Search the archive.

Solid waste management is a severe issue in urban areas. In urban areas due to various industries like chemical and pharmacological as well as the technological development use the large quantity of material and simultaneously generate the high amount of solid waste materials (Yukalang et al. 2018). Solid waste generated from urban areas contains municipal waste, hospital waste, industrial waste, hazardous waste, etc. This waste includes bad smell and poisonous gases responsible for thegeneration of vector of different diseases (Haque and Talukder 2021). The dumping of solid waste on land without treatment cause leaching of harmful material to cause water pollution as well as burning of solid waste causes the air pollution the famous example of air pollution is burning on Parana landfill site (Przydatek and Kanownik 2019). Contamination of water with organic chemicals, metals, metalloids, and bacteria from untreated or poorly treated wastewater and seepage. As a result, the soil becomes salinized and solidified (Muyen et al. 2011; Jamwal and Lele 2017).

Result of rapid urbanization leads to the rise in global temperature. As the industries release various air pollutants, these pollutants having multiple greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. (Arsalan et al. 2020), addition of this pollutant into the atmosphere increases the concentration of green- house gases. Now these gases absorb reflected solar radiation and cause the rise the global temperature and ultimately global warming (Abdollahbeigi 2020). Moreover, urbanization also cause the urban heat island effect in which the temperature of the metropolitan area increases compared to the rural area (Zhou and Chen 2018). As in the urban areas, the use of air conditioners increases, releasing different ODs (ozone depletion substances). These ODs directly affect the ozone layer, which results in thinning the ozone layer. Thinning of the ozone layer leads to the more harmful radiations coming to the earth and warming the earth more and more. This increase in temperature or warming of earth affects the whole life on the earth surface (Bartholy and Pongrácz 2018). Climate change caused by unplanned construction of large buildings in urban areas absorbs solar radiation and emits heat radiations in the afternoon, increasing the atmospheric pressure. Therefore, this year was the warmest since 2010. As a result of dust condensing into rain droplets, cities receive more rain than the surrounding countryside.

Humans depend on ecosystems for a wide range of services and resources. Human intrusions are affecting soil, water, and biodiversity, which are fundamental to the ecological balance. Rapid urbanization and industrialization make the high pressure on the natural resources. Due to the urbanization, the land for agriculture, water bodies, and forest area are shrinking while in the other hand, the demand for resources is increasing rapidly (Wassie 2020). Moreover, the changing in the landing pattern directly affects the overall productivity of the land (Borrelli et al. 2017). According to the data of FAO, 2007 in 2050, the urban population will be increased around 54% and demand of domestic population will be 90 km3 (Boretti and Rosa 2019). Due to the rise in the rate of the urban population and their lifestyle, they create the overexploitation of natural resources such as groundwater, energy, and food (Tayal and Singh 2021). Industries and other urban sectors required more water which cause the scarcity of potable and drinking water (Livingston 2021).

Air Pollution Urban air pollution is considered one of the most visible impacts of urbanization on the environment (Fang et al. 2019). Due to various anthropogenic activities in urban areas, the air of the metropolitan regions gets polluted, i.e., large number of auto- mobiles and industries emitted various air pollutants such as carbon dioxide, hydro- carbons, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, vapor of organic chemicals, particulate matter and toxic chemicals, etc. (Haque and Talukder 2021). Photochemical smog in Los Angeles is one famous example of urban air pollution, it occurs due to the reaction of sunlight with exhaust from power plant and automobiles (Goodsite et al. 2021). The main component of these smokes includes ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and VOCs. These pollutants also affect the health of humans (Manisalidis et al. 2020). Further- more, more than 80% of people living in these urban areas are exposed to air quality levels that exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline limits, where the low- and middle-income countries were suffering from the highest exposures of outdoor air pollution (WHO 2021). 9.3.1.2 Noise Pollution Unwanted and excessive sound in any area is called as noise pollution. In urban areas, noise pollution sources include vehicles, industries, social function, and automobiles (Bello et al. 2019). Among these sources, vehicle traffic in urban areas is considered the primary source of noise pollution. An ancient city of India, Kolhapur, is now rapidly industrialized and urbanized, and it is suffering from severe noise pollution problems. A study has been carried out in Kolhapur to assess the daytime noise quality in five critical zones: (1) Education, (2) Industrial-cum- residential, (3) Commercial-cum-residential, (4) Recreational, and (5) Silence zone. For all zones, study computed L10, L50, and L90 noise pollution indices, noise climate (NC), equivalent continuous noise level (Leq), noise pollution level (Lnp), and noise exposure index (NEI). Results of the study indicate that the highest Leq of 72.25 dBA was found in industrial-cum-residential zone followed by 64.47 dBA in commercial-cum-residential zone, in educational zone observed was 63.71 dBA, 53.66 dBA in recreational zone and silence zone found 42.84 dBA. Leq observed that educational zones were above the statutory limits, while others were marginally below. According to the noise assessment study, Kolhapur is experienc- ing alarming levels of noise pollution (Hunashal and Patil 2012). Furthermore, noise pollution in urban areas causes significant risk to human health and affects the life of other organisms, i.e., wildlife organisms mainly depend on sound for their commu- nication and behavior, but excessive noise breaks their contact and affects their behavior (Yuan et al. 2019). 9 Urbanization Trends, Climate Change, and Environmental Sustainability 157 9.3.1.3 Water Pollution There will be an 80% increase in urban water demand by 2050. In India and China, nearly half of the 4 billion people facing severe water scarcity do so for at least 6 months out of the year. The Chennai (India) drinking water system ran dry earlier this year (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2016; Vanham et al. 2018; Flörke et al. 2018) and Cape Town (Africa) ran out of drinking water in 2018 (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2016; Vanham et al. 2018). Worldwide, over 80% of wastewater is not treated appropriately before being released into the environment (Connor et al. 2017). Due to rapid industrialization and urbanization, many waste disposal occurs in the river and lakes. Besides this, the discharge of untreated sewage waste from mega cities and towns into the water bodies causes water pollution (Jayaswal et al. 2018). As per the CPCB data, about 38,254 million L/day sewage is generated from class I and class II cities of the country. Treatment capacity found only for 11,787 million L/day sewage (Olds et al. 2018). So, the untreated sewage dump into water bodies increases the river’s pollution load and other water bodies (Xu et al. 2019). Water pollution caused by urbanization also affects the aquatic ecosystem. Unplanned urbanization also leads to the scarcity of fresh water by destructing the path of natural water flow and also causes the hydrological changes (Mishra et al. 2020a). The dumping of solid waste on land without treatment causes leaching of harmful material to the river water and groundwater which cause water pollution (Nai et al. 2021). A case study of city Hyderabad, one of India’s fastest growing megacities with a significant impact on the environment. A city’s uncontrolled growth and densifica- tion severely affect its surface and groundwater resources. A better understanding of urban growth’s impact on the environment is necessary to prevent future deteriora- tion of these essential resources and recover them. A study found that rapid urban- ization of Hyderabad has led to an increase in the need for fresh water for domestic and industrial use. The use of groundwater was increased as a result of this increase in demand. Furthermore, a quality analysis found that the groundwater samples did not meet the BIS and WHO drinking water standards. In addition, heavy metals like zinc, lead, chromium, iron, etc. were found in the water samples, indicating that industrial effluent had percolated into the aquifer. This study also proven that the sewage water and residential area had also contributed in recharging grown water. The study concluded that the urban growth had made the groundwater resources more vulner- able and in many cases it had been affecting it very severely (Wakode et al. 2014),

“The impact of rising seas is already creating new sources of instability and conflict,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who opened the meeting. Noting that some nations’ coastlines have already seen triple the average rate of sea level rise, he warned that, in the coming decades, low-lying communities – and entire countries – could disappear forever. “We would witness a mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale, and we would see ever-fiercer competition for fresh water, land and other resources,” he warned. ‘Threat multiplier’ Describing sea level rise as a threat multiplier, the Secretary-General said the phenomenon also jeopardizes access to water, food and healthcare. Meanwhile, saltwater intrusion can decimate jobs and entire economies in industries like agriculture, fisheries and tourism, and it can damage or destroy vital infrastructure, such as transportation systems, hospitals and schools. According to recently released data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), global average sea levels have risen faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in the last 3,000 years. It warns that, even if global warming is “miraculously” limited to 1.5 degrees, the planet will still see a sizeable rise in sea water levels. Secretary-General António Guterres (centre at table) addresses UN Security Council meeting on Sea-level rise and its implications for international peace and security. UN Photo/Loey Felipe Secretary-General António Guterres (centre at table) addresses UN Security Council meeting on Sea-level rise and its implications for international peace and security. Devastation evident Mr. Guterres warned the Security Council that, under any temperature rise scenario, countries from Bangladesh to China, India and the Netherlands will all be at risk. Mega-cities on every continent will face serious impacts, including Lagos, Bangkok, Mumbai, Shanghai, London, Buenos Aires and New York. The danger is especially acute for some 900 million people living in coastal zones at low elevations –one out of every ten people on earth. Tweet URL Devastation is already evident in many parts of the world, he said, noting that rising seas have decimated livelihoods in tourism and agriculture across the Caribbean. Sea level rise and other climate impacts are already forcing people to relocate in Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and elsewhere. Against that backdrop, he called for action on several fronts, including broadening the global community’s understanding of the root causes of insecurity, and addressing the impacts of rising seas across legal and human rights frameworks. “People’s human rights do not disappear because their homes do,” he stressed. Threats to world’s ‘breadbaskets’ Csaba Kőrösi, the current President of the General Assembly, also addressed the Council, recalling that climate change – “the greatest challenge of our generation” – was the issue most raised by world leaders during the Assembly’s last high-level debate. Citing projections that between 250 and 400 million people will likely need new homes in new locations in fewer than 80 years, he also warned of devastating impacts for the world’s “breadbaskets,” especially fertile deltas along the Nile, Mekong and other rivers. Meanwhile, climate-induced sea level rise is also provoking new legal questions that are at the very core of national and State identity. He urged the Council to recognize the significance of climate action as a key tool for peacebuilding, stressing that the data and frameworks to defend against the sea level threat already exist. “What is needed now – as ever – is the political will to act,” he said.

Fifty years ago this month, the System Dynamics group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge had a stark message for the world: continued economic and population growth would deplete Earth’s resources and lead to global economic collapse by 2070. This finding was from their 200-page book The Limits to Growth, one of the first modelling studies to forecast the environmental and social impacts of industrialization.

For its time, this was a shocking forecast, and it did not go down well. Nature called the study “another whiff of doomsday” (see Nature 236, 47–49; 1972). It was near-heresy, even in research circles, to suggest that some of the foundations of industrial civilization — mining coal, making steel, drilling for oil and spraying crops with fertilizers — might cause lasting damage. Research leaders accepted that industry pollutes air and water, but considered such damage reversible. Those trained in a pre-computing age were also sceptical of modelling, and advocated that technology would come to the planet’s rescue. Zoologist Solly Zuckerman, a former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said: “Whatever computers may say about the future, there is nothing in the past which gives any credence whatever to the view that human ingenuity cannot in time circumvent material human difficulties.”

Global inequality is the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and power that shape well-being among the 8 billion individuals on our planet. Distinct from inequality within a country or between countries, global inequality is one way of understanding the different lived experiences of our fellow humans, no matter where they live.

Notably, global inequality is worse than inequality within countries. And economic inequality—the unequal distribution of income—is one strikingly visible dimension of global inequalities in well-being.

The economic growth numbers have come in for the first quarter of this year, and they’re dismal. In the United States’ highly regulated economy, we’ve come to expect low growth rates. But negative growth is especially bad, occurring only during terrible economic conditions. And yet, degrowth is precisely what the US economy did in the first three months of 2022.

According to a, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) declined 0.4 percent in this year’s first quarter, which is an annualized decline of 1.4 percent. That contraction makes Q1 of 2022 the weakest quarter for GDP growth since the pandemic-related recession of 2020.

Researchers examined marine ecosystems before, during, and after the “Great Dying” to better comprehend the chain of events that led to ecological destabilization in a study published in Current Biology. In doing so, the international research team, consisting of scientists from the California Academy of Sciences, the China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), and the University of Bristol, demonstrated that biodiversity loss may be a precursor to a more devastating ecological collapse, a disturbing finding given that the rate of species loss today outpaces that during the “Great Dying.” The event wiped out 95% of life on Earth, or roughly 19 out of every 20 species. It caused climatic conditions like today’s human-caused environmental challenges, such as global warming, ocean acidification, and marine deoxygenation, and was most likely caused by increased volcanic activity and a subsequent spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Researchers examined fossils from South China, a shallow sea during the Permian-Triassic transition, to recreate the ancient marine environment. The group analyzed prey–predator relationships and ascertained the functions ancient species accomplished by categorizing species into guilds, or groups of species that exploit resources in similar ways. These simulated food webs represented the ecosystem in a plausible way before, during, and after the extinction event. “Despite the loss of over half of Earth’s species in the first phase of the extinction, ecosystems remained relatively stable,” states Academy researcher Yuangeng Huang, Ph.D., now at the China University of Geosciences. Interactions between species lessened only slightly during the first phase of the extinction, but substantially during the second, causing ecosystems to destabilize. “Ecosystems were pushed to a tipping point from which they could not recover,” Huang adds. An ecosystem is more resistant to changes in the environment when there are multiple species that perform similar functions. If one species becomes extinct, another can fill the void, and the ecosystem is preserved. This is analogous to an economy in which multiple companies or corporations offer similar services. The downfall of one corporation does not affect the service or the economy, but it does if the service is monopolized by a single entity. The group’s results underscore the importance of considering functional redundancy when evaluating modern conservation strategies, as well as the pressing need for action to address today’s human-driven biodiversity crisis. Huang concludes, “We are currently losing species at a faster rate than in any of Earth’s past extinction events. It is probable that we are in the first phase of another, more severe mass extinction. We cannot predict the tipping point that will send ecosystems into total collapse, but it is an inevitable outcome if we do not reverse biodiversity loss.”

Pamela Worth 20 { Pamela Worth is senior writer in the Communications department at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She writes across the range of UCS topics and research, including collaborating on UCS reports, providing content for the UCS podcast Got Science?, and crafting marketing and branding materials. She earned a B.A. in English from Smith College, and an M.A. in English from the University of Massachusetts Boston. She attended the Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference in 2016 and 2019, and is a member of the National Association of Science Writers.} - ("Ocean Acidification Threatens Livelihoods and Lives. Can Anyone Be Held Accountable? — SEVENSEAS Media," SEVENSEAS Media, published 03/20, accessed 7-15-2023,

New research links carbon emissions from the major oil and gas producers to dangerous changes in the oceans’ chemistry A change is brewing in our world’s oceans: waters are warming and becoming more acidic. The long-term effects of these changes could be ruinous for marine life worldwide, and for the people who depend on it for their food and income. The effects of warming and acidification—among other climate-related impacts on our oceans—are already being felt in some regions, as fish populations migrate, and corals die en masse. Who is responsible for these and future damages? And how can they pay for what they’ve done? Acidification and its Consequences While some emissions from burning fossil fuels are taken up by trees and other vegetation on land, much of the emissions lingers in the atmosphere, contributing to the blanketing “greenhouse” effect that warms the earth. The world’s oceans absorb the rest, which nudges its chemistry along the pH scale from basic toward acidic. Surface waters are now nearly 30 percent more acidic than they were in 1850. And ocean acidification is happening at a faster rate today than at any point in the last 66 million years. Projections show that if we do not reduce our carbon emissions, ocean surface waters could be more than twice as acidic in 2100 as they were in 2000. Increased acidification is harmful to marine life. As carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean, chemical reactions deprive marine organisms such as crabs and corals of the carbonate ions they need to build their protective shells. Studies done on commercially caught crab species in Alaska have found that crab survival rates drop consistently with more acidic waters. Coral reefs bleached by warming waters are less capable of rebuilding as their environment becomes more acidic. And populations of tiny shell-forming foraminifera—an important food source for many species—risk a sharp decline, threatening the entire global food chain. “Within the next decades, we’re fast approaching a threshold where particular organisms won’t be able to survive,” says Rachel Licker, a senior climate scientist at environmental advocacy nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “Warming and acidification are a one-two punch for many species, including our own.” From large-scale fishing operations to individual subsistence fishers, ocean warming and acidification also pose an existential threat to the millions of people worldwide who depend on healthy oceans for their survival, Licker says. She and her colleagues at UCS aren’t just studying the process of acidification, however. They’re at the forefront of scientific research showing that acidification and other consequences of climate change are, to a large extent, the result of the practices and policies of the fossil fuel industry. Who Is Responsible? Licker and her colleagues have been working for years to understand the link between specific effects of climate change and the largest industrial producers of carbon emissions, such as ExxonMobil and Chevron. Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at UCS, led a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change debuting a scientific formula that shows just how much responsibility for hotter temperatures and rising seas can be attributed to 90 private, majority state-owned, or national companies. This formula showed that emissions traced to those producers from 1854 to 2010 were responsible for 42 to 50 percent of the rise in global average surface temperatures, and 26 to 32 percent of global sea-level rise. In 2019, Licker, Ekwurzel, and their team applied the same formula to attribute documented changes in ocean pH to specific companies, resulting in another paper published in Environmental Research Letters. They found that more than half of the increase in ocean acidity between 1880-2015 is tied to emissions from just 88 fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers, with investor-owned corporations led by Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and ConocoPhillips. Cutting Emissions Is Imperative The solution to ocean acidification is also the solution to global warming and sea-level rise, Licker says rapid, drastic, widespread cuts to carbon emissions. Ocean acidification is such a rapid process, she says, that her team can track shifts in acidity in direct proportion to atmospheric carbon dioxide, just a year after its emission. “The swift reduction in emissions we need would most directly slow down the pace of ocean acidification. she says. “Knowing that there’s no reason not to advocate for action.” First Steps Toward Accountability By laying the groundwork of scientific evidence for attributing increased acidity in the world’s oceans to the major producers of fossil fuels, Licker and her team’s research offers a potential legal recourse to those suffering the consequences—a way to demand accountability and an end to unchecked carbon emissions. “The science of attribution,” she says, “can help many of the people facing the most immediate impacts take steps toward economic restoration.” This may be especially true for acidification “hot spots” including the South Pacific’s Coral Triangle, the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, the Arctic, the California current (which spans the coastal Pacific Northwest), and the Peru current (which runs along the western coast of South America). In the Coral Triangle alone, where the region’s marine biodiversity supports more than 100 million people, fisheries worth nearly $3 billion annually are at risk. Licker and her team’s research includes some quantification of the risk to lives and livelihoods for each of these hot spots—such as the number of jobs that could be lost—along with specific changes to ocean water pH. “If people at risk use our work in conjunction with regional studies dedicated to acidification, we have confidence that they could tie a portion of the harmful changes occurring in their specific location back to the fossil fuel producers,” Licker says. During the 50 years that the fossil fuel industry knew about the climate-related risks of their products, companies could have taken steps to prevent the crises, including acidification, that the world now faces. Instead, these companies have poured money into disinformation campaigns to create and spread doubt about climate science. Marine life, and all who depend on it for their livelihoods, are paying the price—when fossil fuel companies can and should be held accountable.

Viewed from high above, the Amazon in South America is a lush emerald quilt, home to millions of animals and the planet’s largest river by volume. It is also key to protecting our planet from the detrimental effects of climate change. But why? And what could happen to the global climate if we lost it? The Amazon’s sheer size—it covers nearly seven million square kilometers, or about the area of Australia—makes it shine on the climate stage. With so many trees covering such an enormous swath of land, everything the forest “does” is big and impactful. Some of its actions are downright unique: The Amazon makes its own weather, generating some of its rainfall and keeping itself cool, while also stabilizing regional temperatures. Add that to the gobs of greenhouse gas that its biomass stores and you’ve got a natural climate protector. Yet we are steadily dismantling this valuable landscape, aggravating climate change in several ways scientists are just beginning to understand. Giant Carbon Sponge All Earth’s forests impact the atmosphere. Trees draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, locking away that greenhouse gas in leaves, trunks, roots and nearby soil. The Amazon’s sheer volume of trees makes it one of the world’s largest carbon sinks. “The Amazon today, even with all the deforestation, stores more than 150 billion [metric] tons of carbon,” says Carlos Nobre, an Earth systems scientist at the University of São Paulo in Brazil and a longtime researcher of the climate and ecological effects of Amazon deforestation. Roughly half the Amazon’s carbon store is in the soil. The other half is in its trees, which contain about 20 percent of all the carbon captured by vegetation across the planet. But when humans cut down those trees, that biomass releases its stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2, where it has a warming effect. Like other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide molecules prevent heat on Earth from escaping back into space. The agriculture and mining industries are steadily cutting down the Amazon’s dense network of 16,000 tree species. Altogether, deforestation has stripped 17 percent of the rain forest’s tree cover since 1970. Deforesting industries often clear an area by setting fires, which rapidly release stored carbon into the atmosphere. Trees left unburned but cut decompose, also releasing their carbon. The fires help to explain why parts of the Amazon forest now emit more CO2 than they absorb. Fires also send up plumes of soot that screen sunlight and add to warming. Making It Rain The warming atmosphere feeds back into the forest. As the globe heats up, the frequency and severity of weather phenomena associated with drought are increasing over South America, says Nobre, who is also co-chair of the Science Panel for the Amazon, which supports research and initiatives to save the rain forest. The effects are creating longer regional dry periods and less rainfall, driving tree die-offs. Dryness and declining forest cover also increase the risk of natural fires. Tree loss brings other consequences, Nobre says. During the dry season, more intense sunshine causes vast amounts of water—stored in trees and soils from wet periods—to transpire. That water vapor “reaches the lower atmosphere and becomes clouds and rain again,” Nobre explains. “One molecule of water vapor that enters the Amazon recycles between five to eight times,” he adds, illustrating the importance of this hydrological engine in recharging regional rainfall. Ample rains also have a cooling effect, just as sweating can cool a person off after a workout. If tree cover declines, so will the water store, and with it, more of the forest. Past research led by Nobre showed that a cycle of warming, drying and forest shrinkage could push the Amazon to a minimum threshold of tree cover, below which the forest would irreversibly degrade into a simpler grassland habitat. Estimates vary on the exact threshold at which the Amazon would disappear. Nobre and others suggest it could be a loss of just 20 to 25 percent of the Amazon’s predeforestation tree cover (bearing in mind the forest has already lost 17 percent). There are also variable figures on how swiftly the forest could degrade once it passes the threshold. But already, parts of the southern Amazon are transitioning into what Nobre describes as “open canopy degraded ecosystems.” This is a landscape with sparse tree cover, containing “tremendously reduced biodiversity,” that stores a fraction of the carbon of an intact rain forest, Nobre says. If the forest fades away, and its trees release their massive carbon store, what does that mean for global climate? The Amazon’s estimated 150-billion-ton-plus carbon bank is the equivalent of more than 10 years’ worth of global fossil fuel emissions, Nobre says. If the entire Amazon degraded into an open, savannalike landscape, local rainfall would decline by up to 30 percent, with consequences felt as far as Colombia and Argentina, where rainfall cycles are partially fed by moisture from the Amazon, Nobre explains. Without the forest’s surface-cooling effect, regional temperatures would rise by several degrees. The forest loss would resonate across the globe. “If you put [carbon dioxide] into the atmosphere, it quickly diffuses all over the world,” says Elena Shevliakova, a physical scientist at Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, part of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who has modeled the climate effects of Amazon loss. Releasing, say, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 (a more conservative estimate of Amazon carbon stores) by removing forest would warm the planet by an estimated 0.25 degree Celsius, she explains. Even if the world reduced human-caused emissions enough to get on track to fulfill the Paris climate agreement, keeping global warming below a 1.5-degree-C increase from preindustrial levels, the sudden loss of the Amazon and its stored carbon would put that target out of reach. Global emissions reductions are not currently on target, which should raise the concern about the impact of the Amazon’s degradation, Shevliakova says.

Geoengineering Is Not a Quick Fix for the Climate Crisis, New Analysis Shows The IPCC recently warned about missing global temperature goals, raising interest in technologies such as solar geoengineering. Credit: Pierre Longnus/Getty Images CLIMATEWIRE | A controversial idea for cooling the earth’s climate through artificial means would likely require a much longer global commitment than policymakers and the public understand, according to a recent study that raises new questions about the potential for using solar geoengineering. If world leaders decide to use solar geoengineering to meet international climate goals, they could be locked into it for a century or more, the study suggests. The potentially long timeframe further complicates the debate about geoengineering and its viability. Geoengineering is “often communicated as temporary, a stopgap measure — so it implies being relatively short, and short in the sense of a couple of decades,” said lead study author Susanne Baur, a doctoral candidate at the European Centre for Research and Advanced Training in Scientific Computation in France. “And so when we started looking at these pathways, and we extrapolated them a bit longer, we saw that in many cases, it’s actually not that short.” The public may not realize the scope of a commitment solar geoengineering — or its risks, including the need for long-term international cooperation. “If we have to keep up a system like this for such a long time, that just increases the possibility of something bad happening,” Baur said. Solar geoengineering refers to a kind of climate geoengineering aimed at manipulating the amount of solar radiation that hits the planet. The most commonly discussed strategy involves spraying special reflective aerosols into the atmosphere to beam sunlight away from the earth, lowering global temperatures. It’s just an idea for now. And it’s highly contentious. Solar geoengineering risks and side effects range from possible damage to the earth’s ozone layer to inadvertent changes in global precipitation patterns. Once started, it would be dangerous to stop unless enough carbon had been sucked out of the atmosphere to lower the earth’s temperatures below a safe threshold. Otherwise, a sudden halt to geoengineering could cause temperatures to skyrocket, potentially faster than life could adapt, a concept known as “termination shock.” The risks have prompted scientists to urge international discussion and agreement about regulating geoengineering experiments and deployments. The new study, published March 28 in the journal Earth System Dynamics, analyzes how solar geoengineering could be used to meet climate targets and how long the world would have to maintain the practice to meet the targets. The time frames range vastly, the study finds. If nations quickly reduce emissions and atmospheric carbon, solar geoengineering could be unnecessary. But based on the carbon-cutting commitments nations have made under the 2015 Paris Agreement, solar geoengineering would likely have to persist for at least a century to keep global warming within a threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the study found. The study modeled hundreds of potential geoengineering scenarios to account for factors such as how quickly global emissions fall, how much carbon is removed from the atmosphere each year and how the climate system physically responds, which is still uncertain. Although the projected timelines range from no geoengineering to hundreds of years, few scenarios resulted in a timeline of less than 100 years. Those scenarios generally assume extremely aggressive climate action.

Sanderlings, red-headed woodpeckers and great gray owls are just a few of the North American bird species projected to be threatened by in the coming decades, according to the latest assessment depicting an increasingly dire situation for the continent’s avian wildlife. “Two thirds of birds in North America are at risk from climate change, to large range losses, potentially extinction, and this is especially so if we continue on the current trajectory,” says Brooke Bateman, senior climate scientist for the National Audubon Society, which carried out the report. The October 10 report, titled “,” details the projected range losses for more than 600 bird species in North America under climate change scenarios of 1.5, 2 and 3 degrees Celsius of warming. Under the (which President Trump in 2017) nations around the world agreed to take measures to keep global temperature increases due to climate change under 2 degrees and to try to limit temperature rise to 1.5 C, though there are that many nations will follow through on their commitments. This newest report comes on the heels of a , which showed that North America has lost 3 billion birds — nearly a third of its total avian population — over the past half century, findings that illustrated an according to lead author Ken Rosenberg. And Thursday’s report shows how much worse the situation may get in coming decades, with nearly 400 species of North American birds projected to be threatened by the worsening effects of climate change. “Birds are the canaries in the coal mine,” says Mike Parr, president of the American Bird Conservancy. “It’s indicative of a broader biodiversity and wildlife issue. We need to pay attention to it now.”

Conservationists are desperate for a biodiversity accord that will carry the same weight as the Paris climate agreement. But so far, this subject has received  even though many scientists say it poses at least an equal threat to humanity.

The last two major biodiversity agreements – in 2002 and 2010 – have failed to stem the .

New research shows that the loss of biodiversity can increase the risk of "extinction cascades," where an initial species loss leads to a domino effect of further extinctions.

The researchers, from the University of Exeter, showed there is a higher risk of extinction cascades when other species are not present to fill the "gap" created by the loss of a species.

The most unique feature on earth is existence of life and most extraordinary feature of life is its diversity.  Biodiversity is earth’s primary life support system and is vital for human survival. Biodiversity is originated from Greek word bios means life and diversity means variety. Biodiversity   refers to variability of living organism on earth, from human to microbes, fungi, and invertebrates. We are part of this web of life. The term includes all the terrestrial, marine, and aquatic organisms.  Biodiversity is earth’s support system and is vital for human survival.

Convention of Biological Diversity

IN 1980, California laid the groundwork for one of the world’s first large-scale wind projects when it designated more than 30,000 acres east of San Francisco for wind development, on a stretch of land called the Altamont Pass. Within two decades, companies had installed thousands of wind turbines there. But there was a downside: While the sea breeze made Altamont ideal for wind energy, the area was also well-used by nesting birds. Research suggested they were colliding with the turbines’ rotating blades, leading to hundreds of deaths among red-tailed hawks, kestrels, and golden eagles.

“It’s a great place for a wind farm, but it’s also a really bad place for a wind farm,” said Albert Lopez, planning director for Alameda County, where many of the projects are located.

“We found that biodiversity plays a key role in the stability of ecosystems over time,” said Natalie Lemanski, lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources at the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences (SEBS). “You do actually need more bee species in order to get stable pollination services over a growing season and over years.”

The team on the study focused on various populations of bees at dozens of farms in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California and found that many more bee species were not only needed for pollination than expected over an entire flowering season, but even more were needed over multiple years.

Climate change is a force multiplier Researchers don’t know exactly how climate change will affect bee health. But they suspect it will add to existing stresses. For example, if pest pressures mount for farmers, bees will be exposed to more pesticides. Extreme rainfall can . Wildfires and floods may destroy bee habitat and food sources. Drought may also and from planting new areas for bees as water becomes less readily available. Most importantly, educating people and communities about bees and their importance to our food system can help create a more pollinator-friendly world. Climate change could also increase the spread of Varroa and other pathogens. Warmer fall and winter temperatures . Varroa travel on foraging bees, so longer foraging provides a larger time window for mites and the viruses they carry to spread among colonies. Higher mite populations on bee colonies heading into winter will likely cripple colony health and . Studies have already shown that climate change is between bees and flowers. As spring arrives earlier in the year, or in different regions, but bees may not be present to feed on them. Even if flowers bloom at their usual times and locations, they may under extreme weather conditions. Research that analyzes the nutritional profiles of bee forage plants and how they change under different climate scenarios will help land managers plant climate-resilient plants for different regions.

Bumblebees, among the most important pollinators, are in trouble. Fuzzy and buzzy, they excel at spreading pollen and fertilizing many types of wild flora, as well as crucial agricultural crops like tomatoes, blueberries, and squash. But their numbers are dropping. New research using a massive dataset found that the insects are far less common than they used to be; in North America, you are nearly 50 percent less likely to see a bumblebee in any given area than you were prior to 1974. Moreover, several once-common species have disappeared from many areas they were once found, becoming locally extinct in those places. For example, the rusty patched bumblebee, which used to flourish in Ontario, is no longer found in all of Canada—. In a new , researchers used a complex modeling process to suggest that their decline is driven in large part by climate change. Specifically, the scientists found that in areas that have become hotter in the last generation, or have experienced more extreme temperature swings, bumblebees are less abundant. In Europe, they are 17 percent less plentiful than they were in the early 20th century. The scientists examined the abundance of 66 species across the two continents. The approach suggests “climate chaos” is a primary driver of the drop in bumblebees, says study leader , a doctoral student at the University of Ottawa. “These declines are linked to species being pushed beyond temperatures they haven’t previously had to tolerate,” Soroye says. Their disappearance from a region means that they’ve either moved elsewhere or died. Cool specialists It has long been known that bumblebees are more suited to cold weather, with their fuzzy bodies and ability to generate heat while flying, which often allows them to be the first bees out in the spring. Exactly how vulnerable they are to heat waves and weather fluctuations still isn’t clear for most species, though this study suggests there’s a limit to their adaptability. And it is indeed warming up. The last five years that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has tracked global heat. There are several mechanisms at play, says study co-author . The can simply overheat, as lab experiments have shown, but there may also be indirect impacts on vegetation and flowers that could lead to the bees starving, he adds. Bumblebees only live one year at most, and queens often spend the winter in leaf litter or in the ground. Here, they are still vulnerable to shifts in temperature, and things like unusually early ice melts and re-freezes, Kerr says. The decline is dangerous for the environment since bumblebees’ pollination services are necessary for many flowering plants to reproduce, says , a Ph.D. student and researcher at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who wasn't involved in the paper. “As these plants are then used by myriad other organisms, the decline of bumblebees can have cascading ecological [effects] that may collectively cause biodiversity loss.” There could also be economic costs. By one measure, to the U.S. economy by pollinating crops.