Clean Energy Technologies:

The Scientific Evidence is Unequivocal:

By: Ken Lelek 

Climate change is not just a pressing issue but an existential threat to human well-being and the health of our planet. The repercussions of inaction are severe, and we cannot afford any further delays in taking concerted global action. The window to secure a livable future is rapidly closing, making it imperative to revamp and expand our efforts to combat this global challenge.

Global warming is a pressing issue that demands immediate action from every individual and society as a whole. With the Earth's climate continuing to change at an alarming rate, it is imperative that we all take responsibility and work together to reduce our carbon footprint and mitigate the impacts of global warming.

By adopting sustainable practices, investing in renewable energy, and making environmentally conscious choices, we can slow down the rate of global warming and protect the planet for future generations. It's time to unite and implement effective solutions to stop global warming in its tracks. Together, we can make a difference and secure a brighter, sustainable future for all living beings.

The Growing Urgency: Climate resilient development is already proving to be an uphill battle at current global warming levels. However, the stakes become even higher if warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius. Beyond this threshold, the prospects for climate resilience become severely limited, and if warming surpasses 2 degrees Celsius, the challenges may become insurmountable. Therefore, we must act decisively to prevent further escalation of temperatures and ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.

Investing in Clean Energy Technologies: To pave the way for a livable future, we must prioritize and invest significantly in clean energy technologies. Embracing renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power, is paramount to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, which are the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. By transitioning to clean energy, we not only mitigate the effects of climate change but also safeguard our children's health and well-being.

Clean Air: Investing in clean energy technologies means curbing air pollution, which has far-reaching consequences on public health. By reducing harmful emissions from power plants, vehicles, and industrial processes, we can significantly improve air quality, reducing the incidence of respiratory diseases and other health issues. Our children deserve to breathe fresh, unpolluted air, and investing in clean energy is the key to achieving this goal.

Sustainable Food Systems: A changing climate poses risks to agriculture, leading to disruptions in food production and supply chains. By adopting climate-resilient farming practices and supporting sustainable agriculture, we can enhance food security and minimize the impact of extreme weather events on crop yields. This ensures that our children will have access to nutritious and sufficient food in 2050 and beyond.

Clean Water: Climate change affects water availability and quality, leading to more frequent droughts and floods. Investing in clean energy technologies can also contribute to sustainable water management by powering innovative water purification and desalination processes. Moreover, transitioning to cleaner energy sources reduces water consumption in energy production, thus preserving this essential resource for future generations.

Conclusion: Time is of the essence, and we must act now to secure a livable future for ourselves and the generations to come. By revamping and expanding our efforts to combat climate change, investing in clean energy technologies, and embracing sustainable practices, we can safeguard human well-being, protect the health of our planet, and create a world where our children can thrive with clean air, food, and water in 2050. Let us unite in this global mission, for the benefits of climate resilience far outweigh the costs of inaction.

Study Says 2035 Is Climate Change Point of No Return:

By: Laurie L. Dove

"The 'point of no return' concept has the advantage of containing time information, which we consider very useful to inform the debate on the urgency of taking climate action," Matthias Aengenheyster, a doctoral researcher at Oxford University and the study's lead author, said in a statement. The 2 degrees Celsius mark is critical for Earth's well-being. Once the planet warms an additional 2 degrees Celsius, scientists predict a range of catastrophic effects, from widespread flooding in coastal areas to searing heat waves and extreme storms. An important area that could slow the movement toward a point of no return in 2035 is the transition from fossil renewable energy sources. But even this will require marked progress. Scientists have calculated that the share of renewables worldwide must grow by at least 2 percent each year in order to slow the march toward climate change. Two percent a year may not sound like much, but in the 20 years leading up to 2017, the percentage of energy from renewables grew by a paltry total of 3.6 percent.

There is hope, though. If the use of renewable energy were to outpace the scientists' model, say by 5 percent per annum, the climate change deadline could move back by at least a decade, the researchers note. Likewise, developing technology to remove carbon dioxide and other gases from the atmosphere could help slow climate change. These gases alter Earth's atmosphere and allow it to trap more heat from the sun and cause temperatures to rise. "We hope that 'having a deadline' may stimulate the sense of urgency to act for politicians and policy makers," Henk Dijkstra, a professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and one of the study authors, said in a statement” Very little time is left."

Climate change could force 1.2 billion to move by 2050:

By: Robert Muggah

In the years leading-up to the outbreak of genocide in Darfur, in 2003, median rainfall plummeted by a third. Already precarious pasture and grazing corridors shrank faster than communal land tenure systems could cope. Simmering tensions between herders and farmers across Sudan turned violent after being manipulated by local warlords and power brokers in Khartoum. By the time the shooting stopped, an estimated 300,000 lay dead and millions more were displaced. Darfur was dubbed the world’s first climate change conflict. Given the pace of global warming, it won’t be the last.

In a world beset by rising temperatures, devastating storms, and flash floods, climate migration and disaster displacement are quickly becoming the signal 21st century crisis. While hard numbers are hard to come by, conservative estimates report that as many as 60 million people are forcibly displaced annually as a result of food insecurity and livelihoods disrupted by climate change. While the impacts of climate change are global, the vast majority of those worst affected are in the world’s poorest and fastest warming countries.

Yet, rather than step-up to meet the challenges of climate dislocation, most national governments, international agencies, private sector players and non-profits are burying their heads in the sand. Short-termism prevails over  long-range forecasting, planning and preparation. This is dangerous. The risk of sudden mass movements compounded by pre existing political, economic and social challenges is no longer theoretical. Only urgent action, including investment in mitigating shocks and stresses and building local resilience, can prevent the crisis from becoming a calamity.

The sheer dimensions of the migratory upheaval in the making are almost unthinkable. Depending on who is counting, by 2050, between 200 million and 1.2 billion people will face little option other than to flee across borders or be dislocated within them as withering heat waves and rising seas encroach and disrupt people’s lives and livelihoods. The pace and scale of migration and displacement to come will far surpass even the most harrowing refugee crises of the past century, quickly overwhelming the capacities of the aid community and resettlement agencies in hosting countries. There are several ways climate threats exacerbate migration and displacement. Warming temperatures and extreme weather events are shaping decisions about how and where people live, while also impacting communities where those dislocated turn up. In many parts of the world, there is literally no place to run.

Among the most badly affected regions are the Greater Horn of Africa, especially Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, where over 30 million people already face food insecurity, with one person likely to die of hunger every 36 seconds in 2022.

Glimpses of the mayhem  to come are emerging not just from Africa. An epochal  drought in Syria between 2005-2010 devastated livestock and agricultural production, driving 1.5 million people from rural to urban areas. They in turn strained already overcrowded communities and stoked civil unrest, government crack-downs, and eventually civil war. Meanwhile, successive droughts and floods have pushed El Salvador to the edge, contributing to devastating crop failures and pushing tens of thousands from their towns into cities. Many of the new arrivals are easy prey for violent gangs, so forcing them to flee again, northward to Mexico and eventually the US and Canada.

With world temperatures set to rise more over the next 50 years than they have in the previous 6,000, scientists agree that far worse is still to come. Today, just one percent of the planet falls within so-called “barely liveable” hot zones: by 2050, the ratio could rise to almost twenty percent. In 2100, temperatures could rise so high that spending a few hours outside some major capital cities of South Asia and East Asia could be lethal. Rising seas have already submerged eight islands in the western Pacific, with another 50 expected to disappear by 2100. This explains why islanders from Kiribati to New Zealand are the first peoples to apply for climate refugee status.

Yet the global response to climate migration and disaster displacement is fragmented, at best. Part of the problem is the way dislocated people  are categorized. Generally speaking, migrants move voluntarily and their mobility across borders is managed through national emigration and immigration laws. Displaced people are different; most of them do not have the luxury to choose whether to remain or go. Hence, internally displaced peoples often fall through the cracks of international treaties, such as the1951 Refugee Convention, the “backbone” of the global asylum system. And despite rising awareness of their plight there is still no dedicated global legal instrument recognizing “climate refugees” much less protecting and assisting them.

As a result,  many of those most severely affected by climate change are still largely invisible to international law. At a time when three times more people are displaced by droughts and floods than by armed conflict, this is a worrisome oversight. As was seen in the wake of the Syrian exodus of 2015, even a relatively modest influx of people into Western Europe generated massive political repercussions, not least a populist backlash. Eliminating this blind spot is important for humanitarian and development organizations grappling with the crisis. Consider that up to 80 percent of all existing refugees and people of concern under UN supervision hail from countries poorly prepared to cope with climate-related shocks and stresses.

Fortunately, a growing roster of world leaders and aid agencies concurs with forecasters that climate migration is a major geopolitical risk. The dangers are stark in climate hotspots, where some non-state actors are weaponizing climate distress. That includes organized gangs in Central America and extremists and terrorist organizations in parts of West Africa who exploit climate displacement to grab land or profit through human trafficking and extortion rackets. Partisan factions in Iraq and Syria have even threatened to trigger climate displacement to terrorize communities and force the hand of governments.

Another flashpoint lies in autocratic and weak states that bungle or willfully mismanage climate disruption for calculated advantage. That was the case in Belarus, where authorities cynically hastened waves of Iraqi Kurds, many of whom were uprooted by climate change and flawed government at home, to cross into Poland and other European Union (EU) countries. Russia has also threatened to unleash disaster in Ukraine, including destroying water reservoirs and disrupting natural aquifers.

Most informed  decision-makers recognize that throwing up barriers to stop newcomers from crossing borders is not the answer. Instead, efforts are shifting toward managing the crisis by shepherding population movements in a more predictable and equitable manner. Two examples are the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the 2018 Global Compact for Refugees. While these initiatives can help, more ambitious efforts are needed to mitigate climate change, support adaptation and boost resilience in the riskiest areas.

Undoubtedly, mitigation is the first imperative. The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement laid down  a roadmap to achieve zero carbon. Radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the rapid transition to green energy and a green economy, and dramatically scaling-up nature-based solutions are key milestones. Governments must double down on these commitments, strengthen  the Convention on Biodiversity, which will be reviewed in Montreal in December, and back their pledges with aid and finance. These initaitives will help blunt the crisis, but far more must be done on the ground to cushion the  effects of climate migration and disaster displacement.