Violence. There are two main challenges that Latin America currently faces in regard to violence. The first one is an increase in interpersonal violence throughout the region; and the second one is violence linked to organized crime, especially in areas that are relevant for drug related markets. Ecological studies may examine individual organisms, single species populations, multiple species communities, eecosystems, or the Earth as a whole. Ecological studies may also examine different Not all miners, however, are headed to renewable destinations. Kazakhstan is now just behind the U.S. in terms of its share of the global bitcoin mining market, with about 8% of all crypto mining effectively with environment concerns; and to help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and the appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment, a long term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational goals for the world community. Now, we will mention a more detailed argument of why you should be concerned about your natural environment and climate. Here you can find the sustainability and green technology topics for your college essay. Food and Farming . Climate is the best indicator of where crops better grow. Vay Tiền Nhanh. Canada is dealing with a series of intense wildfires that have spread from the western provinces to Quebec, with hundreds of forest fires burning. Wind has carried smoke from the fires southward, triggering air-quality alerts throughout the United US Environmental Protection Agency EPA on Tuesday issued a poor air-quality alert for New England, a day after parts of Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota received a similar advisory. Last week, US officials as far south as Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania reported being affected by the a look at what you need to know at a glanceWhat’s happening?Smoke from Canada’s wildfires has been moving into the United States since last month. The most recent fires near Quebec have been burning for at least several EPA said hazy skies, reduced visibility and the odor of burning wood are likely, and that the smoke will linger for a few days in New map“It’s not unusual for us to get fire smoke in our area. It’s very typical in terms of north-west Canada,” said Darren Austin, a meteorologist and senior air-quality specialist with the Rhode Island department of environmental management. But the smoke usually has been aloft higher in the atmosphere, not affecting people’s health, he Quebec-area fires are big and relatively close, about 500 to 600 miles roughly 800 to 970km away from Rhode Island. And they followed wildfires in Nova Scotia, which resulted in a short-lived air-quality alert on 30 May, Austin the biggest concern?Air-quality alerts are triggered by a number of factors, including the detection of fine-particle pollution – known as “PM – which can irritate the lungs.“We have defenses in our upper airway to trap larger particles and prevent them from getting down into the lungs. These are sort of the right size to get past those defenses,” said Dr David Hill, a pulmonologist in Waterbury, Connecticut, and a member of the American Lung Association’s national board of directors. “When those particles get down into the respiratory space, they cause the body to have an inflammatory reaction to them.”A cyclist wears a mask due to poor air quality in Ottawa on 6 June. Photograph Sean Kilpatrick/APTrent Ford, the state climatologist in Illinois, said the atmospheric conditions in the upper midwest creating dry, warm weather made it possible for small particulates to travel hundreds of miles from the Canadian wildfires and linger for days.“It’s a good example of how complex the climate system is but also how connected it is,” Ford should be careful?Exposure to elevated fine particle pollution levels can affect the lungs and air-quality alerts caution “sensitive groups”, a large category that includes children, older adults and people with lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary who often are encouraged to go out and play, “are more susceptible to smoke for a number of reasons”, said Laura Kate Bender, the American Lung Association’s national assistant vice-president, healthy air. “Their lungs are still developing, they breathe in more air per unit of body weight.”What can you do for now?It’s a good time to put off that yardwork and outdoor exercise. If you go out, consider wearing an N95 mask to reduce your exposure to woman walks her dog along the Ottawa River in Ottawa as smoke from wildfires obscures Gatineau, Quebec, in the distance on 6 June. Photograph Sean Kilpatrick/APStay inside, keeping your doors, windows and fireplaces shut. It’s recommended that you run the air conditioning on a recirculation setting.“If you have filters on your home HVAC system, you should make sure they’re up to date and high quality,” Hill said. “Some people, particularly those with underlying lung disease, or heart disease, should consider investing in air purifiers for their homes.” Human activity has pushed the world into the danger zone in seven out of eight newly demarcated indicators of planetary safety and justice, according to a groundbreaking analysis of the Earth’s beyond climate disruption, the report by the Earth Commission group of scientists presents disturbing evidence that our planet faces growing crises of water availability, nutrient loading, ecosystem maintenance and aerosol pollution. These pose threats to the stability of life-support systems and worsen social study, which was published in Nature on Wednesday, is the most ambitious attempt yet to combine vital signs of planetary health with indicators of human Johan Rockström, one of the lead authors, said “It is an attempt to do an interdisciplinary science assessment of the entire people-planet system, which is something we must do given the risks we face.“We have reached what I call a saturation point where we hit the ceiling of the biophysical capacity of the Earth system to remain in its stable state. We are approaching tipping points, we are seeing more and more permanent damage of life-support systems at the global scale.”The Earth Commission, which was established by dozens of the world’s leading research institutions, wants the analysis to form the scientific backbone of the next generation of sustainability targets and practices, which extend beyond the current focus on climate to include other indices and environmental justice. It hopes that cities and businesses will adopt the targets as a way to measure the impact of their study sets out a series of “safe and just” benchmarks for the planet that can be compared to the vital signs for the human body. Instead of pulse, temperature and blood pressure, it looks at indicators such as water flow, phosphorus use and land boundaries are based on a synthesis of previous studies by universities and UN science groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem situation is grave in almost every category. Setting global benchmarks is challenging. For climate, the world has already adopted a target to keep global heating as low as possible between to 2C above pre-industrial levels. The Earth Commission notes that this is a dangerous level because many people are already badly affected by the extreme heat, droughts and floods that come with the current level of about They say a safe and just climate target is 1C, which would require a massive effort to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They note it is impossible to stabilise the climate without protecting achieve this, the “safe and just” boundary is for 50to 60% of the world to be home to predominantly natural ecosystems. The reality, however, is that only 45to 50% of the planet has an intact ecosystem. In human-altered areas, such as farms, cities and industrial parks, the commission says at least 20 to 25% of the land needs to be devoted to semi-natural habitats such as parks, allotments and clusters of trees in order to maintain ecosystem services such as pollination, water quality regulation, pest and disease control, and the health and mental health benefits provided by access to nature. However, about two-thirds of altered landscapes fail to meet this target is for aerosol pollution, which accumulates from car exhausts, factories, and coal, oil and gas power plants. At a global level, the report has focussed on minimising the imbalance of aerosol concentrations between the northern and southern hemispheres, which can disrupt the monsoon season and other weather patterns. At a local level, for example in cities, it follows the World Health Organization in establishing a boundary of 15 micrograms per cubic metre mean annual exposure to small particulate matter, known as which can damage the lungs and heart. This is an issue of social justice because poorer, often predominantly black communities tend to suffer the worst results as many are found in vulnerable benchmark for surface water is that no more than 20% of the flow of rivers and streams should be blocked in any catchment area because this leads to declining water quality and habit loss for freshwater species. This “safe boundary” has already been exceeded on a third of the world’s land by hydroelectric dams, drainage systems and construction. The story is similarly poor for groundwater systems, where the safe boundary is that aquifers are not depleted faster than they can be replenished. However, 47% of the world’s river basins are being run down at an alarming rate. This is a big problem in population centres such as Mexico City and areas of intensive agricultural such as the North China past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNutrients are another area of concern because farmers in wealthier countries are spraying more nitrogen and phosphorus than the plants and land are able to absorb. This temporarily increases yields, but leads to runoffs into water systems that become suffocated by algae blooms and unhealthy for humans to drink. Global equity is the key here, the report says. Poorer nations need more fertilisers, while rich nations need to cut the surplus. Balanced out, the “safe and just boundary” in this case is a global surplus of 61m tonnes of nitrogen and about 6m tonnes of authors say the planetary diagnosis is grim but not yet beyond hope, though the time for a remedy is running Gupta, the Earth Commission co-chair and professor of environment and development in the global south at the University of Amsterdam, said “Our doctor would say the Earth is really quite sick right now in many areas. And this is affecting the people living on Earth. We must not just address symptoms, but also the causes.”David Obura, another member of the commission and director of coastal oceans research and development in the Indian Ocean, said the policy framework was already in place to get back within safe boundaries through the goals of existing UN climate and biodiversity agreements. But he stressed that consumption choices also needed to play an important role.“There are a number of medicines we can take, but we also need lifestyle changes – less meat, more water, and a more balanced diet,” he said. “It is possible to do it. Nature’s regenerative powers are robust … but we need a lot more commitment.” There is a common concern across most of the surveyed publics around environmental protection. A median of seven-in-ten report that climate change is having at least some effect in the area where they live. About half or more consider climate change to be a very serious problem; public concern about climate change is up since 2015 in places where a previous Pew Research Center survey is available. And, while there is some variation, majorities across most of these publics believe their national government is doing too little to address climate change. When respondents were asked to choose between protecting the environment and job creation, the balance of opinion landed squarely on the side of environmental protection. This survey was conducted before the coronavirus pandemic and resultant economic strains in many of these publics. Further, as people think about energy issues, many more would prioritize expanding renewable energy production over that for fossil fuel energies. Views about specific energy sources underscore this pattern, with strong majorities in favor of expanding the use of wind, solar and hydropower sources and much less support, by comparison, for energy sources such as oil or coal. People’s views on climate, environment and energy issues tend to align with their political ideology. Those who place themselves on the left are more inclined to see climate change as a serious problem and to think their government is doing too little to address it. Left-leaning adults are especially inclined to prioritize protecting the environment or creating new jobs and to think it more important to increase renewable energy production over that for fossil fuels. There is also a tendency for environmental and energy priorities to vary with age. In particular, a larger share of younger adults than older ones across most of these publics prioritize protecting the environment even it means harm to economic development. Majorities see at least some effects of climate change where they live; a median of 58% say government action to address climate change is insufficient A median of 70% across the 20 publics surveyed say they are experiencing a great deal or some effects of climate change in the area where they live. Italians and Spaniards stand out. More than eight-in-ten Italians 86% say climate change is affecting the area where they live at least some, including 55% who think climate change is having a great deal of influence. A similar share of Spaniards say climate change is affecting their local area at least some 84%, including 53% who say climate change is affecting where they live a great deal. Those in two northern European nations, the UK and Sweden, are far less likely to say they are experiencing the effects of climate change. In Sweden, for example, 55% say they experience a great deal 16% or some 39% effects of climate change where they live. Overall, majorities across most of these publics believe their national government is doing too little to address climate change. A 20-public median of 58% say their national government is doing too little, compared with a median of 27% who say their government is doing about the right amount and a median of just 6% who say it is doing too much to reduce the effects of climate change. Those in Spain and Italy again stand out. About eight-in-ten Spaniards 82% and Italians 81% say their government is doing too little on climate change. Only 14% in both Spain and Italy say their government is doing the right amount. Six-in-ten or more in other places, including the UK 69%, Poland 67%, France 63%, Germany 63%, the 63%, Canada 60% and Taiwan 60%, say their government is doing too little. Places where fewer than half see a need for more government action on climate change include Malaysia, Singapore and India. In Singapore, more say their government is doing the right amount 45% to address climate change than say it is doing too little 38%. In Malaysia, similar shares say their government is doing too little 41% and say it is doing the right amount 39% now. And, in India, 37% say the government is doing too little, while 15% say it is doing the right amount and 32% say it doing too much to address climate change. Increasing shares see climate change as a very serious problem since 2015 Climate change is considered a very serious problem by a majority of adults across most of these publics 20-public median of 57%. There is variation in the degree of concern about climate change, however. Large majorities – seven-in-ten or more – in Taiwan 80%, Italy 75%, France 74%, Spain 73%, South Korea 71% and Japan 70% see climate change as a very serious problem. By contrast, only about half in Australia 53%, Poland 53%, 53%, Malaysia 52%, Netherlands 52% and Czech Republic 49% say climate change is a very serious problem. A 2015 Center survey found the and China stand apart from other nations for their relatively low levels of concern about climate change. In the new survey, too, Americans stand out for having a higher share who say that climate change is not too serious or not a problem 25%. Concern about climate change is rising across many publics; the share saying climate change is a very serious problem rose in 12 of 15 publics where a comparison is available. In five European countries – Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Poland – the percentage of those who think climate change is a very serious problem has grown by about 20 or more percentage points over roughly five years. For example, in the UK, about two-thirds 65% now say climate change is a very serious problem, compared with roughly four-in-ten 41% in 2015. Marked increases in the share saying climate change is a very serious problem also occur in South Korea and Japan up 23 and 25 percentage points, respectively. These findings are consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys using different question wording, which showed that global perceptions of climate change as a threat increased between 2013 and 2018. In the public concern about climate change has also gone up over time; however, concern has risen primarily among Democrats and not Republicans. People’s views about climate change are strongly linked to political ideology Global perspectives on climate are strongly aligned with people’s ideological leanings; those on the left are more inclined than those on the right to see climate change as a serious problem and to think their government is doing too little to address it. Ideological divides in the are larger than in any other public surveyed. Wide differences among Americans are also seen when comparing conservative Republicans with liberal Democrats. Political differences have been a hallmark of Americans’ views on climate. But other publics also have wide ideological divides over climate matters, consistent with past Center findings. Australians on the left are more than twice as likely as Australians on the right to say climate change is a very serious problem 79% vs. 36%. Similarly, Canadians on the left are 38 percentage points more likely than Canadians on the right to say climate change is a very serious problem 82% vs. 44%. And in five European countries Sweden, UK, Germany, Netherlands and Poland, those on the left are 20 or more points more likely than those on the right to say climate change is a very serious problem. Views on climate change are widely shared among older and younger adults. There is a modest tendency for younger adults at or under the median age to say climate change is a very serious problem compared with older adults in a handful of places, including Australia, Canada, UK, the and others. [callout] Supporters of right-wing populist parties show less concern about climate change In Europe, those who hold favorable views of right-wing populist parties generally see climate change as a less serious problem. For example, about one-third 32% of supporters of Sweden Democrats SD say climate change is a very serious problem. In comparison, roughly seven-in-ten 69% of Swedes who do not support SD say climate change is a very serious problem. Similarly, supporters of right-wing populist parties have drastically different views about how much their government is doing on climate change. In the UK, 49% of those who support the Brexit Party think the government is doing too little on climate, compared with 78% of those who do not support the party. [/callout] Large majorities see environmental problems where they live; a median of 71% would prioritize environmental protection over job creation In most of these survey publics, large majorities classify a range of environmental issues as a big problem where they live. Majorities in 18 out of 20 survey publics see pollution of rivers, lakes and oceans as a big problem 20-public median of 78%. Nearly all in Spain 96% and about nine-in-ten in Brazil, Italy, France and Russia say this. Swedes and Singaporeans are less concerned about water pollution, by comparison. In Sweden, for example, 54% say this is a big problem, 29% say it is a moderate problem and 16% say it is either a small problem or not problem. There is a similarly high level of concern about the amount of garbage, waste and landfills. Around nine-in-ten say this is a big problem in Spain, Brazil and Italy. Across 17 of the 20 publics, two-thirds or more consider this is a big problem. The Dutch 43% and Swedes 32% have lower levels of concern about this issue. Public concern about other environmental issues is also high, including air pollution 20-public median of 76% say this is a big problem, the loss of forests 74% median and extinction of plant and animal species 67% median. Swedes are less likely to consider each of these issues to be a big problem where they live. In Sweden, roughly a third see landfill waste, air pollution and loss of forests as a big problem – the lowest percentage among survey publics for these three items. If asked to choose, majorities across all of these publics say they would prioritize protecting the environment even if it causes slower economic growth. A median of 71% would prioritize environmental protection, while a quarter would prioritize job creation. Public priorities on environmental protections have risen over time. In 18 of the 19 survey publics with a comparable survey trend, the share who would prioritize protecting the environment went up since 2005/2006. The exception is Canada, where 69% would prioritize protecting the environment, about the same as said this in a 2006 World Values Survey. All trend comparisons to surveys conducted by the World Values Survey or the Asian Barometer Survey. Note that these surveys used different ways of contacting survey respondents over time and such differences in survey mode can influence findings. See Appendix A for details. In China, a World Values Survey from 2018 showed a similar balance of opinion 68% would prioritize protecting the environment, while 26% would prioritize creating jobs. The 2014 Asia Barometer survey found a similar pattern. Public priorities related to the environment are strongly aligned with political ideology. People who think of their political views as on the left are much more likely than those on the right to prioritize environmental protection over job creation. Ideological differences are particularly wide in the Canada, Australia and the Netherlands differences of at least 30 percentage points. This pattern is in line with wide differences by ideology on a range of climate, environment and energy issues. Ideological self-placement is asked in 14 of the 20 publics; it is not asked in many of the Asian publics. There are also differences by age across 12 of the 20 survey publics, with younger adults more likely than older adults to say that protecting the environment should be given priority. The difference is largest in the Netherlands 16 points and the 15 points. In Spain, Brazil and Australia, there is a 13-point gap. See details in Appendix A. Most adults across these publics would prioritize renewable energy sources over fossil fuel production The United Nations’ sustainability goals on climate emphasize a need to “decarbonize” all aspects of the economy. The Center survey finds majorities across all 20 publics surveyed support the idea of prioritizing renewable energy production over that from oil, natural gas and coal sources. Across the 20 publics, a median of 86% would prioritize renewable energy production, from sources such as wind and solar, while a median of just 10% would prioritize fossil fuel production. In Spain and Sweden, there is near consensus over prioritizing renewable energy production 96% each. In Malaysia 67% and India 66%, about two-thirds say the same. As with beliefs about climate change, people on the left are more likely to prioritize renewable energy production than those on the right. See details in Appendix A. When asked for their views about each of seven energy sources, a similar portrait emerges. Strong majorities support expanding solar power 20-public median 93%, wind power median 87% and hydropower median 85%. Views on other energy sources are mixed. Support for expanding the use of natural gas ranges from a high of 88% in South Korea to a low of 38% in the Netherlands. Demand for natural gas has increased around the world over the last decade, in part from an interest in its lower carbon footprint. Across the 20 survey publics, a median of 69% support expanding the use of natural gas. Public support for expanding the use of oil or coal is considerably lower. Medians of 39% and 24%, respectively, favor expanding reliance on oil and expanding the use of coal. Majorities in Russia and Malaysia support expanding the use of both energy sources, however. The two countries are major producers of fossil fuels. Russia is the world’s largest producer of crude oil and third-largest exporter of coal. Malaysia is the second-largest oil and natural gas producer in Southeast Asia. Public opinion on nuclear power is quite varied. In Sweden, the Czech Republic and India, about half the public favors expanding nuclear power. In Japan, where the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident led the government to drastically decrease reliance on nuclear power, 24% favor expanding nuclear power and 68% oppose it. The accident also led to reappraisals of nuclear energy production in other countries, including Germany 21% favor expanding, Italy 21% and Spain 16%, which, along with Japan, are among the publics with the lowest support for expanding nuclear power. Men tend to be more supportive of nuclear power than women. Swedish men are 31 percentage points more likely than Swedish women to favor expanding nuclear power, for example. Differences between men and women are also sizable in Australia 31 points, the Netherlands 30 points, Canada 27 points and the 27 points. Gender differences on nuclear power are consistent with those in past surveys on this topic, including a 2008 Eurobarometer survey, which found men were more supportive of energy production from nuclear power stations across Europe. As with views about climate and the environment, people’s views about energy issues also tend to vary with their ideology. Across many of the publics, where ideology ratings are available, those on the left express are less likely than those on the right to favor expanding fossil fuel energy sources. IPCC report Code red’ for human driven global heating, warns UN chief Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Scientists are also observing changes across the whole of Earth’s climate system; in the atmosphere, in the oceans, ice floes, and on land. Many of these changes are unprecedented, and some of the shifts are in motion now, while some - such as continued sea level rise – are already irreversible’ for centuries to millennia, ahead, the report warns. But there is still time to limit climate change, IPCC experts say. Strong and sustained reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide CO2 and other greenhouse gases, could quickly make air quality better, and in 20 to 30 years global temperatures could stabilize. Code red for humanity’ The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the Working Group's report was nothing less than "a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable". He noted that the internationally-agreed threshold of degrees above pre-industrial levels of global heating was "perilously close. We are at imminent risk of hitting degrees in the near term. The only way to prevent exceeding this threshold, is by urgently stepping up our efforts, and persuing the most ambitious path. "We must act decisively now, to keep alive." The UN chief in a detailed reaction to the report, said that solutions were clear. "Inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air and better health are possible for all, if we respond to this crisis with solidarity and courage", he said. He added that ahead of the crucial COP26 climate conference in Glasgow in November, all nations - especiall the advanced G20 economies - needed to join the net zero emissions coaltion, and reinforce their promises on slowing down and reversing global heating, "with credible, concrete, and enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions NDCs" that lay out detailed steps. Human handiwork The report, prepared by 234 scientists from 66 countries, highlights that human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years. In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years, and concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide were higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over a least the last 2,000 years. For example, temperatures during the most recent decade 2011–2020 exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6,500 years ago, the report indicates. Meanwhile, global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900, than over any preceding century in at least the last 3,000 years. The document shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately of warming between 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed of heating. Ice sheets in Jökulsárlón, Iceland. Time is running out The IPCC scientists warn global warming of 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century. Unless rapid and deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades, achieving the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement “will be beyond reach”. The assessment is based on improved data on historical warming, as well as progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused emissions. “It has been clear for decades that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the role of human influence on the climate system is undisputed,” said IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair, Valérie Masson-Delmotte. “Yet the new report also reflects major advances in the science of attribution – understanding the role of climate change in intensifying specific weather and climate events”. A major new UN climate report issues a code red for humanity Extreme changes The experts reveal that human activities affect all major climate system components, with some responding over decades and others over centuries. Scientists also point out that evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and their attribution to human influence, has strengthened. They add that many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming. This includes increases in the frequency and intensity of heat extremes, marine heatwaves, and heavy precipitation; agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions; the proportion of intense tropical cyclones; as well as reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover and permafrost. The report makes clear that while natural drivers will modulate human-caused changes, especially at regional levels and in the near term, they will have little effect on long-term global warming. Air pollution from power plants contributes to global warming. A century of change, everywhere The IPCC experts project that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions. For of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes are more likely to reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health. But it won’t be just about temperature. For example, climate change is intensifying the natural production of water – the water cycle. This brings more intense rainfall and associated flooding, as well as more intense drought in many regions. It is also affecting rainfall patterns. In high latitudes, precipitation is likely to increase, while it is projected to decrease over large parts of the subtropics. Changes to monsoon rain patterns are expected, which will vary by region, the report warns. Moreover, coastal areas will see continued sea level rise throughout the 21st century, contributing to more frequent and severe coastal flooding in low-lying areas and coastal erosion. Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once in 100 years could happen every year by the end of this century. The report also indicates that further warming will amplify permafrost thawing, and the loss of seasonal snow cover, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and loss of summer Arctic sea ice. Changes to the ocean, including warming, more frequent marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, and reduced oxygen levels, affect both ocean ecosystems and the people that rely on them, and they will continue throughout at least the rest of this century. Magnified in cities Experts warn that for cities, some aspects of climate change may be magnified, including heat, flooding from heavy precipitation events and sea level rise in coastal cities. Furthermore, IPCC scientists caution that low-likelihood outcomes, such as ice sheet collapse or abrupt ocean circulation changes, cannot be ruled out. Limiting climate change “Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net zero CO2 emissions. Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits both for health and the climate,” highlights IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Panmao Zhai. The report explains that from a physical science perspective, limiting human-induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions. “Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in methane emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution”, IPCC scientists underscore. A 16-year-old child swims in the flooded area of Aberao village in Kiribati. The Pacific island is one of the countries worst affected by sea-level rise. About the IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization WMO in 1988 to provide political leaders with periodic scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies. In the same year the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by the WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. It has 195 member states. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. 'Before our very eyes' Multiple, recent climate disasters including devastating flooding in central China and western Europe have focused public attention as never before, suggested Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme UNEP. “As citizens and as businesses and as governments, we are well aware of the drama,” she said “The drama exists, we have seen it and we heard about it in every news bulletin. And that’s what we need to understand, that the expression of what the science says is exhibited before our very eyes, and of course what this excellent report does is, it projects those scenarios outward, and tells us, if we do not take action, what could be the potential outcomes, or if we do take action, what will be a very good outcome.” Climate adaption critical Apart from the urgent need for climate mitigation, "it is essential to pay attention to climate adaptation", said the WMO chief, Peteri Taalas, "since the negative trend in climate will continue for decades and in some cases for thousands of years. "One powerful way to adapt is to invest in early warning, climate and water services", he said."Only half of the 193 members of WMO have such services in place, which means more human and economic losses. We have also severe gaps in weather and hydrological observing networks in Africa, some parts of Latin America and in Pacific and Caribbean island states, which has a major negative impact on the accuracy of weather forecasts in those areas, but also worldwide. "The message of the IPCC report is crystal clear we have to raise the ambition level of mitigation." The COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow is drawing to a close. And despite high hopes, many young people may be feeling disappointed with the progress at these landmark talks. They may be feeling anxious about their future, considering they’ll be bearing the brunt of the impact of decisions made over the past two weeks. Our soon-to-be published research in the journal Child and Adolescent Mental Health shows most young people in Australia are concerned about climate change. But that’s not necessarily a problem. For some, a growing concern can motivate them to take action. There’s a word for this concern – eco-anxiety Eco-anxiety relates to worry and despair about climate change. Connected terms include “ecological grief”, which reflects grief related to ecological loss. People can also experience emotions such as fear, guilt and anger about climate change. We know adults experience these types of climate-related emotions. Read more Feel alone in your eco-anxiety? Don't – it's remarkably common to feel dread about environmental decline However, understanding young people’s views about climate change is important as they are more likely to be alive to experience its worst potential effects. Young people have also had a prominent role in climate activism, including the School Strike 4 Climate movement involving millions of young people around the world. These Brisbane school students, protesting against climate change earlier this year, are part of a global youth movement. Dan Peled/AAP Image Given the level of young people’s worry or concern about climate change we identified in our study, we may see their views becoming more influential as they reach voting age. Listening to these climate change concerns is vital. However, only 13% of young people in Australia feel government leaders are listening to them. We asked young people about climate change In our study, we tracked concern and worrying about climate change in more than 2,200 Australian young people over a period of eight years. At the start of the study, participants were aged 10-11, so by the end, they were 18-19 years old. At 18-19 years of age, most young people 75% had at least some concern or worry about climate change. But we also identified different patterns of climate worry over time. About half had increasing or had maintained moderate levels of worry over time. A total of 13% maintained high levels of worry over the eight years we tracked them. But 17% had persistently low levels of worry. Some young people became less worried over time. Read more Greta Thunberg emerged from five decades of environmental youth activism in Sweden Compared to those who were moderately worried, adolescents with high levels of persistent climate worry had higher depression symptoms at age 18-19. However, those who increased their climate-related worry over time did not. This suggests developing an awareness and concern for the environment was not associated with general mental health difficulties. Those with persistently high and increasing levels of climate worry had greater engagement with politics and news at 18-19 years. There are some positives Some level of worry and anxiety is normal. Anxiety can play an important role in protecting ourselves from danger and threat. Some worry may also motivate people to engage in constructive responses to climate change. Although we did not specifically examine activism in our study, previous studies show climate worry is associated with greater feelings of personal responsibility to make changes to reduce the impacts of climate change. However, anxiety can become a problem when it preoccupies us, leads us to avoid the thing that makes us anxious, gets in the way of daily life or stops us from doing the things we want to do. Our study shows that for most young people, climate worry is not associated with general mental health difficulties. However we don’t yet know the relationship between climate-related worry and mental health difficulties in younger children, as our study only looked at mental health outcomes at age 18-19. Read more The rise of 'eco-anxiety' climate change affects our mental health, too What if your concerns are overwhelming? Open communication about climate-related worry is essential. Parents play an important role and can talk with their children about these issues and listen to and validate their concerns. Worrying about the environment is rational and grounded in reality, as we are increasingly seeing the impacts of climate change around us. It’s OK for young people to feel worried. And we shouldn’t assume these worries are unproductive or necessarily associated with broader mental health difficulties. Acknowledging and validating feelings is key, and supporting young people to engage in activities to take action, if they want to, may help. Reassuringly, most young people in our study were not presenting with levels of worry that would warrant further assessment or treatment. Read more Treating a child's mental illness sometimes means getting the whole family involved Where to go for support If young people and their parents want additional support, seeing a GP is a good first step. Young people can also visit specialist youth mental health services such as headspace. A psychologist or other mental health professional can help young people develop ways of coping with and managing their worries. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

concern for the environment is now at the