Sunday, November 07, 2021

The Evolutionary Quirk That Allows Antarctica’s Icefish To Survive Extreme Cold

Unique adaptations allow the ambush predator to thrive in an environment that would kill most other organisms.

BY BILL SCHUTT
NOVEMBER 4, 2021

In Antarctica, the aptly-named icefish survives extreme cold thanks to an unusual suite of anatomical oddities. PALLY/ALAMY


This story is excerpted and adapted from Bill Schutt’s PUMP: A Natural History of the Heart, published in September 2021 by Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. All rights reserved.

WINTER IS COMING, AND WHEN it arrives, most organisms can’t simply throw down the snow shovel and head for their warm homes. Many have evolved unique mechanisms to deal with exposure to cold temperatures and the stresses that accompany them. For warm-blooded species, including those that do wield snow shovels, the body compensates for low external temperatures by working to hold internal temperatures relatively steady. Normally, our body temperature is maintained at around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Primarily, this occurs as an indirect result of metabolic processes like digestion and muscle contraction, since each produces heat as a byproduct of its chemical reactions.

Something very similar occurs when you turn on your car engine. Gasoline contains chemical bond energy. When mixed with air and ignited in a small space (one of your car’s cylinders), a controlled explosion results and the chemical bond energy is converted into the mechanical energy that spins your tires. Since no energy conversion is 100 percent efficient, some energy is lost during the process, here in the form of heat. You can demonstrate this yourself by asking someone you don’t like to place a hand on your car engine a few minutes after starting it. What they feel is the energy that has been lost during the conversion from chemical to mechanical energy. You can explain this to them once they stop screaming at you.

In the body, as heat is released, mostly during muscle contraction, it radiates out of the tissues where the reactions take place and into the adjacent thin-walled capillaries, warming them and the blood within. The warm blood flows back to the heart and is circulated throughout the body. As that happens, the heat leaves the blood and moves into the cooler surrounding tissues.

Animals that live in the Great Southern Ocean around Antarctica have evolved different ways of surviving the challenging environment. 
MARIE HICKMAN/GETTY IMAGES


But what keeps the temperature of the human body constant? Why don’t our bodies cool down when we step outside on a cold morning? The reasons relate to a section of the brain called the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is the command center for the autonomic nervous system, the portion of your nervous system that regulates most bodily functions without your conscious input. Those include the maintenance of the body’s internal environment, including body temperature.

Upon receiving nerve impulses from temperature receptors in the skin, the hypothalamus acts as a sort of thermostat to keep the body temperature stable. Detecting frigid temperatures, the hypothalamus initiates the previously described shunting away of blood from the peripheral structures like the fingers and toes. It also reduces blood flow to the skin, where superficial blood vessels allow heat to be quickly lost to the environment. Additionally, the hypothalamus sets up a series of involuntary heat-releasing muscle contractions, better known as shivering.

Interestingly, some temperature receptors in the skin “learn” to ignore inconsequential stimuli, which explains why stepping into a hot shower might be painful at first, but then becomes comfortable. The phenomenon is known as thermal adaptation. Something similar occurs on a tactile level when you put on socks. Initially, the brain receives signals from touch and pressure receptors in the skin of the feet and ankles, and you feel your socks being pulled on. Very soon, though, the nervous system begins to ignore these unimportant tactile stimuli, allowing you to concentrate on more important things, like making sure that you’ve put on socks that match. Sensory adaptation can also be related to smells or sounds. Fortunately, this process has its limits. For instance, the nervous system doesn’t adapt to stimuli that can be harmful, like putting on a sock with a burr inside or increasing blood pressure.

Seals, like whales and penguins, stay warm in chilly Antarctic waters thanks to layers of insulating fat and an internal thermostat that keeps the body’s temperature stable. MICHAEL NOLAN/GETTY IMAGES

The ability to internally maintain stable body temperature is known as endothermy, and those that exhibit it, like mammals and birds, are endotherms. This ability differentiates them from ectotherms, like fish, amphibians, and most reptiles. These so-called cold-blooded creatures require externally supplied energy (usually from the rays of the sun) to keep their bodies at a temperature at which tissues and organs can function properly.

Regardless of how consistent body temperature is maintained, it’s important that it be maintained. The myriad chemical reactions (that is, metabolic processes) taking place in the body can occur only when things like temperature are held within a very specific range. So how do ectotherms deal with the cold, specifically temperatures that would normally freeze their bodies and the liquids like blood found within them? For nearly all of them, the answer is hemoglobin.

Hemoglobin is an iron-containing molecule whose primary function is to pick up oxygen in the lungs or gills, then transport it and drop it off in the tissues. And, yes, a byproduct of this oxygen/hemoglobin interaction is the distinctive red color of vertebrate blood. But for those of you who might be wondering if there’s an exception to the red-blooded vertebrate rule, the answer is also yes, and that blood belongs to the Antarctic icefish (family Channichthyidae). Known to 19th-century whalers long before researchers snagged one in 1928, icefish are the only known vertebrates that lack hemoglobin as adults. Because of this, their blood is nearly clear.

The icefish of the Great Southern Ocean are the only vertebrates that lack hemoglobin in adulthood.
 PETE BUCKTROUT, BRITISH ANTARCTIC SURVEY

I first heard about these unique creatures during my three-semester tenure as an undergraduate marine science major at Southampton College on Long Island. Howard Reisman, my ichthyology professor there, taught me that icefish blood not only lacked hemoglobin, but it also contained a unique array of antifreeze proteins that allowed the fish to survive in temperatures that would normally freeze a body solid. Similar to the antifreeze in a car radiator, these substances function by chemically lowering the temperature at which freezing occurs. In the icefish, the antifreeze proteins restrict the growth of ice crystals in tissues, including blood, and in hollow structures like the heart and blood vessels. This opens some exciting avenues to medical researchers, who are experimenting with using antifreeze proteins to prevent damage to tissues and organs that are stored on ice before their use in transplants and related procedures.

Interestingly, this characteristic led a European food company to patent a strain of yeast that had been genetically modified to produce the very same antifreeze proteins found in icefish blood. In an amusing twist on the original function, the company currently uses the stuff to prevent crystals from forming in ice cream. More specifically, the edible antifreeze spares frozen dessert munchers from having to deal with the crunchy ice that can form when ice cream’s tiny crystals melt and then refreeze into larger, less palatable crystals. The antifreeze proteins work by latching on to the surface of the smaller crystals, thereby preventing them from clustering together into jumbo chunks.

Admittedly, my primary interest in icefish blood had nothing to do with improving mouthfeel for ice cream lovers. Instead, I wanted to know how icefish were able to evolve this weird bit of biology and still obtain enough oxygen to survive. According to University of Alaska Fairbanks icefish expert Kristin O’Brien, the explanation involves their habitat and a related quirk of physics, as well as their anatomy and behavior.


Icefish inhabit the deep waters of the Southern Ocean, also known as the Antarctic Ocean, since it encircles that particular continent. There are relatively few fish species living there and even fewer predators (mostly seals and penguins). Because of this, icefish face little or no competition for the krill, small fish, and crabs they feed upon. They are also ambush predators, which means that their movement consists of short and infrequent bursts of speed. Without much in the way of extended physical activity, their bodies require less oxygen.

The very first hemoglobin-free icefish ancestors were the result of a mistake.

The cold water itself offers the hemoglobin-free icefish an additional benefit: it holds more oxygen than warm water. This is because molecules in cold water move more slowly than in warm water. When the molecules move faster, it is easier for oxygen to break free from the H2O molecule and escape. As a result, cold water ends up hanging on to more oxygen, which is useful for the organisms that require it.

Research suggests that the very first hemoglobin-free icefish ancestors were the result of a mistake—a genetic mutation that occurred sometime around five million years ago. Fortunately, because of their oxygen-rich environment, this mutation didn’t immediately doom the ancient fish to extinction. According to O’Brien, what it did do is force an extensive remodeling of the icefish cardiovascular system. This evolutionary tweakage resulted in the fish having four times the blood volume and three times the blood vessel diameter of a similarly sized red-blooded fish, as well as a heart more than five times larger than one might expect. This means that although icefish blood pressure and heart rates are low, the volume of blood that leaves the heart with each contraction is high. Additionally, once the blood reaches muscles and organs, extremely dense capillary beds help improve the efficiency of gas exchange. Finally, in one innovative evolutionary twist, icefish have no scales covering their bodies, and so oxygen uptake occurs not just through the gills but also directly through the skin.

So, yes, originally, perhaps icefish ancestors were lucky to have lived where they did. Now, though, they have successfully compensated for the species’ lack of hemoglobin—the vital oxygen carrier found in the blood of pretty much every other vertebrate in existence.

Climate change: Thailand scientists perform 'coral IVF'

Scientists in Thailand are performing "coral IVF" in an attempt to protect reefs from rising sea temperatures. At Chulalongkorn University, marine biologists have been growing coral which is seemingly more resistant to higher sea temperatures to help combat the effects of climate change. 
Solar + Wind = 72% Of South Australia’s Electricity In October, World Not Turned Upside Down

South Australia was close to 100% renewable electricity in October, and everything went smoothly.


Photo by pexels/pixabay (free to use, CC0).

ByDavid Waterworth
Published 3 days ago

Sometimes the sun does shine and the wind does blow. That’s most of the time in South Australia, apparently. The average share of wind and solar during October was 72%. For 29 out of 31 days, 100% of the power used in South Australia (SA) was renewable. The sky didn’t fall, the grid didn’t collapse, and the apocalypse is not nigh.

South Australia has gone from being a power pariah to a hero, setting new records each month and acting as an example to the world.

Geoff Eldridge, an Energy Data Analyst at NEMLog, offers more data. “The maximum output of renewables was 129% of local demand on Sunday, October 3,” Eldridge says. As far as the max for a whole day, that was 107.3% on Sunday, April 4, 2020.

Renewables, supported by big batteries, are bringing consumers lower emissions, lower prices, and improved reliability. That’s some trifecta!

These lower prices may get even lower, as the federal government is finally starting to take a positive interest in the solar sector. It is aiming to reduce the price of electricity even further – by about 70%. It’s said that this will be needed to make green hydrogen a financial success.

Economies of scale will be the key. Remember Canon-Brookes and Twiggy Forest’s Sun Cable project? “Annual solar irradiation in Australia is the highest per square metre in the world, and we have significant land-mass suitable for large-scale solar developments, and proximity to large and growing markets,” ARENA states.

However, in a nod to old man coal, the Australian government is quick to point out that there is no intention of doing away with our current steam engine technology.

Perhaps we will now get some solar policy clarity from the federal government, though, which may lead to less perceived risk for investment, leading to lower-cost capital and eventually even lower-cost electricity.
New cell efficiently converts waste heat to energy

MINING.COM Staff Writer | November 4, 2021 

Waste heat. (Reference image by Stefan Gara, Flickr).

Scientists at Korea’s Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology have designed a novel hybrid thermoelectrochemical-concentration cell that outperforms similar state-of-the-art devices and shows promise in utilizing waste heat to generate electricity.


In a paper published in the Chemical Engineering Journal, the researchers point out that the cell opens the door to commercially feasible energy harvesting systems that could power IoT devices and sensors by leveraging thermal energy.

The article also explains that the conversion of a temperature difference into electricity is already possible through thermoelectrochemical cells (TECs). These devices can leverage waste heat to sustain a reduction-oxidation (redox) reaction that, in turn, produces electricity.

The problem is that, so far, TECs are lacking commercial implementations due to their low energy conversion efficiency, lacklustre output power, and costly fabrication.

Seeing these difficulties as opportunities, the DGIST researchers came up with a breakthrough in energy conversion that would make TECs viable for untethered low-power devices.

Led by Professor Hochun Lee, the group combined the operating principle of TECs with that of concentration galvanic cells, creating a hybrid thermoelectrochemical-concentration cell (TCC). Although TCCs are not a new concept, the design put forward by the team overcomes some critical limitations of existing TECs.

The TCC reported in this study is based on redox reactions involving iodine ions (I−) and triiodide (I3−). Different from what happens in conventional TECs, these reactions occur in a non-aqueous carbonate solution that uses dimethyl carbonate (DMC) as a solvent. This particular selection of materials creates a peculiar effect.

As the temperature of the hot side increased beyond 40°C, the DMC reacted with I− to produce a porous, gel-like layer of Li2CO3 near the hot electrode that helped maintain a large difference in the concentrations of I− and I3− throughout the cell, greatly boosting its performance.

“Our hybrid cell demonstrates a remarkable thermal conversion efficiency (5.2%) and outperforms the current best n-type TECs,” Lee said in a media statement. “In addition, the simple structure and fabrication process of our TCCs offer a practically feasible platform for thermal energy harvesting.”

In Lee’s view, further studies will be needed to refine this unprecedented approach to TCC design and, hopefully, achieve the goal of connecting multiple TCCs in series to reach commercially acceptable capabilities.

“IoT-connected societies will require economic and autonomous power sources for their IoT devices and sensors, and we believe TECs will be the ideal candidate to meet their needs,” Lee said.
NIMBY
Rocky road for Hydro Quebec clean energy corridor

Mainers voted against the project, which would supply Massachusetts with Quebec-made hydro power.

Legal fight begins over Hydro-Quebec line in Maine, with land partially cleared

Selena Ross
CTVNewsMontreal.ca 
Digital Reporter
Thursday, November 4, 2021 


MONTREAL -- The legal fight began immediately after Tuesday's referendum in Maine over a Hydro-Quebec power line worth $10 billion through the state.

It's no abstract battle of paperwork, as the transmission line is already under construction, and has been for almost a year.


The referendum results came in near midnight on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Maine's power corporation, which is responsible for building the power line, filed a lawsuit in Maine Superior Court arguing it's unconstitutional to allow the referendum to decide the project's future.

Related Stories
Maine voters reject $10 billion Hydro-Quebec deal; Quebec vows to fight

"This Initiative represents an extraordinary attempt to deprive a private party of vested rights in the construction and operation of a multi-year development project," they said in the legal complaint.

The company asked for a preliminary injunction allowing them to keep building.

The results on Tuesday struck a blow to Hydro-Quebec, which would earn $10 billion from the project. The transmission line would carry electricity to Massachusetts, passing through Maine to get there.

The company got the regulatory approvals needed to build it, though non-government groups collected enough signatures to force a referendum on its future.

On Wednesday, the power giant and Quebec Premier François Legault both pledged to fight the result, though Legault suggested that the answer may not be in a legal fight but in a "plan B" or different route.

But plenty of building has already been done in Maine, argued Avangrid, the company that owns Central Maine Power. They are building the line, called NECEC, as a project-specific entity named after it.

Building started in January 2021, they said.

"To date, NECEC LLC has expended approximately $449.8 million dollars on the Project, and substantial physical construction has occurred," they wrote in the court filing.

That includes about 124 miles of corridor that's "been cut," they said.

"Over 120 structures have been erected along" different segments of the line, and "over three miles of conductor" already strung.

They've begun preparing the site and the construction for a converter station as well.

On Thursday, a Maine environmental group applied to the state's environment department for their own stay, which would halt construction.

"Despite... the unequivocal repudiation of the NECEC Project by the people of Maine, Thorn Dickinson, President of NECEC Transmission, has vowed that [the power company] will continue constructing the banned corridor," wrote the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

The group argued that the only harm the power companies will suffer, if the stay is granted, is "monetary," while for locals the environmental changes can't be undone.

"An immediate stay is necessary to protect the public from the irreparable harm that will result from CMP’s continued clearing and construction," they wrote.

There was already a similar request underway, with the environmental department facing an older request to halt the project, in light of a court ruling finding that it didn't have the right to cross areas of public land, according to Maine news outlets.

On Thursday evening, a Hydro-Quebec spokesperson told CTV that it has no comment yet on the day's request for a stay since it hasn't seen it yet.



A hydro pole stands in the City of Toronto's west end on Friday, January 16, 2009. 
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette
Canada joins pledge to end public fossil fuel finance, shift resources to renewables

Bob Weber
The Canadian PressStaff
Thursday, November 4, 2021


Canada has joined the United States, United Kingdom and 21 other countries in a historic deal to stop new direct public finance for coal, oil and gas development by the end of 2022 and shift investment to renewable energy.

“It's a big deal,” said federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson from Glasgow, Scotland, the site of a United Nations-sponsored meeting on climate change.

“It's a signal that many countries in this world are making this commitment not to use public resources to finance further exploration and development for fossil fuels.”

Climate activists welcomed the deal.

“It shows that Canada recognizes the harmful social and economic impacts of fossil fuels and the urgent need to end global production and use,” said Alan Andrews of Ecojustice, an environmental law firm.

But industry groups responded warily.

“We believe responsible energy producers such as Canada should be playing a larger role in meeting global energy demand,” said Jay Averill of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Few details were immediately available about the deal. It commits signatories to stop using loans, loan guarantees, grants, share purchases and insurance coverage from any government or government agency to finance new international fossil fuel developments.

Oil Change International, a group that monitors fossil fuel financing, says an average of about $78 billion a year flows to such projects. It estimates Thursday's deal could affect about $22 billion of that.

But in Canada, the issue is complicated by the fact that Export Development Canada, through which most of that financing flows, is involved with both international and domestic deals.

Wilkinson said the new agreement will affect about $1 billion in financing from the agency, roughly what was committed to such projects last year. That money could now be used for renewable energy projects.

“It certainly opens up that potential,” Wilkinson said. “(Export Development Canada's) mandate, increasingly, is very much focused on a net-zero portfolio.”

The deal also allows governments to keep funding projects in which carbon emissions are “abated,” or that are consistent with reduction targets. Canada is still free to finance developments such as carbon capture, Wilkinson said.

“This does not affect financing to support clean technology investments that are about reducing emissions.”

The government still has to figure out how the deal will specifically apply in Canada, said Wilkinson. There are also clauses that allow fossil finance “in limited circumstances” - details that need to be worked out.

“They drafted it in fairly general terms with a number of provisions that do require further detail,” he said. “We are going to define exactly what Canada means by that.”

Bronwen Tucker of Oil Change International said that could be a loophole.

“There's a way to do it in good faith and a way to do it in bad faith.”

Everything depends on how fossil fuel investment is defined, said Tucker.

“I do have some concerns there.”

She said Canada has for years been one of the world's top public financiers of fossil fuels, averaging about $13.6 billion a year.

Wilkinson acknowledged the deal doesn't include China, Japan or Korea - the world's other top fossil fuel funders. He said he hopes those countries will eventually sign on just as they recently signed on to deals to stop financing international coal development.

“We're going to work to expand the coalition and work to put pressure on all actors, including China, to ensure that it moves in this direction as well.”

In Alberta, provincial Energy Minister Sonya Savage said the deals the Liberal government is agreeing to in Glasgow make Canada an “outlier” in a world that's ramping up fossil fuel production, not shutting it down.

“It sends the wrong message to investors,” she said, dismissing COP26 as a “photo op.”

The COP26 deal adds to previous government commitments.

During the recent election campaign, the Liberals said they would eliminate fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Export Development Canada has said by 2023, it will reduce support to the six most carbon-intensive sectors by 40 per cent below 2018 levels and set “sustainable finance targets” by July 2022.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 4, 2021


Varcoe: Oilpatch seeks answers on emissions cap amid fears of throttled production

'People forget we’re actually pretty aligned with the federal government on this. They have a net-zero target in 2050 and that’s the same target we have come out with'

Author of the article: Chris Varcoe • Calgary Herald
Publishing date: Nov 04, 2021 • 2 days ago 

Steam rises from the Syncrude Canada Ltd. facility in the Athabasca oilsands near Fort McMurray, Alberta.
 PHOTO BY BEN NELMS/BLOOMBERG FILES


A new federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions is coming for the Canadian oil and gas industry.

Does it mean the end of growth for a key sector of the economy?

Will it cause investment, jobs and production to shift outside of the country?

Or will it activate massive spending in new emissions-reduction projects?

So many questions. So little clarity. So much is at stake.

“We are not particularly fussed by a cap on emissions, subject to a couple of provisos,” Cenovus Energy CEO Alex Pourbaix said in an interview Wednesday.

“Those caps must correspond to the industry’s ability to actually, physically reduce its GHG emissions . . . These are things that cannot be done overnight.”

Pourbaix, who is chair of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), also believes a price on carbon needs to be applied globally.

It’s something Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pushed for at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow this week — and something that isn’t in place in the United States.

Aside from the federal government’s plan to cap oil and gas emissions, Ottawa has already established a national price on carbon, which is set to rise to $170 by the end of this decade.

While the U.S. and more than 100 other countries have signed on to reducing methane emissions by 30 per cent by the end of 2030, Canada has gone further, announcing a planned cut of 75 per cent.

A price on carbon needs to be applied globally “so that early movers like Canada, in terms of decarbonizing their economy, are not handicapped by other countries that have no interest in pricing carbon or putting any restrictions on their industry,” said Pourbaix.

Alex Pourbaix, CEO of Cenovus, was photographed in the company’s Calgary offices on Wednesday Dec. 19, 2018.
 PHOTO BY GAVIN YOUNG/POSTMEDIA

The international climate conference in Scotland will help determine just how ambitious countries are prepared to be in the coming years.

At COP26, Trudeau announced his government will become the first major oil and gas-producing county to adopt such an emissions cap on the industry.

Back at home, Ottawa remains in discussion with the sector on a proposed federal tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects, which would sequester CO2 emissions underground.

The technology could make a major difference for oilsands operators and other industrial sectors as the country strives to reach its net-zero target by 2050.

On Wednesday, ConocoPhillips Canada joined an alliance of five other major oilsands producers, including Cenovus and Suncor Energy, that have agreed to jointly pursue net-zero emissions within three decades.

“What it really does is just show the interest right across our entire industry in reducing emissions,” said Al Reid, director of the alliance.

The group has said its longer-term plans could cost up to $75 billion over three decades; it is seeking federal assistance to help foot the bill.

Alberta has called for at least $30 billion in federal incentives over the span of a decade.

“People forget we’re actually pretty aligned with the federal government on this. They have a net-zero target in 2050 and that’s the same target we have come out with,” said Pourbaix.

These two sides are singing from the same song sheet, for now.

But Premier Jason Kenney vowed earlier this week his government will fight any anti-oil push to “leave it in the ground.”

As for future oil and gas production increases in Canada, that will depend on several factors, including commodity prices, investor pressure and the ability of companies to move product to markets.

“It obviously depends on where the cap is set,” said Pourbaix.

“I expect on a go-forward basis, you will continue to see growth, but it’s going to be a lot more measured.”

The federal government has referred many of these tough questions about the emissions cap to its net-zero advisory board. The group will face an enormous challenge to help the government establish five-year milestones for the industry.

According to federal officials, the cap will apply to emissions from conventional oil and natural gas production, as well as the oilsands.



So far, there has been little communication with the province or industry players about details of the federal limit.

The head of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC) said companies are committed to lowering their emissions, but the group’s members — small and intermediate-sized producers — are frustrated by a lack of consultation from Ottawa.

“There’s been no engagement whatsoever from anyone in the federal government on the cap. We have no idea what it is,” said EPAC president Tristan Goodman.

If these federal measures serve to crimp production, it could push investment and jobs into other oil-producing countries that don’t have the same rules in place.

“Leadership is a good thing until you’re out leading and no one is following — and then you are just all by yourself,” said energy consultant Greg Stringham.

The provincial government already has a 100-megatonne emissions cap on the oilsands, which was adopted by the former Notley government, although the implementing regulations are not in place.

Total emissions from the oilsands sector (as defined by the provincial cap) reached 64 megatonnes in 2019, although the federal government views it as being closer to 83 megatonnes under its criteria, said analyst Kevin Birn of energy consultancy IHS Markit.

IHS has projected oilsands emissions peaking within the decade (even before the oilsands alliance was formed and adopted tougher targets) while total Canadian oil production is projected to climb until the early 2030s.

However, much will depend on the new federal limit.

“A cap on oil and gas emissions, if it is too stringent and too soon, will reduce and throttle production output,” said Birn.

“And when it does that, those production barrels aren’t necessarily going to disappear from the world. They just won’t be produced by Canada.”

Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.




Instead of writing big cheques to fight climate change, billionaires should just pay taxes: environmentalist

Experts say that structural change, not donations from the

 wealthy, is needed

Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos pledged $2 billion to fund climate change mitigation projects at COP26 this week, as part of the Bezos Earth Fund. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/The Associated Press)

Our planet is changing. So is our journalism. This story is part of a CBC News initiative entitled Our Changing Planet to show and explain the effects of climate change and what is being done about it.


Billionaires, celebrities and royalty were front and centre at this week's COP26 climate conference in Glasgow. Jeff Bezos pledged to donate $2 billion. Leonardo DiCaprio met with world leaders. Prince William criticized billionaires who seemed more focused on flying to space than fixing the planet.

But some experts say the billions pledged by Bezos, the founder and former CEO of Amazon, are little more than a distraction from the real issues at hand.

"People hear $2 billion and they're like whoa, $2 billion," said Jessica Dempsey, an associate professor in the department of geography at the University of British Columbia.

She points to a study that found the largest banks funnelled $2.6 trillion into sectors known to degrade biodiversity in 2019. So, Bezos's donation is great. But it's a drop in the bucket.

"Two billion dollars, while it's huge, is actually very small," she said. "What we should be talking about is much more structural."

Dempsey says the climate crisis should not depend on the charity of billionaires. Governments need to set up proper taxation systems to make sure people like Bezos and companies like Amazon pay their fair share.

Amazon paid no federal income tax in 2018 even though it made more than $11 billion in profits. Bezos personally uses tax loopholes to pay himself through low interest loans against his Amazon stock. Debt isn't taxed, so Bezos lives largely tax free, even though he's one of the richest men in the history of the world.

World's wealthiest are top carbon emitters: report

Meanwhile, one new study found that by 2030, the carbon footprints of the richest one per cent are expected to reach 30 times the level compatible with the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The author of that report says it's not just the space tourism that Bezos and other billionaires have been promoting that's leading to higher emissions.

  • Have questions about COP26 or climate science, policy or politics? Email us: ask@cbc.ca. Your input helps inform our coverage.

"It's the private jets, it's the mega yachts, it's the multiple homes — all of this stuff comes with a massive carbon footprint," said Tim Gore of the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

"The idea that these are the people we need to listen to understand how to tackle the climate crisis is really bonkers," he told the CBC Radio program Day 6.

WATCH | Greta Thunberg denounces COP26 as a failure: 

Greta Thunberg denounces COP26 as a failure

2 days ago
2:22
Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg spoke before a climate rally in Glasgow on Friday, where she criticized the political leaders of the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference, also taking place in Scotland, for failing to produce any real change for the environment.(Credit: REUTERS/Russell Cheyne) 2:22

Gore says the voices we need to hear from now are not the billionaires and celebrities. He says we need to hear from the people living on the front lines of climate change.

He wishes conferences like COP26 spent more time fighting for and talking about issues such as inequality that allow for billionaires to flourish while the global poor suffer the harshest effects of climate change.

"If Bezos wants to put up a few billion, that's obviously welcome," Gore said. "I think it would be much better, though, to see fair systems of taxation through which that money is directed in an accountable way by governments."

'There's a problem in capitalism,' says business prof

It's not just environmental activists clamouring for change.

Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the School for Environment and Sustainability, wrote an op-ed in the publication The Conversation late last year.

He says there's a fundamental business case for a more transparent, more fair system.

A banner on a building in Glasgow is critical of the COP26 climate conference taking place in the city. Experts say that while donations from billionaires are welcome, more direct steps — such as taxation — should be taken, as a recent report finds the world's wealthiest are among the highest emitters of carbon. (Alberto Pezzali/The Associated Press)

"Markets can't function properly when government doesn't work," he wrote about Bezos's announcement last year to pour more than $10 billion into climate-related projects. "[His] gift is emblematic of the broader issue of money and the ways it clouds our society's ability to address the fundamental challenges we face."

In an interview with Day 6, Hoffman said the looming climate catastrophe sits at an uncomfortable intersection of economics, environment and governance. To fix one, the others must be in working order.

"Right now there's a problem in capitalism and that is the government is extremely weak and fractioned and divisive and unable to do things," he said.

"The idea of a billionaire coming forward and saving the day, that may feed the ego of the billionaire — but I'm not so sure it's going to solve the problem."

And the problem is getting worse by the day. Hoffman says everyone on the planet is contributing to the crisis, and everyone must do their part to keep emissions low. That includes billionaires.

But more than anything else, it requires global, co-ordinated efforts and a clear way to make sure everyone can pay the bill.

Interview with Tim Gore produced by Annie Bender. With files from Jason Vermes.


World's richest 1 per cent will emit too much to limit global warming to 1.5 C: study


Jackie Dunham

CTVNews.ca Writer
Friday, November 5, 2021

TORONTO -- The carbon footprints of the world’s richest one per cent are expected to be 30 times higher than the level needed to limit global warming to the 1.5 C target set out in the Paris Agreement in 2030.

That’s according to a new study commissioned by Oxfam and based on research carried out by the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

The researchers sought to estimate how governments’ pledges will affect the carbon footprints of richer and poorer people around the world. To do this, they treated the global population and income groups as if they were a single country.

They found that the richest one per cent and the richest 10 per cent of the population are on track to emit 30 times and nine times, respectively, more carbon dioxide than the level compatible with the 1.5 C goal.

To put this statistic into perspective, someone in the richest one per cent of the population would need to reduce their emissions by approximately 97 per cent compared with today in order to meet the required level.

The poorest half of the global population, on the other hand, will still emit far below the 1.5 C-aligned level, according to the study.

“Over the past 25 years, the richest 10% of the global population has been responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions… Rank injustice and inequality on this scale is a cancer. If we don’t act now, this century may be our last,” Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General, was quoted as saying in the study.

As for why the carbon footprints of the super-rich are so much higher than those of the rest of the world’s population, the researchers cited billionaires’ houses, vehicles, private aircraft, and yachts as the main culprits.

The study’s authors pointed to a recent study in which 82 databases of public records were analyzed and showed that billionaires’ carbon footprints easily run to thousands of tonnes per year, with superyachts being the biggest contributor, each one adding 7,000 tonnes per year.

The researchers said that earlier studies have shown that flights, especially on private jets, have also played a large role in increasing the carbon footprints of the rich and famous.

So has – more recently and “most egregiously,” according to the study – the introduction of “hyper-carbon-intensive luxury travel space tourism” in 2021. For example, a single 10-minute flight for around four passengers can burn hundreds of tonnes of carbon, the researchers said.

“Looking at total global emissions, instead of per capita emissions, the richest 1 per cent – fewer people than the population of Germany – are expected to account for 16 per cent of total global emissions by 2030, up from 13 per cent in 1990 and 15 per cent in 2015,” the researchers said.


With global leaders meeting to discuss climate change priorities at the COP26 conference in Glasgow this week, the study’s authors urged governments to commit to a timetable to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 1.5 C goal on an equitable basis.

“It is time for governments to raise major taxes on or to outright ban highly carbon-intensive luxury consumption, from SUVs to mega yachts, private jets and space tourism, that represent a morally unjustified depletion of the world’s scarce remaining carbon budget,” the study’s authors wrote.

While the study painted a grim picture for the planet’s future climate targets, there was one glimmer of hope among the findings.

The Oxfam report found the middle 40 per cent of the world’s population are on course for per capita emissions cuts of nine per cent from 2015 to 2030, a sign that the 2015 Paris Agreement is having some impact.

“This is a turnaround for a group, which is mostly made up of citizens in middle-income countries like China and South Africa, that saw the fastest per capita emissions growth rates from 1990 to 2015,” the researchers said.

Fossil fuels made our families rich. Now we want this industry to end


Aileen Getty and Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert

Congress must help usher in a new energy age - a clean energy age with the same level of support that fossil fuels companies have received for over a century


A demonstrator dressed as a dinosaur protests the BTG Pactual Bank, which does business with companies that explore fossil fuels in the Amazon region. 
Photograph: Carla Carniel/Reuters
Sat 6 Nov 2021

Over a century ago, our families were central in unlocking fossil fuels. Government embraced this technological advancement and invested in the infrastructure and production needed for its growth. Our personal histories compel us to publicly acknowledge what we have known for many years: the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is killing life on our planet.

Fossil fuels killed 8.7 million people globally in 2018 – disproportionately impacting Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities. Human lives aren’t the only ones being lost. More than 1 billion sea creatures along the Canadian coast were cooked to death during this summer’s record-breaking heatwave in the Pacific Northwest.

Fossil fuels are a technology of the past – leftovers of a bygone era when we believed we could force our will on nature and disregard the connectivity of all living beings.

The latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed that some climate impacts are already irreversible and that only through immediate, internationally coordinated action can we hope to avoid the most severe consequences. UN Secretary General António Guterres called the report “a code red for humanity.” The terrifying reality is that inaction, or even half-measures, will cost countless lives. Yet Congress is still not reacting to the climate emergency with the urgency that a humanity-threatening crisis demands.

There is nothing left to debate. The science is clear on what needs to happen and many organizations have already created a blueprint to follow.

To start, Congress must help usher in a new energy age – a clean energy age with the same level of support that fossil fuels companies have received for over a century. A rapid managed transition off fossil fuels – including an end to new refineries, infrastructure, and pipelines like Line 3 that lock in more dangerous pollution and warming emissions – can prevent the worst of the climate crisis while securing a future where our communities and the planet thrive. Including safeguards to ensure good jobs for workers in transition and responsible land management will help revive our economy while tackling environmental injustice, and systemic racism.

In addition, in the coming weeks, Congress must use the budget reconciliation bill to end all federal support for the fossil fuel industry. Every year, $15bn of our taxpayer money goes directly to fossil fuel companies in the form of subsidies. That’s just the tip of the iceberg of the corporate welfare received by the industry most responsible for the climate crisis.

These handouts don’t mean jobs. Research from the Stockholm Environment Institute revealed that over 96% of the subsidies in the tax code go directly to profits. This point was hammered home last year when large fossil fuel companies received $8.2bn from the CARES Act pandemic relief bill and still laid off 16% of their workforce. Tax dollars need to support people, not polluters.

In addition to policy shifts, we must also find our way back to a deeper connection to the Earth, its well-being and our place in it. The global response to climate change must acknowledge our interconnection with nature and re-awaken our love for and connection with each other and the natural world. And we must realize that this interconnectedness is, itself, a natural resource that should not be discounted.

The two of us are intensely aware that our families’ history with oil has granted us tremendous privilege. With that privilege comes the opportunity to contribute to a world where all have the chance to thrive. We are joining so many others who are urging our elected leaders to listen to the science and understand the fundamental truth that we can’t build back better unless we build back fossil-free. We can harness the great American ingenuity and resourcefulness to steer us and the world toward a safer and more just future.

Aileen Getty is the founder of the Aileen Getty Foundation and the co-founder of the Climate Emergency Fund

Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert is the co-founder of the Equation Campaign and serves on the boards of the Rockefeller Family Fund and the David Rockefeller Fund


Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

$11tn fossil fuel asset crash could cause 2008-style financial crisis, warns new study

Q&A: how fast do we need to cut carbon emissions?

Jonathan Watts, Ashley Kirk, Niamh McIntyre, Pablo Gutiérrez and Niko Kommenda
Thu 4 Nov 2021

About half of the world’s fossil fuel assets will be worthless by 2036 under a net zero transition, according to research.

Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy.

It highlights the risk of producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand, which is estimated to leave $11tn-$14tn (£8.1tn-£10.3tn) in so-called stranded assets – infrastructure, property and investments where the value has fallen so steeply they must be written off.

The lead author, Jean-Francois Mercure of the University of Exeter, said the shift to clean energy would benefit the world economy overall, but it would need to be handled carefully to prevent regional pockets of misery and possible global instability.

“In a worst-case scenario, people will keep investing in fossil fuels until suddenly the demand they expected does not materialise and they realise that what they own is worthless. Then we could see a financial crisis on the scale of 2008,” he said, warning oil capitals such as Houston could suffer the same fate as Detroit after the decline of the US car industry unless the transition is carefully managed.

The challenge is evident at the ongoing Cop26 climate conference, where some of the nations most at risk of being left with stranded assets – such as the oil and gas exporters Russia and Brazil – are likely to try to slow down the transition as they have done at previous climate meetings, while those most likely to gain – such as the fuel-importing EU – are pushing for faster action.

The new paper, published in Nature Energy, illustrates how a drop in demand for oil and gas before 2036 will reshape the geopolitical landscape. Current investment flows and government commitments to reach net zero emissions by 2050 will make renewable energy more efficient, cheaper and stable, while fossil fuels will be hit by more price volatility. Many carbon assets, such as oil or coal reserves, will be left unburned, while machinery will also be stranded and no longer produce value for its owners.

The most vulnerable assets are those in remote regions or technically challenging environments. Most exposed are Canadian tar sands, US shale and the Russian Arctic followed by deep offshore wells in Brazil and elsewhere. North Sea oil is also relatively expensive to extract and likely to be hit when demand falls.


By contrast, current oil, gas and coal importers such as the EU, Japan, India and South Korea, will reap hefty economic dividends from the transition because they will be able to use the money they save on overseas fuel purchases to invest in their own countries, including money for renewables that will modernise infrastructure, create jobs and improve energy independence.

The situation for the world’s two biggest emitters – the US and China – is more complex as they have more diversified economies with both substantial fossil fuel assets and powerful renewable sectors. The UK is in a similar situation, but as a net energy importer, stands to benefit overall.

Much depends on the speed and spread of decarbonisation, along with the tactics used by fossil fuel exporters to sell off their assets before they lose value. To assess the impacts, the study explored several different scenarios.
Big oil wisely acts as a climate ally, but the rising crude price is far from net zero

The likes of BP and Shell promise a ‘transition’ to green energy backed by their revenues. They need to convince us further

Petroineos’s Grangemouth refinery in Scotland. The traditional oil business is generating cash once again. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
Sun 7 Nov 2021 07.00 GMT

Executives at big oil and gas companies, at least the European ones, have spent the past two years trying to change the narrative. The likes of BP and Shell have trumpeted their net zero plans, declared themselves to be “transitioning” to a cleaner energy future and talked up the historical significance of new targets. Think of us as part of the solution, was the message.

To climate activists and politicians demanding faster decarbonisation, the industry’s reply has been that switching off investment in oil and gas too quickly would create a supply crisis: instead what’s needed are “integrated” energy companies that can recycle cashflows from hydrocarbons and build the green infrastructure of tomorrow

And, up to a point, the pitch has worked. The heaviest pressure has been directed instead at those industry giants viewed as disengaged laggards or refuseniks. Remember how tiny hedge fund Engine No 1 managed to ge transition-minded candidates on to the board at ExxonMobil, while at Chevron, 61% of investors backed a proposal from Dutch campaign group Follow This to force faster cuts in emissions.

But a year on from BP and Shell’s big announcements, their boards are mistaken if they think they now have a clear run to 2050 and that it’s just a matter of executing shareholder-backed plans. Trouble is bubbling on at least three fronts.

First, note the absence of oil executives, even the transitioning sort, in formal roles at Cop26 in Glasgow. Executives were confined to side meetings because their net-zero goals aren’t deemed to be science-based. That’s because the measurement methodology doesn’t yet exist, the companies would argue. But they are open to the charge of marking their own homework. Governments or voters may yet conclude that last year’s grand declarations simply don’t go far enough.

Second, Shell has been challenged on its integration-is-best thesis. High-profile US hedge fund Third Point says the company has “too many competing stakeholders pushing it in too many different directions, resulting in an incoherent, conflicting set of strategies attempting to appease multiple interests but satisfying none”. It suggests an alternative: split Shell into several standalone units and allow the renewables-focused arm to invest more aggressively, backed by a united set of shareholders. The climate would benefit, it argues.

That last point is debatable, it should be said. The legacy upstream and refining business wouldn’t necessarily cut capital expenditure, as Third Point assumes. And Shell’s renewables business isn’t yet large and may require years of backing from oil and gas cashflows.

Jessica Uhl, Shell’s chief financial officer, also argued recently that 120 years of accumulated technical expertise in energy is vital for delivering complex technological projects such as integrated carbon capture, biofuels and hydrogen facilities.

An activist hedge fund like Third Point primarily just wants, one suspects, a higher share price, but it has ignited a debate. Its argument that “sentimental” attachment to a “super major legacy” results in “incrementalism” may run and run.

Third – and far less nuanced – it’s impossible to miss the vast sums of cash currently being generated by oil companies when a barrel of Brent fetches $85. “We’re a cash machine at these types of prices,” said BP chief executive Bernard Looney last week, promising investors $1bn-a-quarter share buybacks as long as the price remained above $60.

According to this script, none of the spoils of the unexpected cash bonanza will be redirected towards extra investment in renewables, beyond the increase to $5bn a year by 2030 that BP has already pledged.

Is that fair? It’s what was agreed with investors, Looney might argue, but that answer would appear very self-satisfied. Expectations change. What sounded like a big strategic reset a year ago feel less impressive today. Even under its own definition of transitioning, big oil can afford to pick up the pace. To properly change the narrative, it should.

Bailey needs to learn how to lower and raise expectations


Andrew Bailey went on a media blitz after Thursday’s meeting of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. It wasn’t just the usual short clips either; Threadneedle Street’s governor did a long turn on Radio 4’s Today programme the next morning.

Nothing unusual in that, it might be thought. But the Bank normally goes to these lengths only when it has actually done something, whereas Bailey was popping up everywhere to try to explain why he and his colleagues had left policy unchanged. That’s a measure of how bad the Bank’s communications have been.

At one point in the press conference announcing the decision to leave interest rates at 0.1%, Bailey said it was “not our responsibility to steer markets on interest rates” – a comment that would raise eyebrows at the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB), where managing expectations is part of the job description. What’s more, when Bailey said last month that the Bank would have to act to curb inflationary pressure, it was a clear attempt to steer markets. As it turns out, a rather ham-fisted one.

Nor is anything much clearer now. After surprising the markets by its inaction, the Bank’s current message is that interest rates will need to rise in the coming months – but only if post-furlough data from the labour market is strong enough to warrant such a move.

Bailey deserves to be cut some slack. He is still relatively new to the job and deciding what to do about interest rates is not easy when the economy is both slowing and being hit by cost increases for the most part beyond the control of the Bank.

That said, he needs to study how other bank governors communicate. Mario Draghi, former head of the ECB, was an absolute master at getting his message across. By comparison, Bailey looks a novice.

London’s flotations look a lot less buoyant


Two months ago, London’s crop of newly floated businesses appeared in fine fettle. In September, THG, Britain’s great e-commerce hope formerly known as The Hut Group, was valued at £8.3bn, while Darktrace, the cybersecurity firm set up by mathematicians and former spies, had a market capitalisation of £7bn. Today, investors value both combined at barely north of £6bn.

Shares in loss-making Manchester-based THG, which runs retail websites such as Lookfantastic and Zavvi, have cratered as investors reassess the prospects of the business model and the level of control held by its leader and 22% shareholder, Matt Moulding. From a high of 800p in January, the shares hit a low of 198p last week, far below last September’s 500p launch price – at the time the biggest London Stock Exchange debut since Royal Mail in 2013. The gyrations suggest investors are struggling to value tech plays on the capital’s market.

The same is true of Darktrace, which floated in April at a conservative 250p, before racing in value from £1.7bn to £7bn. However, a recent critical analysts’ note and fears of a mass sell-off of stock by insiders have seen its share price almost halve.

While the LSE still has some winners – notably fintech firm Wise, which has held its value since becoming the largest-ever listing of a UK tech company earlier this year, and the stellar debut of biotech firm Oxford Nanopore in September – there is now caution in the air.

Last week, industrial products provider Rubix Group canned a planned IPO in London, citing “difficult ongoing conditions”, having announced the intention to float only last month. Similarly Marley, the biggest producer of roof tiles in Britain, abandoned its £500m IPO – blaming “market volatility” – less than three weeks after announcing it.

Add the experience of Czech fleet services firm Eurowag, described as the Uber of trucking, which endured a disastrous debut last month, and it would appear that investors fuelling the red-hot IPO market could be leaving London in the cold.

Victoria climate rally part of global day of action

The event, organized by Climate Justice Victoria, saw about 70 people take part in a 40-minute long march from Centennial Square to the B.C. legislature.
web1_copy_vka-climate-11886
Climate activists march down Government Street on Saturday, Nov. 6, 2021 as they make their way from Centennial Square to the B.C. legislature as part of a global day of action coinciding with the COP26 UN global climate summit in Glasgow. DARREN STONE, TIMES COLONIST

Concerned citizens in Victoria marched in tandem with others from around the world on Saturday as part of a global day of action coinciding with the COP26 UN global climate summit in Glasgow.

The local event, organized by Climate Justice Victoria, saw about 70 people take part in a 40-minute long march from Centennial Square at 11 a.m. — timed to match similar demonstrations taking place across the world. The global events were organized by the U.K.-based COP26 Coalition.

Vancouver and Toronto were among the cities where similar events were held.


“The event was a push to get the message out for the need for a change in economic policy — both federally and internationally — to make climate justice a reality,” said D’Arcy Briggs, spokesperson for Climate Justice Victoria.

“Although today’s march was the most visible action, we have also been working hard in the background to make a transition to a climate friendly economy and to build a safe and healthy world.”

The group also endorses an end to urban highway expansion and having public transit switch to using renewable energy, such as electricity.

After the march, the group stayed to listen to a cross-section of speakers, including representatives from Our Earth Our Future, a youth environmental group.

Briggs said that they received positive feedback from the public during their event, with many motorists honking their horns in support.

parrais@timescolonist.com