Opinion by Manzoor Qadir, Guillaume Baggio (hamilton, canada)
Inter Press Service
HAMILTON, Canada, Oct 20 (IPS) – Global progress has been staggeringly inadequate against Sustainable Development Goal 6, “clean water and sanitation for all.”
According to the latest SDGs progress assessment, 2 billion people still lack safely managed drinking water, 3.6 billion lack sanitation services, and 3 billion lack basic hygiene services.
Waterborne diseases continue to take a heavy toll on the global community, with hotspots in developing countries most acutely affected.
To address this crisis, the United Nations launched the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework in 2020 to fast-track progress. The framework is a roadmap for aligning national policies and financial resources and scaling up action at all levels, but it has two fundamental flaws that need to be addressed.
Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
First, the Framework largely overlooks the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the means by which safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services will be provided where needed.
The pandemic badly affected and continues to affect the financial, political, and institutional structures and the social fabric of countries. Debt and inflation in many countries are rising while foreign investment declined by 35 per cent from 2019 to 2021.
The ability to make critical capital improvements has also been drastically affected during the pandemic, causing a delay in completing planned water and sanitation infrastructure and further enfeebling already underfunded services in developing countries.
Global and national financial, political, and institutional structures need to be reshaped, and the social fabric repaired as part of a truly transformative sustainability agenda.
Undervaluing SDGs interlinkages
Second, the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework undervalues the potential of strengthening interlinkages across SDGs. While it recognizes the importance of SDG 6 interlinkages, it does not call for systematic change in traditional forms of decision-making in the water and sanitation sector.
The risks of addressing SDGs individually without considering their interlinkages was the subject of warnings early in this global process. Moreover, SDG interlinkages are context-specific and depend on several factors, such as geography, governance, or socio-economic conditions.
The current economic slowdown could push another 263 million people into extreme poverty in 2022 — a number roughly equal to the combined populations of Germany, France, the UK and Spain — further compounding challenges across critical dimensions of sustainable development, such as health, education, gender, and water and sanitation.
Policy coherence is indispensable to sustainable development. A post-pandemic framework for sustainability requires policies that are mutually supportive across multiple sectors. Countries must move on from merely identifying interlinkages between SDGs to strengthening and acting on them.
Two actions to bridge the gaps
The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic clearly necessitate better coordinated multi-sectoral policies. Next year, UN Member States meet at the UN 2023 Water Conference for the midterm review of the Water Action Decade 2018-2028, an effort to galvanize social, economic, and environmental action.
National decision-makers and development actors need to act on the following recommendations:
1. Prioritizing critical SDG 6 targets in the post-pandemic context. This means reshaping and strengthening today’s inadequate means of implementation and coming to the UN 2023 Water Conference with bold pledges, concentrating resources on bringing drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services to the most vulnerable people — women and girls, migrants, the urban poor, schools, and hospitals, by 2030.
2. Harnessing the potential of SDGs interlinkages in policies and implementation plans at all levels. Accelerating the achievement of SDG 6 supports many other SDGs, particularly those related to health, education, food, gender equality, energy, and climate change. In the context of scarce financial resources and insufficient capacity, countries can prioritize strongly interlinked SDGs to yield achievements across multiple sectors.
We have seen and heard continuous global commitments to support the necessary conditions for sustainable development. In the post-pandemic context, progress in the water and sanitation sector has a new multifaceted purpose offering a wealth of benefits. It is time to realize them.
Guillaume Baggio is a Research Assistant at the Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, and Manzoor Qadir is Assistant Director at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
UNU-INWEH is supported by the Government of Canada and hosted by McMaster University.
Jersey City — New Jersey officials announced a lawsuit Tuesday against five oil and gas companies and a petroleum trade organization, alleging they had known for decades about the harmful impact of fossil fuels on climate change but instead deceived the public about that link. Attorney General Matthew Platkin and the state’s consumer affairs division and environmental protection department said the suit filed Tuesday in Superior Court in Mercer County names Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co. Chevron Corp., BP, ConocoPhillips, and the American Petroleum Institute trade group of which all are members.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to warn the public about the role of fossil fuels in climate change and instead “launched public-relations campaigns to sow doubts about the existence, causes, and effects of climate change.”
“Based on their own research, these companies understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change and would have devastating environmental impacts down the road,” Platkin said in a statement. “They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey, and the world.”
With the lawsuit, New Jersey has joined more than two dozen other U.S. cities, counties and states trying to claim compensation from big oil and gas companies for their alleged roles in climate change-related environmental damage.
As CBS News’ Ben Tracy reported in April, the lawsuits are largely modeled after the “Big Tobacco” cases of the 1990s, which eventually saw cigarette makers agreed to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to compensate states for the costs of tobacco-related illnesses, and to curb their marketing to young people.
Shawn LaTourette, New Jersey’s environmental protection commissioner, called the state “ground zero” for some of the worst impacts of climate change. The commissioner added that the Garden State’s communities and environment “are continually recovering from extreme heat, furious storms, and devastating floods.”
The suit comes shortly before the 10th anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated large parts of New Jersey and New York City. The announcement of the suit was made at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, which was inundated by floodwater from the storm.
The suit seeks civil penalties and damages, including for damage to natural resources such as wetlands, alleging that taxpayers will have to pay billions of dollars to protect communities from rising sea levels, deadlier storms, and other harmful effects and arguing that those costs should be paid by the defendants.
The Shell Group said in a statement that its position on climate change “has been a matter of public record for decades” and the company agreed action was needed and it was playing its part “by addressing our own emissions and helping customers to reduce theirs.”
“As the energy system evolves, so will our business, to provide the mix of products that our customers need and extend the economic and social benefits of energy access to everyone,” the company said. Shell said, however, that “a truly collaborative, society-wide approach” was required and the courtroom was not “the right venue.” Instead, the company said, “smart policy from government, supported by action from all business sectors, including ours, and from civil society, is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress.”
Exxon Mobil spokesperson Casey Norton said such legal proceedings “waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risks of climate change.” Norton said the company would “continue to invest in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting society’s growing demand for energy.”
Chevron called the legal action “a distraction from the serious problem of global climate change, not an attempt to find a real solution.” A representative called it an attempt “to punish a select group of energy companies for a problem that is the result of worldwide conduct stretching back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.” The company called the claims asserted “legally and factually meritless” and vowed “to demonstrate that in court” while continuing to work the public and private sectors “to craft real solutions to global climate change.”
An aerial view of the Phillips 66 oil refinery in Linden, New Jersey, May 11, 2022.
Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency/Getty
Representatives of BP and ConocoPhillips declined comment. A message seeking comment for this story was also sent to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project trade organization, an attorney for which told CBS News in April that “fighting climate change requires policymaking, not lawsuits.”
“This is not an issue of who knew what or when, or who said what and when,” said the attorney, Phil Goldberg. “The federal government has had the very same information that they’re saying that the energy companies had going back to the 1960s and ’70s and ’80s. The question is, what we’re gonna do about it today?”
Richard Lazarus, an environmental law professor at Harvard, told CBS News that while U.S. states and cities have been “left with the problem” caused by the federal government’s failure to pass laws protecting the environment, the legal battle for accountability would likely need to coalesce, and even then, it could be an uphill battle.
“The scope of the problem is one that requires, really, a national approach,” he told Tracy in April. “The challenge will be causation – to prove that their [fossil fuel companies] fraudulent behavior is what prevented the United States from passing the laws we needed to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions.”
Philanthropist MacKenzie Scott donated $84.5 million to Girl Scouts of the USA and 29 of its local branches, the 110-year-old organization said Tuesday, calling it a vote of confidence. The donation comes as the scouting group is coping with a loss of membership during the pandemic.
“Her support of our organization means honestly just as much as the donation,” Sofia Chang, CEO of GSUSA, said in an interview.
We are honored that Girl Scouts has received a record-breaking donation from philanthropist Mackenzie Scott. 💚 This generous gift will significantly advance our mission to provide life-changing experiences, mentorship, and programming to all girls. https://t.co/2pMKjPcYQv
Scott’s gift marks the largest donation the Girl Scouts have received from an individual since their founding in 1912, she said. The funds will help the organization recover from the impact of the pandemic, the group said in a Tuesday statement. During the crisis, its membership dropped by almost 30%, from about 1.4 million in 2019- 2020 to just over 1 million in 2021-2022.
The donation will also be used to support volunteers and staff, make camp properties more resistant to the impacts of climate change, improve science and technology education for youth members and develop diversity and inclusion programming to make their troops more accessible, the group said.
Chang acknowledged the membership drop but made the case that the organization’s programs consistently help girls build confidence and tackle problems in their community.
“Our traditional way of supporting girls was really upended during the pandemic as troops couldn’t really meet in person,” Chang said. “So to build back stronger than we ever had before, we’re really listening to our Girl Scouts, listening to their families and to our volunteers to really ensure that what comes next for us is truly impactful in this moment.”
More than cookies
The Girl Scout council in Southern Arizona decided to use the $1.4 million it received from Scott to elevate the work they are already doing rather than to start a new program or initiative, said its CEO Kristen Garcia-Hernandez.
“We are a small council and we’re certainly not in a major metropolitan hub. So for us, gifts of this magnitude don’t come around very often,” Garcia-Hernandez said.
The gift accelerates their plan to hire more staff to reach most places in the seven counties they serve in under an hour and provide programming year-round. The council will also outfit a van as a mobile science and technology classroom, a project they have tried to fund for a year and a half. Many local funders seem to think that the Girl Scout’s cookie sales cover their expenses, she said.
“While the cookie program sustains us certainly and it’s wonderful and the girls are part of that process, which makes it even more beautiful, we certainly need more from the community,” Garcia-Hernandez said.
Giving to groups serving women and girls
Philanthropic giving to organizations that specifically serve women and girls represents less than 2% of all donations, according to a research project of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. The institute found that proportion has not changed significantly between 2012 and 2019, the years the study has tracked.
Tessa Skidmore, research associate at the institute, said major gifts from women like philanthropists Melinda French Gates, Sheryl Sandberg and Scott could inspire other donors.
“Those are the types of things that have the potential to change that number,” she said.
The institute partnered with Pivotal Ventures, the investment firm founded by French Gates, and others to promote giving to women and girls on the International Day of the Girl, marked on Oct. 11 each year. It also shares its giving data in the hopes that donors or researchers will use it as one way to evaluate gender equity in donations.
Scott communicates infrequently about her giving, which has totaled around $12 billion since 2019. She has donated large, unrestricted grants to many different kinds of organizations, though her gifts have had a special focus on racial equity.
“Helping any of us can help us all,” Scott said in a blog post about her giving earlier this year.
Scott also made a blockbuster $275 million gift to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates this year.
In September, Scott filed for divorce from her second husband, Dan Jewett, whose profile was also removed from website of The Giving Pledge, a group that asks billionaires to give more than half their wealth away in their lifetimes. The former couple had jointly written on the site last year about their intention to give away Scott’s fortune, which largely comes from her divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting? Credit: United Nations
Opinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (new york)
Inter Press Service
The 27th annual UN climate summit is taking place in November. Will it be worth all the time and effort? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence—who have attended many of them—share what they’ve learned.
NEW YORK, Oct 18 (IPS) – Next month, the latest annual United Nations climate extravaganza, COP27, will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Last year it was in Glasgow. Next year it will be held in (drum roll please) … Dubai!
These big climate events have been around a long time. Since 1995, there has been a climate COP (short for “Conference of the Parties”) every year except 2020, when it was postponed due to the Covid pandemic. Over the years, the COP roadshow has traveled far and wide. From Berlin to Buenos Aires, Kyoto to Cancun, and Bali to Marrakesh, the COPs have criss-crossed the globe with the aim of finessing new agreements to see off the specter of climate change.
These annual summits generate a lot of interest. The most recent in Glasgow attracted tens of thousands of participants. World leaders and celebrities often jet in and join the throng, while the global media reports every move in the corridors of power and concerned citizens protest outside. And yet the COPs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to UN-sponsored climate meetings.
If you add the several preparatory meetings in the lead-up to the COPs, plus a host of workshops and other events by various expert technical groups, you’re easily looking at several dozen gatherings every year.
Each event is supposed to help us move the needle on climate change, keeping our warming world within the 1.5o Celsius threshold beyond which we face potentially catastrophic consequences. But what, exactly, do all of these many meetings accomplish? Are they really worth all this time and effort?
The climate bandwagon: Roll up for the never-ending world tour!
There are plenty of arguments against letting the climate circus continue its endless circuit. For a start, science tells us that in spite of all the many meetings held, we’re still on a dangerous path. Groups like Carbon Action Tracker estimate that we’re currently on track for somewhere between 1.8-2.7 oC, with the lower number representing their most optimistic—and least likely—scenario. This is clearly well above where we need to be.
Another common complaint is that UN climate COPs are mostly just talking shops; in Greta Thunberg’s words, too much “blah, blah, blah” and not enough action. For all the millions, even billions, of words uttered at these events, they can often end in acrimony with little of substance agreed. Surely, the money used to hold these summits could be better spent on something else?
Even when agreement is reached, say the critics, there is no guarantee governments and other stakeholders will keep their pledges. History is littered with broken promises and diplomatic treaties that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
These arguments are all credible and we don’t disagree with any of them. But here’s the thing. For all their weaknesses and flaws, these summits actually matter a lot.
Like a rolling stone …
First, the United Nations climate process has definitely moved the needle when it comes to our response to climate change. When the UN climate treaty was first signed in 1992, it triggered a wave of national laws, policies, and regulations that have rippled out across every country on earth. This process has started to shift almost every aspect of our modern economic system away from 200 years of reliance on fossil fuels.
Take our global energy systems, for instance. From being a niche market in the 1990s that could not compete on cost with coal, oil and gas-generated electricity, in 2020 solar power became the cheapest source of electricity in history. The technology behind both solar and wind have moved on in leaps and bounds since the 1990s, thanks in large part to the flow-on effects of international lawmaking.
The much-maligned Kyoto Protocol of 1997, now largely superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement, brought the private sector firmly into the equation, launching carbon markets and spurring private sector investment that has begun to reshape our global economy away from its reliance on fossil fuels.
From electric vehicles to power generation to building design, the number of changes catalyzed by our international work on climate change are too many too list. Probably the best metric for judging the UN climate summits, however, is their impact on long-term global warming.
In recent years, projections for the expected long-term warming have fallen from as much as 4-6C before the Paris Agreement was inked, to around 1.8-2.7C now, assuming we implement pledges made at UN summits. And while anything above 1.5C is still very, very bad and the need for more action remains urgent, it’s not as unimaginably catastrophic as those higher numbers would be.
The worst approach … except for all the others
That’s not to say the UN climate process can’t be improved. Some people would like to see them shrunk back to their size in the early days, when just a couple of thousand people—key negotiators and a smaller number of other stakeholders—met in person. This, they say, would render it more manageable, reduce the carbon footprint, and make it less of a “circus.”
There are arguments on both sides here. While on the one hand it is true that arguably only a few hundred diplomats could handle the haggling over the official UN documents under negotiation, it is worth noting the impact those other participants can have.
For a start, many new pledges and promises are emerging on the sidelines of the official negotiations; “coalitions of the willing” wishing to make progress in specific sectors like, say, green investment, electric vehicles, reducing methane emissions or halting deforestation.
These alliances of governments, private companies and other stakeholders are able to make advances in specific sectors where the official UN negotiations—which require consensus among more than 190 governments—cannot. The groups involved in such coalitions choose to network, negotiate, and announce their plans during the COPs because of the public interest in these events.
Attend just one of these COPs and you will soon notice how many connections are made, partnerships are formed, and ideas generated, by participants not involved in the formal UN business of treatymaking. The benefits of these meetings and collaborations are hard to measure, but certainly considerable.
UN negotiations can often feel glacial. With the scientific community—and the daily news of extreme weather events around the world—reminding us of the need for urgency, it can feel like the discussions are going far too slowly. Obviously, there is much more to be done in a short space of time given that we are still hurtling towards some pretty frightening outcomes without more progress. Still, the UN process has made a difference and started to move the needle, even if is not yet happening fast enough.
And what are the alternatives? No single country or private entity stands a chance of dealing with this threat alone. Neither Amazon nor Google can conjure up an online answer to this type of problem. The US or China can’t “go it alone” and no coalition of governments has been able to deliver what’s needed. It is clear, therefore, that a multilateral, global process involving all governments and stakeholders presents our only chance of containing such a global threat.
Winston Churchill once described democracy as the worst form of government except for all the others. The same applies to multilateralism and climate change. It is flawed, frustrating and at times agonizingly slow. But it is still without doubt our last best hope of success.
Stepping up
So what needs to happen at COP27 in Egypt? Many are describing it as the “implementation COP” where we begin to turn pledges and well-laid plans into action. There will be pressure for countries to come with bolder measures to reduce their national emissions and for wealthier nations to bring more money to the table when it comes to supporting the developing world. In particular, more support for adaptation, as well as financial help dealing with the loss and damage already wrought by climate change, will need to be addressed promptly.
We will also need to see inspired leadership. In our new book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy, we argue that dedicated and committed individuals can make a significant difference at these events. Examples from the recent past, such as the dedication of a handful of scientists and diplomats who helped create the Montreal Protocol and save the ozone layer, show that we can all play our part in turning the tide.
More recently Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN climate office and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, is an example of the type of leadership that will be required at the next COP. Figueres is an advocate of “stubborn optimism” and the need to blend urgency with action. We agree. Persistence, combined with a belief that there is still time to make a difference, should be our guiding light during this critical time.
Currently, the UK as hosts of COP26 still hold the climate presidency, which they will hand over officially to Egypt at the start of COP27 in November. Glasgow exceeded many insiders’ expectations, with Alok Sharma delivering a poised performance in spite of the UK’s recent domestic political turmoil. How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting?
As we look to COP27 and beyond, we wonder who the heroes of tomorrow might be? With time running out, we need environmental champions now more than ever.
The Alaska snow crab harvest has been canceled for the first time ever after billions of the crustaceans have disappeared from the cold, treacherous waters of the Bering Sea in recent years.
The Alaska Board of Fisheries and North Pacific Fishery Management Council announced last week that the population of snow crab in the Bering Sea fell below the regulatory threshold to open up the fishery.
But the actual numbers behind that decision are shocking: The snow crab population shrank from around 8 billion in 2018 to 1 billion in 2021, according to Benjamin Daly, a researcher with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
“Snow crab is by far the most abundant of all the Bering Sea crab species that is caught commercially,” Daly told CNN. “So the shock and awe of many billions missing from the population is worth noting – and that includes all the females and babies.”
The Bristol Bay red king crab harvest will also be closed for the second year in a row, the agencies announced.
Officials cited overfishing as their rationale for canceling the seasons. Mark Stichert, the groundfish and shellfish fisheries management coordinator with the state’s fish and game department, said that more crab were being fished out of the oceans than could be naturally replaced.
“So there were more removals from the population than there were inputs,” Stichert explained at Thursday’s meeting.
Between the surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, he said, mature male snow crabs declined about 40%, with an estimated 45 million pounds left in the entire Bering Sea.
“It’s a scary number, just to be clear,” Stichert said.
But calling the Bering Sea crab population “overfished” – a technical definition that triggers conservation measures – says nothing about the cause of its collapse.
“We call it overfishing because of the size level,” Michael Litzow, the Kodiak lab director for NOAA Fisheries, told CNN. “But it wasn’t overfishing that caused the collapse, that much is clear.”
Litzow says human-caused climate change is a significant factor in the crabs’ alarming disappearance.
Snow crabs are cold-water species and found overwhelmingly in areas where water temperatures are below 2 degrees Celsius, Litzow says. As oceans warm and sea ice disappears, the ocean around Alaska is becoming inhospitable for the species.
“There have been a number of attribution studies that have looked at specific temperatures in the Bering Sea or Bering Sea ice cover in 2018, and in those attribution studies, they’ve concluded that those temperatures and low-ice conditions in the Bering sea are a consequence of global warming,” Litzow said.
Temperatures around the Arctic have warmed four times faster than the rest of the planet, scientists have reported. Climate change has triggered a rapid loss in sea ice in the Arctic region, particularly in Alaska’s Bering Sea, which in turn has amplified global warming.
“Closing the fisheries due to low abundance and continuing research are the primary efforts to restore the populations at this point,” Ethan Nichols, an assistant area management biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, told CNN.
Stichert also said that there might be some “optimism for the future” as a few, small juvenile snow crabs are starting to appear in the system. But it could be at least three to four more years before they hit maturity and contribute to the regrowth of the population.
“It is a glimmer of optimism,” Litzow said. “That’s better than not seeing them, for sure. We get a little bit warmer every year and that variability is higher in Arctic ecosystems and high latitude ecosystems, and so if we can get a cooler period that would be good news for snow crab.”
SAN FRANCISCO, October 15, 2022 (Newswire.com)
– More than 100 global CEOs and leaders of some of the world’s most influential companies reflected on recent innovations and actions to combat climate change at a special dinner for the opening of the Fifth Berkeley Innovation Forum. The Smithsonian-affiliated Aquarium of the Bay hosted the primary session, and the final session of the event took place at another branch of the BayEcotarium, the Bay Model in Sausalito.
The 5th annual US-India Conference took place at the Speaker Forum on the University of California, Berkeley campus. Executives, professionals, academics, students from both India and the U.S., and key members of U.S.-India trade and economic bodies attended the dinner to exchange ideas in an open forum.
“The world is changing at a quick and dramatic pace, and new orientations and alignments are needed from the world’s major economies,” said George Jacob, President and CEO of BayEcotarium. “India and the U.S. must work together to shape and ensure mutual prosperity and peace around the globe.”
R. Mukundan, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer at Tata Chemicals in India, spoke about the importance of corporate responsibility to support climate resiliency in an interview that evening. “We believe that conservation, protecting biodiversity and working on climate change cannot be done by one company,” Mukundan said. “It has to be done by partnership and ecosystems. If by coming to these forums we can connect with like-minded people, we would like to find them, work with them, and share what we know.”
At the closing session held at the Bay Model in Sausalito, Professor Solomon Darwin (Haas School of Business University of California Berkeley) opened the final session. Presentations included industrial activities on the planet, how sustainability is key for the future, and best business practices to thrive in the modern business world. The forum included time for open discussion and question-and-answer sessions.
WHO ARE WE:
Established 42 years ago as the Bay Institute, Bay.Org/BayEcotarium and its seven branches are united under one mission to enable conversations on climate resilience and ocean conservation globally, while inspiring actionable change locally by protection and preservation of the San Francisco Bay and its ecosystems, from Sierra to the Sea™. Visit www.Bayecotarium.org.
BayEcotarium, one of the largest non-profit watershed conservation groups in the Bay Area, which includes the Smithsonian-affiliated Aquarium of the Bay, is marking its transformation to become a first-of-its-kind BayEcotarium – an immersive, sustainability-driven and multi-disciplinary education, research and climate leadership facility.
The Berkeley Innovation Forum is a membership organization hosted by Dr. Henry Chesbrough, Faculty Director of the Garwood Center for Corporate Innovation. Professor Chesbrough has become a world-renowned authority on the topic of open innovation, a term that he is credited with inventing. BIF is an exclusive membership group consisting of carefully selected corporate Directors from non-competing firms who are deeply involved in managing innovation within their company. The forum provides its members an ongoing window on innovation challenges confronting companies around the world, and gathers members together to share their experiences in dealing with these challenges. We also incorporate recent innovation research, from UC Berkeley and other universities. We keep the size of the membership limited in order to promote greater exchange of viewpoints.
All nations need to make major cuts to fossil fuel emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy, if we are to have any chance of achieving the aim of reducing global temperatures to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
This continues to be the message from the UN but, with so many countries suffering as a result of more frequent extreme weather events, that are threatening food security and global stability, more urgent measures need to be taken, to help countries to adapt to an increasingly hostile planet.
Here are five tried and tested ways that nations can become more resilient, in the face of climate change.
1 Early warning systems
Research shows that a 24-hour warning of an oncoming heatwave or storm can reduce the subsequent damage by 30 per cent. Early warning systems that provide climate forecasts are one of the most cost-effective adaptation measures, yielding around nine dollars of total benefits for every dollar invested.
With timely warnings, people can take early action by blocking up doors with sandbags to anticipate floods, stockpiling resources or, in some extreme cases, evacuating from their homes.
In Bangladesh, for example, even as climate change becomes more severe, the number of deaths from cyclones has fallen by 100-fold over the past 40 years, due mainly to improved early warnings.
Earlier this year, the UN Secretary-General tasked the World Meteorological Organization to lead the development of an action plan to ensure every person in the world is covered by early warnings within the next five years. The plan will be presented at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 27) next month.
2 Ecosystem Restoration
The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration launched by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and partners in 2021 triggered a global movement to restore the world’s ecosystems. This global restoration effort will not only absorb carbon but also increase ‘ecosystem services’ to defend the world from its most devastating impacts.
In cities, restoring urban forests cools the air and reduces heatwaves. On a normal sunny day, a single tree provides a cooling effect equivalent to two domestic air conditioners running for 24 hours.
On coasts, mangrove forests provide natural sea defences from storm surges by reducing the height and strength of the sea waves. Moreover, protecting mangroves is 1,000 times less expensive per kilometre than building seawalls.
In high altitudes, re-greening mountain slopes protects communities from climate-induced landslides and avalanches. For example, on Anjouan Island in Comoros, deforestation was drying up the ground and turning forests into deserts. With support from UNEP, a project has set out to plant 1.4 million trees over four years to hold back erosion and retain water and nutrients in the soil.
3 Climate-resilient infrastructure
Climate-resilient infrastructure refers to assets and systems such as roads, bridges, and power lines that can withstand shocks from extreme climate impacts. Infrastructure is responsible for 88 per cent of the forecasted costs of adapting to climate change.
A World Bank report finds that climate-resilient infrastructure investments in low and middle-income countries could produce roughly $4.2 trillion in total benefits, around four dollars for each dollar invested. The reasoning is simple. More resilient infrastructure assets pay for themselves as their life-cycle is extended and their services are more reliable.
Tools for encouraging investments in climate-resilient infrastructure include regulatory standards like building codes, spatial planning frameworks such as vulnerability maps, and a strong communication drive to ensure the private sector is aware of climate risks, projections and uncertainties.
4 Water supplies and security
The story of climate change is, in many ways, a story about water, whether it is floods, droughts, rising sea levels, or even wildfires. By 2030, one-in-two people are expected to face severe water shortages.
Investing in more efficient irrigation will be crucial, as agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of all global freshwater withdrawals. In urban centres, roughly 100-120 billion cubic metres of water could be saved globally by 2030 by reducing leaks. Governments are being encouraged to develop holistic water management plans, known as Integrated Water Resource Management, that take into account the entire water cycle: from source to distribution, treatment, reuse and return to the environment.
Research shows that investments in rainwater harvesting systems need to be sustained to make them more widely available. In Bagamoyo town, Tanzania, for instance, rising sea levels and drought from declining rainfall were causing wells to dry up and become salty. With no other options, children from the local Kingani School had to drink salt water, leading to headaches, ulcers, and low school attendance.
With support from UNEP, the government began constructing a rainwater harvesting system involving rooftop guttering and a series of large tanks for storing water. Diseases soon began to fall, and the children returned to school.
5 Long-term planning
Climate adaptation solutions are more effective if integrated into long-term strategies and policies. National Adaptation Plans are a crucial governance mechanism for countries to plan for the future and strategically prioritize adaptation needs.
A key part of these plans is to examine climate scenarios decades into the future and combine these with vulnerability assessments for different sectors. These can assist in planning and guiding government decisions on investment, regulatory and fiscal framework changes and raising public awareness.
Around 70 countries have developed a National Adaptation Plan, but this number is growing rapidly. UNEP is currently supporting 20 Member States in developing their plans, which can also be used to improve adaptation elements in Nationally Determined Contributions – a central part of the Paris Agreement.
In order to fight climate change, some local governments are mandating that new homes and businesses run their appliances on electricity rather than gas. But the switch to electric isn’t cheap, leaving people wondering what to do. Ben Tracy takes a look.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Newswise — Climate change is resulting in sea level rise as ice on land melts and oceans expand. How much and how fast sea levels will rise in the near future will depend, in part, on the frequency of glacier calving events. These occur when large chunks of ice detach from glaciers that terminate in the ocean (known as tidewater glaciers), and fall into coastal fjords as icebergs. The faster these glaciers flow over the ground towards the ocean, the more ice enters the ocean, increasing the rate of sea level rise.
During the warmer summer months, the surface of Greenland’s glaciers can melt and form large lakes that may then drain through to the base of the glacier. Studies on the inland Greenland ice sheet have shown that this reduces friction between the ice and ground, causing the ice to slide faster for a few days. Up to now, however, it has been unclear whether such drainage events affect the flow speed of tidewater glaciers, and hence the rate of calving events.
To investigate this, a research team from Oxford University’s Earth Sciences department, the Oxford University Mathematical Institute, and Columbia University used Global Positioning System (GPS) observations of the flow speed of Helheim Glacier—the largest single-glacier contributor to sea level rise in Greenland. The GPS captured a near perfect natural experiment: high-temporal-resolution observations of the glacier’s flow response to lake drainage.
The results found that Helheim Glacier behaved very differently to the inland ice sheet, which shows a fast, downhill movement during lake drainage events. In contrast, Helheim Glacier exhibited a relatively small ‘pulse’ of movement where the glacier sped up for a short amount of time and then moved slower, resulting in no net increase in movement.
Using a numerical model of the subglacial drainage system, the researchers discovered that this observation was likely caused by Helheim glacier having an efficient system of channels and cavities along its bed. This allows the draining waters to be quickly evacuated from the glacier bed without causing an increase in the total net movement.
Although this appears positive news in terms of sea level rise implications, the researchers suspected that a different effect may occur for glaciers without an efficient drainage system where surface melt is currently low but will increase in future due to climate change (such as in Antarctica).
They ran a mathematical model based on the conditions of colder, Antarctic tidewater glaciers. The results indicated that lake drainages under these conditions would produce a net increase in glacier movement. This was largely due to the less efficient winter-time subglacial drainage system not being able to evacuate flood waters quickly. As of yet, however, there are no in situ observations of Antarctic tidewater glacier responses to lake drainage.
The study calls into question some common approaches for inferring glacial drainage systems based on glacier velocities recorded using satellite observations (which are currently used in sea level rise models).
Lead author Associate Professor Laura Stevens (Department of Earth Sciences, Oxford University) said: ‘What we’ve observed here at Helheim is that you can have a big input of meltwater into the drainage system during a lake drainage event, but that melt input doesn’t result in an appreciable change in glacier speed when you average over the week of the drainage event.’
With the highest temporal resolution of satellite-derived glacier speeds currently available being roughly one week, lake drainage events like the one captured in the Helheim GPS data usually go unnoticed.
‘These tidewater glaciers are tricky,’ Associate Professor Stevens added. ‘We have a lot more to learn about how meltwater drainage operates and modulates tidewater-glacier speeds before we can confidently model their future response to atmospheric and oceanic warming.’
About the University of Oxford
Oxford University has been placed number 1 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings for the seventh year running, and number 2 in the QS World Rankings 2022. At the heart of this success are the twin-pillars of our ground-breaking research and innovation and our distinctive educational offer.
Oxford is world-famous for research and teaching excellence and home to some of the most talented people from across the globe. Our work helps the lives of millions, solving real-world problems through a huge network of partnerships and collaborations. The breadth and interdisciplinary nature of our research alongside our personalised approach to teaching sparks imaginative and inventive insights and solutions.
Through its research commercialisation arm, Oxford University Innovation, Oxford is the highest university patent filer in the UK and is ranked first in the UK for university spinouts, having created more than 200 new companies since 1988. Over a third of these companies have been created in the past three years. The university is a catalyst for prosperity in Oxfordshire and the United Kingdom, contributing £15.7 billion to the UK economy in 2018/19, and supports more than 28,000 full time jobs.
A shocking new report paints a grim picture of the state of the planet. The world is facing “double” emergencies, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature found, as the climate crisis deepens and animal populations are declining at frighteningly high levels.
Animals across the planet, from deep below the ocean’s surface to those hiding in the trees of the Amazon, are dying off. The World Wildlife Fund studied more than 5,200 species for its Living Planet Report, and found that out of the nearly 32,000 populations analyzed, there was an average decline of 69% since 1970. Up to 2.5% of mammals, fish, reptiles, birds and amphibians have already gone extinct, the report says.
And the average population numbers have only gotten worse. Four years ago, the Living Planet report found a 60% average decline. Then in 2020, the average hit 68% – a situation that was called an “SOS for nature.”
Now, two years later, authors of the report say the continued decline is a “code red for the planet (and humanity)” as some scientists warn that Earth is heading toward another mass extinction, mostly due to climate change.
“The message is clear and the lights are flashing red. Our most comprehensive report ever on the state of global vertebrate wildlife populations presents terrifying figures: a shocking two-thirds decline in the global Living Planet Index less than 50 years,” WWF International’s Director General Marco Lambertini says in the report.
The World Wildlife Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Index — which tracks populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians — found an average 69% decrease in monitored wildlife populations since 1970.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature
Freshwater populations have been the hardest hit, with an average decline of 83%, the report found, with habitat loss and migration route barriers accounting for roughly half the threats they face.
Most of the biodiversity loss is seen in South America, which has lost 94% of its biodiversity, according to the report. The Amazon has been rapidly depleted over the years, and the report says “we are rapidly approaching a tipping point” where the tropical rainforest “will no longer function.”
Much of the loss is due to humans. Land use – deforestation, agrochemicals and pollution – is the biggest threat to nature, the report says, with human consumption, technology and poor environmental governance also playing a significant role.
The larger the human population grows and the more economic demand is sought, the more land will be destroyed for resources, the report says, and currently, “humans use as many ecological resources as if we lived on almost two Earths.” The U.S., Canada, Australia and Mongolia are among the worst culprits for over-consumption.
But if broad and significant climate action is not taken quickly, the report’s 89 authors expect that climate change will soon take the helm at destruction.
“If we are unable to limit warming to 1.5ºC, climate change is likely to become the dominant cause of biodiversity loss in the coming decades,” the report says. “Rising temperatures are already driving mass mortality events, as well as the first extinctions of entire species. Every degree of warming is expected to increase these losses and the impact they have on people.”
This crisis of nature is an “existential challenge” interlinked with climate change, Lambertini says, and must be addressed globally. For climate change, the goal is reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but for biodiversity, he said, we need an equivalent – “nature-positive by 2030.” And both must be addressed with the same ferocity.
Climate change, among other crises, has impacted on food security. Changing rainfall patterns have affected a rural community from Kondh Adivasis, Odisha. Credit: Credit: Aniket Gawade / Climate Visuals Countdown
by Naureen Hossain (new york)
Inter Press Service
World Food Day is celebrated on October 16, 2022, with the theme Leave NO ONE behind. During this week, IPS will publish features that showcase better production, better nutrition, a better environment, and a better life.
New York, Oct 14 (IPS) – In this year alone, the global impact of compounding crises demonstrates, more than ever, why food scarcity must be addressed internationally and how there must be a shift in the food and agricultural systems.
October 16 is World Food Day, and this year it seems crucial to take stock of the causes and consequences of global food insecurity. Food insecurity has already been of greater concern in recent years due to the global COVID-19 pandemic disrupting our interconnected governance, trade, welfare, and humanitarian aid systems. This year has seen a continuation of those disruptions exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic and increasing challenges brought on by climate and environment-induced disasters, conflict, and rising prices.
The impact could not be more obvious. Findings from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that over 40% of the world population – or 3.1 billion people – cannot afford a healthy diet and that 828 million people are hungry. Rising food prices across crops in meats, cereals, and oils have disrupted the Food Price Index, which has been declining for six months.
The increase in food insecurity and its impact on global hunger has been observed worldwide. But between certain regions, there are clear disparities. Africa has been bearing the greater burden of food insecurity. A new report from the FAO reveals that in 2021, 20.2 percent, or one-fifth of the total population, went hungry. The next highest rate is Asia, with 9.1 percent. A disparity that wide should be more than enough to raise the alarm.
This food insecurity has also resulted in micronutrient deficiencies, such as zinc, iron, vitamin A, vitamin B, folate, and vitamin D. While at first unnoticeable; these deficiencies can lead to long-term losses in health and cognitive development. This would be fatal, especially to young children still developing and still needing proper nutrition.
Researchers from the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) conducted an analysis of the global prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in preschool-aged children and non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Its findings suggested that over half of the preschoolers and two-thirds of the women in the study reported a deficiency in either iron, zinc, or folate. Regionally, the majority of the children and women lived in east Asia and the Pacific, south Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa. While the report acknowledged its limitations, and in how rarely the rate of deficiency is quantified and the absence of a global standard rate at the time of the study, as GAIN Executive Director Dr Lawrence Haddad has noted, one might observe the troubling implications for a wider demographic.
“Once we factor in males and other age groups, such as schoolchildren and the elderly, these numbers imply that our current global suggestion that two billion people suffer from hidden hunger is a gross underestimation,” he said.
In the context of Africa and the Sahel region, local governments’ capacity to respond to the food crisis have been limited or difficult to implement in the face of conflict within the region and in neighboring countries. Even international intervention from groups like FAO and World Food Programme (WFP) have had to work with limited resources and funding. In February, it was reported that within the last three years in the Sahel, the number of people dealing with starvation increased dramatically and dangerously, from 3.6 to 10.5 million.
Forced displacement caused by conflict in the region also impacts food security, as more than 5 million people live in forced displacement from Burkina Faso to the Lake Chad Basin area.
But what is perhaps more pressing, and more devastating, is the impact of climate change or environment-induced disasters on food security. The Sahel region in particular is susceptible to extreme weather conditions such as heavy rains and floods, and the Horn of Africa is suffering from a historic drought this year. Looking at other regions, the recent floods that devastated Pakistan destroyed over $70 billion USD worth in rice crops. This has also led to a rise in rice prices in the international market from other major rice exporters such as India, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa is heavily dependent on rice imports. It is an example of how connected the world is, and how we are dependent on each other to help meet that most basic and essential need: food.
With all these crises piling onto one another, it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But it also makes the theme of World Food Day even more pertinent. It is why this year’s theme feels more like a call to action: leave no one behind. These challenges will persist and only further overwhelm the global community unless we are united in our efforts to mitigate food insecurity. We are undeniably and inextricably dependent on each other to meet our needs for food, health, and security. “Leave no one behind” is a simplified reminder and approach, to a problem with complex parts and overlapping problems.
This call to action will only ring true when greater systematic changes are implemented in the food systems, and when this is revisited frequently rather than left for the next big natural disaster.
Dan Brouillette (left) was President Trump’s energy secretary from 2019-2021. Ernest Moniz served … [+] under President Obama from 2013-2017. The two men shared a stage Oct. 12, 2022 at Columbia University’s Global Energy Summit.
Columbia University | SIPA
Two former U.S. energy secretaries agreed on almost everything at a joint appearance Wednesday, including the opportunity to tell Germany ‘I told you so.’
Trump’s second energy secretary, Dan Brouillette, brought up Germany right off the bat at Columbia University’s Global Energy Summit in New York.
“We felt very strongly that Germany had become too dependent on one source of gas supplier—i.e., Russia. Gazprom,” said Brouillette, who held several lobbying jobs and congressional staff jobs before helming the Energy Dept. from 2019-21.
“We tried to make the point. They disagreed with us, and that was their right to do so. But today I’m watching Germany take some very dramatic steps to broaden out their energy supply, if you will, to diversify their portfolio overall.”
Ernest Moniz, the Nobel-Prize winning physicist who served as President Obama’s second energy secretary from 2013-2017, made sure Brouillette understood that Germany had heard that warning before.
“Along the lines of what Dan said, in fact, the rather stern lectures to our German colleagues about the bad hygiene of their energy security situation predated your administration,” Moniz said.
“I can recall the heavy perspiration of the German ambassador in my office, for example. So this has been a consistent theme across administrations that the German situation just wasn’t healthy, and unfortunately it’s come back to bite them and all of us frankly.”
Germany famously shut down its nuclear reactors after the 2011 Fukushima Disaster and invested heavily in renewables, which helped make solar-photovoltaic the cheapest energy technology for the world. But Germany counted on Russian natural gas as a bridge fuel for the transition. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany and the rest of Europe have seen that supply squeezed, threatened, and sabotaged. Energy prices have soared globally, but particularly in Europe.
According to Moniz, Germany did an excellent job envisioning a clean-energy economy in 2050, but a poor job managing the 30-year transition to arrive there, which—he agreed with Brouillette—will require traditional fuels, such as fossil fuels and nuclear.
Trump’s lobbyist and Obama’s physicist agreed on most things: on the need for a diverse portfolio of energy sources, on the recognition that energy security and environmental security go hand in hand, on the collective responsibility among nations to manage energy security, and on almost everything else:
Brouillette: “We don’t disagree as much as you might think. Ernie was instrumental in creating the export of LNG (liquified natural gas) and creating those policies that allowed us to produce more here in the United States. It created a global market for U.S. natural gas.”
Moniz: “It’s true that we did most of the approval of licenses for export.”
But then Brouillette crossed a bridge too far:
Brouillette: “As we think about transition I don’t think we should think about it as one fuel source completely replacing the other.
“If you think about human nature, if you think about humanity from whatever time period that you want, the transition has never been from one type of fuel to another…. The transition, if you will, has always been from less energy to more energy. That’s been the transition of humankind, that’s where we need to continue to go, and yes within the portfolio sometimes things will change. We’ll use less coal than we did, say, 50 years ago, as part of the portfolio, but it will always be additive. We will always be adding more energy, because that’s what society needs. It’s what economies grow on. It’s what populations are going to demand.”
Moniz: “I’m sorry. I’m going to have to now finally disagree with my colleague. The additive comment has got to be parsed by level of development of economies. So the industrialized world, yeah, we may have some increase in energy use, but not material, the way that you were describing, all the new fuels being additive.
“And in fact, that’s another reason why in the industrialized world we are facing a more difficult challenge in the sense that there’s going to have to be a lot of displacement of incumbent fuels and technologies going forward.”
An estimated 1 billion crabs have mysteriously vanished from Alaskan waters in just two years. Alaskan officials are investigating their disappearance, citing climate change or disease as possibilites. Jonathan Vigliotti takes a look.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Anne Larigauderie, the Executive Secretary of IPBES, with Hoesung Lee, President of the IPCC. IPBES and the IPCC were joint winners of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022, which was dedicated to climate change. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
Inter Press Service
Nairobi, Oct 13 (IPS) – IPBES’ assessment report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species, released in July 2022, painted a troubling picture of the ongoing global biodiversity crisis that could paralyse economies and endanger food security and livelihoods.
Earlier in February 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) painted a similarly troubling picture: a warning that every tenth of a degree of additional warming could escalate threats to people, species, and ecosystems.
IPBES and IPCC both produce scientific knowledge, alert society to climate change and biodiversity loss, and inform decision-makers to make better choices for combatting climate change and the loss of biodiversity. In doing so, they provide tools to foster a low-carbon future, mitigate climate change’s negative effects, and promote a resilient society.
For their contribution to climate change adaptation and resilience building, IPBES and IPCC today (October 13, 2022) emerged winners of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022, which was dedicated to climate change.
“The decision to award the 2022 Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity to both IPBES and the IPCC is a powerful statement confirming that the global loss of species, destruction of ecosystems, and degradation of nature’s contributions to people together represent a crisis not only of similar magnitude to that of climate change, but one which must be addressed with at least similar urgency,” said Anne Larigauderie, the Executive Secretary of IPBES who accepted the prize alongside Hoesung Lee, President of the IPCC.
“The unified message from both of our expert communities is that either we tackle and solve the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis together – or we will fail on both fronts.”
Additionally, Lee emphasised that science was “our most powerful instrument to tackle climate change, a clear and imminent threat to our wellbeing and livelihoods, the wellbeing of our planet and all of its species. For IPCC scientists, this prize is an important recognition and encouragement. For the decision-makers, it is another push for more decisive climate action.”
IPBES is an independent, intergovernmental body set up in 2012 with the objective of improving the interface between scientific knowledge and political decision-makers on questions around biodiversity, the protection of ecosystems, human wellbeing, and sustainability.
IPCC, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2007, in conjunction with Al Gore, is a United Nations-affiliated organisation that fosters the production of scientific knowledge within the scope of evaluating the climate impacts of human actions and supporting governments with regard to their decision-making and the implementation of measures able to combat climate change.
Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, chaired the jury Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
The two entities – IPBES and IPCC – were selected out of 116 nominations from 41 nationalities spanning five continents. Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, chaired the jury with vice-chair Miguel Bastos Araújo (Geographer, Pessoa Award 2018).
Merkel attended the prizegiving, as did António Feijó, President of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation that introduced the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity in 2020.
The focus on climate change, Feijó explained, was a very simple decision: “Climate change and all which this philanthropic organisation does, they represent an existential condition for humanity.”
Merkel reiterated the importance of focusing on climate change acknowledging the controversies that often surround decisions made and the many policies on the table for the potential way ahead.
“Science is the most important link. Scientific evidence cannot be removed from the equation. We may have our own political views, but I believe we must make the right decision in order to ensure the survival of humanity,” Merkel observed.
Merkel further stressed that humanity now faces two crises, biodiversity loss and climate change, emphasising their interlinkages.
On biodiversity, Larigauderie spoke of the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which alerted the world that a million species, out of an overall eight million, of plants and animals, now face extinction – many within decades.
This degradation of nature, she said, is affecting the capacity of ecosystems to deliver on a number of key functions central to human survival, including the capacity to mitigate against climate change and to achieve food security.
The jury, comprised of leading figures in global climate and environment research and action, highlighted how this prize recognises the role of science on the front line of tackling climate change and the loss of biodiversity.
Finding that “evidence-based science has been fundamental not only to advancing many of the political and public actions but also the need to attribute the ‘nature of urgency’ to the ways in which the political agenda approaches the question of combatting the climate crisis”.
In this regard, Larigauderie and Lee expressed their gratitude to thousands of scientists and indigenous and local knowledge holders for volunteering their time and expertise to deliver robust research on climate change and biodiversity.
“Our reports are the most authoritative, may I say, the scientific voice of the United Nations about climate change. They provide the world’s leaders and decision-makers at all levels with a sound and most scrutinised scientific knowledge about our climate system, climate change and how to tackle it,” Lee observed.
“The Prize comes at a critical time for climate change science. IPCC reports are clear and unequivocal. Climate change is man-made, widespread, rapid and intensifying. Today, we are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Against this backdrop, the Jury stressed that IPBES and IPCC stood out in highlighting the relationship between “science, climate, biodiversity and society, representing the best that is done in this field all around the world.”
The Jury, therefore, recognised how the two organisations serve to emphasise “the need to look at the climate crisis and biodiversity in conjunction, with concerted approaches making recourse to nature-based solutions.”
With an annual cash award of €1 million, the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity recognise people, groups of people or organisations from across the globe that make outstanding, innovative, and impactful contributions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
This is the third edition of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity. It was awarded for the first time in 2020 to the young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. In 2021 the Prize was awarded to the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the largest global alliance for climate leadership in cities, comprising more than 10,600 cities and local governments from 140 countries, including Portugal.
LISBON, Portugal — A prize worth 1 million euros ($970,000) is being awarded to two intergovernmental bodies for their work on climate change.
Organizers of the annual Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity announced Thursday that this year’s winners are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is president of the prize’s jury, said the award would help keep the issue of climate change in the public mind even as Russia’s war in Ukraine and its consequences compete for attention.
The IPCC is a U.N. body which since 1998 has encouraged scientific research and supported government efforts to combat climate change. It shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.
The IPBES is an independent organization established in 2012 to smooth the transfer of information between scientists and governments.
The prize was created in 2020 by the Lisbon, Portugal-based Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation to recognize important contributions toward mitigating and adapting to climate change.
It has previously honored climate activist Greta Thunberg.
———
Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
President Joe Biden has uncorked a series of wins on major liberal policy goals in the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections with little pushback from Republicans. The GOP has mostly ignored Democratic victories in fighting climate change, marijuana reform and student loan forgiveness.
Republicans have aired just two ads against Democratic candidates attacking Biden’s loan forgiveness plan and are disregarding the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act in television spots. While Biden only rolled out his marijuana reform plans on Thursday, the official organs of the Republican party ignored the announcement entirely.
The silence from the GOP on crucial issues shows how the American public has moved to the left on key issues since the last time Democrats controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress. It also highlights how the White House has worked to find a middle ground on progressive policy goals while simultaneously defanging the most potent GOP attacks against them.
“The throughline of these decisions is the president’s belief that the American economy needs to be based on opportunity for hardworking middle-class families, not tilted to wealthy special interests,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, told HuffPost.
“The American people support student loan relief, reforming marijuana policy, and the historic actions the president and congressional Democrats have taken to fight the climate crisis and generate new manufacturing jobs all over the country at once,” he added.
There are obvious caveats. Republican advertising on crime and record-high inflation levels has proven effective, so there is little reason for the GOP to broach other topics. But it’s still striking to watch Biden achieve long-standing Democratic goals with little disagreement from a party fiercely devoted to opposing him.
The White House pointed to Biden’s approach on climate as emblematic of how he managed to avoid provoking a backlash from Republican officeholders and the broader electorate.
“It’s clear that the politics of climate change have shifted, and Republicans know that they’re on the wrong side of public opinion.”
– Democratic strategist Jared Leopold
Compared to the Democrats’ climate push in 2010, which centered around a cap-and-trade system the GOP argued would lift energy costs and hurt business, Biden and the broader climate movement instead emphasized subsidies for clean energy. Discussing the latter would create additional jobs, an argument the public bought.
In a speech last week in Hagerstown, Maryland, and other public appearances, Biden has touted the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and a bipartisan package supporting the semiconductor industry. He argued the GOP’s plan to repeal the climate package — something House Republicans have promised to push if they win control of the chamber in the midterm elections — would kill a manufacturing revitalization in the cradle.
“We made a historic government investment in America, and it’s spurring incredible private-sector investment in America,” Biden said in Hagerstown, pointing to announcements of new plants and jobs in New York, Ohio and elsewhere.
None of the wins have turned around the Democrats’ political fortunes or Biden’s middle standing with the public. Republicans are still favored to win control of the House of Representatives after November, and the Senate remains a toss-up.
However, they have helped improve Biden’s standing with some critical blocs of the Democratic base, including Black and young voters. Since both groups tend to drop out of the electorate during midterm years, minor improvements could make or break the party’s chances in key states.
“It’s a safe bet that Biden’s approval will tick upwards again after his marijuana announcement just like it did after the student debt announcement,” said Stephanie Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which worked on student loan forgiveness for years with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) “That’s because when Democrats do popular things, people like it.”
But the popularity of each move varies. Marijuana reform, up to and including full legalization, is very popular. A Data for Progress poll found roughly two-thirds of the electorate backed pardons for nonviolent marijuana users, the centerpiece of Biden’s announcement on Thursday. (He also directed Attorney General Merrick Garland and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to review the classification of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act.)
So it’s not surprising that the official organs of the GOP ignored Biden’s announcement rather than start a political war they might be destined to lose. The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee were all silent, as were key congressional leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Other polls have shown marijuana reform splitting Republican voters. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey found younger Republicans were almost as likely as their Democratic counterparts to support legalization. But just 27% of Republicans over the age of 65 supported the legalization of cannabis.
The climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act have also generally proved popular in public surveys. However, disentangling them from the more significant legislation — which raised taxes on corporations and gave Medicare the power to negotiate prescription drug prices — is difficult.
But compared to the 2010 midterm, when a failed effort to pass climate legislation nonetheless led to a barrage of ads against vulnerable House Democrats, the absence is striking.
“In 2010, you couldn’t turn on a TV set without seeing a Republican ad attacking the cap-and-trade bill,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist. He worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that cycle and later worked for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate-focused presidential bid. “It’s clear that the politics of climate change have shifted, and Republicans know that they’re on the wrong side of public opinion.”
One major factor was the lack of an industry campaign against the legislation, compared to the Chamber of Commerce’s barrage of advertising against the Affordable Care Act and climate legislation ahead of the 2010 midterms.
“Rising education polarization and the unpopularity of Trump mean that the C-suite is more Democratic than it’s ever been,” said Sean McElwee, the executive director of the Democratic polling outfit Data For Progress. “You didn’t have a unified business community backing the Republican Party for ideological reasons.”
The trickiest proposition remains student loan forgiveness. The policy has always divided the public, with a New York Times/Siena College poll released last month finding 49% of registered voters supporting forgiving $10,000 worth of student debt and 46% opposed.
But the seemingly simple class politics of the issue, asking an electorate of primarily high school graduates to subsidize the student loans of the educated, led pundits across the political spectrum to predict a fierce backlash. (This analysis ignores that 40% of people with student debt do not have a bachelor’s degree.)
That backlash never arrived. “The idea that this was going to be some sort of ‘wow, this is favoritism, this is financial recklessness, this is favoritism, this is a handout.’ If it doesn’t affect you, who gives a shit?” said Ben Wessel, the former executive director of NextGen America, which long pushed for student debt relief. “And if it does affect you, it’s awesome.”
At the same time, the plan’s popularity has held up partly because it is much smaller than progressives originally envisioned. While Warren and others pushed for $50,000 or more forgiveness per borrower, Biden instead forgave $10,000 for most borrowers making less than $125,000 and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. Biden’s decision to means-test and limit the total amount canceled per borrower lowered the overall cost of the program dramatically. While Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ original proposal to wipe out all student debt would have cost $1.2 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office says Biden’s plan will cost just $379 billion over three decades.
That approach ensured more benefits flowed to the working and middle classes — 90% of those eligible make less than $75,000 a year — and protected the proposal’s popularity.
“If we had done a mass cancellation, you would have seen much bigger backlash from Republicans who could say we were helping the wealthy on the backs of working-class voters,” McElwee said. “Targeting relief to working- and middle-class voters made the policy stronger with voters.”
Republicans, so far, have aired two ads attacking Democrats over debt cancellation. The first is a cheeky ad from a conservative nonprofit pretending to praise Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for his Biden-friendly stances. It includes student loan forgiveness among a laundry list of other purported progressive stances and achievements.
The second, from the GOP’s main Senate super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, attacks Democratic senate candidate Cheri Beasley for supporting Biden’s plan using the exact rhetoric one would expect.
“It’s a question of fairness: Should a waitress pay for a doctor’s student loans? Cheri Beasley thinks so,” a female narrator says in the ad. “She backs student loan bailouts for the rich.”
The ad, however, only appeared after Beasley’s campaign attacked the Republican nominee, Rep. Ted Budd, for voting against job training and apprenticeship programs.
“Cheri Beasley gets it,” a worker says in the ad. “She knows that you shouldn’t need to go to college to get a good job.”
Ted Budd voted against job training and apprenticeship programs that prepare North Carolinians for good-paying jobs that can support a family.
You shouldn’t have to go to college to get ahead, and I’ll fight to expand these programs in the Senate. pic.twitter.com/qUXw07yyqy
And the journey of student loan forgiveness is far from over. The White House and Department of Education are still working to implement the plan, saying recently they hope to roll out an online application form by the end of October. At the same time, conservative groups and Republican attorneys general are filing lawsuits aiming to stop forgiveness from going into effect.
“Republican officials from these states are standing with special interests and fighting to stop relief for borrowers buried under mountains of debt,” White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan said.
And if Republicans have not made a sport of slamming loan forgiveness, Democrats are not necessarily embracing it either. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who pushed Biden to implement the policy, has not mentioned it in his television advertising.
And Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who is defending a swing seat in suburban Virginia, didn’t exactly jump to embrace it when HuffPost asked her about it last month.
“A lot of people are gonna be helped significantly,” she said. “The one challenge, which I want to make sure that we in Congress don’t forget, is this still leaves a lot of open-ended questions about college affordability.”
Still, some Democrats see an opportunity to promote the plan to Black and young voters but said the party needs to do more messaging.
“What we are finding in focus groups as we talk about student loans is that there are parts of the policy that are more appealing, especially to voters of color, than just a $10,000 forgiveness,” Terrence Woodbury, a Democratic pollster and CEO of HIT Strategies, told reporters during an NAACP press briefing earlier this month. “The way it disproportionately impacts Pell Grant recipients, that it reduces interest rates, that it lowers [income-based repayment rates] from 10% to 5%. There are parts of the policy that gives them a greater opportunity to message here that doesn’t happen just by passing the policy.”
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand’s government on Tuesday proposed taxing the greenhouse gasses that farm animals make from burping and peeing as part of a plan to tackle climate change.
The government said the farm levy would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.
But farmers quickly condemned the plan. Federated Farmers, the industry’s main lobby group, said the plan would “rip the guts out of small town New Zealand” and see farms replaced with trees.
Federated Farmers President Andrew Hoggard said farmers had been trying to work with the government for more than two years on an emissions reduction plan that wouldn’t decrease food production.
“Our plan was to keep farmers farming,” Hoggard said. Instead, he said farmers would be selling their farms “so fast you won’t even hear the dogs barking on the back of the ute (pickup truck) as they drive off.”
Opposition lawmakers from the conservative ACT Party said the plan would actually increase worldwide emissions by moving farming to other countries that were less efficient at making food.
New Zealand’s farming industry is vital to its economy. Dairy products, including those used to make infant formula in China, are the nation’s largest export earner.
There are just 5 million people in New Zealand but some 10 million beef and dairy cattle and 26 million sheep.
The outsized industry has made New Zealand unusual in that about half of its greenhouse gas emissions come from farms. Farm animals produce gasses that warm the planet, particularly methane from cattle burping and nitrous oxide from their urine.
The government has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the country carbon neutral by 2050. Part of that plan includes a pledge that it will reduce methane emissions from farm animals by 10% by 2030 and by up to 47% by 2050.
Under the government’s proposed plan, farmers would start to pay for emissions in 2025, with the pricing yet to be finalized.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said all the money collected from the proposed farm levy would be put back into the industry to fund new technology, research and incentive payments for farmers.
“New Zealand’s farmers are set to be the first in the world to reduce agricultural emissions, positioning our biggest export market for the competitive advantage that brings in a world increasingly discerning about the provenance of their food,” Ardern said.
Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor said it was an exciting opportunity for New Zealand and its farmers.
“Farmers are already experiencing the impact of climate change with more regular drought and flooding,” O’Connor said. “Taking the lead on agricultural emissions is both good for the environment and our economy.”
The liberal Labour government’s proposal harks back to a similar but unsuccessful proposal made by a previous Labour government in 2003 to tax farm animals for their methane emissions.
Farmers back then also vehemently opposed the idea, and political opponents ridiculed it as a “fart tax” — although a “burp tax” would have been more technically accurate as most of the methane emissions come from belching. The government eventually abandoned the plan.
According to opinion polls, Ardern’s Labour Party has slipped in popularity and fallen behind the main opposition National Party since Ardern won a second term in 2020 in a landslide victory of historic proportions.
If Ardern’s government can’t find agreement on the proposal with farmers, who have considerable political sway in New Zealand, it’s likely to make it more difficult for Ardern to win reelection next year when the nation goes back to the polls.
The Graduation approach’s impact goes well beyond that of the individual participant. Not only does the household greatly benefit from its various interventions, but now studies show subsequent generations are able to stay out of the poverty trap. (Rangpur, Bangladesh). Credit: BRAC/2021
Opinion by Gregory Chen (washington dc)
Inter Press Service
Gregory Chen is Managing Director of BRAC’s Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative
WASHINGTON DC, Oct 10 (IPS) – As we approach 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals look harder than ever to achieve. Shocks to the global economy caused by climate change, COVID-19, and conflict threaten humanity’s survival. For the most vulnerable, trends are moving in the wrong direction with an additional 75 to 95 million people now living in extreme poverty compared to pre-pandemic World Bank projections. By the end of this year more than 657 million people will still be living in extreme poverty substantially more than in 2018.
Though we cannot blame the recent crises alone. Even before the crises of the past few years the globe was beginning to realize addressing extreme poverty required new approaches. Economic growth alone remains insufficient and conventional anti-poverty policies and programs were not addressing the root problems affecting the most marginalized.
What can countries do to end the most severe forms of poverty?
While private organizations like BRAC (where I work) have a role to play, it is governments that are best positioned to take the lead tackling extreme poverty at scale. Governments have the mandate, the infrastructure, and the financing to transform the lives of the most vulnerable people.
Governments increasingly recognize a growing body of research which tells us people in extreme poverty face multiple reinforcing barriers – a lack of nutrition, education, and social exclusion which contribute to a deficit of hope and self-confidence. Together, these multiple factors create a poverty trap that is challenging to escape. Addressing only a few of these barriers at a time is insufficient for people out of poverty traps. Many governments have begun to recognize this in the past decade as growth lifted many out of poverty but large pockets of people remained excluded.
Women gather to discuss social issues and add to their group savings as part of the Bab Amal (Door of Hope) Graduation project in Upper Egypt (Sohag, Egypt). Credit: BRAC/Robert Irven 2022
Escaping a poverty trap requires a “big push” – a significant transfer of resources and support that can address multiple barriers in one go. One “big push” proven to break the poverty trap is referred to as the Graduation approach (though it may be called different things in diverse settings). Graduation is a sequenced set of interventions that address the unique circumstances of poverty within the local context. This approach meets participants’ day-to-day needs, provides training and assets for income generation, financial literacy and savings support, and social empowerment through community engagement and life skills training – all facilitated through coaching that calls for regular interactions with participants.
A period of intense coaching enables participants to build resilience and self-confidence by empowering them to save, diversify their sources of income, access safety nets, and develop coping mechanisms to major shocks and build up self confidence. These combined interventions are delivered in a 2-3 year time bound period, empowering participants to begin an upward trajectory out of extreme poverty and with greater ability to link to wider government support.
Graduation programs are designed to positively impact all household members, but the approach focuses on direct engagement with working age women. These women are disproportionately affected by extreme poverty and most likely to use their greater capacities to reinvest in their households’ development.
At its core, Graduation is about recognizing that when empowered with the right tools and resources, people can be agents of change for themselves, their households, and their communities.
A high return on investment
The Graduation approach is an investment with returns that grow over time. Rigorous evaluations report that four years after participants start, Graduation delivered benefits that began to exceed program costs. Compared to standalone narrower interventions like lump sum cash transfers, after 3 to 4 years after the initial intervention, Graduation programs deliver greater household benefits – including greater consumption, income, and savings. Research from India shows that ten years after starting the program, participants see approximately 400% ROI, and projections suggest this return could reach 1100% over the participant’s lifetime. Since the investment is time limited and may not be repeated its ROI over the longer term can save costs and build resilience.
Many Government are Adopting Graduation
Due to Graduation’s proven impact, many governments are investing in the approach, integrating it into existing programs. It is estimated that more than 15 government programs have developed Graduation approaches across Latin American, Africa, and Asia. Among them include governments in Kenya, the Philippines, and India. These are most often not new standalone programs but integrated within existing Graduation programs, where the Graduation package is particularly emphasized for certain target populations.
Yolanda, a participant of the DSWD’s Padayon SLP Graduation project, is visited by her coach Julius, who helps ensure she is making steady progress and has the tools and knowledge she needs to overcome any challenges or shocks. (Iloilo City, Philippines). Credit: BRAC/Robert Irven 2022
In the Philippines, despite the many challenges created by COVID-19 in 2020, participants in the Philippines’ Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Graduation program had more resilient livelihoods and better savings and financial management, according to Asian Development Bank (ADB). The Government of the Philippines is now on its second iteration of Graduation integration offered through the Department of Social Welfare and Development with support from ADB and the Australian government.
The Government of Kenya is also investing in Graduation with the Kenya: Social and Economic Inclusion Project (KSEIP) in partnership with Global Development Incubator, BOMA Project, Village Enterprise, the World Bank, and the UK government (FCDO). Following a successful pilot in 2019, KSEIP will transition from a narrower unconditional cash transfer to a fuller package of Graduation.
A Few Leading Governments are Implementing at Scale
Some governments have moved beyond testing to delivering at scale. In the Province of Bihar in India, a large rural development program (called JEEViKA) established a special window for a Graduation program known as Satat Jevvikoparjan Yojana (SJY), which has reached 140,000 households in extreme poverty since 2018. Other Provinces in India may follow suit expanding their own Graduation programs as well. Additionally, countries such as Ethiopia and South Africa are looking to further adapt their already large scale programs with more Graduation elements added that can deliver long term results.
As governments implement scaled programs we have reasons to be confident that these investments will bring durable results. While we must address today’s crises, our work to dramatically reduce and eliminate extreme poverty will not happen with slipshod short-term band-aids. Governments can begin to fully address extreme poverty with smart investments that will over time lead to permanent changes that eliminate extreme poverty.
While governments will lead, they cannot do it alone. The international community, particularly multilateral institutions, can provide the financing required to operate at scale. NGOs and community-based institutions can be partners in last mile delivery assisting the government where needed. Researchers can focus their methods more on how scaled programs operate (rather than on repeat small scale impact evaluations) so that we can make wider decisions on adapting for scale.
It is high time for us to lean on the evidence, evolve programmatically, put government in the lead, and benefit from all the testing and research that has led us to solutions that can work.
The goal for decarbonized air transport, which follows similar commitments from industry groups, will “contribute to the green innovation and implementation momentum, which must be accelerated over the coming decades to ultimately achieve emissions-free powered flight,” stressed the President of the ICAO Council Mr. Salvatore Sciacchitano.
To achieve this aim, several CO2 emissions reductions measures will need to be put in place, such as the accelerated adoption of new and innovative aircraft technologies, streamlined flight operations, and the increased production and deployment of sustainable aviation fuels.
The issue of viable financing and investment support for these measures was underscored by the countries represented at the Assembly, and there were calls for a third ICAO Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels to be convened in 2023.
Whilst carbon dioxide emissions from domestic air operations are included in the environmental commitments made by practically all countries in the Paris Agreement – a UN-backed international treaty on climate change, adopted in 2015 – emissions resulting from international flights are addressed collectively under the Chicago Convention, which established the rules of airspace in 1947, and associated agreements.
Since 1944, ICAO has helped countries to cooperate and share their skies to their mutual benefit. Since it was established, the agency has supported the creation of a dependable network of global air mobility, which connects families, cultures, and businesses all over the world, whilst promoting sustainable growth and socio-economic prosperity wherever aircraft fly.
Nation states are the decision-makers at ICAO Assembly events, but the multilateral discussions and outcomes, such as the 2050 net-zero goal, are informed by key contributions from industry and civil society groups, who participate as official observers.
The image of the typical, laid-back surfer does not sit easily with the stereotype of earnest environmental campaigners. But elite bodyboarder Chris Kirkman is proof that surfers have a part to play in fighting the climate emergency.
He has competed everywhere from Portugal and Chile to Tahiti and Brazil, and it was through surfing that he first started considering humans’ effect on the climate.
In 2019, Mr. Kirkman, along with champion longboarder Belinda Baggs, co-founded Surfers for Climate. The organization has four key goals: to mobilize and empower an alliance of surfers to care about the climate; take climate action; help the surfing community play a role in stopping coastal and offshore fossil fuel developments; and make politicians who represent surfing communities take climate action.
Australia, which has suffered drought, wildfires and flooding across the country in recent years, is at the frontlines of the climate crisis, sparking increased concern amongst all sectors of the population, including surfers.
“A lot of Aussies had taken their heads out of the sand when it came to the climate, but then the fires and the floods really stepped up the urgency of the issue,” says Mr. Kirkman. “It still a difficult pathway for people, as they don’t know where to start, or where to go”.
Part of Surfers for Climate’s remit is to reach out to surfers and point them in the right direction. “We are still learning about our audience and how to engage them,” explains Mr. Kirkman, “figuring out how we take every surfer on a journey of climate action. We refer to it as a wave of engagement with multiple take-off points on that wave”.
UNDP
Singer-songwriter Cody Simpson is a UN Development Programme Ocean Ambassador
Casting a wide net
The non-profit has done everything from hosting climate-themed pub trivia nights to producing environmentally friendly consumption guides. Last month, they launched a new initiative called Trade Up, aimed at surfers who are also tradespeople, such as builders, carpenters, and electricians.
“We ran a one-day seminar, where we brought in different suppliers of materials and builders who were embracing best practice on their job sites in terms of materials and carbon neutrality,” Kirkman says.
“They had never had anyone engage with them on the environment during their whole working lives. We know there are huge emissions from construction, yet we are not talking to the tradespeople. They haven’t been engaged in the climate movement, but they just needed someone to talk to them and give them examples of best practice,” he adds.
Mr. Kirkman also points out the discussion has been quite intellectual for a long time, with “people in suits in big meetings talking about frameworks and emissions, and we have forgotten that there are everyday people who can be involved if you take the time to engage with them, and that’s what we try to do with Surfers for Climate.”
Communication is vital, as is knowing who your audience is and what they are going to respond to, and Mr. Kirkman argues that people who aren’t scientists but are passionate about the issue, need to work out how to get their message across.
As the climate crisis gets more intense, more and more people are experiencing the devastating reality of a changing climate. In 2021, Australia experienced disastrous floods in the northern rivers of New South Wales, and many surfers took the initiative to help with the rescue efforts, using jet-skis to rescue people stranded in their homes, and delivering vital supplies.
Mr. Kirkman hopes Surfers for Climate can scale up its Trade Up initiative, engage with politicians ahead of upcoming elections and – like many non-profits – raise money so it can continue to do its work. “It’s the toughest yet most enjoyable job I’ve had,” he says. “There’s definitely nothing else I would rather be doing.”
