Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Geoengineering Wins Reluctant Interest from Scientists as Earth’s Climate Unravels

News Feed
Tuesday, September 24, 2024

As recently as 10 years ago most scientists I interviewed and heard speak at conferences did not support geoengineering as a way to counteract climate change. Whether the idea was to release large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to “block” the sun’s heating or to spread iron across the ocean to supercharge algae that breathe in carbon dioxide, researchers resisted on principle: don’t mess with natural systems because unintended consequences could ruin Earth. They also worried that trying the techniques even at a small scale could be a slippery slope to wider deployment, and that countries would use the promise of geoengineering as an excuse to keep burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels.But today more and more climate scientists openly support experimenting with these and other proposed strategies, in part because entrepreneurs and organizations are going ahead with the methods anyway—often based on little data or field trials. Scientists want to run controlled experiments to see if the methods are productive, to test consequences and perhaps to show objectively that the approaches can cause serious problems.“We do need to try the techniques to figure them out,” says Rob Jackson, a professor at Stanford University, chair of the international research partnership Global Carbon Project and author of a book on climate solutions called Into the Clear Blue Sky (Scribner, 2024). “But doing research does make them more likely to happen. That is the knotty part of all this.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.A tacit race may be starting among scientists and entrepreneurs. More funding is being offered to researchers, and investments are growing in companies that would pursue geoengineering. In 2023 a start-up called Make Sunsets launched balloons containing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, selling “cooling credits” to companies and individuals. In early September, 23 academics at the not-for-profit consortium Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions unveiled a plan to assess how much CO2 iron fertilization could sequester in the deep sea, and they hope to start trials across the northeastern Pacific Ocean in 2026. Big corporations, including oil companies, are already building large industrial facilities to pull CO2 from the air, and the U.S. government is offering them billions of dollars.There is confusion, too. Some scientists say the term “geoengineering” should refer only to techniques that alter Earth systems. For example, sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere creates tiny droplets that reflect incoming sunlight back to space, an approach called solar radiation management (SRM). But this method could also affect weather patterns or weaken the ozone layer that protects us from ultraviolet radiation. Brightening clouds by spraying them with ocean mist from below can reduce sunlight but could interfere with rain patterns. Spreading iron across the ocean helps phytoplankton to grow and consume CO2, yet these organisms would also consume other nutrients, which could possibly starvesea life. Spreading certain kinds of pulverized rock across the sea surface can make the water more alkaline, allowing it to absorb more CO2 from the air, but it could affect ocean chemistry, too.In contrast, using machines to pull CO2 from the air, a technique known as direct air capture (DAC), doesn’t directly interfere with natural systems and so shouldn’t be called geoengineering, some argue. Social concerns could still be high, however; for example, millions of these machines would be needed to reduce warming by a meaningful extent, and that would require huge amounts of energy. If they were powered by wind and solar, as they ideally would be to avoid more greenhouse gas emissions, the installations could compete with agriculture for land.For years Jackson refused to endorse DAC, but he now supports research. He has come around because warming is rising relentlessly, along with fossil fuel use, creating dangerous floods, droughts and heat waves that are killing people worldwide. “We are out of time and options,” he says, “an unfortunate outcome of our inaction on climate.”He is not quite ready to endorse SRM, he says, “because I don’t trust our ability to do it equitably around the world.” Blocking the sun above certain countries could alter rainfall patterns elsewhere, which could be particularly problematic if it occurred in poorer regions. Research shows that the huge 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines, which lofted about 20 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, ended up exacerbating drought in parts of the world as well as reducing ozone levels by a small percentage. If one country launches sulfur into the stratosphere, Jackson asks, who is going to pay for drought that happens in another country?When Ken Caldeira, a longtime climate researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford, started to look into geoengineering in 2000, he says, older researchers warned him that delving into the taboo topic would put his career at risk. Small studies did ensue, but public opinion against geoengineering mounted and most work stopped.A big change came in 2018, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Global Warming of 1.5°C report. It stated that without carbon removal or other techniques, the world stood little chance of holding warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, the goal agreed on in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. “That was an inflection point,” Jackson says. “It pointed out the difficulty, almost the futility, of reaching the 1.5-degree-C target, or even the two-degree-C target, without carbon removal.” Even if carbon removal is not considered geoengineering, the report bolstered some scientists’ willingness to experiment.David Keith, formerly an applied physics professor and public policy professor at Harvard University, is among them, and he prefers the term “climate engineering” to refer to techniques such as SRM. For more than two decades, Keith has been looking into SRM. In 2021 he and others were about to carry out the world’s first field trial in Sweden, but protests by Indigenous peoples and other groups persuaded the Swedish government to cancel it. Last year the University of Chicago hired Keith to oversee a new program called the Climate Systems Engineering initiative, perhaps the first program to hire people specifically to do SRM research. Keith refutes the slippery slope argument, too. “There is no ethical argument for not pursuing research,” he says.Nevertheless, many scientists and environmental groups remain skeptical—and they have been voicing their wariness to Scientific American. Lili Fuhr, an analyst at the Center for International Environmental Law, interviewed for an article on DAC in SciAm’s September issue, said, “the reliance on these future speculative techno fixes delays real climate action right now.” Deep-sea expert Lisa Levin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, interviewed for a September 12 article about iron fertilization, said the technique is likely to “affect something that we don’t really understand yet.”But to Caldeira, who is credited with coining the term “solar radiation management” in 2006, that is the reason to do “outdoor research”—not just computer modeling studies. “The key is identifying what could go wrong, and demonstrating how,” he says. “What experiment could you do to narrow the uncertainty about whether a technique is bad or okay?” If the outcomes raise threats to the environment or people, he says, “we should know that now.”Although Caldeira is not pursuing it, one intriguing idea would be to equip a fast-mobilizing aircraft team that could fly a specially outfitted plane above a sudden volcanic eruption to test all sorts of stratospheric parameters. But it would be difficult to spend money on a special aircraft that, most of the time, would sit idle in a hangar.Caldeira thinks support for SRM will continue to broaden, especially if drought and famine caused by climate change—which have already begun—happen year after year and disproportionately affect poorer countries. “SRM is the only way to start cooling the Earth within a few years,” he says. “There would be mounting pressure on political leaders [in poorer affected countries] to deploy it. Or at least, they could use the threat of SRM to get more aid from wealthy countries.”

More and more climate scientists are supporting experiments to cool Earth by altering the stratosphere or the ocean

As recently as 10 years ago most scientists I interviewed and heard speak at conferences did not support geoengineering as a way to counteract climate change. Whether the idea was to release large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to “block” the sun’s heating or to spread iron across the ocean to supercharge algae that breathe in carbon dioxide, researchers resisted on principle: don’t mess with natural systems because unintended consequences could ruin Earth. They also worried that trying the techniques even at a small scale could be a slippery slope to wider deployment, and that countries would use the promise of geoengineering as an excuse to keep burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

But today more and more climate scientists openly support experimenting with these and other proposed strategies, in part because entrepreneurs and organizations are going ahead with the methods anyway—often based on little data or field trials. Scientists want to run controlled experiments to see if the methods are productive, to test consequences and perhaps to show objectively that the approaches can cause serious problems.

“We do need to try the techniques to figure them out,” says Rob Jackson, a professor at Stanford University, chair of the international research partnership Global Carbon Project and author of a book on climate solutions called Into the Clear Blue Sky (Scribner, 2024). “But doing research does make them more likely to happen. That is the knotty part of all this.”

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

A tacit race may be starting among scientists and entrepreneurs. More funding is being offered to researchers, and investments are growing in companies that would pursue geoengineering. In 2023 a start-up called Make Sunsets launched balloons containing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, selling “cooling credits” to companies and individuals. In early September, 23 academics at the not-for-profit consortium Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions unveiled a plan to assess how much CO2 iron fertilization could sequester in the deep sea, and they hope to start trials across the northeastern Pacific Ocean in 2026. Big corporations, including oil companies, are already building large industrial facilities to pull CO2 from the air, and the U.S. government is offering them billions of dollars.

There is confusion, too. Some scientists say the term “geoengineering” should refer only to techniques that alter Earth systems. For example, sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere creates tiny droplets that reflect incoming sunlight back to space, an approach called solar radiation management (SRM). But this method could also affect weather patterns or weaken the ozone layer that protects us from ultraviolet radiation. Brightening clouds by spraying them with ocean mist from below can reduce sunlight but could interfere with rain patterns. Spreading iron across the ocean helps phytoplankton to grow and consume CO2, yet these organisms would also consume other nutrients, which could possibly starvesea life. Spreading certain kinds of pulverized rock across the sea surface can make the water more alkaline, allowing it to absorb more CO2 from the air, but it could affect ocean chemistry, too.

In contrast, using machines to pull CO2 from the air, a technique known as direct air capture (DAC), doesn’t directly interfere with natural systems and so shouldn’t be called geoengineering, some argue. Social concerns could still be high, however; for example, millions of these machines would be needed to reduce warming by a meaningful extent, and that would require huge amounts of energy. If they were powered by wind and solar, as they ideally would be to avoid more greenhouse gas emissions, the installations could compete with agriculture for land.

For years Jackson refused to endorse DAC, but he now supports research. He has come around because warming is rising relentlessly, along with fossil fuel use, creating dangerous floods, droughts and heat waves that are killing people worldwide. “We are out of time and options,” he says, “an unfortunate outcome of our inaction on climate.”

He is not quite ready to endorse SRM, he says, “because I don’t trust our ability to do it equitably around the world.” Blocking the sun above certain countries could alter rainfall patterns elsewhere, which could be particularly problematic if it occurred in poorer regions. Research shows that the huge 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines, which lofted about 20 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, ended up exacerbating drought in parts of the world as well as reducing ozone levels by a small percentage. If one country launches sulfur into the stratosphere, Jackson asks, who is going to pay for drought that happens in another country?

When Ken Caldeira, a longtime climate researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford, started to look into geoengineering in 2000, he says, older researchers warned him that delving into the taboo topic would put his career at risk. Small studies did ensue, but public opinion against geoengineering mounted and most work stopped.

A big change came in 2018, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Global Warming of 1.5°C report. It stated that without carbon removal or other techniques, the world stood little chance of holding warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, the goal agreed on in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. “That was an inflection point,” Jackson says. “It pointed out the difficulty, almost the futility, of reaching the 1.5-degree-C target, or even the two-degree-C target, without carbon removal.” Even if carbon removal is not considered geoengineering, the report bolstered some scientists’ willingness to experiment.

David Keith, formerly an applied physics professor and public policy professor at Harvard University, is among them, and he prefers the term “climate engineering” to refer to techniques such as SRM. For more than two decades, Keith has been looking into SRM. In 2021 he and others were about to carry out the world’s first field trial in Sweden, but protests by Indigenous peoples and other groups persuaded the Swedish government to cancel it. Last year the University of Chicago hired Keith to oversee a new program called the Climate Systems Engineering initiative, perhaps the first program to hire people specifically to do SRM research. Keith refutes the slippery slope argument, too. “There is no ethical argument for not pursuing research,” he says.

Nevertheless, many scientists and environmental groups remain skeptical—and they have been voicing their wariness to Scientific American. Lili Fuhr, an analyst at the Center for International Environmental Law, interviewed for an article on DAC in SciAm’s September issue, said, “the reliance on these future speculative techno fixes delays real climate action right now.” Deep-sea expert Lisa Levin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, interviewed for a September 12 article about iron fertilization, said the technique is likely to “affect something that we don’t really understand yet.”

But to Caldeira, who is credited with coining the term “solar radiation management” in 2006, that is the reason to do “outdoor research”—not just computer modeling studies. “The key is identifying what could go wrong, and demonstrating how,” he says. “What experiment could you do to narrow the uncertainty about whether a technique is bad or okay?” If the outcomes raise threats to the environment or people, he says, “we should know that now.”

Although Caldeira is not pursuing it, one intriguing idea would be to equip a fast-mobilizing aircraft team that could fly a specially outfitted plane above a sudden volcanic eruption to test all sorts of stratospheric parameters. But it would be difficult to spend money on a special aircraft that, most of the time, would sit idle in a hangar.

Caldeira thinks support for SRM will continue to broaden, especially if drought and famine caused by climate change—which have already begun—happen year after year and disproportionately affect poorer countries. “SRM is the only way to start cooling the Earth within a few years,” he says. “There would be mounting pressure on political leaders [in poorer affected countries] to deploy it. Or at least, they could use the threat of SRM to get more aid from wealthy countries.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Oregon restores signature Climate Protection Program to cut greenhouse gases

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has reinstated the state’s signature Climate Protection Program that a court last year had invalidated over a technicality.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has reinstated the state’s signature Climate Protection Program that a court last year had invalidated over a technicality.The program requires ever-increasing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s natural gas utilities, suppliers of gasoline, diesel, kerosene and propane and large industrial plants.It originally went into effect in January 2022, but Oregon’s three gas utilities, an oil-industry group and a dozen other local trade organizations challenged the program’s rules, aiming to block them. The court struck it down last December.The program’s new version, adopted unanimously Thursday by the Environmental Quality Commission, the DEQ’s governing body, is of similar scope and ambition as the original one. It will launch in January.Fossil fuel suppliers and industrial manufacturers will still be expected to, as a whole, reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2035 and 90% by 2050. State regulators said the program is critical to meeting Oregon’s goals to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions.Emissions can be reduced by increased use of biofuels, improvements to energy efficiency, electrification and through future adoption of green technologies that are still in development such as hydrogen. The rules include penalties for noncompliance. The program will still include a Community Climate Investment Fund allowing utilities and companies to buy a limited number of “credits” in place of reducing some of their emissions. The money will be distributed to grassroots organizations throughout the state, with the bulk going to communities of color, tribes and low-income and rural communities that suffer disproportionately from climate change.“Oregon is committed to acting boldly and consistently to do our part to protect our climate,” Gov. Tina Kotek said in a statement. “The Climate Protection Program will keep polluters accountable and fund community investments that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon.”The rulemaking process for the new version of the program led to a few minor changes. The most significant concerns large manufacturing plants that previously were required to reduce carbon pollution through the best available emissions reductions approaches.Because they are significant users of natural gas, natural gas utilities were responsible for the plants’ natural gas emission reductions.Those industrial plants will now be regulated directly for their natural gas emissions and the state will develop carbon intensity targets for specific industrial facilities.The change will allow industrial manufacturers more flexibility in choosing how to reduce emissions, said Climate Protection Program manager Nicole Singh, and will prevent relocation of those businesses outside Oregon to places that don’t have comparable emission reduction programs.A second change concerns the impact of the program on natural gas rates. Under the new climate program rules, the DEQ will work with the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to review natural gas rates and customer bills regularly to evaluate whether the emission reduction requirements are having a significant impact on rates, said Singh.Environmental groups praised the program’s reinstatement.“Oregon’s actions today are a beacon of hope,” said Jana Gastellum, executive director of the Oregon Environmental Council, a nonprofit focused on advancing environment-friendly practices. “Every state deserves a program like the Climate Protection Program to not only cut pollution but also generate funds for community projects and business innovation. It’s a win for the people, especially those in frontline communities who’ve long been impacted by climate change.”The groups also said the climate program would help Oregon expand solar and wind farms.“This will help us tackle our biggest pollution sources, improve our air quality and create more clean energy jobs,” said Meredith Connolly, director of policy and strategy at Climate Solutions, a Northwest-based nonprofit focused on clean energy.— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Climate
Nature
CO2

Hampshire accused of ‘sportswashing’ over T20 event despite green claims

Team plan to take part in Global Super League in GuyanaCampaigners call for tour to ditch sponsor ExxonMobilHampshire have been accused of taking part in a “sportswashing vehicle” before their participation in this month’s Global Super League in Guyana, a T20 tournament sponsored by oil giant ExxonMobil.Hampshire’s participation in the GSL comes despite their venue’s public commitment to playing a leading global role in environmental sustainability. The Utilita Bowl celebrated switching on more than 1,000 solar panels before a T20 between England and Australia in September. David Mann, chief executive of the Utilita Bowl, used the initiative to highlight “our commitment to being the greenest international cricket venue”. Continue reading...

Hampshire have been accused of taking part in a “sportswashing vehicle” before their participation in this month’s Global Super League in Guyana, a T20 tournament sponsored by oil giant ExxonMobil.Hampshire’s participation in the GSL comes despite their venue’s public commitment to playing a leading global role in environmental sustainability. The Utilita Bowl celebrated switching on more than 1,000 solar panels before a T20 between England and Australia in September. David Mann, chief executive of the Utilita Bowl, used the initiative to highlight “our commitment to being the greenest international cricket venue”.The new five-team GSL tournament runs from 26 November to 6 December and, alongside Australian state team Victoria, features franchise sides Guyana Amazon Warriors, Lahore Qalandars and Rangpur Riders.ExxonMobil Guyana is its title sponsor, with the tournament website stating the event “has the full support of the Government of Guyana … the government sees the GSL as a key driver for tourism and economic growth”. ExxonMobil found oil in the country in 2015 and, this month, celebrated the production of 500m barrels from the Stabroek block.Etienne Stott, an Olympic gold medallist in 2012 who now campaigns for Extinction Rebellion, told the Guardian: “I’m really sad and angry that yet another sport is being corrupted by the oily money of the fossil fuel industry.”Stott said it was “perverse” for ExxonMobil to sponsor “a supposedly global cricket tournament in a country which is very much at risk from the effects of global heating.“I cannot understand why Hampshire [County] Cricket Club would risk reputational damage by associating itself with such an obvious sportswashing vehicle, especially given their public commitments to be more sustainable,” said Stott. “I hope cricket fans will demand that this tournament ditches its filthy sponsor.”Hampshire have declined to comment.Joe Cooke, an environmental campaigner and ex-professional cricketer for Glamorgan, said: “It’s disheartening to see cricket being sponsored and influenced by companies with such a direct link to the climate crisis. As a sport we are deeply at mercy to the environment with extreme weather events that have been made more likely by a changing climate, impacting the game at all levels. Cricket could be in a unique position to set a positive example by distancing itself from these kinds of partnerships.”ExxonMobil also sponsors the Amazon Warriors, who play in the Caribbean Premier League, and its involvement in cricket highlights the significant relationship between fossil fuel firms and the sport. In May the International Cricket Council announced a four-year extension to its partnership with Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company.skip past newsletter promotionSubscribe to our cricket newsletter for our writers' thoughts on the biggest stories and a review of the week’s actionPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionChris Britt-Searle of The Next Test, a group aiming to raise awareness of the climate crisis’s impact on cricket, said: “It’s very easy to condemn individual teams, countries and competitions. But the truth is, the whole of cricket is awash with fossil fuel money.”Britt-Searle added that the tournament could be an “opportunity” for cricketers to discuss the involvement of fossil fuels in cricket, noting the recent letter signed by more than 100 female professional footballers urging Fifa to end its partnership with Aramco.“I would say to all cricketers, all cricket fans, clubs, cricket organisations, you have an opportunity to talk about this,” said Britt-Searle. “There’s a great opportunity here to put your hand up and say, look, we’re not OK with this.”

Climate
Crisis
Extinction

Starmer condemns Badenoch for abandoning cross-party consensus on climate crisis policy – UK politics live

Prime minister says Tory leader’s attacks on climate targets diminishes government ability to tackle central issueJohn Prescott: share your tributes and memoriesBritish prime minister Keir Starmer says he is “deeply saddened” to hear that Prescott has died, and called him a “true giant of Labour”.In a statement on X, he said, “I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of John Prescott. John was a true giant of the Labour movement. On behalf of the Labour Party, I send my condolences to Pauline and his family, to the city of Hull, and to all those who knew and loved him. May he rest in peace.”He possessed an inherent ability to connect with people about the issues that mattered to them – a talent that others spend years studying and cultivating, but that was second nature to him.He fought like hell to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol and was an unwavering champion of climate action for decades to come. I’m forever grateful to John for that commitment to solving the climate crisis and will miss him as a dear friend.” Continue reading...

Matt Hancock gives evidence to Covid inquiryWe will carry on reporting tributes to John Prescott as the day goes on, but there is other news happening today too and soon I will switch to the Covid inquiry, where Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, is giving evidence from 10am. He has already given evidence to the inquiry before, but the inquiry is now on module 3, focusing in particular on the impact of the pandemic on the NHS, and Hancock will be talking about that.We have also got John Healey, the defence secretary, giving evidence to the Commons defence committee from 10.30am this morning.Matt Hancock arriving at the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/ShutterstockShareUpdated at 04.49 ESTKey eventsShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureWe are inviting readers to share their memories of John Prescott. You can do so via this page.Matt Hancock gives evidence to Covid inquiryWe will carry on reporting tributes to John Prescott as the day goes on, but there is other news happening today too and soon I will switch to the Covid inquiry, where Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, is giving evidence from 10am. He has already given evidence to the inquiry before, but the inquiry is now on module 3, focusing in particular on the impact of the pandemic on the NHS, and Hancock will be talking about that.We have also got John Healey, the defence secretary, giving evidence to the Commons defence committee from 10.30am this morning.Matt Hancock arriving at the Covid inquiry this morning. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/ShutterstockShareUpdated at 04.49 ESTThere's no paywall hereApologies for the brief interruption. We hope you’re appreciating these factual, verified, up-to-the-minute news updates provided by our expert reporters.You won't find a paywall around our live blogs – or any of our news, because the Guardian believes that access to trustworthy information is vital for democracy.In a time of increasing misinformation spread by bad actors, extremist media and autocratic politicians, real, reliable journalism has never been more important – and we’re proud to be able to make ours free thanks to the generous support of readers like you. By helping fund the Guardian today, you can play a vital role in combating the bad faith and self-interest of a powerful few who spread lies to undermine our democracy, enrich themselves, and stoke division between Americans.Before you get back to reading the news, we would be grateful if you could take half a minute to give us your support. Any amount helps. Thank you.Peter Mandelson says Prescott was 'the cement that kept New Labour together'Peter Mandelson was one of many people in the Labour party who feuded with John Prescott at various times when they were in government, and at one memorable photocall in the summer of 1997 Prescott compared him to a crab. Today, speaking on Sky News, Mandelson played down the extend of their disagreements, and pointed out that Prescott had supported his application to become Labour’s communications director in 1985 – the job that turned out to be the launchpad for Mandelson’s career.Mandelson said it was wrong to say Prescott was not New Labour. Some people say sometimes that he wasn’t New Labour. But that’s not true. He was New Labour. He was one very essential part of New Labour. He basically kept us anchored in our working class roots, our trade union history. And he was the bridge, essentially, between that and the modernisers in the Labour party, Tony, Gordon, me and the others. And he always wanted that project to work. It’s not as if he was standing outside it and peering in. He was on the inside and making it work. He was, in many respects, the cement that kept New Labour together. Asked what he was like to work with, Mandelson replied: He was absolutely impossible. When I say he was sort of courageous, he was. When I say he was loyal, he was. When I say he was determined, he was. He was always determined to get his own way on any particular issue at any given moment. Right up until the point he’d say, ‘OK, I’ll do this for you. You do this for me. As long as you cover this off I’ll happily go along with it.’ So he was a negotiator. He was a trade union negotiator. He was a broker. But at the end of the day he wanted it to work and the way in which he made it work was by being incredibly difficult for days on end and then finally sealing it, making work, agreeing it and off we went. Mandelson also recalled a surprise conversation earlier this year he had with Prescott. I was at home on a Sunday morning and the phone went and then suddenly I put it on and it was the face of John Prescott on my phone FaceTiming me from Hull. I mean, no advanced warning. No how do you do. It was, ‘Hello, is that you?’ ‘Yes John it is me. What do you want?’ He said ‘I just want to say that I know it was difficult and we were bloody awful to you at times and I was, but actually you did good and I want to forgive you.’ What am I being forgiven for here? It was just, ‘I want to forgive you because you did good. And I know it wasn’t easy at times and I know it was rough and I know I didn’t help but now I understand.’ And I said, ‘John that’s very kind of you. How do you suddenly understand this?’ He said, ‘Oh well somebody gave me this book of yours. I didn’t read it before. It looked very boring. But I’ve looked at it, I’ve dipped into it and I’ve seen what you went through … I feel rather sorry for you actually. And anyway, thanks very much.’ It was a few minutes more … but that was it. That was the last time I spoke to him. Here are more tributes to John Prescott from Labour figures on social media.From Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s communications director in No 10 JP RIP … there was nobody else like him. Tony could not have had a better deputy. Labour could not have had a better campaigner. The government could not have had a better negotiator and - yes, often, peacemaker. Hull could not have had a better MP. Of course he was combative but he had an enormous heart and a great capacity for friendship. Even with his horrible illness in later years, the old JP was always there. Love to Pauline, Jonathan and David and nothing but fond memories of a total one off who will be missed by so many. From Yvette Cooper, the home secretary Such sad news about John Prescott. A campaigning Labour hero & a remarkable minister who transformed lives - upgrading millions of council homes, coalfield regeneration, tackling climate change. Fierce & warm hearted - there was no one like him. Thinking of Pauline & family today From Ed Balls, the former adviser to Gordon Brown and later secretary of state for childrenFrom Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader I am really sad to hear that John Prescott has passed away. John was a huge figure and personality, from his seafaring union days to the highest offices in Government. I will be forever grateful for his personal and political support in the 2017 and 2019 elections. His endless warmth and iconic wit were loved on the campaign trail. My deepest sympathies to John’s family at their loss. He will be greatly missed. From Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary 1/2 John Prescott was a political giant who made a unique contribution to the Labour and trade union movement he loved so deeply. Authentic, funny, tough, highly skilled and, at times, unpredictable, he often used the phrase “traditional Labour values in a modern setting”. 2/2 In doing so, he would reassure and inspire Party members with whom he had a great bond. He will be much missed. All our thoughts are with Pauline and his family on this very sad day. From David Lammy, foreign secretary John Prescott was one of the giants of our party. Committed, loyal, Labour to his core. A relentless champion of working people who never forgot who he came into politics to fight for. Full of good humour and blunt common sense. Rest in peace Angela Rayner pays tribute to Prescott, saying he was 'inspiration to me'Angela Rayner is often compared to John Prescott. They were both brought up working class, became Labour MPs after working in the trade union movement and have been frequently patronised or demonised by Tories and the media, partly on the grounds of class snobbery. And both ended up deputy PM.Here is her tribute to Prescott. Through his half a century of public service and a decade as deputy prime minister, John Prescott was driven by his Labour values to serve working people. Fiercely proud of his working class and trade union roots, he never lost sight of who he came into politics to serve. He used the chance he was given to change the lives of millions of working people. A giant of the labour movement and loyal friend, he will be remembered with huge fondness by all those who knew him. John was not only a Labour legend but an inspiration to me, and always so generous with his time and support. We will miss him greatly. Our thoughts and prayers are with Pauline, David, Johnathan and the rest of the family. ShareUpdated at 04.06 ESTPrescott's family ask people not to send flowers but to donate to Alzheimer's Research UK insteadHere is the full statement from John Prescott’s family announcing his death. Prescott was living with Alzheimer’s in his final years and his family have asked wellwishers minded to send flowers to donate to Alzheimer’s Research UK instead.They say: We are deeply saddened to inform you that our beloved husband, father and grandfather, John Prescott, passed away peacefully yesterday at the age of 86. He did so surrounded by the love of his family and the jazz music of Marian Montgomery. John spent his life trying to improve the lives of others, fighting for social justice and protecting the environment, doing so from his time as a waiter on the cruise liners to becoming Britain’s longest serving deputy prime minister. John dearly loved his home of Hull and representing its people in parliament for 40 years was his greatest honour. We would like to thank the amazing NHS doctors and nurses who cared for him after his stroke in 2019 and the dedicated staff at the care home where he passed away after latterly living with Alzheimer’s. In lieu of flowers and if you wish to do so, you can donate to Alzheimer’s Research UK. As you can imagine, our family needs to process our grief so we respectfully request time and space to mourn in private. Thank you. Here is a John Prescott picture gallery.Gordon Brown pays tribute to PrescottGood morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Caroline Davies.The former prime minister Gordon Brown has just been on the Today programme paying tribute to John Prescott. He said: John was a friend of mine, he was a colleague, but when you think of him, he was a colossus, he was a titan of the Labour movement. John Lennon talked about working class hero. It’s difficult to fit that term, but I think John would like that. You’ve got to look at his achievements. He was probably the first government minister to see the importance of the environment. Kyoto, that environmental treaty in 1997, you’ve got to attribute that to John’s hard work with Al Gore. Then he saw the importance, and he was a pioneer of regional policy. So the fact we have devolution and mayors owes a great deal to what John was thinking right throughout the 1980s and 90s when I was working with him. And then we mustn’t forget that one of the great achievements of John as environment secretary was the repair and improvement of housing, 1.5m houses which would not have been repaired without John’s determination that the social housing stock had to be remodernised. So you’ve got to look at the practical achievements of someone who possibly surprised himself by the way that he managed to become deputy prime minister, but actually made a huge difference. Yorkshire has “lost one of its great political heavyweights,” said Tracy Brabin, mayor for West Yorkshire. In a post on X she said: Deeply sad news to hear of John Prescott’s passing. Yorkshire has lost one of its great political heavyweights. A true Northerner with unwavering authenticity. John’s record speaks for itself: tackling regional inequalities, fighting for social justice and protecting the environment. We must all now build on his legacy and work tirelessly, as he did, to create a country that works for all. ShareUpdated at 03.44 ESTLord Prescott’s wife and two sons said he had been in a care home recently living with Alzheimer’s. Hilary Evans-Newton, chief executive at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: It’s heartbreaking to hear that former deputy prime minister, Lord John Prescott, one of the most prominent political figures of our generation, has died with Alzheimer’s. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones during this difficult time. It’s tragic how many lives are being lost to dementia, the leading cause of death in the UK. We’re incredibly moved by Lord Prescott’s family, who have asked for donations to Alzheimer’s Research UK, in lieu of flowers. As the UK’s leading dementia research charity, we’re accelerating progress towards a cure, so no one’s life has to end this way.

Climate
Government
Social Justice

The climate crisis is a big problem. Marine biologist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson is dreaming of even bigger solutions.

Here’s an exercise for you: Imagine the trajectory of our current climate crisis.  You probably don’t need to imagine very hard what this future looks like because we’re seeing it play out in the present: towns torn apart by massive hurricanes, thousands displaced by wildfires, lives taken by extreme heat. All of it is enough […]

Here’s an exercise for you: Imagine the trajectory of our current climate crisis.  You probably don’t need to imagine very hard what this future looks like because we’re seeing it play out in the present: towns torn apart by massive hurricanes, thousands displaced by wildfires, lives taken by extreme heat. All of it is enough to make a person freeze with fear. But there is a flip side to this terror.  Such an all-consuming problem inherently requires innovative solutions and adaptations of epic proportions. So here’s another exercise: Close your eyes and think, what could a world that hasn’t just taken the climate crisis seriously but also risen to the challenge look like? Envisioning a better future in the face of serious climate threats might seem like lofty daydreaming, especially when we take into consideration our world leaders’ inaction. But Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a marine biologist and climate policy wonk, has spent much of her career dreaming and coming up with climate solutions — and she knows that nihilism and avoidance won’t get us anywhere. In her recently published book, What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures, Johnson tackles how we can transform our ways of being, thinking, and doing to stop the worst of climate change. She expertly intertwines her conversations with scientists, artists, and activists to create a practical and accessible guidebook for a more just future brimming with possibilities — a salve for even the most environmentally anxious.  “Peril and possibility coexist,” she writes in the book. Of course, she’s well aware of just how big of an environmental mess our world is in, but you won’t catch her dwelling on the worst-case scenarios for long. “We’re pretty fucked,” Johnson said in her September interview on Vox’s The Gray Area, “but there’s a lot we could do to have a better possible future.”  Johnson is particularly adept at speaking to those who know the climate crisis is real but have the instinct to bury their head in the sand at the thought of such a massive existential crisis. Though she is frank about the state of our world’s environmental health, she speaks and writes with an energizing clarity — whether it’s conversing with climate advocates for her book tour or breaking down big environmental questions as a co-host of the podcast How to Save a Planet. It’s Johnson’s understanding of our instinct to flee the climate problems that has made it essential for her to explore the possibilities to address it and take action that goes beyond protesting or voting. These are important measures, Johnson believes, but also broad ones that aren’t necessarily fine-tuned to our individual experiences, skills, and interests.  For Johnson, a Brooklyn native who calls the ocean her love before it became her career, that looked like co-founding Urban Ocean Lab (UOL) in 2018. The nonprofit think tank specializes in researching coastal cities in the United States — places that one in five Americans call home and are often vulnerable to some of the worst environmental disasters — and developing equitable, pragmatic policy recommendations for these regions.  One such recommendation is UOL’s climate readiness framework for coastal cities. It’s a comprehensive collection of over 70 actions that coastal communities can apply to better adapt to current and future climate risks, such as working with community-based organizations to strengthen disaster preparedness plans and developing home relocation programs for low-income residents and people of color living in climate-vulnerable places.  The Caribbean region in particular has a special place in Johnson’s heart — her late father hailed from Jamaica, whose waters have suffered from pollution and overfishing. “To me, ocean conservation is in part about cultural preservation,” she writes after reflecting on her father’s life between Jamaica and New York City. “We are losing something more fundamental than a meal: a way of life.” It makes sense that Johnson has also worked to improve the waters surrounding these islands. Prior to founding UOL, she led an ocean management policy project called the Blue Halo Initiative at the Waitt Institute, where she served as executive director. Starting in Barbuda in 2013, Johnson focused on engaging with the community, interviewing hundreds of fishers and residents to develop policy recommendations for better preserving the waters and the species within it. Just a year later, the Barbuda Council signed into law a set of ocean zoning policies to protect underwater ecosystems and ensure sustainable fishing. These efforts were soon replicated in Montserrat and Curaçao. Johnson’s reverence for the ocean and the career she’s made out of it has made its way into the American political sphere, too. Back in 2019, the Green New Deal, a set of proposed progressive climate policies, was supported by left-leaning candidates up and down the ballot. Johnson had just one issue with it: It left out our seas almost entirely. “I was feeling bummed about the ocean getting short shrift in the Green New Deal Resolution — just a single, vague reference to the ocean,” Johnson wrote in What If We Get It Right? That summer, Johnson co-authored an op-ed in Grist about this big blue gap and what solutions to fill it with. Within that year, Johnson was contacted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign to help write what would become the Blue New Deal, an official policy platform for the Warren campaign. It was an extensive list of actions, like expanding marine protected areas, building climate-smart ports, and holding Big Agriculture accountable for water pollution. When Johnson later met Sen. Warren, she wrote in What If We Get It Right? that “[Senator Warren] told me it was the plan that got the most excited mentions in her selfie lines.” And while Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination and the election, his administration became the first to put out a federal Ocean Climate Action plan — which included similar elements to the Blue New Deal — after dozens of businesses and organizations (including UOL) pushed the White House to do so. There are a lot of studies that show engaging with nature helps our physical and mental well-being, so it’s not surprising that conserving our environment is important for many people. One word that Johnson often uses and embodies is “biophilia”: a love for nature and life, and in her words, “a powerful driving force for conservation.” With this in mind, I have one more exercise for you: Think of moments you’ve felt biophilia. Maybe you once walked through a lush forest, swam in a pristine lake, or witnessed snow-capped mountains up close. Perhaps you’ve encountered one of the millions of amazing creatures that inhabit these ecosystems. But how can one hold onto this sense of biophilia if much of our ways of life are destroying the very essence of it?  It’s all the more reason not to let our worries immobilize us and instead try to get it right, just as Johnson has done. Her wide-ranging expertise on climate policy; deeply empathetic and inclusive lens for climate solutions; and her unwavering, contagious biophilia has made her a bold visionary to follow in the climate space.  How apt that a lover of the ocean is making waves. —Sam Delgado

Climate
Crisis
Agriculture

Denmark is tiny. Its ambition to make its food system more climate-friendly is huge.

Climate scientists agree on at least one necessary change to our food system: People, especially those in rich countries, ought to be eating more plants and fewer animals.  Globally, livestock production accounts for some 15 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and accelerates a host of other environmental problems, from deforestation to freshwater depletion […]

Climate scientists agree on at least one necessary change to our food system: People, especially those in rich countries, ought to be eating more plants and fewer animals.  Globally, livestock production accounts for some 15 to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and accelerates a host of other environmental problems, from deforestation to freshwater depletion to air pollution. And yet virtually all Western governments have designed their food policy to churn out more and more meat, milk, and eggs.  The idea that we need to eat more, not less, meat is also baked into many nations’ cultural psyches, with both subtle and overt messages that meat equals masculinity and prosperity. Meat has been dragged into many countries’ culture wars, stifling civil discussions over how to make food systems sustainable. One country, though, far more than any other, has heeded the climate scientists’ advice: Denmark, the small Scandinavian nation of 6 million people known for its intensive factory farming system and resulting pork and dairy exports. In 2021, the Danish Parliament and government made a deal to shift its food system in a more plant-based and organic direction, and has set aside around $200 million US to do it. About $85 million is going to farmers who grow plant-based foods. The rest is being used to fund new projects, like experimenting with “nudge theory” — redesigning cafeterias to subtly encourage consumers to choose more plant-based options — and launching a startup incubator for plant-based companies at the Technological Institute of Denmark.  Many people have labored to turn these ideas into policy, but Rune-Christoffer Dragsdahl, the secretary-general of the Vegetarian Society of Denmark, has unquestionably been the leader. Dragsdahl became the society’s first employee in 2016, when he went unpaid for the first year or so. Since then, the organization has grown to employ 22 staff members.  How exactly did a tiny organization with little political clout blaze a trail toward a more sustainable, humane food system? I spoke with Dragsdahl last month to find out. His secret, it turns out, is diplomacy.  Dragsdahl and his vegetarian society colleagues spent years building a coalition of farmers, scientists, and organic food advocates, emphasizing shared values — sustainability and food innovation — instead of differences, like the merits of vegetarianism. This big-tent approach appealed to politicians, including not just members of left-wing parties but also politicians on the right, one of whom called the country’s plant-based action plan an “intelligent idea,” according to Dragsdahl.    “That, I think, shows the fact that we and other stakeholders have somehow managed to mainstream this,” he told me. “There are still ideological battles and clearly we’re not done, but we have to a large extent managed to get many people to see that this should also be a part of Danish agriculture and that it should be stronger. That there’s actual potential in this. That there’s no need to fight over more plants.” My conversation with Dragsdahl has been edited for length and clarity. What role does meat play in Danish society? It’s really a centerpiece of food culture, of Danish culture. There are many social events, whether it’s football events — people will have their hot dogs — and when they’re grilling in the summer.  Apart from food culture … Denmark is a very agricultural nation. We are the most cultivated country in the world, together with Bangladesh, in terms of the [percentage of the] surface of the land being cultivated, because the country is very flat, so you can say it’s suitable for this.  Even though the country might be suitable, you can over-cultivate it. And that is the problem — we have severe biodiversity loss here, severe eutrophication. … So it’s definitely damaging the local environment here. But for many decades, it has been difficult to do anything about it because at least some people have felt we are an agricultural nation. It’s in our blood, that’s who we are. And livestock is an integral part of that.  So there are things here, both culturally but also politically. And there’s this universal pride for people — that Danish dairy, Danish butter, is being exported to the whole world… But also, of course, bacon and pork products. But that has been increasingly questioned in the last 10 years.  What happened to lay the groundwork for the plant-based action plan? In 2019, we got the idea to start something we call the Danish Network for Plant Proteins. You make such a network, really, to make people feel welcome no matter where they’re from. … We had hard-hitting scientists, we had inspiring startups, we had interesting content — but always in a friendly and warm and pragmatic tone. And that meant that even the farming association [the Danish Agriculture and Food Council] attended. They later came back to us a month later and told us that they liked our approach. We don’t agree about scaling down livestock production, but they did agree that we could work together on how to look more into plant-based [food production] to diversify Danish agriculture.  When they did that, it almost immediately eliminated any opposition from a large part of the political spectrum. So maybe some of the resistance in the right wing became neutral, and some of the hesitance among the parties in the center of Danish politics became slightly positive. And that was extremely helpful because you move the entire playing field. And then, of course, the parties which are even more progressive on the center and center-left wing, they can push even harder for it and get the middle parties on board without the right wing making a big fuss about it. And the farmers’ association was definitely important for that. I think we have really successfully been insisting that plant-based is both the whole foods plant-based and the processed [foods] and everything in between. And by insisting on that, we’re getting less opposition between the people who just want everything to be home-cooked and believe children should be taught how to cook their own vegetables again. These solutions are both needed, and there [are] also places in between. There might be processed products that imitate meat but that are processed in milder ways. I think many of the Danish startups in this space are actually trying to find these kinds of solutions. So that has been a way to get many different kinds of people on board.  What kind of plant-based projects have been awarded funding?  So far, around 35 projects have been granted [in each of two rounds].  In the first round, the Hospitality School of Copenhagen got funding for a vegetarian chef’s degree. They got the funding for developing a curriculum that the government could then approve as acceptable for a new chef’s degree — which does not have any meat — and that degree becomes part of the government system, so it becomes a formal government education. But they could not have done it without getting funding to develop the curriculum. In the second round, some [agricultural] schools applied for funding for developing a curriculum on legumes, but also to teach the professionals in the kitchens at the farmer schools how to include more legumes in the foods eaten by the young farmers. What else should people know about Denmark’s efforts to build a more plant-based food system? Denmark is not paradise. [People] will have this excuse — they’ll say, “This is just Denmark, Denmark is always ahead on everything.” But that’s not the full story. And I think that’s the important part to be told here. This happened in the country with the largest livestock production per capita and with a very powerful livestock lobbying sector. So when we can succeed on that in Denmark, there will be pathways to that in other countries. And for me, that is a really important message that we should not give up — that there is actually hope.

Climate
Food
Forests

Suggested Viewing

Total Disaster

Armed with realistic bird puppets, trickster environmental activists pretend to be oil company Total—staging a satirical press conference to introduce "RéHabitat," a program to rescue animals from the East African Oil Pipeline by relocating them to “more sustainable” habitats. Using humor and mischief, they expose a deadly ecological disaster in a zany effort to help #StopEACOP.

Activism
Energy
Animals

CO2? CO-Nee!

Joep van Dijk is a passionate climate scientist. He likes to search for extreme examples that show how life can be lived sustainably. This documentary follows Joep on his CO2-neutral journey from Amsterdam to the United States of America and shows how this choice inspires himself and others to live a climate conscious life.

Climate
CO2
Sustainable

The Pleasure of Killing Bugs

In the near future, the climate crisis reaches an irreversible point. A nun and a priest meet to talk about the disappearance of insects.

Climate
Fiction
Student

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate
Culture

Capturing The Fire

When Louise Coghill saw the first plume of smoke begin to rise behind her parents property, she could never have predicted that in less than four hours, it would become a wall of flames, swallowing everything in its path. A photographer by trade, Louise has travelled the world documenting everything from the nomadic wanderers of Mongolia, to base life at Mount Everest. Capturing the extraordinary comes naturally to Louise, so when her family home in the semi-rural Western Australian town of Gidgegannup became engulfed in flames, her first instinct wasn’t to take shelter, it was to pick up her camera.

Conservation
Climate
Nature

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.