❈ ❈ ❈

Ecocide!

Robert Hunziker

Ecocide is the destruction of large areas of the natural environment as a consequence of human activity.

That destruction of “large areas” has grown so conspicuously large, so threatening to all species, including human existence, that a group of international legal experts is working to submit a draft of a new law “Ecocide” to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) at The Hague.

Stop Ecocide is the group supporting this initiative. The Stop Ecocide website mission statement says: “Protecting the future of life on Earth means stopping the mass damage and destruction of ecosystems taking place globally. We call this serious harm to nature ‘ecocide’. And right now, in most of the world, it is legally permitted. It’s time to change the rules. We’re working to make it an international crime at the International Criminal Court.”

It’s no small undertaking. The European Parliament supports the effort, the Canadian government is closely following it, President Macron of France champions it, and Belgium has already raised the issue at the ICC in its official 2020 statement. Meanwhile, a drafting panel of powerful legal minds plans to complete its work for submission to the ICC in June 2021.

There’s something horribly disturbing about this effort to label Ecocide alongside (1) Genocide (2) Crimes Against Humanity (3) War Crimes and (4) Crimes of Aggression, all four within the auspices of the International Criminal Court. More on that later, but first the genesis of ICC goes back to recognition of the necessity of such a court via UN Resolution #260 in December 1948, in response to the fascists of the prior decade. Thereafter, the UN adopted the Rome Statute, providing for the ICC on July 17, 1998. That statute at The Hague, Netherlands is enforced as of December 2015.

The ICC, after way too many years of consideration and procedural moves, is now officially recognized by approximately 123 states; however, that recognition is a moving target, as today’s brand of fascism doesn’t necessarily buy into it. Some signatories have withdrawn, like the Philippines (2019) and some countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute and four signatory states have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer want to play ball. These are Israel, Sudan, the U.S. and Russia. Prompting the query: What’s the common interest in degrading the effectiveness of the ICC? Answer: The distinct likelihood of being nailed as a defendant.

The Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte withdrew as soon as the ICC opened preliminary investigations into its drug war. The Trump administration (fascism-lite), assuming it can be called an administration, which is likely a misnomer, went so far as to threaten prosecutions and financial sanctions on ICC judges and staff as well as imposing visa bans in response to any American charged, especially regarding crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. Of course, the U.S. did not ratify the Rome Statute in the first instance, and under Trump it went even further down the rabbit hole, openly challenging “the honesty, the integrity, the truthfulness” of the ICC in addition to various harsh (juvenile) threats to the international organization. The world community was not blind-sided by that rogue behavior, not in the least. They expected it. (Footnote: As of Jan. 26th the Biden administration is “thoroughly reviewing” U.S. sanctions imposed on ICC officials.)

Still, in all, the most disturbing aspect of the Ecocide movement is the simple fact that it is necessary. The initiative speaks volumes about the broken-down status of various ecosystems, which are starting to crumble, as some are starting to disintegrate right before humanity’s eyes, especially in the far north. In fact, the brutal truth is the Ecocide movement may be too late. After all, the planet’s already wobbly.

The earmarks of a lost planet in its final throes of life support are abundant, for example, complex life forms such as wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians nowadays only constitute 5% of the planet’s total biomass with the remaining 95% livestock and humans. As such, cows, chickens, pigs, and humans huddle together in a vast free-for-all, chasing nature’s leftovers.

Two-thirds (67%) of all wild vertebrate species are gone in only 50 years. Poof! That’s only 3-points off the Permian-Triassic extinction event of 252MYA when 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species (and 95% of marine species) went extinct in the planet’s worst-ever extinction, aka: The Great Dying. Clearly, today’s Anthropocene Era is already “in the thick of it.” What of the next 50 years?

And, global wetlands have been hammered, badly destroyed, plowed under to only 13% of 300 years ago, as some insect populations have been decimated by up to 80%, just ask Krefeld Entomological Society (est. 1905) Germany about insect abundance plummeting in 63 nature preserves, where the environment is protected.

Along the way, human population grows like a weed whilst spraying or implanting toxic insecticides onto everything in sight. In fact, not much remains that hasn’t been directly or indirectly lathered in toxins, including humans and domestic animals based upon, mostly untested, chemicals; in fact, 80,000 in the U.S. alone. Meantime, one-half of the U.S. population suffers from a chronic disease (Rand study, 2017): (1) arthritis (2) asthma (3) cancer (4) ALS (5) cystic fibrosis (6) Alzheimer’s (7) other dementias (8) osteoporosis (9) heart disease and (10) diabetes, any one of which could have been environmentally induced.

Toxins tyrannize the planet, found everywhere, from the top of Mount Everest, 29,032 feet, where climbers discovered arsenic and cadmium in the snow exceeding EPA guidelines, to the bottom of the Mariana Trench -36,069 feet below, where undersea explorers discovered crustaceans with toxin levels 50 times greater than crustaceans that live within China’s most heavily polluted rivers, and that takes some doing!

All of which brings to mind a proper description for a planet that’s deadening, on its last leg, with natural resources of kelp forests

(-40%) coral reefs (-50%) and all plant life (-40%) widely decimated, including 103,000 wildfires in the Brazilian rainforest alone in only one year (2020) almost entirely (90%) of human origin?

This is deadly serious stuff that gets posted in articles like this, read by a designated number of people (thx), but regrettably, not much gets done about it, as the horrors continue to worsen by the year. We’re gonna run out of years!

For significantly deeper concern, look to wetlands, disappearing three times faster than forests, which are at the heart of the biosphere, the wetlands are colloquially known as the “kidneys of the world”: (a) cleanse water, (b) mitigate flooding (Midwest and Houston), (c) recharge aquifers (Middle East dilemma) and (d) support habitat for biodiversity, only 13% remains after a 300-year span. Ergo: “We are in a crisis!” (Martha Rojas Urrego, head of Ramsar Convention on Wetlands)

How does the planet continue supporting life with only 13% of original wetlands whilst world human population grows by 200,000 newborns per day? Nobody has an answer for that all-important aspect of survival. Do the math! Then, must it be reduced to Darwin’s survival of the fittest? Maybe, but the big truth/lie is: Nobody knows what to do other than pretend that growth to infinity, the hallmark of capitalism, is just fine and dandy. Is it? Really, is it?

Doughnut Economics may be a good, solid sustainable alternative? (For planet-friendly relief, Google: “Doughnut Economics Boots Capitalism Out!”)

All of which helps explain why some really smart people are drafting a new law for the ICC to stop ecocide. Honestly though, it’s already so obvious that it prompts an important question, which is: How could concerned parties not be incited to draft a law to prevent what’s already happened? Hmm! Nevertheless, will it be soon enough to make a difference? For certain, it’ll require a helluva lot more than drafting a new law!

Postscript: There is a real danger of losing our tenure on the planet altogether… Earth is in dire trouble. (James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, Publ. Allen Lane/Basic Books, 2009)

Additionally: You cannot plant an ecosystem. An ecosystem includes: Bacteria or haematids, insects, invertebrates and all kinds of stuff, all the way up to big trees. You cannot plant ecosystems… it has to come naturally. (Lovelock, at 101-years, walks 3-5 miles daily and has planted over 2,000 trees, motto: “Keep walking – that’s the secret to longevity. And keep interested.”)

(Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. Aricle courtesy: Pressenza, an international news agency dedicated to news about peace and nonviolence.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Global Ice Melt: Much Faster Than Predicted

Evan Lim

Two new studies suggest that recent estimates of global ice melt are conservative. In other words, ice is melting much more rapidly than experts thought. As a result, sea levels are rising faster as well.

The first study combines various observations from satellites, on-the-ground measurements, and model-based estimates to create a clearer picture of the state of Earth’s ice between 1994 and 2017. Essentially, it captures a global tally of change in ice mass over that time period. The resulting measurements of ice loss and sea level rise fall in the upper range of scenarios forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body within the United Nations meant to provide objective science related to climate change. The IPCC’s scenarios were laid out in their 2019 special report on oceans and the cryosphere, itself a recent overview of assessment work.

Faster sea level rise means that more areas will experience devastating floods sooner, and we are already seeing more of such events.

The second study zooms in on a particular region, rather than compiling measurements at the global scale. Focusing on Greenland, this study investigates how warmer ocean water affects marine terminating glaciers — those that end at the ocean. The authors identified at least 74 glaciers with retreats strongly influenced by warmer ocean waters, which expedite mass loss by undercutting a glacier’s base. Thus, the rest of the glacier is weakened and can collapse. Importantly, glacial melt contributes to rising sea levels; icebergs calving as glaciers thin adds water to the oceans.

Top and bottom illustrations show how the water thins the ice from below, making it easier for pieces to break off. (Source: Michael Wood et. al./Ocean forcing)

The authors of the first study emphasized that there is little doubt that the majority of ice loss is due to climate warming. In an interview with GlacierHub, Michael Zemp, director of the World Glacier Monitoring Service and a professor of glaciology and geomorphodynamics at the University of Zurich who is not affiliated with the study, stated that “Overall, the data show that climate change is happening and impacts are only increasing.”

Zemp also highlighted the complexity of systems in the cryosphere, emphasizing an important dynamic between the two studies in question. Broadly, the driving force of increased ice melt is climate warming. However, within glaciated regions around the world, there are specific characteristics that need to be taken into consideration.

For example, as the Greenland study demonstrates, the region’s glaciers are losing mass much more quickly as the ocean waters melt them from below, making it more easy for pieces to break and fall off. As this regional phenomenon affects the glaciers so significantly, the study authors point out that “projections that exclude ocean-induced undercutting may underestimate mass loss by at least a factor of 2.”

From the different characteristics of each region to the various measurement types (satellite, on-the-ground, modeling) to the time periods in which measurements are observed, models of the cryosphere have much to incorporate. Zemp notes that reports by the IPCC, which attempt to pull data from many different studies, can suffer as a result of the challenges of incorporating wide-ranging factors.

When asked how to reduce ice melt, Walter Immerzeel, a professor at Utrecht University, answered, “the only real option is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ASAP. The re-entry of the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement is a hopeful sign.”

Zemp’s conclusion echoed Immerzeel’s: “the response is not easy, but still very simple. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris Agreement will hopefully help with this.”

The Greenland study notes that from 2008-2017, there was a cooling period in the ocean near Greenland. Despite this cooling, grounded ice (ice on land) continued to retreat significantly. As a result of previous warming, the glaciers have already been removed from their state of equilibrium, meaning the balance between mass gain and loss is gone. Even if emissions stopped immediately, there would still be lingering effects and mass loss as a result of the damage that has already been done. If emissions stopped, global temperatures would still be high enough for ice to continue to melt.

“It [climate change] was already urgent, but these conclusions further emphasize this. We need to act now and invest in both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (being prepared for the impact),” Immerzeel told GlacierHub.

He also noted that increased ice melt has significant implications for communities which rely on glaciers as sources of fresh drinking water and water for irrigation. For example, villages in Peru rely heavily on the Cordillera Blanca mountain range. The mountains and glaciers provide a rich cultural history, economic benefits through tourism and water used for irrigation, tourist guesthouses and household consumption. As the glaciers melt, the traditions of the culture that rely on the glaciers disappear, and people’s livelihoods are threatened by the impacts on tourism and agriculture and the sudden appearance of floods.

While certain damages are unavoidable, there can absolutely be more harm to come if significant action is not taken now. Whether action is undertaken to protect current vulnerable communities or future generations, reducing emissions can shrink the burden people will inevitably have to bear. Communities are being affected as glaciers melt and sea levels rise, but the extent to which these damages will occur is still uncertain and can still be changed if the right measures are taken.

(Evan is a junior at Columbia College studying English and Sustainable Development. He is currently a staff writer for GlacierHub. Article courtesy: GlacierHub.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Role of Climate Crisis ‘Can’t Be Hand-Waved Away’: Scientists Say Freezing Texas Linked to Warming Arctic

Kenny Stancil

February 17, 2021: While the climate emergency is typically associated with heat waves, wildfires, and other signs of a hotter planet, some scientists are arguing the bitterly cold weather currently contributing to suffering and death in Texas and other states accustomed to mild winters is connected to the rapid warming of the Arctic.

“Every cold snap,” as the New York Times noted Monday, “can be counted on to elicit quips and stunts from those who deny the science of climate change.”

Nevertheless, even though the connection between global warming and “weather patterns that send freezing air from the polar vortex plunging all the way to the Gulf Coast” can seem counterintuitive, the newspaper continued, devastating cold-weather events like Winter Storm Uri are related to a climate crisis driven by accelerated greenhouse gas emissions and defined by rising temperatures.

That’s why the climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe told the Times she prefers the phrase “global weirding.”

Journalist Emily Atkin explained Tuesday in her Heated newsletter that the jet stream bringing “dangerous Arctic weather to millions of Americans” is, like other forms of extreme weather, related to the climate crisis. Atkin cited Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who told her several years ago that “all weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

According to the Times, “The air that usually sits over the Arctic is now sweeping down South because of changes to the jet stream, the high-level air current that circles the Northern Hemisphere and usually holds back the frigid polar vortex.”

“There is research suggesting that Arctic warming is weakening the jet stream, allowing the cold air to escape to the south, especially when a blast of additional warming strikes the stratosphere and deforms the vortex,” the Times reported. “The result can be episodes of plunging temperatures, even in places that rarely get nipped by frost.”

While Amy Butler, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Chemical Sciences Laboratory, disputes the existence of “any long-term trend in polar vortex disruptions” because, as she told the Times, they “occur naturally even in the absence of climate change,” other experts argue that there is, if not a causal link, then a correlation between climate change, a weakened jet stream, and an increase in southward excursions of cold air.

Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, told the Times that “severe winter weather is much more frequent when the Arctic is warmest.”

“The current conditions in Texas are historical, certainly generational,” Cohen told The Guardian Wednesday. “But this can’t be hand-waved away as if it’s entirely natural. This is happening not in spite of climate change, it’s in part due to climate change.”

According to Atkin, Cohen is echoing the findings of Jennifer Francis, a research scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center, who reiterated Tuesday that “this kind of pattern is going to be more likely.”

While The Guardian noted that “there is no consensus among scientists over the interaction between Arctic heat and cold weather further south,” Cohen, Francis, and other scientists argue that changing winter weather patterns are “a symptom of heating in the Arctic,” which is “occurring at a rate more than twice the global average [and] disrupting long-established climatic systems.”

As Atkin put it:

“This extreme polar vortex event epitomizes everything climate change is: unprecedented, unrelenting, affecting a population unaccustomed and unprepared. Yes, we have always had winter—but not here, and not like this. Now take out the word “winter,” and replace it with every other extreme weather event. That’s climate change.”

Despite the fact that the deadly power outages in Texas—a state heavily dependent on a deregulated fossil fuel industry—have been attributed by energy officials to frozen equipment at gas, coal, and nuclear plants, right-wing media outlets and Republican lawmakers are senselessly blaming the entire disaster on frozen wind turbines in an attempt to discredit renewable energy and even a yet-to-be implemented Green New Deal, as Common Dreams reported earlier Wednesday.

As Michael Webber, a professor of energy resources at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote Tuesday:

“Weather-related power outages are increasing across the U.S. as climate change produces more extreme storms and temperature swings. States that design their buildings and infrastructure for hot weather may need to plan for more big chills, and cold-weather states can expect more heat waves. As conditions in Texas show, there’s no time to waste in getting more weather-ready.”

“The crisis in Texas right now is not an accident,” tweeted Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday night. “This is the result of energy policy that puts corporate profits over human life.”

“We’re going to end that reckless greed,” Bowman added, “with a Green New Deal,” which, as Public Citizen pointed out, “is cheaper than a climate apocalypse.”

(Article courtesy: Common Dreams, a US non-profit newsportal.)