Latest news with #climatecrisis
The Independent
6 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Why it is time for a new era for global aid and development
Traditional models of aid are no longer fit-for-purpose. The global challenges we face, are becoming increasingly complex and interconnected. The world is shifting rapidly. Our approach to development is changing too. Next week in Seville, Spain, the world will come together for the Fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) to set out a new vision for how we can collectively use finance to drive global progress on development over the next decade – tackling the climate and nature crisis, investing in health and education, and creating growth and jobs. It comes at a critical moment. Unprecedented levels of conflict and the impact of climate change are driving record humanitarian needs and threaten to reverse decades of development gains. We must make choices on how we use public funding innovatively and raise greater volumes of finance from all sources, including the private sector. Global South countries want a different relationship, and we are ready to offer a new approach. One based on listening; offering partnership not paternalism; sharing expertise; acting as investors, not donors, supporting countries to raise their own finances and driving reform across the Global Financial System. Global prosperity and security are crucial for delivering on our Plan For Change in the UK too. The summit in Seville must set a clear roadmap towards achieving three major changes. First, we will show we have listened to countries by helping them raise their own revenues. They have told us they want to become self-sufficient so we will offer partnership and expertise to help them build their own tax and economic systems, so that in time, they can thrive without aid. This means tackling money lost through crime and corruption. The UN estimates that Africa loses $90 billion to illicit finance flows, undermining public finances but also public institutions, affecting trust, political stability and national security. This hidden money is a problem for us all. We will work with partners to take urgent action on unsustainable debt. More than 50 per cent of lower-income countries are either in, or at high risk of, debt distress. That is why we are championing reform, so countries with unsustainable debt get quick and effective support. We are also pressing for more responsible and transparent lending, and have championed Climate Resilient Debt Clauses, which pause debt repayments when crises hit. Secondly, we know the costs of solving these challenges cannot be met by governments alone. We need more investment from the private sector. Through the City of London, the UK is a world-leading green financial hub. We are well placed to lead the charge, providing opportunities for UK businesses and investors and ultimately unlocking growth, jobs and trade. Only a small fraction of the money from big investors like pension funds currently goes to low- and middle-income countries. Shifting this by even a small amount would be game-changing for financing development and climate action. That is why the UK has recently set up an industry-led Investor Taskforce - bringing together investors and government to take action that will unlock more private capital for emerging markets and developing economies. We will launch a coalition in Seville that aims to help unlock trillions of pounds in untapped high-quality investment for developing countries through use of public markets. Finally, we must focus on making the international system work better for developing countries, creating a fairer system where they have greater voice and participation to shape the outcomes they need. That is why the UK is calling for just this in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We also need to ensure countries can better manage climate shocks. Since 2015, 1.7 billion people's lives have been devastated by the climate crisis. Despite the fact that we can predict and model over a third of climate events, just 2 per cent of crisis finance is pre-arranged and ready to go before a disaster strikes. Putting finance in place ahead of disasters means it can be immediately released to countries and communities in moments of crisis. Tackling this is vital to ensure long-term growth and development. The launch of the global coalition in Seville will also enable us to scale up availability of pre-arranged finance, working with the UK insurance industry towards an ambition of increasing it tenfold by 2035. No nation can tackle global challenges alone. Seville must be the beginning of a new chapter in how we work together to deliver global development.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Parenting is not just for pronatalists: the progressive case for raising kids
A few months ago, I was at a playground just a couple of blocks from our home in Washington DC, when a mom I barely knew turned to me mid-conversation and said: 'I think I might be the deep state.' The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more. It was mid-March. Doge was tearing through the city, dismantling federal agencies at dizzying speed. Donald Trump, re-elected on a promise to 'shatter the deep state', had fired thousands of longtime civil servants in his first weeks back in office. The job cuts have been top of mind in Washington. Most of my kids' playdates these days begin with nap schedule updates and end in quiet dread. It isn't just jobs. International students are being deported. Measles outbreaks are creeping closer. The climate crisis is at our doorstep: blizzards one week, wildfires the next. Every day brings fresh threats to public safety, democracy and the planet itself. 'It makes you wonder,' she said as we pushed our daughters on the swings, 'what kind of world did we bring our kids into?' It's a question I can't stop thinking about. I've lived in and reported on parenting across five continents, and what continues to astonish me is how uniquely punishing early parenthood is in the west, especially for those most committed to building a fairer world. Progressives are rightly vocal about how hard it is to raise kids, but too often, we forget to make the case for why it's still worth it. In the face of so many overlapping crises, the decision to have children can feel reckless, or worse, like an act of denial. But parenting can also be something else entirely: a stubborn act of hope. Raising children offers a crash course in progressive values. It's a way of tying ourselves more deeply to the future, of feeling the stakes of climate change, inequality and injustice – not as distant headlines, but as urgent matters affecting someone whose lunch you just packed. By failing to make a case for children and families, the left has surrendered these issues to the pronatalist right. We've handed over the 'family values' agenda, allowing it to be defined by a rigid, exclusionary vision of parenthood. Project 2025, the policy blueprint shaping much of Trump's current agenda, pledges to 'restore' a Christian nationalist view of the family unit as 'the centerpiece of American life'. Figures such as JD Vance and Elon Musk, as well as the conservative Heritage Foundation, have declared childbearing a moral and civic duty. Some have even proposed medals and cash for mothers. At this year's March for Life, Vance called for 'more babies in the United States of America' and more 'beautiful young men and women' to raise them. When we see child rearing as a private project, we forget that many of the movements that shaped the left – civil rights, labour, climate justice – were powered by people who looked at the next generation and decided they were worth fighting for. In his most well-known speech, Martin Luther King Jr didn't just dream of a better world for himself, he dreamed that his four little children would grow up in a nation where they would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. His vision was rooted in legacy. That's what parenting does. It gives shape to our politics. It puts flesh on our ideals. It forces us to ask: what are we building and who is it for? Raising children doesn't distract from that work; it clarifies it. Of course, parenthood isn't the only path to caring about the future – but it makes it harder to look away. It compels us to feel the weight of policy decisions in our bones. It blows open our empathy and softens the edges of individualism. Suddenly, every child becomes your child. Every policy becomes personal. You start noticing the stroller-unfriendly sidewalks, the unaffordable summer camps, the lack of paid leave – not just for yourself, but for all parents. There's science behind this shift. Researchers have found that becoming a parent activates a 'parental caregiving network' in the brain, lighting up areas tied to empathy, emotional processing and social understanding. It happens in both mothers and fathers. For dads especially, the extent of this neurological change is closely tied to how much hands-on caregiving they do. In other words, caregiving rewires our brains to connect more, care more and notice the needs of others. At its best, parenting strengthens the very instincts progressives say they want to build society around. I've seen this empathy in action. Before I had kids, I was reporting on the Rio Olympics and walking the beach one night with a colleague, a mother of two, when we were approached by a group of children begging for money. I clutched my purse and walked faster. But my co-worker slowed down, took off her blazer and wrapped it around a shivering child about her son's age. 'Get home,' she said gently. 'Your mom is probably looking for you.' I could tell right away we were operating on different levels of empathy. She saw that child as an extension of her own kids. I wasn't there yet. But eventually, I got there, too. When I finally became a mother, I began to see stories I covered differently. Now, when I interview parents who've lost children to gun violence in Brazil's favelas, I understand their grief in a new way. I report with deeper urgency and deeper care, seeing myself in their shoes, and my children in theirs. This rewiring of the brain creates a political opening. It expands our sense of who counts as 'us'. It softens the boundary between self and other. In doing so, it changes how we interpret harm, not as something happening 'out there', but as something personal, urgent and unacceptable. Yet, the demands of caregiving can pull us away from political life. A 2022 UK study found that parenthood temporarily reduces political participation among mothers. The reason is obvious: we're exhausted. Calling your representatives between diaper changes feels impossible. I get it. Some days, I fantasize about deleting all my news apps, retreating into a cozy, apocalypse-adjacent bubble with my kids, and calling it a day. 'Generally, I think parents are the worst at advocating for themselves because they are just too damn tired. It's one more thing in the lives of people who already have too much expected of them,' Jennifer Glass, professor at the University of Texas's department of sociology and Population Research Center and an expert on parental happiness, told me. But parenting doesn't have to distract from political work. It can fuel it. When we do organize, our sharpened parental empathy can translate into political power. Around the world, it's progressive movements, often driven by the demands of parents, that have expanded what family support can look like. In Sweden, it was working mothers who pushed for what became the world's most generous parental leave system, eventually adding incentives for men to take their fair share. In Singapore, multigenerational bonds are built into policy: the government gives housing grants to families who live near grandparents and tax breaks to elders who help with childcare. In France, parents helped lead the 1968 protests that birthed a cooperative childcare system. But when progressives step back from family values, conservatives fill the void. This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. According to the United Nations, the share of countries with explicit pronatalist policies has nearly tripled since 1976. But these visions often center on traditional gender roles and narrow definitions of family, excluding anyone who doesn't fit the mold. We shouldn't let the only cultural narrative around parenting come from those who see it as a tool for enforcing hierarchy and control. Progressives must also fight for a say in the values shaping the next generation. A 2023 Pew survey found that 89% of teenagers raised by Democratic parents identify with or lean toward the Democratic party. For Republican parents, the number is nearly as high, at 81%. That suggests political identity is often passed down through environment and lived experience: what kids hear at the dinner table, what they see modeled at home and which communities shape their worldview. From there, each new generation brings fresh ideas about justice. Social progress doesn't only happen by changing the minds of the old; it happens through generational renewal. Throughout the country, youth raised in the shadow of mass shootings are leading the charge for gun reform. In Montana, young people took the government to court over climate change and won. In Sweden, Greta Thunberg sparked a global climate movement at 15. These movements exist because someone raised those children to believe they had not just the right, but the responsibility, to shape the world around them. But if we step back from parenting, or treat it as apolitical, we leave that space wide open. The right is more than ready to fill it. That's why they're fighting so hard to control what children are taught, which books they read, whose families are visible in their classrooms and which identities are allowed to exist. This is the moment for the left to reclaim family as a public good. Progressives shouldn't just defend the right to abortion, we must fight for people's ability to have families and raise them with dignity. That means paid leave, universal childcare, affordable healthcare and a livable planet. It also means rejecting the caricature that progressives are a party of 'childless cat ladies' while conservatives corner the market on family values. We are, and always have been, the natural home of pro-family policy. After all, children tether us to the future, but also to each other. Progressive values thrive in that space of interdependence, where no one is expected to go it alone. Caring for kids – whether as parents, educators, neighbors or policymakers – demands a communal ethic of care. I've seen this ethic in action across the world. While writing my book, Please Yell at My Kids, I spent years studying how families around the world raise children in community. In the Netherlands, children as young as eight walk themselves to school. Parents trust that if they need help, a community member will step in. In Denmark, babies nap unattended in strollers outside cafes – not because parents are careless, but because they trust the society around them. In Mozambique, where formal support systems often fail, mothers rely on each other for food, childcare and safety, transforming neighborhoods into extended families. These cultures aren't perfect, but they understand that raising a child isn't a private endeavor. It's a collective one. Some understandably hesitate to bring children into a world on fire. Others worry that parenting means stepping back from activism or ambition. But for many, becoming a parent doesn't dilute that drive; it crystallizes it. Climate change isn't just a policy failure – it's the air your child will breathe. Gun violence isn't abstract – it's a possibility you carry every time you drop them off at school. The broken systems you tolerated suddenly become intolerable when your child has to navigate them, too. This isn't about idealizing parenthood. It's about refusing to surrender this human experience to those who would use it to divide us. So yes, the world is on fire. But refusing to bring children into it won't put the flames out. What may, perhaps, is raising a generation bold enough to rebuild it. Marina Lopes is the author of Please Yell at My Kids: What Cultures Around the World Can Teach You About Parenting in Community, Raising Independent Kids, and Not Losing Your Mind, out now
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Science
- Bloomberg
Lab-Grown Meat Is the Fake Climate Food Fix That Just Won't Die
Back in the early aughts, biofuels such as ethanol were looking like a powerful answer to our then-emerging understanding of the climate crisis and our reliance on foreign oil: Using renewable fuels made from plants like corn, experts said, could significantly reduce energy emissions when compared with gasoline. Even better was the future promise of 'advanced biofuels,' which would one day use inedible biomass instead of food. To environmental lawyer Timothy Searchinger, however, something about diverting land from food into energy just didn't add up. Use one field to grow corn for fuel, he pointed out, and other land will invariably have to be cleared to grow food, house livestock and grow feed for livestock. When those trees are cut down, carbon is released and climate change gets worse.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Wreckers, money woes and mutirão: 10 things we learned about Cop30 from Bonn climate talks
Two weeks of negotiations on the climate crisis have just concluded in Bonn in preparation for the Cop30 summit taking place in Brazil this November. What did we learn? Limiting global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial levels is vital for a healthy planet, but hopes of doing so are rapidly vanishing as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and temperatures soar. The main task for Cop30 in Belém this November is for every country to submit a national plan, required under the 2015 Paris agreement, to cut carbon as far as necessary to hold to the 1.5C limit. Few countries have submitted their plans, called nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which set out a target on emissions to 2035 and an indication of the measures that will be taken to meet them. They were due in February, but the presidency of Donald Trump, his vacillations over tariffs and the prospect of a global trade war led many to adopt a 'wait and see' approach. Military conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran have further frightened governments and taken attention away from the climate. Brazil is urging all countries to come forward with their NDCs in September, in time for the UN to assess them before Cop30 begins. Even if they meet the deadline, however, it was abundantly clear from the preliminary negotiations in Bonn that the NDCs will not add up to the emissions cuts needed to stay within 1.5C, assuming that is still possible. That leaves Brazil with a dilemma. The Cop host has no control over how countries set their NDCs, as that is done by national governments before they arrive in Belém. No country is likely to revise its NDC at the Cop. But a summit that ends with inadequate NDCs that would lead to global heating far in excess of 1.5C or even 2C will be labelled a failure. Brazil must find a way to show how NDCs that come up short can be improved or remedied, or how countries can collaborate to make faster and deeper cuts, if it is to keep the goals of Paris alive. Work at Bonn was held up for two days because countries could not agree on the agenda for the meeting, and by the end they had little progress to show on key issues. This was just a foretaste of the fights and recriminations that Brazil can expect in earnest at Cop30. As well as the withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement, and the dangerous geopolitical circumstances, Brazil will have to contend with a cadre of countries and vested interests that want to stymie the talks. Developed countries are widely, and reasonably, blamed for their failures to cut emissions fast enough and to provide the finance needed by the poor world. But behind the scenes many fossil fuel producers and their allies that are supposed to be on the side of the developing world are also happy to hold up negotiations, exploiting the complexity of the talks to cover their actions. If Bonn was frustrating, Cop30 could be far worse. For developing countries, the key question remains: how can they gain access to the resources they need to protect their citizens against the impacts of climate breakdown? Many are already experiencing 'loss and damage' from extreme weather, in the form of droughts, floods, heatwaves and encroaching seas. But the funding that developed countries promised has been slow to arrive. Richard Sherman, a South African delegate, told the Bonn conference: 'There is no money. The funds that we have are not able to support the need.' At Cop29, developed countries promised that $1.3tn a year would flow to the poor world by 2035, made up of at least $300bn from public sources and the rest from innovative forms of finance such as levies on polluting activities, carbon trading and private investment. Only the broad outlines were agreed, however. There is not yet a blueprint showing how the money can be delivered and distributed over the next decade. Last year's hosts, Azerbaijan, are collaborating with Brazil to produce a roadmap with more detail. Delegates warn it must set out a clear timetable of concrete actions, rather than more vague promises. At recent Cops, hosts have taken to having special meetings based on traditional formats. This began at Durban in 2011, when as the negotiations stretched long past their official deadline, heads of delegation moved into special 'indaba' meetings, named after a traditional Zulu gathering of tribal elders. Since then, Cop28 in Dubai had its 'majlis', and Cop29 in Baku had a 'qurultay', modelled on a Turkic chieftains' gathering. At Cop30, delegates will be invited to a 'mutirão', a Portuguese word derived from the Indigenous Tupi-Guarani language that refers to a group coming together to work on a shared task. Carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is the main greenhouse gas affecting the planet, but increasingly scientists and activists are focusing on another gas: methane. Far more potent, it escapes from fossil fuel extraction sites and is produced by livestock and farming. Methane breaks down in the atmosphere much faster than carbon dioxide, but warms the planet about 80 times as much while it lasts, so cutting methane gives more bang for the emissions reduction buck. Given its smaller number of sources, plugging emissions of methane should also be easier than cutting carbon. Governments have tended to ignore the potential for methane cuts, but pressure is growing for the gas to be included prominently in countries' NDCs at Cop30. At Cop28 in Dubai, countries agreed for the first time to 'transition away from fossil fuels', a historic commitment that should have signalled a dramatic shift in the global economy. No sooner was that conference over, however, than some countries were seeking to unpick the resolution. Last year, at Cop29, attempts to reinforce the language on the transition, and to set out clearer plans on how it could be brought about, met fierce – though sometimes covert – opposition, and came to nothing. Many campaigners want to bring the subject back at Cop30. But Brazil is resisting having a 'cover decision' – a wide-ranging text that would incorporate all sorts of resolutions, arguing that the resolutions of previous Cops need not be revisited. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Bonn ended without a clear path forward on the issue, but it is unlikely to disappear before Cop30. Every Cop generates its own baggage – presidents and host countries want to put their own stamp on proceedings, and so bring forward pet projects that focus on one aspect of the climate crisis, such as electric vehicles, or coal, or aspects of food or forestry. Over the years, these initiatives have proliferated so that now there are scores of them, some still useful but others in effect left orphaned as the ministers who invented them have faded into political obscurity and the money behind them has been spent. Brazil is aiming to tackle some of this bloat. But the wider and more radical reforms to the Cop process that some have called for will not be on the programme. Belém, a rainforest city and port, lies near the mouth of the Amazon River. While charming, it has never been a tourist mecca and to have an estimated 60,000 people, and perhaps many more, land on its shores will be a major strain. It seemed as if every conversation in Bonn, whether it started on NDCs, climate finance or the substantive issues of climate governance, always ended up on the same subject: logistics. With just four months to go, most people have yet to secure anywhere to stay in Belém. Brazil has promised that 29,000 rooms and 55,000 beds will be made available, but so far these have yet to materialise. Cruise ships are being pressed into service, supplying more than 3,000 cabins, and some people are gratefully looking forward to spending a fortnight in shipping containers. But the prices being asked in advance are astronomical, and beyond the reach of most developing country delegations and climate activist charities. Without them, the Cop will be skewed towards moneyed interests, will reinforce global inequalities and will fail the most vulnerable. Choosing Belém for Cop30 has created a logistical conundrum that the hosts have yet to solve. The choice of Belém was meant to highlight the plight of the Amazon rainforest, one of the world's greatest carbon sinks and vital to the health of the planet – and which is under threat, not just from deforestation, but from the climate crisis itself, as rapidly rising temperatures could push the Amazon over a tipping point that would transform it from rainforest into a savannah-like state. That would be catastrophic for the planet, potentially leading to further rapid escalations in temperature from which there could be no return. But the spotlight on Belém has also brought into focus Brazil's own adventures with fossil fuels. Oil and gas deposits discovered in and around the Amazon, and off the coast not far from Belém, are being considered for exploitation. Brazil's oil sector regulator, ANP, will auction the exploration rights to 172 oil and gas blocks spanning 56,000 sq miles (146,000 sq km), an area more than twice the size of Scotland, most of it offshore. The 'doomsday auction', as campaigners have called it, includes 47 blocks in the Amazon basin, in a sensitive area near the mouth of the river that fossil fuel companies consider a promising new oil frontier. Brazil has argued that developing countries should be allowed to exploit their fossil fuel reserves while developed nations, many of which have grown rich over centuries of exploiting their own resources, must take the lead in closing down operations. Ana Toni, the chief executive of Cop30, said: 'Transitioning away is a responsibility of everyone, not only producing countries, consumer countries – many countries in the north don't produce fossil fuel, but they consume fossil fuel. We've gone to this era of finger pointing on countries. We need to find solutions for producer countries that depend financially on that income.' One of the many tasks at which Bonn failed was to broker an agreement on who should host the Cop31 summit. Australia and Turkey are vying for the presidency of next year's meeting. Neither is willing to concede to the other, and the obscure process for choosing future presidencies tends to rely on consensus candidates emerging and a system of gentlemen's agreements, rather than a real competition or vote. Australia's newly re-elected government wants to showcase its commitment to climate action, despite being one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, as climate policy was one of its key battlegrounds in the recent elections. Turkey has long been unhappy with its status at the talks – in 1992, when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, Turkey was lumped in with developed countries, which have clear obligations to cut emissions and provide climate finance to the poor world, but has since argued it should have been aligned with the developing world. There are hints that Turkey could be persuaded to drop its bid if its status were reconsidered. But opening up the parent treaty to the Paris agreement would be legally difficult and stir up much wider issues: for if Turkey's status has changed since 1992, what of countries such as China, now the world's second-biggest economy with a GDP per capita comparable to some EU member states, and wealthy Gulf petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates?
The Guardian
a day ago
- Science
- The Guardian
‘We are perilously close to the point of no return': climate scientist on Amazon rainforest's future
For more than three decades, Brazilian climate scientist Carlos Nobre has warned that deforestation of the Amazon could push this globally important ecosystem past the point of no return. Working first at Brazil's National Institute for Space Research and more recently at the University of São Paulo, he is a global authority on tropical forests and how they could be restored. In this interview, he explains the triple threat posed by the climate crisis, agribusiness and organised crime. What is the importance of the Amazon?As well as being incredibly beautiful, the world's biggest tropical rainforest is one of the pillars of the global climate system, home to more terrestrial biodiversity than anywhere else on the planet, a major influence on regional monsoon patterns and essential for agricultural production across much of South America. You were the first scientist to warn that it could hit a tipping point. What does that mean?It is a threshold beyond which the rainforest will undergo an irreversible transformation into a degraded savannah with sparse shrubby plant cover and low biodiversity. This change would have dire consequences for local people, regional weather patterns and the global climate. At what level will the Amazon hit a tipping point?We estimate that a tipping point could be reached if deforestation reaches 20-25% or global heating rises to 2.0-2.5C [above preindustrial levels]. What is the situation today?It is very, very serious. Today, 18% of the Amazon has been cleared and the world has warmed by 1.5C and is on course to reach 2.0-2.5C by 2050. How is this being felt now?The rainforest suffered record droughts in 2023 and 2024, when many of the world's biggest rivers were below the lowest point on record. That was the fourth severe drought in two decades, four times more than would have been expected in an undisrupted climate. Every year, the dry season is becoming longer and more arid. Forty-five years ago, the annual dry season in the southern Amazon used to last three to four months and even then there would be some rain. But today, it is four to five weeks longer and there is 20% less rain. If this trend continues, we will reach a point of no return in two or three decades. Once the dry season extends to six months, there is no way to avoid self-degradation. We are perilously close to a point of no return. In some areas, it may have already been passed. In southern Pará and northern Mato Grosso, the minimum rainfall is already less than 40mm per month during the dry season. Aren't those the areas where the most forest has been cleared for cattle ranching and soy plantations?Yes. Livestock grazing is a form of ecological pollution. The areas that have been most degraded by pastures are at, or very close to, a tipping point. That is all of the southern Amazon – more than 2m sq km – from the Atlantic all the way to Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. Scientific studies show degraded pastures recycle only one-third or one-fourth as much water vapour as a forest during the dry season. There is so much water in the Amazonian soil. Trees with deep roots bring it up and release it into the air, mostly through transpiration by the leaves. In this way, forests recycle 4-4.5 litres of water per square metre per day during the dry season. But degraded land, like pastures, recycles only 1-1.5 litres. That helps to explain why the dry seasons are growing one week longer every decade. Why isn't an Amazonian savannah a good idea?It would be less humid and more vulnerable to fire. The tropical forest generally has 20-30% more annual rainfall than tropical savannahs in Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia and Brazil. The Amazon also has fewer lightning strikes because the clouds are lower than in the savannah. But the most important difference is the fact that a rainforest has a closed canopy so only 4% of solar radiation reaches the forest floor. This means there is always very little radiated energy for the evaporation of the water so the forest floor vegetation and soil are very wet. Historically, this means that lightning strikes only start very small fires that kill only one or two trees but do not spread. In evolutionary terms, this is one reason why there is so much biodiversity in the rainforest; it is resilient to fire. But once it starts to dry and degrade, it is easier to burn. How would an Amazon tipping point affect the global climate?The forest in the south-eastern Amazon has already become a carbon source. This is not just because of emissions from forest fires or deforestation. It is because tree mortality is increasing tremendously. If the Amazon hits a tipping point, our calculations show we are going to lose 50-70% of the forest. That would release between 200 and 250bn tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2050 and 2100, making it completely impossible to limit global warming to 1.5C. Brazil is one of the world's biggest agricultural exporters. How would a tipping point affect global food security?Almost 50% of the water vapour that comes into the region from the Atlantic through trade winds is exported back out of the Amazon on what we call 'flying rivers'. I was the first to calculate the huge volume of these flows: 200,000 cubic metres of water vapour per second. My former PhD student, Prof Marina Hirota, calculated that tropical forests and Indigenous territories account for more than 50% of the rainfall in the Paraná River basin in the far south of Brazil, which is a major food-growing area. These flying rivers also provide water for crops in the Cerrado, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Paraguay, Uruguay, and all that northern Argentina agricultural area. So if we lose the Amazon, we are going to reduce the rainfall there by more than 40%. Then you can forget agricultural production at today's levels. And that would also contribute to converting portions of the tropical savannah south of the Amazon into semi-arid vegetation. What would be the consequences for nature and human health?The devastation of the most biodiverse biome in the world would also affect hundreds of thousands of species and raise the risks of zoonotic diseases crossing the species barrier. For the first time since the Europeans came to the Americas, we are experiencing two epidemics: Oropouche fever, and Mayaro fever. In the future, the degradation of the Amazon forest will lead to more epidemics and even pandemics. How can an Amazonian tipping point be prevented?In 2019, [the American ecologist] Tom Lovejoy and I recommended nature-based solutions, such as large-scale forestry restoration, zero deforestation, the elimination of monocultures, and a new bioeconomy based on social biodiversity. We argued that it is possible to build back a margin of safety through immediate and ambitious reforestation particularly in areas degraded by largely abandoned cattle ranches and croplands. This prompted a lot of research and new thinking. Is the Brazilian government adopting these ideas?Progress fluctuates depending on who is in power. In August 2003-July 2004, we had about 27,000 sq km of deforestation – a huge number. But the first Lula government, with Marina Silva as environment minister, brought the figure down and it reached 4,600 sq km by 2012. Later, during Bolsonaro's government, it went up to 14,000 sq km. And now, with Lula and Marina back, it is fortunately going down again and there are several beautiful new reforestation projects. This is progress, but not enough. Now I'm saying to Marina Silva, 'Let's get to Cop30 with the lowest deforestation in the Amazon ever, less than 4,000 sq km.' Who knows? But anyway, Brazil is working hard. You have warned that criminal activity is a major new risk. Why?Last year, we had a record-breaking number of forest fires in all biomes in tropical South America – from January to November 2024, the Amazon had more than 150,000. Studies by INPE (The Brazilian Space Agency) show something very, very serious is happening. More than 98% of the forest fires were man-made. They were not lightning strikes. This is very worrying. Because even when we are reducing deforestation, organised crime is making it worse. In my opinion, more than 50% of forest fires were arson. All Amazonian countries are trying to reduce deforestation. That is wonderful, but then what to do to combat organised crime? They control a $280bn business – drug trafficking, wildlife trafficking, people trafficking, illegal logging, illegal gold mining, illegal land grabbing. It is all connected. And these gangs are at war with the governments. That's one of the main reasons I'm becoming concerned because I know reducing deforestation is doable, so is forestry restoration. But how to combat organised crime? How have your feelings about this problem changed?I am worried that we are not acting with sufficient urgency. Thirty-five years ago, I thought we had plenty of time to get to zero deforestation and to combat the climate problem. Back then, deforestation was 7% and global warming was a little bit above 0.5C. I was not pessimistic because I felt we could find solutions. At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, many people were saying that the world should aim for zero emissions by the year 2000. Unfortunately, nobody moved. Emissions continued to rise and they hit another record high last year. We now face a climate emergency. I am very, very concerned. Tipping points – in the Amazon, Antarctic, coral reefs and more – could cause fundamental parts of the Earth system to change dramatically, irreversibly and with devastating effects. In this series, we ask the experts about the latest science – and how it makes them feel. Tomorrow, Louise Sime talks about Antarctic tipping points Read more
