‘I trust my eyes, not the forecast': Alexandria is sinking. Why don't local fishers believe it?
Like almost everyone in the neighbourhood, Gaz was born and raised by the water, destined to fish for a living: 'My whole life is in the sea. My life, my work and my livelihood.'
Alexandria is one of the world's sinking cities, along with Venice, Miami, Lagos, Jakarta and others. An IPCC report predicts that with global sea levels rising at the current rate, and without adequate preventive measures, thousands of kilometres of the Nile delta could be fully submerged by 2100.
Like the rest of Egypt's Mediterranean coast around the delta, El Max also faces several other environmental risks, including land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquakes and water pollution from nearby petrochemical plants, which all add to the increasing vulnerability of the area.
The people of El Max will, at some point, have to move to survive. However, a Mixed Migration Centre study that interviewed 100 residents of the town found that 90% of them had no plans to leave the area and only a handful believed that the rising water was even a threat.
'I trust my eyes, not the weather forecast,' Gaz says.
Mohamed Abdrabo, director of Alexandria University's Research Centre for Adaptation to Climate Change, says: 'Part of the problem is that when people talk about the impact of rising sea levels in Egypt, and especially in Alexandria, they are talking about what's going to happen by 2100.
'And with the economic situation,' he adds, 'people are not interested in the far future.'
The fishing community in El Max is witnessing the effects of the climate crisis but often without the awareness of its long-term impacts, Abdrabo says.
'This year the sea is moving back behind the island [by the lighthouse of El Max, about 50 metres from shore],' says a young fisherman on El Fanar beach. 'We used to swim to reach this island, now you just walk to it.'
Another adds: 'We used to catch 50kg of fish [a day]; now it's only 10kg.'
Part of the difficulty with trying to get local communities to engage with the problem is that the threat of Alexandria sinking and disappearing is far from a recent phenomenon. The city has suffered many climate-related catastrophes before and survived, says Yasmine Hussein, an Alexandrian climate researcher.
Egypt's second-largest city, founded in 331BC by Alexander the Great, has experienced 'seven or eight' tsunamis throughout history. One of the biggest, in 365AD, was caused by an 8.5-magnitude earthquake in Crete that had disastrous effects across the eastern Mediterranean, she says.
'It caused water to go inside the soil and destroyed the entire ancient port. Some archaeologists believe that the temples of Alexander the Great and Cleopatra are still underwater, because the royal neighbourhood was completely sunk.'
Another tsunami struck in 1303 and caused the Lighthouse, or Pharos, of Alexandria, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, to be submerged.
'People always say that life in Alexandria is a cycle, just like the cycle of life,' Hussein says. 'It is born and becomes a major city, then it falls and slowly disappears completely. And then it is reborn, like a phoenix.'
In its present cycle, the city has a different dynamic. A number of Alexandrians say they are worried about how rapidly the coastline is being developed by authorities.
Hussein describes how Alexandria has lost more than 40% of its beaches in the past 25 years from a combination of coastal erosion, heavy construction and privatisation of coastal areas. 'This is happening at an unprecedented speed in the city,' she says.
She adds that while last year Alexandria was recognised by Unesco as Egypt and Africa's first 'tsunami-ready' community – meaning that it met key indicators for mitigating the risks of the devastating waves and other coastal hazards – Hussein and other local researchers feel that the city is not prepared at all.
Sign up to Global Dispatch
Get a different world view with a roundup of the best news, features and pictures, curated by our global development team
after newsletter promotion
'If there's an earthquake nearby, what are we going to do?' Hussein asks.
The local government has installed concrete blocks along Alexandria's corniche to protect the shore, but several experts say this is an unviable solution in the long term because water goes under the blocks and into the soil.
Some of the fishing community have already been moved to high-rise buildings farther inland after their houses were flooded.
But for some in El Max, settling away from the coast has been a challenge. 'I'm like a fish. If they remove me from the sea, I'll die,' says As Elsayed Ibrahim, a local fisherman.
Abdrabo says: 'People in Egypt, generally speaking, are very attached to their land.' It is an attitude that applies across the country, he says, particularly to those who make their living from fishing and farming.
He says people's attachment to their local area ought to be recognised in any long-term plan for the region but ultimately: 'Whatever you do in coastal areas will get back to you. You cannot win against nature.'
Umm Amr has been running a kiosk on El Fanar beach all of her life. She was initially sceptical about the climate emergency, but after learning about the catastrophic floods along the coast in Derna, Libya, in 2023, she was scared, thinking that if it could happen to 'our neighbour', it could happen to El Max too.
'They [authorities] want us to leave here, but I don't know where to go,' she says. 'I grew up on the sand of El Max and lived here among good people who love each other. This sea is my soul, and I cannot live without it.'
To leave and abandon this bond with the area is not easy for local people, despite the increasing risks. 'It's better to stay and find ways to adapt,' Hussein says, suggesting that people in sinking cities around the world could collaborate and share strategies on saving their home towns. 'All we're asking for is that we're given the tools to learn how to adapt.'
In a statement, Egypt's Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation said: 'The projects in Alexandria are part of the coastal-protection projects the ministry is implementing to counter the negative effects of climate change, provide protection for citizens and facilities, and stabilise residential and industrial areas and low-lying areas from the risk of rising sea levels.'
This piece is being published in conjunction with the online magazine Magma
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Different species in island waters due to rising temperatures
Different species of marine life have been spotted in Guernsey's waters due to rises in sea temperatures, a marine expert has said. Nicky Harris from the Marine Biology section of La Societe Guernesiaise said higher temperatures of up to 19C (66.2F) mean species more common to Mediterranean waters have been seen off the island's coast. It comes as the UK's seas have had their warmest start to the year since records Harris said although some species are "able to cope with a range of temperatures" others prefer colder waters. She said basking sharks, which used to be seen commonly in the waters around the islands, were less in numbers as they prefer colder temperatures. "We really don't see them anymore and they are heading up Ireland's coast instead," she said."Instead we are seeing things that are Mediterranean-focused, things like gilt-head bream, we didn't used to see and now they're becoming a bit more common in our waters." "We really need to be conscious of and adapt to climate change and warming waters in the Channel Islands," Ms Harris said."Warmer air temperatures is going to have impacts on our weather patterns, we already do see increase in storm intensity and storm frequency, that's going to be something that we continue to see."
Telegraph
02-08-2025
- Telegraph
Enough doom-mongering about climate change
As a student, Johannes Ackva wore a hair shirt so itchy and uncomfortable that even Greta Thunberg might have approved. The young, idealistic German limited his use of water, stuck to a strict vegetarian diet, refused to drive and flew as little as possible. But, two decades on, Ackva, who works as a climate researcher, has changed his views considerably. He remains concerned about the environment and he still doesn't drive or eat meat. But there is cause, he believes, for optimism. Two things have changed since his hair-shirt days, he says. One is that the data looks a little less bleak than it used to. Instead of predicting that global temperatures are likely to increase by between 1.5°C (the best case) and 4.5°C (the worst), as it did for many years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now says the increase will be between 2.5°C and 4°C. That 0.5°C reduction in the worst-case scenario makes a substantial difference – and itself represents a significant reduction from the 8°C rise that had, in the Noughties, been predicted by scientists such as James Lovelock for the world's temperate region. 'You have to be more optimistic than you would have been 10 years ago,' Ackva says, 'and even five years ago.' And the second thing that has changed, according to Ackva, is the rate of technological progress: 'We can see from what we've been doing with solar, or with electric cars, that we know how to fundamentally solve this problem.' The most rapid energy transition in history The price of solar energy has fallen almost at the speed of light; solar panel costs have fallen 90 per cent in the past decade alone. Renewables are helping to push coal and natural gas out of power grids. In 2009, 74 per cent of British electricity came from fossil fuels; in 2023, it was only a third. Over the same period, the share of British electricity coming from renewable sources (solar, wind etc.) has gone from two per cent to 40 per cent. In short, we are living through the most rapid energy transition in history. It is incomplete because renewables are dependent on the sun shining and the wind blowing, and because we do not have adequate battery technology to store vast amounts of electrical energy for months at a time. And, of course, it is expensive because of all the infrastructure that needs building, be it car-charging facilities, wind farms, or the apparatus that connects both of these things and more to our power grids. However, the recent progress in the energy transition is demonstrative of a truth that many environmental activists – groups like Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and the new Youth Demand – would prefer to ignore. Because, while they advocate for 'degrowth', whereby we shrink our economy and consume less in order to constrain our emissions, the innovation of recent years suggests the opposite is true: that it is investment and economic growth that will improve lives worldwide and solve the crisis. I spoke to Ackva during my research for a book about people who have dedicated their careers to saving the world from catastrophe, The Anti-Catastrophe League. He works at a non-profit organisation called Founders Pledge, where his research guides the philanthropy of entrepreneurs who want to use their wealth to address the climate crisis. And degrowth organisations are not the kind that he recommends his philanthropists support. Instead, he recommends that they fund innovation: inventions, and government action, that take the battle beyond wind farms and electric cars. 'We need to make sure that we also do it for cement, that we do it for [the manufacture of] steel, that we do it for long-range transport,' he says. 'But this is not rocket science. This is, in principle, doable.' It has been doable for longer than we might care to admit. After the Second World War, governments on either side of the Iron Curtain built nuclear power stations by the dozen. But nuclear power stations are gargantuan structures, complete with puffing chimneys atop blue-glowing reactors, and they are expensive to build. They also produce radioactive waste. This effluent is relatively unproblematic in itself, but conceptually unattractive to the public. Even more unattractive is the concept of nuclear meltdown. Chernobyl's death toll, including deaths from the explosion and acute radiation sickness within the first few months, is estimated to have been 30 to 60 people. These figures are lower than one might imagine but the victims of the Chernobyl disaster stick much more indelibly in the mind than do the abstract millions who die of fossil fuel-related air pollution each year. Despite the Chernobyl disaster, and despite smaller events at Fukushima and Three Mile Island, nuclear power is much safer than fossil fuels. The use of nuclear energy results in 99.8 per cent fewer deaths than does the use of coal; 99.7 per cent fewer than oil and 97.6 per cent fewer than gas. We can predict with some confidence that fossil fuels will be thoroughly outmoded over the course of the 21st century. It is important that governments continue to underwrite what Ackva calls 'big bets'. Fusion technology, for instance, stands a much better chance of working if, through being given public funding, it is given the gift of time. Once a technology outperforms fossil fuels, though, it will need no subsidy. We will need no carbon taxes, nor carbon credits. Thanks to far-sighted government support, the market has greedily adopted solar power and electric vehicles. Further greedy adoptions are inevitable. Bettering the miracle of fossil fuels is a lofty goal, but one that humanity is likely to meet. That still leaves a serious problem unsolved. That problem is the warming (1.17°C / 2.11°F) that has already occurred – and the warming that we are due from the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. Many people are trying to prevent the temperature from rising in the future; very few are trying to reverse the heating that has already occurred. But a small minority is attempting to do just that: the environmental dark wizards. Speaking with Andrew Song, he rejects the pieties of climate change. 'A lot of people were indoctrinated,' he tells me, 'including myself. I was an American boy scout, thinking: 'I just need to recycle and recycle and plant some trees, and I'm good.'' But these soothing instructions, Song came to realise, were 'all a f—ing lie!'. Telling me the story, he bursts into laughter. And he is right: recycling, in some respects, is overrated. It will not solve the climate crisis. Song has helped start several businesses in San Francisco. While enrolled in Y-Combinator, the prestigious accelerator for start-ups, Song met Luke Iseman. This was in 2016; after some false starts, Iseman said: 'Andrew, I've just learnt about stratospheric aerosol injection.' Stratospheric aerosol injection is the method by which we might be able to reduce the heat of the planet. It is achieved by launching sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. Here sulphur dioxide reacts with other gases to form sulphate aerosols, which are fine particles. These fine particles reflect the Sun's light back into space. And the more light is reflected back into space, the less it warms the Earth. But there are downsides. The term 'uncontrolled termination' describes the scenario in which humanity starts a massive project of stratospheric aerosol injection, then abruptly stops. It is thought that this would result in ' termination shock ', whereby the temperature would swiftly rebound. Such a rebound would result in much more disruption of weather and ecology than would a more gradual rise in temperatures. And termination shock is far from the only reason to be wary of stratospheric aerosol injection. It could deplete the ozone layer. It could cause acid rain. It could have various other unintended effects. And it would not address air pollution, acidification of the oceans, and other nasty effects of the burning of fossil fuels. Instead, stratospheric aerosol injection might encourage us to stick with our bad habits. In April 2022, Iseman launched his first balloons, releasing them from his home in Baja California, Mexico. By the following February, Time magazine was calling him 'an innovator, renegade, or charlatan, depending on who you ask, but certainly the biggest climate tech trouble-maker in recent memory.' He and Song incorporated Make Sunsets, their new company, that October. Having been ticked off by the government of Mexico, they currently operate a patch of hilly Californian scrubland owned by Iseman. Journalists tagging along with Iseman and Song have witnessed a homebrew operation that resembles some of the more chaotic scenes from the TV series Breaking Bad: two rascals taking an RV to the wilderness in order to cook up something that most observers would probably call deeply irresponsible. Song, a talented marketer, tends to liken stratospheric aerosol injection to sunscreen. As he pointed out to me, humanity already puts 60 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the troposphere each year. Song and Iseman propose simply to put a much smaller amount of the chemical compound a little higher up. In Song's view, we have been misapplying our sunscreen. We have been 'just spraying the sunscreen lotion on our face, but with our mouths open. And since some of that is being swallowed, we're getting sick off it.' As for the ozone layer, Iseman and Song refer to evidence that its depletion will be comparatively small. Song does accept there is a risk of acid rain, but he argues that the risks of inaction are even greater. His view is that we should be less precious about geoengineering. 'We've injected two trillion tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere since the 1870s,' he says. 'So are we suddenly drawing a line of where we can deploy these aerosols? Literally, as we speak, we're emitting CO2, geoengineering the Earth, even just by breathing.' Global buy-in required Another difficulty, though, is that stratospheric geoengineering will require global buy-in. Or will it? Perhaps it is naive to imagine that solar geoengineering will occur after diplomatic efforts rather than before. As the climate expert Ben James writes: 'I find it impossible to imagine a UN mechanism approving something so universally contentious. Rather, someone will probably just do it.' Stratospheric aerosol injection, like nuclear fission, is a technology to which we already have access. And there are several more under development and notable for their promise. An American startup, Terraform Industries, demonstrated last year that it could produce synthetic natural gas from sunlight, water, and airborne carbon dioxide. In other words, the prototype can conjure some of the world's best-performing fuel from almost nothing. It is also possible that we will be able to take not only energy from the air, but pollution. Via carbon capture, we can remove fossil fuel-generated pollutants from the atmosphere, though we have not yet worked out how to do this in an energy-efficient manner. However, the technology I consider the most underrated involves not the air above us, but the ground below us. Today, geothermal power, which harnesses the heat of the Earth's core, constitutes a sliver of global energy production: an estimated 0.35 per cent. The figure seems even more meagre when one considers that an infinitesimal fraction of the Earth's geothermal heat, a tenth of one percent of that heat, goes the calculation, would power humanity's current outgoings for 20 million years. As it stands, we use geothermal power only where that heat happens to be closer to the surface than usual. Volcanic areas are useful in this regard. The hot springs of Bath are a less dramatic example. Elsewhere, geothermal power is harder to exploit. The idea is that you pump water down one well, bring it up via an adjacent well, and use that hot water to power turbines or heat buildings. We can drill deep enough, several kilometres down, to reach rock the temperature of a boiling kettle, or even a heated oven, but it's expensive, and can cause mild tremors. Moreover, to pay back that up-front cost, geothermal systems need to produce heat for years – which, given how hard it is to know what's going on several kilometres down, presents yet further difficulty. For that reason, this promising technology has been far less attractive an investment than drilling for fossil fuels, and has therefore remained underdeveloped. Necessity is forcing us into action. So is new technology. Commissioned by a think tank, I spent much of last year examining the performance of FORGE, the US government's geothermal field laboratory, in Utah. The lab shares its results and allows companies to visit and test their gear. Its drilling speed had increased fivefold between 2017 and 2022 and costs had fallen by as much as 50 per cent from 2022 onward. As all of FORGE's research was public, the entire geothermal industry could benefit from it. FORGE is working on 'enhanced geothermal', which employs techniques imported from the fracking industry. Likewise, the oil and gas industry has pioneered 'directional drilling', which is now allowing geothermal projects to drill not just vertically, but laterally, thus making it possible to create underground structures resembling radiators. Even more thrillingly for fanboys of geothermal power, Quaise, another company, is trying to go even deeper, which would enable it to access heat that can give water the energy density of natural gas. Quaise's method is to vapourise rock using a millimetre wave, which is something akin to a transparent laser. The company was founded by Carlos Araque, a disenchanted oil and gas engineer, advised by Paul Woskov, a fusion scientist. They must solve a litany of technical problems. But if they are successful, they could unlock a power source that would leave fossil fuels outmoded and make fusion an irrelevance. Due to advanced geothermal being in the category of those 'big bets', that would be a vindication of Ackva's approach. We failed to make the most of nuclear power; we might shy away from stratospheric aerosol injections; but to start to turn the situation around, we might need only one of those big bets to pay off.
BBC News
02-08-2025
- BBC News
Cambridge study says healthy diets could reduce risk of diabetes
Several healthy diets can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, regardless of a person's ethnicity, a new study has foundResearchers from the University of Cambridge looked at 33 studies on three different diets featuring 826,000 analysis suggested the eating habits, all of which place a focus on consuming more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, "can be promoted across all populations".They said the findings "suggest that major ethnic groups benefit equally from higher adherence to these dietary patterns", although more research is needed for specific populations. Researchers said the Mediterranean diet, the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (Dash) were trialled. The study found that the top 10% who adhered to the diets had a significantly lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes happens when the hormone insulin does not work properly, causing high blood sugar. Treatment for the condition could include lifestyle changes such as healthier eating and exercise to help lower review suggested that the Dash diet reduced the risk of developing the condition by 23%, the Mediterranean by 17% and AHEI linked to a 21% lower benefits of following each diet also did not appear to vary across African, Asian, European, and Hispanic ethnic groups, according to added: "This study strengthens the evidence that the Mediterranean, AHEI, and Dash dietary patterns may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes across diverse ethnic groups, and that they can be promoted across all populations."The findings will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Vienna in September. Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
