Who took a zero-carbon voyage from europe to the united states to raise awareness of climate change?

Read more The 16-year-old was photographed waving at journalists and well-wishers as she neared the end of her 3,000-nautical-mile (5,550 kilometers) trip. "Land!! The lights of Long Island and New York City ahead," she tweeted early Wednesday alongside a dark, blurry photo of lights in the distance. Her yacht later anchored off the entertainment district of Coney Island in Brooklyn to clear customs and immigration. Thunberg is expected to dock at North Cove Marina near the World Trade Center in Manhattan in the early afternoon, according to a spokesperson. The teenage activist tweeted that she should arrive around 2:45 pm (1845 GMT). The United Nations sent a flotilla of 17 sailboats, one for each of their sustainable development goals for 2030, to meet her for the last short leg of her journey. Thunberg will make brief remarks before answering questions from journalists, the spokesperson added. She is sailing to New York to attend a UN summit on zero emissions next month after refusing to fly there because of the carbon emissions caused by planes. The visit sees her bring her environmental message for the first time to the United States, led by climate change skeptic Donald Trump. >> Thunberg was offered a ride on the Malizia II racing yacht skippered by Pierre Casiraghi, the son of Monaco's Princess Caroline, and German round-the-world sailor Boris Herrmann. The yacht left Plymouth in southern England on August 14, and the teenager marked the first anniversary of the st...

The bipartisan bill, dubbed the Prove It Act, would take a first step toward this goal. It would require the Energy Department to study the emissions intensity of certain products — including aluminum, cement, crude oil, fertilizer, iron, steel and plastic — produced in the United States as well as its allies and adversaries. The bill also comes after Democrats last year enacted the most ambitious climate bill in U.S. history. While no Republicans voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, conservatives have increasingly embraced the idea of taxing imports from foreign adversaries — an idea that meshes with former president Donald Trump’s Coons said his “larger objective over the next few years” is to calm these transatlantic tensions by creating a “carbon club” — a group of allied countries that have all adopted ambitious climate laws. Such a club could include the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Australia. “We spend so much time as Republicans saying hell no to people who want to tax carbon or want to somehow decarbonize,” he added. “But the whole ‘America First’ movement and agenda is a comfortable place for Republicans. So this is the low-hanging fruit of climate policy or trade policy or whatever you want to call it.” Officials and experts said the destruction of a major dam and hydroelectric power plant on the front lines of the war in Ukraine may dry up the rich agriculture of southern Ukraine, sweep pollutants into ...

Climate change is the long-term alteration in Earth’s climate and weather patterns. It took nearly a century of research and data to convince the vast majority of the scientific community that human activity could alter the climate of our entire planet. In the 1800s, experiments suggesting that human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases could collect in the atmosphere and insulate Earth were met with more curiosity than concern. By the late 1950s, CO2 readings would offer some of the first data to corroborate the global warming theory. Eventually an abundance of data, along with climate modeling and real-world weather events would show not only that global warming was real, but that it also presented a host of catastrophic consequences. Early Inklings That Humans Can Alter Global Climate Dating back to the ancient Greeks, many people had proposed that humans could change temperatures and influence rainfall by chopping down trees, plowing fields or irrigating a desert. One theory of climate effects, widely believed until the Accurate or not, those perceived climate effects were merely local. The idea that humans could somehow alter climate on a global scale would seem far-fetched for centuries. The Greenhouse Effect In the 1820s, French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier proposed that energy reaching the planet as sunlight must be balanced by energy returning to space since heated surfaces emit radiation. But some of that energy, he reasoned, must be held w...

The conference is considered the first major “Carbon dioxide plays a fundamental role in determining the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, and it appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming … but the details of the changes are still poorly understood.” — Report’s Official Declaration Oil and gas giant ExxonMobil had lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it would be too expensive and that it put too much of the burden on developed nations. Then Lee Raymond, the chief executive, became personally convinced that the science was wrong, too. Exxon begins funding groups to research his theory, including the Global Climate Science Team, which writes up April: Oregon Petition Circulates What becomes known as the “Oregon Petition” is organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a small group in the northwest, to collect signatures from scientists who believe that there’s “no convincing scientific evidence” that climate change is manmade. The petition boasts, at last count, more than 31,400 signatures — but only 39 are climatologists, and several environmental groups critical of the petition The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank funded in part by the energy industry, releases pro-carbon dioxide ads ahead of the release of the global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth. One, called “Energy,” shows scenes of people enjoying the outdoors and features...

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand how Americans view climate, energy and environmental issues. We surveyed 13,749 U.S. adults from April 20 to 29, 2021. The survey was conducted on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and included an oversample of adults ages 18 to 24 from the Ipsos Knowledge Panel. A total of 912 Generation Z adults, Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the Here are the In the first year of Joe Biden’s presidential term, climate, energy and environmental policy have been the subject of renewed federal attention. In recent months, the United States has rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency has moved to sharply restrict greenhouse gas emissions, and Biden has outlined a range of policy goals, including getting the U.S. to “net-zero” by 2050. Even as Americans identify a number of pressing Still, most Americans favor using a mix of energy sources to meet the country’s needs – including renewables as well as oil, coal and natural gas. There is limited support for phasing out the use of fossil fuels altogether. And the public is closely divided over the idea of phasing out the production of g...

Global emissions have soared by two-thirds in the three decades since international climate talks began. To make the reductions required, what’s needed is a new approach that creates incentives for leading countries and industries to spark transformative technological revolutions. By • January28,2020 In 1969, in the middle of the spiraling U.S.-Soviet arms race, international relations expert McGeorge Bundy wrote a Foreign Affairs about how to “cap the volcano” of armaments. Success in arms control, he explained, required a laser-like focus on the strategic incentives for both sides to change behavior and stick with their agreements. Awareness of the dangers of arms racing, by itself, wasn’t enough. Today, the same kind of laser focus is needed on climate change. The problem is a lot more complicated than strategic arms control, of course — there are many more relevant countries, not just two dueling superpowers, and the problem of heat-trapping emissions is deeply embedded in the modern industrial economy. Cutting emissions to nearly zero isn’t merely an activity, like redirecting the purchase of armaments, that governments can control directly. But the point remains: Success requires less moralizing and more strategizing. Moralizing about climate has led to bold goals, like limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels — a stretch target written into the Paris Agreement on climate change. The problem is that such goals apply...

Research on carbon inequalities shows that some countries are overshooting their fair share of the remaining carbon budget and hold disproportionate responsibility for climate breakdown. Scholars argue that overshooting countries owe compensation or reparations to undershooting countries for atmospheric appropriation and climate-related damages. Here we develop a procedure to quantify the level of compensation owed in a ‘net zero’ scenario where all countries decarbonize by 2050, using carbon prices from IPCC scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C and tracking cumulative emissions from 1960 across 168 countries. We find that even in this ambitious scenario, the global North would overshoot its collective equality-based share of the 1.5 °C carbon budget by a factor of three, appropriating half of the global South’s share in the process. We calculate that compensation of US$192 trillion would be owed to the undershooting countries of the global South for the appropriation of their atmospheric fair shares by 2050, with an average disbursement to those countries of US$940 per capita per year. We also examine countries’ overshoot of equality-based shares of 350 ppm and 2 °C carbon budgets and quantify the level of compensation owed using earlier and later starting years (1850 and 1992) for comparison. Global carbon emissions have continued to rise over the past several decades, and concentrations of atmospheric CO 2 have increased dramatically. The ‘safe’ planetary bound...

From Vol. XLIV, No. 2, "Green Our World!", June 2007 In the midst of the current international debate on global warming, it is instructive to note that it has taken the United Nations and the international community some two generations to reach this point. To fully understand the current debate, one must look at the rise in prominence of environmental issues on the global agenda and the evolution of climate change within that context. Environmental issues, much less climate change, were not a major concern of the United Nations in the period following the Organization's creation. During its first 23 years, action on these issues was limited to operational activities, mainly through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and when attention was paid to them, it was within the context of one of the major preoccupations of that time: the adequacy of known natural resources to provide for the economic development of a large number of UN members or the "underdeveloped countries", as they were then termed. In 1949, the UN Scientific Conference on the conservation and utilization of resources (Lake Success, New York, 17 August to 6 September) was the first UN body to address the depletion of those resources and their use. The focus, however, was mainly on how to manage them for economic and social development, and not from a conservation perspective. It was not until 1968 that environmental issues received serious attention by any major UN organs. The Economic and Social Co...