Hot planet made deadly South African floods twice as likely: climate scientists

Flash flood in Palapye, Central District, Botswana. Heavy rain caused a small dam to burst on the Lotsane River, which flows through the village. The mud walls of traditionally built houses dissolved like icing sugar, leaving just the roofs: the breeze-block buildings in the background survived intact. A young goat has become entangled in a wire fence and drowned, but it's believed no human lives were lost. Taken 1995 on film. Author: JackyR, CC BY-SA 3.0
Flash flood in Palapye, Central District, Botswana. Heavy rain caused a small dam to burst on the Lotsane River, which flows through the village. The mud walls of traditionally built houses dissolved like icing sugar, leaving just the roofs: the breeze-block buildings in the background survived intact. A young goat has become entangled in a wire fence and drowned, but it’s believed no human lives were lost. Taken 1995 on film. Author: JackyR, CC BY-SA 3.0.

“We need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a new reality where floods and heatwaves are more intense and damaging,” said a co-author of the study.

“If we do not reduce emissions and keep global temperatures below 1.5°C, many extreme weather events will become increasingly destructive.”

By Jessica CorbettCommon Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Intense rainfall that led to deadly flooding and landslides in South Africa last month was made twice as likely by the human-caused climate crisis, a team of scientists revealed Friday, pointing to the findings as proof of the need to swiftly and significantly curb planet-heating emissions.

Experts at the World Weather Attribution (WWA) initiative found that heavy rainfall episodes like the one in April that left at least 435 people dead can be expected about once every 20 years versus the once every 40 years it would be without humanity warming the planet.

WWA climatologists warn that without successful efforts to dramatically reduce emissions, the frequency and intensity of such extreme events will increase as the global temperature does.

“If we do not reduce emissions and keep global temperatures below 1.5°C, many extreme weather events will become increasingly destructive,” said study co-author Izidine Pinto of the Climate System Analysis Group at the University of Cape Town. “We need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a new reality where floods and heatwaves are more intense and damaging.”

During an April speech announcing a disaster declaration, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said that communities in the eastern part of the country were “devastated by catastrophic flooding,” noting that it “caused extensive damage to houses, businesses, roads, bridges and water, electricity, rail, and telecommunications infrastructure.”

Ramaphosa also highlighted the death toll, sharing that when he and other officials visited affected families, “they told us heart-breaking stories about children, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents, and neighbors being swept away as their homes crumbled under the pressure of the flood waters.”

The city of Durban was hit particularly hard and its port—the largest in Africa—had to suspend operations because of the extreme weather.

Friederike Otto from Imperial College London, who leads WWA and co-authored the new study, pointed out that “most people who died in the floods lived in informal settlements, so again we are seeing how climate change disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable people.”

“However, the flooding of the Port of Durban, where African minerals and crops are shipped worldwide, is also a reminder that there are no borders for climate impacts,” she added. “What happens in one place can have substantial consequences elsewhere.

In addition to the chances of an event such as the mid-April rain disaster doubling due to human-induced climate change, the WWA team found that “the intensity of the current event has increased by 4-8%.”

The New York Times noted that “the work has yet to be peer-reviewed or published, but it uses methods that have been reviewed previously” and “the finding that the likelihood of such an extreme rain event has increased with global warming is consistent with many other studies of individual events and broader trends.”

WWA’s previous work includes a review of last year’s fatal heatwave in the Pacific Northwest, which the scientists concluded would have been “virtually impossible” in a world without the climate emergency.

“Our results provide a strong warning,” that WWA analysis said. “Our rapidly warming climate is bringing us into uncharted territory that has significant consequences for health, well-being, and livelihoods.”

‘Big news’ for climate as global insurance giant shifts away from fossil fuels

Otogidemon, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
30 St Mary Axe. Also known as the Swiss Re building, or Gherkin. Source: Otogidemon, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The new policy by Swiss Re “is not perfect yet,” said one campaigner, but the world’s second-largest reinsurer “is headed in the right direction.”

By Kenny Stancil, Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

After Swiss Re, the world’s second-largest reinsurer, announced Thursday that it is moving to end coverage for most new oil and gas projects, climate justice campaigners who have long pushed for the insurance industry to shift away from fossil fuels offered cautious praise.

“Swiss Re is one of the world’s ultimate risk managers and the policy which it published today sends a strong message to fossil fuel companies, investors, and governments: oil and gas operations need to be phased out in accordance with climate science or they may become uninsurable by the end of the decade,” Peter Bosshard, global coordinator of Insure Our Future, said in a statement.

According to Reuters:

In its annual sustainability report on Thursday, Swiss Re said it would no longer insure projects that get the go-ahead from their parent company from 2022, unless the company has an independently verified, science-based plan to reach net-zero emissions.

By 2025, Swiss Re said it wanted half of its overall oil and gas premiums to come from companies aligned with such a net-zero by 2050 plan, and by 2030 all its clients in the sector should have done so.

Also, from 2022, the company said it will no longer insure companies or projects with more than 10% of their production in the Arctic, apart from Norwegian producers.

On the issue of treaty reinsurance, whereby it insures bundles of risk in a job lot, Swiss Re said it expected to finalize a policy for the oil and gas sector in 2023.

“By taking steps to stop insuring new oil and gas projects and companies that won’t aim at aligning their activities with climate science by 2030, Swiss Re is headed in the right direction,” said Reclaim Finance director Lucie Pinson.

“The policy is not perfect yet,” she added, “and we encourage its peers to build on it to fully align with a realistic 1.5°C scenario.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last May that there is “no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply” if the world is to achieve a net-zero energy system by 2050 en route to meeting the Paris agreement’s more ambitious global warming target.

Swiss Re, said Pinson, should respond to the IEA’s landmark report by “drawing a red line against fossil fuel expansion and excluding both projects and companies that cross that line well before 2025.”

Sharing a detailed Twitter thread by Bosshard, Oil Change International celebrated Swiss Re’s move. Becoming the first major oil and gas insurer to deny coverage for most new fossil fuel projects is “big news,” said the group.

Arguing that “ending support for oil and gas projects is gaining real momentum,” 350.org also praised Insure Our Future and encouraged its campaigners to “keep up the good work.”

According to Bosshard, Swiss Re’s phase-out commitment represents “a first for the insurance industry” because it “not only applies to the up and midstream sectors, but also to downstream companies (oil refineries, gas utilities, petrochemical plants etc.) without credible net-zero plans.”

However, he continued, “the new policy includes some important gaps and contingencies.”

“It will not cover new production projects which oil companies move forward as part of their ongoing operations,” said Bosshard. “It also exempts Norway from its definition of Arctic oil. The IEA doesn’t make any such exemptions.”

“Most importantly, the policy hinges on the development of a credible oil and gas framework by the Science Based Targets initiative [SBTi], by which oil companies’ net-zero plans will be measured,” he added. “It’s crucial that the SBTi framework reflect the findings” of the IEA and the United Nations.

Swiss Re’s new policy follows similar policies adopted last week by Hannover Re and Mapfre, said Bosshard, who pointed out that “these three companies cover 21% of the global reinsurance market.”

“Now, the Insure Our Future campaign calls on Munich Re, Lloyd’s, and SCOR, which together account for 26% of the global reinsurance market, to make commitments which build on Swiss Re’s approach by the time of their annual general meetings,” said Bosshard.

“We’ll be watching,” he added.

Humanity subsidizing ‘our own extinction,’ warns study

Extinction Rebellion blockade of the Oberbaumbrücke. Credit: Leonhard Lenz, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
Extinction Rebellion blockade of the Oberbaumbrücke. Credit: Leonhard Lenz, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

World governments are spending $1.8 trillion annually to support fossil fuel emissions, deforestation, water pollution, and other harms to biodiversity and the planet.

By Julia Conley, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Releasing a new study showing that world governments spend at least $1.8 trillion annually to subsidize activities which worsen the climate crisis, global subsidies experts on Thursday said leaders must eliminate or redirect the financial supports as part of an ambitious Global Biodiversity Framework at an upcoming summit in China.

“Reforming the $1.8 trillion a year of subsidies that are harming the environment could make an important contribution towards unlocking the over $700 billion a year needed to reverse nature loss by 2030.

The B Team and Business for Nature, two organizations that push businesses around the globe to adopt sustainable practices, supported the study, titled Financing Our Survival: Building a Nature-Positive Economy Through Subsidy Reform.

According to the authors—Doug Koplow of subsidy research firm Earth Track and Ronald Steenblik of the International Institute for Sustainable Development—a lack of transparency regarding the use of subsidies means that the amount of government money being spent on the destruction of nature could be much higher than the research shows.

Photo by Evan Nitschke from Pexels
Photo by Evan Nitschke from Pexels

“Nature is declining at an alarming rate, and we have never lived on a planet with so little biodiversity,” said Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and a member of The B Team. “At least $1.8 trillion is funding the destruction of nature and changing our climate, while creating huge risks for the very businesses who are receiving the subsidies… Harmful subsidies must be redirected towards protecting the climate and nature, rather than financing our own extinction.”

The report identifies at least $640 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies, $520 billion used by the agricultural sector, $350 billion in water management and wastewater infrastructure, and $155 billion subsidizing logging and unsustainable forest management, all of which account for the majority of annual subsidies.

The equivalent of at least 2% of the global GDP is being spent by governments to finance water pollution and air pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, planet-heating fossil fuel emissions, risks to ecosystems in oceans and waterways across the globe, and other harms to nature and humanity, the authors said.

To help finance climate crisis mitigation measures in the Global South—as wealthy nations pledged they would in 2009, promising $100 billion annually—and redirect government funds toward a transition to renewable energy and a reversal of nature loss, hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies must be eliminated or repurposed, according to the report.

A draft of the Global Biodiversity Framework calls for $500 billion per year in reformed subsidies—a target that “needs to be strengthened” in April at the U.N. Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) in Kunming, China.

“The case is clear: reforming the $1.8 trillion a year of subsidies that are harming the environment could make an important contribution towards unlocking the over $700 billion a year needed to reverse nature loss by 2030 as well as the cost of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050,” wrote the authors. “This needs to happen alongside aligning all private financial flows to nature-positive and increasing public and private finance to deliver innovative financial solutions that help protect, restore, and conserve nature.”

“With political determination and radical public-private sector collaboration,” they added, “we can reform these harmful subsidies and create opportunities for an equitable, nature-positive and net-zero economy. To do so, we must bring awareness, transparency, and disclosure on subsidies from both governments and business.”

Ahead of the biodiversity conference in April, said Business for Nature, negotiators must strengthen the Global Biodiversity Framework draft by including a commitment to reform “ALL harmful subsidies, including indirect and direct incentives.”

“Climate action is at a crossroads, in part because of the large scale of public money flowing to harmful industries and practices,” said Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and member of The B Team. “We need to see thorough subsidy reform from governments and businesses, with social and environmental considerations at the heart, to ensure a just and equitable transition for all.”