“Electricity is increasingly generated from renewable energy in the UK, and the cost of renewable generation has significantly decreased in the past decade.
Despite this, the price paid for wholesale electricity on the ‘spot market’, where, according to the Competition and Market’s Authority around two fifths of electricity is thought to be sold (PDF), is largely determined by the price of natural gas.
This Insight discusses the ‘marginal cost pricing’ system, which prices electricity from all sources according to the most expensive source, and its effect on the price of electricity from various sources.
How much electricity is produced by renewables?
The proportion of electricity generated from different sources has changed over time. The chart below shows that the proportion generated by renewables has increased from 3% in 2000 to 42% in 2022, whereas the proportion generated by fossil fuels has decreased from 73% in 2000 to 41% in 2022.
There is a wholesale market for electricity across Great Britain, with separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. Wholesale electricity prices are set by trades between generators and suppliers, which are ultimately passed on to consumers in the retail market as the largest component of their electricity bills (as shown in the image below). Supply must always match demand.
The same report found that outside of bilateral trades, approximately two fifths of electricity is sold at ‘day ahead’ and ‘same day’ auctions, closer to the time it’s available to use. This is known as the ‘spot market’. Their share of trades has fallen over time and is thought to be around 30% in 2022 (PDF).
After bilateral trades and auctions, any discrepancies between predicted and actual supply and demand are settled in near real-time through the ‘balancing mechanism’.
What is marginal cost pricing?
Marginal cost pricing is where units of electricity are sold at the price of the most expensive unit needed to meet demand at a particular moment in time.
In each half-hour trading period, each electricity generator bids the price it will accept to generate electricity, according to how expensive the electricity is to produce.
The bids are accepted in ‘merit order’ until the demand for electricity is met; the cheapest first, and the most expensive last. However, the price of all units of electricity is set according to the bid price of the most expensive unit needed to meet projected demand: this is the ‘marginal cost’.
The example in the chart below shows how different types of generators (renewable, nuclear and gas) bid until the demand is met.
Renewable generators typically have the lowest costs (because they do not have to buy fuel to burn) and so are the first to meet demand. Fossil fuel generators (including gas) often have the highest costs as they must buy fuel to burn, which also has a carbon price on it.
As a result, although most electricity is produced using sources with low marginal costs (42% by renewables and 15% from nuclear), the price that is paid for electricity traded on the spot market is often higher, at the marginal cost of generating electricity with gas.
How much cheaper are renewables than fossil fuels?
Even before the rise in gas prices, new renewables schemes were able to generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels. In 2021, the global average lifetime cost of electricity generation for new solar panels and hydropower generators was 11% lower than the cheapest new fossil fuel generator, while onshore wind was 39% lower.
Why are some non-gas electricity generators making large profits?
Marginal cost pricing means that the recent increases in the cost of gas have also increased the revenues of other electricity generators, such as some renewable and nuclear generators. These generators operating costs are unlikely to have increased to the same extent.
However, generators’ profits vary depending on how they sell electricity. For example:
Renewable generators who are part of the ‘renewable obligation’ government scheme may profit from selling electricity to the wholesale market and by selling renewable obligation certificates (issued for each unit of electricity generated), but they may have already sold the electricity at a lower price ahead of this.
Contracts for Difference Contract for Difference (CfD)renewable generators selling into the wholesale electricity market will not profit as they receive their agreed ‘strike price’ whether the wholesale price is above or below this.
Because renewable and nuclear generation is not yet enough to meet total demand, gas is used to provide two fifths of electricity generation (see the first chart).
A consultation ran from July to October 2022, a summary of responses was published in March 2023, and another consultation in autumn 2023 will put forward reforms.
This article was written by Andrew Simms, Assistant Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility and can be found at: Responsible Science journal no. 5; online publication: 12 September 2023
“We are challenged to use all our creativity and innovation to reduce our climate impacts in the wake of the science on global heating, and a year which has seen numerous temperature records broken, wildfires, melting ice, unnatural disasters, human displacement and lives wrecked.
Of all the options available to take action, curbing demand amongst those groups of the human population that already consume resources far above sufficiency levels should be the easiest. We have decades of research showing that life satisfaction does not rise with higher levels of consumption beyond a plateau found at a relatively moderate level. Also, that the chances of experiencing well-being are just as good at ‘one planet living’ levels as consuming many times more.
And many of us do consume many times more, especially in the Global North. In 2022, ‘Earth Overshoot Day’ fell on July 28th – meaning that from that day on, humanity as a whole was consuming more and producing more waste that the biosphere could replace and safely absorb.
We know that many of the straightforward measures that would reduce demand would be good for us in other ways too. The switch to renewables from fossil fuels, from driving private cars to active travel and public transport, the switch to a more plant-based diet, and from disposable, short life goods to a repair and remake economy – all these things, as well being necessary to reverse the climate and nature emergency, have big additional benefits for health, well-being and a dynamic but sustainable economy, rich with employment.
But they are not coming together in a systematic way. How can we turn things around? Are there lessons to be learned from the system and behaviour changes people experienced in the COVID-19 pandemic?
Across the political spectrum measures were introduced that put public health before short term, private economic interests. It was not uniform, and it was not perfect, but in those years populations in very different circumstances achieved rapid system and behaviour changes that demonstrate far greater ability and agency to change than we give ourselves credit for.
Pedal power
I live in a city, London, that has far too many cars. You only have to drive 500m (or even less) in an average, petrol-engined car to produce enough pollution to melt the equivalent of 1kg of glacier ice. Getting out of our cars and onto public transport and bikes is one of the big shifts we need. Vocal minorities in favour of privileged car access, often strongly resist traffic reduction measures. But, for example, where low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have been introduced, apart from benefits like increasing freedom of movement for non-car users, other significant positive outcomes include traffic accidents halving in areas with LTNs.
Another shift has been the rise of micro-mobility – things like electric bikes and scooters for hire. These have had more than just the immediate, obvious benefits.
We haven’t just been travelling differently, we’ve found that a lot of travel simply isn’t necessary. One survey of 45 large businesses in the US, Asia and Europe supports this claim, showing that up to 84% of firms plan to spend less on travel after the pandemic subsides ended. Those businesses that said they would be cutting corporate travel budgets are eyeing up reductions of between 20% and 40%, with roughly two in every three businesses curtailing both internal and external in-person meetings too.
One of the most dramatic shifts during the pandemic was the virtual mothballing of aviation, and the realisation that it is possible to live well without flying frequently.
As a result, many are arguing – including myself – that we now need to consider ending the advertising of high carbon products and lifestyles in the same way that we ended tobacco advertising.
The appeal of taking holidays more locally has also grown. Staycations are here to stay. Recent data shows that almost half of holiday-makers in the UK chose a staycation in 2022, with the beauty spots of Cornwall and the Lake District pushing France and Spain off the top spot for UK holidaymakers. A similar trend can be found in Sweden, where record numbers of Swedes rushed to get their hands on summer lodges in anticipation for continued staycations, driving prices up by 12% on the previous year.
Slow tourism is forecast to grow by an average of 10% per year, bolstered by the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, and set to become a viable alternative to more energy-intensive and stress-inducing holidays.
The UK’s Ordnance Survey Maps app saw a year-on-year sales increase of 41% in April 2020, as people took to the streets, lanes and footpaths in search of space. Even sales of custom made paper maps in May 2020 were up by 175% as people made up their own local walks and trips.
The great urban shift
For much of the last half a century in many countries cars have taken priority in the imaginations of planners, but the pandemic showed how quickly this can be reversed.
Local and national governments were quick to respond to the pro-car bias in public space with a range of pop-up cycling and walking initiatives. According to research from the science think-tank MCC, these temporary infrastructures boosted cycling levels across European cities by between 11% and 48% in the first few months of the pandemic at a cost of €1.7 billion. The same study concluded that, in the space of just a few weeks, the European continent surpassed many of the active travel goals that were set for 2025 and beyond.
One of the hardest things that many people find to do, is being able to imagine life without the culture of consumerism that has taken over our economies in the last half a century and is breaking planetary ecological boundaries. It’s often said, in fact, that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is a different economic system to the model of debt-fuelled overconsumption that grips so many relatively wealthy countries.
But again, the last couple of years have given us glimpses of how life might be different, and even better. Several interesting new terms are creeping into use – heard by many for the first time: things like ‘quarantine of consumption’, ‘habit discontinuity event’, ‘post-traumatic growth’, and ‘behavioural spill-over effect’.
For one thing, we’ve been entertaining ourselves more, and finding that getting creative beats consumerism. While all but the shops that sold essential goods were closed, and shopping as a leisure activity was put on hold, the pandemic unlocked abilities to entertain each other, and brought people together over jigsaws, singing, chess and learning the ukulele.
Dancing was an activity that demanded some of the highest ingenuity during the pandemic, with online classes proving popular, living room dancefloors booming, and students keeping up their physical fitness and skills by dancing at home in gardens and bedrooms.
The Dutch National Ballet made an at home ballet to connect people and keep the love of dance alive. General keep-fit at home also flourished online, with the UK’s fitness guru, a man called Joe Wicks getting millions of people off the couch for his 30 minute morning workouts. Yoga aimed at beginners also drew huge new audiences, with the internationally famous Yoga with Adrienne seeing up to 35m viewers on some videos.
An online survey of nearly 4000 choir members in the UK identified that continuing the choirs online – even in a limited way – improved people’s sense of wellbeing, was important for their community and social identity, and encouraged creative co-creation.
There was an explosion too of public art during the time when being able to walk in the open air and in green spaces was one of the few activities available. From children chalking on newly peaceful pavements – as cars were left in garages – to tree decoration – and more.
Some of the results, for example, in leading artist Grayson Perry’s Art Club on television were inspirational, entertaining and transformative, giving thousands effective permission to find satisfaction and meaning in a creative activity. Antony Gormley’s The Great Big Art Exhibition emboldened people to turn their front windows and gardens into galleries to turn neighbourhoods into open galleries during lockdowns – transforming the local atmospheres and sense of community.
When faced with limits and restrictions, human imagination thrived as people chose to do things differently.
Extensive research into human well-being has shown time and again the benefits of working with our hands. And we know that the regenerative green economy of repair, recycle, remake and re-use rather than buy, use and throw away is an essential part of restoring balance between people and the biosphere.
In the UK, throughout the first lockdown, spending on DIY and home improvements jumped up by 21.6% in just three months. Sewing machine sales saw a 127% increase, with both large retailers and smaller shops experiencing a sudden shortage of fabric and sewing paraphernalia. People were mending, making and upcycling clothes in droves – a reskilling was taking place.
Slowing down fast fashion
A 2020 report by The Business of Fashion suggested that there was already an increasing awareness of the wasteful nature of fast fashion and a growing interest in “purpose-driven, sustainable action”. It predicted that what it called the lockdowns’ effective “quarantine of consumption” could accelerate some of these shifts. A follow up report in 2021 showed the fashion industry experienced a 20 percent decline in revenues in 2019–20, with 7% of the industry participants leaving the market entirely.
A ThredUP report also estimated that 33 million consumers bought second hand apparel for the first time in 2020 and these habits were in place for long enough to stick. It estimates that the second hand clothing market will double in the next 5 years to $77 billion. and predicts that within 10 years secondhand clothing will outstrip fast fashion.
During the pandemic, in spite of the occasional rush on supermarket shelves, the amount of food wasted actually declined. Also, while some panic buying was much hyped, research shows generally that people don’t behave badly in crises – quite the opposite.
The forced suspension of habits is what psychologists and behavioural scientists call a ‘habit discontinuity event’. Whether it’s the way we travel, how we understand our relationships with other people, or even the beliefs that we hold dear, a habit discontinuity event can cast everything in a new light.
It became a cliché when people posted pictures of their freshly baked loaves on Instagram, but the rise of home baking, especially sourdough bread was another example of reskilling and taking more care over food.
In the UK, the pandemic was also a tipping point for accelerating the uptake of vegan diets. According to industry research, one quarter of British people aged between 21 and 30 said that the pandemic had made a vegan diet far more appealing to their lifestyle. When this question was put to people of all ages, 12% agreed that a vegan diet became more attractive to them during lockdowns. The reasons for these shifting sentiments go beyond environmental concerns. The same survey found that over half of British adults believed that plant-based ingredients can have medicinal and health benefits. And, further, 23% said they were eating more fresh fruit and vegetables for health reasons, while 27% made changes because they wanted to save money.
Pandemic epiphanies
One thing that surprised many – and which contradicts the disaster movie cliché of people acting selfishly in emergencies – was the degree to which people complied with behaviour changes to look after each other and protect public health.
Now that we are in a position to reflect on the last few years, it’s clear that many people experienced a variety of epiphanies about their lives and what they wanted to do with them.
Studies show that in the wake of natural disasters and traumatic events people are more likely to make big transitional decisions in their lives, such as getting married or divorced. Psychologists have labelled this phenomena as ‘post-traumatic growth’
One study from Germany found that respondents used this additional time to go outdoors, to experience nature more intensely, to spend more time with their partner and their children – and generally to have more time for themselves – and reflect on what gives meaning to life.
In May 2020, 36% of people in the UK responding to a government agency’s People and Nature Survey said they were spending more time outside during the pandemic than before. This rose again to 46% in July 2020, a pattern that was repeated across the world, particularly in highly urbanised societies like Australia and Hong Kong. Oslo, Norway, saw a 291% increase in outdoor recreation activity during the pandemic relative to a three year rolling average for the same days, particularly for pedestrians (walking, running, hiking) and cyclists.
It wasn’t only parks – one study found that in Spain, Israel and Croatia some people started using even small urban areas of greenery and tree-lined streets as places of refuge during the pandemic when larger parks were still closed.
Access to public greenspace became a political issue; a human right at a time of global health crisis. Research showed that, across the United States, areas with lower income and where the majority of residents were people of colour had fewer parks and green spaces. This meant that the communities worst affected by COVID-19 also had the least nature nearby.
More warm bath than cold shower
I think that what all these examples show is that not only are we better at change than is generally accepted, but that many of the changes we need to make to help get human activity back within the Earth’s planetary boundaries, are things which can also make our lives better. Good lives do not have to cost the Earth.
There are many things that as individuals we can choose to do differently. But this is not enough because individuals are locked into high-energy, high-consumption systems and infrastructure – largely due to poor choices by industry and government. We need to make the right choices easy and design out the bad choices. Every town, region and nation also needs to enable and invest in zero carbon, socially just rapid transitions, and support and enhance behaviour change. The policy package of choice that includes financial reform with public investment is a Green New Deal.
We need to raise our levels of ambition to tackle the climate and nature emergencies – and realise what we are capable of – but the traumatic years of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the huge scope for practical and rapid change and the enormous potential of our poorly appreciated capacity for adaptation and change.
Andrew Simms is assistant director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, co-director of the New Weather Institute, and coordinator of the Rapid Transition Alliance, and co-author of the original Green New Deal.
The last three months had the hottest summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the warmest winter in the Southern Hemisphere, Nasa and Noaa said on Wednesday in a release.
The space agency, which has maintained temperature records since 1880, said June, July and August 2023 collectively recorded temperatures that were 0.23 degrees Celsius higher than any previous summer in its records.
This figure also stands at 1.2C above the average summer temperatures between 1951 and 1980. Furthermore, August alone witnessed temperatures soaring 1.2C above the usual levels.
“Summer 2023’s record-setting temperatures aren’t just a set of numbers – they result in dire real-world consequences,” Nasa Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement.
“From sweltering temperatures in Arizona and across the country to wildfires across Canada, and extreme flooding in Europe and Asia, extreme weather is threatening lives and livelihoods around the world.”
This chart shows the meteorological summer (June, July, and August) temperature anomalies each year since 1880 (Nasa’s Earth Observatory/Lauren Dauphin)
The record-setting summer of 2023 continues a long-term trend of heating, the release said, referring to data compiled by Nasa’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
El Niño, a natural climate phenomenon characterised by higher-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean, may have contributed to this record-breaking heatwave. But scientists from Nasa and Noaa said the primary driver behind the extreme heat is the climate crisis caused by greenhouse gases.
“Not only was last month the warmest August on record by quite a lot, it was also the globe’s 45th-consecutive August and the 534th-consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th-century average,” Noaa chief scientist Sarah Kapnick said.
“Global marine heat waves and a growing El Nino are driving additional warming this year, but as long as emissions continue driving a steady march of background warming, we expect further records to be broken in the years to come.”
This website editor: The striking thing for me, looking at the NASA map is the high temperatures being recorded in the Antarctic. But focuses of heat also appearing in Europe/North Africa, northern Canada, Japan and west of South America. All of these areas experienced climate extremes in the last months.
A series of U-turns in climate policy announced by prime minister Rishi Sunak could put the UK’s legally binding emissions targets in jeopardy, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
The rollbacks include delays to bans on the sale of new fossil-fueled cars and boilers, both key planks of the government’s strategy for reaching its climate targets.
These rollbacks would create an increasingly large gap between where the UK’s emissions are heading and where they are supposed to go, Carbon Brief analysis shows.
In March 2023, the government updated its net-zero strategy, after the High Court ruled the previous 2021 version was unlawful.
The update had already weakened the UK’s ambition, according to the government’s own figures, and fell short of putting the country firmly on track for its legal targets.
Now, Sunak has put a series of key policies at risk, including the zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate supposed to drive the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) and the end dates for sales of fossil-fuel boilers, as well as standards for home energy efficiency.
The chart below shows how UK emissions have already changed since 1990 (black line).
The country’s legally binding climate goals under five-yearly carbon budgets are shown with grey shading. These are interim goals on the way to the target of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Progress in cutting emissions under the 2021 net-zero strategy, according to the government’s own numbers, are shown with the light blue line, with the March 2023 update shown in dark blue.
The red line shows the aggregated emissions savings from policies which are now at risk as a result of Sunak’s climate policy rollbacks, based on the government’s March 2023 estimates.
Historical UK emissions (black line) in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e); five yearly UK carbon budgets starting with the first from 2008-2012 (grey shading), including “headroom” for emissions from international aviation and shipping (IAS), which will be fully incorporated into the UK’s targets from sixth carbon budget (2033-2038, CB6); expected emissions under the government’s 2021 net-zero strategy (light blue line) and its March 2023 update (dark blue), as well as a trajectory from there onwards to net-zero by 2050; policies at risk under Sunak’s climate policy rollbacks (red line). Source: Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Simon Evans for Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
The largest emissions savings at risk from Sunak’s rollbacks is the ZEV mandate, which implements the government’s pledge to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
According to the government’s March estimates, the ZEV mandate was expected to have saved some 23m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) per year on average during the sixth carbon budget period (CB6), covering 2033-2038.
With Sunak weakening the 2030 ban, these savings are now at risk. A more precise accounting will not be possible until the government publishes full details of its plans.
Targets out of reach?
The scale of emissions savings put at risk by Sunak’s rollbacks could put not only the UK’s legally binding sixth carbon budget (CB6 in the chart above) out of reach, but also its international pledge under the Paris Agreement (black triangle).
Although the UK’s Paris pledge – to cut emissions to 68% below 1990 levels by 2030 – is not legally binding, it would be politically embarrassing for the country to fall short, as the recent host of the COP26 climate summit and a supposed leader on international action.
Without significant new policy measures to fill the gaps created by Sunak’s rollbacks – which do not appear likely to be forthcoming – his government has two further options.
First, the UK could make use of “flexibilities” within the Climate Change Act 2008. These allow the government to “carry forward” overachievement from earlier carbon budget periods, in order to meet subsequent limits, on paper.
The UK fell well within the third carbon budget, for example, thanks in large part to the emissions impact of the Covid pandemic.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has repeatedly argued that the government should only carry forward genuine emissions savings, driven by successful climate policy, rather than banking cuts due to external factors, such as Covid lockdowns or the 2008 global financial crisis.
A second, more extreme option for the government would be to revise the levels of the legally binding carbon budgets themselves. However, to do so it would have to follow a set procedure under the 2008 act.
This procedure would require the government to seek published advice from the CCC on its proposal to amend the carbon budgets, as well as consulting the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Crucially, the government would also need to secure majorities in both houses of parliament.
Adam Bell, director of policy at consultancy Stonehaven and a former senior energy official, tells Carbon Brief there is “basically zero” chance of this happening. He says:
“I would place the odds of actually getting a majority to do so before the next election at basically zero. The Lords will delay it.”
“None of us has previously witnessed a barrage of extreme weather events of the kind that has been devastating lives across the globe this summer. Canadian wildfires the size of Austria, a Hawaiian town incinerated by a hurricane-fuelled firestorm, a Greek island devastated by three years of rainfall in a single day, a Libyan town washed into the sea after 40cm of rain fell in twenty-four hours leaving 20,000 dead, killer hurricanes fuelled by oceans overheated by climate change. And then there were the extraordinary heatwaves in Italy, Spain, France, Japan, China; the floods in Madrid, Barcelona, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Beijing, Manila, on and on, with temperature, wind and rainfall records shattered the world over.
Libyan Flood Tragedy
Almost as astonishing has been the indifference of our leaders. The silence has been deafening. Where are they? Why is no-one joining the dots and demanding some kind of serious response?
Jeremy Corbyn, a rare exception, commented of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) this week:
‘Not one mention of the catastrophic flooding in Libya at PMQs. Where is the concern for the victims of fires in Europe or the droughts across Africa? Where is the outrage at fossil fuel giants destroying our planet? Where is the hope for future generations? Wake up!’
Broadcaster and author Stephen Fry said on the BBC:
‘Extraordinary that you can have a conversation with an economics minister in Labour who didn’t even mention the climate catastrophe coming, that there’s a tsunami coming towards us… yet everyone is talking about just doing the same thing only better. It’s catastrophic.’
When asked about the Maui fire death toll in Hawaii, US President Joe Biden replied:
‘No comment.’
Compare this silence with the prediction made this morning on Twitter/X by Professor Bill McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at University College London:
‘I hope I am wrong and others may see things differently, but I am expecting effective societal collapse by mid-century, and planning – for my partner and I and our kids – accordingly.’
Or compare with NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus, previously arrested for defending the Earth:
‘Dear journalists of the world: We are at risk of losing basically everything. This – what we’re experiencing now – is how that process unfolds. The more fossil fuels we burn, the further in that process we go.
‘You MUST begin to tell 5 critical truths. Civilization depends on it.’
The Limits Of Propaganda
Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate catastrophe is not just a looming threat, it is here; despite the desperate pleading for help from climate scientists; and despite the surreal silence and indifference of Western political leaders, a stubborn rump of opinion continues to insist that the climate crisis is a cynical scam promoted by vested interests.
We know from our own interactions with all kinds of people in all walks of life that many still hold this view. Indeed, it is a grim irony that our work has been used to bolster these claims. Because we have spent two decades emphasising how state-corporate media distort and omit the truth, critics regularly write to us along these lines:
‘The BBC and the Guardian are a propaganda system serving elite power. They are focusing so intensively on climate change because doing so serves an elite agenda of increased taxation and control. How can you, of all people, not see this?’
But we have never argued that everything that appears in state-corporate media is an elite-serving lie. These media are indeed part of a propaganda system, and they do work hard to further the interests of power. But they are communicating to an audience of thinking people in a world where reality has a habit of interfering with even the most fanatical propagandist’s best-laid plans.
If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, if the powers that be are either unable or disinclined to fake the evidence, then the media has to tell at least some of the truth. Why? Because they have to report undeniable, propaganda-unfriendly facts to avoid being exposed as completely brazen propagandists – a revelation that would undermine their ability to manipulate public opinion.
Does anyone think that, last week, UK ‘mainstream’ outlets – media that have propagandised so hard on Ukraine – were eager to report news that the first ‘game-changing’, British Challenger 2 tank had been destroyed by Russian forces in Ukraine? The video evidence was overwhelming and readily available on social media; it couldn’t be suppressed. So, this propaganda-unfriendly news had to be reported. Does this mean UK journalists and editors are secretly supporting Russia, are funded by Russia, are pursuing ends serving Russian elites? No, it means that even highly sophisticated propaganda systems have their limits.
Of course, ‘mainstream’ media tried to soften the blow – the tank was ‘hit’, rather than destroyed; the crew had ‘probably’ survived. And the tank – a burned out shell, with the turret blown off its turret ring by the force of the internal explosion – ‘can probably be repaired’.
When corporate media report on Canadian wildfires and a Libyan town washed into the sea with thousands dead, this does not prove journalists are enthusiastically covering climate change in pursuit of some malign agenda.
People who think it does often have enough commitment to read a few articles on the internet, but not enough to seriously research the topic, or reach out to credible sources with serious questions. When fierce media critics like us disagree, we are dismissed as ‘shills’, as ‘bourgeois’ compromisers who have shown our ‘true colours’, or ‘dropped the ball’. As former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook commented on the response to his warnings on climate collapse:
‘The BBC thinks there is a climate crisis. Ergo, I am no better than a state-corporate stenographer, if not actually working for MI5.’
It is crucial to look deeper because the reality becomes clear when we ask even the simplest of rational questions:
How does the coverage afforded to climate collapse compare to coverage afforded to other comparable threats?
How much of this coverage recognises the true severity of the threat, its true corporate causes and the business-unfriendly revolution in priorities required if it is to be addressed?
On the first question, imagine the level of coverage if massive terrorist attacks killing large numbers of people had recently devastated Canada, Hawaii, Greece, Italy, Spain, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Libya, and so on.
Maui wildfire
We all remember the global media response when terrorists killed 2,977 people on 11 September 2001. What would the reaction be if terrorists killed more than 100,000 people every year, with the toll rising to literally millions of dead over decades? Based on analysis of hundreds of scientific studies, Damian Carrington writes in the Guardian:
‘In the worst-affected cities, hundreds of people a year on average are already dying from this extra heat, including in São Paulo (239 deaths), Athens (189), Madrid (177), Tokyo (156), Bangkok (146) and New York (141) … It is tricky to extrapolate these findings to a global figure, but a rough estimate given by the scientists is more than 100,000 deaths a year. Over decades, that implies a toll of millions of lives.’
Readers might respond: ‘Rubbish. I think I would have heard about millions of deaths from higher temperatures, if those figures were real.’
But that is exactly our point – you would have heard it, if terrorists had been responsible, because ‘mainstream’ politics and media love to discuss the terror threat and the supposed need for multi-billion-dollar military responses to it. You haven’t heard about these climate deaths for the same reason you haven’t heard the truth about the Iraqi civilian death toll after the 2003 invasion: terror threats serve state-corporate interests; Iraqi civilian deaths and climate deaths do not.
One hundred thousand deaths per year from terror attacks would not merely generate occasional reports on the latest disaster; journalists and politicians would be screaming ‘WORLD WAR THREE!’ from every screen, newspaper and magazine, 24/7, without a pause. It would be massive news on the scale of 9/11 and WW2. This is obvious and indisputable.
Is this what we’re getting on climate change? Absolutely not. As recently as April 2019, even after the start of the mass climate protests a year earlier, Columbia Journalism Review reported:
‘Yet at a time when civilization is accelerating toward disaster, climate silence continues to reign across the bulk of the US news media. Especially on television, where most Americans still get their news… Many newspapers, too, are failing the climate test. Last October, the scientists of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a landmark report, warning that humanity had a mere 12 years to radically slash greenhouse-gas emissions or face a calamitous future in which hundreds of millions of people worldwide would go hungry or homeless or worse. Only 22 of the 50 biggest newspapers in the United States covered that report.’
As we have documented for a quarter of century, this is very much the long-term trend. Last year, for example, Media Matters published a report titled: ‘National TV news networks barely mention climate change as record-breaking heat dome cooks the west.’
In April 2022, Carbon Brief did report that the number of editorials calling for more action to tackle climate change had quadrupled in the space of three years. But this rise reflected greater interest following major global protests and an increase in climate-related disasters.
Corporate media are not making this the World War Three-style crisis it clearly is. Indeed, the deepest causes and solutions of the crisis are rarely even mentioned. The irony is that climate deniers are convinced the ‘mainstream’ is giving climate collapse heavy coverage precisely because the ‘mainstream’ has obscured the true scale of a crisis that actually merits vastly more coverage.
Journalists reporting on the latest disasters tend to merely include an anodyne mention of climate change at the end of the article, as in this recent example from the BBC:
‘Climate change has increased the intensity and frequency of tropical storms, leading to an increase in flash flooding and greater damage.’
A single sentence, added to a piece after Hong Kong had been hit by the biggest rainstorm since records began 140 years ago, 158.1 millimetres per hour; and after weeks of similar climate-related disasters striking countries all around the world. Again, we need only imagine the response if these had been a series of global terror attacks – the deeper cause, ‘the global terror threat’, would not be mentioned in passing; it would be front and centre.
Rainstorm in Hong Kong
If global elites were bent on using environmental breakdown as an excuse for manipulating public opinion, they would be loudly warning about other environmental crises like the dangerous loss of insects and of species diversity as a way of pressing for change. In reality, these issues are barely mentioned.
Unfortunately, some leftists are as prone to this desire-driven rational collapse as less politically-engaged mortals. For centuries, leftists have had an argument, not with the illusory wealth created by industrial fake ‘progress’, but with the unjust distribution of the spoils. For the left, utopia is industrial production managed by workers’ councils and syndicates; it’s a government run by authentic socialists representing the interests of the working class. The point is, despite the evidence increasingly staring them in the face, they do still believe in industrial ‘progress’.
In August, former MP George Galloway – someone we have defended in media alerts and who has retweeted us many times and repeatedly invited us on his TV shows – blocked us on Twitter for daring to challenge his support for further fossil fuel extraction. Galloway had tweeted:
‘In contrast to the #NetZero parties we [Workers Party GB] support the re-energising of Britain. Full exploitation of Britain’s oil and gas fields…’
Not Just Journalists – Ambition Distorts Perception
Why is climate denial and indifference still so widespread?
The media bias we continually expose is ultimately rooted in a fundamental flaw in human cognition: ambition distorts perception. Journalists are not alone – the truth is that we all have a tendency to believe what suits our perceived self-interest. Nietzsche offered one tragicomic example:
‘Memory says, “I did that.” Pride replies, “I could not have done that.” Eventually, memory yields.’
Upton Sinclair supplied another:
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’ (Upton Sinclair, Oakland Tribune, 11 December 1934)
In other words, evidence says, ‘This is true.’ Ambition replies, ‘It cannot be true.’ Eventually, evidence yields.
Thus, while it is, of course, true that our world is currently awash with corporate propaganda downplaying the reality of climate collapse, the disturbing truth is that these deceptions often find a receptive audience. Why? Because many people don’t want to consume less or less cheaply; they don’t want to drive or fly less or less cheaply; they don’t want to be denied ever-expanding consumption.
Freedom in modern society is already drastically limited – we have to submit to wage and salary slavery to pay taxes, rent, mortgage, bills, to stay off the street and out of jail. We’re already fundamentally unfree; any further restriction on our freedom to spend feels like a further attack on our basic level of happiness.
And so, even the most baseless claims about climate change are being lapped up by millions of people who know little about the science but who know a lot about soul-crushing work and consumption-as-consolation. They reflexively applaud anyone who tells them there’s no problem – we can go on earning, spending, consuming, because everything we’re being told about climate change is an ugly scam perpetrated by precisely the same people who are benefiting so richly from our lack of freedom in the first place. In fact, they are laughing at us!
Thus, ‘they’ changed the colours on the temperature maps to make them look scarier. ‘They’ took the temperature readings from dodgy sensors, or from the ground rather than the cooler air, and so on. The climate crisis is therefore, ‘Fake! Fake! Fake!’ based on counter-evidence that, in fact, is ‘Fake! Fake! Fake!’ The underlying, preposterous implication is that countless thousands of independent scientists all over the world are somehow falsifying measurements as part of an elite conspiracy.
The great claim of deniers is that the ‘mainstream’ focus on climate change is a strategy for limiting personal freedom. Jonathan Cook writes:
‘Many on the left similarly don’t like a climate crisis because it poses major challenges to current Western ideas of individualism.’
The concern is reasonable enough – serious action to limit climate change clearly must involve a reduction in some freedoms. But Cook makes a key point in response:
‘We are about to set the evolutionary clock back by many tens of millions of years. If you understand Earth as a complex, living entity where humans have emerged as the pinnacle of consciousness after billions of years of evolution – the only place in the universe where we know for sure that has happened – continuing to trash the planet because doing something to stop it might infringe on our “personal liberty” seems short-sighted, to put it mildly.’
And, of course, current inaction annually infringes on the personal liberty of 100,000 people to continue breathing – the ultimate loss of freedom. If we don’t change, we will all be prevented from driving, flying, from consuming at all, because our social and economic systems will collapse. This would be obvious to everyone, if so many of us weren’t determined to believe what suits our (misperceived) self-interest.
When industrial capitalism tries to impose infinite economic growth on a finite planet, loss of freedom is the inevitable ultimate result. At this point, we have a painful choice between losing some personal freedoms and losing literally everything.
“Scientists have raised concerns about whether high-income countries, with their high per-capita CO2 emissions, can decarbonise fast enough to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement if they continue to pursue aggregate economic growth. Over the past decade, some countries have reduced their CO2 emissions while increasing their gross domestic product (absolute decoupling). Politicians and media have hailed this as green growth. In this empirical study, we aimed to assess whether these achievements are consistent with the Paris Agreement, and whether Paris-compliant decoupling is within reach……
Findings
The emission reductions that high-income countries achieved through absolute decoupling fall far short of Paris-compliant rates. At the achieved rates, these countries would on average take more than 220 years to reduce their emissions by 95%, emitting 27 times their remaining 1·5°C fair-shares in the process. To meet their 1·5°C fair-shares alongside continued economic growth, decoupling rates would on average need to increase by a factor of ten by 2025.
Interpretation
The decoupling rates achieved in high-income countries are inadequate for meeting the climate and equity commitments of the Paris Agreement and cannot legitimately be considered green. If green is to be consistent with the Paris Agreement, then high-income countries have not achieved green growth, and are very unlikely to be able to achieve it in the future. To achieve Paris-compliant emission reductions, high-income countries will need to pursue post-growth demand-reduction strategies, reorienting the economy towards sufficiency, equity, and human wellbeing, while also accelerating technological change and efficiency improvements.
The planetary boundaries framework draws upon Earth system science. It identifies nine processes that are critical for maintaining the stability and resilience of Earth systems as a whole. All are presently heavily perturbed by human activities. The article then goes on to describe the nature and extent of this perturbation, with data and diagrams. They conclude that the world is on the brink of multiple disastrous tipping points. Their conclusions, in more colloquial English have been reported by Damian Carrington in the Guardian which, in turn has been collated in msn, from whom we quote below:
The scientists’ assessment found that six out of nine “planetary boundaries” had been broken because of human-caused pollution and destruction of the natural world. The planetary boundaries are the limits at which key global systems, such as climate, water and wildlife diversity, beyond which these systems’ ability to maintain a healthy planet is in serious peril.
The broken boundaries mean the systems have been driven far from the safe and stable state that existed from the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, to the start of the industrial revolution. The whole of modern civilisation arose in this time period, called the Holocene.
The assessment was the first of all nine planetary boundaries and represented the “first scientific health check for the entire planet”, the researchers said. Six boundaries have been passed and two are judged to be close to being broken: air pollution and ocean acidification. The one boundary that is not threatened is atmospheric ozone, after action to phase out destructive chemicals in recent decades led to the ozone hole shrinking.
Diagram illustrating the effects of Air Pollution (from the OU)
The scientists said the “most worrying” finding was that all four of the biological boundaries, which cover the living world, were at, or close to, the highest risk level. The living world is particularly vital to the Earth as it provides resilience by compensating for some physical changes, for example, trees absorbing carbon dioxide pollution.
The Living World
The planetary boundaries are not irreversible tipping points beyond which sudden and serious deterioration occurs, the scientists said. Instead, they are points after which the risks of fundamental changes in the Earth’s physical, biological and chemical life support systems rise significantly. The planetary boundaries were first devised in 2009 and updated in 2015, when only seven could be assessed.
Prof Johan Rockström, the then director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre who led the team that developed the boundaries framework, said: “Science and the world at large are really concerned over all the extreme climate events hitting societies across the planet. But what worries us, even more, is the rising signs of dwindling planetary resilience.”
Rockström, who is now joint director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said this failing resilience could make restricting global heating to the 1.5C climate goal impossible and could bring the world closer to real tipping points. Scientists said in September that the world was on the brink of multiple disastrous tipping points.
Prof Katherine Richardson, from the University of Copenhagen who led the analysis, said: “We know for certain that humanity can thrive under the conditions that have been here for 10,000 years – we don’t know that we can thrive under major, dramatic alterations [and] humans impacts on the Earth system as a whole are increasing as we speak.”
She said the Earth could be thought of as a patient with very high blood pressure: “That does not indicate a certain heart attack, but it does greatly raise the risk.”
The assessment, which was published in the journal Science Advances and was based on 2,000 studies, indicated that several planetary boundaries were passed long ago. The boundary for biosphere integrity, which includes the healthy functioning of ecosystems, was broken in the late 19th century, the researchers said, as destruction of the natural world decimated wildlife. The same destruction, particularly the razing of forests, means the boundary for land use was broken last century.
Climate models have suggest the safe boundary for climate change was surpassed in the late 1980s. For freshwater, a new metric involving both water in lakes and rivers and in soil, showed this boundary was crossed in the early 20th century.
Another boundary is the flow of nitrogen and phosphorus in the environment. These are vital for life but excessive use of fertilisers mean many waters are heavily polluted by these nutrients, which can lead to algal blooms and ocean dead zones. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization data, three times the safe level of nitrogen is added to fields every year.
The boundary for synthetic pollution, such as pesticides, plastics and nuclear waste, was shown to have been passed by a 2022 study. The Richardson-led analysis assessed air pollution for the first time, which affects plant growth and monsoon rains. It found air pollution has passed the planetary boundary in some regions such as south Asia and China, but not yet globally. Ocean acidification is also assessed as getting worse and being close to exceeding the safe boundary.
The scientists said: “This update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity.”
Rockstrom said: “If you want to have security, prosperity and equity for humanity on Earth, you have to come back into the safe space and we’re not seeing that progress currently in the world.”
Phasing out fossil fuel burning and ending destructive farming are the key actions required.
The planetary boundaries are set using specific metrics, such as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere for climate change. The Earth’s systems are resilient to some level of change, so most of the boundaries have been set at a level higher than that which persisted over the last 10,000 years. For example, CO2 was at 280 parts per million until the industrial revolution but the planetary boundary is set at 350ppm.
Prof Simon Lewis, at University College London and not part of the study team, said: “This is a strikingly gloomy update on an already alarming picture. The planet is entering a new and much less stable state – it couldn’t be a more stark warning of the need for deep structural changes to how we treat the environment.”
“The planetary boundaries concept is a heroic attempt to simplify the world, but it is probably too simplified to be of use in practically managing Earth,” he continued. “For example, the damage and suffering from limiting global heating to 1.6C using pro-development policies and major investments in adapting to climate change would be vastly less than the damage and suffering from limiting warming to 1.5C but doing this using policies that help the wealthy and disregard the poor. But the concept does work as a science-led parable of our times.”
The researchers said more data was needed to deepen the understanding of the current situation, as well as more research on how the passing of planetary boundaries interact with each other. They said the Earth’s systems had been pushed into disequilibrium and, as a result, “ultimate global environmental conditions” remained uncertain.
A separate initiative to define the end of the Holocene and the start of a new age dominated by human activities moved forward in July, when scientists chose a Canadian lake as the site to represent the beginning of the Anthropocene. This group settled on a date of 1950, significantly later than the dates indicated by most of the planetary boundaries.
Earth’s “vital signs” are worse than at any time in human history, an international team of scientists has warned, meaning life on the planet is in peril.
Their report found that 20 of the 35 planetary vital signs they use to track the climate crisis are at record extremes. As well as greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature and sea level rise, the indicators also include human and livestock population numbers.
Many climate records were broken by enormous margins in 2023, including global air temperature, ocean temperature and Antarctic sea ice extent, the researchers said. The highest monthly surface temperature ever recorded was in July and was probably the hottest the planet has been in 100,000 years.
The scientists also highlighted an extraordinary wildfire season in Canada that produced unprecedented carbon dioxide emissions. These totalled 1bn tonnes of CO2, equivalent to the entire annual output of Japan, the world’s fifth biggest polluter. They said the huge area burned could indicate a tipping point into a new fire regime.
The researchers urged a transition to a global economy that prioritised human wellbeing and cut the overconsumption and excessive emissions of the rich. The top 10% of emitters were responsible for almost 50% of global emissions in 2019, they said.
William J Ripple,Christopher Wolf,Jillian W Gregg,Johan Rockström,Thomas M Newsome,Beverly E Law,Luiz Marques,Timothy M Lenton,Chi Xu,Saleemul Huq… Show more
Life on planet Earth is under siege. We are now in an uncharted territory. For several decades, scientists have consistently warned of a future marked by extreme climatic conditions because of escalating global temperatures caused by ongoing human activities that release harmful greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, time is up. We are seeing the manifestation of those predictions as an alarming and unprecedented succession of climate records are broken, causing profoundly distressing scenes of suffering to unfold. We are entering an unfamiliar domain regarding our climate crisis, a situation no one has ever witnessed firsthand in the history of humanity.
It contains the following figures to illustrate the data hanges found:
And also includes:
Recent trends in planetary vital signs
On the basis of time series data, 20 of the 35 vital signs are now showing record extremes (figures 2 and 3, supplemental table S1). As we describe below, these data show how the continued pursuit of business as usual has, ironically, led to unprecedented pressure on the Earth system, resulting in many climate-related variables entering uncharted territory.
and much other data, including photographs showing images of suffering inflicted in various parts of the world as a result of extreme climate incidents.
And lists the following as recent extreme climate events:
Table 1.
Recent climate-related disasters since November 2022.
Timeframe
Climate disaster
November–December 2022
Record-breaking heat waves in Argentina and Paraguay contributed to power outages, wildfires, and poor harvests. This extreme heat was estimated to have been made 60 times more likely because of climate change.
December 2022–March 2023
Heavy rainfall caused by atmospheric rivers led to multiple floods in the Western United States. There were at least 22 fatalities and property damages were estimated to be US$$3.5 billion. Climate change may be increasing the likelihood of such catastrophic floods, although its effect on these particular storms is less clear.
February 2023
Cyclone Gabrielle caused extreme rainfall in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Te Ika-a-Māui (North Island), potentially resulting in billions of dollars in damages and 225,000 homes losing power. This intense rainfall may be partly caused by a warming climate.
March–May 2023
Record-breaking temperatures were recorded in parts of Southeast Asia, China, and South Asia. The extreme heat caused deaths and school closures in India and led to more than 100 students requiring treatment for dehydration in the Philippines. It was likely at least partly because of climate change. For example, climate change has increased the likelihood of such an event to occur over Bangladesh and India by a factor of at least 30.
January–July 2023
Intense wildfires in Canada burned roughly 10 million hectares, displacing 30,000 people at their peak, and worsening air quality across large portions of Canada and the United States. These extreme wildfires may be partly because of climate change, although many other factors are likely involved.
May 2023
Tropical cyclone Mocha is reported to have killed at least 145 people in Myanmar and affected roughly 800,000 people in the region. Climate change may have made such storms more intense.
May–June 2023
Tropical storm Mawar caused flooding and loss of power in parts of Guam. Mawar is the strongest cyclone ever recorded in the northern hemisphere in May. Climate change may be causing an increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones (Wu et al. 2022).
June 2023
Deadly heat led to more than a dozen deaths in the Southern and Midwestern United States. Climate change is leading to an increase in the frequency and duration of such heat waves.
July 2023
Up to six people died in Southwest Japan because of extremely heavy rainfall that caused floods and landslides. Climate change is likely making such heavy rainfall events more severe. Days later, floods and landslides, which may have been partly related to climate change, killed more than 26 people and led to thousands being evacuated in South Korea
July 2023
Heavy monsoon rain caused flash floods and landslides in northern India that killed more than 100 people. Climate change is likely making monsoons in this region more variable, causing frequent landslides and floods. Heavy monsoon rains also damaged rice crops in India, raising concerns about global food prices and food security and prompting an export ban on nonbasmati varieties.
June–August 2023
Extreme heat in the United States killed at least 147 people. In the absence of climate change, the extreme heat seen in July 2023 in the United States would have been extremely unlikely to occur.
July–August 2023
Beijing, China experienced its heaviest rainfall in at least 140 years, resulting in major flooding that affected nearly 1.29 million people, damaged 147,000 homes, and caused at least 33 deaths. Intense flooding is likely becoming more common because of climate change.
August 2023
In Hawaii, United States, catastrophic wildfires on the island of Maui killed at least 111 people, with more than 1,000 people likely missing, as of 18 August 2023. Climate change may have decreased rainfall and increased temperatures in this region, potentially contributing to these fires.
September 2023
Storm Daniel caused extreme flooding in Libya and parts of southeastern Europe, resulting in thousands of fatalities and more than 2 billion US dollars in damages. Climate change may be increasing the intensity of such storms.
There is a section on economics, which states that:
“Economic growth, as it is conventionally pursued, is unlikely to allow us to achieve our social, climate, and biodiversity goals. The fundamental challenge lies in the difficulty of decoupling economic growth from harmful environmental impacts (figure 5a). Although technological advancements and efficiency improvements can contribute to some degree of decoupling, they often fall short in mitigating the overall ecological footprint of economic activities (Hickel et al. 2021). The impacts vary greatly by wealth; in 2019, the top 10% of emitters were responsible for 48% of global emissions, whereas the bottom 50% were responsible for just 12% (Chancel 2022). We therefore need to change our economy to a system that supports meeting basic needs for all people instead of excessive consumption by the wealthy (O’Neill et al. 2018).”
This article is from Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, led by Prof. Amy Dickman, who said:
‘Lions are one of the most iconic species in the world, but are undergoing devastating declines. This comprehensive analysis is the first to look at both ecological and socio-political risk factors facing lions at scale, and demonstrates the size of the challenge.’
The study built on extensive lion monitoring projects which WildCRU has played a major role in for decades to map the current state of lion populations across Africa. This revealed that whilst the total population of wild lions in Africa may be estimated at between 20,000 and 25,000 individuals, many of these live within small, fragmented populations at risk of disappearing. For instance, of the 25 countries where African lions remain, nearly half of these nations have fewer than 250 individuals, with eight countries having only a single wild lion population. Furthermore, less than half of the 62 known wild African lion populations have over 100 lions.
However, the vulnerability of different lion populations cannot be assessed simply through their size. For each population, the researchers identified ecological and socio-political factors that may influence their survival. Smaller lion populations or higher densities of people and livestock, for example, would contribute to higher ecological fragility, while higher levels of corruption or lower GDP per capita would contribute to greater socio-political fragility. These were then integrated into a single overall fragility index, and each lion population was compared relative to the others.
The combination of these two indices provided some interesting comparisons. For instance, both Sudan and Benin have a single known lion population with roughly the same number of lions. However, whilst Benin is relatively more stable and prosperous, Sudan is currently involved in a civil war with people fleeing in the millions. The war and instability undercut the ability of park rangers or others to help ensure the continuation of Sudan’s lions.
A summary of the findings from the new analysis. Credit: Sarah Markes, WildCRU.
Whilst the fragility score does not suggest which lion populations deserve protection or funding, it can help to highlight the varying ecological and anthropogenic pressures facing different populations and which populations may require relatively more resources to conserve.
Professor Dickman said: ‘Some populations may ultimately have similar fragility scores, but they are driven by different threats. Thus, while on the surface, the lone lion populations in Sudan and Benin may appear similar, they likely require different levels of investment and perhaps even different types of intervention for conservation to succeed. Pouring money into conserving Sudan’s lions may be relatively ineffective unless the socio-political factors such as the civil war are dealt with first.’
Rapidly growing anthropogenic pressures on natural resources, particularly in Africa, suggest a challenging future for lions, and wildlife in general. With human-induced threats like habitat loss, prey depletion, and human-wildlife conflict, lions are increasingly being pushed to the brink. However, conservation efforts are having some success. For instance, WildCRU has an extensive history of lion conservation work in Africa with several sites (such as the Hwange and Ruaha ecosystems) where long term engagement with conservation authorities and local communities has substantially reduced threats to lions, and improved the conservation outlook for them as well as for other species.
Nevertheless, according to the researchers the new findings underscore the moral responsibility of wealthier nations to contribute more significantly to lion conservation. Almost all of the remaining African lion range is within countries that rank in the 25% poorest countries in the world. This leaves the remaining African lions vulnerable to the pressures felt by many of the poorest countries and communities in the world. The researchers estimate that the costs for protecting all the remaining African lions may be as high as US$3 billion annually.
Professor Dickman added: ‘Conservation science is important to guide action, but this research highlights the invaluable role that politicians, economists, development experts and others must play if we are to safeguard lions and other biodiversity, in ways which also enable rural development rather than stand in its way.’
The study ‘Socio-political and ecological fragility of threatened, free-ranging African lion populations’ has been published in the Journal Communications Earth & Environment. The study was co-led by WildCRU and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.
It reports on the first African Climate Summit, held in Nairobi, Kenya. The main outcome of this summit is the Nairobi Declaration.
The declaration, which had a heavy focus on climate finance, also included a call for global carbon taxes, and for increased representation of African and other countries in the governance of multilateral banks.
But delegates and campaign groups were critical of the spotlighting of climate finance across the event which, they said, came at the expense of issues such as adaptation and climate insecurity, at a time when extreme weather events across the continent have disrupted livelihoods, prompted displacement and worsened food insecurity.
“Many communities bearing the brunt of increasing floods and droughts, while also at risk of conflict, are disappointed there wasn’t more emphasis on ensuring that green investments trickle down to them,” said Nazanine Moshiri, a climate, environment and conflict analyst for Africa at the International Crisis Group.
Campaign groups also opposed leaders’ plans to scale up carbon markets projects on the continent, through the African carbon markets initiative launched during Cop27 last year.
“The first ever African climate summit ended with a weak and inadequate declaration and [it is] clear that old colonial attitudes from global north continue to dictate Africa’s climate policy, imposing failed and dangerous carbon markets on the continent,” read a statement by a civil society network convening as the Africa people’s climate assembly.
“There’s been a significant shift in the leadership’s approach to matters climate change,” said Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s special adviser for climate change, who believes the plans outlined in the declaration will be “groundbreaking”, and lauded plans to pursue private climate investments more aggressively.
Some African leaders believe that carbon markets will have enormous economic potential, and may increase the climate funds available to the continent.
But campaigners raised concerns over the “commodification” and extraction of Africa’s natural resources and “greenwashing”, and said the projects allowed western companies and countries to continue polluting. They argued that they were sidelined before and during the conference.
Rights groups also said the summit was a missed opportunity to address human rights concerns surrounding renewable energy projects in Kenya and elsewhere on the continent, where installations have been linked with allegations of rights violations, loss of livelihood and violations of the rights of Indigenous peoples, according to reports by the Business and Human Rights Resource Center.
“The declaration itself is very silent on human rights,” said Joab Okanda, Christian Aid’s pan-African advocacy adviser, who convened the joint protests against the summit. “A just energy transition should have human rights at the centre.”
The summit’s call for the continent to pursue a “green growth” pathway received wide support among leaders and climate groups. “Renewable energy could be the African miracle but we must make it happen. We must all work together for Africa to become a renewable energy superpower,” António Guterres, the UN secretary general, told the conference.
UAE, the country hosting the upcoming Cop28 summit in November, pledged $4.5bn (£3.5bn) to boost renewable energy on the continent. Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the summit, told the meeting that “the world is losing the race to meet its climate change goals”.
Climate activist, Hoang Thi Minh Hong, has been unjustly imprisoned for 100 days for raising awareness in her country about the climate crisis. The campaigning organisation, 350.org, has circulated the following information about her situation, via Facebook, as follows:
“This continued detention of climate defenders under the vague application of Vietnam’s tax laws is part of a deeply concerning trend of arbitrary imprisonment threatening activists in Vietnam, disturbingly familiar to climate defenders in many other countries.
Hong, an Obama scholar, has inspired many people in the climate movement. Her friendly and relatable advocacy has touched hearts. She played a big part in Vietnam’s recent environmental successes and encouraged climate activists in different places to fight for a sustainable future.
Hong’s arrest is part of a worrying trend in Vietnam. She’s the fifth prominent person in the country to be targeted recently, including Mr. Dang Dinh Bach, an environmental lawyer. Without courageous people like them, progress for the environment in Vietnam wouldn’t be possible.
In other posts on this website, you will find the future Vietnam may be facing, due to sea level rise and other emergencies the country may be facing from climate change.
JefimVogel
Prof Jason Hickel
threegenerationsleft 