Arctic sounds another warning on climate
The climate foghorn has been going off at increasingly shorter intervals over the past few years — from the 1.5 degrees C threshold being breached for the first time to record glacial melts. The latest warning sounded is the Arctic heatwave that has clocked historical highs, largely due to the climate crisis. The World Weather Attribution has concluded that climate change added 3 degrees C to heat conditions in the region — which caused Greenland's ice sheet to melt 17 times the normal rate last month.
Arctic heat, as scientists have long warned, compounds planetary warming with severe climate impacts, given depletion of the sea ice cover will expose the darker ocean which will absorb significant heat from the sun instead of reflecting it (as ice does). The impact is well known, from rising sea levels to severely disrupted weather patterns, threatening coastal human habitations and marine ecosystems. In the short run, the latest bout of Arctic fever has implications far away from the region, given its association with the South Asian monsoon and extreme rainfall in this part of the world.
The imperative for urgent climate action was clear a decade ago, which got the global community to sign the Paris accord. Now, even elementary agreements on actions and responsibilities lie in tatters, with the US under Donald Trump playing spoiler. The path from here to limit warming to avoid its worst impact isn't visible, with parties to the UN climate convention not even filing revised ambitions on climate action. With time running out, hesitation on rebuilding the consensus pushes the planet further towards climate peril — despite the momentum in energy transition and individual jurisdictions acting on climate goals. Concerted action has always been the cornerstone of climate efforts, and there is no wishing it away.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 hours ago
- Time of India
Paris climate target ‘will never die', remains world's ultimate goal: Researchers
BATHINDA: The world's expected passing of the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit during this decade raises pressure for countries to submit bold emissions reduction plans before COP30 in November, two researchers have warned. Prof Joeri Rogelj and Lavanya Rajamani, in a paper published in Science, argues that determining precisely when the world crosses 1.5°C is not necessary, because the decisions needed in response – reduce emissions rapidly in the near term – are already clear and do not suddenly change at that point. Instead, getting closer to 1.5°C should be a wake-up call for the world to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions this decade to limit the amount of warming the world experiences past 1.5°C to protect vulnerable groups, they say adding in the longer term reversing warming and getting below 1.5°C must be the goal. The paper follows the hottest year ever on record, commentary that the 1.5°C target is 'deader than a doornail' and the fact that only 21 out of 195 countries that signed the Paris Agreement have thus far submitted new five-year emissions reduction plans. Warming above 1.5°C greatly increases climate risks, including dangerous sea level rise, the collapse of coral reefs, the loss of the Greenland ice sheet and the dieback of the Amazon rainforest. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ductless Air Conditioners Are Selling Like Crazy [See Why] Keep Cool Click Here Undo Key arguments in the paper includes: Approaching or exceeding 1.5°C of warming does not extinguish the Paris Agreement's ambitious goal but makes urgent climate action even more important. The exact timing of when the world crosses 1.5°C is less important than sustained efforts to cut emissions. The Paris Agreement remains vital as a global framework to guide emissions cuts and adaptation efforts, despite geopolitical challenges. Professor Rogelj, Director of Research at the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, said: '1.5°C of warming is just around the corner and it will take a herculean effort to avoid it. 'This is deeply concerning, but crossing it makes the target more important because every fraction of warming – whether it is 1.6, 2 or 3°C – creates a more dangerous world and the longer we stay above 1.5°C, the higher the losses and damages for people will be. 'The key message of our paper is that 1.5°C will never die. It will remain our ultimate goal for a safe, livable and just planet. We need to remember that reversing warming is not a new goal, but already a key aim of the Paris Agreement.' The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to keep warming 'well below 2°C' and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. Small island states proposed the 1.5°C target in the late 2000s as a matter of survival – '1.5 to stay alive' – and since 2015, it has become the immediate goal in the fight to tackle climate change. However, the world is not currently on track to keeping warming below the Paris Agreement targets. Most countries are still burning large amounts of fossil fuels, which release emissions that cause the climate to warm. Global warming is expected to exceed 1.5°C before the end of the decade, near 2°C by 2050, and rise to between 2.6°C and 3.1°C over the course of the century. These projections have resulted in commentary that 1.5°C is 'dead' and calls from some researchers to determine the precise timing of when 1.5°C is crossed. Professors Rogelj and Rajamani argue that exceeding 1.5°C does not mean abandoning the goal or triggering a specific policy shift for emissions reductions or adaptation needs but working harder to limit overshoot – the amount of warming experienced above 1.5°C . Their paper emphasises the need for countries to act with the highest ambition possible to bring emissions down to zero, achieve net-negative emissions, and get warming back below 1.5°C in the long-term. They note that even in a world that has crossed 1.5°C, countries and businesses can continue to follow emission pathways aligned with the target. The Paris Agreement remains the most important international tool for tackling climate change, particularly due to its requirement that countries submit plans to cut emissions every five years, the researchers say. While the deadline has been extended until September, just 21 of 195 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement have submitted their plan, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution or NDC. NDCs with the highest possible cuts to emissions will reduce the amount of time the world spends above 1.5°C and reduce harm to human life and ecosystems, the researchers say. Professor Lavanya Rajamani, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, said: 'We want to reframe the way people talk about 1.5°C. Approaching or even surpassing it is a warning signal that states need to redouble their efforts, not to throw up their hands and declare 1.5°C 'over' or 'dead.' 'We need to stay focused on keeping warming below 1.5°C in the long term, and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change for people and the planet.' 'Our position is supported by a growing body of scientific evidence, the terms of the Paris Agreement, and the wider normative environment, including human rights obligations, that states are subject to.' Professor Rogelj, Director of Research at the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, said: 'There is no such thing as a safe level of warming. 'Even below 1.5°C we see dangerous climate change. Devastating weather disasters in 2024 really made that clear – just think of the Valencia floods, Hajj heatwave and Hurricane Helene which collectively killed more than 1,500 people. 'Every tonne of carbon emitted and every fraction of a degree counts. That's why we need to see bold NDCs before the COP30 climate summit in November that deliver meaningful emissions reductions before the end of the decade. A focus on near-term reductions is key to limiting the harms that come with warming above 1.5°C.'
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
When it comes to critical minerals, India cannot rely on China — it needs to fast track its own exploration
The evolution of human civilisation is intrinsically linked to the use of metals. Around 7,000 years ago, civilisation made a great leap from the Neolithic Age to the Chalcolithic Age. Subsequently, it grew more advanced as it moved to the Bronze Age and then the Iron Age. In more recent times, epochs have not necessarily been named after metals or their source — minerals that occur under the surface. But eras have been defined by them. Coal powered the first industrial revolution of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Oil and its derivatives fuelled the second industrial revolution (think cars and planes), and global prosperity in the second half of the 20th century. Now, the long 21st century is going to be the critical minerals age. In a way, it already is. The president of the world's largest economy has put critical minerals at the core of his foreign and domestic agenda. The reason Donald Trump wants to 'annex' Canada and Greenland is to have control over their vast mineral wealth. The only reason he is remotely interested in solving the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the potential for the US to access Ukraine's rich mineral resources. At home, Trump is opening up vast tracts of federal land — previously on no-go lists — for mineral exploration on a fast-track basis, cutting approvals time from a year to less than a month. Minerals have also taken centre-stage in the global trade war. China is using its disproportionate control over rare earth materials to threaten the US and the rest of the world with the debilitating consequences of restricted supply. Twenty or even 10 years ago, the thought of critical minerals or rare earths being at the centre of global conflict, whether geopolitical or geoeconomic, would not have been taken very seriously. The only natural resource that figured in the context of international security and strategy was oil. Since then, two things have happened. First, a growing consciousness about climate change. Second, technological advancement towards a fourth industrial revolution. The technologies that help mitigate climate change — by enabling a substitution of fossil fuels like coal and oil — are heavily mineral-intensive. An electric vehicle uses six times the minerals a conventional vehicle does, largely because its battery is made of lithium, cobalt and nickel. Renewable energy infrastructure for solar and wind power is also mineral-intensive. For example, an offshore wind infrastructure project consumes nine times the minerals that a conventional power plant would. The fourth industrial revolution, which involves AI, robotics and big data, is also mineral-intensive. For example, any digital or digital connectivity infrastructure requires copper in large quantities. Copper is critical because of its electrical conductivity. Data centres, the backbone of big data and AI, consume a lot of copper. They also consume large amounts of energy. To mitigate climate change, a lot of this needs to be sourced from renewable sources. There are several other examples of the mineral intensity of emerging technologies. As the adoption of these technologies grows, the demand-supply gap of critical minerals will grow. The biggest risk to the emerging landscape is the heavy concentration in the supply of critical minerals, much greater than the concentration in oil. There are two stages of the value chain that are of concern. First, the extraction of the metal ore from the surface. Second, the processing of that ore into usable metal. There is a high degree of concentration in the first. Cobalt comes almost exclusively from Congo. Indonesia dominates the mining of nickel, almost 50 per cent of the global supply. China alone accounts for two-thirds of global rare earths mining. Australia, Chile and China account for a majority of lithium mining. In processing, there is complete dominance across the board by just one country, China. Sixty-six per cent of the processing of critical minerals (also including copper and aluminium) takes place in China. For rare earths, this goes up to more than 90 per cent. China alone can bring the global EV industry to a halt by restricting the supply of rare earths. It is happening right at this moment. Neither the US nor India can rely on China. It is time to emulate America's policies and fast track the exploration of critical minerals. India remains under-explored for all minerals. This state of affairs is no longer an option, especially if India is to become a serious player in manufacturing. It is near-impossible to secure mineral supply chains from overseas — even the US is struggling. As a country that is geologically rich, India must explore within. The author is chief economist, Vedanta Ltd
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Trump's $175 billion ‘Golden Dome' missile shield plan sparks skepticism, warnings of arms race
US President Donald Trump's ambitious plan to build a space-based missile defense system called the 'Golden Dome' is drawing sharp criticism from defense analysts, scientists, and global powers, who warn the $175 billion project could be a technical dead-end and trigger a new nuclear arms race. Trump unveiled the plan last month, vowing that the United States would deploy an orbiting shield to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from adversaries like China, Russia, or North Korea by the end of his proposed second term in 2029. The system, inspired by Israel's Iron Dome, would be far more complex, designed to shoot down much larger, faster threats from across the globe. 'Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world,' Trump claimed. But defense experts are deeply skeptical. 'I'm not holding my breath,' said Thomas Withington, associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). 'The challenges are so significant at this stage that they may simply be unrealistic within the timeframes that the Trump administration envisages.' Space lasers and satellite swarms The proposed system would rely on detecting missiles during their 'boost phase' — the initial minutes after launch when the rocket is most visible from space. But to successfully intercept a single ICBM during this window, hundreds of interceptor satellites would need to be in constant orbit. 'It would take about 950 interceptors in orbit to ensure at least one is always in range,' said Todd Harrison from the American Enterprise Institute. 'To counter a salvo of 10 missiles, you'd need nearly 9,500 interceptors.' The US Congressional Budget Office has estimated that even a limited version of the system, designed to stop just one or two ICBMs, would cost between $161 billion and $542 billion. The plan also includes space-based lasers to destroy missiles without generating debris. But European defense contractors say such capabilities are 'still beyond what even the Americans are capable of doing.' 'It's just an excellent way to give the US defense industry substantial funding,' one anonymous contractor told reporters, 'without necessarily aiming for actual deployment.' Risk of a global arms race Critics also warn of geopolitical fallout. Analysts say the system could threaten the principle of mutually assured destruction, which underpins global nuclear stability. 'If Washington is perceived to be developing a shield that could one day neutralize a retaliatory nuclear strike, it risks triggering a dangerous global arms race,' said Julia Cournoyer, a research associate at Chatham House. China, Russia, and North Korea have already condemned the plan. Beijing and Moscow called it 'deeply destabilizing,' while Pyongyang labelled it 'very dangerous.' The concept echoes Ronald Reagan's 1980s Strategic Defense Initiative, which also envisioned satellite interceptors but was ultimately scrapped due to cost and feasibility concerns. Still, some speculate Trump may be using the proposal as a bargaining chip in future arms control talks. 'It may be that the Trump administration hopes to bring China and Russia to the table to negotiate nuclear reductions or revive arms control dialogue,' said Withington.
