the conversation

Science shows the severe climate consequences of new fossil fuel extraction

Spread the love
An offshore drilling platform.
Mike Mareen/Shutterstock

Ed Hawkins, University of Reading

The world has just suffered through its warmest month ever recorded. Heatwaves have swept across southern Europe, the US and China, breaking many temperature records in the process.

Climate scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades that this type of event will become more frequent as the world continues to warm. The major culprit behind this is the burning of fossil fuels. So it’s extremely concerning that the UK government has announced its intention to grant hundreds of licences for new North Sea oil and gas extraction.

Although burning fossil fuels to generate power and heat has enabled society to develop and flourish, we are now experiencing the unintended side effects. The carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere is leading to a rise in global temperatures, causing heatwaves to become hotter and downpours more intense. The resulting large-scale disruption and suffering is becoming ever more visible.

This warming will continue, with worsening climatic consequences, until we reduce global carbon dioxide emissions to “net zero”. After that, we will still have to live and suffer in a warmer climate for generations. The collective choices we make now will matter in the future.

The small-scale, but high-profile, disruptions caused by Just Stop Oil protesters in the UK are extremely frustrating for many. But their single demand – for no licenses for new UK coal, oil and gas projects – is consistent with the science underpinning the international agreements that the UK has signed.

Temperatures are rising

Since the 1860s, the scientific community has understood that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would warm the climate. And as long ago as 1938, the burning of fossil fuels was linked to the observed rise in both carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. Fast forward to now and global temperatures are warmer, and increasing faster, than at any point in human civilisation.

In response to the overwhelming scientific evidence, the UK and 193 other nations came together in 2015 to ratify the Paris agreement on climate change. One of the agreed goals is to limit global warming to well below 2°C, and even aim for 1.5°C, compared to the pre-industrial era.

However, the latest synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which all governments explicitly endorsed, paints a stark reality. If we burn all of the fossil fuels that we currently have access to, then global warming will exceed 1.5°C and may reach 2°C.

To avoid breaching the limits set out by the Paris agreement, some of the coal, oil and gas that we can already extract must remain unburnt. New fossil fuel extraction projects will make it even harder to stop further global warming.

Build up renewable infrastructure

There are other options. The UK government’s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have put forward a vision for UK power generation consistent with a net zero future. They say that the UK could provide all of its energy needs by 2050 through a combination of renewables, bioenergy, nuclear, hydrogen, storage and demand management, with some carbon capture and storage for fossil gas-based generation in the meantime.

A family walking dogs on a beach in front of an offshore wind farm.
The UK can achieve energy security without causing additional global warming.
Nigel Jarvis/Shutterstock

If the UK followed the example of China and rapidly increased its investments in renewable energy, then it could achieve energy security without causing additional global warming. China emits the most carbon dioxide of any country in the world. But it is installing more renewable energy generation than the rest of the world combined.

Rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and not issuing new licenses to extract oil and gas, is the most effective way of minimising future climate-related disruptions. The sooner those with the power to shape our future recognise this, the better.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation

Ed Hawkins, Professor of Climate Science, University of Reading

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingScience shows the severe climate consequences of new fossil fuel extraction

Drought in the Amazon: Understanding the causes and the need for an immediate action plan to save the biome

Spread the love

Lucas Ferrante, Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM)

The drought plaguing the Amazon is a worrying portrait of the climate challenges facing the world. The combination of the El Niño phenomenon and anthropogenic climate change has played a significant role in accentuating this extreme weather event. The Amazon region, known for its lush rainforest and flowing rivers, is facing a critical situation due to a lack of rainfall and rising temperatures.

This phenomenon, never recorded at this intensity, has affected biodiversity and human life in eight Amazonian states. The drought has already killed more than 140 dolphins, including pink dolphins and tucuxis, also known as grey dolphins. The mortality of fish and other aquatic animals is also high. The low volume of the rivers affects the human supply, causing a lack of drinking water and food in all the small villages, even those located on the banks of the big rivers. Of the 62 municipalities in the state of Amazonas, 42 are in a state of emergency, 18 are in a state of alert and only two are in a normal situation.

The El Niño phenomenon has a direct influence on the Amazon drought. It manifests itself in the abnormal warming of the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean, affecting the rainfall regime in various parts of the world. In the case of the Amazon region, the drought is exacerbated by a decrease in humidity and a lack of rainfall, damaging the vegetation, fauna and local communities that depend on natural resources.

However, anthropogenic climate change is making the situation even worse. Rampant deforestation, driven by agricultural expansion and logging activity, reduces the Amazon rainforest’s ability to regulate the climate and retain moisture. In addition, the destruction of vast areas of vegetation contributes to rising temperatures, creating a cycle of even more accentuated droughts.

Deforestation and mining, major factors

Deforestation has been particularly devastating in the region of Highway BR-319, in the south of Amazonas state, driven by land grabbing which has provided cheap land to cattle ranchers from other states. In turn, this deforestation has increased the number of fires that feed back into the climate crisis. When they occur near riverbanks, deforestation also intensifies the phenomenon known as fallen land, which has drastically affected the draught of rivers and is already significantly jeopardising navigation and logistics, mainly affecting villages in the interior of the Amazon, which are already suffering from shortages.

Another factor that has played a significant role in affecting navigation is mining activity. Disorganised mineral extraction has created banks of land that are harmful to navigation and which, in the critical scenario of drought, have caused many vessels to run aground.

The impact of hydroelectric dams

Hydroelectric dams also play a role in contributing to the drought scenario, especially on the Madeira River. This is mainly due to the decomposition of organic matter in reservoirs created by dams, which releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. In addition, deforestation associated with the construction of dams, as well as soil degradation and erosion resulting from the alteration of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, can increase emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants, contributing to the impact of hydroelectric dams on climate change.

The Madeira River, now at its lowest level in almost 60 years, has been drastically affected and transformed by the Jirau and Santo Antônio hydroelectric dams. This was due to the drastic alteration of the river’s natural flow caused by the damming of water for power generation. When water is dammed, a reservoir is formed that retains part of the water that would normally flow along the river. This diversion of the flow directly affects the region’s aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, since the basin’s hydrological cycle is interrupted. The reduction in the volume of water in the Madeira River, for example, can lead to prolonged periods of drought, affecting not only aquatic fauna and riparian habitats, but also local communities that depend on the river for their livelihoods.

In addition, the construction and operation of hydroelectric dams in the Amazon often involves the clearing of significant areas of forest for the construction of dams and associated infrastructure. Deforestation contributes to a reduction in evapotranspiration, which is a crucial process for water balance in the region. With fewer trees to release water into the atmosphere, the Amazon becomes more susceptible to drought. The combination of these factors results in a significant impact on the region, making hydroelectric dams one of the causes of drought in the Amazon, particularly on the Madeira River, with worrying environmental and social consequences.

What can still be done

In order to combat the extreme drought in the Amazon and its devastating effects, it is essential to adopt strict measures to curb deforestation and illegal mining in the region, and for the federal government to review major undertakings such as hydroelectric dams and roads, such as the BR-319 motorway.

Many politicians have argued that the road, if paved, could reduce the state’s isolation, especially during droughts. However, this is a fallacious argument, because connecting the most isolated municipalities would require hundreds of kilometres of side roads, which would further increase deforestation and aggravate the climate crisis.

In addition, the BR-319 motorway has become a spearhead that cuts through one of the most conserved blocks of forest, linking the central Amazon, which is still preserved, to the “arc of Amazonian deforestation”, a region that concentrates most of the climate anomalies in the entire biome.

Ecosystem on the edge

In a recent study published in the renowned journal Conservation Biology, it was shown that deforestation in the Amazon is already impacting ecosystem services that are essential for Brazil, such as the Amazon’s flying rivers. This scientific data shows that we are already at the threshold of deforestation and environmental degradation tolerated by the Amazon, and more forceful action needs to be taken now.

Part of this responsibility lies now in the hands of President Lula, in reviewing major developments in the Amazon, such as hydroelectric dams and highways like the BR-319. In addition, it is essential to institute a zero deforestation policy that should begin this year, and not in 2030, when it will be too late. Furthermore, it is crucial that the international community and local governments work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change effectively. Only with coordinated and decisive action will we be able to mitigate the impacts of drought in the Amazon and protect this unique ecosystem that plays a vital role in regulating the global climate.The Conversation

Lucas Ferrante, Pesquisador Vinculado ao Programa de Pós-graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingDrought in the Amazon: Understanding the causes and the need for an immediate action plan to save the biome

Climate change could lead to food-related civil unrest in UK within 50 years, say experts

Spread the love
Baby-Spider/Shutterstock

Sarah Bridle, University of York and Aled Jones, Anglia Ruskin University

The emptying of supermarket shelves during the COVID pandemic demonstrated the chaos that disruption to the UK’s food supply can provoke. Could this type of disruption have a different cause in the future? And what might the impact on society be?

These are the questions we sought to answer in our new study, which involved surveying 58 leading UK food experts spanning academia, policy, charitable organisations and business.

Our findings indicate that food shortages stemming from extreme weather events could potentially lead to civil unrest in the UK within 50 years. Shortages of staple carbohydrates like wheat, bread, pasta and cereal appear to be the most likely triggers of such unrest.

The UK’s food system appears to be particularly vulnerable to significant disruption. This vulnerability can be attributed, in part, to its emphasis on efficiency at the expense of resilience (the ability to withstand and recover from shocks). This approach includes a heavy reliance on seasonal labour and practices like “just-in-time” supply chains, where products are delivered precisely when needed.

Our study emphasises the importance of developing plans to help the UK prepare for, and respond to, the risks associated with food shortages in the future.

Out of Stock sign on a supermarket shelf.
Customers emptied supermarket shelves in a panic during the COVID pandemic.
Kauka Jarvi/Shutterstock

Expert survey

We asked food experts to rate the likelihood of a scenario occurring in the UK in which more than 30,000 people suffered violent injury over the course of one year through events such as demonstrations or violent looting.

Just over 40% of these experts said they thought such a scenario was either “possible” or “more likely than not” in the next ten years. Over 50 years, nearly 80% of experts believed civil unrest was either possible, more likely than not, or “very likely”.

The experts were then asked about the potential causes of food system disruption that would lead to unrest. They were asked whether they thought this disruption would stem from an overall scarcity of food, or from issues related to food distribution, which could prevent food from reaching the right places and thus create isolated pockets of hunger.

Our results show that most experts (80%) hold the belief that, within the next ten years, logistical distribution issues leading to shortages are the most probable cause of food-related civil unrest.

However, when contemplating a 50-year timeframe, the majority (57%) said an insufficient food supply to sustain the UK population would be the most likely cause, potentially due to events such as a catastrophic harvest failure.

Extreme weather – including storm surges, flooding, snow and drought – was chosen as the leading cause of future food supply shortages and distribution issues over both the ten- and 50-year time frames.

UK already at risk

Just under half of the UK’s entire food supply is imported, including 80% of fruit, 50% of vegetables, and 20% of beef and poultry. Any disruption to imports and supply chains can thus have a significant impact on food availability in the UK. A fall in the availability of food can lead to rising prices and, potentially, social unrest.

COVID, Brexit and the cost of living crisis have highlighted the UK’s vulnerability to such a risk. Between April and August 2022, as inflation squeezed household incomes, over half of independent food banks in the UK reported that 25% or more of the people they supported hadn’t used their services before.

Extreme weather events are also occurring more frequently. Many of these events are driven by climate change. It’s entirely possible that extreme weather will cause major crop yield failures across “multiple breadbaskets” in the coming decades.

This scenario is not far-fetched. We have witnessed numerous instances of major shocks to food production in recent decades.

One notable example, in 2007, saw an 8% decline in global cereal production due to droughts, floods and heatwaves in Australia, India and the US. These events, combined with low global cereal stocks, financial speculation and high fertiliser prices, resulted in cereal prices more than doubling. The crisis sparked food riots in more than 30 countries.

To reduce the risk of civil unrest occurring in the UK as a result of food shortages, it’s crucial to address food poverty. By ensuring people can access and afford the food that is available, trust can be built between communities, government and food supply chains over time.

A field baked by drought.
A scenario where crops fail catastrophically is not far-fetched, say food experts.
Piyaset/Shutterstock

Redesigning the food system

The UK needs a food system designed not just for optimal efficiency, but also for resilience. Government agencies and businesses must explore and fund options to make the food system more robust to shocks.

This should include restoring degraded soils and the habitats used by pollinators, improving working conditions within the food supply chain, and prioritising sustainable farming practices.

Growing more robust crop varieties and species, using resources more efficiently, and establishing backup storage and distribution systems to move away from just-in-time delivery are all key aspects of a more resilient food system too.

Efforts to curb the harmful effects of climate change – the most probable cause of future food shortages and distribution issues – should also be ramped up.

The COVID pandemic saw major challenges with food distribution, from which lessons can be learned. Creating a food system that is both resilient and efficient will safeguard against future disruptions, ensuring that food is accessible and affordable while preventing the emergence of civil unrest.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation

Sarah Bridle, Professor of Food, Climate and Society, University of York and Aled Jones, Professor & Director, Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingClimate change could lead to food-related civil unrest in UK within 50 years, say experts

Illegal migration bill to become law: what you need to know

Spread the love

Avery Anapol, The Conversation
The UK government has succeeded in passing its illegal migration bill. After a series of late-night votes and months of controversy, the bill is now set to receive royal assent and become the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The following round-up will give you the key details of the bill and the analysis of the academic experts who have written about it for The Conversation.

The illegal migration bill is the central pillar of Rishi Sunak’s plan to stop small boat crossings, one of his five promises as prime minister. On its journey to becoming law, the bill faced opposition from the House of Lords, Conservative backbenchers in the House of Commons, activists and organisations who support refugees in the UK, and the United Nations.

A key facet of the bill – the Rwanda migration partnership – remains in legal limbo. The Court of Appeal ruled that Rwanda would not be able to fairly and accurately assess refugees’ asylum claims if they were sent there from the UK, and that therefore the plan was unlawful. The government will appeal this decision at the Supreme Court.

But regardless of whether the appeal is successful, the act sets the stage for future migration partnerships, where asylum seekers who enter the UK irregularly (such as by small boat) may be sent to another country the government deems “safe”.

This act is the second major immigration law passed in the last 15 months. The Nationality and Borders Act, enacted in April 2022, was the Boris Johnson government’s plan to fix a “broken” asylum system. But after it failed to have any discernible impact on the number of people making the dangerous journey across the Channel in small boats, the government introduced the illegal migration bill.

Erica Consterdine, an immigration policy expert at Lancaster University, has explained the difference between the two pieces of legislation for us. She describes the new law as “the most extreme piece of immigration legislation to date”. It will effectively ban asylum seeking in the UK, by requiring the home secretary to detain and deport anyone who enters the UK illegally (most asylum seekers), before their cases can be considered.

This would include potential victims of modern slavery. One of the most controversial aspects of the legislation is that it would deny modern slavery protections to anyone who enters the UK illegally. This is, as expert Alex Balch from the University of Liverpool explains, because the government has accused asylum seekers of falsely claiming to be modern slavery victims in order to avoid deportation.

The House of Lords tried to soften these parts of the bill through a series of amendments, but was ultimately defeated by the government.

Legal concerns

From the moment it was announced, critics have said the illegal migration bill would clash with the UK’s human rights obligations. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, said herself that the bill would “push the boundaries” of international law.

Helen O’Nions, an expert in human rights law at Nottingham Trent University writes that the provisions in the bill hinge on a “shaky interpretation” of the UN Refugee Convention of 1951, an international treaty that sets out the rights of refugees. While international refugee law is difficult to enforce, there are a number of issues in the bill that are likely to face prolonged legal battles.

It’s notable that these two migration policies have been passed under two ethnic minority home secretaries, and endorsed by other ministers who are the descendants of immigrants themselves. Politics researchers Neema Begum (University of Nottingham), Michael Bankole (King’s College) and Rima Saini (Middlesex University) have dug into this phenomenon and argue that the appearance of ethnic diversity in government is used to prop up hard right views on immigration and race.

Will it even work?

At the heart of the act is the government’s claim that people won’t come to the UK to seek asylum if they know they will be detained and deported to Rwanda or elsewhere. But there is very little evidence) to show that this approach of “deterrence” would be effective, writes Peter William Walsh, a researcher at Oxford University’s Migration Observatory.

Explaining the logistical problems with the proposals, he says that with the future of the Rwanda partnership uncertain, it’s not clear how the “detain and remove” approach will actually be put into practice.

The trauma of the asylum system

This new legislation comes against the backdrop of an asylum “backlog” – tens of thousands of applications that have not yet been decided, leaving people uncertain about their future in the country.

This longform article by Steve Taylor, senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University, details the physical and psychological impacts of being stuck in the UK’s asylum system. Taylor’s interviewees described experiences of trauma, suicidal thoughts, hostility and threats, from years spent in asylum limbo.

And, as he points out, the act “is predicted to lead to more long-term detention”. This will come at high cost to taxpayers, and to the human lives caught up in the policy. The Conversation

Avery Anapol, Commissioning Editor, Politics + Society, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingIllegal migration bill to become law: what you need to know

How Thames Water came to be flooded with debt – and what it means for taxpayers

Spread the love

Filipchuk Maksym/Shutterstock

Kate Bayliss, SOAS, University of London

Thames Water is reportedly on the brink of collapse. The UK’s largest water company, well known for its high levels of water leakage, sewage spills, executive pay and dividend payments, now appears to be flooded with debts that it cannot afford to pay.

Those debts have reached more than £14 billion, leading to fears the government – or UK taxpayers to be precise – may have to bail the company out.

The news of Thames Water’s difficulties may have shocked some of its 15 million customers. But as someone who has researched the finances of water companies, I was not entirely surprised. These issues have been a long time in the making, and I raised concerns publicly over five years ago.

When the water and sewage companies of England and Wales were privatised in 1989, the intention was to bring fresh finance and innovation to create efficiency. But in the 2000s, a new kind of financial investor began to dominate the sector.

Our recent research found that by 2021, of 15 English water and sewage companies, nine were owned by “special purpose companies”. These are organisations set up for the purpose of buying water utilities, with owners consisting of a range of private equity funds, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.

These kinds of investors were then able to use water company revenue to generate significant returns to shareholders. And one way this happens is by hiking up company debts.

Newly privatised water companies had started out with zero debt in 1989. Yet by the end of March 2022, total debt in the sector was at £60.6 billion. In part, the increased debt was used to refinance the companies so that investors could repay themselves part of the original cost of buying the water utility.

Our research shows that Thames Water was the archetype of this model. When it was taken over in 2007 by a consortium led by Macquarie, an Australian investment bank, debts increased over the next ten years from £3.2 billion to £10.7 billion. The proportion of assets funded by borrowing increased to over 80%, while the company paid out dividends of £2.5 billion. The company has previously said that it has a “strict, performance-linked dividend policy monitored by Ofwat”.

Perfect storm

But such high debts are problematic for a water company. First there is the issue of inequality, where customers’ water bills are used to pay down debts that have increased to pay dividends to its owners. And second, as we see with Thames Water, these highly indebted companies are potentially unstable in the event of cost pressures.

What we have now is a perfect storm in which Thames Water’s finances may collapse. A key pressure is inflation, which is pushing up the value of some of the company’s debt at the same time as it pushes up costs. More than half of Thames Water’s debt is linked to inflation, contributing to the uplift in debt value.

Water tap filling piggy bank.
Drip effect.
Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

Then there is the cost of improving performance. This has become more urgent after Ofwat, the water company regulator, was given new powers (effective from April 2025) to prevent companies paying dividends if these weaken financial resilience or are not linked to performance.

In 2022, the government set out a plan to tackle the rapidly growing issue of sewage discharge in a £56 billion investment plan. All of this adds up to intense pressure on the company’s finances.

If those finances do unravel, it is likely that the company will be underwritten by the government to keep the taps flowing while a rescue package is put together (as happened with the energy company Bulb).

However, this situation also creates the opportunity for a new public model of water supply, one that treats water not as a private commodity but as part of the wider ecosystem, providing social equity as well as environmental sustainability.

Public ownership need not be a step back to the 1970s. In fact, it would bring the UK into step with most of the modern world, including most of Europe. In Paris, where water provision was made public in 2009 after years of outsourcing, the change is widely considered a success story.

The last 34 years have revealed the fundamental problems with the current system. This crisis is a chance to direct England’s water in a new direction.The Conversation

Kate Bayliss, Research Associate, Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingHow Thames Water came to be flooded with debt – and what it means for taxpayers