Latest news with #carbonpollution
Yahoo
a day ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientists make concerning discovery after analyzing melted glaciers: 'An important future question'
Scientists make concerning discovery after analyzing melted glaciers: 'An important future question' For years, scientists have monitored the close relationship between rising carbon pollution and the melting of glaciers in the Arctic. According to a new study from researchers from the University of Florida and the University of Maryland, there may be a new dimension to the relationship that requires a closer look. What's happening? As noted in the study, the team of researchers theorized that as glaciers melt and uncover land, the fresh sediments first trigger chemical reactions that actually help suppress greenhouse gases. The team explained its findings in an article published by Jonathan Martin, a professor of geological sciences at UF and the lead author of the study, revealed the core principle behind the research. "Our central hypothesis was that the transfer of greenhouse gases between landscapes and the atmosphere has changed since the Last Glacial Maximum about 15,000 years ago, as the landscapes are exposed following loss of continental ice sheets," noted Martin. To test this theory, the team conducted field research at a "partially deglaciated watershed" in southwest Greenland. It was able to collect fresh glacial meltwater samples that contained low concentrations of reactive dissolved organic carbon. The researchers also pulled soil water that had been exposed to atmospheric conditions since the glacier first began retreating thousands of years ago. Why is this glacier study important? When newly crushed rock from melting glaciers breaks down through chemical reactions, it pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it. This helps reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, at least temporarily. The team suggests that the meltwater was reacting with the fine, crushed rock left behind by the moving glaciers, which helped limit greenhouse gas release at first. But over thousands of years, as soil started to form on the exposed land, new chemical reactions began. These reactions in the soil started to produce methane, another powerful greenhouse gas. "These results imply that the loss of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during deglaciation after the Last Glacial Maximum reduced the heat-trapping capacity of the atmosphere and provided a negative feedback on natural global warming associated with the transition out of an ice age," explained Martin. The increase in global temperature has significantly impacted the environment by causing shifts in weather patterns, rising sea levels, disruptions to ecosystems, and other critical climate issues. These changes lead to more frequent and intense extreme weather events that threaten both wildlife and human populations. What's being done about carbon emissions? The researchers believe that the exposed land ultimately produced more methane. Since methane is a strong greenhouse gas, this would make the atmosphere better at trapping heat, which in turn would lead to the continued increase of the global temperature. While researchers have detailed the impacts of gases like methane and carbon dioxide, Martin is now eyeing a new study that focuses more on nitrous oxide. Even though nitrous oxide represents just 6% of all gas emissions, its ability to trap heat in the atmosphere hasn't gone unnoticed. "An important future question would be to evaluate how the relative magnitudes of production and loss of these three greenhouse gases relate to each other to regulate warming and cooling during the loss of glacial ice," Martin added. Do you worry about the longevity of EV batteries? For sure Not really Not at all I've never thought about it Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
ABC News
24-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
A climate 'reckoning' just unfolded at the International Court of Justice. What does it mean?
It's been hailed as a "planetary scale" win for climate advocates pushing for stronger action against carbon pollution. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. Observers say it's a clear victory for nations, led by Pacific Island country Vanuatu, that campaigned for the case to be heard at the world's highest court. "It's hard to overstate how momentous this ruling is," said Wesley Morgan, a research associate with UNSW's Institute for Climate Risk and Response. And environmental advocates and experts say the decision will have consequences for Australia — a major exporter of fossil fuels — that could include legal action. So what was the case about? What did the ICJ decide? And what does it mean for climate change action? The ICJ, also known as the World Court, was asked to give an opinion about the obligations of nations to prevent climate change — and the consequences for them if they fail. It's the first time the court has made a decision on a climate change case. It involved a record number of countries in The Hague, in the Netherlands, and the court's 15 judges spent months poring over tens of thousands of pages of documents before reaching a decision. But, the road to the ICJ started in a classroom back in 2019, when a group of Pacific Islander law students in Vanuatu looked for a way to solve the apparent international "deadlock" on climate change action. They decided to ask the World Court to clarify what responsibilities nations had to address climate change, and soon gained diplomatic support from Vanuatu's government, which led a successful global campaign for the ICJ to hear the case. More than six months after 100 nations made their arguments at the court in December, the judges handed down their long-awaited decision on Wednesday, local time. The ICJ issued a clear and unanimous decision on the issue. It declared countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions. The court also found that failing to do so is a "wrongful act" that could mean polluting nations have to pay reparations to countries harmed by climate change. It rejected arguments put forward by high-emitting nations that it was impossible to attribute greenhouse gas emissions to individual countries. And it said a "clean, healthy and stable environment" is a human right. Importantly for Australia, the ICJ singled out fossil fuels in its decision. The judges found that fossil fuel production and consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies may constitute internationally wrongful acts. The court also found countries are responsible for regulating the emissions of private companies. While the ICJ's 500-page decision is non-binding, observers say it will reach far and wide in its impact. "We have a ruling today that will reverberate around the world and will echo through history," Dr Morgan said. "This is a planetary scale decision. "Today is actually a day of reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and for governments that continue to allow fossil fuel companies to harm the Earth's climate system." Experts say first, it will strengthen the hand of nations vulnerable to climate change in talks such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP. "Those states are able to go into those negotiations armed with this very powerful advisory opinion," Australian National University professor in international law Donald Rothwell said. Vanuatu's special envoy on climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, told the ABC the finding had shifted discussions from one of "voluntary commitments" to reduce emissions, to one about legally binding obligations under international law. And if those talks come to nought, the decision also paves the way for legal action, Professor Rothwell said. "The advisory opinion really opens the door for litigation to proceed by those specially affected states being able to rely upon the very clear outline of the extent of the obligations … that the court talks about in its opinion." Australia co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution referring the case to the ICJ. But it later drew rebuke from climate advocates after its arguments to the court diverged sharply from those of Pacific Island nations. While Vanuatu urged the ICJ to use a broad set of international laws in reaching its decision, Australia argued that nations' obligations largely did not extend beyond major international climate treaties, including the Paris Agreement. The ICJ has not accepted Australia's argument — one that was also put forward by other large carbon-emitting nations. Observers and environmental advocates say the advisory opinion will impact Australia. Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said it made clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production — whether used domestically or exported — due to the significant harm it causes and "regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned". Isabelle Reinecke, executive director and founder of the Grata Fund, said the advisory opinion seriously calls into question the legality of Australia's past and ongoing approval of fossil fuel projects and its subsidies for fossil fuel companies. "It makes crystal clear that so long as the Australian government's efforts to protect the world's climate system fall short of stabilising global heating at 1.5 degrees, it could be liable to litigation from other countries." And shortly after the ICJ handed down its finding, Mr Regenvanu did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries, including Australia. An Australian government spokesperson on Thursday morning said it recognises that climate change "is one of the greatest existential threats to all humanity, and that it's having a significant effect on our region". "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change," the spokesperson said. They said the government would embed serious climate targets in law and make the changes necessary to achieve them. "We will now carefully consider the court's opinion." Pacific countries are celebrating the ICJ's decision after leading the charge for nations vulnerable to climate change at the court. Fiji's prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, said the country was grateful for the advisory opinion. Reverend James Bhagwan, general-secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches and leading climate justice advocate for Pacific Island communities, described it as a "call to conscience". "Now we can really hold states accountable if they are not doing enough. And this can also be applied to companies and industries as well," he said. "If a healthy environment is a human right, then rivers, forests, mountains, and the ocean must be recognised as rights-bearing entities." For Pacific Island nations experiencing major cyclones, coastal inundation and sea level rise, the court case was about survival, Dr Morgan said. "They know that today the Pacific has again shaped global efforts to tackle the climate crisis," he said. Vepaiamele Trief, a 16-year-old Save the Children youth ambassador, said the advisory opinion will pave the way for a safer future for young people. "I really hope to see more climate action from all states, but mainly large polluting states that need to be held accountable for their actions."
The Guardian
18-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Gas flaring created 389m tonnes of carbon pollution last year, report finds
The fossil fuel industry pumped an extra 389m tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere last year by needlessly flaring gas, a World Bank report has found, in an 'enormous waste' of fuel that heats the planet by about as much as the country of France. Flaring is a way to get rid of gases such as methane that arise when pumping oil out of the ground. While it can sometimes keep workers safe by relieving buildups of pressure, the practice is routine in many countries because it is often cheaper to burn gas than to capture, transport, process and sell it. Global gas flaring rose for a second year in a row to reach its highest level since 2007, the report found, despite growing concerns about energy security and climate breakdown. It found that 151bn cubic metres (bcm) of gas were burned during oil and gas production in 2024, up by 3bcm from the year before. 'Flaring is needlessly wasteful,' said Zubin Bamji, the manager of the World Bank's Global Flaring and Methane Reduction Partnership (GFMRP), which wrote the report. '[It's] a missed opportunity to strengthen energy security and improve access to reliable power.' In many cases, observers complain, the rules to prevent needless flaring are weak and poorly enforced, and companies have little incentive to stop doing it because they do not have to pay for the pollution it causes. The report found that nine countries – Russia, Iran, Iraq, the US, Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Mexico and Nigeria – were responsible for three-quarters of all gas flaring in 2024. Most of the worst offenders were countries with state-owned oil companies. Despite efforts to stop the practice, the intensity of flaring – the volume flared per barrel of oil produced – had remained 'stubbornly high' over the last 15 years, the report found. Flaring intensity in Norway, one of the cleanest oil and gas producers, is 18 times lower than in the US, and 228 times lower than in Venezuela, according to the data. Andrew Baxter, an oil and gas expert at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, who was not involved in the report, said it was 'deeply disappointing' to see a return to the gas flaring levels of 2007. 'Such levels of flaring are an egregious waste of resources,' he said. '[They] are catastrophic for climate and human health.' The International Energy Agency has called for the elimination of all flaring except in emergencies by 2030. The value of gas flared last year, which would have been worth about $63bn at EU import prices for 2024, is more than half of the upfront costs that the IEA says are needed to stop the practice altogether. Jonathan Banks, a methane expert at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, who was not involved in the report, said solutions were well known and often cost-effective. 'What is missing is the political will and regulatory pressure to implement them at scale.' The report highlighted areas of progress, pointing to some oil and gas producers, such as Angola, Egypt, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, that had successfully reduced the amount of gas flared. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Kazakhstan, which has levied steep fines on companies that break the rules, had reduced flaring by 71% since 2012. Banks said: 'We need more of this kind of action and more support to help lower-income, high-flaring nations overcome infrastructure and governance barriers. 'We also need global coordination, particularly from major oil importers, to create incentives that reward responsible producers and raise the bar for everyone.' The report, which used satellite data to estimate flared gas, was produced by the GFMRP, which is made up of some of the world's most polluting governments and companies. Its funders include European energy firms such as BP, Eni, Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, as well as major oil-producing countries such as the US, Norway and the United Arab Emirates. The group has encouraged countries and companies to end routine flaring by 2030. According to the report, countries that endorsed the initiative have on average reduced their flaring intensity by 12% since 2012, though absolute volumes have fallen only slightly in that time, while countries that have not made the pledge increased their flaring intensity by 25%. 'Reducing gas flaring is not without challenges,' said Bamji. 'It requires upfront investment, adequate infrastructure, strong regulatory frameworks and sustained political will.' If those conditions were in place, countries could significantly cut flaring, 'often while unlocking new sources of revenue and improving energy access'.
The Guardian
18-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Gas flaring created 389m tonnes of carbon pollution last year, report finds
The fossil fuel industry pumped an extra 389m tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere last year by needlessly flaring gas, a World Bank report has found, describing it as an 'enormous waste' of fuel that heats the planet by about as much as the country of France. Flaring is a way to get rid of gases such as methane that arise when pumping oil out of the ground. While it can sometimes keep workers safe by relieving buildups of pressure, the practice is routine in many countries because it is often cheaper to burn gas than to capture, transport, process and sell it. Global gas flaring rose for a second year in a row to reach its highest level since 2007, the report found, despite growing concerns about energy security and climate breakdown. It found that 151bn cubic metres (bcm) of gas were burned during oil and gas production in 2024, up by 3bcm from the year before. 'Flaring is needlessly wasteful,' said Zubin Bamji, the manager of the World Bank's Global Flaring and Methane Reduction Partnership (GFMRP), which wrote the report. '[It's] a missed opportunity to strengthen energy security and improve access to reliable power.' In many cases, observers complain, the rules to prevent needless flaring are weak and poorly enforced, and companies have little incentive to stop doing it because they do not have to pay for the pollution it causes. The report found that nine countries – Russia, Iran, Iraq, the US, Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Mexico and Nigeria – were responsible for three-quarters of all gas flaring in 2024. Most of the worst offenders were countries with state-owned oil companies. Despite efforts to stop the practice, the intensity of flaring – the volume flared per barrel of oil produced – had remained 'stubbornly high' over the last 15 years, the report found. Flaring intensity in Norway, one of the cleanest oil and gas producers, is 18 times lower than in the US, and 228 times lower than in Venezuela, according to the data. Andrew Baxter, an oil and gas expert at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, who was not involved in the report, said it was 'deeply disappointing' to see a return to the gas flaring levels of 2007. 'Such levels of flaring are an egregious waste of resources,' he said. '[They] are catastrophic for climate and human health.' The International Energy Agency has called for the elimination of all flaring except in emergencies by 2030. The value of gas flared last year, which would have been worth about $63bn at EU import prices for 2024, is more than half of the upfront costs that the IEA says are needed to stop the practice altogether. Jonathan Banks, a methane expert at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, who was not involved in the report, said solutions were well known and often cost-effective. 'What is missing is the political will and regulatory pressure to implement them at scale.' The report highlighted areas of progress, pointing to some oil and gas producers, such as Angola, Egypt, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, that had successfully reduced the amount of gas flared. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Kazakhstan, which has levied steep fines on companies that break the rules, had reduced flaring by 71% since 2012. Banks said: 'We need more of this kind of action and more support to help lower-income, high-flaring nations overcome infrastructure and governance barriers. 'We also need global coordination, particularly from major oil importers, to create incentives that reward responsible producers and raise the bar for everyone.' The report, which used satellite data to estimate flared gas, was produced by the GFMRP, which is made up of some of the world's most polluting governments and companies. Its funders include European energy firms such as BP, Eni, Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, as well as major oil-producing countries such as the US, Norway and the United Arab Emirates. The group has encouraged countries and companies to end routine flaring by 2030. According to the report, countries that endorsed the initiative have on average reduced their flaring intensity by 12% since 2012, though absolute volumes have fallen only slightly in that time, while countries that have not made the pledge increased their flaring intensity by 25%. 'Reducing gas flaring is not without challenges,' said Bamji. 'It requires upfront investment, adequate infrastructure, strong regulatory frameworks and sustained political will.' If those conditions were in place, countries could significantly cut flaring, 'often while unlocking new sources of revenue and improving energy access'.
Bloomberg
28-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
RWE Wins Dismissal of Climate Lawsuit by Peruvian Farmer
RWE AG, one of Europe's top carbon polluters, won dismissal of a case brought by a Peruvian farmer who tried to hold the German energy giant liable for its impact on climate change. An appeals court in Hamm on Wednesday said that while national law allows a single company to be targeted for its share of climate-related damage, not all the necessary requirements were met in this suit against RWE.
