresarial. Outro ponto de muito apelo para as empresas é: como conseguirão manter sua licença social e ambiental para operar. Se a força de trabalho atua ao ar livre e há uma alta incidência de estresse térmico, há um risco de segurança ocupacional. A empresa pode perder a habilidade de operar em uma determinada área se não se preocupar em avaliar como o estresse térmico provocado pela elevação de temperatura afetará seus empregados. É um trabalho de transformar conceitos em experiências reais do cotidiano.

Agência FAPESP – Se é tudo uma questão de lucros, por que é importante estimular o setor privado a se adaptar? 
Canevari – Porque se trata de construir uma economia resiliente. Precisamos parar de ignorar o setor privado, pois ele é parte importante das comunidades e oferece empregos, bens e serviços. Quando pensamos nos fatores que determinam o bem-estar das sociedades, temos as políticas públicas que criam regulamentações, códigos de conduta para as pessoas interagirem umas com as outras de formas não agressivas, garantem liberdade de expressão, democracia, etc. Esses são componentes importantes, mas os produtos e serviços que as pessoas desejam adquirir também são. As pessoas também desejam estar empregadas, pois é uma forma de conseguir reconhecimento na sociedade. Não é apenas pelo dinheiro em si, mas porque você assume um papel social quando tem um emprego. Por outro lado, o setor privado tem o dinheiro e o potencial de investir em atividades que podem ter implicações que vão além da própria organização.

Agência FAPESP – Já é possível perceber ações de adaptação no setor privado?
Canevari – Há dois tipos de empresas que estão liderando ações de adaptação. No primeiro, estão as empresas que fizeram grandes investimentos em estruturas de longa duração, como petrolíferas, empresas de energia e portos. São companhias que esperam que aquelas instalações durem 30 ou 40 anos. Nesse tipo de empresa também costuma haver muita pressão dos stakeholders e da sociedade, que espera padrões elevados em termos ambientais e sociais. Do segundo tipo fazem parte as empresas que estão se adaptando e que são as sensíveis a fatores climáticos, como as que produzem ou comercializam bens agrícolas e empresas que dependem fortemente de água. São empresas que já sentem fortemente os impactos das mudanças no clima e respondem a eles como forma de sobreviver, pois, se não melhorarem seus padrões de eficiência no uso de energia e água, poderão ter conflitos com a comunidade em que estão inseridas e com a mídia. Mas não há muita coisa sendo feita na América Latina, o que é uma pena, pois há grandes oportunidades em países como o Brasil, onde é possível começar da maneira correta. Muitos novos investimentos em infraestrutura podem ser feitos à prova do clima. É muito mais barato do que fazer a adaptação depois que já estiver pronto. Temos uma oportunidade que os países desenvolvidos já perderam, que é começar na direção certa. Temos experiências e aprendizados de outros países, sabemos o que vale a pena fazer, então é só colocar em prática.

Agência FAPESP – Há quem diga que foi o próprio setor privado o responsável pelas mudanças climáticas.
Canevari – Podemos dizer que o setor privado é responsável pela maior parte das emissões de gases-estufa e a mudança climática é basicamente causada por eles. Mas estamos falando de apenas cerca de 20 grandes empresas, responsáveis por mais de 80% das emissões. A maioria é da área de óleo e gás, mineração e agricultura. Então, estamos falamos de um pequeno número de empresas em oposição a uma enorme gama de outras companhias que compõem o setor privado. Há uma enorme diversidade. Por que também não estamos culpando os governos por não criarem as regulamentações apropriadas para essas empresas? Muitos governos reduzem a rigidez de sua regulamentação para atrair essas empresas poluidoras. Penso que os governos também são responsáveis por permitir que essas empresas atuem como bem entendem. A empresa age de acordo com os seus interesses. Cabe ao governo regular essas atividades e garantir que estejam dentro de limites aceitáveis.

POLL: Tea Party Members Really, Really Don’t Trust Scientists (Mother Jones)

The “science gap” between traditional Republicans and tea partiers is huge in a new survey of New Hampshire residents.

—By 

Tue May 20, 2014 10:46 AM EDT

Kevin Y

It’s one of the biggest trends in US politics over the last decade: A growing left-right split over the validity of scientific information. This “science gap” is apparent most of all on the issue of climate change, but the problem is much broader, encompassing topics ranging from evolution to the safety and effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

Yet even those of us who know how politicized science has become may be surprised by some new polling data out of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. There, survey researcher Lawrence Hamilton has run a new analysis of 568 New Hampshire residents, asking them a variety of questions including the following: “Would you say that you trust, don’t trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about environmental issues?” Hamilton then broke down the responses by party, separating out members of the tea party from more mainstream Republicans. And look at the result:

Lawrence Hamilton, 2014.

This is pretty striking: The first three political groups—Democrats, independents, and non-tea party Republicans—all trust scientists on the environment. But then you come to tea party members, and suddenly, distrust in scientists soars. The numbers are stark: 60 percent of traditional Republicans trust scientists on the environment, versus only 28 percent of tea partiers.

Hamilton says he’s surprised by the strength of these results. “I didn’t realize it would be at the level of division that it was,” says Hamilton. He adds that while Republicans and tea partiers in New Hampshire aren’t precisely the same in all respects as they are elsewhere in America, “in general, New Hampshire is not drastically unrepresentative.” When it comes to tea partiers and more traditional Republicans on the national level, Hamilton says that he “would expect similar gaps to show up.”

So what’s going on with this plummeting trust in scientists on the ideological right? The main factor, Hamilton thinks, is that the highly polarized climate issue is leading climate deniers to break up with scientists in general. “Climate change is sort of bleeding over into a lower trust in science across a range of issues,” says Hamilton. That means the consequences are not limited to the climate issue. “The critiques of climate science work by often arguing that science is corrupt, and then that spills over to other kinds of science,” Hamilton observes.Prior research has found that watching Fox News, in particular, leads to a declining trust in climate scientists.

The new data on trust in science comprise just one part of Hamilton’s new report. The study also looked at partisan gaps on a number of other scientific issues, and compared the size of those gaps with those that exist on non-scientific issues. And again, the result was pretty surprising: In New Hampshire, there is a bigger partisan divide over climate change and whether environmental scientists are trustworthy than there is over abortion and the death penalty. Note that in this analysis, unlike in the earlier figure, Republican responses include both those of traditional Republicans and those of tea partiers. It is the latter who are driving much of the partisan gap on issues like trust in science:

Lawrence Hamilton, 2014

Last week, we got some of the scariest news about global warming yet: We may have already helped set in motion an irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet, thus locking in 10 or more feet of sea level rise over the coming centuries. It’s the kind of news that ought to serve as a wake up call for all Americans, causing them to stop and say: Enough. We’ve got to do something here.

But as these data make clear, when it comes to science, there’s no such thing as “all Americans” any more. There are highly polarized camps, divided over the very validity of the information.

‘We Don’t Want to Die Again’: Yanomami Leader Kopenawa (Indian Country Today Media Network)

Courtesy Survival International. Davi Kopenawa, a Yanomami shaman, who has been fighting for his peoples rights for more than 20 years will be in California in April to speak about protecting the rainforest and his spiritual life. Kopenawa is seen here surrounded by Yanomami children.

5/16/14

“It’s very important to talk to everybody here. We don’t want what happened 500 years ago to happen again. We, the Yanomami people, don’t want to die again,” said Davi Kopenawa in an interview with ICTMN at the end of April.

Kopenawa, an internationally known advocate for the Yanomami people of Brazil and the rainforest, was in San Francisco at the end of April to meet with activists, scholars and political officials to alert them to an escalating crisis involving gold miners in Yanomami territory and to speak about his book “The Falling Sky.”

For the interview on April 25th, Kopenawa sat down with ICTMN along with his interpreter and friend, Fiona Watson, Research Director for Survival Internationaland longtime ally of the Yanomami and other indigenous peoples of Brazil.

During the 35 minute conversation Kopenawa began by asserting how dangerous the gold mining operations have been for the people and the environment in their territory.

“The gold miners are people with lots of vices. They bring alcohol, they bring illnesses. They couldn’t find jobs in the cities and got no help from the government and the only thing they want to do is get gold from Indigenous Peoples territories. They have spread all over our land.

“The gold miners (garimpeiros) only work in the rivers,” he explained. “They use mercury to clean and separate the gold from the sand. When they wash the gold with mercury, the mercury sinks to the bottom of the river bed. The communities who live downstream use this water for drinking, washing and bathing. The fish also swallow mercury when they are eating which in turn affects the people who eat the fish. So the Yanomami get ill from mercury poisoning. That’s how the mercury contaminates our place.”

Kopenawa also emphasized that there are laws currently being proposed in Brazil that would make it easier for miners and others to invade indigenous territories. Watson noted that the indigenous communities and their allies such as SI are very worried about three potential laws in particular: PEC 215 is a constitutional amendment that would allow congress, which has members influenced by a strong anti-indigenous lobby, to be involved with demarcation of land; Portaria 303 which would prohibit extending any indigenous territory and that indigenous rights to use their resources would not extend to preventing large scale hydro-electric and mining projects; and Law Project 1610 would open up all indigenous territories to large scale mining (and there were already hundreds of petitions to start mining in Yanomani territory).

“I will talk about these things,” Kopenawa said in regards to his then upcoming presentations (he later spoke with California Governor Jerry Brown about the mining issues).

“I want to talk about the concerns of the Yanomami people. We are beginning to get nervous and sad because the government is preparing to invade our territory even though it is demarcated and recognized by law.”

He stated that his book, “The Falling Sky,” explains those concerns and how the Yanomami are guardians of their region of the earth.

“It is important to explain this to the city people who know about their land and mountains and places but we Yanomami needed a book to explain things to white people so they would know our story. We are guardians of the knowledge of our region of earth, of the mountains and the rivers. For us, the forest is a thing of great beauty and it is our story. Some white people think that the Yanomami know nothing, so for this reason I thought about writing a book about the traditional knowledge of the Yanomami, my people.”

At the end of the interview, Kopenawa re-iterated his principal message to the people of the United States.

“All we Indigenous Peoples in Brazil are very worried because of the project to mine in the Yanomami’s territory and in the territories of other indigenous brothers and sisters. We Yanomami people don’t want mining because we don’t want to suffer and die of the white peoples’ diseases. Mining will not bring positive benefits to the Indigenous Peoples. It will only bring a lot of diseases and problems and fights with the indigenous people. For this reason all we Indigenous Peoples are against mining.

“I, Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, an indigenous leader, ask for support from the American people not to allow mining to start in the Yanomami territory. I would like you to help to defend the lungs of the earth. I thank you for your strength. Thank you very much.”

Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/05/16/yanomami-leader-kopenawa-we-dont-want-die-again-154849

Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards (AP)

By BOB MOEN

May 8, 2014 6:24 PM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Wyoming, the nation’s top coal-producing state, is the first to reject new K-12 science standards proposed by national education groups mainly because of global warming components.

The Wyoming Board of Education decided recently that the Next Generation Science Standards need more review after questions were raised about the treatment of man-made global warming.

Board President Ron Micheli said the review will look into whether “we can’t get some standards that are Wyoming standards and standards we all can be proud of.”

Others see the decision as a blow to science education in Wyoming.

“The science standards are acknowledged to be the best to prepare our kids for the future, and they are evidence based, peer reviewed, etc. Why would we want anything less for Wyoming?” Marguerite Herman, a proponent of the standards, said.

Twelve states have adopted the standards since they were released in April 2013 with the goal of improving science education, and Wyoming is the first to reject them, Chad Colby, spokesman for Achieve, one of the organizations that helped write the standards.

“The standards are what students should be expected to know at the end of each grade, but how a teacher teaches them is still up to the local districts and the states, and even the teachers in most cases,” Colby said.

But the global warming and evolution components have created pushback around the country.

Amy Edmonds, of the Wyoming Liberty Group, said teaching “one view of what is not settled science about global warming” is just one of a number of problems with the standards.

“I think Wyoming can do far better,” Edmonds said.

Wyoming produces almost 40 percent of the nation’s coal, with much of it used by power plants to provide electricity around the nation. Minerals taxes on coal provided $1 billion to the state and local governments in 2012 and coal mining supports some 6,900 jobs in the state.

Burning coal to generate electricity produces large amounts of CO2, which is considered a heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. Most scientists recognize that man-made CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. However, the degree to which it can be blamed for global warming is in dispute among some scientists.

Gov. Matt Mead has called federal efforts to curtail greenhouse emissions a “war on coal” and has said that he’s skeptical about man-made climate change.

This past winter, state lawmakers approved budget wording that sought to stop adoption of the standards.

“Wyoming is certainly unique in having legislators and the governor making comments about perceived impacts on the fossil fuel industry of kids learning climate science, and unique in acting on that one objection to prohibit consideration of the package of standards, of which climate science is a small component,” said John Friedrich, a member of the national organization Climate Parents, which supports the standards.

Friedrich and Colby noted that oil and gas industry giants Exxon Mobile and Chevron support the standards.

Opponents argue the standards incorrectly assert that man-made emissions are the main cause of global warming and shouldn’t be taught in a state that derives much of its school funding from the energy industry.

“I think those concepts should be taught in science; I just think they should be taught as theory and not as scientific fact,” state Rep. Matt Teeters, R-Lingle, said.

Paul Bruno, an eighth-grade California science teacher who reviewed the standards for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said the climate-change components can cause confusion because they are difficult to navigate.

The Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, gave the standards a “C” grade.

While the standards overall are “mediocre,” Bruno said they are being “a little bit unfairly impugned on more controversial topics like climate change or evolution.”

The standards for high school assert that models predict human activity is contributing to climate change, but leave an “appropriate amount of uncertainty” and note that it’s important to factor in costs, reliability and other issues when considering global warming solutions, he said.

“And so I think it’s fair to say that the Next Generation Standards at least make gestures in the direction of wanting to accommodate those potentially skeptical viewpoints, particularly when it comes to things like energy production,” Bruno said.

West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Collapsing (Science)

12 May 2014 6:15 pm

Linchpin. Thwaites Glacier (shown) in West Antarctica is connected with its neighbors in ways that threaten a wholesale collapse if it recedes too far inland.

NASA. Linchpin. Thwaites Glacier (shown) in West Antarctica is connected with its neighbors in ways that threaten a wholesale collapse if it recedes too far inland.

A disaster may be unfolding—in slow motion. Earlier this week, two teams of scientists reported that the Thwaites Glacier, a keystone holding the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet together, is starting to collapse. In the long run, they say, the entire ice sheet is doomed, which would release enough meltwater to raise sea levels by more than 3 meters.

One team combined data on the recent retreat of the 182,000-square-kilometer Thwaites Glacier with a model of the glacier’s dynamics to forecast its future. In a paper published online today in Science, they report that in as few as 2 centuries Thwaites Glacier’s outermost edge will recede past an underwater ridge now stalling its retreat. Their modeling suggests that the glacier will then cascade into rapid collapse. The second team, writing in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), describes recent radar mapping of West Antarctica’s glaciers and confirms that the 600-meter-deep ridge is the final obstacle before the bedrock underlying the glacier dips into a deep basin.

Because inland basins connect Thwaites Glacier to other major glaciers in the region, both research teams say its collapse would flood West Antarctica with seawater, prompting a near-complete loss of ice in the area. “The next stable state for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet might be no ice sheet at all,” says the Science paper’s lead author, glaciologist Ian Joughin of the University of Washington (UW), Seattle.

“Very crudely, we are now committed to global sea level rise equivalent to a permanent Hurricane Sandy storm surge,” says glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, referring to the storm that ravaged the Caribbean and the U.S. East Coast in 2012. Alley was not involved in either study.

Where Thwaites Glacier meets the Amundsen Sea, deep warm water burrows under the ice sheet’s base, forming an ice shelf from which icebergs break off. When melt and iceberg creation outpace fresh snowfall farther inland, the glacier shrinks. According to the radar mapping released today in GRL from the European Remote Sensing satellite, from 1992 to 2011 the Thwaites Glacier retreated 14 kilometers at its core. “Nowhere else in Antarctica is changing this fast,” says UW Seattle glaciologist Benjamin Smith, co-author of the Sciencepaper.

To forecast Thwaites Glacier’s fate, the team plugged satellite and aircraft radar maps of the glacier’s ice and underlying bedrock into a computer model. In simulations that assumed various melting trends, the model accurately reproduced recent ice-loss measurements and churned out a disturbing result: In all but the most conservative melt scenarios, a glacial collapse has already started and will accelerate rapidly once the glacier’s “grounding line”—the point at which the ice begins to float—retreats past the ridge.

At that point, the glacier’s face will become taller and, like a towering sand pile, more prone to collapse. The retreat will then accelerate to more than 5 kilometers per year, the team says. “On a glacial timescale, 200 to 500 years is the blink of an eye,” Joughin says.

And once Thwaites is gone, the rest of West Antarctica would be at risk.

Eric Rignot, a climate scientist at the University of California, Irvine, and the lead author of theGRL radar mapping study, is skeptical of Joughin’s timeline because the computer model used estimates of future melting rates instead of calculations based on physical processes such as changing sea temperatures. “These simulations ought to go to the next stage and include realistic ocean forcing,” he says. If they do, he says, they might predict an even more rapid retreat.

Antarctic history confirms the danger, Alley says: Core samples drilled into the inland basins that connect Thwaites Glacier with its neighbors have revealed algae preserved beneath the ice sheet, a hint that seawater has filled the basins within the past 750,000 years. That past flooding shows that modest climate warming can cause the entire ice sheet to collapse. “The possibility that we have already committed to 3 or more meters of sea level rise from West Antarctica will be disquieting to many people, even if the rise waits centuries before arriving.”

CONCLIMA 2013 – acesse vídeos de todas as palestras (Rede Clima)

CONCLIMA 2013 – acesse vídeos de todas as palestras

imagem video conclimaEstão disponíveis na Internet os vídeos de todas as apresentações realizadas durante a 1ª CONCLIMA – Conferência Nacional da Rede CLIMA, INCT para Mudanças Climáticas (INCT-MC) e Programa Fapesp de Pesquisas sobre Mudanças Climáticas Globais (PFPMCG), realizada de 9 a 13 de setembro em São Paulo. A Rede CLIMA também produziu uma síntese de toda a conferência, com duração de 30 minutos.

O objetivo da CONCLIMA foi apresentar os resultados das pesquisas e o conhecimento gerado por esses importantes programas e projetos – um ambicioso empreendimento científico criado pelos governos federal e do Estado de São Paulo para prover informações de alta qualidade em estudos de clima, detecção de variabilidade climática e mudança climática, e seus impactos em setores chaves do Brasil.

Acesse os vídeos:

Vídeo da CONCLIMA – 1a Conferência Nacional de Mudanças Climáticas Globais:

Apresentações – arquivos PDF

Íntegra das apresentações – VÍDEOS

Mesa de Abertura

MODELO BRASILEIRO DO SISTEMA TERRESTRE

Paulo Nobre – INPE

Iracema Cavalcanti – INPE

Léo Siqueira – INPE

Marcos Heil Costa – UFV

Sérgio Correa – UERJ

PAINEL BRASILEIRO DE MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS

Tércio Ambrizzi – USP 

Eduardo Assad – Embrapa

Mercedes Bustamante – UnB

REDE CLIMA

Agricultura – Hilton Silveira Pinto – Embrapa

Recursos Hídricos – Alfredo Ribeiro Neto – UFPE

Energias Renováveis – Marcos Freitas – COPPE/UFRJ

Biodiversidade e Ecossistemas – Alexandre Aleixo – MPEG

Desastres Naturais – Regina Rodrigues – UFSC 

Zonas Costeiras – Carlos Garcia – FURG

Urbanização e Cidades – Roberto do Carmo – Unicamp

Economia – Eduardo Haddad – USP

Saúde – Sandra Hacon – Fiocruz

Desenvolvimento Regional – Saulo Rodrigues Filho – UnB

INCT PARA MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS

O INCT para Mudanças Climáticas – José Marengo – INPE

Detecção e atribuição e variabilidade natural do clima – Simone Ferraz – UFSM

Mudanças no uso da terra – Ana Paula Aguiar – INPE

Ciclos Biogeoquímicos Globais e Biodiversidade – Mercedes Bustamante – UnB

Oceanos – Regina Rodrigues – UFSC

REDD – Osvaldo Stella – IPAM

Cenários Climáticos Futuros e Redução de Incertezas – José Marengo – INPE

Gases de Efeito Estufa – Plínio Alvalá – INPE

Estudos de ciência, tecnologia e políticas públicas – Myanna Lahsen – INPE

Interações biosfera-atmosfera – Gilvan Sampaio – INPE

Amazônia – Gilberto Fisch – IAE/DCTA

PROGRAMA FAPESP MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS

Sistema de Alerta Precoce para Doenças Infecciosas Emergentes na Amazônia Ocidental – Manuel Cesario – Unifran

Clima e população em uma região de tensão entre alta taxa de urbanização e alta biodiversidade: Dimensões sociais e ecológicas das mudanças climáticas – Lucia da Costa Ferreira – Unicamp

Cenários de impactos das mudanças climáticas na produção de álcool visando a definição de políticas públicas – Jurandir Zullo – Unicamp

Fluxos hidrológicos e fluxos de carbono – casos da Bacia Amazônica e reflorestamento de microbacias – Humberto Rocha – USP

O papel dos rios no balanço regional do carbono – Maria Victoria Ballester – USP

Aerossóis atmosféricos, balanço de radiação, nuvens e gases traços associados com mudanças de uso de solo na Amazônia – Paulo Artaxo – USP

Socio-economic impacts of climate change in Brazil: quantitative inputs for the design of public policies – Joaquim José Martins Guilhoto e Rafael Feltran Barbieri- USP

Emissão de dióxido de carbono em solos de áreas de cana-de-açúcar sob diferentes estratégias de manejo – Newton La Scala Jr – Unesp

Impacto do Oceano Atlantico Sudoeste no Clima da America do Sul ao longo dos séculos 20 e 21 – Tércio Ambrizzi – USP

MESA REDONDA: C,T&I EM MUDANÇAS GLOBAIS COMO APOIO ÀS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS 

Apresentação Sergio Margulis – SAE – Presidência da República

Apresentação Gustavo Luedemann (MCTI)

Apresentação Carlos Klink (SMCQ/MMA)

Apresentação Couto Silva (MMA): Ambiente sobre o status da Elaboração do Plano Nacional de Adaptação. Funcionamento do GT Adaptação e suas redes temáticas. Proposta de Calendário. Proposta de Estrutura do Plano. 

Apresentação Alexandre Gross (FGV): Recortes temáticos do Plano Nacional de Adaptação: apresentação do Relatório sobre dimensões temporal, espacial e temática na adaptação às mudanças climáticas (Produto 4), processo e resultados do GT Adaptação, coleta de contribuições e discussão.

Mesa redonda: Mudanças climáticas, extremos e desastres naturais 

Apresentação Rafael Schadeck – CENAD 

Apresentação Marcos Airton de Sousa Freitas – ANA 

Mesa redonda: Relação ciência – planos setoriais; políticas públicas

Apresentação Carlos Nobre – SEPED/MCTI

Apresentação Luiz Pinguelli Rosa (COPPE UFRJ, FBMC)

Apresentação Eduardo Viola – UnB

Mesa redonda: Inventários e monitoramento das emissões e remoções de GEE 

Apresentação Gustavo Luedemann – MCTI 

CONFERÊNCIAS SOBRE A VISÃO DA PRODUÇÃO DO CONHECIMENTO: DETECÇÃO, MITIGAÇÃO, IMPACTOS, VULNERABILIDADE, ADAPTAÇÃO, INOVAÇÃO

Apresentação Patrícia Pinho – IGBP/INPE

Apresentação Paulo Artaxo – USP

John Oliver Does Science Communication Right (I Fucking Love Science)

May 15, 2014 | by Stephen Luntz

photo credit: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (HBO). Satirist John Oliver shows how scientific pseudo-debates should be covered

One of the most frustrating experiences scientists, science communicators and anyone who cares about science have is the sight of media outlets giving equal time to positions held by a tiny minority of researchers.

This sort of behavior turns up for all sorts of concocted “controversies”, satirized as “Opinions differ on the Shape of the Earth”. However, the most egregious examples occur in reporting climate change. Thousands of carefully researched peer reviewed papers are weighed in the balance and judged equal to a handful of shoddily writtennumerically flaky publications whose flaws take less than a day  to come to light.

That is, of course, if you ignore the places where the anti-science side pretty much gets free range.

So it is a delight to see John Oliver show how it should be done.
We have only one problem with Oliver’s work. He repeats the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are warming the planet. In fact the study he referred to has 97.1% of peer reviewed papers on climate change endorsing this position. However, these papers were usually produced by large research teams, while the opposing minority were often cooked up by a couple of kooks in their garage. When you look at the numbers of scientists involved the numbers are actually 98.4% to 1.2%, with the rest undecided. Which might not sound like a big difference, but would make Oliver’s tame “skeptic” look even more lonely.
HT Vox, with a nice summary of the evidence


Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/environment/john-oliver-does-science-communication-right#9A4CD6abdJTOOMHK.99

Crazy Climate Economics (New York Times)

MAY 11, 2014

Paul Krugman

Everywhere you look these days, you see Marxism on the rise. Well, O.K., maybe you don’t — but conservatives do. If you so much as mention income inequality, you’ll be denounced as the second coming of Joseph Stalin; Rick Santorum has declared that any use of the word “class” is “Marxism talk.” In the right’s eyes, sinister motives lurk everywhere — for example, George Will says the only reason progressives favor trains is their goal of “diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.”

So it goes without saying that Obamacare, based on ideas originally developed at the Heritage Foundation, is a Marxist scheme — why, requiring that people purchase insurance is practically the same as sending them to gulags.

And just wait until the Environmental Protection Agency announces rules intended to slow the pace of climate change.

Until now, the right’s climate craziness has mainly been focused on attacking the science. And it has been quite a spectacle: At this point almost all card-carrying conservatives endorse the view that climate change is a gigantic hoax, that thousands of research papers showing a warming planet — 97 percent of the literature — are the product of a vast international conspiracy. But as the Obama administration moves toward actually doing something based on that science, crazy climate economics will come into its own.

You can already get a taste of what’s coming in the dissenting opinions from a recent Supreme Court ruling on power-plant pollution. A majority of the justices agreed that the E.P.A. has the right to regulate smog from coal-fired power plants, which drifts across state lines. But Justice Scalia didn’t just dissent; he suggested that the E.P.A.’s proposed rule — which would tie the size of required smog reductions to cost — reflected the Marxist concept of “from each according to his ability.” Taking cost into consideration is Marxist? Who knew?

And you can just imagine what will happen when the E.P.A., buoyed by the smog ruling, moves on to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

What do I mean by crazy climate economics?

First, we’ll see any effort to limit pollution denounced as a tyrannical act. Pollution wasn’t always a deeply partisan issue: Economists in the George W. Bush administration wrote paeans to “market based” pollution controls, and in 2008 John McCain made proposals for cap-and-trade limits on greenhouse gases part of his presidential campaign. But when House Democrats actually passed a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it was attacked as, you guessed it, Marxist. And these days Republicans come out in force to oppose even the most obviously needed regulations, like the plan to reduce the pollution that’s killing Chesapeake Bay.

Second, we’ll see claims that any effort to limit emissions will have what Senator Marco Rubio is already calling “a devastating impact on our economy.”

Why is this crazy? Normally, conservatives extol the magic of markets and the adaptability of the private sector, which is supposedly able to transcend with ease any constraints posed by, say, limited supplies of natural resources. But as soon as anyone proposes adding a few limits to reflect environmental issues — such as a cap on carbon emissions — those all-capable corporations supposedly lose any ability to cope with change.

Now, the rules the E.P.A. is likely to impose won’t give the private sector as much flexibility as it would have had in dealing with an economywide carbon cap or emissions tax. But Republicans have only themselves to blame: Their scorched-earth opposition to any kind of climate policy has left executive action by the White House as the only route forward.

Furthermore, it turns out that focusing climate policy on coal-fired power plants isn’t bad as a first step. Such plants aren’t the only source of greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re a large part of the problem — and the best estimates we have of the path forward suggest that reducing power-plant emissions will be a large part of any solution.

What about the argument that unilateral U.S. action won’t work, because China is the real problem? It’s true that we’re no longer No. 1 in greenhouse gases — but we’re still a strong No. 2. Furthermore, U.S. action on climate is a necessary first step toward a broader international agreement, which will surely include sanctions on countries that don’t participate.

So the coming firestorm over new power-plant regulations won’t be a genuine debate — just as there isn’t a genuine debate about climate science. Instead, the airwaves will be filled with conspiracy theories and wild claims about costs, all of which should be ignored. Climate policy may finally be getting somewhere; let’s not let crazy climate economics get in the way.

Análise de troncos de árvores ajuda a entender mudanças ambientais (Fapesp)

29.04.2014

Com uma motosserra, o botânico Gregório Ceccantini, professor do Instituto de Biociências da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), corta o tronco de uma peroba-rosa morta e observa o disco de madeira que obtém. Além desses discos, ele e sua equipe também retiram amostras dos troncos de diversas espécies de árvores tropicais vivas.

“Pegamos as árvores vivas, contamos os anéis ano a ano, depois aplicamos a matemática para conseguir identificar qual é o ano do calendário correto. Uma vez que tivermos o ano do calendário e a sequência de padrões de anéis, emendamos aqueles anos (das árvores vivas) com os anos das árvores mortas. E assim podemos chegar a 200, 300 anos atrás”, explica Ceccantini.

Os pesquisadores acreditam que as informações sobre o clima, como aspectos relacionados à atmosfera e à composição da chuva, estão registradas nas árvores. Essa metodologia visa recuperar essas informações para tentar compreender tanto a velocidade quanto a intensidade das mudanças ambientais nas nossas florestas ao longo dos últimos séculos.

Para saber mais sobre o assunto, leia a reportagem Os círculos do tempo, publicada na edição 213 da revista Pesquisa FAPESP.

O futuro de nosso planeta depende de 58 pessoas (IPS)

28/4/2014 – 11h23

por Roberto Savio, da IPS

RSavio0976 O futuro de nosso planeta depende de 58 pessoas

Roma, Itália, abril/2014 – Embora para muitos tenha passado inadvertidamente, o Grupo Intergovernamental de Especialistas sobre Mudança Climática (IPCC) publicou, no dia 13 de abril, a terceira e última parte de um informe no qual adverte sem rodeios que temos apenas 15 anos para evitar ultrapassar a barreira de um aquecimento global de dois graus. Além disso, as consequências serão dramáticas.

Somente os mais míopes não tomam consciência do que se trata: aumento do nível do mar, furacões e tempestades mais frequentes e um impacto adverso na produção de alimentos.

Em um mundo normal e participativo, no qual 83% das pessoas que vivem hoje ainda existirão dentro de 15 anos, esse informe teria provocado uma reação dramática.

Entretanto, não houve um único comentário dos líderes dos 196 países nos quais habitam os 7,5 bilhões de “consumidores” do planeta.

Os antropólogos que estudam as semelhanças e diferenças entre os seres humanos e outros animais há um bom tempo chegaram à conclusão de que a humanidade não é superior em todos os aspectos.

Por exemplo, o ser humano é menos adaptável à sobrevivência do que muitos animais em casos de terremotos, furacões e outros desastres naturais. A esta altura, eles devem manifestar sintomas de alerta e mal-estar.

O primeiro volume desse informe do IPCC, divulgado em setembro de 2013 em Estocolmo, estabelece que os humanos são a causa principal do aquecimento global, enquanto a segunda parte, apresentada em Yokohama no dia 31 de março, afirma que “nas últimas décadas as mudanças climáticas causaram impactos nos sistemas naturais e humanos em todos os continentes e em todos os oceanos”.

O IPCC é formado por mais de dois mil cientistas de todo o mundo e essa é a primeira vez que chega a firmes conclusões finais desde sua criação pelas Nações Unidas, em 1988. A principal conclusão é que, para deter a corrida rumo a um ponto sem volta, as emissões globais devem cair entre 40% e 70% antes de 2050.

O informe adverte que “só as grandes mudanças institucionais e tecnológicas darão uma oportunidade superior a 50%” para o aquecimento global não ultrapassar o limite de segurança, e acrescenta que as medidas devem começar, no mais tardar, em 15 anos, completando-se em 35.

Vale a pena assinalar que dois terços da humanidade têm menos de 21 anos e em grande parte são eles que terão que suportar os enormes custos da luta contra a mudança climática.

A principal recomendação do IPCC é muito simples: as principais economias devem fixar um imposto sobre a contaminação com dióxido de carbono, elevando o custo dos combustíveis fósseis, para impulsionar o mercado de fontes de energias limpas, como a eólica, solar ou nuclear.

Dez países são causadores de 70% do total da contaminação mundial de gases-estufa, sendo que Estados Unidos e China respondem por 55% desse total.

Ambos estão tomando medidas sérias para combater a contaminação.

O presidente norte-americano, Barack Obama, tentou em vão obter o beneplácito do Senado e teve que exercer sua autoridade sob a Lei de Ar Limpo de 1970 para reduzir a contaminação de carbono dos veículos e instalações industriais, estimulando as tecnologias limpas. Mas não pode fazer mais nada sem apoio do Senado.

O todo poderoso presidente da China, Xi Jinping, considera prioritário o ambiente, em parte porque fontes oficiais estimam em cinco milhões anuais o número de mortes nesse país em razão da contaminação.

Mas a China precisa de carvão para seu crescimento, e a postura de Xi é: “por que deveríamos frear nosso desenvolvimento, quando os países ricos que criaram o problema atual querem que tomemos medidas que atrasam nosso crescimento?”.

Dessa forma, cria-se um círculo vicioso. Os países do Sul querem que as nações ricas financiem seus custos de redução da contaminação e os do Norte querem que esses deixem de contaminar e assumam seus próprios custos.

Como resultado, o resumo do informe, que destina-se aos governantes, foi despojado das premissas que poderiam dar a entender a necessidade de o Sul fazer mais, enquanto os países ricos pressionaram para evitar uma linguagem que pudesse ser interpretada como a necessidade de eles assumirem as obrigações financeiras.

Isso deveria facilitar um compromisso brando na próxima Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança Climática, em Lima, onde se deveria alcançar um novo acordo global (lembremos o desastre da conferência de Copenhague, em 2009).

A chave de qualquer acordo está nas mãos dos Estados Unidos. O Congresso desse país bloqueia toda iniciativa sobre o controle climático, proporcionando uma saída fácil para China, Índia e o resto dos contaminadores: “por que devemos assumir compromissos e sacrifícios se os Estados Unidos não participam?”.

O problema é que os republicanos converteram a mudança climática em uma de suas bandeiras de identidade. A última vez que se propôs um imposto sobre o carbono, em 2009, depois de um voto positivo na Câmara de Representantes, controlada pelos democratas, o Senado, dominado pelos republicanos, o rejeitou.

Nas eleições de 2010, uma série de políticos que votaram a favor do imposto sobre carbono perderam suas cadeiras, o que contribuiu para que os republicanos assumissem o controle da Câmara.

Agora, a única esperança para os que querem uma mudança é aguardar as eleições de 2016 e esperar que o novo presidente norte-americano seja capaz de mudar a situação. Esse é um bom exemplo do que os gregos antigos diziam: que a esperança é a última deusa…

O quadro é muito simples. O Senado dos Estados Unidos tem cem integrantes, o que significa que bastam 51 votos para liquidar qualquer projeto de lei de imposto sobre os combustíveis fosseis.

Na China, a situação é diferente. Na melhor das hipóteses, as decisões são tomadas pelo Comitê Permanente do Comitê Central, formado por sete membros, que são o verdadeiro poder no Partido Comunista.

Em outras palavras, o futuro de nosso planeta é decidido por 58 pessoas de uma população de quase 7,7 bilhões de habitantes. Envolverde/IPS

Roberto Savio é fundador e presidente emérito da agência de notícias Inter Press Service (IPS) e editor do Other News.

(IPS)

The Change Within: The Obstacles We Face Are Not Just External (The Nation)

The climate crisis has such bad timing, confronting it not only requires a new economy but a new way of thinking.

Naomi Klein

April 21, 2014

(Reuters/China Daily)

This is a story about bad timing.

One of the most disturbing ways that climate change is already playing out is through what ecologists call “mismatch” or “mistiming.” This is the process whereby warming causes animals to fall out of step with a critical food source, particularly at breeding times, when a failure to find enough food can lead to rapid population losses.

The migration patterns of many songbird species, for instance, have evolved over millennia so that eggs hatch precisely when food sources such as caterpillars are at their most abundant, providing parents with ample nourishment for their hungry young. But because spring now often arrives early, the caterpillars are hatching earlier too, which means that in some areas they are less plentiful when the chicks hatch, threatening a number of health and fertility impacts. Similarly, in West Greenland, caribou are arriving at their calving grounds only to find themselves out of sync with the forage plants they have relied on for thousands of years, now growing earlier thanks to rising temperatures. That is leaving female caribou with less energy for lactation, reproduction and feeding their young, a mismatch that has been linked to sharp decreases in calf births and survival rates.

Scientists are studying cases of climate-related mistiming among dozens of species, from Arctic terns to pied flycatchers. But there is one important species they are missing—us. Homosapiens. We too are suffering from a terrible case of climate-related mistiming, albeit in a cultural-historical, rather than a biological, sense. Our problem is that the climate crisis hatched in our laps at a moment in history when political and social conditions were uniquely hostile to a problem of this nature and magnitude—that moment being the tail end of the go-go ’80s, the blastoff point for the crusade to spread deregulated capitalism around the world. Climate changeis a collective problem demanding collective action the likes of which humanity has never actually accomplished. Yet it entered mainstream consciousness in the midst of an ideological war being waged on the very idea of the collective sphere.

This deeply unfortunate mistiming has created all sorts of barriers to our ability to respond effectively to this crisis. It has meant that corporate power was ascendant at the very moment when we needed to exert unprecedented controls over corporate behavior in order to protect life on earth. It has meant that regulation was a dirty word just when we needed those powers most. It has meant that we are ruled by a class of politicians who know only how to dismantle and starve public institutions, just when they most need to be fortified and reimagined. And it has meant that we are saddled with an apparatus of “free trade” deals that tie the hands of policy-makers just when they need maximum flexibility to achieve a massive energy transition.

Confronting these various structural barriers to the next economy is the critical work of any serious climate movement. But it’s not the only task at hand. We also have to confront how the mismatch between climate change and market domination has created barriers within our very selves, making it harder to look at this most pressing of humanitarian crises with anything more than furtive, terrified glances. Because of the way our daily lives have been altered by both market and technological triumphalism, we lack many of the observational tools necessary to convince ourselves that climate change is real—let alone the confidence to believe that a different way of living is possible.

And little wonder: just when we needed to gather, our public sphere was disintegrating; just when we needed to consume less, consumerism took over virtually every aspect of our lives; just when we needed to slow down and notice, we sped up; and just when we needed longer time horizons, we were able to see only the immediate present.

This is our climate change mismatch, and it affects not just our species, but potentially every other species on the planet as well.

The good news is that, unlike reindeer and songbirds, we humans are blessed with the capacity for advanced reasoning and therefore the ability to adapt more deliberately—to change old patterns of behavior with remarkable speed. If the ideas that rule our culture are stopping us from saving ourselves, then it is within our power to change those ideas. But before that can happen, we first need to understand the nature of our personal climate mismatch.

› Climate change demands that we consume less, but being consumers is all we know.Climate change is not a problem that can be solved simply by changing what we buy—a hybrid instead of an SUV, some carbon offsets when we get on a plane. At its core, it is a crisis born of overconsumption by the comparatively wealthy, which means the world’s most manic consumers are going to have to consume less.

The problem is not “human nature,” as we are so often told. We weren’t born having to shop this much, and we have, in our recent past, been just as happy (in many cases happier) consuming far less. The problem is the inflated role that consumption has come to play in our particular era.

Late capitalism teaches us to create ourselves through our consumer choices: shopping is how we form our identities, find community and express ourselves. Thus, telling people that they can’t shop as much as they want to because the planet’s support systems are overburdened can be understood as a kind of attack, akin to telling them that they cannot truly be themselves. This is likely why, of the original “Three Rs”—reduce, reuse, recycle—only the third has ever gotten any traction, since it allows us to keep on shopping as long as we put the refuse in the right box. The other two, which require that we consume less, were pretty much dead on arrival.

› Climate change is slow, and we are fast. When you are racing through a rural landscape on a bullet train, it looks as if everything you are passing is standing still: people, tractors, cars on country roads. They aren’t, of course. They are moving, but at a speed so slow compared with the train that they appear static.

So it is with climate change. Our culture, powered by fossil fuels, is that bullet train, hurtling forward toward the next quarterly report, the next election cycle, the next bit of diversion or piece of personal validation via our smartphones and tablets. Our changing climate is like the landscape out the window: from our racy vantage point, it can appear static, but it is moving, its slow progress measured in receding ice sheets, swelling waters and incremental temperature rises. If left unchecked, climate change will most certainly speed up enough to capture our fractured attention—island nations wiped off the map, and city-drowning superstorms, tend to do that. But by then, it may be too late for our actions to make a difference, because the era of tipping points will likely have begun.

› Climate change is place-based, and we are everywhere at once. The problem is not just that we are moving too quickly. It is also that the terrain on which the changes are taking place is intensely local: an early blooming of a particular flower, an unusually thin layer of ice on a lake, the late arrival of a migratory bird. Noticing those kinds of subtle changes requires an intimate connection to a specific ecosystem. That kind of communion happens only when we know a place deeply, not just as scenery but also as sustenance, and when local knowledge is passed on with a sense of sacred trust from one generation to the next.

But that is increasingly rare in the urbanized, industrialized world. We tend to abandon our homes lightly—for a new job, a new school, a new love. And as we do so, we are severed from whatever knowledge of place we managed to accumulate at the previous stop, as well as from the knowledge amassed by our ancestors (who, at least in my case, migrated repeatedly themselves).

Even for those of us who manage to stay put, our daily existence can be disconnected from the physical places where we live. Shielded from the elements as we are in our climate-controlled homes, workplaces and cars, the changes unfolding in the natural world easily pass us by. We might have no idea that a historic drought is destroying the crops on the farms that surround our urban homes, since the supermarkets still display miniature mountains of imported produce, with more coming in by truck all day. It takes something huge—like a hurricane that passes all previous high-water marks, or a flood destroying thousands of homes—for us to notice that something is truly amiss. And even then we have trouble holding on to that knowledge for long, since we are quickly ushered along to the next crisis before these truths have a chance to sink in.

Climate change, meanwhile, is busily adding to the ranks of the rootless every day, as natural disasters, failed crops, starving livestock and climate-fueled ethnic conflicts force yet more people to leave their ancestral homes. And with every human migration, more crucial connections to specific places are lost, leaving yet fewer people to listen closely to the land.

› Climate pollutants are invisible, and we have stopped believing in what we cannot see.When BP’s Macondo well ruptured in 2010, releasing torrents of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, one of the things we heard from company CEO Tony Hayward was that “the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.” The statement was widely ridiculed at the time, and rightly so, but Hayward was merely voicing one of our culture’s most cherished beliefs: that what we can’t see won’t hurt us and, indeed, barely exists.

So much of our economy relies on the assumption that there is always an “away” into which we can throw our waste. There’s the away where our garbage goes when it is taken from the curb, and the away where our waste goes when it is flushed down the drain. There’s the away where the minerals and metals that make up our goods are extracted, and the away where those raw materials are turned into finished products. But the lesson of the BP spill, in the words of ecological theorist Timothy Morton, is that ours is “a world in which there is no ‘away.’”

When I published No Logo a decade and a half ago, readers were shocked to learn of the abusive conditions under which their clothing and gadgets were manufactured. But we have since learned to live with it—not to condone it, exactly, but to be in a state of constant forgetfulness. Ours is an economy of ghosts, of deliberate blindness.

Air is the ultimate unseen, and the greenhouse gases that warm it are our most elusive ghosts. Philosopher David Abram points out that for most of human history, it was precisely this unseen quality that gave the air its power and commanded our respect. “Called Sila, the wind-mind of the world, by the Inuit; Nilch’i, or Holy Wind, by the Navajo; Ruach, or rushing-spirit, by the ancient Hebrews,” the atmosphere was “the most mysterious and sacred dimension of life.” But in our time, “we rarely acknowledge the atmosphere as it swirls between two persons.” Having forgotten the air, Abram writes, we have made it our sewer, “the perfect dump site for the unwanted by-products of our industries…. Even the most opaque, acrid smoke billowing out of the pipes will dissipate and disperse, always and ultimately dissolving into the invisible. It’s gone. Out of sight, out of mind.”

* * *

Another part of what makes climate change so very difficult for us to grasp is that ours is a culture of the perpetual present, one that deliberately severs itself from the past that created us as well as the future we are shaping with our actions. Climate change is about how what we did generations in the past will inescapably affect not just the present, but generations in the future. These time frames are a language that has become foreign to most of us.

This is not about passing individual judgment, nor about berating ourselves for our shallowness or rootlessness. Rather, it is about recognizing that we are products of an industrial project, one intimately, historically linked to fossil fuels.

And just as we have changed before, we can change again. After listening to the great farmer-poet Wendell Berry deliver a lecture on how we each have a duty to love our “homeplace” more than any other, I asked him if he had any advice for rootless people like me and my friends, who live in our computers and always seem to be shopping for a home. “Stop somewhere,” he replied. “And begin the thousand-year-long process of knowing that place.”

That’s good advice on lots of levels. Because in order to win this fight of our lives, we all need a place to stand.

Read more of The Nation’s special #MyClimateToo coverage:

Mark Hertsgaard: Why TheNation.com Today Is All About Climate
Christopher Hayes: The New Abolitionism
Dani McClain: The ‘Environmentalists’ Who Scapegoat Immigrants and Women on Climate Change
Mychal Denzel Smith: Racial and Environmental Justice Are Two Sides of the Same Coin
Katrina vanden Heuvel: Earth Day’s Founding Father
Wen Stephenson: Let This Earth Day Be The Last
Katha Pollitt: Climate Change is the Tragedy of the Global Commons
Michelle Goldberg: Fighting Despair to Fight Climate Change
George Zornick: We’re the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Cheap Date
Dan Zegart: Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court
Jeremy Brecher: ‘Jobs vs. the Environment’: How to Counter the Divisive Big Lie
Jon Wiener: Elizabeth Kolbert on Species Extinction and Climate Change
Dave Zirin: Brazil’s World Cup Will Kick the Environment in the Teeth
Steven Hsieh: People of Color Are Already Getting Hit the Hardest by Climate Change
John Nichols: If Rick Weiland Can Say “No” to Keystone, So Can Barack Obama
Michelle Chen: Where Have All the Green Jobs Gone?
Peter Rothberg: Why I’m Not Totally Bummed Out This Earth Day
Leslie Savan: This Is My Brain on Paper Towels

Biologists help solve fungal mysteries, inform studies on climate change (Science Daily)

Date: April 17, 2014

Source: Stanford University

Summary: A new genetic analysis revealing the previously unknown biodiversity and distribution of thousands of fungi in North America might also reveal a previously underappreciated contributor to climate change. Huge populations of fungi are churning away in the soil in pine forests, decomposing organic matter and releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

Kabir Peay, assistant professor of biology at Stanford, measures the diameter of a tree at Point Reyes National Seashore. Credit: Thomas Bruns

Pine forests are chock full of wild animals and plant life, but there’s an invisible machine underground. Huge populations of fungi are churning away in the soil, decomposing organic matter and releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

Despite the vital role these fungi play in ecological systems, their identities have only now been revealed. A Stanford-led team of scientists has generated a genetic map of more than 10,000 species of fungi across North America. The work was published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Fungi are much more important than most people realize, said Kabir Peay, an assistant professor of biology at Stanford and senior author on the new paper. “They are the primary decomposers in most of the planet’s ecosystems,” he said, “and if not for them, dead material would accumulate to the point where most other biological processes on Earth would grind to a halt.”

Soil fungi can be divided into two primary groups. The saprotrophs live in the top layer of soil, digesting dead matter, breaking up molecules into individual components — converting proteins into amino acids and starches to simple sugars, and freeing up elements such as nitrogen — that plants rely on for growth.

The other group, mycorrhizal fungi, have an even closer bond with plants, living among their roots and converting older forms of organic matter into nitrogen and phosphorus for the plants. In return, the plants feed these fungi a steady stream of sugars they obtain from photosynthesis.

The soil stores three to four times as much carbon as the atmosphere, and all this microorganism activity also releases some of that carbon into the air, to a tune of 10 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere as humans release through emissions.

“It’s a huge flux of carbon into the atmosphere, and fungi are the engines,” said Jennifer Talbot, a postdoctoral research fellow in Peay’s lab and first author on the study. “But we do not know how much diversity matters in maintaining the carbon cycle. Are all fungi doing the same thing? Can you kill half the species on Earth and still have the same amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, carbon stored on land and nutrients recycled?”

DNA in the dirt

These questions are impossible to answer without first knowing which fungi are out in the world. So the researchers traveled to 26 pine forests across North America and collected 10-centimeter-deep soil cores, more than 600 in all. Within hours of collection, and with the assistance of local scientists and universities, they preserved the samples to extract and isolate the fungal DNA. The researchers then used modern genomic tools to sequence unique stretches of the environmental DNA that can be used as barcodes to identify all of the fungal species present in each sample.

The sequencing revealed more than 10,000 species of fungi, which the researchers then analyzed to determine biodiversity, distribution, and function by geographical location and soil depth. Interestingly, Peay said, there was very little overlap in the fungal species from region to region; East Coast fungi didn’t show up on the West Coast or Midwest, and vice versa.

“People oftentimes assume that similar habitats in, say, North Carolina and California would have similar fungi, but this is the opposite of what we find,” Peay said. “What’s more interesting, despite the fact that soil fungal communities in Florida and Alaska might have no fungi in common, you find that many of the processes and the functional rates are convergent. The same jobs exist, just different species are doing them.”

The team found this to be particularly true when comparing the functionality of fungi at different strata of the core samples. Even though the samples were collected thousands of miles apart, fungi near the top all performed the same task; similarly, bottom fungi performed very similar functions across the continent.

Peay said that more work is needed to understand fungal dispersal mechanisms and whether that plays a role in restricting species to particular regions, but the current finding that each bioregion has its own unique fungal fingerprint indicates that fungi could prove to be powerful forensic markers.

Impact on the climate

One surprising discovery was related to fungi producing oxidoreductases, enzymes used to break down particularly old forms of carbon-based molecules. In the study, the activity of oxidoreductases was associated with the abundance of mycorhizzal fungi. The new results suggest that these fungi may be far busier in degrading old organic material than previously thought.

“If mycorrhizal fungi are responsible for breaking down these types of carbon, even to a small degree, it totally changes our concept of how carbon is cycled through ecosystems and released into the atmosphere,” Talbot said. “This shows that we really need to think about the biology of the system. We hope to provide some simple parameters so folks building climate change models will be able to fold in this type of biology.”

Journal Reference:
  1. J. M. Talbot, T. D. Bruns, J. W. Taylor, D. P. Smith, S. Branco, S. I. Glassman, S. Erlandson, R. Vilgalys, H.-L. Liao, M. E. Smith, K. G. Peay. Endemism and functional convergence across the North American soil mycobiome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1402584111

Study shows lasting effects of drought in rainy Eastern U.S. (Science Daily)

Date: April 17, 2014

Source: Harvard University

Summary: This spring, more than 40 percent of the western U.S. is in a drought that the USDA deems “severe” or “exceptional.” The same was true in 2013. In 2012, drought even spread to the humid east. But new research shows how short-lived but severe climatic events can trigger cascades of ecosystem change that last for centuries.

Comparing tree ring records like the ones shown here, collected by early anthropologist Florence Hawley, gives insight into the history of a landscape. Credit: Photo by Neil Pederson

This spring, more than 40 percent of the western U.S. is in a drought that the USDA deems “severe” or “exceptional.” The same was true in 2013. In 2012, drought even spread to the humid east.

It’s easy to assume that a 3-year drought is an inconsequential blip on the radar for ecosystems that develop over centuries to millennia. But new research just released in Ecological Monographs shows how short-lived but severe climatic events can trigger cascades of ecosystem change that last for centuries.

Some of the most compelling evidence of how ecosystems respond to drought and other challenges can be found in the trunks of our oldest trees. Results from an analysis of tree rings spanning more than 300,000 square miles and 400 years of history in the eastern U.S. — led by scientists at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, the Harvard Forest, and elsewhere — point to ways in which seemingly stable forests could abruptly change over the next century.

“Trees are great recorders of information,” says Dave Orwig, an ecologist at the Harvard Forest and co-author of the new study. “They can give us a glimpse back in time.”

The tree records in this study show that just before the American Revolution, across the broadleaf forests of Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas, the simultaneous death of many trees opened huge gaps in the forest — prompting a new generation of saplings to surge skyward.

There’s no historical evidence that the dead trees succumbed to logging, ice storms, or hurricanes. Instead, they were likely weakened by repeated drought leading up to the 1770s, followed by an intense drought from 1772 to 1775. The final straw was an unseasonable and devastating frost in 1774 that, until this study, was only known to historical diaries like Thomas Jefferson’s Garden Book, where he recounts “a frost which destroyed almost every thing” at Monticello that was “equally destructive thro the whole country and the neighboring colonies.”

The oversized generation of new trees that followed-something like a baby boom — shaped the old-growth forests that still stand in the Southeast today.

“Many of us think these grand old trees in our old-growth forests have always been there and stood the test of time,” says Neil Pederson of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, lead author of the new study. “What we now see is that big events, including climatic extremes, created large portions of these forests in short order through the weakening and killing of existing trees.”

Pederson, who will become a senior ecologist at the Harvard Forest in fall 2014, notes that as climate warms, increasing drought conditions and earlier springs like that of 1774 could easily expose eastern forests to the kinds of conditions that changed them so abruptly in the 17th and 18th centuries. “We are seeing more and more evidence of climate events weakening trees, making them more likely to succumb to insects, pathogens, or the next severe drought,” says Orwig.

Pederson adds, “With this perspective, the changes predicted by models under future climate change seem more real.”

 Journal Reference:
  1. Neil Pederson, James M. Dyer, Ryan W. McEwan, Amy E. Hessl, Cary J. Mock, David A. Orwig, Harald E. Rieder, Benjamin I. Cook. The legacy of episodic climatic events in shaping temperate, broadleaf forestsEcological Monographs, 2014; 140414095101002 DOI: 10.1890/13-1025.1

Drought hormones measured in plants to prepare for food security (Science Daily)

Date: April 15, 2014

Source: Carnegie Institution

Summary: Floods and droughts are increasingly in the news, and climate experts say their frequency will only go up in the future. As such, it is crucial for scientists to learn more about how these extreme events affect plants in order to prepare for and combat the risks to food security that could result. New work could help bring about breakthrough findings on that front.

The NiTrac sensor developed by Cheng Hsun Ho and Wolf Frommer of the Carnegie Institution will enable non-invasive real-time monitoring of nitrogen acquisition in action in plant roots, providing a new tool set that can be used to improve nitrogen efficiency. The novel sensor technology is widely applicable and useful also for cancer and neurobiology. Credit: Cheng Hsun Ho and Wolf Frommer.

Floods and droughts are increasingly in the news, and climate experts say their frequency will only go up in the future. As such, it is crucial for scientists to learn more about how these extreme events affect plants in order to prepare for and combat the risks to food security that could result.

Like animals, plants have hormones that send chemical signals between its cells relaying information about the plant’s development or interactions with the outside world. One particular way in which plants use hormone signals is in reaction to drought or soil saltiness. The hormone responsible for this type of response is called abscisic acid. It not only controls efficient water use, but plays a role in signaling when seeds should remain dormant and when they should germinate, depending on soil conditions.

New work from a team including Carnegie’s Wolf Frommer will allow researchers, for the first time, to measure the levels of abscisic acid in individual plant cells in real time. It is published in eLife.

“This will vastly improve our understanding of how abscisic acid works in a plant that is stressed by salt or lack of water,” Frommer explained. “This new tool can help engineers and farmers work to increase crop yields, which is especially important as climate change puts plants under increased stress.”

The team’s tool uses multiple fluorescently tagged proteins to measure the concentration of abscisic acid found in a plant cell. Their findings indicate that there are likely more proteins responsible for transporting abscisic acid into a cell than are currently known and also that abscisic acid is eliminated by root cells very quickly after uptake.

“More work should reveal the fine-tuning by which plant cells respond and react to hormone signals. These tools should also have applications for human and animal hormones, as well,” Frommer said.

Journal Reference:

  1. A. M. Jones, J. A. Danielson, S. N. ManojKumar, V. Lanquar, G. Grossmann, W. B. Frommer. Abscisic acid dynamics in roots detected with genetically encoded FRET sensorseLife, 2014; 3 (0): e01741 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.01741

Krugman: Salvation Gets Cheap (New York Times)

APRIL 17, 2014

Paul Krugman

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which pools the efforts of scientists around the globe, has begun releasing draft chapters from its latest assessment, and, for the most part, the reading is as grim as you might expect. We are still on the road to catastrophe without major policy changes.

But there is one piece of the assessment that is surprisingly, if conditionally, upbeat: Its take on the economics of mitigation. Even as the report calls for drastic action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, it asserts that the economic impact of such drastic action would be surprisingly small. In fact, even under the most ambitious goals the assessment considers, the estimated reduction in economic growth would basically amount to a rounding error, around 0.06 percent per year.

What’s behind this economic optimism? To a large extent, it reflects a technological revolution many people don’t know about, the incredible recent decline in the cost of renewable energy, solar power in particular.

Before I get to that revolution, however, let’s talk for a minute about the overall relationship between economic growth and the environment.

Other things equal, more G.D.P. tends to mean more pollution. What transformed China into the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases? Explosive economic growth. But other things don’t have to be equal. There’s no necessary one-to-one relationship between growth and pollution.

People on both the left and the right often fail to understand this point. (I hate it when pundits try to make every issue into a case of “both sides are wrong,” but, in this case, it happens to be true.) On the left, you sometimes find environmentalists asserting that to save the planet we must give up on the idea of an ever-growing economy; on the right, you often find assertions that any attempt to limit pollution will have devastating impacts on growth. But there’s no reason we can’t become richer while reducing our impact on the environment.

Let me add that free-market advocates seem to experience a peculiar loss of faith whenever the subject of the environment comes up. They normally trumpet their belief that the magic of the market can surmount all obstacles — that the private sector’s flexibility and talent for innovation can easily cope with limiting factors like scarcity of land or minerals. But suggest the possibility of market-friendly environmental measures, like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, and they suddenly assert that the private sector would be unable to cope, that the costs would be immense. Funny how that works.

The sensible position on the economics of climate change has always been that it’s like the economics of everything else — that if we give corporations and individuals an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they will respond. What form would that response take? Until a few years ago, the best guess was that it would proceed on many fronts, involving everything from better insulation and more fuel-efficient cars to increased use of nuclear power.

One front many people didn’t take too seriously, however, was renewable energy. Sure, cap-and-trade might make more room for wind and the sun, but how important could such sources really end up being? And I have to admit that I shared that skepticism. If truth be told, I thought of the idea that wind and sun could be major players as hippie-dippy wishful thinking.

The climate change panel, in its usual deadpan prose, notes that “many RE [renewable energy] technologies have demonstrated substantial performance improvements and cost reductions” since it released its last assessment, back in 2007. The Department of Energy is willing to display a bit more open enthusiasm; it titled a report on clean energy released last year “Revolution Now.” That sounds like hyperbole, but you realize that it isn’t when you learn that the price of solar panels has fallen more than 75 percent just since 2008.

Thanks to this technological leap forward, the climate panel can talk about “decarbonizing” electricity generation as a realistic goal — and since coal-fired power plants are a very large part of the climate problem, that’s a big part of the solution right there.

It’s even possible that decarbonizing will take place without special encouragement, but we can’t and shouldn’t count on that. The point, instead, is that drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are now within fairly easy reach.

So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong? Oh, wait.

Ficção climática, um gênero literário que vai além da ficção científica (IPS) 

16/4/2014 – 11h40

por Dan Bloom*

mudancasclimaticas1 300x230 Ficção climática, um gênero literário que vai além da ficção científica

Taipé, Taiwan, abril/2014 – Quando lemos romances ou ficções curtas em qualquer idioma o fazemos para entender a história, para aprender algo novo ou, com sorte, para conseguir algum tipo de elevação emocional graças às palavras impressas nas páginas e às habilidades do narrador.

Então, como contar a “história” da mudança climática e do aquecimento global?

Um novo gênero literário chamado “ficção climática”, abreviado em inglês como cli-fi, vem evoluindo nos últimos anos e, embora ainda empreste seu nome da ficção científica, se centra em relatos sobre a mudança climática e seus impactos atuais e futuros sobre a vida humana.

Alguns insistem em que é apenas um subgênero da ficção científica, e isso tem sentido em certo aspecto. Mas, em outros, trata-se de um gênero em si mesmo que está ganhando impulso em todo o mundo, não como mero escapismo ou entretenimento – embora frequentemente inclua esses elementos –, mas como um modo sério de abordar os assuntos complexos e universais existentes em torno da mudança climática.

Sei algo sobre ficção climática porque nos últimos anos trabalhei para popularizá-la, não só no mundo de idioma inglês, mas também entre milhões de pessoas que leem em espanhol, chinês, alemão ou francês, para citar alguns. Em minha opinião, é um gênero internacional, com leitores internacionais, que deveria ser abordado por escritores de qualquer nação e em qualquer idioma.

Cada vez mais novelas de ficção climática se dirigem a uma audiência jovem – “adultos jovens”, no jargão editorial –, como Not a Drop to Drink (Nem Uma Gota Para Beber), de Mindy McGinnis, The Carbon Diaries 2015 (Os Diários do Carbono 2015), de Saci Lloyd, e Floodland (Terra Inundável), de Marcus Sedgwick. Na verdade, são as crianças e os adolescentes que sofrerão as consequências dos estilos de vida escolhidos pelas gerações anteriores.

Em um mundo que enfrenta os impactos potencialmente catastróficos da mudança climática, esse novo gênero literário se incorpora à nossa cultura em narrativa comum, divulgando ideias e pontos de vista sobre o futuro que a humanidade pode enfrentar em dez, cem ou 500 anos.

É aí que entra em cena a ficção climática, que pode desempenhar um papel importante para plasmar as emoções e os sentimentos das personagens, em um relato ou romance bem escrito para conscientizar leitores em todo o mundo.

Imaginem um romance de ficção climática, que não só chegue a milhares de leitores, mas que também os emocione e, talvez, os motive a se converterem em uma voz mais forte no debate político internacional sobre as emissões de carbono.

Esse é o potencial da ficção climática.

Uma universidade dos Estados Unidos oferece um curso sobre romances e filmes de ficção climática para estudantes de ciências ambientais e literatura.

Para Stephanie LeMenager, que este ano dá aulas na Universidade de Oregon, o curso constitui uma oportunidade, para ela e seus alunos, de explorar o poder da literatura e do cinema, em um momento em que escritores e cineastas tentam abordar alguns dos assuntos mais difíceis que a humanidade enfrenta no século 21.

O curso de LeMenager se chama As Culturas da Mudança Climática. É o primeiro na América do Norte, e inclusive no mundo, que se dedica dessa maneira às artes e à mudança climática. Estou seguro de que outras universidades seguirão esse esforço pioneiro, agregando novos cursos sobre ficção climática para seus estudantes.

Nathaniel Rich é um escritor de 34 anos, autor do aclamado romance Odds Against Tomorrow (Prognósticos Contra o Amanhã), uma história ambientada em um futuro próximo em Manhattan, que mergulha na “matemática da catástrofe”. Residente em Nova Orleans, Rich acredita que serão publicados mais livros como o seu, não só em inglês e não só do ponto de vista das nações ricas do Ocidente.

Escritores de todo o mundo devem se animar a incursionar no gênero da ficção climática e a usar a literatura de suas próprias culturas para tentar despertar a população sobre o futuro que pode esperar a todos em um planeta que esquenta sem um fim à vista.

As tramas podem ser aterradoras, mas as novelas de ficção climática dão a oportunidade de explorar esses assuntos com emoção e prosa. Os livros têm importância. A literatura tem um papel a desempenhar em nossos debates sobre os impactos do aquecimento global em todo o mundo.

Se poderá dizer que o cânon do gênero remonta ao romance O Mundo Submerso, escrito em 1962 pelo britânico J. G. Ballard. Outro dos primeiros livros sobre esse fenômeno foi escrito em 1987 pelo australiano George Turner: As Torres do Esquecimento.

A norte-americana Barbara Kingsolver publicou há alguns anos um romance muito poderoso de ficção climática intitulada Flight Behavior (Comportamento de Voo). Me impressionou muito quando o li no verão passado, e o recomendo.

A canadense Mary Woodbury criou o site Cli-Fi Books, que lista romances atuais e passados de ficção climática.

Como vejo o futuro? Prevejo um mundo onde os seres humanos se aferrem à esperança e ao otimismo. E sou otimista. E creio que quanto mais nos apegarmos à ciência da mudança climática no plano cultural mais efetivamente poderemos nos unir para evitar o pior. Envolverde/IPS

Dan Bloom é jornalista independente de Boston que vive em Taiwan. Em 1971, se formou na Tufts University, onde se especializou em literatura francesa. É ativista climático e literário desde 2006. Para segui-lo no Twitter o endereço é @polarcityman.

Loss Adjustment (Mobiot.com)

March 31, 2014

When people say we should adapt to climate change, do they have any idea what that means?

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st April 2014

To understand what is happening to the living planet, the great conservationist Aldo Leopold remarked, is to live “in a world of wounds … An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”(1)

The metaphor suggests that he might have seen Henrik Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People(2). Thomas Stockmann is a doctor in a small Norwegian town, and medical officer at the public baths whose construction has been overseen by his brother, the mayor. The baths, the mayor boasts, “will become the focus of our municipal life! … Houses and landed property are rising in value every day.”

But Dr Stockmann discovers that the pipes were built in the wrong place, and the water feeding the baths is contaminated. “The source is poisoned …We are making our living by retailing filth and corruption! The whole of our flourishing municipal life derives its sustenance from a lie!” People bathing in the water to improve their health are instead falling ill.

Dr Stockmann expects to be treated as a hero for exposing this deadly threat. After the mayor discovers that re-laying the pipes would cost a fortune and probably sink the whole project, he decides that his brother’s report “has not convinced me that the condition of the water at the baths is as bad as you represent it to be.” He proposes to ignore the problem, make some cosmetic adjustments and carry on as before. After all, “the matter in hand is not simply a scientific one. It is a complicated matter, and has its economic as well as its technical side.” The local paper, the baths committee and the business people side with the mayor against the doctor’s “unreliable and exaggerated accounts”.

Astonished and enraged, Dr Stockmann lashes out madly at everyone. He attacks the town as a nest of imbeciles, and finds himself, in turn, denounced as an enemy of the people. His windows are broken, his clothes are torn, he’s evicted and ruined.

Yesterday’s editorial in the Daily Telegraph, which was by no means the worst of the recent commentary on this issue, follows the first three acts of the play(3). Marking the new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the paper sides with the mayor. First it suggests that the panel cannot be trusted, partly because its accounts are unreliable and exaggerated and partly because it uses “model-driven assumptions” to forecast future trends. (What would the Telegraph prefer? Tea leaves? Entrails?). Then it suggests that trying to stop manmade climate change would be too expensive. Then it proposes making some cosmetic adjustments and carrying on as before. (“Perhaps instead of continued doom-mongering, however, greater thought needs to be given to how mankind might adapt to the climatic realities.”)

But at least the Telegraph accepted that the issue deserved some prominence. On the Daily Mail’s website, climate breakdown was scarcely a footnote to the real issues of the day: “Kim Kardashian looks more confident than ever as she shows off her toned curves” and “Little George is the spitting image of Kate”.

Beneath these indispensable reports was a story celebrating the discovery of “vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.”(4) No connection with the release of the new climate report was made. Like royal babies, Kim’s curves and Ibsen’s municipal baths, coal is good for business. Global warming, like Dr Stockmann’s contaminants, is the spectre at the feast.

Everywhere we’re told that it’s easier to adapt to global warming than to stop causing it. This suggests that it’s not only the Stern review on the economics of climate change (showing that it’s much cheaper to avert climate breakdown than to try to live with it(5)) that has been forgotten, but also the floods which have so recently abated. If a small, rich, well-organised nation cannot protect its people from a winter of exceptional rainfall – which might have been caused by less than one degree of global warming – what hope do other nations have, when faced with four degrees or more?

When our environment secretary, Owen Paterson, assures us that climate change “is something we can adapt to over time”(6) or Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian yesterday, says that we should move towards “thinking intelligently about how the world should adapt to what is already happening”(7), what do they envisage? Cities relocated to higher ground? Roads and railways shifted inland? Rivers diverted? Arable land abandoned? Regions depopulated? Have they any clue about what this would cost? Of what the impacts would be for the people breezily being told to live with it?

My guess is that they don’t envisage anything: they have no idea what they mean when they say adaptation. If they’ve thought about it at all, they probably picture a steady rise in temperatures, followed by a steady rise in impacts, to which we steadily adjust. But that, as we should know from our own recent experience, is not how it happens. Climate breakdown proceeds in fits and starts, sudden changes of state against which, as we discovered on a small scale in January, preparations cannot easily be made.

Insurers working out their liability when a disaster has occurred use a process they call loss adjustment. It could describe what all of us who love this world are going through, as we begin to recognise that governments, the media and most businesses have no intention of seeking to avert the coming tragedies. We are being told to accept the world of wounds; to live with the disappearance, envisaged in the new climate report, of coral reefs and summer sea ice, of most glaciers and perhaps some rainforests, of rivers and wetlands and the species which, like many people, will be unable to adapt(8).

As the scale of the loss to which we must adjust becomes clearer, grief and anger are sometimes overwhelming. You find yourself, as I have done in this column, lashing out at the entire town.

http://www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Aldo Leopold, 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.

2. Read at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2446/2446-h/2446-h.htm

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10733381/The-climate-debate-needs-more-than-alarmism.html

4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593032/Coal-fuel-UK-centuries-Vast-deposits-totalling-23trillion-tonnes-North-Sea.html

5. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

6. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/30/owen-paterson-minister-climate-change-advantages

7. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/ipcc-report-adaptation-climate-change

8. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf

Global Warming Scare Tactics (New York Times)

 OAKLAND, Calif. — IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”

Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level rise to decreasing agricultural output.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

For instance, Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” popularized the idea that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center.

Other factors contributed. Some conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into recession, public support for environmental protection declined.

Still, environmental groups have known since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.

Some people, the report noted, “are likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.

Since then, evidence that a fear-based approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up the scholarly consensus. “Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s attention and concern,” the researchers wrote, “they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial.” In a controlled laboratory experiment published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use “dire messages” about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.

Many climate advocates ignore these findings, arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.

But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of natural disasters. “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration,” the climate panel noted, “is the most important driver of increasing losses.”

What works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions. Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.

One recent study, published by Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project, found that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that “communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society” rather than “on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?

While the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable, turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy will better serve efforts to slow global warming.