Monday, March 18, 2024

Why is the sea so hot?

Photgraph by Marli Miller/UCG/Getty/The New Yorker




From The New Yorker

In early 2023, climate scientists—and anyone else paying attention to the data—started to notice something strange. At the beginning of March, sea-surface temperatures began to rise. By April, they’d set a new record: the average temperature at the surface of the world’s oceans, excluding those at the poles, was just a shade under seventy degrees. Typically, the highest sea-surface temperatures of the year are observed in March, toward the end of the Southern Hemisphere’s summer. Last year, temperatures remained abnormally high through the Southern Hemisphere’s autumn and beyond, breaking the monthly records for May, June, July, and other months. The North Atlantic was particularly bathtub-like; in the words of Copernicus, an arm of the European Union’s space service, temperatures in the basin were “off the charts.”

Since the start of 2024, sea-surface temperatures have continued to climb; in February, they set yet another record. In a warming world, ocean temperatures are expected to rise and keep on rising. But, for the last twelve months, the seas have been so feverish that scientists are starting to worry about not just the physical impacts of all that heat but the theoretical implications. Can the past year be explained by what’s already known about climate change, or are there forces at work that haven’t been accounted for? And, if it’s the latter, does this mean that projections of warming, already decidedly grim, are underestimating the dangers?

“We don’t really know what’s going on,” Gavin Schmidt, the director of nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told me. “And we haven’t really known what’s going on since about March of last year.” He called the situation “disquieting.”

Last winter, before ocean temperatures began their record run, the world was in the cool—or La Niña—phase of a climate pattern that goes by the acronym enso. By summer, an El Niño—or warm phase—had begun. Since ocean temperatures started to climb before the start of El Niño, the shift, by itself, seems insufficient to account for what’s going on. Meanwhile, the margin by which records are being shattered exceeds what’s usually seen during El Niños.

“It’s not like we’re breaking records by a little bit now and then,” Brian McNoldy, a hurricane researcher at the University of Miami, said. “It’s like the whole climate just fast-forwarded by fifty or a hundred years. That’s how strange this looks.” It’s estimated that in 2023 the heat content in the upper two thousand metres of the oceans increased by at least nine zettajoules. For comparison’s sake, the world’s annual energy consumption amounts to about 0.6 zettajoules.

A variety of circumstances and events have been cited as possible contributors to the past year’s anomalous warmth. One is the January, 2022, eruption of an underwater volcano in the South Pacific called Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai. Usually, volcanoes emit sulfur dioxide, which produces a temporary cooling effect, and water vapor, which does the opposite. Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai produced relatively little sulfur dioxide but a fantastic amount of water vapor, and its warming effects, it’s believed, are still being felt.

Another factor is the current solar cycle, known as Solar Cycle 25. Solar activity is ramping up—it’s expected to peak this year or next—and this, too, may be producing an extra bit of warming.

Yet another is a change in the composition of shipping fuel. Regulations that went into effect in 2020 reduced the amount of sulfur in the fuel used by supertankers. This reduction, in turn, has led to a decline in a type of air pollution that, through direct and indirect effects, reflects sunlight back to space. It’s thought that this change has led to an increase in the amount of energy being absorbed by the seas, though quantifying the effect is difficult.

Can all of these factors together account for what’s going on? Climate scientists say it’s possible. There’s also a lot of noise in the climate system. “This could end up just being natural variability,” Susan Wijffels, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said.

But, possibly, something else is going on—something that scientists haven’t yet accounted for. This spring, enso is expected to transition into what scientists call “neutral” conditions. If precedent holds, then when this occurs ocean temperatures should start to run more in line with long-term trends.

“I think the real test will be what happens in the next twelve months,” Wijffels said. “If temperatures remain very high, then I would say more people in the community will be really alarmed and say ‘O.K., this is outside of what we can explain.’ ”

In 2023, which was by far the warmest year on record on land, as well as in the oceans, many countries experienced record-breaking heat waves or record-breaking wildfires or record-breaking rainstorms or some combination of these. (Last year, in the United States, there were twenty-eight weather-related disasters that caused more than a billion dollars’ worth of damage—another record.) If the climate projections are accurate, then the year was a preview of things to come, which is scary enough. But, if the projections are missing something, that’s potentially even more terrifying, though scientists tend to use more measured terms.

“The other thing that this could all be is, we are starting to see shifts in how the system responds,” Schmidt observed. “All of these statistics that we’re talking about, they’re taken from the prior data. But nothing in the prior data looked like 2023. Does that mean that the prior data are no longer predictive because the system has changed? I can’t rule that out, and that would obviously be very concerning.”

[Read more here]

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Australia's biggest smelter's massive wind & solar tender

A small part of the Tomago aluminium smelter





From Renew Economy

A massive tender for wind and solar projects is to be launched next week to help repower Australia’s biggest aluminium smelter Tomago, near Newcastle, with its majority owner saying nuclear is out of the question because it is too slow and too expensive.

The tender will be a landmark event for the Australian renewable energy transition, because the Tomalgo smelter – with annual demand of more than 8 terawatt hours, is the biggest single energy consumer in the country,[about 4% of total annual electricity demand]

Majority owner Rio Tinto this year has already announced two record-breaking contracts for wind and solar farms in Australia to provide power for its Boyne Island smelter in Gladstone, Queensland, and its two alumina refineries in the same port city.

Those contracts included one for the first gigawatt scale solar project in Australia, the 1.1 GW Upper Calliope solar project in central Queensland, and the 1.4 GW Bungapan wind project to be developed by iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest’s majority owned Windlab.

In an interview on Renew Economy’s popular and weekly Energy Insiders podcast this week, the head of Pacific Repowering in Rio Tinto’s energy and climate division, Vik Selvaraja, says the first steps towards a new tender will be launched next week.

“Next week, we’re launching an RFP (request for proposals) for Tomago,” Selvaraja told the podcast.

“And we are very, very keen to go down a very similar process of assessing what projects exist in New South Wales that we can partner with to bring to the market.”

Further details were not released, but it is likely to be similar in scope to the 5 GW of new capacity required by Rio Tinto for its Gladstone smelters and refineries.

Rio Tinto has locked in more than 2.2 GW of that wind and solar capacity, and is in talks with state and federal governments about assistance for the more costly storage and other dispatchable capacity before embarking on the rest of the tenders.

Tomago has a need for nearly one gigawatt of flat load to power its pot lines and – like the Gladstone facilities – wants to switch from its current dependence on coal to renewables and flexible power by the end of the decade.

The switch from fossil fuels to renewables for the country’s biggest consumers of energy makes a nonsense of the claims that such facilities can only prosper on so-called “base-load” power, a claim the federal Coalition uses to justify its plans to extend the life of coal fired generators and replace them with nuclear.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has been claiming that while nuclear is expensive to build, it is somehow cheap to consume. But that too is a nonsense claim, and only made possible in some countries by government ownership and massive subsidies.

Asked about the nuclear option, Selvaraja said: “As far as we can see … all validated and independent data that exists on costs say that it (nuclear) is a very expensive source of energy. And I think in Australia, certainly, we’ve got low cost wind and solar, and we were going to run with that.”

Rio Tinto, it should be noted, was once one of the major producers of uranium, but no more following the closure of the Ranger mine in the NT, owned by Energy Resources of Australia.

Vitasoy Australia's biggest year yet

The soy milk I drink,
which is the closest to the taste of cow's milk as I remember it.



From the ABC

A major Australian plant-based milk processor is forecasting its highest yearly production as consumers continue to embrace the dairy alternative.

Vitasoy Australia is tipped to produce about 70 million litres of soy, almond, oat, rice, and coconut milks on top of a new line of soy and oat-based yoghurts this year.

The factory, in Baranduda in north-east Victoria, opened in 2002 and at the time produced about 10 million litres a year.

Vitasoy Australia chief executive David Tyack said the market was projected to keep growing.

"In the past 10 years, there hasn't been a contraction in the market," Mr Tyack said.

"It's gone from the hippy-alternative sold in health food shops to a mainstream product. Forty per cent of Australian households now have a plant-based milk in the fridge."

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the amount of dairy substitutes purchased from supermarkets and other food retailers jumped another 14 per cent in 2020–21.

Almond milk had shown an increase of 31 per cent in apparent consumption from 2020–22.

Mr Tyack attributed the market's growth to a range of consumer behaviours including the "rise of veganism" and people wanting plant-based milk for health reasons.

"There's a needs basis. People who can't have lactose, and for coeliacs the only way to engage with milk is through rice milk," he said.

"Also, there are not many coffee shops that don't offer soy, almond, or oat milk."

Vitasoy said its most popular product for the past five years had been almond milk, however Mr Tyack expected oat milk to soon become the number one plant-based milk.


"Oat has gone absolutely ballistic in the past four years," Mr Tyack said.

"It's the most sustainable crop in the plant-based milk game, uses less water, less emissions and, in terms of taste, it's quite a neutral taste so it's a good gateway jump from dairy. It's creamy and in the coffee sense it makes coffee shine through."

Although soy milk was less popular than oat and almond, Mr Tyack said it still had a place in the market.

"The role that soy plays is that it's the closest to dairy milk in terms of protein calcium," he said.

"Almond and oat don't come anywhere near to the delivery of benefits."

Looking ahead, Mr Tyack said the future was bright for plant-based milks, however there was a limit to the growth.

"On top of the current 40 per cent, we know from our research there's another 30 per cent of households that are open to having plant-based milk in their repertoire but that's probably the limit," he said.

"The other 30 per cent of the market are dairy loyalists and won't consider a plant-based offer." [39 years ago, 90% of the public "wouldn't consider a plant-based offer".  We've come a long way.]

The plant-based milk market is still small compared to the dairy industry.

According to Dairy Australia, more than 8 billion litres of milk was produced last year, however that was the lowest raw milk production in 30 years.

This is a park in the area where the factory is located, 
which is in the foothills of the Great Dividing Range.



Why the world cannot afford the rich


From Nature


As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich. Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together1, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity2. In the decade to 2022, the world’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth, to almost US$12 trillion.

The evidence gathered by social epidemiologists, including us, shows that large differences in income are a powerful social stressor that is increasingly rendering societies dysfunctional. For example, bigger gaps between rich and poor are accompanied by higher rates of homicide and imprisonment. They also correspond to more infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse and COVID-19 deaths, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy and lower levels of child well-being, social mobility and public trust3,4. The homicide rate in the United States — the most unequal Western democracy — is more than 11 times that in Norway (see go.nature.com/49fuujr). Imprisonment rates are ten times as high, and infant mortality and obesity rates twice as high.

These problems don’t just hit the poorest individuals, although the poorest are most badly affected. Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth, similar to a Scandinavian nation. They might see improvements in their mental health and have a reduced chance of becoming victims of violence; their children might do better at school and be less likely to take dangerous drugs.

The costs of inequality are also excruciatingly high for governments. For example, the Equality Trust, a charity based in London (of which we are patrons and co-founders), estimated that the United Kingdom alone could save more than £100 billion ($126 billion) per year if it reduced its inequalities to the average of those in the five countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that have the smallest income differentials — Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands5. And that is considering just four areas: greater number of years lived in full health, better mental health, reduced homicide rates and lower imprisonment rates.

Many commentators have drawn attention to the environmental need to limit economic growth and instead prioritize sustainability and well-being6,7. Here we argue that tackling inequality is the foremost task of that transformation. Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies.

The underlying reasons for inequality having such profound and wide-ranging impacts are psychosocial. By accentuating differences in status and social class — for example, through the type of car someone drives, their clothing or where they live — inequality increases feelings of superiority and of inferiority. The view that some people are worth more than others can undermine people’s confidence and feelings of self-worth8. And, as studies of cortisol responses show, worry about how others see us is a powerful stressor9.

Rates of ‘status anxiety’ have been found to be increased in all income groups in more-unequal societies10. Chronic stress has well-documented effects on mortality — it can double death rates11. Health-related behaviours are also affected by stress. Diet, exercise and smoking all show social gradients, but people are least likely to adopt healthy lifestyles when they feel stressed.

Violence and bullying are also linked to competition for social status. Aggression is frequently triggered by disrespect, humiliation and loss of face. Bullying among schoolchildren is around six times as common in more-unequal countries12. In the United States, homicide rates were five times as high in states with higher levels of inequality as in those with a more even distribution of wealth13.

Inequality also increases consumerism. Perceived links between wealth and self-worth drive people to buy goods associated with high social status and thus enhance how they appear to others — as US economist Thorstein Veblen set out more than a century ago in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). Studies show that people who live in more-unequal societies spend more on status goods14.

Our work has shown that the amount spent on advertising as a proportion of gross domestic product is higher in countries with greater inequality. The well-publicized lifestyles of the rich promote standards and ways of living that others seek to emulate, triggering cascades of expenditure for holiday homes, swimming pools, travel, clothes and expensive cars.

Oxfam reports that, on average, each of the richest 1% of people in the world produces 100 times the emissions of the average person in the poorest half of the world’s population15. That is the scale of the injustice. As poorer countries raise their material standards, the rich will have to lower theirs.

Inequality also makes it harder to implement environmental policies. Changes are resisted if people feel that the burden is not being shared fairly. For example, in 2018, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) protests erupted across France in response to President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to implement an ‘eco-tax’ on fuel by adding a few percentage points to pump prices. The proposed tax was seen widely as unfair — particularly for the rural poor, for whom diesel and petrol are necessities. By 2019, the government had dropped the idea. Similarly, Brazilian truck drivers protested against rises in fuel tax in 2018, disrupting roads and supply chains.

Do unequal societies perform worse when it comes to the environment, then? Yes. For rich, developed countries for which data were available, we found a strong correlation between levels of equality and a score on an index we created of performance in five environmental areas: air pollution; recycling of waste materials; the carbon emissions of the rich; progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; and international cooperation (UN treaties ratified and avoidance of unilateral coercive measures).

That correlation clearly holds when social and health problems are also factored in (see ‘Unequal outcomes’). To show this, we combined our environmental performance index with another that we developed previously that considers ten health and social problems: infant mortality, life expectancy, mental illness, obesity, educational attainment, teenage births, homicides, imprisonment, social mobility and trust. There’s a clear trend, with more-unequal societies having worse scores.








Other studies have also shown that more-equal societies are more cohesive, with higher levels of trust and participation in local groups16. And, compared with less-equal rich countries, another 10–20% of the populations of more-equal countries think that environmental protection should be prioritized over economic growth17. More-equal societies also perform better on the Global Peace Index (which ranks states on their levels of peacefulness), and provide more foreign aid. The UN target is for countries to spend 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) on foreign aid; Sweden and Norway each give around 1% of their GNI, whereas the United Kingdom gives 0.5% and the United States only 0.2%.

The scientific evidence is stark that reducing inequality is a fundamental precondition for addressing the environmental, health and social crises the world is facing. It’s essential that policymakers act quickly to reverse decades of rising inequality and curb the highest incomes.

First, governments should choose progressive forms of taxation, which shift economic burdens from people with low incomes to those with high earnings, to reduce inequality and to pay for the infrastructure that the world needs to transition to carbon neutrality and sustainability. Although governments might baulk at this suggestion, there’s plenty of headroom. For example, tax rates on the highest incomes in the United States were well above 70% for about half of the twentieth century — much higher than today’s top rate of 37%. To shore up public support, governments need to make a strong case that the whole of society should contribute to funding the clean energy transition and good health.

International agreements to close tax havens and loopholes must be made. Corporate tax avoidance is estimated to cost poor countries $100 billion per year — enough to educate an extra 124 million children and prevent perhaps 8 million maternal and infant deaths annually. OECD member countries are responsible for more than two-thirds of these tax losses, according to the Tax Justice Network, an advocacy group in Bristol, UK. The OECD estimates that low- or middle-income countries lose three times as much to tax havens as they receive in foreign aid.

Although not yet tried, the merits of a consumption tax — calculated on the basis of personal income minus savings — to restrain consumption should also be considered. Unlike value-added and sales taxes, such a tax could be made very progressive. Bans on advertising tobacco, alcohol, gambling and prescription drugs are common internationally, but taxes to restrict advertising more generally would help to reduce consumption. Energy costs might also be made progressive by charging more per unit at higher levels of consumption.

Legislation and incentives will also be needed to ensure that large companies — which dominate the global economy — are run more fairly. For example, business practices such as employee ownership, representation on company boards and share ownership, as well as mutuals and cooperatives, tend to reduce the scale of income and wealth inequality. In contrast to the 200:1 ratio reported by one analyst for the top to the bottom pay rates among the 100 largest-worth companies listed on the FTSE 100 stock-market index (see go.nature.com/3p9cdbv), the Mondragon group of Spanish cooperatives has an agreed maximum ratio of 9:1. And such companies perform well in ethical and sustainability terms. The Mondragon group came 11th in Fortune magazine’s 2020 ‘Change the World’ list, which recognizes companies for implementing innovative business strategies with a positive global impact.

Reducing economic inequality is not a panacea for health, social and environmental problems, but it is central to solving them all. Greater equality confers the same benefits on a society however it is achieved. Countries that adopt multifaceted approaches will go furthest and fastest.

Nature 627, 268-270 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00723-3


Neo-liberalism has failed.  It has created huge inequalities in societies, it has worsened the environmental crisis, and it has made our politics more vicious and rabid.  Time for a change.

Covid death rates and the GQP


From a toot by Liam O'Mara


Seems there is a pretty clear correlation between support for #Trumpism and a lack of basic scientific literacy. Whodathunkit?