Log in
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
|
plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
|
“Biden also ordered an investigation into whether Chinese “connected vehicles” — a growing category of vehicles connected to the internet that includes EVs — posed a national security risk to the US.”
The Chinese government is certainly already buying or stealing the incredible amounts of data our bloated, expensive American cars already collect about us.
If you’re actually concerned about national security you’d just crack down on data collection and sharing in cars sold in America across the board.
The Chinese government is certainly already buying or stealing the incredible amounts of data our bloated, expensive American cars already collect about us.
If you’re actually concerned about national security you’d just crack down on data collection and sharing in cars sold in America across the board.
Epiphyte City
In a packed North Bay, Ont. auditorium this March, residents, environmental and legal aid groups gathered to discuss a problem that’s been decades in the making, and that risks affecting not only those who live in the area, but likely millions more Canadians across the country.
The public information session's focus was PFAS, a kind of artificial, potentially toxic chemicals that have crept into countless corners of daily life, and of which many persist in the land, water and human body alike for years.
Since as far back as the 1970s, North Bay’s municipal water supply in nearby Trout Lake has harboured PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which Health Canada notes have been associated in some cases with liver and developmental issues, cancer and complications with pregnancy.
In recent weeks, U.S. regulators have finalized new maximum limits on six key kinds of PFAS in drinking water, and in Canada, a new proposed limit of 30 parts per trillion is pending for waterborne PFAS as a whole; one that North Bay's water often exceeds in municipal testing.
"We're really fortunate to have this abundant supply of cold, clear water, and I think that knowing that it's got this very persistent contaminant in it … potentially interferes with all our relationships with that water," said Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch, a local organizer of the information session, in an interview with CTVNews.ca.
"That's a tragedy that can't be measured."
Also known as 'forever chemicals,' PFAS are built from some of the strongest bonds of their kind found in nature, meaning they likely won't go away on their own. And the path to ridding them from the environment is a long and expensive one for a local government with limited resources and an understandably concerned populace.
As far as Canadian cities go, North Bay's problem is far from the only one.
Non-stick sticks around
First developed in the 1930s and '40s, PFAS are effective at creating waterproof and non-stick properties, and can be found in a litany of products.
Everything from cosmetics, to cookware, to electronic devices can carry PFAS, and as those products degrade through routine wear, tear and disposal, tiny particles of them can accumulate in earth, water and air, as well as within the body.
Stain resistant carpets and upholstery, cosmetics, waterproof clothing, takeout containers and non-stick cookware are all examples of potentially PFAS-treated products. (Charlie Buckley / CTV News)
"Every day, you're coming in contact with PFAS," said Miriam Diamond, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto, in an interview with CTVNews.ca. "You wouldn't know where it is, because it's not listed on labels."
Diamond's research has studied potential points of exposure to forever chemicals in food packaging, cosmetics and possibly even the paint found on some playground equipment. To hear her tell it, trying to avoid them is a challenge.
"Half the [food] packaging that we tested had PFAS in it to achieve grease and water repellency," she said. "The good news is that half didn't, but you don't know which half; we have no idea."
A PFAS particle that began its life in the waterproof coating on a takeout container could find its way from the dirt of a landfill, down a nearby stream, into the body of a fish and eventually a person -- that is, if it didn't get to them already through the air and water themselves, or the takeout served in that container in the first place.
An international study published last month found PFAS to be "pervasive in [surface and ground water] worldwide," with 69 per cent of samples exceeding concentration limits proposed by Health Canada, even when a specific source of contamination could not be identified.
According to the local government, North Bay's PFAS problem came to be in part due to something outside the control of any individual resident: Jack Garland Airport, located upstream from Trout Lake.
Among the many safety features found at modern airports are crash trucks; fire prevention vehicles equipped with specialized, extinguishing foam that often contains PFAS.
As that foam has been released during emergencies, or in the years of firefighter training that the airport grounds hosted in the 1970s, '80s and '90s, it has seeped into the soil and into Lee's Creek, a waterway connected to Trout Lake, across a small bay from the local water treatment plant.
"The key to this is it doesn't break down," Diamond explained. "Hence the situation now, where millions of people worldwide are exposed to elevated levels of PFAS in their drinking water … communities beside military operations and airports are particularly at risk."
In 2021, Northwatch, the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) and others filed a petition to the federal government asking about its response to PFAS and last year, CELA released a list of more than 100 sites identified by the Department of National Defence (DND) and Transport Canada as suspected or confirmed to be contaminated, an association release reads.
Updated as of 2022, the list contains sites at many of Canada's major airports, as well as Canadian Forces facilities across 10 provinces and territories.
Source: CELA, Canadian Department of National Defence, Transport Canada
This February, the City of North Bay announced plans to begin remediation of the PFAS contamination at Jack Garland Airport this year, paid for with nearly $20 million in federal funding from the Department of National Defence.
"We are extremely pleased that cleanup efforts at the airport site are now about to get underway,” said North Bay Mayor Peter Chirico, in a release. “Our priority throughout this process is and has been the health and safety of our residents.”
Similar remediation efforts have been announced elsewhere.
"We have a responsibility to work with cities and provinces to safeguard the health of Canadians," said Defence Minister Bill Blair in a November press release, announcing millions more in federal funding to address PFAS concentrations linked to CFB Bagotville, near Saguenay, Que.
"We will continue to collaborate with the city and Quebec to protect the health and safety of local residents.”
Chemical concerns
Once PFAS enter the body, some kinds can take months or years to leave, meaning forever chemicals can build up, or what scientists call bioaccumulate, over a person's lifetime. And with so many potential sources of exposure, population-level monitoring by Health Canada has found the presence of PFAS to be extremely common among Canadians.
As of the 2018-19 study cycle, the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) found perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a type of PFAS, in 99.3 per cent of tested blood samples from Canadians aged three to 79. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), another variety, was detected in 100 per cent of samples.
Health Canada notes that exposure to some kinds of PFAS has been linked with a variety of health risks, including to the nervous, endocrine, immune and reproductive systems. PFOA in particular has been recognized by international authorities as a possible carcinogen.
One analysis published in 2022 found that in the United States alone, PFAS-related illness could account for US$5.52 billion in medical costs and lost productivity in 2018; an estimate the study authors describe as "highly conservative."
The news isn't all bad. Longitudinal monitoring by Health Canada shows that blood concentrations for some of the most notorious kinds of PFAS have been decreasing, in recent years.
In the 2007-09 sampling cycle of the CHMS, the average concentrations of PFOS and PFOA were just over eight and two micrograms per litre, respectively, but by 2018-19, they had fallen 67 and 52 per cent.
U of T's Diamond notes that, while this can be taken as encouraging, those numbers only account for two of the thousands of different PFAS chemicals known to scientists, and while PFOS and PFOA have drawn down in response to years of targeted policy change, their chemical cousins, of which information is far less available, have grown in use.
And even for those waning PFAS varieties, the story isn't over yet.
"We still have PFOS and PFOA in us, after implementing first controls in 2006 and 2008," she said. "That tells us how long it takes for levels to go down."
'It's everywhere'
In the past, government action to fight PFAS has been fairly surgical, targeting individual subgroups of chemicals. But to Diamond, the far more effective strategy is to restrict PFAS as a single, broad category and work backwards to exempt some essential uses, as needed.
"Deal with them as a class, so it's not whac-a-mole," Diamond said. "We cannot figure out the toxicity of all of them. We do know that some are toxic. Their high persistence in the environment is enough for me to recommend restriction, without waiting for proof of toxicity."
It's a move the federal government has shown interest in pursuing. In May 2023, Environment and Climate Change Canada announced moves toward proposing that "all substances in the class of PFAS have the potential to cause harm to both the environment and human health."
"Based on emerging science and what is known about well-studied PFAS, a proactive and precautionary approach is needed to help address these substances as a class," said Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, in a release.
Diamond envisions a system of required drawdowns in PFAS use across many industries, timed to allow a window for manufacturers to find non-PFAS alternatives, as the outdoor apparel and other select industries have begun to do. That push for innovation that has found its way to airport firefighting, as well, she notes.
Airports around the world, including those all across Australia, have transitioned to PFAS-free foams, and recently, Toronto's Billy Bishop Airport became the first in North America to make the switch, according to its new non-PFAS foam supplier.
But even if the flow of new contaminants were to be stemmed, there still remains a great deal of existing PFAS to address in communities like North Bay.
Bringing down those concentrations could mean expensive retrofits at local treatment plants, individualized supports for residents on well water and lengthy clean-ups that millions of dollars in pledged federal funding may not be enough to accomplish.
To Northwatch's Brennain Lloyd, who has lived steps away from Trout Lake for more than three decades, one of the first steps to solutions is to get the word out.
"That meeting in the North Bay Library auditorium, filled to overflowing, really said: 'People want to know about it,'" she said.
"They want to know about the issue and they want to know what the response is."
Edited by CTVNews.ca Special Projects Producer Phil Hahn
I cannot wait until this shit is illegal and every town has clean water
Epiphyte City
But first, Covid-19. Last week, hospitals were no longer required to share data on Covid-19 hospitalizations. However, Health and Human Services proposed a new rule requiring hospitals to continue reporting Covid-19 hospitalizations during non-emergency times. Public comment is now open. Please go HERE to provide your opinion. (My humble opinion: This is an essential system needed to protect our communities’ health and safety.)
Now, onto H5N1. A State of Affairs and your top questions answered.
H5N1 State of Affairs
There are 36 known infected herds across 9 states. The last identified herd was on April 25. Is this fizzling out? Could be. Or, more likely, it’s continuing to spread without us knowing. Testing animals and humans is still voluntary, and asymptomatic testing is not happening.
We are flying blind.
This is nicely demonstrated in wastewater. There are quite a few areas where Flu A is “high” or “medium” in wastewater—indicating H5N1 since we are out of flu season— but where herds have not been identified. This is most likely from animals (like milk dumping), but we certainly could use more clarity on what is exactly causing the increase.
There is still just one confirmed human case. I would not be surprised if there were more undetected, though. Some veterinarians have reported that workers have symptoms on farms with sick cows but didn’t test. The good news is that we’re not seeing huge clusters of sick people in emergency departments. So, if there are more human cases, I’m pretty confident they’re mild, from direct contact with sick animals.
1. How concerned should you be?
H5N1 is taking up a lot of brain space for epidemiologists, virologists, and veterinarians alike. Alarm bells are going off, many questions are thrown around, and frustration is brewing.
Concern has percolated to the public. I tell my family and friends: H5N1 is something to watch, but for the general public, should only take up about 2-7% of your headspace.
Three reasons:
Spillovers happen all the time, but very few become pandemics because many unlucky things must occur in sequence. The probability of a pandemic in any given year is 2%; this outbreak has increased it a little (I would wager 7%).
The risk to the general public today remains low. According to a risk assessment report from Dr. Caitlin Rivers’ team at John Hopkins, we are currently between risk scenarios 2 and 3 below. This isn’t March 2020—not even January 2020. H5N1 is not spreading among humans, and this virus isn’t novel; we have been studying it for years. Risk will ramp up if we see human clusters (Scenario 4) or sustained human spread (Scenario 5).
There’s not much you can do. Don’t drink unpasteurized milk. (It isn’t sold in grocery store chains, but you can find it at farmers markets, etc.) Don’t touch wild birds. And if livestock animals look sick, stay away. Call your Congressman and urge pandemic preparedness and/or biosecurity support.
We are coming off an exhausting and hugely traumatic Covid-19 emergency. Many of us aren’t psychologically or physically ready for another, but our survival sensors remain on high alert. Watching that we haven’t learned lessons from Covid-19 after all we went through is equally frustrating.
But right now, H5N1 remains a low-chance, high-consequence situation.
2. What are the symptoms of H5N1 infection?
Unless you work closely with livestock, have had contact with dead birds, or drink raw milk, it’s very unlikely that H5N1 is causing your symptoms.
Symptoms can range from asymptomatic to severe. Textbook symptoms for H5N1 are like the flu: fever, chills, cough, runny nose, etc. Some people also get red eyes because our eyes have bird flu receptors. The only symptom the Texas farmer had was red eyes (see his eyes in the picture below).
3. Can this affect my pets?
Domestic animals—cats, dogs, and backyard flocks—can get H5N1 if they contact (usually eat) a dead or sick bird or even its droppings. The current cow outbreak revealed another infection pathway: unpasteurized milk.
Cats on farms in Texas with infected cows got very sick; 50% died (presumably) from drinking raw milk.
4. How do we know that our food is safe?
FDA found dead viral fragments in milk. It sounds scary, but we have over 100 years of data on the effectiveness of pasteurization. To confirm, the FDA tried to grow an active virus from pasteurized milk samples at our grocery stores. These experiments failed, which means virus fragments detected in milk were broken pieces that could not replicate and thus could not harm humans.
They also tested other milk products, such as cottage cheese, sour cream, and beef, in grocery store products. All are safe to consume.
Don’t drink unpasteurized milk. It can make you very sick.
5. How dangerous is H5N1 to humans?
You will see a 50% fatality rate cited. Technically, this is correct because it’s listed on WHO’s website.
However, the “true” fatality rate is likely lower for three reasons:
This is among the cases detected. Past antibody studies of H5 suggest we are missing many infections.
When viruses mutate for human-to-human spread, they have to make trade-offs. Usually, this is trading disease severity for transmissibility.
We may have some cross-protection with regular flu strains. We’ve all seen N1 (the second part of H5N1) a bunch of times through flu vaccines and/or infection.
Of course, as we learned during the pandemic, even a small percentage of a large number of people is a large number. It could be devastating. So, regardless of the exact number, we need the government to prevent this from jumping to humans.
Bottom line
The H5N1 puzzle marches on. The risk to humans is not uniform. Unless you work on a farm or drink unpasteurized milk, keep H5N1 as a small nugget in your headspace. If risk changes (which it can and can quickly), at the very least, I will let you know.
In the meantime, local, state, and federal governments and key partners really need to get a handle on this so a pandemic can be prevented. The time to stop H5N1 is now.
Love, YLE
P.S. Keep those questions coming!
“Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE)” is founded and written by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, M.P.H. Ph.D.—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. During the day, she is a senior scientific consultant for several organizations, including CDC. At night, she writes this newsletter. Her main goal is to “translate” the ever-evolving public health world so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support this effort, subscribe below:
Don’t just keep it as a nugget in your headspace! Advocate for labor protections and healthcare for the undocumented farm workers!
Epiphyte City
Like most of us - I’m feeling hurt & betrayed by the knowledge that the WHO quietly upgraded their ventilation & air quality while pushing droplet dogma to the masses. They knew it was airborne & only protected themselves.
Let’s face it - we’ve known for a long time that many governments and people in positions of power have been taking more Covid precautions than they publicly admit. They downplayed the risks to the average Joe while using as many layers of protection as possible for themselves .
The World Economic Forum in Davos was perhaps the best example of this - where attendees had access to PCR tests and state of the art ventilation and filtration to lower their risk of Covid. Clean air for me but not for thee.
Despite this not being new information - the WHO news hits extra hard. These are the people who are supposed to be overseeing the literal health of the world. Keeping us safe, advising us of risks, educating us on prevention.
Yet they pushed droplet dogma for FOUR years - and people died or were left permanently disabled. They allowed bad science like cloth masks & 6 foot distancing requirements to proliferate while taking actual airborne precautions for themselves.
They quietly walked things back a few weeks ago and finally (albeit unenthusiastically) acknowledged that Covid is indeed airborne (while changing the definition of airborne). The problem is … who’s going to listen to them now? The guidelines have made no sense for 4 years and their credibility is severely damaged.
So I’m mourning. I’m mourning the thought of what could have been. If the WHO had admitted it was airborne & advised governments to take the same precautions they were taking for themselves … how many lives could have been saved? How many people could have avoided disability?
I’m also mourning the loss of trust in our public institutions and science. It’s having a downstream impact on health the likes of which we’ve never seen - and I fear it’ll only get worse. And it’s all too easy to understand how we got here.
If the “experts” tell you that a cloth mask, sanitizing groceries, washing hands & standing 6 feet apart will prevent spread of COVID …. And you get Covid anyways … you’re going to distrust them.
If you followed all their rules only to find out they took far more precautions for themselves? You will distrust them.
If you rushed out to get the vaccine and happily went vaxx and relax only to become seriously ill and disabled? You will distrust them. If you’re independently following the science and know that a respirator and clean air is necessary for prevention? You will distrust them.
The guidance we’ve received since the beginning of the pandemic has almost always been wrong. And no one has stood up and admitted that. No one has said sorry. So we see more and more people distrusting public health, ignoring the science & endangering their health.
I don’t know where we go from here but I know that it’s going to take a lot for people to get over the betrayal they’re feeling right now. Just like it’ll take a lot to undo the damage done and squash the rising anti-science, anti-vaxx movements that are growing the world over.
But we have to try. Literal lives are at stake. People are still dying and becoming disabled every day - and we know that risk goes up with cumulative infections. In 5-10 years there could be very few people left who aren’t experiencing long term health consequences.
I wish people in postions of power like the WHO would publicly say “we’re sorry - we got it wrong.” I genuinely think it would go a long way. People need to hear them say the actual words…. And apologies can do wonders for healing trauma. There’s much healing to be done.
Until that day - I hope and plead with people to continue following the science and advocating for clean air, better vaccines & treatments, respirators and a layered approach to Covid. It’s unfortunate so many of us are doing the job of public health - but it’s necessary.
Days like today it might feel impossible - the pain & anguish too much to bear. But never lose sight of the fact that there are people out there who see and appreciate what you’re doing. Who wouldn’t know how to clean the air or choose a respirator if it weren’t for YOUR advocacy.
Regular people on social media may not be changing policy at the public health or government level (yet)… but that doesn’t mean we aren’t saving lives. Even if you only reach one person… that’s one person who might avoid death or disability because of what you shared.
So keep up the fight. Call out injustices when you see them - but then refocus on the message at hand. Covid is airborne. It’s not over. It causes devastating Long Covid. The best way to prevent it is a layered strategy that includes clean air & respirators. We can do this.
If you want to learn more about the Covid pandemic and agree that some of the best information comes from people donating their time and energy and sharing on social media - there are a few excellent SubStacks I want to recommend. All of whom have inspired me to write more on the subject of public health and Covid - but who’ve also been integral to helping me keep myself safe throughout the pandemic.
writes some of the best Covid journalism I’ve found. Her pieces are always timely, accurate and tackle issues that mainstream media seem unwilling to discuss. She recently wrote about the WHO changing the definition of airborne (and the lives lost due to their refusal to call Covid airborne in the first place).
first landed on my radar via twitter/X - and writes about the pandemic, public health and issues of social justice. Recently he wrote one of the best pieces I’ve seen on Paul Alexander’s passing - the last man in the iron lung.
writes about the pandemic, climate change and being a prepper/doomer. Her posts are always insightful and challenge me to look at things in a different way.
It emerged as a powerful tool for public health officers during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was used to gauge the prevalence of coronavirus in communities across the nation.
But wastewater surveillance — the testing of sewage for signs of pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2, poliovirus and mpox virus — has yet to be employed in the tracking of H5N1 bird flu virus.
Now, as officials attempt to determine the extent of bird flu outbreaks among dairy herds, some experts are urging that wastewater surveillance begin immediately. Others are faulting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for reportedly discouraging its use.
“It has been consistently demonstrated that wastewater surveillance only enhances traditional surveillance, and often outperforms it when it comes to early/timely outbreak or surge detection,” said Denis Nash, distinguished professor of epidemiology and executive director of City University of New York’s Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health.
“In this case, since traditional surveillance is not really systematically occurring, and wastewater surveillance is relatively low-cost and easy to implement, it makes a lot of sense to me to go ahead and deploy it strategically,” said Nash, whose lab developed New York City’s community-based wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2.
That has not been the view of the CDC, however.
Recently, Marc Johnson, a professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the University of Missouri, said he was told by the agency not to use a virus assay he’d created for the purpose of tracking H5N1 outbreaks. The reason? Johnson said officials told him it would just add to the confusion.
Johnson said that if the assay had been in widespread use earlier this year, the spread of bird flu through the nation’s dairy herds could conceivably have been stopped, or at least slowed down.
“I always think the more information we have, the better,” he said.
However, he said he did understand the government’s rationale.
“Public health does not like ambiguous information,” he said. “You get a positive, you don’t know if that’s from a cow or a bird. Or maybe from milk poured down the drain.”
The CDC did not respond to questions from The Times.
Concern over the virus escalated in March, when federal officials announced the discovery of avian flu in a Texas dairy herd. Over the next few weeks, reports of the virus in other states began to pop up. It also showed up in barn cats that drank raw milk, and in one dairy worker.
H5N1 bird flu has now been detected in 36 herds across nine states, and health and U.S. Department of Agriculture officials are scrambling to determine its reach. They believe the virus was introduced by a wild bird — either via contact or feed — at a Texas farm in December, giving the virus months to travel to other herds and animals.
The virus was also found in one of five grocery-shelf milk samples tested by federal researchers. Those samples showed the virus had been inactivated by pasteurization, reducing the health threat to people.
In California, where the virus has yet to be detected in dairy cows, wildlife officials are keeping a wary eye on migrating wild bird populations as well as domestic poultry and farm animals.
Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, said the CDC is “off base” to say wastewater surveillance would cause confusion.
“If anything, we need to track the spread of the virus and its evolution, which isn’t getting done well by USDA and CDC,” he said.
Michael Payne, a dairy educator and researcher at the University of California’s School of Veterinary Medicine, agreed with that sentiment. Although he was not familiar with the assay Johnson devised, he said an accurate test would be valuable.
“Such a wastewater assay could be a useful tool, even given the uncertainty of exactly where the virus was coming from,” he said. “There is a growing body of literature that is using PCR testing in wastewater to measure pathogens of public health interest.”
Nash, of CUNY, said he’d advocate for a “strategic deployment of community-based and facility-based wastewater surveillance.”
He said testing wastewater at hospitals and health clinics would provide clear signals if an outbreak were to occur. Starting testing now, when a baseline for other “confusing” elements such as contaminated milk and bird droppings could be established, would help quell that noise.
He said that in the current situation, “we need reliable early warning because if community spread did happen, every additional day of notice would matter a great deal in terms of potential lives saved.”
Head in the sand, geez
Epiphyte City
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.
“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”
But many said the climate fight must continue, however high global temperature rose, because every fraction of a degree avoided would reduce human suffering.
Peter Cox, at the University of Exeter, UK, said: “Climate change will not suddenly become dangerous at 1.5C – it already is. And it will not be ‘game over’ if we pass 2C, which we might well do.”
The Guardian approached every contactable lead author or review editor of IPCC reports since 2018. Almost half replied, 380 of 843. The IPCC’s reports are the gold standard assessments of climate change, approved by all governments and produced by experts in physical and social sciences. The results show that many of the most knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate havoc to unfold in the coming decades.
The climate crisis is already causing profound damage to lives and livelihoods across the world, with only 1.2C (2.16F) of global heating on average over the past four years. Jesse Keenan, at Tulane University in the US, said: “This is just the beginning: buckle up.”
Nathalie Hilmi, at the Monaco Scientific Centre, who expects a rise of 3C, agreed: “We cannot stay below 1.5C.”
The experts said massive preparations to protect people from the worst of the coming climate disasters were now critical. Leticia Cotrim da Cunha, at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said: “I am extremely worried about the costs in human lives.”
The 1.5C target was chosen to prevent the worst of the climate crisis and has been seen as an important guiding star for international negotiations. Current climate policies mean the world is on track for about 2.7C, and the Guardian survey shows few IPCC experts expect the world to deliver the huge action required to reduce that.
Younger scientists were more pessimistic, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. Female scientists were also more downbeat than male scientists, with 49% thinking global temperature would rise at least 3C, compared with 38%. There was little difference between scientists from different continents.
Dipak Dasgupta, at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, said: “If the world, unbelievably wealthy as it is, stands by and does little to address the plight of the poor, we will all lose eventually.”
The experts were clear on why the world is failing to tackle the climate crisis. A lack of political will was cited by almost three-quarters of the respondents, while 60% also blamed vested corporate interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.
Many also mentioned inequality and a failure of the rich world to help the poor, who suffer most from climate impacts. “I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
About a quarter of the IPCC experts who responded thought global temperature rise would be kept to 2C or below but even they tempered their hopes.
“I am convinced that we have all the solutions needed for a 1.5C path and that we will implement them in the coming 20 years,” said Henry Neufeldt, at the UN’s Copenhagen Climate Centre. “But I fear that our actions might come too late and we cross one or several tipping points.”
Lisa Schipper, at University of Bonn in Germany, said: “My only source of hope is the fact that, as an educator, I can see the next generation being so smart and understanding the politics.”
Epiphyte City
Next Page of Stories