This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The future trajectories are based on different scenarios, such as versions of the future where the world comes together to take action and phase out fossilfuels, or versions where fossilfuel production continues throughout this century. 2C above the preindustrial average.
While there is enormous potential for UN climate negotiations to transform climate action, meaningful progress has been delayed in part by the fossilfuel industry’s deceptive tactics. Last year’s COP was notable as the first to explicitly mention “fossilfuels” in the final decision document.
Fossilfuels are the root cause of climate change, of long-standing environmental injustices, and are also frequently connected to geopolitical strife and violent conflicts. Other countries are dependent upon these fossilfuels, they don’t make themselves free of them. This is a fossilfuel war.
target set by the ParisAgreement – and an astonishing 0.17 Communities from Texas to Ohio that are benefiting from this scientifically informed tourism boom are the same places where some people like to question and mock climatescientists. The annual-average temperature was 1.48 as one writer put it on X.
But the United Nations has just said that the latest commitments of the 192 parties of the 2015 Parisagreement will equate to a 16% rise in global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2010. While most climatescientists are not directly involved in high-level negotiations, their work is essential to the process.
In the 1960s climate change was not really a significant concern, not even amongst environmentalists – this was despite the fact that the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896 was the first to claim that emissions from fossilfuels might eventually result in enhanced global warming.
The note can also be interpreted as an insult because it suggests that we climatescientists do not know our subject. This issue is therefore not only about academic freedom, because doubt is often used to undermine the climate issue quite deliberately by groups with financial interests.
The climate crisis is one of humanity’s most complex conflicts yet. The dangerous impacts of a warming, fossil-fuel dependent world span from wildfires capable of destroying entire towns to cancer-causing air pollution that afflicts the next generation. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, the truth is often obscured.
degrees Fahrenheit) is no longer feasible, and emphasized that if we move faster, we can keep it as far below 2 degrees C as possible—the fallback target in the ParisAgreement. Several scientists, including authors of the IPCC report, told the Associated Press that the world is locked into exceeding the 1.5° degrees Celsius (2.7
degrees C target that world leaders agreed upon in the ParisAgreement of 2015. The organisation labelled it as a ‘deafening cacophony’ of broken climate records. Scientists worry that 2024 could be even worse, as the El Nino climate impact is likely to peak this winter and drive temperatures even higher.
It turns out, for example, that climate-change researchers fly more frequently than scientists in other fields. Change 65 102184 ), climatescientists jet off two to three times a year on average, whereas other researchers get on planes just twice during that time. But other scientists also fly a lot.
Climatescientists have long predicted that the Mediterranean will be hit hard by rising temperatures and changes in rainfall, driven by human emissions. Future wildfire risk is projected to increase in southern Europe , according to the last report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Delaying tactics Amin Nasser laid out the case, that he believes carbon capture and storage (CCS), and improving the efficiency of fossilfuel production, should be the priority in reducing emissions. Climatescientists say the world needs to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 43% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels.
It makes them ripe for disproportional impacts from climate change, relative to the nation in general. degree Fahrenheit limits set by the ParisAgreement to avoid catastrophic climate impacts—more than double the 22 percent of the US as a whole that would exceed that temperature.
HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE CASE CHART SINCE UPDATE # 126. Fourth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Baltimore’s Climate Case Against FossilFuel Companies; Companies Sought Stay from Supreme Court. Court Dismissed Counterclaims in ClimateScientist’s Defamation Lawsuit. FEATURED CASE.
At this year’s annual general meetings, major investor-owned fossilfuel corporations are facing fewer climate-related shareholder proposals than at any time since the adoption of the Parisclimateagreement in 2015. Such doublespeak is the latest evolution in the fossilfuel industry’s deception playbook.
Already President Biden had come under criticism for not being ambitious enough and for not moving away from fossilfuels fast enough. This latest setback will further dismay climate advocates and activists, not just in the US but across the world. And once again the Supreme Court favoured conservative social views.
To get an assessment of the progress thus far, as well as an idea if what has to happen next, I turned to two of my colleagues in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Climate & Energy Program: Principal ClimateScientist Rachel Licker and Transmission Policy Manager Sam Gomberg. How cool is that?
The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change public nuisance lawsuits against five major fossilfuel producers to state court. Arizona Court Ordered Production of ClimateScientists’ Emails Under Arizona’s Public Records Law.
The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with a petitioner that the Attorney General should modify the text of a ballot title that, if adopted by voters, would amend an Oregon statute to require that greenhouse gas emissions from industry and fossilfuel sources be reduced by 100% below 1990 levels by 2050.
While these nominations are dangerous, whats even more disturbing is the opening they create for fossilfuel corporations that have masterminded climate deception campaigns to regain social license. And weve already seen a resurgence of outright climate science denial.
Court Said ClimateScientist Provided Sufficient Evidence of Actual Malice for Blog Authors but Not for Publisher. In the Tenth Circuit, both fossilfuel companies and local government entities filed supplemental briefs on July 16. Spain approved the National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030 in March 2021.
It was a familiarly stark report card on the world’s progress on cutting emissions from the IPCC, which has been monitoring climate change since 1988. Despite the panel’s regular reports about the consequences of burning fossilfuels, between 1990 and 2019 global emissions rose 54 percent and they are still rising. Halting at 1.5
A few general resources: Sidelining Science Since Day One: How the Trump administration has harmed public health and safety in its first six months by The Union of Concerned Scientists I Heart ClimateScientists. . pulling out of the Parisclimate deal may make China great again. climate change issue.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content