Prevent tree extinctions or face global ecological catastrophe, scientists warn

New paper issues ‘warning to humanity’ as it calls for urgent action to protect world’s 60,000 tree species

A tree with ash dieback disease in woodland near Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. 

Photograph: Bethany Clarke/Getty Images


Graeme Green

Fri 2 Sep 2022 

Scientists have issued an urgent “warning to humanity” about the global impact of tree extinctions.

A new paper predicts severe consequences for people, wildlife and the planet’s ecosystems if the widespread loss of trees continues. “Last year, we published the State of the World’s Trees report, where we showed at least 17,500 tree species, about a third of the world’s 60,000 tree species, are at risk of extinction,” said Malin Rivers, lead author of the paper and head of conservation prioritisation at Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI). “Now we want to highlight why it matters that so many tree species are going extinct.

“Without acting now, it will impact humanity, our economies and livelihoods. Ecologically, it will have a catastrophic impact on the planet.”

The joint warning from BGCI and the Global Tree Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s species survival commission (IUCN SSC) is backed by 45 scientists from more than 20 countries, including the UK, the US, India and Haiti, with calls for action signed by more than 30 organisations, including botanic gardens, arboretums and universities.

According to the paper, the world’s forests contribute $1.3tn (£1.1tn) to the global economy. Timber is the most valuable commodity, but non-timber products, such as fruit, nuts, and medicine, create $88bn in global trade. Of the fruit available for global consumption, 53% comes from trees.


‘Generally ignored’ species face twice the extinction threat, warns study

Globally, more than 1.6 billion people live within 5km (3 miles) of a forest and rely on them for jobs and money. In developing countries, forests provide up to 25% of household income.

“Some people live in the forest and use it for subsistence, for food, shelter and medicine,” Rivers said. “Many more people use forests for their income, to sell things they collect or make from the forest. All those people will be directly impacted by tree losses. A lot of trees also have special spiritual or cultural meaning. When those tree species are lost, that cultural heritage is also lost, like the dragon’s blood trees in Yemen, or baobabs in Madagascar.”

The large-scale extinction of tree species would lead to major biodiversity losses. Half of the world’s animal and plant species rely on trees as their habitat, with forests containing about 75% of bird species, 68% of mammal species and as many as 10 million species of invertebrates. Forest-dependent species have already declined by about 53% since 1970. “When we look at extinction risks for mammals or birds, underlying that is habitat loss, and habitat loss is often tree loss,” said Rivers. “If we don’t look after trees, there’s no way we can look after all the other life there.”
Advertisement

The extinction of a single tree species can significantly alter an ecosystem, causing a domino effect in its ability to function. When eucalyptus and dipterocarp trees are destroyed, for example, forests are more at risk from fire, pests and disease.

Patterns formed in the canopy of dipterocarp trees at the Forest Research 

Institute of Malaysia near Kuala Lumpur. 

Photograph: Anders Blomqvist/Alamy

Forests provide 50% of the world’s carbon storage, so further tree extinctions would reduce our ability to fight climate breakdown. “The new thing in this paper is that it’s the diversity of trees that is so important,” said Rivers. “We’re showing that diverse forests store more carbon than monocultures. That’s true for many of the ecological functions, not just carbon capture, but providing habitat to animals, soil stabilisation, resilience to pests and diseases, resilience to storms and adverse weather. By losing tree diversity, we’ll also lose diversity in all organisms: birds, animals, fungi, micro-organisims, insects.”

More than 100 tree species are already extinct in the wild, but despite their importance, billions of trees are still being lost each year to pests, disease, invasive species, drought, climate breakdown and industrial-scale deforestation for wood, cattle-farming, palm oil and other agriculture, from tropical islands to species-rich areas, such as the Amazon and Borneo.

Ahead of the UN’s Cop15 biodiversity conference in Montreal this December, the scientists behind the paper are calling for more protection for the world’s trees, including strengthening the role of trees in environmental and climate policy at state level.

“We want to see action,” said Rivers. “We can all take responsibility for the beef we’re eating and where it’s coming from, and making sure tree products are sustainably sourced. But we also want to see governments take responsibility, so there’s joined up thinking on biodiversity, climate change and other issues.”

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-word-for-world-is-forest-1

The Word for World Is Forest | The Anarchist Library 

Written in the glare of the United States' war on Indochina, and first published as a separate book in that war's dire aftermath, The Word for World is Forest ...

https://www.ursulakleguin.com/the-word-for-world-is-forest

The Word for World is Forest - Ursula K. Le Guin 

The Word for World Is Forest was originally published in the anthology Again, Dangerous Visions in 1972. It was published as a standalone book in 1976 by ...

Books

‘We’re going to pay in a big way’: a shocking new book on the climate crisis

In An Inconvenient Apocalypse, authors Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen write that society needs to be better prepared for an inevitable collapse

‘We don’t have a solution. But the fact that there aren’t easy and obvious solutions doesn’t mean that you can ignore the issue’ … An Inconvenient Apocalypse. Photograph: Zoonar GmbH/Alamy

Veronica Esposito

THE GUARDIAN

Wed 31 Aug 2022

In An Inconvenient Apocalypse, authors Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen style themselves as heralds of some very bad news: societal collapse on a global scale is inevitable, and those who manage to survive the mass death and crumbling of the world as we know it will have to live in drastically transformed circumstances. According to Jackson and Jensen, there’s no averting this collapse – electric cars aren’t going to save us, and neither are global climate accords. The current way of things is doomed, and it’s up to us to prepare as best we can to ensure as soft a landing as possible when the inevitable apocalypse arrives.

“The book tries to be blunt and honest about the depth of the crisis,” said Jensen, “and to be blunt and honest about the current solutions, which do nothing to deal with the depth of the crisis.” Jackson added: “Now humanity is on a whole different journey than a gathering-hunting society. I saw that we were going to pay for this some day, and we’re going to pay in a big way.”


Earthly Order: ‘mercurial professor’ with urgent ideas on climate change

Jackson and Jensen make for an interesting pairing. The former is an agronomist, having spent his career studying the problem of soil erosion and developing The Land Institute, which seeks to develop grains that can be used for sustainable agriculture. For his efforts he has garnered a MacArthur “genius” grant and a Right Livelihood Award, among other honors. Jensen is a longtime journalist who has written books on ecology, masculinity and radical feminism. He has received backlash for propounding exclusionary and harmful views against transgender people, specifically targeting transgender women, and in response to the criticism he has doubled down on these viewpoints, continuing to promulgate them.

In Jackson and Jensen’s view, the dawn of agriculture represents something like original sin. This is what got humanity on to the course of increasing energy use and material wealth that has brought us to the current ecological crisis. Via this reading of human history, the authors seem to be arguing that our trajectory as a technological species capable of high energy use and large-scale agriculture is a mistake that has taken us to a place we never should have been, and has doomed us. In conversation Jackson endorsed this viewpoint, telling me that our way of life has us “caught in a big Ponzi scheme that we’ve probably had for 10,000 years. We know how Ponzi schemes tend to end. They’re not nice things to have to deal with.”
 

Photograph: University of Notre Dame Press

The answer to this Ponzi scheme involves shrinking humanity from the current 7.7 billion people to a more sustainable 2 or 3 billion. An Inconvenient Apocalypse doesn’t describe how exactly this decline in population will occur, nor reckon with the enormous trauma that the elimination of the majority of humanity will inflict on humans and our societies. Although the book is nominally oriented toward social justice, the authors make no effort to address the fact that such a population decline would probably be an absolute disaster for marginalized ethnicities and sexualities, those who are disabled or mentally unwell, and basically anyone not deemed fit for survival in the new world. In conversation, Jensen offered this explanation:

“A lot of past talk of population control has been based in white supremacy, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the question of what’s a sustainable population. That’s the kind of thing that people have bristled against. We don’t have a solution. But the fact that there aren’t easy and obvious solutions doesn’t mean that you can ignore the issue.”

According to Jackson and Jensen, once the collapse occurs and the Earth’s population declines, it is up to humans to figure out how to live in a “low-energy” future – that is, one where fossil fuels are no longer used and we essentially are back to relying on our own muscles and those of beasts of burden. In terms of what that low energy world might look like, An Inconvenient Apocalypse articulates an ethos that might be summed up as the paleo diet, but for society. Because 10,000 years of so-called progress has left us in “dire straits”, the answer involves looking back to the prehistoric millennia before humans developed agriculture, began writing down their history, and built societal hierarchies. Insofar as An Inconvenient Apocalypse describes how this future could look, it involves tradespeople and agricultural workers elevated to the high-status ranks of society, the affluent getting taken down some notches, a wholesale elimination of the cosmopolitan, consumerist world, and religion playing a prominent role. One is tempted to sum it up as “make the Earth great again”.

The world of An Inconvenient Apocalypse is a very bleak one, and also one with no middle ground. The authors write that “the future of continued endless expansion that we have long imagined is over and a new future defined by contraction is coming”. Any attempt to find some kind of middle way through these two poles is simple “denying, minimizing and ignoring” a problem that we must all face. The emphasis on this book is on being blunt and stating truths that the authors believe to be self-evident – there is little effort by Jackson and Jensen to argue their case or to convince others. To be fair, Jackson and Jensen seem to be aware that their style will put off many, stating their expectation that many readers will simply abandon their book. Jensen said: “We set out to write a book that, in some sense, everybody will have a reason to dislike.”

For a book predicting the mass death of most of humanity and the end of life as we know it, An Inconvenient Apocalypse is chillingly cerebral. There is virtually no room for acknowledging – much less processing – the emotional toll that such a message will take on both the authors and their readers. That can make the book feel cold and condescending. In conversation, Jensen showed more vulnerability, offering some of the feelings that his vision for humanity raised within himself. In this reader’s opinion, letting this vulnerability through more often in An Inconvenient Apocalypse would have made for a more relatable and ultimately more compelling read.

“I’ve wrestled with what this means in everyday life,” and Jensen, “and these are distressing questions. It’s about wrestling with that sense of grief, rather than trying to avoid it. And when you wrestle with that, it means you don’t wake up every day on the sunny side of the street. It’s weighing on a lot of us. My goal is just try to open up space for people to say what’s on their mind.”

An Inconvenient Apocalypse is out on 1 September

'The Insanity Continues': Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Nearly Doubled in 2021

"Fossil fuel subsidies are a roadblock to a more sustainable future," said the head of the International Energy Agency.


People look at a coal-fired power plant in Peitz, Germany on October 29, 2021.

 (Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

September 1, 2022

An analysis published this week found that government subsidies bolstering the production and consumption of coal, oil, and gas nearly doubled in 2021, even as climate scientists warned that fossil fuel development must be rapidly cut off if the international community is to have any hope of stopping runaway planetary warming.

Data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that 51 governments around the world—including the United States, Germany, Canada, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—provided a combined $697.2 billion in tax breaks and other handouts to the fossil fuel industry last year, up from $362.4 billion in 2020.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that total global fossil fuel subsidies amounted to nearly $6 trillion in 2020.

"The insanity continues," climate scientist Bill McGuire tweeted in response to the new figures.

The OECD and IEA said that fossil fuel subsidies, which have continued despite nations' vows to start reining them in amid climbing carbon emissions and devastating extreme weather, are undercutting global efforts to fight the climate crisis.

"Fossil fuel subsidies are a roadblock to a more sustainable future," said IEA executive director Fatih Birol, who noted that the doubling of fossil fuel subsidies last year was at least in part attributable to government attempts to blunt the impact of soaring energy costs on consumers.

As The Guardian pointed out Wednesday, that approach "largely benefits wealthier households, as they use the most energy, rather than targeting those on low incomes."

Research has shown that the richest 10% of the global population consumes around 20 times as much energy as the poorest 10%.

Oil companies, meanwhile, are raking in huge profits as they exploit Russia's invasion of Ukraine to push massive costs onto consumers.

"Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has caused sharp increases in energy prices and undermined energy security. Significant increases in fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption though, while not necessarily reaching low-income households," OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said in a statement. "We need to adopt measures which protect consumers from the extreme impacts of shifting market and geopolitical forces in a way that helps keep us on track to carbon neutrality as well as energy security and affordability."

The fresh subsidy data was released days ahead of a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report showing that "global sea levels and ocean heat content reached record highs in 2021," an indicator that the climate crisis is accelerating as governments prop up the oil and gas industry.

"The data presented in this report are clear—we continue to see more compelling scientific evidence that climate change has global impacts and shows no sign of slowing," NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a statement Wednesday.

"With many communities hit with 1,000-year floods, exceptional drought, and historic heat this year," Spinrad added, "it shows that the climate crisis is not a future threat but something we must address today as we work to build a climate-ready nation—and world—that is resilient to climate-driven extremes."

Global fossil fuel subsidies rocket to almost $US700 billion in 2021

Rachel Williamson 

5 September 2022 


Global fossil fuel subsidies almost doubled over the course of 2021, a new report has shown, as governments around the world – and not least of all in Australia – boosted their levels of support for coal, oil and gas projects in the name of fending off cost of living crises.

OECD and IEA data shows that 51 countries worldwide spent a combined $US697.2 billion on subsidies for fossil fuels in 2021, up from $US362.4 billion in 2020.

These subsidies are expected to rise further in 2022, alongside fossil fuel prices, as the global energy crisis continues, and the soaring cost of fossil fuel energy takes its toll on consumers.



In Australia, state and federal governments in Australia have spent billions on subsidies for both companies and consumers in 2021 and in 2022, to assuage the impact of skyrocketing fuel and electricity prices and to support the former Coalition government’s “gas-led recovery.”

The latest OECD fossil fuel subsidy data for Australia is for 2020 and show the government spent $10.6 billion on tax breaks and handouts.

But in 2021 and 2022 that figure could almost double as federal funding and compensation for power plant operators following the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) intervention in the National Energy Market (NEM) in June alone totals some $7.1 billion.

Since 2020, the former Coalition government splashed at least $5.6 billion in extra federal funding for fossil fuel projects and tax breaks for consumers.

Those subsidies included $58.6 million for new gas storage and import infrastructure, $600 million for Snowy Hydro’s new gas fired power plant at Kurri Kurri – a project whose costs have now blown out past $1 billion – and almost $2 billion to oil refiners to prop up profit margins.

In 2022 before the federal election in May, the Morrison government squeezed in another $50.3 million to support gas infrastructure in the Bowen, Surat and Beetaloo basins and $3 billion worth of support to internal combustion engine (ICE) drivers by cutting the fuel excise tax by 22.1c for six months in March.

State governments added more subsidies via electricity rebates to assist with cost of living pressures. These include Western Australia’s $400 Household Electricity Credit, Victoria’s $250 Power Saving Bonus, and Queensland’s $175 Cost of Living Rebate.

And taxpayers will bear the brunt of $1.5 billion in compensation to power plant operators following AEMO’s shutdown of the NEM in June, when it directed plants to reopen and imposed a wholesale price cap after some shut down operations on the back of soaring coal and gas prices.

These costs are direct tax breaks and extra funding Australian governments have committed to, but ignore the implicit costs of undercharging for environmental costs, such as through climate change, and foregone taxes such as would come from supporting a thriving electric vehicle industry.

The IMF counts these impacts in its fossil fuel subsidy data, which it says topped $5.9 trillion in 2020 and will continue to climb as emerging markets gain more of a share of fuel consumption.

Future costs

The OECD says consumption subsidies, like Australia’s fuel excise tax cut, are likely to continue around the world in 2022 as countries grapple with the risks of ongoing high cost of living for their citizens.

“Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has caused sharp increases in energy prices and undermined energy security. Significant increases in fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption though, while not necessarily reaching low-income households,” OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said in a statement.

“We need to adopt measures which protect consumers from the extreme impacts of shifting market and geopolitical forces in a way that helps keep us on track to carbon neutrality as well as energy security and affordability.”

While the new Labor government has committed to not extend the fuel excise reduction when it finishes in October, future subsidies include oil and gas field decommissioning costs.

Australian taxpayers will bear the $325 million cost of the first stage clean up of the abandoned Northern Endeavour oil vessel, although oil and gas producers will need to cover some of the estimated $30.44 billion in future decommissioning costs after a new levy of 48c per barrel of oil was imposed in April.

Rachel Williamson is a science and business journalist, who focuses on climate change-related health and environmental issues.

Some Maritimers want to avoid a carbon tax, others want rebate to help those on low-incomes

Stephen Wentzell
CTVNewsAtlantic.ca 

Digital Coordinator
Published Sept. 3, 2022 

Nova Scotia’s environment minister says the province has proposed an alternate solution that would set performance standards for large greenhouse gas emitters.

But if that proposal gets rejected, Nova Scotians might wind up paying the federal carbon tax.

The prospect of a carbon tax is creating concerns around affordability for many Nova Scotians, including Jeff Kanabenshuh.

“In today’s world, especially with inflation the way it is, it’s just another expense that comes out of my personal wallet,” Kanabenshuh tells CTV Atlantic.

While there are other low-emission options, Kanabenshuh says he does not have the ability to make a substantial change.

“If we do want to go to a renewable route, like an electric car, you’re paying a big premium to that which the average person just doesn’t have the capital to be able to do so,” he said.

With cooler weather soon approaching, concerns of energy affordability are top of mind in the Maritimes.

Nova Scotia’s Environment Minister Timothy Halman claims the alternative plan to the carbon tax will still meet the federal requirements, while off-setting costs for many.

“We believe it will be a system that holds Nova Scotia Power accountable and all large industries accountable,” Halman said Friday. “It will create a flexibility in the system.”

If the plan is not approved, Ottawa can implement its own carbon tax on the Atlantic provinces. While the idea has caused controversy for some, others, like the Ecology Action Centre’s Thomas Arnason McNeil, believe Nova Scotia should implement a carbon tax and use the rebate to help those on low-incomes bridge the affordability gap.

“Allowing energy consumers to pay different power rates if they are low-income,” McNeil said. “That’s something provincial governments can bring in tomorrow.”

Halman says that there is nothing he can do to off-set a carbon tax if Ottawa chooses to implement one. However, the province will control its revenues.

“As a province, we want to have that control over revenue recycling because we know Nova Scotia best,” he said.

In the meantime, there’s no solid deadline for the government to approve or reject Halman’s proposal.

RELATED STORIES

'We can't stop the carbon tax': Atlantic premiers submit climate plans to Ottawa
Ottawa rejects Atlantic Canada's request for extension to submit climate plan
Federal environment minister rejects Nova Scotia's plan to avoid carbon tax

Elon Musk’s long history of questionable takes on climate change

Josh Marcus
Sun, September 4, 2022 


Elon Musk, the man who topped Bloomberg’s 2021 list of “green” billionaires, recently surprised observers when he called for more fossil fuel exploration at an energy conference.

“At this time, we actually need more oil and gas, not less,” the Tesla CEO said on Monday at an event in Stavanger, Norway, adding that he didn’t want to “demonize” the fossil fuel industry.

He argued that despite various efforts to build renewable technologies, the invasion of Ukraine and resulting sanctions on Russia’s fossil fuel industry were pinching energy supplies in Europe.

"Realistically I think we need to use oil and gas in the short term, because otherwise civilization will crumble," Mr Musk continued. “In order for civilization to function, we do need oil and gas. Actually, especially these days, with the Russia sanctions, we do need to provide oil and gas to keep civilization running. I think any reasonable person would conclude that, while at the same time accelerating the advent of sustainable energy.”

The tech billionaire made a similar claim in March.

“Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately,” he wrote on Twitter. “Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports.”

The remarks have drawn swift rebukes from some environmental observers.

“What is really needed is to cut that energy use globally by more than a half—starting with the 1% in the global North,” tweeted Peter Dynes of MEER, an environmental advocacy group, this week.

“I think his comment was overblown,” wrote journalist Fred Lambert, editor-in-chief of renewable transportation news site Electrek. “He is just pointing a simple fact, but if you want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it’s important to keep in mind that we need to incentivize new energy production to be renewable rather than from fossil fuels in order to account for the impact on the environment.”

International leaders say that investment in new fossil fuel projects needs to be halted immediately to prevent the worst of the climate crisis.

“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year,” Fatih Birol, director of the influential International Energy Agency, said in 2021. “More and more countries are coming up with net zero commitments, which is very good, but I see a huge and growing gap between the rhetoric [from governments] and the reality.”

UN Secretary General António Guterres has said that even the war in Ukraine and its effect on global energy supplies shouldn’t mean new fossil fuel investments, calling such thinking “delusional.”

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” he wrote in June. New funding for fossil fuels is delusional. It will only further feed the scourge of war, pollution and climate catastrophe.”

Musk’s debatable take on oil drilling was just the latest in a string of comments about tackling the climate crisis that environmentalists have taken issue with.

There’s no doubt Mr Musk is serious about building renewable technologies. Through his companies like Tesla and SolarCity, he has helped developed electric vehicles, solar roof panels, and renewable energy storage devices. Along the way, he’s become an influential voice in clean tech, and both policymakers and legions of online fans often follow his lead.

But that doesn’t mean he’s always right. He’s got a lengthy history of divisive opinions on the climate.
Nuclear or bust

Among the most controversial issues is Mr Musk’s embrace of nuclear power. He has described those who oppose nuclear as a renewable energy strategy as “anti-human.”

He has called for countries to increase nuclear generation, a controversial stance that has divided clean energy advocates. While some tout nuclear’s ability to consistently provide power without burning as many fossil fuels, others point to its high cost, slow rollout, and risk of disasters.

“Countries should be increasing nuclear power generation!” Mr Musk tweeted last month. “It is insane from a national security standpoint and bad for the environment to shut them down.”

Responding to Mr Musk’s calls for more nuclear, Stanford environmental engineering professor Mark Z Jacobson argued: “New nuclear is completely useless for addressing climate, pollution, energy security.”

The professor pointed to research that suggests the money needed to sustain nuclear power would be better spent on replacing it with renewable energy, which is cheaper to construct, faster to build, and emits less carbon per unit of energy generated than nuclear.

According to Jan Haverkamp, an energy expert at Greenpeace, nuclear has a record of overpromising and underdelivering. The world needs renewables, and fast, if it is to avoid the worst effects of global heating.

“We’ve never been in principle against any technology, but it is very clear, every time you start calculating, that the moment you introduce nuclear, the costs are going up and the speed of change is going down,” he told The Independent earlier this year. “That’s exactly what we can’t afford now as climate change is becoming ever more real. If you start talking about nuclear at this moment, either you’re following a fad or you’re trying to divert the attention from what really needs to be done.”

The Independent has reached out to Mr Musk for comment.
More Nuclear Families

At the event in Norway, Mr Musk also hit on another of his pet causes: population trends.

He told a crowd of reporters that because of declining birth rates, like those recorded in the United States, European Union, and China, in recent years, civilization “will die with a whimper in adult diapers.”

Last month, Mr Musk also said that demographic trends, such as the slowing birth rates in many high-income, Western countries, are a greater threat than global warming.

“Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming,” the Tesla CEO wrote on Twitter. “Mark these words.”

Indeed, birth rates on average have declined since the mid-1900s, according to the World Bank. However, it’s likely more a function of improved public health, especially for youth, than a societal fertility crisis, demographic experts say.

"He’s better off making cars and engineering than at predicting the trajectory of the population," Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division, told CNN in August. "Yes, some countries, their population is declining, but for the world, that’s just not the case."

The global population likely won’t peak until around 2100 when it reaches 8.5-10 billion people, according to the UN.

“Virtually every developed country is below two [children per average pregnant person], and it’s been that way for 20 or 30 years," Mr Chamie added.

Even when global population peaks, the UN says, the world won’t be overrun with seniors. There will be more people under 20 than over age 70. And unlike with the novel threats of climate change, governments already have a long history of policy solutions like pensions and state-sponsored healthcare that address seniors’ needs.

Some argue such fears over declining birthrates in rich, comparatively white Western countries have a racist bent, since high birth rates can still be seen in various lower-income countries in Africa.

About a third of countries in Africa have an average birth rate of five children, especially in places with high youth mortality and low access to contraception.

“The real challenge is to address the poverty, inequity, and lack of life opportunities that high fertility and population growth characterise, improve the wellbeing of the greatest proportion of our fellow citizens, and protect ecosystems here on Earth - before indulging the space fantasies of a handful of competing billionaires,” Robin Maynard of the thinktank Population Matters, said in July.
Hyperloop — or just hype?

Mr Musk has provoked a long-running debate among climate experts over his proposals for “hyperloop” transit systems — ultra-high speed, train-like vessels that move through vacuum-chamber tunnels. The billionaire first argued for hyperloop systems in a 2013 white paper. Mr Musk claimed that if they run on renewable electricity, they are a more sustainable way to travel medium distances.

And it’s an idea that has caught on. Companies, inspired by Mr Musk’s entry into the world of transit, are working on at least 15 proposed hyperloop projects around the US.

Analysts are split on whether hyperloops would genuinely be a greener way to get around.

Early estimates suggested that they are a more carbon-efficient way to travel distances of 250 - 500 miles than a flight, according to NASA. A US Department of Transit analysis said an ideal hyperloop could be six times more efficient than air travel at certain distances.

Others, like Cleveland State University environmental engineering professor Jacqueline Jenkins, argue these systems won’t be worthwhile unless they’re paired with massive investments in green power to assure hyperloops are running on renewable energy.

"If we don’t do it sustainably, it’s probably a short-term solution," she told the news site GreenBiz in 2019.

Some doubt Mr Musk’s commitment to truly public transportation, a far more carbon-efficient way to move people than individual car ownership or long-haul flights.

Mr Musk admitted to a biographer that he got the idea for hyperloop out of a dissatisfaction with public transportation, and rooted for California to cancel a planned high-speed rail system — even though train transit is far greener than driving and often than flying too.

Despite being widely viewed as a key solution in cutting emissions, the Tesla billionaire has spoken of his general disdain for public transit.

“It’s a pain in the ass,” he told an audience in 2017. “That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of whom might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that’s why people like individualized transport, that goes where you want, when you want.”

Tesla Canadian Gigafactory rumours are heating up

The company has recently been scouring sites in Quebec and Ontario, alongside visiting Nouveau Monde’s graphite mine and processing factory in Quebec

 

By Karandeep Oberoi @DeepReporting

 

SEP 2, 2022

After Berlin and Texas, Tesla might have plans to open a Gigafactory in Quebec.

As reported first by Electrek, Tesla is looking to hire “high volume” recruiters in Quebec, which might suggest that the next Gigafactory would be somewhere in Quebec as the company has used similar language for recruiting early positions at its Berlin and Texas Gigafactories.

Adding fuel to the rumour fire, during the company’s shareholders’ meeting in July, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Canada is a potential location for the company’s next Gigafactory. A Recording of a company-wide meeting obtained by Electrek back in June also suggested that Tesla is looking at new Gigafactory sites in North America, with Canada and Mexico being prime candidates.

Additionally, the company has recently been scouring sites in Quebec and Ontario, alongside visiting Nouveau Monde’s graphite mine and processing factory in Quebec, further suggesting that Tesla is serious about opening up a factory in the nation.

If true, the company could generate 5,000 to 10,000 jobs for Canadians in the area,whichd might also result in a slight cost reduction of Tesla vehicles nationwide.

According to Musk, Tesla’s next Gigafactory location should be disclosed by the end of 2022.

Oh Canada? Tesla Hiring Recruiters In Quebec: Is Gigafactory Canada Announcement Getting Closer?

byChris Katje, Benzinga Staff Writer
September 4, 2022 5:12 PM | 3 min read

ZINGER KEY POINTS

Tesla could have 10 to 12 Gigafactories over time to help support its production goals.

Elon Musk hinted an announcement of the next location could come by the end of the year.

Tesla Inc could have its eyes set on Canada as the location for its next Gigafactory. New reports of hiring for recruiters in the country could hint that an announcement could be made soon.

What Happened: 

Speaking at a shareholder event in August, Tesla CEO Elon Musk shared hints that the next Gigafactory location could be announced by the end of the year. Musk said that Tesla could have 10 to 12 gigafactories around the world to help ramp up production of its electric vehicles.

When speaking on the potential new Gigafactory, the crowd saw fans shout out Canada as a location for the next factory.

“I’m half Canadian. Maybe I should,” Musk said.

A lobby registration by Tesla in Canada also hinted that the company could be exploring a potential factory in the country.

Tesla has posted a job listing for a high-volume recruiter in Quebec, Canada according to a report from Teslarati. The job posting for a recruiter in Montreal, Quebec is similar to wording on past recruiters used in Gigafactory locations, the report notes. High-volume recruiters have been hired in areas like Austin, Texas and Grunheide, Brandenburg, locations near other Tesla Gigafactories.

“A great recruiter stands apart by excelling at talent identification, attraction, and assessment, and by developing deep partnerships with the business and within HR. Tesla is looking for a high volume, and extraordinary recruiter that stands out by doing all of the above combined with strong business acumen, a passion for their craft and a genuine commitment to providing an unforgettable candidate experience,” the job posting says.

A report from Electrek said Tesla has visited several locations in Canada for a potential factory.

No confirmation has been made by Tesla that Canada will be the home of the new Gigafactory. New job listings could suggest the company will make Canada the home of a new Gigafactory or additional Tesla future efforts. Tesla does have existing facilities in Canada thanks to ownership of Hibar Tesla Toronto Automation and financing of lithium battery research in the country.

Related Link: Tesla Q2 Earnings Highlights: Revenue Miss, EPS Beat, Bitcoin Converted To Fiat, Automaker Predicts 'Record Breaking' Second Half

Why It’s Important: Tesla has expanded its production capabilities outside the United States, with Gigafactory locations in Shanghai and Berlin. The newer international factory locations have helped the company expand production and deliveries in regions like Europe and Asia.

A new Gigafactory location could be important to help Tesla meet its long-term goals of production and deliveries.

Tesla’s third quarter financial results will likely be reported in October, and the company has its annual AI Day coming later this month. It is unclear how and when the company will announce the location of its Gigafactory location.

The recent visits to Canada and official lobbying efforts along with the recent job posting might make Canada the clear favorite.

TSLA Price Action: Tesla shares closed the week at $270.21, dropping 3% on Friday.

Photo courtesy Steve Jurvetson on Flickr and tesla.com

Tesla looks to hire ‘high volume’ recruiters in Quebec as rumors of a factory ramp up


Fred Lambert
- Sep. 2nd 2022 


Tesla Canada Factory

Over the past few months, we have been reporting on evidence that Tesla has been looking at a potential location in Canada for its next Gigafactory.

Tesla plans to ramp up production to 20 million electric vehicles by the end of the decade, and it is expected to need about eight more Gigafactories to do it.

In June, Electrek obtained a recording of a companywide meeting held by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, during which he confirmed that Tesla is looking at sites in North America, and the CEO hinted at Canada for Tesla’s next Gigafactory, which he says should be announced by the end of the year.

Musk did it again at Tesla’s annual shareholders’ meeting last month, and the effort was confirmed through a lobbying disclosure by the automaker with the Ontario government in Canada.

Yesterday, a local report stated that Tesla had visited Vale’s nickel operations in Canada and was scouting sites for a factory in Ontario and Quebec.

We also reported that Tesla visited a graphite mining and processing company based in Quebec’s battery valley.

Quebec likely?

Now we learn that Tesla is looking to hire recruiters in Quebec for a “high volume” recruiting effort (via the job posting – hat tip to Alex Oha):

A great recruiter stands apart by excelling at talent identification, attraction, and assessment, and by developing deep partnerships with the business and within HR. Tesla is looking for a high volume, an extraordinary recruiter that stands out by doing all of the above combined with strong business acumen, a passion for their craft, and a genuine commitment to providing an unforgettable candidate experience.

Tesla has used similar language about “high volume” recruiting for early positions at Gigafactory Berlin and Gigafactory Texas. Tesla generally employs between 5,000 and 10,000 at Gigafactories, and it requires significant recruiting efforts when staffing them.

It could be a sign that Tesla is planning to build a large operation, even its next Gigafactory, in the region.

The job is based in Montreal, but it is listed as “Recruiter, Quebec,” which generally means that the position covers the whole of Quebec.
Electrek’s Take

I know I have been making the argument that the next Tesla factory could end up in Quebec for a while now, and I’m obviously biased, but this is a very strong indicator here.

Similar positions have popped up in Austin and Berlin as Tesla was planning Gigafactories there.

I am starting to like Quebec’s chances.

Where in Quebec though? Battery Valley (around Becancour-Trois-Rivieres) would make sense, but it depends if Tesla is planning a full-scale Gigafactory with vehicle production or just battery production.

If it’s the former, I think something closer to Montreal would make more sense when it comes to recruiting a workforce of up to 10,000 people. Maybe a location within about one hour of Montreal, not unlike Gigafactory Berlin is to the city of Berlin.

I could see something around Granby or Drummondville, but those are just guesses.

CLIMATE CHANGE
The US agency in charge of developing fossil fuels has a new job: cleaning them up

The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management has a new name, new leaders, and a new mandate to meet Joe Biden’s climate goals.

By James Temple

archive page
September 2, 2022

The Department of Energy-supported Petro Nova project in Texas was the world’s largest coal plant equipped with carbon dioxide capture equipment. It prevented millions of tons of emissions, but was shuttered in 2020.NRG

In his first month in office, US President Joe Biden signed an executive order calling for the nation to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and achieve net-zero emissions across the economy by 2050.

That move redefined the mandate of the US Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy, the research agency whose mission has been to develop more effective ways of producing fossil fuels for almost half a century.

Now it’s responsible for helping to clean up the industry.

In July the agency, which has about 600 employees and a roughly $900 million budget, added “and Carbon Management” to its name, signaling a major part of its new mission: to help develop the technology and build an industry that can prevent the release of carbon dioxide from power plants and factories, suck it out of the air, transport it, and permanently store it.


The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) continues to operate a research division focused on the production of oil, gas, and coal. But it’s now named the Office of Resource Sustainability and its central task is minimizing the impacts from the production of those fossil fuels, says Jennifer Wilcox, a carbon removal researcher, who joined the office at the start of the Biden administration. She now serves as principal deputy assistant secretary of FECM, overseeing both research and development divisions along with Brad Crabtree, the assistant secretary of the office.

FECM’s efforts will be turbocharged by a series of recent federal laws, including the Inflation Reduction Act, which significantly boosts tax subsidies for carbon capture, removal, and storage. The CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law in August, authorizes (but doesn’t actually appropriate) $1 billion for carbon removal research and development at FECM. But most notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that Biden enacted in late 2021 will direct some $12 billion into carbon capture and removal, including pipelines and storage facilities.

The FECM will play a key role in determining where much of the money goes.

Jennifer Wilcox, a prominent carbon removal researcher, is the principal deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.

Following the passage of the infrastructure law, the Department of Energy announced a $2.5 billion investment to accelerate and validate ways of safely storing carbon dioxide in underground formations, as well as $3.5 billion in funding for pilot and demonstration projects aimed at preventing nearly all carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power plants and industrial facilities, such as those producing cement, pulp and paper, and iron and steel. It has also moved ahead with a $3.5 billion program to develop four regional hubs for direct-air-capture projects, an effort to develop factories that can suck at least 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year.

Last week, I spoke with Wilcox and Noah Deich, deputy assistant secretary for carbon management within FECM, about the new direction at the Department of Energy, where the billions of dollars will be put to work, and how they’re striving to address concerns about carbon capture and the ongoing harms from fossil fuels.

'We need to invest today'

Wilcox and Deich face a tricky balancing act.

Many environmentalists, social justice advocates, and those in the climate community fear that government subsidies, funding and support for carbon capture will extend the life of fossil-fuel plants, slow the shift to carbon-free energy sources, and grant a social license for ongoing extraction of oil and gas. In addition, a number of carbon capture projects that the Department of Energy heavily funded in the past subsequently shut down.

But the country still relies heavily on gas and coal plants. By funding and supporting pilot and demonstration projects, Wilcox and Deich stress, FECM is striving to reduce the risks and costs of carbon capture tools that could dramatically slash the nation’s emissions and reduce rising climate dangers. The hope is that this, in turn, will get more of the private sector to take on such projects on its own. In addition, they note that the investments FECM makes across the organization will all come with rigorous requirements, including environment justice commitments laid out in an earlier document.

Wilcox says parts of the criticism are correct: carbon capture and storage at natural-gas plants “is enabling more gas production.”

“But we don’t have a choice,” she adds. “It needs to be a part of our tool kit, and we need to invest today in order for us to even have the option.”

That’s because, despite the growth of clean alternatives like solar and wind, there’s a huge existing fleet of natural-gas and coal plants across the nation, many relatively new.

“The reality is, if we don’t invest in this solution, there’s going to be power plants that will continue to emit,” she says.

She adds that carbon capture is also crucial for cleaning up many industrial processes, which rely on heat from fossil-fuel-driven furnaces and where carbon dioxide is often a byproduct of production, as in cement and steel. Here too, it’s the only way to retrofit expensive industrial plants and factories already in place.

 
Related Story

Why the carbon capture subsidies in the climate bill are good news for emissions

Critics fear carbon capture will extend the life of fossil-fuel plants. But it can drive huge emissions declines in steel, cement, fertilizer, bioenergy, and beyond.


Wilcox notes there are 91 cement plants pumping out about 70 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, many with newer generation kilns, and all delivering a product of a specific quality that’s crucial to their customers and the safety of the structures made from it.

Adding carbon capture equipment to those facilities is critical.

“This is a solution that provides minimal barriers for adoption for the industry,” she says. “It’s a retrofit to an existing facility that they’ve already invested in.”

There are emerging alternative ways of producing steel, cement, and other industrial products that may allow these sectors to address emissions directly. Deich says we need to invest in and support those solutions, but he notes it could take decades to develop them, test them, and scale them up.

“We don’t have the time to wait when we have carbon management solutions that we think can be deployed within the next few years in a technically, economically, and socially responsible way,” he says.

Adding carbon capture equipment to facilities is just one aspect of the job. Wilcox and her team are also focused on removing carbon already in the atmosphere. There are criticisms of this concept too, including fears that it creates a moral hazard, inviting governments and companies to lean on it at the expense of cutting emissions.

Wilcox, however, says that carbon removal will be a critical tool for balancing out emissions from sectors of the economy that are really difficult to decarbonize, like aviation, maritime shipping, and agriculture. Numerous studies also find that the world may need to remove billions of tons per year by around midcentury to prevent the planet from heating more than 2 ˚C beyond preindustrial levels, or to pull it back from that threshold.


FECM is working toward Biden’s climate goals in several other ways as well, including supporting the development of clean forms of hydrogen, tools to monitor methane emissions, and more sustainable ways of extracting the critical minerals that will be essential for the transition to clean energy.
Social justice concerns

Burning fossil fuels produces various pollutants beside carbon dioxide that can harm human health. These disproportionately affect the poor communities that often surround power plants and other industrial facilities, raising social justice concerns.


Wilcox notes that both natural-gas plants and cement plants will actually need to implement additional processes to reduce some pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, as a first step for the carbon capture technology to work effectively. She adds that project applicants will also need to monitor these and other pollutants.

Deich says that the funding opportunities will also require companies to engage with communities, commit to develop local workforces, and assess climate emissions across their technologies’ life cycles and supply chains. They’ll also be expected to identify and address potential harms from the projects, ensure that benefits are distributed in equitable ways, and be willing to walk away if communities reject projects.

“We’re going to make sure that these projects only go in places where communities are not pushing against them,” he says

.

Noah Deich is the deputy assistant secretary for carbon management at the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.

By supporting projects that take these issues seriously and demonstrate that the technology can dramatically cut emissions, they hope to shift the conversation on carbon capture and dispel the blanket rejection of it in some circles, he says.

Another big open question is the extent to which the power sector, oil and gas companies, and heavy industry will want to move ahead with such expensive projects, given the costs, risks, and lack of policy mandates.

Wilcox responded that they already are, pointing to projects that FECM has already funded over the last two years, which include design studies for retrofitting several cement plants. There are also dozens of planned US carbon capture projects listed in the database maintained by the Global CCS Institute, including natural-gas and ethanol facilities.

Deich says companies are already feeling growing pressure from customers who want to cut emissions across their supply chains, and that they see where the business and regulatory trend lines are pointing. Those that hope to be in business in 2050 are beginning to take steps now.

“The people who move first will gain first-mover advantages. They will have the technical and human capital to be able to build these projects, cheaper, faster, more effectively,” he says. “In the long run, it’s a smart bet.”
hide

Scientists have discovered a method of turning plastic into diamonds, in the hopes of reducing the impact of pollution. The method aims to recreate the conditions found on Neptune and Uranus, which scientists have long believed produce diamond rain.

 

It's raining diamonds across the universe, research suggests

by Daniel Lawler

Uranus and Neptune, ice giants where scientists believe diamond rain falls below the surface.

It could be raining diamonds on planets throughout the universe, scientists suggested Friday, after using common plastic to recreate the strange precipitation believed to form deep inside Uranus and Neptune.

Scientists had previously theorized that extremely high pressure and temperatures turn hydrogen and carbon into solid diamonds thousands of kilometers below the surface of the ice giants.

Now new research, published in Science Advances, inserted oxygen into the mix, finding that "diamond rain" could be more common than thought.

Ice giants like Neptune and Uranus are thought to be the most common form of planet outside our Solar System, which means diamond rain could be occurring across the universe.

Dominik Kraus, a physicist at Germany's HZDR research lab and one of the study's authors, said that diamond precipitation was quite different to rain on Earth.

Under the surface of the planets is believed to be a "hot, dense liquid", where the diamonds form and slowly sink down to the rocky, potentially Earth-size cores more than 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) below, he said.

There fallen diamonds could form vast layers that span "hundreds of kilometers or even more", Kraus told AFP.

While these diamonds might not be shiny and cut like a "a nice gem on a ring", he said they were formed via similar forces as on Earth.

Aiming to replicate the process, the research team found the necessary mix of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in a readily available source—PET plastic, which is used for everyday food packaging and bottles.

Kraus said that while the researchers used very clean PET plastic, "in principle the experiment should work with Coca-Cola bottles".

The team then turned a high-powered optical laser on the plastic at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in California.

"Very, very short X-ray flashes of incredible brightness" allowed them to watch the process of nanodiamonds—tiny diamonds too small to see with the naked eye—as they formed, Kraus said.

"The oxygen that is present in large amounts on those planets really helps suck away the hydrogen atoms from the carbon, so it's actually easier for those diamonds to form," he added.

New way to make nanodiamonds?

The experiment could point towards a new way to produce nanodiamonds, which have a wide and increasing range of applications including drug delivery, medical censors, non-invasive surgery and quantum electronics.

"The way nanodiamonds are currently made is by taking a bunch of carbon or diamond and blowing it up with explosives," said SLAC scientist and study co-author Benjamin Ofori-Okai.

"Laser production could offer a cleaner and more easily controlled method to produce nanodiamonds," he added.

The diamond rain research remains hypothetical because little is known about Uranus and Neptune, the most distant planets in our Solar System.

Only one spacecraft—NASA's Voyager 2 in the 1980s—has flown past the two ice giants, and the data it sent back is still being used in research.

But a NASA group has outlined a potential new mission to the planets, possibly launching next decade.

"That would be fantastic," Kraus said.

He said he is greatly looking forward to more data—even if it takes a decade or two.'Diamond rain' on giant icy planets could be more common than previously thought

More information: Zhiyu He et al, Diamond formation kinetics in shock-compressed C-H-O samples recorded by small-angle X-ray scattering and X-ray diffraction, Science Advances (2022). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abo0617. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0617

Journal information: Science Advances 

© 2022 AFP

Diamond rain on giant icy planets could be more common than previously thought: Research

An experiment that simulated the conditions on ice giant planets like Neptune and Uranus has helped researchers discover that "diamond rains" may be more common on these planets than previously thought.

By: Tech Desk
Thalassery | September 5, 2022 



A cutaway that depicts the interior of Neptune with a layer of diamonds surrounding the solid planetary core. (Image credit: Greg Stewart/SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory)

A new study has found that “diamond rain” may be more common on ice giant planets like Neptune and Uranus than previously thought. For the first time, scientists were able to observe diamond rain as it formed with their experiment designed to mimic the extreme temperatures and pressure found on those planets.

Diamond rain forms when hydrogen and carbon found in the interior of these planets are squeezed by the high pressure and form solid diamonds that sink slowly further into the interior. The research has been published in the journal Nature Astronomy.

The researchers simulated the kind of environment found inside these planets by creating shock waves in plastic using an intense laser at the Matter in Extreme Conditions (MEC) instrument at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California.

Also Read |Research transforming our knowledge of dementia wins science prize

In the experiment, researchers used PET plastic, often found in food packaging, plastic bottles and containers, to reproduce the composition of these planets. “PET has a good balance between carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to simulate the activity in ice planets,” said Dominik Kraus, a physicist and professor at the University of Rostock, in a press statement.

As they created shockwaves in the plastic using the laser, they observed the atoms of the material rearrange into small diamond regions. They used a method called “small-angle scattering” to measure how fast and large those regions grew. The researchers found that these diamond regions grew up to a size of a few nanometres. With the presence of oxygen in the material, the nanodiamonds were able to grow at lower pressures and temperatures than was observed in previous experiments.

The research team predicts that the diamonds on Neptune and Uranus would become much larger than the nanodiamonds produced in these experiments; maybe even weighing in millions of carats. Over thousands of years, these diamonds could have slowly sunk through the planets’ icy layers to assemble as a thick layer around the solid planetary core.

Also Read |Digging Deep: What the discovery of Ostrich fossils in Himalayas reveals about our climate

This research also opens up the potential to produce nanodiamonds using this laser-driven method. Such nanodiamonds are already included in abrasives and polishing agents and in the future, they can potentially be used for quantum sensors, medical contrast agents and reaction accelerators for renewable energy.

“The way nanodiamonds are currently made is by taking a bunch of carbon or diamond and blowing it up with explosives. This creates nanodiamonds of various sizes and shapes and is hard to control. What we’re seeing in this experiment is a different reactivity of the same species under high temperature and pressure. In some cases, the diamonds seem to be forming faster than others, which suggests that the presence of these other chemicals can speed up this process,” said SLAC scientist and collaborator Benjamin Ofori-Okai, in a press statement.

According to Ofori-Okai, this laser production method could offer a cleaner and more easily controlled method to produce nanodiamonds.

Next, the researchers envision conducting similar experiments using liquid samples containing ethanol, water and ammonia, which is what Uranus and Neptune are mostly made out of. This will help them get even closer to understanding how diamond rain forms on other planet.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

First published on: 05-09-2022