Latest news with #Siberia
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘We're the canary in the coalmine': when will Russia take action on the climate?
GDP per capita per annum: US$17,383 (global average $14,210) Total annual tonnes CO2: 1.8bn (4.8% of global total, fourth highest country) CO2 per capita: 12.5 metric tonnes (global average 4.7) Most recent NDC (carbon plan): 2020 Climate plans: rated critically insufficient Over the past decade, Gennadiy Shukin has increasingly struggled to recognise the landscape he has known his whole life. River crossings that used to stay solidly frozen until spring now crack underfoot. Craters have begun erupting from thawing permafrost, and in the shallow waters where thick ice should be newborn reindeer calves are drowning. 'Last December, the cold barely came,' said Shukin, a reindeer herder in the Russian Arctic. The Arctic is warming 2.5 times faster than the global average, and in Russia's far north these effects are existential. 'We're the canary in the coalmine,' Shukin, 63, said. 'We are the first to witness climate change in such a dramatic way. It's no longer a distant threat. I hope the rest of Russia is paying attention.' The impact of the climate crisis is increasingly visible across Russia's vast expanse of 11 time zones. Some of Shukin's neighbours have had to abandon their homes as melting permafrost leads to huge cracks in the ground that swallow homes, pipelines and roads. Farther south, fire has scoured forests, with an area as large as Italy burnt in some of the largest wildfires in the country's history. But the country remains the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is often described as a laggard – or even an obstructionist – on climate policy. (Russia is the second largest emitter of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but is not signed up to the global methane pledge.) Angelina Davydova, a leading Russian environmental expert, said: 'Russia keeps saying that the climate is important, that international cooperation on climate change is important. But then Russia is not doing anything to combat it. I don't think it's a pressing issue; they are happy with the status quo.' This may be because, in no small part, Russia's economic stability depends on the fossil fuels that are one of the root causes of the crisis. Vladimir Putin's entry to power in the early 2000s, accompanied by a rise in domestic support, was closely tied to a rise in global energy prices, which fuelled rapid economic growth after the instability of the 1990s. As oil and gas revenues flooded in, Putin moved quickly to consolidate state control over key energy assets, framing himself as the guarantor of Russia's newfound stability and prosperity. Energy wealth allowed the Kremlin to pay off debts, boost public sector wages and rebuild a sense of national pride – all of which underpinned Putin's growing political dominance. Oil and gas were not just economic drivers; they became central to the regime's legitimacy at home and its leverage abroad. On paper, Russia appears to be meeting some of its climate commitments. Moscow had little trouble fulfilling its pledge to cut emissions to 30% below 1990 levels – a target technically achieved years ago, not through climate policy, but due to the economic collapse that followed the Soviet Union's breakup. But throughout Putin's rule since 2000, the climate has consistently remained a low priority. The climate crisis was left out of the list of national goals for 2024 and omitted from key strategic documents, including the 2020 energy strategy to 2035. In October 2023, the government did announce a new climate doctrine, but while it acknowledges the risks the climate crisis poses to Russia and reaffirms the country's already weak emissions targets, it pointedly avoided any mention of fossil fuels as a cause of global heating. References to the link between fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions were quietly removed. Russia's international reputation as a blocker of action on the climate crisis has only deepened in recent years. In 2021, it vetoed what would have been a historic, first-of-its-kind UN security council resolution calling the climate crisis a threat to international peace and security. At the 2023 Cop28 in Dubai, while many nations pushed for language calling for a full phase-out of fossil fuels, Russia was among the countries that resisted firm commitments, advocating instead for more flexible interpretations that would protect its oil and gas exports. Moscow's efforts to get 'transitional fuels' recognised in the final Cop28 agreement succeeded, helping to dilute calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and allowing continued reliance on natural gas and other hydrocarbons. A year later, at COP29 in Baku, Russia sent a large delegation dominated by oil and gas lobbyists, whose primary focus appeared to be securing new energy contracts rather than advancing efforts to combat the climate crisis. According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent initiative assessing countries' compliance with the Paris agreement, Russia's climate policies are 'highly insufficient' for meeting the 1.5C (2.7F) goal. If every country followed Russia's path, the world would be on track for more than 4C of warming. Still, Davydova noted that in the years leading up to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the issue of climate change – and how to address it – was beginning to gain 'unprecedented traction' among the general public and the business elite. But Putin's decision to send troops into Ukraine appears to have put Moscow's climate plans on ice. The fighting has had a devastating impact on the environment and climate. The climate cost of the first two years of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries, exacerbating the global climate emergency in addition to the mounting death toll and widespread destruction, according to a study on conflict-driven climate impacts. Throughout the war, Russia has deliberately targeted energy infrastructure, generating major leaks of potent greenhouse gases. Russia's invasion has also wiped out any incentive to invest in alternative energy, while, sanctions or no, fossil fuels have become even more central to the Russian economy. In 2022, oil and gas exports accounted for a greater percentage share of the economy than they did before the war, according to a recent study on Russia's climate policy after the war in Ukraine. Sanctions, combined with the near-total collapse of cooperation between Russian and western scientists, are likely to further hamper the country's ability to innovate in green technology. According to the Institute of Economic Forecasting at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia's capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could halve by 2050, primarily due to technological constraints. But Russia's elite seems largely unfazed by the climate crisis, instead framing it as an economic opportunity. Last month, Kirill Dmitriev – a close Putin ally – described the Northern Sea Route at a Russian conference on Arctic development as having 'interesting prospects' because of global heating, adding rising temperatures in the region could enhance access to untapped reserves of oil, gas and minerals. The Arctic has become a central focus in discussions of potential cooperation between the Kremlin and the Trump administration – with both having shown little concern for the climate crisis. Moscow and Washington have already held two meetings in Saudi Arabia to explore joint Arctic energy projects. The Kremlin wants to capitalise on its Arctic resources, and the US interest in them, to seek long-desired relief from sanctions and use the region as a springboard for rebuilding relations with Washington. For some, this is a worrying prospect. 'The Russian government has no alternative to offer its citizens except the destruction of nature for profit and war,' said the climate activist Arshak Makichyan, who has built a reputation as the Russian answer to Greta Thunberg. The problem is in authoritarian Russia, public opinion holds little sway over the Kremlin's agenda – and on the climate crisis, the government sees even less reason to act, Makichyan admits. Russia's war in Ukraine and western sanctions appear to have overshadowed Russians' concerns about the environment, with polls now showing that most view it as a distant issue. A 2024 survey by the independent Levada Center ranked environmental problems 12th among societal worries, far behind economic issues such as rising prices. By contrast, in 2020 48% of Russians listed 'environmental degradation' as the greatest threat to the planet. And the few environmental voices that have spoken out have been swept up in the broader crackdown on anti-war sentiment and political dissent; the state has outlawed local branches of the WWF and Greenpeace International, while also jailing dozens of environmental activists across the country. 'The environmental movement currently has no means to speak to a wide audience of Russians about the dangers of climate change,' said Makichyan, who was expelled from Russia in 2022, stripped of his Russian citizenship and now lives in Berlin. 'It's dangerous to have no means of raising awareness about climate change because, while the Putin regime will eventually fall, the climate crisis isn't going anywhere.' Source of figures at top: World Economic Outlook
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘We're the canary in the coalmine': when will Russia take action on the climate?
GDP per capita per annum: US$17,383 (global average $14,210) Total annual tonnes CO2: 1.8bn (4.8% of global total, fourth highest country) CO2 per capita: 12.5 metric tonnes (global average 4.7) Most recent NDC (carbon plan): 2020 Climate plans: rated critically insufficient Over the past decade, Gennadiy Shukin has increasingly struggled to recognise the landscape he has known his whole life. River crossings that used to stay solidly frozen until spring now crack underfoot. Craters have begun erupting from thawing permafrost, and in the shallow waters where thick ice should be newborn reindeer calves are drowning. 'Last December, the cold barely came,' said Shukin, a reindeer herder in the Russian Arctic. The Arctic is warming 2.5 times faster than the global average, and in Russia's far north these effects are existential. 'We're the canary in the coalmine,' Shukin, 63, said. 'We are the first to witness climate change in such a dramatic way. It's no longer a distant threat. I hope the rest of Russia is paying attention.' The impact of the climate crisis is increasingly visible across Russia's vast expanse of 11 time zones. Some of Shukin's neighbours have had to abandon their homes as melting permafrost leads to huge cracks in the ground that swallow homes, pipelines and roads. Farther south, fire has scoured forests, with an area as large as Italy burnt in some of the largest wildfires in the country's history. But the country remains the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is often described as a laggard – or even an obstructionist – on climate policy. (Russia is the second largest emitter of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but is not signed up to the global methane pledge.) Angelina Davydova, a leading Russian environmental expert, said: 'Russia keeps saying that the climate is important, that international cooperation on climate change is important. But then Russia is not doing anything to combat it. I don't think it's a pressing issue; they are happy with the status quo.' This may be because, in no small part, Russia's economic stability depends on the fossil fuels that are one of the root causes of the crisis. Vladimir Putin's entry to power in the early 2000s, accompanied by a rise in domestic support, was closely tied to a rise in global energy prices, which fuelled rapid economic growth after the instability of the 1990s. As oil and gas revenues flooded in, Putin moved quickly to consolidate state control over key energy assets, framing himself as the guarantor of Russia's newfound stability and prosperity. Energy wealth allowed the Kremlin to pay off debts, boost public sector wages and rebuild a sense of national pride – all of which underpinned Putin's growing political dominance. Oil and gas were not just economic drivers; they became central to the regime's legitimacy at home and its leverage abroad. On paper, Russia appears to be meeting some of its climate commitments. Moscow had little trouble fulfilling its pledge to cut emissions to 30% below 1990 levels – a target technically achieved years ago, not through climate policy, but due to the economic collapse that followed the Soviet Union's breakup. But throughout Putin's rule since 2000, the climate has consistently remained a low priority. The climate crisis was left out of the list of national goals for 2024 and omitted from key strategic documents, including the 2020 energy strategy to 2035. In October 2023, the government did announce a new climate doctrine, but while it acknowledges the risks the climate crisis poses to Russia and reaffirms the country's already weak emissions targets, it pointedly avoided any mention of fossil fuels as a cause of global heating. References to the link between fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions were quietly removed. Russia's international reputation as a blocker of action on the climate crisis has only deepened in recent years. In 2021, it vetoed what would have been a historic, first-of-its-kind UN security council resolution calling the climate crisis a threat to international peace and security. At the 2023 Cop28 in Dubai, while many nations pushed for language calling for a full phase-out of fossil fuels, Russia was among the countries that resisted firm commitments, advocating instead for more flexible interpretations that would protect its oil and gas exports. Moscow's efforts to get 'transitional fuels' recognised in the final Cop28 agreement succeeded, helping to dilute calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and allowing continued reliance on natural gas and other hydrocarbons. A year later, at COP29 in Baku, Russia sent a large delegation dominated by oil and gas lobbyists, whose primary focus appeared to be securing new energy contracts rather than advancing efforts to combat the climate crisis. According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent initiative assessing countries' compliance with the Paris agreement, Russia's climate policies are 'highly insufficient' for meeting the 1.5C (2.7F) goal. If every country followed Russia's path, the world would be on track for more than 4C of warming. Still, Davydova noted that in the years leading up to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the issue of climate change – and how to address it – was beginning to gain 'unprecedented traction' among the general public and the business elite. But Putin's decision to send troops into Ukraine appears to have put Moscow's climate plans on ice. The fighting has had a devastating impact on the environment and climate. The climate cost of the first two years of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries, exacerbating the global climate emergency in addition to the mounting death toll and widespread destruction, according to a study on conflict-driven climate impacts. Throughout the war, Russia has deliberately targeted energy infrastructure, generating major leaks of potent greenhouse gases. Russia's invasion has also wiped out any incentive to invest in alternative energy, while, sanctions or no, fossil fuels have become even more central to the Russian economy. In 2022, oil and gas exports accounted for a greater percentage share of the economy than they did before the war, according to a recent study on Russia's climate policy after the war in Ukraine. Sanctions, combined with the near-total collapse of cooperation between Russian and western scientists, are likely to further hamper the country's ability to innovate in green technology. According to the Institute of Economic Forecasting at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia's capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could halve by 2050, primarily due to technological constraints. But Russia's elite seems largely unfazed by the climate crisis, instead framing it as an economic opportunity. Last month, Kirill Dmitriev – a close Putin ally – described the Northern Sea Route at a Russian conference on Arctic development as having 'interesting prospects' because of global heating, adding rising temperatures in the region could enhance access to untapped reserves of oil, gas and minerals. The Arctic has become a central focus in discussions of potential cooperation between the Kremlin and the Trump administration – with both having shown little concern for the climate crisis. Moscow and Washington have already held two meetings in Saudi Arabia to explore joint Arctic energy projects. The Kremlin wants to capitalise on its Arctic resources, and the US interest in them, to seek long-desired relief from sanctions and use the region as a springboard for rebuilding relations with Washington. For some, this is a worrying prospect. 'The Russian government has no alternative to offer its citizens except the destruction of nature for profit and war,' said the climate activist Arshak Makichyan, who has built a reputation as the Russian answer to Greta Thunberg. The problem is in authoritarian Russia, public opinion holds little sway over the Kremlin's agenda – and on the climate crisis, the government sees even less reason to act, Makichyan admits. Russia's war in Ukraine and western sanctions appear to have overshadowed Russians' concerns about the environment, with polls now showing that most view it as a distant issue. A 2024 survey by the independent Levada Center ranked environmental problems 12th among societal worries, far behind economic issues such as rising prices. By contrast, in 2020 48% of Russians listed 'environmental degradation' as the greatest threat to the planet. And the few environmental voices that have spoken out have been swept up in the broader crackdown on anti-war sentiment and political dissent; the state has outlawed local branches of the WWF and Greenpeace International, while also jailing dozens of environmental activists across the country. 'The environmental movement currently has no means to speak to a wide audience of Russians about the dangers of climate change,' said Makichyan, who was expelled from Russia in 2022, stripped of his Russian citizenship and now lives in Berlin. 'It's dangerous to have no means of raising awareness about climate change because, while the Putin regime will eventually fall, the climate crisis isn't going anywhere.' Source of figures at top: World Economic Outlook
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
What causes obesity? A major new study is upending common wisdom.
Obesity is uncommon among Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, Tsimane forager-farmers in Bolivia, Tuvan herder-farmers in Siberia, and other people in less-developed nations. But it's widespread among those of us in wealthy, highly industrialized nations. Why? A major study published this week in PNAS brings surprising clarity to that question. Using objective data about metabolic rates and energy expenditure among more than 4,000 men and women living in dozens of nations across a broad spectrum of socioeconomic conditions, the study quantified how many calories people from different cultures burn most days. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. For decades, common wisdom and public health messaging have assumed that people in highly developed nations, like the United States, are relatively sedentary and burn far fewer daily calories than people in less-industrialized countries, greatly increasing the risk for obesity. But the new study says no. Instead, it finds that Americans, Europeans and people living in other developed nations expend about the same number of total calories most days as hunter-gatherers, herders, subsistence farmers, foragers and anyone else living in less-industrialized nations. That unexpected finding almost certainly means inactivity is not the main cause of obesity in the U.S. and elsewhere, said Herman Pontzer, a professor of evolutionary anthropology and global health at Duke University in North Carolina and a senior author of the new study. What is, then? The study offers provocative hints about the role of diet and some of the specific foods we eat, as well as about the limits of exercise, and the best ways, in the long run, to avoid and treat obesity. - - - Is diet or inactivity causing obesity? 'There's still a lively debate in public health about the role of diet and activity' in the development of obesity, Pontzer said, especially in wealthy nations. Some experts believe we're exercising too little, others that we're eating too much, and still more that the two contribute almost equally. Understanding the relative contributions of diet and physical activity is important, Pontzer noted, because we can't effectively help people with obesity unless we first tease out its origins. But few large-scale studies have carefully compared energy expenditure among populations prone to obesity against those more resistant to it, which would be a first step toward figuring out what drives weight gain. So, for the new study, Pontzer and his 80-plus co-authors gathered existing data from labs around the world that use doubly labeled water in metabolism studies. Doubly labeled water contains isotopes that, when excreted in urine or other fluids, allow researchers to precisely determine someone's energy expenditure, metabolic rates and body-fat percentage. It's the gold standard in this kind of research. They wound up with data for 4,213 men and women from 34 countries or cultural groups, running the socioeconomic gamut from tribes in Africa to executives in Norway. They calculated total daily energy expenditures for everyone, along with their basal energy expenditure, which is the number of calories our bodies burn during basic, biological operations, and physical activity energy expenditure, which is how many calories we use while moving around. - - - A new theory of how our metabolisms work After adjusting for body size (since people in wealthy nations tend to have larger bodies, and larger bodies burn more calories), they started comparing different groups. Anyone expecting a wide range of energy expenditures, with hunter-gatherers and farmer-herders at the high end and deskbound American office workers trailing well behind, would be wrong. Across the board, the total daily energy expenditures of the 4,213 people were quite similar, no matter where they lived or how they spent their lives. Although the hunter-gatherers and other similar groups moved around far more throughout the day than a typical American, their overall daily calorie burns were nearly the same. The findings, though counterintuitive, align with a new theory about our metabolisms, first proposed by Pontzer. Known as the constrained total energy expenditure model, it says that our brains and bodies closely monitor our total energy expenditure, keeping it within a narrow range. If we start consistently burning extra calories by, for instance, stalking prey on foot for days or training for a marathon, our brains slow down or shut off some tangential biological operations, often related to growth, and our overall daily calorie burn stays within a consistent band. - - - The role of ultra-processed foods The upshot is that 'there is no effect of economic development on size-adjusted physical activity expenditure,' Pontzer says. In which case, the fundamental problem isn't that we're moving too little, meaning more exercise is unlikely to reduce obesity much. What could, then? 'Our analyses suggest that increased energy intake has been roughly 10 times more important than declining total energy expenditure in driving the modern obesity crisis,' the study authors write. In other words, we're eating too much. We may also be eating the wrong kinds of foods, the study also suggests. In a sub-analysis of the diets of some of the groups from both highly and less-developed nations, the scientists found a strong correlation between the percentage of daily diets that consists of 'ultra-processed foods' - which the study's authors define as 'industrial formulations of five or more ingredients' - and higher body-fat percentages. We are, to be blunt, eating too much and probably eating too much of the wrong foods. 'This study confirms what I've been saying, which is that diet is the key culprit in our current [obesity] epidemic,' said Barry Popkin, a professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an obesity expert. 'This is a well-done study,' he added. Other experts agree. 'It's clear from this important new research and other studies that changes to our food, not our activity, are the dominant drivers of obesity,' said Dariush Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston. The findings don't mean, though, that exercise is unimportant, Pontzer emphasized. 'We know that exercise is essential for health. This study doesn't change that,' he said. But the study does suggest that 'to address obesity, public health efforts need to focus on diet,' he said, especially on ultra-processed foods, 'that seem to be really potent causes of obesity.' Related Content He may have stopped Trump's would-be assassin. Now he's telling his story. He seeded clouds over Texas. Then came the conspiracy theories. How conservatives beat back a Republican sell-off of public lands
Washington Post
15-07-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
What causes obesity? A major new study is upending common wisdom.
Obesity is uncommon among Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, Tsimane forager-farmers in Bolivia, Tuvan herder-farmers in Siberia, and other people in less-developed nations. But it's widespread among those of us in wealthy, highly industrialized nations. Why? A major study published this week in PNAS brings surprising clarity to that question. Using objective data about metabolic rates and energy expenditure among more than 4,000 men and women living in dozens of nations across a broad spectrum of socioeconomic conditions, the study quantified how many calories people from different cultures burn most days.
The Independent
15-07-2025
- General
- The Independent
Chinese passenger plane narrowly avoids mid-air collision with cargo jet over Siberia
Two Chinese aircraft allegedly came within seconds of colliding over Russian airspace earlier this month after an unauthorised altitude change by an Air China passenger jet led to the dangerous convergence with a cargo plane. Air China Flight CA967, en route from Shanghai to Milan, abruptly climbed from 34,100 to 36,000ft without instruction from Russian air traffic control on 6 July, reported the South China Morning Post. The manoeuvre brought it within roughly 300 to 400ft (90–120m) of SF Airlines Flight CSS128, a Boeing 767 cargo jet flying from Budapest to Ezhou in central China. International aviation safety protocols require a minimum vertical separation of 1,000ft between aircraft at cruising altitude. The near miss occurred above Tuva, a remote mountainous region in southern Siberia bordering Mongolia, and was captured on live tracking data from Flightradar24. The unauthorised ascent triggered onboard alarms known as the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) in both aircraft, prompting emergency evasive action. Audio recordings circulating on Chinese social media since the weekend suggest the Russian controller was simultaneously handling four aircraft and may have issued unclear instructions. The source of the leaked recordings remains unknown and their authenticity could not be independently verified. Air China, SF Airlines and China's civil aviation authority have not issued public comments. The Independent has written to them for comments. In the English-language communication, the controller is heard asking: 'Are you climbing with instruction or without instruction? Confirm, please.' The Air China pilot replies: 'No. Thank you.' It remains unclear why the Air China crew altered altitude but miscommunication of command directed at another aircraft is being considered as a possible reason, reported Belgium outlet The pilot's full response was inaudible due to overlapping radio transmissions. After switching to a private frequency, the two Chinese pilots conversed in Mandarin. The SF Airlines captain expressed concern over the climb, calling it 'very inappropriate' and questioned whether the move had been cleared. The Air China pilot attributed the confusion to a Russian controller who he claimed had made 'a fuss', leaving the crew 'confused.' He admitted they would need to file an official report.
