The study, published February 14 in Nature by an international group of 20 researchers, suggests that "between 10 and 47 percent" of the Amazon's surface area "will be exposed to cumulative disturbances capable of triggering unexpected ecosystem transitions and exacerbating regional climate change."

Pressures from "higher temperatures," "extreme droughts," "deforestation," and "erosion" could push half of the Amazon to this "tipping point" or "threshold," potentially leading to a vicious cycle synonymous with the potential collapse of ecosystems.

Read More

Disturbingly, a fifth of these homicides occurred within the vast expanse of the Amazon rainforest, making it a perilous battleground for defenders of nature.

Colombia emerged as the deadliest country for environmental activists, recording a staggering 60 fatalities in 2022.

This grim statistic indicates a worrying trend, with Colombia witnessing nearly double the number of such murders compared to the previous year.

Despite Colombia in October 2022 ratifying a significant regional agreement legally binding it to prevent and investigate assaults against activists, the violence continues unabated.

Since 2012, Global Witness has documented an astonishing 1,910 killings of environmental activists worldwide. Colombia topped the grim list with 382 reported homicides during this period.

The disturbing reality is that Latin America bears the brunt of this deadly assault, accounting for 88% of such attacks in 2022.

Brazil, Mexico and Honduras are among the other risky nations in the region, each reporting 34 fatalities. The Philippines also witnessed the loss of 11 environmental activists.

Amazon rainforest a hazard for environmentalists

The Amazon rainforest, where 39 activists were killed last year, has become one of the most hazardous places in the world for environmental defenders.

Notable figures like Indigenous specialist Bruno Pereira and British Guardian journalist Dom Phillips fell victim to assailants in the Brazilian Amazon in 2022.

"For too long, those responsible for lethal attacks against defenders have been getting away with murder. Violence, intimidation and harassment are also being inflicted to silence defenders around the world" said Shruti Suresh, Co-Director of Campaigns at Global Witness.

"Governments around the world must urgently address the senseless killings of those who stand up for our planet, including for the protection of its most precious ecosystems which have a critical role to play in tackling the climate emergency," Suresh said.

Laura Furones, a forest governance expert who advised on the report, highlighted attacks against Indigenous communities as a particular cause for concern.

"Research has shown again and again that Indigenous peoples are the best guardians of the forests and therefore play a fundamental role in mitigating the climate crisis" she said. "Yet they are under siege in countries like Brazil, Peru and Venezuela for doing precisely that.

"If we are to keep the forests standing, we must recognise that this relies upon the protection of those who call the forest home."

Sources

La Croix International

BBC

Without significant movement at the forthcoming COP27 climate talks in Egypt, a pivotal vote at the next UN general assembly meeting, brought by the tiny Pacific islands of Vanuatu, could open the floodgates to international climate litigation.

A core group of 16 states led by Vanuatu, will table a draft resolution at the general assembly in December requesting that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gives an "advisory opinion" to clarify the rights and obligations of states under international law in relation to the adverse effects of climate change.

Vanuatu needs only a simple majority of members present and voting (50% plus one), and support is growing. If successful, the baton passes to the ICJ to bring legal clarity to this complex issue.

The advisory opinion would be non-binding. Nonetheless, such an opinion draws enormous moral power and legal authority. Although the vote takes place after COP27, Vanuatu's initiative could have an influence on negotiations in Egypt.

Responsibility and compensation for loss and damage

Low-income island states like Vanuatu have contributed the least to climate change, but as a group are the most directly affected by it.

For low-lying atolls in particular, sea-level rise poses an existential threat - some Pacific nations will be entirely underwater by the end of the century.

So it's not surprising to see states seeking clarity from the ICJ. Vanuatu has taken the lead in going to international courts, but others could follow suit.

As far back as 1991, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) first called for a mechanism to compensate countries affected by sea level rise.

These days, there are calls for "loss and damage" payments to address impacts associated with climate change that cannot be adapted to.

But repeated attempts to raise the profile of loss and damage within the negotiations have been met with hostility from rich countries.

At COP26 in Glasgow last year, AOSIS, supported by a coalition of 134 developing countries and China, called for a new facility to finance loss and damage, but this was firmly blocked by the US and EU.

Vanuatu is one of many small island states in the Pacific threatened by rising seas.

The costs of responding to climate disasters in developing countries could be in the trillions of dollars by 2050, and rich countries will want to avoid any legally binding commitment to meet these costs with public resources. But an ICJ advisory opinion could help unstick negotiations, as the threat of expansive litigation in the future may encourage the rich countries to capitulate.

Diverging interests

All of this plays into the increasingly contentious geopolitics between developing island states and larger, richer nations.

A simple divide between rich and poor, north and south, or in the lingo of climate policy "Annex I" and "non-Annex I" countries does not tell the whole story.

For instance, many middle-income "emerging" countries are rapidly industrialising.

Their fast-growing emissions are causing their interests to diverge from those of small island states, and it is unclear whether the large group of developing countries will remain united in loss and damage negotiations.

Middle-income countries such as China's Hong Kong are not necessarily on the same side as low-income islands.

Recognising the power of small states

Vanuatu's initiative acknowledges the failures of the climate change negotiations but exemplifies the unique ways that small island developing states can exercise power.

First, the recognition by the country's president that the ICJ is "the only principal organ of the UN system that has not yet been given an opportunity to help address the climate crisis" is extremely insightful.

This seemingly banal observation about a process with no legal force, actually carries huge political significance because, if given the opportunity, the ICJ could make a judgement that powerful polluting countries would rather not have to hear.

Second, Vanuatu's initiative is triggered by the low level of ambition under current nationally determined contributions (the amount each country pledges to cut its emissions by).

International law requires states to prevent harm to the environment and protect human rights.

At best, these obligations are not being met; at worst, they are actively being undermined by the lack of transformative climate action being demanded by vulnerable states.

Third, this initiative is being spearheaded by a country of just 300,000 people across 83 islands and atolls, many of which are literally going underwater.

This is a remarkable example of the kind of leverage that can be exercised by small and vulnerable states.

In the absence of conventional sources of power (size and military might), island states have been able to build multilateral coalitions and leverage institutional forms of influence (such as their UN membership, international law, and moral persuasion) to redress the imbalance.

Powerful nations should stand up and take notice. Vanuatu and its partners are pursuing a ground-breaking diplomatic strategy, and others will likely follow.

But regardless of the ICJ initiative outcome, any acknowledged responsibility for loss and damage caused by climate change will only have meaningful effects when countries redress them. For the sake of the smallest, most vulnerable nations on earth, it's high time that they did.

• Emily Wilkinson Co-director, Caribbean Resilience and Recovery Knowledge Network, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus
• Matt Bishop Senior Lecturer in International Politics, University of Sheffield
• Nadia Sánchez Castillo-Winckels Visiting Research Fellow, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission

A YouGov poll commissioned by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (Cafod) shows nearly six out of ten Catholics feel the Government has done too little to tackle climate change in the last year.

20 percent of Catholics and 24 percent of Christians think the Government is committed to its net zero target and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

One of those hoping for urgent action at an international level is UK bishop John Arnold.

"It is vital that steps are taken to limit global temperatures," he said just before COP27 opened. The conference runs from 6 -18 November.

In a statement prepared in consultation with Cafod, Arnold says it's our Christian duty to protect our planet for future generations.

"Pope Francis tells us in his encyclical Laudato Si' that our relationship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with God - to fail to do so damages our relationship with God."

Arnold says he will be praying for world leaders that they can develop solutions to the urgent challenge.

"The planet is in danger," he says.

"Recent scientific reports show we are still off track to keeping us all safe and we know it is the poorest communities in our world who are suffering most from a crisis they did not cause.

"No more so than our brothers and sisters in East Africa, who are experiencing the worst drought for 40 years. This has left many millions on the cusp of starvation.

"We need concrete action to keep us within a 1.5 degree temperature rise," Arnold says.

"We need to focus on investing in renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels. At COP27, we need action to shift to a food system which does not harm our planet and has feeding all people nutritious food at its heart.

"We know that the world faces a financial crisis but we hope that governments can come to a solution where those most in need are put at the top of the agenda, with those who have caused the climate crisis providing their fair share.

"Pope Francis reminded us that the climate is a common good belonging to all and meant for all..."

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is also speaking out about the urgent need for climate justice.

"The climate emergency is an existential global threat that requires a global response", he says.

African Archbishop Fridolin Ambongo Besungu of Kinshasa agrees.

"The solutions to this crisis must not continue the business-as-usual approach ... at the expense of the world's poor."

After initially saying he'd skip the conference, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has changed his mind and is attending the COP27 climate change summit in Egypt.

Over the next two weeks, the eyes of the world will be on the world leaders discussing the shared challenge the climate crisis presents.

Source

• The Tablet

In a statement on Friday, the Pacific Elders Voice group, which includes former leaders of the Marshall Islands, Palau, Kiribati and Tuvalu, said that "the primary security threat to the Pacific is climate change," rather than geo-strategic tensions.

The former President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, says Pacific leaders are being ignored due to concerns over China's influence in the region.

Tong, a member of the Elders Voice, said the issue of climate security is receiving less attention because major powers are interested in "their own rivalries".

He said the recent China-Solomon Islands security pact has prompted uproar from America, Australia and New Zealand. However, Tong said Pacific leaders have been "screaming that climate change" is the region's highest priority.

"I don't think we have been heard. I suspect that there are countries who do not believe that climate change is as relevant to them as their own rivalries in terms of the powers that they deal with.

"I think it is important to make that point that here we are, we are part of the discussions and that whatever we do with other partners is regarded as impinging on the wider security issues of the region," he said.

The former Pacific leaders group voiced concerns that major powers including the US, Australia and Japan were developing policies for the region without consulting Pacific leaders. It said: "The security and future of the Pacific must be determined primarily by Pacific Island countries and not by external powers competing over strategic interests within our region."

Tong said the Pacific needs to be included in the decision-making processes even if they don't have any significant input.

"And I think it's a bit interesting that all of the security discussions are going on around us and not with us. That is the question we are raising, should we not be part of the discussions in many ways," he said.

Sources

RNZ

Island Times

The Korea Herald

The pastoral letter is the first one Archbishop Dermot Farrell (pictured) has released since he was installed in February. Pope Francis had announced his appointment last December.

"The purpose of this pastoral letter is to initiate a diocesan conversation about how all can contribute to the care of our common home and recognize the many dimensions attached to this challenge," the letter says.

"We are at a critical moment as a global community and so I wish to encourage all people of faith to embark on this journey to live our call to protect and care for the garden of the world."

Farrell released the letter, subtitled "The climate catastrophe - Creation's urgent call for change," on the eve of the Season of Creation - an "annual celebration of prayer and action for our common home". This year the Season runs from 1 September to 4 October. He invited the Dublin archdiocese to participate in the celebration.

"This pastoral letter, which I have titled, ‘The Cry of the Earth, the Cry of the Poor,' approaches the climate catastrophe from the perspective of faith," Farrell says.

"That is not to say, it excludes the insights and contribution of the natural sciences. On the contrary, healthy faith takes on board what God says through creation. Faith and science are not opponents; in a truly Christian view, faith and reason ... go hand in hand. God reveals himself through the world. That is the heart of our Catholic faith.

"Scientists have issued a ‘code red' not just for the environment, but for humanity itself. God now calls us, individually and collectively, to work for the good of the planet and the good of all. Let us not fool ourselves: there can be no enduring response to the cry of the earth without responding to the need for justice and dignity."

In his letter Farrell also urges parishes in the 1.1 million-strong archdiocese to sign the "Healthy Planet-Healthy People" petition, endorsed by the Holy See.

The petition, directed at the U.N. Climate Conference that will take place in Glasgow in November, calls for an agreement limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

He also invites Catholics to become involved with the Laudato Sì Prize, an archdiocesan initiative inspired by Pope Francis's 2015 encyclical.

The letter concludes with an appendix of poetry by English Jesuit Gerard Manley Hopkins and T.S. Eliot.

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• Image: Crux Now

Unlike a war, a pandemic or a depression, this is not a disaster we can recover from in a few decades.

This is a calamity that will take centuries, if not millennia, to recover from, if recovery is even possible.

Sadly, most people look upon scientists as Cassandras whose warnings can be ignored. "Sure, it is hotter; sure, forest fires are raging; sure, storms are bigger. But I have more immediate concerns to worry about" is the response of most people.

As a result, politicians are not willing to make the hard decisions that will save us from the coming apocalypse.

The report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Monday (Aug. 9), makes clear global warming is no longer a theory — it is a proven reality.

Here are the facts: The world is 1.1 degree Celsius warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution, and it is on an alarming trajectory to go up another half degree by the early 2030s. This is due to human use of coal, oil and gas.

These numbers may sound infinitesimally small, but if the world reaches 2 degrees above preindustrial levels, we will see cataclysmic changes in the environment.

The Greenland ice sheet will slide into the sea and we will see a 6-foot rise in sea levels, enough to swamp most coastal cities.

Glaciers and snowpacks that provide water to cities and farms will disappear. Aquifers will be tapped out.

Farmland will become desert. Starvation will occur on a massive scale around the world.

Nor will we be able to look to the seas to save us.

As the oceans get more acidic from carbon dioxide, coral cannot survive.

Coral reefs and kelp beds, the nurseries of marine life, are already dying off.

When they are gone, fish species will go extinct.

All parents want to leave their children inheritances that give them a leg up in life. Human civilization is built on what preceding generations have been able to create.

The current generation will leave to their children and grandchildren a wasteland, and there is nothing they can do as individuals to mitigate this for their own children.

Science is telling us what has happened and what will happen.

Science also is telling us how to stop it from getting worse.

We must stop pouring CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As Pope Francis has taught us in his 2015 encyclical, "Laudato Si'," this will take both individual and systemic conversion because it will require sacrifice on an enormous scale.

Every person must reduce their carbon footprint, but economic systems must also change.

Economists recommend carbon taxes to discourage carbon consumption, but regulations will also be needed to force businesses to do the right thing despite market forces.

Currently, this seems politically impossible because there is no sense of urgency among the public.

In the COVID crisis, it took thousands of deaths each month to convince America to take the pandemic seriously, and still some do not.

If we cannot respond to a crisis we can see right now, how will we respond to a crisis in the future that too many refuse to see?

My only consolation is that Catholicism, through the pope, is on the right side of history for once.

Sadly, too few of our bishops are following him and doing anything about the crisis.

When was the last time you heard your bishop speak out on climate change?

As Pope Francis said, concern for the environment can no longer be an optional or secondary aspect of Christianity. It must be central to who we are as Christians.

We must care for God's creation; we must protect the Earth and all that lives on it. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren will experience the apocalypse.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

He made the comments on a new podcast, "The Backroom of Politics".

However, while taking climate change seriously, Brownlee says he does not use the term Climate Crisis because it frightens people too much, it disempowers people and implies we cannot do anything to make things better.

Ghahraman agreed.

"The research shows the ‘crisis' word is disempowering."

"We need to start using a different word."

"It's the balance between treating it as a really really serious thing and also helping to motivate change and action," she said.

Brownlee acknowledged there were 'deniers', but that he is not one of them.

He said it is not possible to ignore, the change in weather patterns and the merging of seasons that we are seeing.

Brownlee's view is there is little difference in intent between National and the Greens, rather it is more of a matter of how the two parties propose reaching the goal.

"National signed the Paris Agreement, we support the Zero Carbon Act, we supported the establishment of the Climate Change Commission, although I think it has become more activist than advisory, and we support the 2050 Zero Carbon target."

Electric vehicles

One of the differences of approach the MP's discussed is how to make a significant change to New Zealand's carbon output.

Addressing the issue of electric vehicles Ghahraman said "We're not going to see Climate Change addressed with a subsidy on electric cars."

But, "We need the Government to start somewhere to help people, across the board, make better decisions."

Ghahraman says New Zealanders do not necessarily want to have high emitting vehicles and rather than the EV subsidy policy, she prefers, that "finally", the government is going to initiate standards on the vehicles New Zealand imports.

"This is something we are really really behind on," she said.

Ghahraman says it is the role of the government to regulate in order to lead to a greener future.

She admits she is concerned that EV's are not affordable to most New Zealanders.

Brownlee said he disagreed with the Government's approach in providing a subsidy for low-emission vehicles.

He said that even the Transport Minister admits that when the scheme is 'fully up and running', it will make only a .04% difference to New Zealand's emissions profile.

"People want practical things they can do that might change our emissions profile," Brownlee said.

He questioned whether moving to EV's is something most New Zealanders will do, adding the country also has a supply shortage of electricity.

Proud of his party's achievement in Government, Brownlee pointed out that four years ago the country had a 90% rate of renewable energy, but now we have just 70%; adding the country is burning imported coal to keep the lights on.

"Going head-on into a solution without having all the background enabling the country to reach the solution is a problem."

While both agreed there is a need to transition to a cleaner environment, Ghahraman re-emphasised the important role government has in leading the change.

"Small steps make a difference," she said.

The discussion continues, touching on solar power (which Brownlee admits has at home), plastics particularly in supermarkets, the Auckland cycleway, rail transport and agriculture.

Continue listening

Source

The Backroom of Politics is a new podcast giving an insight into the discussion that lead to policy-making in New Zealand.

The podcast is available on

• Pocket Casts
• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify
• Or search "The Backroom of Politics" from your favourite Pod-Catcher

Michael Haddad was paralyzed from the chest down in a jet ski accident when he was six years old. He was told that he would never walk again due to the spinal cord injury.

But the athlete and adventurer from Lebanon has found a way to walk using steel spine and orthotic leg braces.

Haddad greeted Pope Francis at the June 2 general audience and asked him to bless his Arctic mission. He is undertaking the trek with a team of scientists as a United Nations goodwill ambassador for the environment.

"When I told my story to the Holy Father, he put his hand on my head. I told him that we try to bring a message of humanity in favour of the earth and the environment. He blessed me, and I said: 'Father, pray for me,'" Haddad told Vatican News after the encounter.

"‘Pray for me at the North Pole,' the pope replied. I can't get this sentence out of my head. It gave me strength and much food for thought. I feel more committed, no longer alone, but together with the pope to try to make this change."

Haddad plans to make his Arctic trek in February or March 2022 after a previous attempt was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The adventurer has already walked the Pyramids of Giza plateau, scaled the Raouche Rock in Beirut, snowshoed the Black Summit, and completed two marathons using exoskeleton technology.

"As a person unable to walk, stand up and sit on their own, I decided to explore my potential. I have found that nothing is impossible," he said.

"This is thanks to two things: faith and determination. Faith in our Creator, faith in ourselves. Determination, in the certainty that within us there are unlimited powers to go forward and break every wall," he said.

Haddad, a Christian, gave the pope a branch of a cedar tree, a biblical symbol of Lebanon, and a photo of a church in an old cedar forest.

"The wood of those cedars has been connected to the earth for 10,000 years. So there is a double meaning: history and man's close connection to the planet. We lived in the forests, it is time to remind us, because without a healthy planet there is no healthy humanity. We must send this message to the world," he said.

"I decided to walk," he explained, "because earth is sitting in a wheelchair. We have to unite to save ourselves, to save our planet and I am doing it under one banner. The United Nations we stand united together all over the world to make this change. And we have to do it now."

Sources

Catholic News Agency

Vatican News

His bigoted rampage left little doubt who he meant by "we" and "our way of life."

The eco-fascism of the far-right couches its racist intent as concern for the environment, demonises women of color for "overpopulation" and stokes fears of an end to white racial "purity" and power.

It uses the current specter of looming ecological collapse to reawaken a genocidal impulse as old as the United States, wiping out those deemed unfit to survive.

Only a few people defend the most horrific expression of these beliefs.

Women's fertility - environmental sustainability

But today, arguments for population control are reemerging in mainstream and even liberal discussions around limiting women's fertility in the name of environmental sustainability.

This isn't the first time women's bodies have been treated as a means to a demographic end.

Recall such ugly initiatives, all mainstream in their day, to forcibly sterilize Black, Latina, and Indigenous women, to treat Puerto Rican women like lab rats in contraceptive trials to keep the island's population down and to fund sterilization camps in India.

Reproductive justice

Invariably, even the most nefarious population control projects claim to serve some unassailable social good, like poverty reduction or peace.

After Hurricane Katrina, a Louisiana representative proposed paying people who receive state assistance $1,000 in exchange for being sterilized.

He explained the benefits of reducing the number of poor people, citing the likelihood of more frequent hurricanes and the need to conserve resources.

The reproductive justice movement then emerged to redefine these policies as human rights abuses.

But today, the monster of population control has been reanimated, and these gains are again under threat.

Fewer poor people

Most people now know better than to use the discredited term "population control."

Neither will you hear mainstream voices talking about "black overpopulation."

Listen, instead, for rights-based and social justice language that positions contraception and family planning as core strategies to reduce carbon emissions.

For instance, a USAID blog entry for World Population Day links family planning to protecting "people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership," before going on to say that "by slowing rapid population growth, family planning can help to decrease the sheer number of poor people."

Today's mainstream population control advocates offer full-throated support for reproductive rights.

They point to a happy coincidence that women's freedom to limit childbearing is also a key solution to climate change.

Win-win propositions are inherently appealing, but we should be skeptical of solutions that ask little of those who have caused the problem. Women around the world will tell you that access to healthcare, family planning, contraception and abortion remain critical unmet needs.

Fewer emissions, fewer children

True reproductive justice, as conceived by women who have long been targeted for population control, includes the option to choose how many children to have and raise them in a safe, healthy environment.

But those seeking to instrumentalize these basic rights as climate solutions segue too seamlessly and singularly to the emissions-cutting benefits of women bearing fewer children—not just any women, but the same poor Black and brown women who have always been blamed for "having too many babies."

Whatever their political underpinnings, population-based approaches to climate change are steeped in three falsehoods. Continue reading

• Yifat Susskind is the Executive Director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization that partners with community-based women's groups worldwide facing war and disaster.
• Image: Institute for Policy Studies