As the world grapples with the escalating effects of climate change, a silent crisis is unfolding: millions of people are being uprooted from their homes, not by war or persecution, but by rising seas, devastating droughts, and extreme weather events. Climate migration is no longer a distant concern; it is a pressing reality that demands our immediate attention and action. Earth.Org explores the complexities of climate migration, its legal implications, and the urgent need for global collaboration to protect those displaced by environmental upheaval.

—

Climate migration refers to the movement of individuals or communities compelled to leave their homes because of environmental changes caused or exacerbated by climate change. These environmental changes include sudden-onset disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, as well as slow-onset phenomena like desertification, rising sea levels, and prolonged droughts. Unlike economic migrants, who move primarily for better opportunities or refugees fleeing persecution, climate migrants are driven by the direct and indirect impacts of environmental degradation.

The term “climate migrant” is broad and encompasses various types of movement. 

Internal migration involves movement within a country’s borders due to environmental pressures, while cross-border migration refers to movement across national borders caused by climate-related factors. Temporary displacement can occur due to short-term relocation caused by sudden disasters, such as hurricanes or floods, whereas permanent resettlement happens when areas become uninhabitable due to long-term environmental changes, forcing communities to relocate permanently.

Climate Migrants vs. Refugees

It is essential to distinguish climate migrants from refugees. Refugees are defined under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol as individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. This definition does not include those displaced by environmental factors. As a result, many individuals displaced by climate change lack formal legal status or protections. This legal gap leaves millions of people vulnerable and unprotected in the face of increasing climate-related displacement.

The drivers of climate migration are multifaceted and interconnected. Sudden-onset disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires displace millions annually. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), over 218 million internal displacements have occurred worldwide over the past decade due to weather-related disasters. 

Slow-onset changes like desertification and rising sea levels force communities to migrate when their livelihoods become unsustainable. Resource scarcity exacerbated by climate change leads to competition for water and arable land, resulting in conflicts that further drive migration. Additionally, economic impacts from environmental degradation often push people to move in search of better opportunities. The total number of people living in internal displacement reached a record high of 75.9 million at the end of 2023. Of these, 7.7 million were displaced due to disasters.

More on the topic: Floods and Droughts Driving Increasing Displacement in Africa: Report

Legal and Policy Frameworks Governing Climate Migration

Despite the growing scale of climate-induced displacement, there is no comprehensive international legal framework specifically addressing the rights and protections of climate migrants. Existing frameworks are fragmented and insufficient to address the unique challenges posed by climate migration. 

The 1951 Refugee Convention provides legal protections for refugees but does not recognize environmental factors as grounds for seeking asylum. Attempts to reinterpret the Convention to include climate-induced displacement have been largely unsuccessful due to resistance from states concerned about expanding their obligations. 

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (2018) acknowledges the link between climate change and migration but lacks binding commitments that would ensure protections for those displaced by environmental factors. International human rights law offers some protections for migrants by guaranteeing basic rights such as access to food, shelter, and healthcare. However, these rights are often not fully realized for climate migrants due to their lack of legal status. Some regional agreements have addressed aspects of climate migration; for example, the African Union’s Kampala Convention provides protections for internally displaced persons (IDPs), including those displaced by environmental factors. 

The primary gaps in existing frameworks include a lack of legal recognition for climate migrants under international law, insufficient agreements addressing cross-border movements caused by climate change, and a focus on short-term disaster response rather than long-term strategies for adaptation and resettlement.

The Rising Scale of Climate Migration

Climate migration is not a future problem; it is already happening on a significant scale. As the impacts of climate change intensify, the number of people forced to migrate is expected to rise dramatically. 

More than 170 million people may be internally displaced worldwide by 2050 due to slow-onset impacts of climate change under pessimistic scenarios, according to recent data from Statista (2023). The World Bank’s 2021 Groundswell Report projects that, by mid-century, up to 216 million people could become internal climate migrants across six regions – Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, East Asia & Pacific, North Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe & Central Asia – if global warming continues unabated. Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to see the highest number of internal migrants at an estimated 86 million by 2050. 

Most current climate migration occurs within national borders. For example, rural populations in Bangladesh migrate to urban centers like Dhaka due to flooding and salinity intrusion. 

However, cross-border movements are also increasing in regions like Central America (e.g., Guatemala and Honduras), where droughts drive migration toward the US. Projections indicate that low-lying coastal areas such as Pacific Islands will face permanent displacement due to rising sea levels while arid regions like the Sahel will see increased migration driven by desertification and water scarcity.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies

Small island nations such as Kiribati and Tuvalu are at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to rising sea levels. In Kiribati’s case, the government has purchased land in Fiji as part of a “migration with dignity” strategy aimed at ensuring that its population can relocate while preserving cultural identity. Entire communities face cultural loss as they prepare for potential relocation. 

In Bangladesh, both sudden-onset disasters such as cyclones and slow-onset changes like salinity intrusion drive significant internal migration. Coastal regions experience frequent flooding that destroys homes and agricultural land. Urban centers like Dhaka are overwhelmed with internal migrants seeking refuge from environmental degradation. 

In Sub-Saharan Africa’s Sahel region, prolonged droughts have devastated agricultural livelihoods, leading many families to migrate either internally or across borders in search of better opportunities. Competition over scarce resources has fueled conflicts that further displaced populations. 

The Mekong Delta region in Vietnam illustrates another critical case study where rising sea levels threaten millions who rely on agriculture and fishing for their livelihoods. As saltwater intrusion increases and freshwater resources dwindle due to climate change, communities are forced to migrate inland or seek opportunities in urban centers.

Impacts of Climate Migration

The humanitarian implications of increased climate migration are profound. 

Overcrowding in urban areas leads to inadequate housing conditions and strained infrastructure systems that struggle to accommodate growing populations. Migrants often face discrimination from host communities along with limited access to essential services such as education and healthcare.

Vulnerable groups including women, children, elderly individuals, and indigenous populations are disproportionately affected by these challenges during displacement events or while seeking refuge in urban areas where resources may be scarce.

Geopolitical tensions also arise from increased cross-border movements driven by environmental degradation. Countries may experience strain on relations with neighboring nations as they grapple with large influxes of migrants seeking refuge from adverse conditions at home. Host communities may experience social tensions or xenophobia toward incoming migrants if not managed properly.

Furthermore, climate migration could exacerbate global inequalities as wealthier nations resist accepting displaced populations from poorer regions while contributing significantly more greenhouse gas emissions historically responsible for driving these changes.

Addressing Climate Migration

Addressing climate migration requires a multi-pronged approach involving international collaboration alongside robust legal reform efforts coupled with innovative solutions tailored specifically toward addressing this pressing issue.

International collaboration should involve establishing a global fund dedicated solely toward supporting countries affected by climate-induced displacement while strengthening regional cooperation mechanisms (such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or the African Union) aimed at addressing shared challenges related specifically towards cross-border movements resulting from climatic factors.

Legal reform must focus on expanding definitions surrounding refugee status under existing frameworks like the 1951 Refugee Convention or creating entirely new classifications recognizing climate refugees. This would help ensure that individuals displaced directly because of environmental degradation receive adequate protections comparable with those afforded traditional refugees under international law.

Innovative solutions could include implementing planned relocation programs allowing at-risk communities proactively relocate before disaster strikes rather than reactively responding after calamities occur; governments should also invest heavily into nature-based solutions – such as mangrove restoration – that mitigate environmental risks while simultaneously supporting local livelihoods reliant upon healthy ecosystems.

Finally, yet importantly, local adaptation strategies must prioritize providing financial support toward community-led adaptation projects – such as building flood-resistant housing – while promoting sustainable agricultural practices aimed at reducing vulnerability within rural areas prone towards droughts and flooding events exacerbated through ongoing climatic shifts occurring globally today.

The post Climate Migration: A Multidimensional Challenge Requiring Global Action appeared first on Earth.Org.

More than 3,300 delegates – including members representing more than 170 nations and observers from more than 440 organizations – met last month in Busan, South Korea, to negotiate a global plastics treaty. 

—

In a world grappling with an escalating plastic pollution crisis, the recent negotiations in Busan, South Korea, were seen as a crucial opportunity to forge a global treaty aimed at curbing this environmental menace. 

But despite the urgency and the participation of over 170 nations, delegates left the table empty-handed, unable to bridge deep divides over critical issues such as production limits and hazardous chemicals. 

So, what went wrong during these pivotal talks? 

Background

The global plastic pollution crisis has escalated dramatically over the past few decades. With approximately 400 million metric tons of plastic produced annually – a figure projected to rise by 70% by 2040 – the need for a cohesive international response has become urgent. 

In response to the escalating crisis, the United Nations in 2022 initiated a process to create a legally binding international treaty aimed at curbing plastic pollution, culminating in last month’s meeting in Busan. 

The fifth round of negotiations was meant to finalize a treaty framework that would address not only waste management but also the production and design of plastics. However, the talks ended without agreement despite extensive discussions involving about 3,300 participants, including government delegates and civil society representatives.

Key Issues Leading to Deadlock

Multiple factors contributed to the failure of the Busan negotiations.

Diverging National Interests

A significant divide emerged between two main coalitions: the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), which seeks a comprehensive treaty that includes commitments to reduce plastic production, and the like-minded group, led by oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran. 

The HAC advocates for binding agreements to phase out harmful plastics and chemicals, while the like-minded group prefers a focus solely on waste management and recycling. This fundamental disagreement stymied negotiations, as each side remained entrenched in its position without finding common ground

Production Reduction Targets

One of the most contentious issues was whether the treaty should include specific targets for reducing global plastic production. 

Many countries, particularly those aligned with the High Ambition Coalition, argued that curbing plastic production is essential to effectively tackle pollution at its source. They advocated for binding commitments to limit the production of primary plastics, which is expected to triple by 2050 if left unchecked. 

Conversely, a coalition of oil-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, opposed any language in the treaty that would impose restrictions on production. The group emphasized that the focus should be on waste management and recycling rather than limiting production itself. Their stance was rooted in economic concerns, as many of these countries have significant investments in fossil fuels and petrochemicals, which are integral to plastic manufacturing.

Chemicals of Concern

Another major point of disagreement revolved around the regulation of hazardous chemicals used in plastic products. The High Ambition Coalition sought to include strict bans and restrictions on certain chemicals deemed harmful to human health and the environment. They argued that without addressing these chemicals, any treaty would be ineffective in mitigating the adverse impacts of plastic pollution. In contrast, representatives from oil-rich nations expressed reluctance to endorse stringent chemical regulations. They argued that such measures could disrupt their industries and insisted instead on focusing on downstream solutions like waste management. This divide highlighted a fundamental clash between environmental priorities and economic interests.

Waste Management vs. Comprehensive Solutions

The negotiations also revealed differing perspectives on how best to address plastic pollution. While many countries supported a comprehensive approach that includes measures across the entire life cycle of plastics – from production to disposal – others preferred a narrower focus on waste management strategies. 

Countries advocating for a comprehensive treaty argued that merely improving waste management would not suffice given the projected increase in plastic production. They emphasized that addressing the root causes of plastic pollution requires a holistic strategy that encompasses production limits, product design improvements, and enhanced recycling efforts. On the other hand, some nations maintained that prioritizing waste management would be a more pragmatic approach, especially given their existing infrastructure limitations.

Financing Mechanisms and Economic Disparities

The issue of financing was another critical area of contention during the Busan talks. Many developing nations expressed concerns about their ability to implement treaty provisions without adequate financial and technological support. They called for mechanisms to facilitate technology transfer and funding for initiatives aimed at reducing plastic pollution. However, wealthier nations were hesitant to commit significant financial resources without first establishing a clear framework for action within the treaty. 

This reluctance created tension between countries seeking ambitious commitments and those concerned about financial implications. The lack of convergence on financing mechanisms ultimately hampered progress towards an agreement.

Consensus vs. Voting Rules

The procedural dynamics of the negotiations also played a role in stalling progress. Delegates faced challenges in agreeing on voting rules and procedures for resolving disputes. Some countries advocated for consensus-based decision-making, while others pushed for majority voting as a means to break deadlocks. This disagreement over procedural matters highlighted deeper divisions among countries regarding their willingness to compromise and collaborate effectively. The inability to establish clear rules contributed to a sense of frustration among negotiators and hindered meaningful discussions on substantive issues.

The Chair’s Text: A Step Forward or a Stumbling Block?

Despite the deadlock, negotiators did agree on a preliminary document known as the “Chair’s Text,” which outlines potential pathways for future discussions. The document is intended as a starting point for resumed negotiations scheduled for 2025. However, it remains laden with brackets indicating unresolved issues, leaving significant gaps that need to be addressed before any binding agreement can be reached.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), acknowledged that while progress was made in understanding each country’s positions and challenges, critical divergences persisted. 

Civil Society and Public Pressure

The Busan negotiations were not just a governmental affair but also marked by significant public engagement. Before the talks, over 1,500 activists marched in Busan demanding robust action against plastic production. They emphasized that any effective treaty must include targets for reducing primary plastic production and address human rights issues linked to environmental justice. 

This grassroots pressure highlights an essential aspect of international negotiations: public sentiment can influence governmental positions and push for more ambitious outcomes. A critical flaw that may have hindered progress was the absence of strong civil society representation during negotiations.

Looking Ahead: What’s Next?

With no agreement reached in Busan, countries will reconvene in 2025 (it is still unclear when and where) to continue discussions. There is cautious optimism among many delegates who believe that momentum is building towards a stronger treaty framework. The unity displayed by over 100 nations advocating for binding commitments suggests that there is still hope for achieving meaningful change. However, significant challenges remain:

• Addressing Financial Mechanisms: A crucial aspect of future negotiations will be establishing financial mechanisms to support developing nations in implementing treaty provisions.
• Building Consensus: Finding common ground among diverging national interests will require diplomatic finesse and possibly new compromises that address both environmental goals and economic realities.
• Strengthening Civil Society Engagement: Ensuring that civil society voices are included in future discussions may lead to more comprehensive solutions that reflect public concerns about plastic pollution.

The failure of the Busan negotiations marks a significant setback in global efforts to combat plastic pollution. However, it also serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international diplomacy where economic interests often clash with environmental imperatives. As nations prepare for renewed discussions, there is an opportunity to build on the lessons learned from Busan and strive for an agreement that truly addresses the urgent need to reduce plastic pollution globally. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but with continued advocacy and commitment from all stakeholders, governments, civil society, and industry remains hope for a robust global treaty that can effectively tackle one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time.

The post The Outcome of the Global Plastic Treaty Negotiations in Busan: A Pivotal Moment or a Missed Opportunity? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, affecting every aspect of our lives and the planet. It poses significant risks and threats to human health, food security, water availability, biodiversity, and economic development. To cope with the impacts and uncertainties of climate change, we need to adapt to the changing conditions and reduce our vulnerability. This is the essence of climate adaptation.

—

Climate adaptation is the process of adjusting to the actual or expected effects of climate change, to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. It can involve actions at different levels, from individuals and communities to governments and organisations, and across different sectors, such as agriculture, water, health, and energy. It can also take various forms, such as building resilience, enhancing adaptive capacity, managing risks, and transforming systems.

What Is the Global Goal on Adaptation?

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) is a set of objectives and targets that aims to guide and measure the progress and effectiveness of climate adaptation at the global level. It was established in Article 7.1 of the Paris Agreement, the landmark international treaty on climate change that was adopted in 2015 and entered into force in 2016, which recognises adaptation as a key component of the global response to climate change, along with mitigation and finance.

The global adaptation goals are stated in Article 7 of the Paris Agreement, which reads:

“Parties hereby establish the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the temperature goal referred to in Article 2”.

The GGA is meant to serve as a unifying framework that can drive political action and finance for adaptation on the same scale as mitigation. However, defining and operationalising it has been a complex and contentious process, involving multiple questions and challenges that need to be resolved, such as defining its scope, indicators, and mechanisms, and mobilising adequate and predictable support for adaptation in developing countries.

The goals are not quantified or prescriptive but rather qualitative and aspirational. They are intended to provide a common vision and direction for adaptation action while respecting the diversity and flexibility of national and regional circumstances, priorities, and needs. 

The Current State of Climate Adaptation and the Global Goal on Adaptation 

The current state of climate adaptation can be assessed by looking at the progress and gaps in implementing and operationalising global adaptation goals, the key actors and stakeholders involved in the process, and the main challenges and barriers to overcome.

1. Progress and Gaps

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, there has been some progress in advancing climate adaptation and the GGA at different levels and sectors.

The current state of climate adaptation and the GGA is characterised by both progress and gaps, opportunities, and challenges. On the one hand, there is growing awareness and recognition of the need and urgency of adaptation, as evidenced by the increasing number of adaptation plans, policies, and actions at various levels and sectors. According to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Adaptation Gap Report 2023, 85% of countries have adopted at least one national-level adaptation planning instrument, and with 69% of countries putting a central administrative body in place to oversee adaptation action and 67% allocating domestic finance towards implementing adaptation priorities. Moreover, there is a growing body of knowledge and evidence on the effectiveness and benefits of adaptation, as well as the costs and risks of inaction. For example, a  study by the Global Commission on Adaptation in 2019 found that investing US$1.8 trillion between 2020 and 2030 in five areas of adaptation (early warning systems, climate-resilient infrastructure, improved dryland agriculture, mangrove protection, and water resources management) could generate US$7.1 trillion in net benefits by 2030.

On the other hand, there are significant gaps and barriers that hinder the implementation and operationalisation of the GGA, especially in developing countries, historically the most vulnerable to climate change. 

One of the main gaps is the lack of adequate and predictable finance for adaptation. Despite the pledge of developed countries to mobilise US$100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, the actual amount of public and private finance for adaptation remains far below this target, and only a small share of the total climate finance has been allocated to adaptation.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only $16.8 billion of public climate finance was dedicated to adaptation in 2018, representing 21% of the total. Moreover, there is a lack of transparency and accountability in tracking and reporting adaptation finance, as well as a lack of alignment and coherence between adaptation and development finance. 

More on the topic: Wealthy Nations May Have Met $100 Billion Climate Finance Pledge in 2022, OECD Says 

Another major gap is the lack of clear and measurable indicators and targets for the GGA, which makes it difficult to assess the progress and impact of adaptation efforts. While there are various frameworks and methodologies for monitoring and evaluating adaptation, there is no agreed-upon set of indicators or criteria that can capture the complexity and diversity of adaptation across different contexts and scales.

Furthermore, several challenges and barriers constrain the effectiveness and sustainability of adaptation, such as institutional and governance constraints, social and cultural factors, knowledge and information gaps, and trade-offs and conflicts between adaptation and other goals.

To address these gaps and challenges, there is a need to enhance the implementation and operationalisation of the GGA, by strengthening the enabling conditions and drivers for adaptation, such as political leadership, stakeholder engagement, capacity building, innovation, and learning.

There is also a need to highlight and scale up the best practices and success stories of adaptation from different regions and sectors, such as the examples below:

• In Bangladesh, the Coastal Community Resilience Project has improved the livelihoods and resilience of more than 28,000 households in the coastal areas, by providing access to climate-resilient infrastructure, diversified income sources, and early warning systems.
• In Kenya, the Adaptation Consortium has supported the development and implementation of county-level climate adaptation funds, which enable local communities to prioritise and access finance for adaptation projects, such as water harvesting, drought-tolerant crops, and livestock insurance.
• In the Caribbean, the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) has provided affordable and rapid insurance payouts to 21 member countries, helping them recover from the impacts of hurricanes, earthquakes, and excess rainfall.

You might also like: Current Adaptation Finance Gap At Least 50% Bigger Than Previously Thought, New UNEP Report Warns

2. Actors and Stakeholders

The implementation and operationalisation of climate adaptation and the GGA involve a wide range of actors and stakeholders who have different roles, responsibilities, and interests in adaptation. Some of the key actors and stakeholders are:

• Governments: They are the primary actors and decision-makers in adaptation, as they have the authority and mandate to formulate and implement adaptation policies and plans, mobilise and allocate adaptation finance, and coordinate and facilitate adaptation governance and stakeholder engagement at different levels.
• International organisations: They are the key supporters and enablers of adaptation, as they provide technical and financial assistance, guidance and standards, and platforms and mechanisms for adaptation action and cooperation at the global and regional levels.
• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs): They are the important advocates and intermediaries of adaptation, as they raise the awareness and ambition on adaptation, represent and empower the voices and interests of the most vulnerable and marginalised, and deliver and monitor adaptation projects and programs at the local and national levels.
• Private sector: The private sector is the potential driver and innovator of adaptation, as it has the resources and capabilities to invest in and develop adaptation solutions and technologies and integrate adaptation into its business models and practices.
• Academia and research institutions: They are the essential sources and generators of adaptation, as they produce and disseminate scientific and policy knowledge and evidence on adaptation and support the capacity building and learning of adaptation actors and stakeholders.
• Media and communication: They are the influential communicators of adaptation, as they shape the public and political discourse and perception on adaptation and inform and educate the audiences and stakeholders on issues and solutions.
• Communities and individuals: They are the ultimate beneficiaries and agents of adaptation, as they experience and cope with the impacts and uncertainties of climate change and participate and contribute to the adaptation planning and implementation at the local and personal levels.

3. Challenges and Barriers

The implementation and operationalisation of climate adaptation and the global adaptation goals face numerous challenges and barriers, which hinder the effectiveness and impact of adaptation actions and outcomes. Some of the main challenges and barriers are:

• The uncertainty and complexity of climate change, which makes it difficult to predict and project the future impacts and risks of climate change, and to plan and implement adaptation actions.
• The lack of political will and commitment on adaptation, which affects the prioritisation and allocation of resources and support for adaptation, and the implementation and enforcement of adaptation policies and plans.
• Inadequate coordination and collaboration on adaptation contribute to the duplication and fragmentation of adaptation actions and outcomes, as well as conflicts and trade-offs between different levels and sectors.
• The limited awareness and understanding of adaptation, which results in low public and stakeholder engagement and participation in adaptation, and low demand and uptake of adaptation solutions and technologies.
• The inadequate capacity and skills for adaptation, which limits the ability and quality of adaptation planning and implementation, and the generation and use of adaptation knowledge and evidence.
• The perception and acceptance of adaptation, as well as the behaviour and practice of adaptation, are influenced by social and cultural barriers.

These challenges and barriers are not insurmountable, but they require concerted and sustained efforts and actions from all actors and stakeholders to overcome them. They also present opportunities and incentives for innovation and transformation of adaptation.

The Future Scenarios and Implications of Climate Adaptation and the Global Adaptation Goals

The future scenarios of climate adaptation are diverse and depend on various factors such as global economic trends, technological progress, geopolitical developments, and most importantly, how aggressively we act to reduce carbon emissions. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report features five climate narratives that differ in terms of the level of projected warming and society’s ability to adapt to the changes ahead.

The new United Arab Emirates (UAE) Framework for Global Climate Resilience, agreed upon at COP28, uniquely positions climate change adaptation as a top priority for all nations. It expands on the GGA and will improve our ability to measure the GGA, allowing the international community to take stock of progress over time and maintain accountability for achieving the goal. The framework prioritises key sectors for increased climate resilience, including food and agriculture, water, cities and infrastructure, ecosystems and nature, health, livelihoods, and cultural heritage. It also details a series of targets linked to different stages of the adaptation policy cycle.

These scenarios show that the future of climate adaptation and the GGA is not predetermined but depends on the choices and actions we make today and in the coming years. The GGA framework provides a common vision and a set of tools to guide and monitor adaptation efforts but it also requires political will, financial support, and social mobilisation to achieve its objectives. The more we can reduce emissions and enhance adaptation, the more we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change and create a resilient and prosperous future for all. 

Synergy Between Adaptation and Mitigation

Synergies between adaptation and mitigation are possible when actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also increase resilience to climate impacts, or vice versa. For example, restoring mangroves means bringing back ecosystems that can both sequester carbon and protect coastal communities from storm surges. Synergies can also occur when policies or measures that support adaptation or mitigation have co-benefits for other sectors or goals, such as health, biodiversity, or human rights.

Achieving this synergy requires a balanced and integrated approach that considers both the short-term and long-term benefits and trade-offs of different actions, as well as cross-sectoral and cross-border cooperation, stakeholder participation, scientific evidence, and adequate financing. 

Recommendations and Actions for Climate Adaptation and the Global Adaptation Goals

• The recommendations and actions for climate adaptation and the Global Adaptation Goals (GGA) are diverse and multifaceted, involving various stakeholders and sectors. Here are some key points:
• Principles of Adaptation and Resilience: A World Bank report outlines six universal principles to guide policymakers in planning for climate change adaptation and resilience. These principles are accompanied by 26 actions, 12 toolboxes, and 111 indicators.
• Inclusivity and Participation: A bottom-up approach involving diverse stakeholders like local communities, youth, women, and indigenous groups is critical to ensuring that the GGA is sensitive to ground realities and the specific vulnerabilities of these groups.
• Science-informed Metrics: Relying on robust scientific data, like IPCC assessments, is essential to formulate effective adaptation strategies. National monitoring and evaluation systems should be strengthened to assess the efficacy of adaptation actions.
• Regional Cooperation and Coordination: Cross-border cooperation and knowledge exchange are essential to tackle shared climate risks and develop best practices for adaptation.
• Adaptation Finance: The GGA framework must address the distinct financing needs of each region and ensure that funds are channelled to the most vulnerable communities.
• Country-Driven and Locally led Approaches: The GGA framework should be flexible enough to accommodate the unique needs and priorities of each nation, aligning with their existing national adaptation strategies.
• Urgency of Collective Action and Responsibility: All regions acknowledged the pressing need for global cooperation to achieve the Paris Agreement’s objectives.
• Integration of adaptation and mitigation: Effective climate action requires a balanced approach, considering both adaptation and mitigation efforts.
• Equity, Rights, and Justice: The GGA framework should prioritise fairness, ensuring that marginalised communities and future generations benefit equitably from adaptation strategies.
• Transformational Adaptation: Embracing innovation and empowering local communities will drive adaptation efforts that move beyond incremental changes².
• Global Governance and Cooperation: COP28 is a pivotal juncture for finalising and operationalising the GGA framework, aligning global adaptation efforts.
• Capacity Building: Building institutional, technical, and financial capabilities is essential for successful GGA implementation.

These recommendations and actions aim to enhance the world’s adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

Conclusion

Climate adaptation and the GGA are essential and urgent for addressing the impacts and risks of climate change, as well as for creating a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future. Adaptation can generate multiple co-benefits for human and natural systems, as well as foster innovation and transformation. However, adaptation also faces significant gaps and challenges, such as the lack of finance, technology, and knowledge, as well as the trade-offs and conflicts with other goals and agendas. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the implementation and operationalisation of the GGA, by strengthening the capacity and agency of different actors and levels to plan, implement, and evaluate adaptation, as well as to share and learn from adaptation experiences and best practices. There is also a need to increase the availability and accessibility of finance, technology, and knowledge for adaptation, as well as to ensure the alignment and coherence of adaptation with other goals and agendas, such as mitigation, development, and human rights. These recommendations and actions require collective and collaborative action from all stakeholders, as well as political leadership and commitment from all countries. By working together, we can achieve the GGA and the SDGs, and create a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future for all.

This article was originally published on February 5, 2024.

You might also like: 4 Climate Adaptation Strategies From Around the World

The post Climate Adaptation: Assessing the Progress on the Implementation of the Global Goal on Adaptation appeared first on Earth.Org.

Imagine towering skyscrapers, bustling streets, and a city alive with activity slowly sinking into the ground. This is the alarming reality in many of China’s major cities, including Shanghai and Tianjin. Rapid urbanization, industrial growth, and excessive groundwater extraction have triggered an environmental crisis beneath the nation’s booming cities. Earth.org explores the sinking cities of China, an issue that not only exposes the cost of unchecked development but also serves as a global warning for all rapidly growing urban centres.

—

Imagine a city, its skyline dominated by skyscrapers and highways. Now, imagine it slowly drooping into the ground. This is not a sci-fi novel but a real problem facing many of China’s major cities. From the famous streets of Shanghai to the industrial hub of Tianjin, Chinese cities are sinking at an unprecedented rate.

Earth.org digs into the complex web of factors behind this urban subsidence, looking at the historical context, the speed of development, the consequences of industrialisation and the solutions being proposed to fix this problem. As we untangle this messy issue, we see how China’s drive for globalisation and economic power has inadvertently created an environmental crisis that threatens the very foundations of its cities.

It is not just a Chinese problem. It is a warning for all fast-developing countries. A reminder of the fine line between progress and protection.

Historical Context: Early Signs of Subsidence

The story of sinking cities in China did not start with the country’s explosive economic growth in recent decades. The first signs appeared nearly a century ago. According to research, cities like Shanghai and Tianjin have been subsiding since the 1920s. This early subsidence was subtle, and often overlooked amid the chaos of the early 20th century. But it laid the foundation for the bigger sinking we see today.

In Shanghai, historical records show that parts of the city had already sunk by 1.76 meters between 1921 and 1965. This early subsidence was mainly because of the extraction of groundwater to support the growing population and emerging industries. The soft, compressible soil of the Yangtze River Delta, where Shanghai is built, made the city more prone to this kind of settlement.

Tianjin, another coastal megacity, started to show subsidence in the 1930s. By the 1960s, parts of the city had sunk over a meter. Groundwater extraction was once again to blame, and it would only worsen in the following decades.

These early subsidence cases were the canary in the coal mine, warning of the bigger and more severe subsidence that would plague many Chinese cities in the late 1900s and early 2000s. 

Industrialization Era

In the mid-20th century, China underwent a transformation as it embarked on an industrialization path. Over this period, China’s urban landscape changed dramatically, especially between the 1950s and the 1970s. 

Cities that were once centers of trade and culture became industrial giants overnight.
China’s industrialization was crucial to its economic growth but the stability of metropolitan areas was inadvertently affected. With factories sprouting up and industrial output booming, water demand increased exponentially for industrial processes and to support the growing urban workforce. This led to even more groundwater withdrawal, which further worsened the subsidence problem that had started decades before.

According to a 2024 study, several Chinese towns experienced increased ground sinking during the period of rapid industrialisation. For example, the subsidence rate in Suzhou, a city west of Shanghai famous for its gardens, went from 13 millimeters/year in the 1960s to 67 millimeters/year in the 1980s. Massive land reclamation projects also started during this period. 

By filling in shallow waters and coastal marshes, cities like Tianjin and Shanghai expanded their land area. The reclaimed ground, which is soft and compressible, led to new areas that are very prone to subsidence, even as it provided much needed space for urban and industrial growth.

Development and Urbanization

In the late 20th and early 21st century, China experienced unprecedented urbanization, which would change the country’s landscape and worsen the problem of sinking cities. This period of fast development led to a construction boom, with entire cities seeming to appear overnight. This was needed to meet demand as millions of people moved from rural to urban areas.

According to the World Bank, China’s urban population grew from 191 million in 1980 to 831 million in 2018, 640 million in just four decades. 

Chinese cities’ skylines changed as skyscrapers and residential complexes replaced low-rise buildings and old neighbourhoods. In Shanghai, for example, the Pudong district with its futuristic skyline was largely built on farmland 30 years ago. The rapid vertical growth added weight to the already stressed ground, worsening subsidence.

Infrastructure development kept pace with the vertical growth. Huge networks of roads, bridges and tunnels were built to connect the ever-expanding urban areas. Shanghai alone built over 800 kilometers of metro lines between 1993 and 2018. While these projects improved urban mobility, they also involved a lot of groundwork and, in many cases, required continuous pumping of groundwater, which further worsened the issue.

The speed and scale of urbanization often outran urban planning and environmental protection. In many cases, construction went ahead without proper assessment of the ground condition or long-term impact on land stability. 

Population Growth

China’s rapid urbanization was driven by an enormous population shift from rural to urban areas. China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that the country’s urban population was 902 million in 2020, 63.89% of the total population. This represents a huge jump from 1978, when only 17.92% of China’s population lived in urban areas.

This urbanization has put huge pressure on city infrastructure and resources. The demand for housing, water and other basic services in urban areas has gone through the roof. Many cities have had to tap into groundwater at unsustainable rates to meet this demand.

The concentration of population in urban areas has also led to a phenomenon known as urban heat islands, where cities are much hotter than the surrounding rural areas. This can exacerbate subsidence by increasing evaporation rates and water demand, further straining groundwater resources.

The sheer weight of the urban population and the infrastructure to support it is also putting pressure on the ground. High-rise residential complexes, shopping malls and office buildings are all adding to the weight on the ground, compressing soil layers and causing subsidence.

Race For Globalization

For the last century or so, one of the biggest stories has been China’s rise to economic superpower. Along with lifting millions out of poverty and changing the face of the global economy, this growth has also contributed to the problem of sinking cities. 

According to the World Bank, between 1978 and 2018, China’s GDP grew at an average annual rate of over 9%, making it the largest economy to have done so in history. The transition from a planned to a market-based economy, with a focus on manufacturing, exports and investments in infrastructure and urban expansion was the main driver of this growth. The pursuit of rapid economic growth often prioritized industrial output and urban expansion over environmental concerns. Cities were encouraged to grow quickly, attract investment, and boost their GDP figures. This led to a race among cities to build bigger, higher, and faster, often without full consideration of the long-term environmental impacts.

Skyscrapers and big buildings have played a part, too. China has over 50% of the world’s 100 tallest buildings, many of which are in sinking cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou. The weight of these buildings, combined with the groundwater extraction needed to build and operate them, has accelerated subsidence in many urban areas.

China’s Belt and Road initiative, a large-scale project to connect China to the rest of the world, has required massive infrastructure projects both within China and abroad. While these projects bring economic benefits, they also bring environmental and geological risks.

Consequences of Industrialization

Groundwater Extraction

In Beijing, for example, decades of over-pumping have led to a drop in groundwater levels of up to 100 meters in some areas, up to 70% of the land subsidence is caused by over-extraction of groundwater. Industries like agriculture and textiles that rely heavily on groundwater further lower the water table and permanently compress the land. In coastal cities like Tianjin, the consequences are sinkholes, infrastructure damage and seawater intrusion.

Mining Operations

In China, mining, especially coal mining, has contributed significantly to soil subsidence. Mining has caused over 25,000 square kilometers of land to sink, with some areas sinking by 8 meters. Underground tunnel collapse affects cities like Datong. Besides depleting groundwater, mining can also worsen subsidence by changing hydrology due to the weight of new reservoirs.

Overpopulation and Urban Density

China’s rapid urbanization has increased population density, straining resources like groundwater. High-rise buildings and infrastructure add weight, causing further ground compaction. Beijing faces significant groundwater extraction issues, with domestic water use contributing to this problem. Over-extraction of groundwater can lead to subsidence, which is a concern in numerous cities experiencing high groundwater use.

Urban Heat Islands 

Urban heat islands (UHIs) in cities like Beijing and Shanghai increase temperatures, driving up water demand and groundwater extraction. Elevated temperatures also cause soil shrinkage, and frequent heating and cooling cycles weaken urban infrastructure, contributing to land instability.

Natural Causes

Geological factors, such as soft sediments in coastal cities like Shanghai, make these areas more prone to subsidence when combined with heavy construction and water extraction. Sea level rise, projected to increase by up to 1.3 meters in some areas by 2100, compounds the issue, making cities more vulnerable to flooding and saltwater intrusion.

Current Statistics and Future Projections

• Shanghai: Parts of Shanghai have indeed sunk by more than 3 meters since 1921. Current subsidence rates vary across the city, with some areas sinking by up to 10 millimeters per year.
• Beijing: Beijing has experienced cumulative subsidence of up to 1.5 meters in some areas. Certain districts are still sinking at rates of up to 11 centimeters per year.
• Tianjin: This coastal city has seen total subsidence of up to 3.5 meters. Some areas continue to sink at rates of 5-7 centimeters annually.
• Wuhan: Wuhan has experienced subsidence of up to 50 centimeters in its worst-affected areas.
• Datong: This coal-mining city in Shanxi province has seen dramatic subsidence, with some areas sinking by as much as 8 meters due to mining activities.

Future Risks

Looking ahead, the prospects for many Chinese cities are concerning. Future projections must consider current subsidence rates and the compounding effects of climate change, continued urbanization, and economic development.

Research published in Nature Communications presents concerning projections for coastal regions in China. The study suggests that by the year 2120, if current subsidence rates persist, several major urban areas could face significant relative sea level rise. The Pearl River Delta region, home to important cities like Guangzhou and Shenzhen, might experience a rise of up to 1.7 meters. Shanghai, another crucial economic center, could see levels increase by as much as 1.5 meters. Additionally, the city of Tianjin may face a rise of up to 1 meter. These projections take into account both the effects of land subsidence and global sea level rise, highlighting the compound challenges these areas may face in the coming century.

Implications

A study by Climate Central estimates that by 2100, land currently home to 93 million people in China could be at risk of annual coastal flooding because of sea level rise.

The World Bank estimates that flooding in coastal cities could cost $1 trillion annually by 2050 if no action is taken. Chinese cities bear a significant portion of this cost. Critical infrastructure, including ports, airports, and power plants, may be at risk. For instance, Shanghai’s Pudong International Airport, built on reclaimed land, could face increased flooding risks.

Continued subsidence could also exacerbate saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers, threatening freshwater supplies for millions of urban residents.

Wetlands and coastal ecosystems, crucial for biodiversity and natural flood protection, could be lost as cities sink and sea levels rise.

Innovative Solutions

China has been leading the way in creating and using creative solutions to the difficult problem of urban subsidence. These include urban planning techniques, legislative modifications, and the use of cutting-edge technologies to monitor and mitigate subsidence.

Groundwater Management

Given that groundwater extraction is a primary cause of subsidence, many cities have implemented strict controls on groundwater use:

1. Tianjin Model: The city of Tianjin has implemented a comprehensive groundwater management strategy that has become a model for other Chinese cities. This includes strict licensing and monitoring of groundwater extraction, the implementation of water-saving technologies in industries, and the development of alternative water sources, including desalination plants.
2. Artificial Recharge: Cities like Beijing are experimenting with artificial groundwater recharge systems. During periods of high rainfall, excess surface water is directed into underground aquifers, helping to restore groundwater levels.
3. Water Pricing Reforms: Many cities have implemented tiered water pricing systems, where heavy users pay higher rates. This encourages water conservation and reduces reliance on groundwater.

Building Regulations and Urban Planning

New regulations and urban planning strategies are being implemented to minimise the impact of urban development on ground stability:

1. Load Reduction: Shanghai has implemented regulations requiring new buildings to be lighter, using modern materials and construction techniques to reduce the load on the ground.
2. Pile Foundations: For larger structures, deep pile foundations that extend to more stable soil layers or bedrock are now often required.
3. Green Infrastructure: Cities are increasing green spaces and permeable surfaces to allow better groundwater recharge and reduce the urban heat island effect.
4. “Sponge City” Concept: This innovative urban design approach, piloted in several Chinese cities, aims to make cities more permeable. It includes features like rain gardens, permeable pavements, and green roofs to reduce flooding and aid groundwater recharge.

Technological Innovations

China is leveraging advanced technologies to monitor and address subsidence:

1. Satellite Monitoring: The use of Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) technology allows for precise monitoring of ground movement over large areas. This enables early detection of subsidence and more targeted interventions.
2. Big Data and AI: Advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence are being used to process vast amounts of data from satellite and ground-based sensors, allowing for more accurate subsidence predictions and risk assessments.
3. Smart Water Management: IoT (Internet of Things) sensors and smart meters are being deployed to monitor water use in real-time, allowing for more efficient water management and reduced groundwater extraction.
4. 3D Printing in Construction: Experimental use of 3D printing technology in construction allows for the creation of lighter yet strong structures, potentially reducing the weight burden on subsidence-prone ground.

Policy and Governance Innovations

Addressing urban subsidence in China requires not only technological solutions but also innovations in policy and governance. Many cities have established special committees that bring together experts from geology, urban planning, water management, and other relevant fields to develop integrated subsidence management strategies. Collaboration between government agencies, research institutions, and private companies is being encouraged to develop and implement innovative solutions. Stricter requirements for environmental impact assessments, including subsidence risk analysis, are also being implemented for new urban development projects.

While these innovative solutions show promise, the challenge of urban subsidence in China remains significant. Successful mitigation will require continued innovation, substantial investment, and a commitment to sustainable urban development practices.

Conclusion

The complicated problem of sinking towns in China is exacerbated by rising sea levels, geological circumstances, groundwater exploitation, and fast urbanisation. There is some degree of subsidence in about half of China’s main cities, which can have detrimental effects on infrastructure, raise the risk of flooding, and force out residents.

China has responded to the magnitude of the issue with bold solutions, such as sophisticated groundwater management, “sponge cities” for improved urban planning, and cutting-edge technologies to monitor and lessen subsidence. These initiatives provide insightful information for cities around the world dealing with comparable issues brought on by urbanization and climate change.

Key strategies moving forward include integrated approaches to urban planning, long-term solutions that account for future growth and climate scenarios, continued investment in technology, effective policy-making, and global cooperation. China’s experience in addressing subsidence provides critical lessons for urban planners worldwide as cities continue to grow in the face of environmental pressures.

The post Why Are Chinese Cities Sinking? A Comprehensive Analysis of Causes, Effects and Solutions appeared first on Earth.Org.

Human activities, mostly the burning of fossil fuels, are changing the climate faster than ever. As the world gets hotter, scientists and policymakers have agreed to try everything they can to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. But even 2C of warming will greatly impact life on Earth. Earth.Org looks at what will happen when we hit this warming milestone, what changes we can expect in extreme weather events, climate patterns, sea levels and temperatures, and what it means for ecosystems and human activities.

—

The Earth’s climate is changing at a rate never seen in human history. The main driver of this change is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Behind this are human activities like the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. With warming expected to continue in the years to come, we are now at a critical moment in human history where our choices will determine the future of life on this planet.

In 2015, world leaders met in Paris to address this global issue. The talks culminated in the Paris Agreement, an international treaty that set a big goal: to limit global warming to 1.5C or “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels. The 2C benchmark was not chosen arbitrarily. It is the point beyond which various scientists believe the risks of catastrophic and irreversible changes to our planet’s systems will increase significantly.

But even if we meet this target, we need to understand that a world 2C above pre-industrial levels will still be a very different world. The changes will be far-reaching, affecting everything from weather patterns and sea levels to ecosystems and human societies. Some places will warm more than others; some will get wetter while others drier. Extreme weather events will become more frequent and intense, bringing about devastation and death.

Understanding 2C of Warming

Before we get into the details, let’s understand what 2C means in climate change terms. This is the average increase in global surface temperatures compared to pre-industrial levels (a period between 1850-1900). According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the planet has so far warmed 1.2C, with many projections suggesting we are “well on our way” to 2C. It is important to note that warming is not uniform across the globe. Some areas, like the poles, are warming much faster than others. Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent, heating at double the rate than any other continent.

Similarly, the impacts of warming can vary greatly depending on local conditions and vulnerabilities.

Temperature Changes

A 2C warmer world will be a world of big temperature changes. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), land will warm more than the oceans and the Arctic will warm 2-3 times faster than the global average.

Some of the temperature changes in a 2C scenario include:

1. More frequent and intense heatwaves in the tropics.
2. Fewer cold snaps in the high latitudes.
3. More warm days and nights globally.
4. More temperature variability in some areas, which will lead to more unpredictable weather.

These temperature changes will have cascading effects on various aspects of the Earth’s systems, from weather patterns to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Extreme Weather Events

One of the most noticeable impacts of 2C of warming will be the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. These events can have devastating effects on communities, infrastructure, and natural systems.

• Heatwaves

Heatwaves will become more common, more intense, and longer-lasting in a 2C warmer world. Research suggests that the probability of experiencing a heatwave like the one that affected Europe in 2003, causing over 30,000 deaths, will increase from once every 100 years to once every 4 years under 2C of warming.

Regions already prone to high temperatures, such as the Middle East and North Africa, will experience “super heatwaves” with temperatures exceeding 50C (122F). This will make some areas potentially uninhabitable without significant adaptation measures.

An October 2023 study warned that heat and humidity levels will reach lethal levels for hours, days, and even weeks in some parts of the world by the end of the century – even below 2C of warming – making it impossible to stay outdoors. 

More on the topic: Silent Killer: Understanding the Risks of Extreme Heat

• Droughts

Droughts will become more frequent and more severe in many parts of the world. The IPCC projects that the area of global land affected by drought disasters will increase by 50% for 2C compared to 1.5C. The Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of Australia and South America will be particularly affected. 

Besides affecting water resources, intense and prolonged droughts will decimate food crops and cause high rates of livestock deaths, leading to food insecurity.

• Floods

While some areas will get drier, others will get more flooded. With 2C of warming, the IPCC estimates that the global population exposed to river flooding will be up to 170% higher compared to a 1.5C scenario.

Heavy precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions, particularly at high latitudes and in the tropics. This increase in extreme rainfall events will mean more flash floods and urban flooding.

• Tropical Cyclones

While the total number of tropical cyclones may not change much, they will be more intense. Studies suggest that in a 2C scenario, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes will increase by 13% and the average intensity by 5%.

More powerful storms will bring stronger winds, more rainfall and higher storm surges, endangering coastal communities and infrastructure.

Climate Patterns

Beyond extreme weather events, 2C of warming will lead to significant shifts in global climate patterns, affecting precipitation and ocean currents.

• Shifting Rainfall Patterns

Generally speaking, wet places will get wetter and dry places drier, making water stress worse in many parts of the world. Changes will include:

1. More rain in high latitudes and parts of the tropics.
2. Less rain in subtropical dry regions, including the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of Australia.
3. Changes to monsoon systems, affecting billions of people who rely on seasonal rains for agriculture and water supply.

• Changes in Ocean Currents

Ocean currents help regulate the global climate and support marine ecosystems. With 2C of warming, big changes in ocean circulation patterns are expected.

One of the most worrying changes will be the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) which includes the Gulf Stream. Research indicates  that in a 2C scenario, the AMOC could weaken by 15-20%, making northwestern Europe cooler and affecting weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere.

More on the topic: What the Slowdown of Atlantic Ocean Circulation Means for the Future of the Climate

Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is one of the biggest long-term impacts of global warming. With 2C of warming, global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.46-0.99 meters (1.51-3.25 feet) by 2100 compared to 1986-2005 levels. And even if we were to halt warming, sea levels would continue to rise for centuries.

This will not be uniform around the world because of local land subsidence and changes in ocean currents. Some implications of sea level rise in a 2C warmer world include:

1. More coastal flooding and erosion, threatening low-lying coastal areas and small island nations.
2. Saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers, affecting freshwater resources.
3. Loss of coastal wetlands and mangroves, which provide important ecosystem services and natural buffers against storms.
4. Climate refugee crisis driven by the displacement of millions of people living in coastal areas.

Impact on Ecosystems

Thousands of species, both terrestrial and marine, will face increased extinction risks as they struggle to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. These disruptions will have cascading effects on biodiversity, carbon storage, and the many ecosystem services that human societies depend on.

Some key impacts include:

1. Coral reefs: Studies suggest that 99% of coral reefs will be lost due to the increased frequency of marine heatwaves and ocean acidification.
2. Arctic ecosystems: The rapid warming of the Arctic will lead to significant loss of sea ice and alter food webs, affecting species like polar bears and seals.
3. Forests: Increased temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns will lead to shifts in forest composition and increased risks of wildfires and pest outbreaks.
4. Biodiversity loss: The rate of species extinctions is expected to accelerate, with one study projecting that 18% of insects, 16% of plants, and 8% of vertebrates will lose over half their climatically determined geographic range with 2C of warming.

Human Life

The impacts of 2C of warming will be felt across all aspects of human society, from food and water security to health and economic stability.

• Agriculture and Food Security

Agricultural systems worldwide will face significant challenges. While some high-latitude regions might see increased crop yields because of conditions favouring longer growing seasons, many other areas will face decreased productivity because of heat stress, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased pest and disease outbreaks. These changes will lead to increased food prices and heightened food insecurity, particularly in vulnerable regions.

Key agricultural impacts include:

1. Decreased yields of major crops like wheat, rice, and maize in various regions, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions.
2. Shifts in suitable growing areas for various crops, potentially disrupting established agricultural practices.
3. Increased variability in crop yields because of more frequent extreme weather events.
4. Reduced nutritional quality of some crops because of elevated CO2 levels.

• Water Resources

Water resources and availability will be significantly affected, driven by changes in precipitation patterns and increased evaporation. Key impacts on water resources include:

1. Increased water scarcity in already dry regions, such as the Mediterranean and Middle East.
2. Changes in the timing and volume of river flows, affecting water supply for agriculture, hydropower generation, and urban areas.
3. Reduced water quality because of higher temperatures and changes in runoff patterns.
4. Increased competition for water resources, potentially leading to conflicts.

• Health

Human health will be affected both directly and indirectly. Some key health consequences include:

1. Increased heat-related mortality and morbidity, particularly in urban areas and among vulnerable populations.
2. Changes in the distribution and incidence of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue fever.
3. Increased respiratory problems because of higher levels of ground-level ozone and longer pollen seasons.
4. Mental health impacts related to extreme weather events and environmental changes.
5. Potential increases in malnutrition due to impacts on food security.

• Economic Impacts

The economic consequences of 2C of warming will be substantial and wide-ranging. While some sectors and regions might see benefits, the overall global economic impact is expected to be negative. Key economic impacts include:

1. Increased costs from extreme weather events and sea level rise, including damage to infrastructure and property.
2. Productivity losses because of heat stress and health impacts.
3. Shifts in tourism patterns, with some destinations becoming less attractive because of heat or other climate impacts.
4. Potential disruptions to global supply chains because of extreme weather events and changing resource availability.
5. Transition costs as economies adapt to a low-carbon future.

Studies suggest that mitigation efforts could reduce global economic damages by trillions of dollars annually by 2100 compared to a business-as-usual scenario.

More on the topic: Invasive Species Cost Global Economy $423bn Each Year, Threaten Ecosystems and Food Security

Mitigation and Adaptation

While the impacts will be significant, it is important to note that this scenario represents a substantial improvement over higher warming scenarios. Achieving this target will require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban, and industrial systems.

Key mitigation strategies include:

1. Rapid decarbonisation of energy systems, transitioning to renewable energy sources.
2. Improvements in energy efficiency across all sectors.
3. Changes in land use practices, including reducing deforestation and improving agricultural methods.
4. Development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies.

Simultaneously, adaptation measures will be crucial to reduce the vulnerability of human and natural systems to the impacts of climate change. These include:

1. Improving water management systems and increasing water use efficiency.
2. Developing heat-resistant crop varieties and diversifying agricultural systems.
3. Enhancing early warning systems for extreme weather events.
4. Implementing nature-based solutions for coastal protection and flood management.
5. Strengthening health systems to cope with changing disease patterns and extreme weather events.

You might also like: Assessing Global Progress on Climate Adaptation

Every Degree Counts

A 2C warmer world will be tough across all natural and human systems. More frequent and intense extreme weather events, changes in climate patterns, sea level rise, impacts on ecosystems – no matter what, the consequences will be far reaching and in many cases irreversible.

Limiting global warming requires immediate, big and coordinated global action to reduce emissions and build resilience to climate impacts. It means transformative change in how we produce and consume energy, manage our land and run our economies and societies.

As we enter a critical decade for climate action, the choices we make today will shape the world we live in tomorrow. Knowing what 2C will look like can help us take informed action that will protect our planet and everyone living on it.

Featured image: Georgina Goodwill.

The post What 2C of Warming Will Look Like: A Comprehensive Assessment appeared first on Earth.Org.

As climate change accelerates and urbanisation intensifies, cities worldwide face a growing threat: urban heat. Rising temperatures, exacerbated by the urban heat island effect, are endangering public health, straining infrastructure, and hurting economies. Amid the crisis, cities are fighting back with innovative solutions to cool down their streets and protect their residents.

—

Urban heat is a serious problem that threatens cities’ health, well-being, and sustainability worldwide. Urban heat refers to the compound consequence of global warming and the urban heat island (UHI) effect, which makes cities hotter than their surrounding rural areas. Urban heat can devastate human lives, infrastructure, ecosystems, and economies, especially during heatwaves and extreme heat events. In this article, we look at what causes urban heat, its challenges for cities, and what solutions and success stories exist to tackle this issue.

What Causes Urban Heat?

Urban heat is mainly driven by two factors: climate change and urbanisation. Climate change is increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of heatwaves and extreme heat events, which can raise the temperature of cities by several degrees. For example, the 2021 heat wave that hit the Pacific Northwest killed an estimated 1,200 people after temperatures rose to a record-breaking 116F (46.6C) in Portland, Oregon and 108F (42.2C) in Seattle, Washington.

Urbanisation is another factor that contributes to urban heat. As more people move into cities, they replace natural vegetation and soil with buildings, roads, and other impervious surfaces that absorb and re-emit more heat, creating a UHI effect. 

UHI can increase the temperature of urban areas by up to 7C during the day and 12C at night compared to rural areas. UHI can also worsen air quality, as higher temperatures increase the formation of ground-level ozone and other pollutants.

What Challenges Does Urban Heat Pose for Cities?

Urban heat poses multiple challenges for cities.

• Public health risks: Urban heat can cause heat stress, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, dehydration, and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, especially among vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, low-income, and minority populations. Urban heat can also exacerbate existing health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 166,000 people died due to heat-related causes between 1998 and 2017.
• Infrastructure damage: Urban heat can damage critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways, power lines, and water pipes by causing them to crack, buckle, melt, or burst. For example, in 2019, a heatwave in France caused a nuclear power plant to shut down due to overheating water used for cooling. Urban heat can also increase the risk of wildfires, destroying buildings and vegetation and releasing harmful emissions.
• Economic losses: Urban heat can reduce the productivity and performance of workers, especially those who work outdoors, such as construction, agriculture, and transportation workers. It can also increase the demand and cost of energy for cooling, which can strain the power grid and lead to blackouts, and can reduce the attractiveness and liveability of cities, which can affect tourism, recreation, and business activities on a global level.

You might also like: Human-Caused Climate Change Added 26 Days of Extreme Heat in Past 12 Months: Report

What Solutions and Success Stories Exist to Tackle Urban Heat?

1. Heat Mitigation Strategies

These strategies aim to cool cities by changing how we plan and design the built environment, incorporating vegetation, and reducing waste of heat. Examples include:

• Planting trees and increasing green cover: Trees and plants can provide shade, evapotranspiration, and aesthetic benefits, which can lower the temperature and improve the comfort and well-being of urban residents. For example, Singapore has successfully cooled down parts of its city by planting over 7 million trees and creating more than 300 parks and gardens.

• Installing green or cool roofs: Green roofs are roofs covered with vegetation, while cool roofs feature bright coatings to reflect more sunlight and absorb less heat. Both types of roof can reduce the heat gain and loss of buildings, lower energy consumption and costs for cooling, and enhance the biodiversity and amenities of urban spaces. For example, New York City has installed more than 10 million square feet (929,000 square metres) of green and cool roofs since 2009, reducing the city’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by 16,000 metric tons.
• Replacing regular pavement with cool pavement: Cool pavement has a higher albedo (reflectivity) or permeability (water retention) than regular pavement, reducing the surface and air temperature and stormwater runoff. Cool pavement can be made of concrete, asphalt, gravel, or pavers or coated with reflective or porous sealants. A good example is Los Angeles, California. The city has been testing cool pavement projects since 2017, which have been shown to reduce the surface temperature by up to 11C (51.8F).

You might also like: How Sustainable Cities Like Singapore Succeed in Green Urban Development

2. Heat Management Strategies

Heat management strategies focus on protecting people from heat that cannot be mitigated. Some examples are:

• Establishing dedicated cooling centres: Cooling centres are public facilities, such as libraries, schools, community centres, or shelters, that offer air-conditioned spaces, water, and information for people who need to escape the heat, especially those who do not have access to cooling at home. The US city of Chicago, for example, has established over 120 cooling centres across the city, which are open during heat emergencies and can accommodate up to 5,000 people.
• Ensuring everyone has access to reliable energy and indoor cooling: Energy and indoor cooling are essential for coping with urban heat, though many people, especially in low-income and developing countries, lack access to them. Therefore, households and businesses must provide affordable, efficient, and clean energy and cooling solutions, such as solar panels, fans, evaporative coolers, or heat pumps. In 2019, India, a country notorious for extreme summer heatwaves, launched the India Cooling Action Plan, which aims to provide access to sustainable cooling for all by 2038.
• Requiring certain protections for people working outdoors in hot weather: People working outdoors, such as construction, agriculture, and transportation workers, are at high risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries. Therefore, it is essential to provide them with adequate protection from extreme conditions, including regular breaks, shade, water, protective clothing, and training. In 2005, the state of California adopted a heat illness prevention standard, which requires employers to implement a written prevention plan and provide workers with the necessary resources and education.

You might also like: 5 Urban Solutions to Tackle Climate Change in Cities

The Way Forward

Urban heat is a serious problem that threatens cities’ health, well-being, and sustainability worldwide. Urban heat is mainly driven by climate change and urbanisation, which increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of heatwaves and extreme heat events and create urban heat islands that make cities hotter than their surrounding rural areas. Urban heat can devastate human lives, infrastructure, ecosystems, and economies, especially during heat waves and extreme heat events. 

Fortunately, many solutions and success stories exist to tackle urban heat, such as heat mitigation strategies that aim to cool cities by changing the way we plan and design the built environment, incorporate vegetation, and reduce waste heat, and heat management strategies that focus on protecting people from the heat that cannot be mitigated, such as establishing dedicated cooling centres, ensuring everyone has access to reliable energy and indoor cooling, and requiring certain protections for people working outdoors in hot weather. By implementing these solutions, cities can become more resilient, liveable, and sustainable in the face of urban heat.

This article was originally published on November 21, 2023

The post How Cities Around the World Are Tackling the Urban Heat Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has fired a game-changing shot across the corporate world by adopting sweeping new climate disclosure requirements for public companies. Set to take effect in 2024 pending legal review, these rules will compel businesses to come clean on their greenhouse gas emissions, lay bare their exposure to climate risks, and quantify potential financial fallouts from global warming. 

—

Recognising the urgency of climate change and its extensive economic impact, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a decisive step toward enhancing market transparency. On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted landmark climate-related disclosure rules in a 3-to-2 vote. 

The new rules require US public companies and foreign private issuers to disclose a wide range of climate-related information in their periodic reports and registration statements. The aim is to provide investors with consistent, comparable, and actionable information regarding the financial effects of climate-related risks and the strategies companies employ to manage those risks. The final rules, which were scheduled to take effect in May 2024, have been stayed pending judicial review. 

This stay highlights the ongoing debate and legal scrutiny surrounding the implementation of such regulatory measures. Nonetheless, the SEC’s initiative marks a pivotal moment in corporate reporting and accountability, mandating disclosures that cover climate-related risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and risk management strategies. The move is expected to empower investors with the information they need to make informed decisions, potentially driving significant changes in corporate behaviour and aligning business strategies with the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Genesis of the New Disclosure Rules

The genesis of the SEC’s new disclosure rules is rooted in a longstanding push for financial transparency concerning climate-related risks. This movement has been propelled by investor activism and the demand for standardised reporting frameworks. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) established by the Financial Stability Board in 2015 has been at the forefront of advocating for transparent communication of climate risks and its framework for voluntary climate-related financial disclosures has been widely embraced by companies and investors worldwide.

However, the voluntary nature of the TCFD’s recommendations led to inconsistencies in the quality and comparability of climate-related disclosures. This posed challenges for investors who sought to accurately assess and compare climate-related risks and opportunities across their portfolios.

In response to these challenges and market demands, the SEC proposed comprehensive rules that require public companies to disclose their climate-related risks, impacts, and mitigation strategies. The SEC’s action underscores the growing acknowledgment that climate change presents material financial risks to businesses and that transparent disclosures are crucial for fair, orderly, and efficient markets.

The development of these rules has been a multi-year process, involving extensive public consultation, input from industry experts, and a thorough assessment of the potential impacts on companies and investors. The SEC has carefully navigated a complex landscape, aiming to balance the need for detailed disclosures with concerns over regulatory burden and the intricacies of quantifying and reporting climate-related information.

An Overview of the New Rules

The new climate disclosure rules place a significant emphasis on the transparency of climate-related information. They require public companies to disclose their direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, for the most recently completed fiscal year and provide historical data to facilitate year-over-year comparisons.

While the initial proposal included mandatory disclosures of Scope 3 emissions, which represent indirect emissions from a company’s value chain, the final rules have made such disclosures voluntary. This change was made because of the complexities and challenges associated with reporting Scope 3 emissions, especially for companies with extensive and international supply chains. However, recognizing the importance of Scope 3 emissions, the SEC still encourages companies to report these voluntarily, as many investors and stakeholders view them as material information. 

The new rules also extend beyond emissions data, requiring companies to provide comprehensive details on climate-related risks and opportunities, risk management processes, governance structures, and the actual and potential financial impacts of climate change on their business operations and financial performance.

The implementation of these rules is expected to have a profound impact on corporate reporting practices, likely driving investments in data collection systems, measurement methodologies, and internal controls to ensure the accuracy and consistency of emissions reporting and other climate-related disclosures. 

The SEC’s commitment to enhancing market transparency through these disclosures reflects the growing recognition of the financial risks posed by climate change and the need for investors to have access to reliable and comparable information. 

The Balancing Act: Materiality and Reporting Thresholds

The concept of materiality is indeed a cornerstone of the SEC’s new climate disclosure rules, determining the threshold for what climate-related information companies must disclose. The SEC has faced the challenge of defining material climate-related information, acknowledging that materiality can vary across different industries, companies, and geographic regions.

The SEC’s definition of materiality is that information is material if “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision.” This is consistent with the long-standing principle of materiality in securities law, which seeks to ensure that investors have access to information that is relevant and could potentially affect market decisions.

In the realm of climate-related disclosures, the SEC has offered guidance on assessing materiality, considering factors such as the nature of the company’s business, exposure to climate-related risks (both physical and transition risks), the potential financial impacts of these risks, and the company’s risk management strategies.

The expected influence of the process of assessing materiality on corporate risk assessment and disclosure strategies is significant. Companies will need to carefully evaluate the relevance and potential impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities, making informed decisions about what information to disclose and how to present it to investors.

This assessment may involve scenario analysis, stress testing, and quantitative modelling to estimate the potential financial impacts of climate change under various scenarios. Companies must consider not only the direct impacts on their operations and supply chains, but also the indirect impacts that may arise from changes in market demand, regulatory shifts, and macroeconomic factors driven by climate change.

Governance and Oversight

The newly adopted climate disclosure rules place significant emphasis on governance structures and oversight related to climate risk management. Public companies are now required to disclose key aspects of their governance processes and risk assessment strategies. Here are the essential points:

1. Board Oversight:
   • Companies must identify the board members or committees responsible for overseeing climate-related risks.
   • The expertise and processes used by these entities for climate risk oversight should be described.
2. Management’s Role:
   • Companies must disclose the roles and responsibilities of management positions or committees responsible for assessing and managing climate-related risks.
   • The relevant expertise of position holders or committee members should be highlighted.
3. Processes and Frequency:
   • Companies need to outline how the board and management stay informed about climate-related risks and the frequency of updates.

This heightened focus on governance aims to drive changes in corporate practices. Boards and management teams will need to demonstrate their competence and engagement in climate risk oversight. Enhancing governance frameworks, providing climate-related training, and establishing clear accountability for climate risk management are likely steps. Additionally, companies may need to integrate climate considerations more explicitly into their strategic planning and decision-making processes.

Financial Statement Disclosures and Impact

Companies are now also required to develop methodologies for estimating the financial effects of climate-related physical and transition risks, including extreme weather events, sea-level rise, policy changes, and shifts in market preferences. They must disclose a range of financial impacts, such as asset impairments, stranded assets, increased operating costs, revenue impacts, and expenditures on climate initiatives. They must also assess and quantify these impacts, providing narrative explanations when quantification is not feasible, and disclose how these factors affect their cost of capital and funding strategies.

The challenges in making these disclosures are significant, as companies must separate the effects of climate change from other market forces and deal with the uncertainties of long-term impacts. To address these challenges, the SEC has provided guidance on using estimates, assumptions, and scenario analysis. 

Companies are encouraged to use scenario analysis aligned with current climate science to assess potential financial impacts under various future states. These disclosures are crucial for investors to understand the financial implications of climate change for companies and will inform investment decisions.

You might also like: Extreme Weather Events Cause $200bn in Economic Losses Globally, Philippines and US Hit the Hardest, Report Finds 

Risk Management and Strategy

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules mandate that companies disclose their climate risk management processes, including how they identify, assess, and manage risks. This encompasses both physical and transition risks related to climate change. 

Companies must detail their risk management frameworks, material risks, mitigation strategies, and how these risks affect their business strategy and financial planning. They are also required to use scenario analysis to evaluate the resilience of their strategies under different climate scenarios. The SEC emphasizes the need for specific information that reflects each company’s unique risks and strategies, ensuring that risk management is integrated into their governance and decision-making.

Reactions

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules have elicited mixed reactions. Some experts and investors praise the rules for enhancing transparency, while others express concerns about legal overreach and the risk of litigation. The SEC maintains that the rules are within its mandate to protect investors and ensure market integrity, aiming to provide essential information without dictating environmental policies. 

The market has generally responded well, recognising the importance of climate-related information for investment decisions. However, there is a caution against greenwashing, with the new rules designed to prevent misleading environmental claims. The success of these rules will depend on companies’ compliance and the market’s reception of the disclosed information.

Global Context and Comparative Analysis

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules are part of a global shift towards more transparent and standardised climate-related financial reporting. In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), set to take effect in 2024, requires a broad range of companies to report on sustainability issues, including climate change. The CSRD encompasses a “double materiality” principle, considering how sustainability issues impact businesses and vice versa.

Internationally, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) issued standards to create a global baseline for sustainability disclosures, including climate-related risks and opportunities. These efforts reflect a collective move to provide investors with consistent, decision-useful information across markets, despite the challenges of diverse regulatory environments and the need for data standardisation

Challenges and Opportunities for Companies

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules bring both challenges and opportunities for companies. They necessitate significant investments in data collection and measurement, especially for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, and may require new technology and expertise. While Scope 3 emissions reporting is not mandatory, many companies opt to report them, facing challenges in data collection and risk of legal scrutiny. 

Robust internal controls and external assurance are essential for accurate disclosures, adding to the complexity and cost. Smaller companies may find compliance costs burdensome, prompting a need for innovative, cost-effective solutions. Successful implementation requires a cultural shift towards transparency and climate integration in business strategies. Embracing these rules can offer competitive advantages, attracting eco-conscious investors and enabling companies to innovate for a low-carbon economy.

Future Outlook and Conclusion

As companies adapt to this regulatory shift, technology will be crucial in streamlining data collection and analysis, with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning playing key roles in enhancing reporting accuracy and efficiency. The integration of these technologies, however, will require collaborative efforts to overcome challenges like legacy system compatibility and data quality management. 

The future trajectory of climate-related reporting is expected to see further regulatory evolution, both domestically and internationally, with potential expansions in disclosure scope, including more comprehensive coverage of value chain emissions (Scope 3).

Global harmonization efforts led by entities like the ISSB aim to establish uniform disclosure standards, aiding comparability and consistency across markets. As investor and societal demands evolve, the pressure on companies to deliver clear, actionable disclosures will likely increase, necessitating a proactive and strategic approach to climate risk management and reporting. Companies that effectively incorporate sustainability into their business models and governance structures may not only comply with regulatory demands but also unlock new value creation opportunities. The success of the SEC’s rule will ultimately hinge on its impact on corporate practices and the broader shift towards a sustainable, climate-resilient economy.

Transparent, decision-useful disclosures are becoming increasingly critical in shaping a future where capital flows towards sustainable, innovative businesses. While the SEC’s move represents a significant advancement, it is part of an ongoing journey requiring persistent collaboration and commitment to address the financial implications of climate change and foster a sustainable future.

The post Climate in the Spotlight: New Groundbreaking Rules Redefine US Corporate Accountability appeared first on Earth.Org.

Water is life. Yet, as the world population mushrooms and climate change intensifies droughts, over 2 billion people still lack access to clean, safe drinking water. By 2030, water scarcity could displace over 700 million people. From deadly diseases to famines, economic collapse to terrorism, the global water crisis threatens to sever the strands holding communities together. This ubiquitous yet unequally distributed resource underscores the precarious interdependence binding all nations and ecosystems and shows the urgent need for bold collective action to promote global water security and avert the humanitarian, health, economic, and political catastrophes that unchecked water stress promises.

—

The global water crisis refers to the scarcity of usable and accessible water resources across the world. Currently, nearly 703 million people lack access to water – approximately 1 in 10 people on the planet – and over 2 billion do not have safe drinking water services. The United Nations predicts that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity. With the existing climate change scenario, almost half the world’s population will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030. In addition, water scarcity in some arid and semi-arid places will displace between 24 million and 700 million people. By 2030, water scarcity could displace over 700 million people.

In Africa alone, as many as 25 African countries are expected to suffer from a greater combination of increased water scarcity and water stress by 2025. Sub-Saharan regions are experiencing the worst of the crisis, with only 22-34% of populations in at least eight sub-Saharan countries having access to safe water.

Water security, or reliable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems, and production has become an urgent issue worldwide.

This crisis has far-reaching implications for global health, food security, education, economics, and politics. As water resources dwindle, conflicts and humanitarian issues over access to clean water will likely increase. Climate change also exacerbates water scarcity in many parts of the world. Addressing this complex and multifaceted crisis requires understanding its causes, impacts, and potential solutions across countries and communities.

You might also like: Why Global Food Security Matters in 2024

The Global Water Crisis

The global water crisis stems from a confluence of factors, including growing populations, increased water consumption, poor resource management, climate change, pollution, and lack of access due to poverty and inequality.

The world population has tripled over the last 70 years, leading to greater demand for finite freshwater resources. Agricultural, industrial, and domestic water usage have depleted groundwater in many regions faster than it can be replenished. Agriculture alone accounts for nearly 70% of global water withdrawals, often utilizing outdated irrigation systems and water-intensive crops.Climate change has significantly reduced renewable water resources in many parts of the world. Glaciers are melting, rainfall patterns have shifted, droughts and floods have intensified, and temperatures are on the rise, further exacerbating the crisis.

In many less developed nations, lack of infrastructure, corruption, and inequality leave large populations without reliable access to clean water. Women and children often bear the burden of travelling distances to fetch water for households. Contamination from human waste, industrial activities, and agricultural runoff also threaten water quality and safety.

Water scarcity poses risks to health, sanitation, food production, energy generation, economic growth, and political stability worldwide. Conflicts over shared water resources are likely to intensify without concerted global action.

Case Study: Water Crisis in Gaza

The water crisis in Gaza represents one of the most severe cases of water scarcity worldwide. The small Palestinian territory relies almost entirely on the underlying coastal aquifer as its source of freshwater. However, years of excessive pumping far exceed natural recharge rates. According to the UN, 97% groundwater does not meet World Health Organization (WHO) standards for human consumption due to high salinity and nitrate levels.

The pollution of Gaza’s sole freshwater source stems from multiple factors. Rapid population growth contaminated agricultural runoff, inadequate wastewater treatment, and saltwater intrusion due to over-extraction have rendered the aquifer unusable.

 In June 2007, following the military takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the Israeli authorities significantly intensified existing movement restrictions, virtually isolating the Gaza Strip from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), and the world. The blockade imposed by Israeli Authority also severely restricts infrastructure development and humanitarian aid.

The water crisis has devastated Gazan agriculture, caused widespread health issues, and crippled economic growth. Many citizens of Gaza have to buy trucked water of dubious quality, as the public network is unsafe and scarce. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) reports that this water can cost up to 20 times more than the public tariff, with some households spending a third of their income or more on water. Long-term solutions require increased water supplies, wastewater reuse, desalination, and better resource management under conflict.

Case Study: Water Shortage in Africa

Africa faces some of the most pressing challenges with water security worldwide. While the continent has substantial resources, poor infrastructure, mismanagement, corruption, lack of cooperation over transboundary waters, droughts, and population pressures all contribute to African water stress.

According to a 2022 report by the WHO and UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), 344 million people in sub-Saharan Africa lacked access to safely managed drinking water, and 762 million lacked access to basic sanitation in 2020. WaterAid, a non-governmental organization, explains that water resources are often far from communities due to the expansive nature of the continent, though other factors such as climate change, population growth, poor governance, and lack of infrastructure also play a role. Surface waters such as lakes and rivers evaporate rapidly in the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, which cover about 45% of the continent’s land area. Many communities rely on limited groundwater and community water points to meet their water needs, but groundwater is not always a reliable or sustainable source, as it can be depleted, contaminated, or inaccessible due to technical or financial constraints. A 2021 study by UNICEF estimated that women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa collectively spend about 37 billion hours a year collecting water, which is equivalent to more than 1 billion hours a day.The 2023 UN World Water Development Report emphasizes the importance of partnerships and cooperation for water, food, energy, health and climate security in Africa, a region with diverse water challenges and opportunities, low water withdrawals per capita, high vulnerability to climate change, and large investment gap for water supply and sanitation.

Water security in Africa is low and uneven, with various countries facing water scarcity, poor sanitation, and water-related disasters. Transboundary conflicts over shared rivers, such as the Nile, pose additional challenges for water management. 

However, some efforts have been made to improve water security through various interventions, such as community-based initiatives, irrigation development, watershed rehabilitation, water reuse, desalination, and policy reforms. These interventions aim to enhance water availability, quality, efficiency, governance, and resilience in the face of climate change. Water security is essential for achieving sustainable development in Africa, as it affects numerous sectors, such as agriculture, health, energy, and the environment.

Other Countries with Water Shortages

Water scarcity issues plague many other parts of the world beyond Gaza and Africa. Several examples stand out:

• Egypt depends largely on the Nile River, but the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam threatens water supplies. Water quality is also declining, and demand is rising with rapid population growth.
• Iraq faces severe water stress impacting agriculture and public health. The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers have dwindled because of upstream damming and climate change. Water distribution is inefficient and wasteful.
• Parts of the United States, like California, have faced prolonged droughts. Groundwater pumping has caused land subsidence, and supplies habitually fall short of demand in cities like Phoenix.

India grapples with extensive groundwater depletion, shrinking reservoirs and glaciers, pollution from agriculture and industry, and tensions with Pakistan and China over shared rivers. Monsoons are increasingly erratic with climate change.

Other water-stressed nations include Australia, Spain, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. 

While the specifics differ, recurrent themes include unsustainable usage, climate change, pollution, lack of infrastructure, mismanagement, poverty, transboundary conflicts, and population growth pressures. But resources often exist; the challenge lies in equitable distribution, cooperation, efficiency, and sustainable practices. Multiple approaches must accommodate local conditions and transboundary disputes.

You might also like: Water Crisis in South Africa: Causes, Effects, And Solutions

Global Water Security Is at Risk

Water scarcity poses a grave threat to global security on multiple fronts. 

First, it can incite conflicts within and between nations over access rights. History contains many examples of water wars, and transboundary disputes increase the risk today in arid regions like the Middle East and North Africa.

Second, water shortages undermine food security. With agriculture consuming the greatest share of water resources, lack of irrigation threatens crops and livestock essential for sustenance and livelihoods. Food price spikes often trigger instability and migrations.

Third, water scarcity fuels public health crises, leading to social disruptions. Contaminated water spreads diseases like cholera and typhoid. Poor sanitation and hygiene due to water limitations also increase illness. The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the essential nature of water access for viral containment.

Finally, water shortages hamper economic growth and worsen poverty. Hydroelectricity, manufacturing, mining, and other water-intensive industries suffer. The World Bank estimates that by 2050, water scarcity could cost some regions 6% of gross domestic product (GDP), entrenching inequality. Climate migration strains nations. Overall, water crises destabilize societies on many levels if left unaddressed.

Solutions and Recommendations

Tackling the global water crisis requires both local and international initiatives across infrastructure, technology, governance, cooperation, education, and funding.

First, upgrading distribution systems, sewage treatment, dams, desalination, watershed restoration, and irrigation methods could improve supply reliability and quality while reducing waste. Community-based projects often succeed by empowering local stakeholders.

Second, emerging technologies like low-cost water quality sensors, affordable desalination, precision agriculture, and recyclable treatment materials could help poorer nations bridge infrastructure gaps. However, funding research and making innovations affordable remains a key obstacle.

Third, better governance through reduced corruption, privatization, metering, pricing incentives, and integrated policy frameworks could improve efficiency. But human rights must be protected by maintaining affordable minimum access.

Fourth, transboundary water-sharing treaties like those for the Nile and Mekong Rivers demonstrate that diplomacy can resolve potential conflicts. But political will is needed, along with climate change adaptation strategies.

Fifth, education and awareness can empower conservation at the individual level. Behaviour change takes time but can significantly reduce household and agricultural usage.

Finally, increased financial aid, public-private partnerships, better lending terms, and innovation prizes may help nations fund projects. Cost-benefit analyses consistently find high returns on water security investments.

In summary, sustainable solutions require combining new technologies, governance reforms, education, cooperation, and creative financing locally and globally. 

Conclusion

The global water crisis threatens the well-being of billions of people and the stability of nations worldwide. Key drivers include unsustainable usage, climate change, pollution, lack of infrastructure, poverty, weak governance, and transboundary disputes. The multiple impacts span public health, food and energy security, economic growth, and geopolitical conflicts.

While daunting, this crisis also presents opportunities for innovation, cooperation, education, and holistic solutions. With wise policies and investments, water security can be achieved in most regions to support development and peace. But action must be accelerated on both global and community levels before the stresses become overwhelming. Ultimately, our shared human dependence on clean water demands that all stakeholders work in unison to create a water-secure future.

More on the topic: Exploring the Most Efficient Solutions to Water Scarcity

The post Global Water Crisis: Why the World Urgently Needs Water-Wise Solutions appeared first on Earth.Org.

With climate threats intensifying, carbon taxes have rapidly gained global momentum. This comprehensive article examines if appropriately robust carbon prices can incentivise the pace and scale of emission reductions now essential across transport, energy, industry, and agriculture. It explores real-world implementations of a carbon tax, future projection modelling, economic debates, social impact concerns, and policy complementary measures around regulations, green investments and support programs needed to address critical limitations and spur equitable low-carbon transitions across advanced and emerging economies this decade.

—

The Pressing Need for Decarbonisation

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity today. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities that have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Major contributors to these emissions are the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas across transportation, electricity generation, industrial processes, agriculture, and more. As the world continues to emit GHGs at ever-increasing rates, their accumulation in the atmosphere is pushing up temperatures, significantly disrupting global climate patterns, and posing catastrophic threats to ecosystems, economies, and communities globally.

One policy solution acquiring momentum to tackle climate change is implementing a carbon tax. 

At a basic level, a carbon tax directly and accurately puts a price on carbon emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels. This pricing aims to incorporate the costs of pollution and climate damage into market prices, incentivising reduced emissions, and driving the adoption of clean energy alternatives across economic sectors. Key aspects of carbon taxes, including their purpose, design, effectiveness, reception, and implementation across different countries, will be explored throughout this article. With growing climate change impacts and recognition that carbon pricing is essential to achieve broad decarbonisation globally, momentum is building for the widespread establishment of carbon tax schemes in various countries over the next decade. Their role in stabilising global temperatures and enabling an equitable, sustainable future will also be discussed.

What Is a Carbon Tax and How Does it Work?

A carbon tax is a government-imposed pricing mechanism that places a fee or tax on GHG emissions from burning planet-warming fuels including oil, gas, and coal. The tax is measured per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions released and needs to be paid by the burning entity. 

By attaching a monetary cost directly proportional to the amount of emissions, a carbon price provides a concrete incentive for households, businesses, and other entities to seek lower emissions alternatives and pursue energy efficiency gains to avoid paying higher taxes. It aims to reveal and incorporate the economic and social costs of carbon pollution created by various fuels and activities into their market prices.

The core principle behind an effective carbon tax is that it sets a stable, rising price trajectory high enough to drive meaningful emissions reductions and the scaling of clean technologies over time. To enable the necessary transition away from a high emissions economy, tax levels would need to reach US$100-200 per ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in the next decades.

A carbon tax is an upstream approach focused on taxing major fossil fuel suppliers and distributors higher up in the supply chain. This allows costs to be passed downstream through oil companies to consumers at fuel pumps, on utility bills and implicitly in prices of goods and services across the economy. In terms of specific targets for taxation, major sources would include transportation and heating fuels like gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, as well as coal and natural gas used in electricity generation. 

Once implemented, policymakers have flexibility in whether to make the tax revenue neutral or let it raise new government funds. Revenue raised can be returned through equal per capita rebates to citizens, used to offset other taxes or fund green infrastructure projects, clean research, development and demonstration (RD&D) incentives, worker retraining programs, and vulnerable community resilience funds to address socioeconomic impacts. The key design aim is to establish stable, rising carbon prices at sufficient levels using models consistent with national policy priorities and regulatory environments.

You might also like: How India’s Carbon Tax Implementation Could Set a Precedent for G20 Countries

Benefits and Arguments for Carbon Taxes

1. Reduce Carbon Emissions

The core purpose of a carbon tax is to provide market signals strong enough to result in reduced GHG emissions across large sections of the economy. By attaching a significant price to pollution, it incentivises shifts towards less carbon intensive fuels, deployment of energy efficiency measures, and investment in clean alternatives across sectors like electricity, transportation, and manufacturing. Estimates of emissions reduction potential from a broad-based tax in the range of $50 per ton could be over 20%.

2. Mitigate Climate Change

The decrease in national and global carbon emissions caused by carbon taxes will lead to lower overall CO2 concentrations, intensifying warming trends and climate disruptions. According to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2023 report, global adoption of differentiated carbon prices by 2030 could reduce emissions significantly compared to the baseline scenario, although additional measures and cooperation are required to limit warming to well below 2C by 2100, as agreed in the Paris Agreement.

3. Encourage Clean Energy Adoption

Fossil fuel taxation is a key policy instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote shifts to renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions. However, fossil fuel taxation alone may not be enough to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, and it may face political and social obstacles. Therefore, fossil fuel taxation should be part of a broader policy package that includes other measures to address market failures, behavioural barriers, and distributional impacts, and that ensures transparency, fairness, and participation in the policy process.

4. Fund Green Initiatives

Revenues from carbon taxes provide a sizeable funding pool that governments can utilise for investments in clean technology R&D, mass public transit upgrades, sustainable infrastructure projects, environmental restoration efforts, and resilience funds for vulnerable groups. Alternatively, revenues can enable cuts on taxes for income, capital acquisitions or employment.

5. Market-Based Approach

Rather than impose rigid regulations or emission limits, a carbon tax provides price signals and lets market dynamics determine the most efficient paths and technologies to reduce emissions across diverse economic sectors. Businesses can build solutions tailored to their operations, innovations, and investment roadmaps.

6. Revenue Neutral Options

To address concerns about increasing taxes and expanding government revenue, some carbon tax laws, such as Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, require that all direct proceeds from the carbon pricing system be returned to the source jurisdiction. The provincial and territorial governments can decide how to use the returned revenues, such as providing rebates, cutting other taxes, or investing in green initiatives. The carbon pricing system consists of a charge on fuel and a performance-based system for large industrial emitters.

7. Administrative Efficiency

A carbon tax builds on existing fuel taxation systems, minimising new administrative bureaucracy. Costs of revenue collection and implementation are very low relative to emissions trading programs or green subsidy management.

Criticisms and Arguments Against Carbon Taxes

1. Regressive Nature

A flat, uniform carbon tax can disproportionately impact lower income groups who spend a higher share of earnings on energy bills and basic goods carrying embedded carbon costs. Effects can be mitigated through partial exemptions or per capita dividends from revenue, but regressivity arguments persist.

2. Uncertainty Around Emissions Impact

Projecting precise emissions reductions from any given tax level involves estimating complex, interconnected behavioural changes across millions of energy consumers. Model forecast studies to guide rate setting have limitations. Critics argue funds could be better utilised directly in green infrastructure as opposed to tax hoping for certain emission cuts.

3. Lack of Support

In regions with influential fossil fuel lobbies or high use of coal, oil, and gas, major political and public opposition hinders carbon tax proposals. Lawsuits, repeal of laws, election defeats for supporters and widespread protests against fuel taxes show the difficulty of stakeholder alignment.

4. Risks Competitiveness & Leakage

Major energy using industries often oppose carbon taxes, arguing they raise costs and undermine competitiveness, especially if nearby regions lack similar policies. Manufacturing could shift abroad, raising “carbon leakage” concerns. Border carbon adjustments on trade flows are complex to implement.

5. Complex Policy Design

Choosing appropriate, adjustable tax levels, matching policy priorities and economic diversity is very complex across emissions-intensive sectors. Cost uncertainty creates opposition, and exemptions degrade efficacy. Calibration requires balancing numerous stakeholders and objectives.

6. Other Policies Could Be More Effective

Some economists argue direct spending on mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption, renewable energy investments, infrastructure upgrades and resilience funds can achieve greater short-term emission cuts rapidly rather than hoping price signals incentivise consumers and businesses fast enough.

You might also like: The EU Border Carbon Adjustment, Explained

Implementations Around the World

Early Adopters – Small northern European nations like Finland, Sweden and Norway adopted carbon taxes in the 1990s, which now range from $70 to $168 per ton of CO2 on a range of fossil fuels. Revenues support national sustainability programs.

Canada has implemented carbon pricing systems most aligned to carbon tax principles with their Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, charging an economy-wide tax beginning at CAD$40 (US$30) in 2019, rising to CAD$170 (US$128) by 2030. All revenues return to the provinces and residents through rebates.

The United Kingdom participates in the EU emissions trading scheme for large emitters and maintains a domestic Climate Change Levy on industry fuels plus higher rates for building fuels to drive efficiency. The impact is affected by rates and relatively limited targeting.

The European Union’ Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the largest multi-country carbon pricing system covering electricity, manufacturing, and intra-EU air travel. Companies buy monthly carbon allowances at variable auction clearing prices, effectively creating a traded carbon price currently around 90 euro (US$99) per ton. The impact is limited by volatility and wide exemptions. China is launching a similar national market.

Singapore enacted Southeast Asia’s first carbon tax in 2019 on emissions intensive facilities at a rate rising to US$50/ton CO2e by 2030. Revenues play a crucial role in funding industry decarbonisation incentives. South Africa has legislated a carbon tax on scope 1 emitters from mid-2019 at roughly US$8.5/ton rising annually. Revenues help industry compliance and mitigation programs.

You might also like: Explainer: What Is an Emissions Trading Scheme and How Does It Work?

The Future of Carbon Taxes

Carbon pricing mechanisms are projected to play a crucial role in achieving broad decarbonisation of the global economy this century in line with targets set under the UN Paris Agreement and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). 

According to the World Bank, over 65 carbon pricing initiatives have been implemented or are scheduled, covering nearly 22% of global emissions. These policy landscapes are becoming key drivers, enabling clean energy investments by adding tangible costs to legacy technologies and assets. With most major emitters having announced or considering carbon pricing schemes this decade, the total value of taxes and traded carbon markets could appreciate significantly, facilitating greener public and private expenditures worldwide.

To achieve Paris-aligned warming limits, the High Level Commission on Carbon Prices estimated explicit carbon prices in the range of $50-100/ton CO2e are needed by 2030 across all major economies, rising to $160 and above by 2050. With most schemes currently pricing carbon from $10-60 per ton, there are calls for prices to double or triple over the next decade, providing economic signals strong enough to match decarbonisation aspirations. Integrating carbon taxes and trading instruments with clean energy standards, efficiency incentives, infrastructure upgrades, and managed coal, oil and gas declines can maximise impact.

Carbon Tracker forecasts that rising carbon prices, along with the increasing affordability and efficiency of batteries, solar power, electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies, could limit global warming to less than 2C by making fossil fuels less competitive, even without new climate legislation. However, to ensure a fair and smooth transition that follows the best available science, carbon taxes need to be a central element of comprehensive policy plans in this decade.

Conclusion

Well-designed national carbon taxes that directly price emissions could prove essential market-based policy levers enabling the urgent economy-wide transition to net zero now demanded by climate science. However, complementary measures tackling social impacts, green investments, regulatory standards and international cooperation remain vital to address criticisms, spur urgent adoption across lagging nations, incentivize innovations, and facilitate decarbonization timeframes at the pace and scale climate stabilization requires. 

With no silver bullet solutions, there is a call for ambitious, equitable policy packages where rising carbon prices play a central role driving low-carbon shifts across several industries on the pathway to global carbon neutrality.

You might also like: Achieving Net Zero: Where Are We Today?

The post Explainer: What Is a Carbon Tax, Pros and Cons, and Implementation Around the World appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate change poses an urgent threat, but faith communities may hold the key to driving impactful action. As stewards of creation with moral authority, they have immense potential to educate and mobilise their members towards environmental activism. By collaborating across faiths and with scientists, they can amplify calls for climate justice, model sustainable lifestyles, and pressure governments through advocacy. Faith leaders who embrace an eco-theology rooted in care for the vulnerable could reframe climate change as a profound moral crisis. This article explores practical ways religious groups can put their principles into practice to create change, and the dilemmas posed by such activism.

—

Climate change is one of humanity’s most urgent and complex challenges. It threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions, especially the poor and vulnerable, and the integrity and diversity of the natural world. It also poses a moral and ethical dilemma for all people of faith: how can we love our neighbours and care for God’s creation in an ecological crisis?

Many religious traditions have teachings and values that support environmental stewardship and social justice. They also have a significant influence and potential to mobilise their followers and resources for positive change. According to a 2020 study, religious affiliation relates to greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and gross domestic product on a global scale. Moreover, faith-related institutions own almost 8% of the total habitable land surface and constitute the world’s third largest category of financial investors. 

Their determination to address climate change or protect wildlife enormously impacts the fate of natural spaces and species.

You might also like: Sustainable Hajj 2023: Paving the Way for an Eco-Friendly Pilgrimage

How Faith Communities Can Contribute to the Fight Against Climate Change

Faith communities can contribute to the fight against climate change in various ways, such as:

• Educating and raising awareness among their members about the causes and consequences of climate change and the moral duty to act.
• Advocating and lobbying for policies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy sources, protect biodiversity, and support adaptation and resilience.
• Divesting from fossil-fuel companies and investing in green alternatives aligned with their values and principles.
• Implementing sustainability measures in their institutions, such as reducing energy consumption, waste generation and water use, planting trees, using eco-friendly products, and supporting local farmers.
• Engaging in interfaith dialogue and cooperation on environmental issues, sharing best practices, resources and experiences, and building solidarity and trust.
• Participating in environmental movements and campaigns, such as Earth Day, Sacred Earth, or Green Faith, mobilising people of different faiths for collective action.
• Supporting grassroots initiatives and projects that address the needs and challenges of communities affected by climate change, especially those in developing countries.

Some examples of faith communities that are actively involved in these activities are:

• The Creation Care Initiative, founded by two scientists from a conservative Christian community, links science, biblical teachings, and stewardship and offers workshops on sustainability for church members.
• The Extinction Rebellion Muslims, a transnational network of Muslim activists hosting “Green Ramadan” seminars and campaigns against environmental destruction, such as a luxury tourist resort that threatened parts of the Nairobi National Park in Kenya, collaborated with scientists and other faith groups.
• The Interfaith Rainforest Initiative is a global partnership of religious leaders, indigenous peoples, scientists, and conservationists that protects tropical forests from deforestation, degradation and conversion.
• The Green Pilgrimage Network, an alliance of cities and sacred sites worldwide aims to make the pilgrimage more environmentally friendly by promoting green transport, accommodation, food and waste management.

The Moral and Ethical Aspects of Faith Communities’ Involvement in Environmental Action

Faith communities’ involvement in environmental action is a practical and moral imperative. Many religious traditions have a concept of stewardship or trusteeship that implies a responsibility to care for the Earth as God’s creation or a sacred gift. They also have a notion of justice or compassion that demands respect for the rights and dignity of all living beings, especially the poor and marginalised who suffer most from the impacts of climate change.

By engaging in environmental action, faith communities can demonstrate their commitment to these values and principles and respect for diversity and pluralism. They can also challenge the dominant consumerism, individualism, and materialism paradigms that contribute to ecological degradation and social inequality. They can offer alternative visions of well-being, happiness, and harmony based on simplicity, generosity, and spirituality.

However, faith communities’ involvement in environmental action also poses challenges and dilemmas. For instance:

• How can they balance their loyalty to their doctrines and traditions with their openness to other perspectives and sources of knowledge, such as science and indigenous wisdom?
• How can they reconcile their differences in beliefs and practices with their shared goals and values, such as peace and justice?
• How can they avoid imposing their views and agendas on others, especially those who do not share their faith or have no faith?
• How can they ensure their actions are effective and accountable and not cause unintended harm or backlash?

These questions require careful reflection and dialogue among faith communities and other stakeholders, such as scientists, policymakers, civil society, and the media. They also need humility and honesty, as well as courage and creativity.

What Can Be Achieved If Faith Community Leaders, Scientists and Stakeholders Rise to Combat the Issue of Climate Change

If faith community leaders, scientists and stakeholders rise to combat the issue of climate change, they can achieve remarkable results that can benefit both people and the planet. They can:

• Increase public awareness and understanding of climate change’s scientific facts and moral implications and inspire people to act personally and professionally.
• Influence political decisions and policies that support a low-carbon transition, a green recovery and a just transition for workers and communities affected by the shift away from fossil fuels.
• Mobilise financial resources and technical expertise to support innovation and adaptation in various sectors, such as energy, agriculture, transport, health, and education.
• Strengthen social cohesion and resilience by fostering a culture of cooperation, solidarity, and mutual respect among people of different faiths, cultures, and backgrounds.
• Enhance environmental protection and restoration by conserving natural resources, restoring ecosystems, and promoting biodiversity.

Climate change is a global challenge that requires a global response. Faith communities can play a vital role in this response by using their influence and potential to contribute to the fight against climate change. They can also bring a moral and ethical dimension to the environmental discourse that can appeal to people’s hearts and minds. However, they also face challenges and dilemmas requiring reflection and dialogue. By working with scientists and other stakeholders, they can overcome these challenges and achieve remarkable results that benefit both people and the planet.

Call to Action

The following are some of the actions that people of faith or members of faith communities can take to join the fight against climate change:

• They are learning more about the causes and consequences of climate change and how their faith traditions relate to environmental issues. They can use resources like Earth.Org to get started.
• Talk to their friends, family and fellow believers about climate change and share their concerns and hopes.
• They are joining or starting a green group in their faith communities that organises activities and events to raise awareness and act on environmental issues.
• They support environmental initiatives and organisations or participate in campaigns and movements that advocate for climate justice and action, such as Earthday. They can also sign petitions or write letters to their political representatives or media outlets.

They are changing their lifestyle and consumption habits to reduce their environmental impact and carbon footprint. They can use calculators such as carbon footprint calculators to measure their impact and find ways to improve it.

Featured image: Now Then Magazine

You might also like: The Importance of Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future

The post Faith in Action: How Religious Communities Can Lead the Fight Against Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.