oceans – Cabot Institute for the Environment blog

Are you a journalist looking for climate experts? We’ve got you covered

Posted on October 22, 2021March 30, 2023 by janet.crompton

We’ve got lots of media trained climate change experts. If you need an expert for an interview, here is a list of Caboteers you can approach. All media enquiries should be made via Victoria Tagg, our dedicated Media and PR Manager at the University of Bristol. Email victoria.tagg@bristol.ac.uk or call +44 (0)117 428 2489.

Climate change / climate emergency / climate science / climate-induced disasters

Dr Eunice Lo – expert in changes in extreme weather events such as heatwaves and cold spells, and how these changes translate to negative health outcomes including illnesses and deaths. Follow on Twitter @EuniceLoClimate.

Professor Daniela Schmidt – expert in the causes and effects of climate change on marine systems. Dani is also a Lead Author on the IPCC reports. Dani will be at COP26.

Dr Katerina Michalides – expert in drylands, drought and desertification and helping East African rural communities to adapt to droughts and future climate change. Follow on Twitter @_kmichaelides.

Professor Dann Mitchell – expert in how climate change alters the atmospheric circulation, extreme events, and impacts on human health. Dann is also a Met Office Chair. Dann will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @ClimateDann.

Professor Dan Lunt – expert on past climate change, with a focus on understanding how and why climate has changed in the past and what we can learn about the future from the past. Dan is also a Lead Author on IPCC AR6. Dan will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @ClimateSamwell.

Professor Jonathan Bamber – expert on the impact of melting land ice on sea level rise (SLR) and the response of the ocean to changes in freshwater forcing. Jonathan will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @jlbamber

Professor Paul Bates CBE – expert in the science of flooding, risk and reducing threats to life and economic losses worldwide. Follow on Twitter @paul_d_bates

Professor Tony Payne – expert in the effects of climate change on earth systems and glaciers.

Dr Matt Palmer – expert in sea level and ocean heat content research at the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Bristol. Follow on Twitter @mpclimate.

Net Zero / Energy / Renewables

Professor Valeska Ting – Engineer and expert in net zero, low carbon technologies, low carbon energy and flying. Also an accomplished STEM communicator, is an BAME Expert Voice for the BBC Academy. Follow on Twitter @ProfValeskaTing.

Professor Philip Taylor – Expert in net zero, energy systems, energy storage, utilities, electric power distribution. Also Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Bristol. Philip will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @rolyatlihp.

Dr Colin Nolden – expert in sustainable energy policy, regulation and business models and interactions with secondary markets such as carbon markets and other sectors such as mobility. Colin will be at COP26.

Climate finance

Dr Rachel James – Expert in climate finance, damage, loss and decision making. Also has expertise in African climate systems and contemporary and future climate change. Follow on Twitter @_RachelJames

Climate justice

Dr Alix Dietzel – climate justice and climate policy expert. Focusing on the global and local scale and interested in how just the response to climate change is and how we can ensure a just transition. Alix will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @alixdietzel

Dr Ed Atkins – expert on environmental and energy policy, politics and governance and how they must be equitable and inclusive. Also interested in local politics of climate change policies and energy generation and consumption. Follow on Twitter @edatkins_.

Climate activism / Extinction Rebellion

Dr Oscar Berglund – expert on climate change activism and particularly Extinction Rebellion (XR) and the use of civil disobedience. Follow on Twitter @berglund_oscar.

Air pollution / Greenhouse gases

Dr Aoife Grant – expert in greenhouse gases and methane. Has set up a monitoring station at Glasgow for COP26 to record emissions.

Professor Matt Rigby – expert on sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances. Follow on Twitter @TheOtherMRigby.

Land, nature and food

Dr Jo House – expert on land and climate interactions, including emissions of carbon dioxide from land use change (e.g. deforestation), climate mitigation potential from the land (e.g. afforestation, bioenergy), and implications of science for policy. Previously Government Office for Science’s Head of Climate Advice. Follow on Twitter @Drjohouse.

Dr Taro Takahashi – expert on farming, livestock production systems as well as progamme evaluation and general equilibrium modelling of pasture and livestock-based economies.

Climate change and infrastructure

Dr Maria Pregnolato – expert on effects of climate change and flooding on infrastructure. Follow on Twitter @MariaPregnolat1.

Plastic and the environment

Dr Charlotte Lloyd – expert on the fate of chemicals in the terrestrial environment, including plastics, bioplastics and agricultural wastes. Follow on Twitter @DrCharlLloyd.

What else the Cabot Institute for the Environment is up to for COP26

Find out what we’re doing for COP26 on our website at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/cop26.

Watch our Cabot Conversations – 10 conversations between 2 experts on a climate change issue, all whilst an artist listens in the background and interprets the conversation into a beautiful piece of art in real time. Find out more at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/conversations.

——————————

This blog was written by Amanda Woodman-Hardy, Communications and Engagement Officer at the Cabot Institute for the Environment. Follow on Twitter @Enviro_Mand and @cabotinstitute.

The Paris Agreement – where are we now?

Posted on October 23, 2018April 4, 2023 by janet.crompton

This year the Cabot Institute Annual Lecture posed a critical question: where are we with current efforts to tackle global climate change? The event brought together over 800 people to hear from leading Cabot Institute experts in climate science, policy, and justice, Dr Jo House, Dr Dann Mitchell, Dr Alix Dietzel and Professor Tony Payne. It was both an appraisal of the findings of the recently published report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and a grounded call to climate action.

Paris commitments

In 2015 world leaders adopted the Paris Agreement committing all parties to limiting global average temperatures to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 °C. All countries undertook to achieve global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and to enact increasingly ambitious mitigation measures in line with the overarching temperature goals. The Paris Agreement, in contrast to the preceding Kyoto Protocol, is not based on legally binding reductions targets for developed countries, but on a voluntary system of pledges known as ‘nationally determined contributions’ for all parties which will be subject to a stocktake of global progress every five years, beginning in 2023.

Although the Paris Agreement initially offered great promise with pledges being made by both developed and developing countries, a report by the UN Environment Programme in November 2017 examining progress towards the global temperature goals found that even if all current pledges are honoured, we remain on track for some 3 °C of warming by 2100. In light of this, and under the Presidency of Fiji, the first Small Island State to preside over a Conference of the Parties at COP23 last year, the focus has been on building momentum for more urgent action through the facilitative ‘Talanoa dialogue’ and on hashing out the final operating procedures for the Agreement. The findings of the IPCC Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, published on 8 October represent a further important piece of the picture of global progress, which three of the Cabot speakers shed light upon as contributing authors.

Why 0.5°C of warming matters

The findings of the report are significant in illustrating the projected differences in climate change impacts between the 1.5°C and 2°C temperature thresholds. Dr Dann Mitchell outlined the evidence for increases in regional mean temperatures and for the increasing likelihood of temperature extremes of the kind witnessed during this summer’s European heatwave, which we could see occur almost every year at 2°C of warming. These extremes, together with the projected intensification of storms presented in the report, are closely linked to human risks to health, wellbeing and livelihoods.

Dr Dann Mitchell

Professor Tony Payne echoed these concerns with respect to the findings of the report on sea-level rise which predict an extra 10cm rise between the 1.5°C and 2°C temperature thresholds, equating, in turn, to an additional 10 million people at risk of related impacts including inundation and displacement. The destabilisation of the ice sheets is set to become more likely beyond 1.5°C, entailing risks of much greater sea-level rise in the future. Professor Payne further outlined the strikingly severe consequences for coral reefs of the two temperature thresholds, with projections that at 2°C all coral in the oceans will die, while by limiting temperature to 1.5°C, some 10-30% of coral will survive. Reefs are not only crucial for the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems, but also for the millions of people around the world who depend upon those ecosystems for their food security and livelihoods.

Professor Tony Payne

A call for action

Against these stark warnings on the significance of limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C, Dr Jo House outlined some key recommendations for how we can get on track. The IPCC report sets out a number of pathways for action, each calling for changes across a broad spectrum of policy sectors with the aim of rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the absorption of existing carbon in the atmosphere. These changes include moving away from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy, greening the transport sector, replanting forests, and investing in carbon capture and storage technologies. Dr House underlined the importance of action at all levels of governance to meet these goals. At the national level in the UK under the provisions of the Climate Change Act we are already committed to an 80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050, while at the city level in Bristol, the Climate and Energy Security Framework commits to the same target, with a 50% reduction to be achieved by 2025.

Dr Jo House

This action in climate policy is increasingly being driven by sub-state actors and Dr Alix Dietzel highlighted the crucial role that local government, civil society groups, citizens initiatives, corporations, and individuals are playing in this. Dr Dietzel expressed cause for hope in the reaction of sub-state actors to the announcement of the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, with the ‘WE ARE STILL IN’ movement garnering support from city mayors, governors, tribal leaders, universities, and businesses for continuing commitment to the Paris goals. At the individual level, the actions we can all take within the boundaries of our own capabilities were discussed, outlining our capacity to affect change through our consumption and lifestyle choices. The need to consider the ethical questions surrounding our responsibilities as individuals and global citizens remains crucial, particularly in light of the disproportionately harmful effects that climate impacts will have upon those who have contributed least to the problem.

Dr Alix Dietzel

The risks of inaction on the 1.5°C threshold were balanced against the opportunities and benefits of action by the panel. The successful lobbying efforts of climate-vulnerable states to embed the 1.5°C threshold within the Paris framework, alongside the commitment of many governments and sub-state actors to meet it, are cause for hope but we still have a long way to go.

——————————
This blog was written by Cabot Institute member Alice Venn, a PhD Candidate in Environment, Energy & Resilience at the University of Bristol’s Law School.

Alice Venn

Listen again to the Annual Lecture
View the presentation slides
View the photos on Flickr
View our Moments or check out #CabotLecture2018 on Twitter.

Putting algae and seaweed on the menu could help save our seafood

Posted on December 15, 2017April 5, 2023 by janet.crompton

File 20171213 27593 sfv3nk.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Shutterstock

This article was written by Pallavi Anand, The Open University and Daniela Schmidt, University of Bristol Cabot Institute.

If we have to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050, food from the ocean will have to play a major role. Ending hunger and malnutrition while meeting the demand for more meat and fish as the world grows richer will require 60% more food by the middle of the century.But around 90% of the world’s fish stocks are already seriously depleted. Pollution and increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere, which is making the oceans warmer and more acidic, are also a significant threat to marine life.There is potential to increase ocean food production but, under these conditions, eating more of the species at the top of the food chain, such as tuna and salmon, is just not sustainable. As a recent EU report highlighted, we should instead be looking at how we can harvest more smaller fish and shellfish, but also species that aren’t as widely eaten such as seaweed and other algae.The oceans have absorbed around one third of the CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The absorbed CO₂ goes through a series of chemical reactions that form carbonic acid and lower the pH of the water. These reactions also reduce the concentration of carbonate ions, which are vital for those creatures that grow external skeletons such as corals and shellfish.

The acid and the lack of carbonate mean these organisms form weaker skeletons and have to use more energy to do so, leaving less energy for growth and reproduction. Consequently, they up smaller in size. Aside from the impact this has on shellfish, several of the species affected, such as corals in the tropics or coralline algae in the waters around the UK, also play a key role in providing food and nursing grounds for fish. And less fish food leads to fewer fish for us to catch.

Climate change is affecting food production

The impact of ocean acidification varies widely across the globe. But it is already affecting marine food production, particularly of shellfish. For example, CO₂-rich water along the west coast of the US means more oysters in local hatcheries are dying when they are still larvae.
Warmer seas due to climate change are also affecting food supplies. Some species are moving towards the poles in search of cooler water, forcing fishermen into more northerly waters or leaving them without stocks altogether. Some fishing fleets in northern locations will find more fish available but many will see the amount of fish available to catch fall by between 6% and 30% depending on the region. The biggest impact will be on areas that are already the most dependent on fishing, such as Southeast Asia and West Africa.

One possible solution is to eat more smaller fish and shellfish such as mussels. Large fish need to eat smaller fish to grow. If we eat smaller fish instead then we remove a step from the food chain and reduce the amount of energy lost in the process. What’s more, it might become easier to farm these smaller fish because the algae, cyanobacteria and other plankton they eat could actually benefit from warmer waters and higher levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This is because they get their energy from photosynthesis and so use CO₂ like fuel.

Spirulina, the new seafood cocktail.
Shutterstock

It might also be possible to take this a step further and add some of these organisms directly to our diet, giving us an abundant new source of food. Seaweed, for example, is a type of algae that has been eaten for centuries, but only 35 countries commercially harvest it today. Spirulina cyanobacteria is already eaten as a food supplement and several companies are trying to turn other forms of algae into a human food source.

Farming these organisms in the right way could even help counter some of the effects of climate change on the rest of the food chain. For example, growing more seaweed lowers the amount of CO2 in the surrounding water, reduces acidification, and improves the environment for oysters and other shellfish. Managing seaweed harvest correctly will also maintain the dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels in the water, contributing to the overall health of the ocean.

Making algae a common part of more people’s diets won’t be easy. We need to ensure that any new algae food products on our dinner plates have the needed nutritional value but are also attractive and safe to eat. But sticking with our traditional salmon and tuna diet isn’t sustainable. Expanding our seafood menus could be a vital way of keeping the ocean healthy while it supplies the food we need.
Pallavi Anand, Lecturer in Ocean Biogeochemistry, The Open University and Daniela Schmidt, Professor in Palaebiology, University of Bristol

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Environments without Borders

Posted on May 3, 2017April 5, 2023 by janet.crompton

The effects of climate change vary hugely across political borders, and have wide-ranging impacts on different communities and environments. Climate policy responses must recognise this global interconnectedness, and integrate international cooperation with effective
local action. This is why global treaties such as the Paris Agreement are so important in the fight against climate change, but individual nations must also do their bit to achieve the objectives set out in the agreement. In Environments without Borders (part of Research Without
Borders), a panel debate hosted by Bristol Doctoral College and the Cabot Institute on Wednesday 10^th May, we will discuss some of these issues, using examples from our research on particular challenges facing our global ocean and water environments.

Iceberg photo taken on a research trip to Antarctica, by
Eric Mackie

Rising Sea Levels

Many climate change impacts require a policy response that balances mitigation with adaptation. Mitigation, by reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a zero-carbon economy, can drastically reduce some of the worst effects of climate change. However, we are already committed to certain climate change impacts, and these will require humanity to adapt. Sea level rise is a prime example. Global sea level has already risen 20cm since 1900, and the rate of sea level rise is increasing. We know this trend will continue throughout the 21^st century and beyond, but the question is, how much will sea level rise, and how fast?

Projections of global sea level rise by 2100 range from a further 30cm, assuming drastic mitigation action, to 1m or more in “business-as-usual” scenarios with increasing carbon emissions. Cutting carbon emissions can hugely reduce the number of people at risk of displacement by sea level rise globally, from up to 760 million in a scenario with 4°C of warming, down to 130 million if warming is limited to 2°C in line with the Paris Agreement. Mitigation is therefore essential if we want to avoid the worst effects, but adaptation is also necessary to ensure humanity is resilient to sea level rise that is already locked in.

A coastal scene taken on a research trip in the South
Pacific, by Alice Venn

Disappearing Islands

The South Pacific is home to some of the world’s states most vulnerable to climate change impacts. Sea-level rise threatens coastal erosion, the widespread displacement of people and the inundation of the lowest-lying islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands, while oceanic warming and acidification threaten the livelihoods of many remote coastal communities. More intense tropical cyclones, Cyclone Pam in 2015 and Winston in 2016, have recently resulted in tragic losses of life and damages in excess of $449 million and $470 million respectively. The devastation facing Small Island Developing States in the region, when juxtaposed with their negligible contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions which is estimated at just 0.03%, serves to illustrate the need for the international community to urgently step up efforts to provide support. Enhanced financial assistance for adaptation is essential, however this must be accompanied by strengthened legal protection for communities, readily accessible compensation for loss and damage, capacity building and a strengthened role for civil society organisations giving voice to community needs and traditional knowledge in policy-making processes.

The Lion Fish is an example of an aggressive invasive fish
in the Caribbean Sea, and has had an impact over native species, ecosystems and
local economies.

Invasive Aliens

Biodiversity in water environments can be adversely affected by invasive fish species, which originate from different sources, including marine ballast, fisheries improvements, and aquaculture. Invasive fish species can cause environmental concerns such as changes in the nutrients cycle, transmission of diseases, competence for resources, displacement and extinction of native species. Success in the establishment of invasive species depends on propagule size, physiology of the proper species, and current biotic and abiotic factors in the invaded system. Invasive species represent a global issue, and when combined with climate change their effects can be sharpened. Some limiting abiotic factors are expected to change as the climate changes, favouring new invasions and the spread of established invasive species to new ranges. Milder winters in northern latitude lakes, worldwide flooding and salinisation of coastal freshwater systems will provide suitable thermal conditions, new pathways for escape and dispersion, and the increase in dominance by invasive fish species adapted to brackish water systems. Deficient planning for future responses in water management can also result in favourable conditions for dispersion of undesirable aquatic organisms. For example, this is the case with the Nile tilapia, an invasive species in tropical ecosystems of southern Mexico and Tanzania, where flooding causes its dispersion but alternative management policies could improve the situation. More information see the Invasive Species Specialists Group.

Sustainable Resource Management

Against the backdrop of climate change, which will exacerbate the impact of human activities on natural resources, today’s environmental challenges require above all a strong and consistent commitment by national governments to better implement ambitious environmental policies that they previously adopted. However, traditional decision making approaches often are not equipped to ensure that precious resources are protected, if not enhanced. Sustainable management of natural resources is without doubt complex and creates conflicts between users that compete for access. For instance, there still seems to be too great a divide between the environmental and the business sector and these policy domains are as yet not fully integrated. Nonetheless, there are good examples of governments (and sub-national governments) that were successful in getting all key policy sectors on board when implementing difficult and ambitious environmental policies. For instance, the Scottish Government’s approach in implementing the Water Framework Directive demonstrates that with a strong political commitment, coupled with very proactive efforts in balancing the decision making towards more inclusive and cooperative policy processes, and with an intense and systematic use of evidence to back up policy proposals, it is possible to build trust between sectors and to act upon the barriers to implementation.

It’s clear that each of these challenges requires imminent action, but what are the right approaches, actors, and requirements to make meaningful progress? Whether you’re a member of the public, a policy maker, or someone working in the field, we invite you to join us at the Environments without Borders event on Wednesday 10 May for a lively and provocative debate about the challenges we face and how, collectively, we can spur action for change.

Blog authors (and panel members): Laura De Vito is a postgraduate researcher in the School of Geographical Sciences. Carlos Gracida Juarez is a postgraduate researcher in the School of Biological Sciences. Alice Venn is a postgraduate researcher in the School
of Social Sciences and Law. Erik Mackie is a postgraduate researcher in the School of Geographical Sciences, working together with the British Antarctic Survey, and kept up a blog during his recent fieldwork in Antarctica. Blog originally posted on the Policy Bristol Blog.

A local view helps fight the effects of climate change on the ocean

Posted on January 23, 2017April 5, 2023 by janet.crompton

In 2011, a marine heatwave hit the west coast of Australia leading to ten days of above average sea temperatures. The area was already known as an ocean warming “hotspot”, but this particular period was a tipping point, causing dramatic changes to the marine ecosystem. Underwater kelp forests along the coast reduced in density by 43%, with some disappearing entirely.

Kelp Forest. Image: Fastily, CCBYSA3.0

The loss of kelp resulted in an ecological shift, which led to the growth of different kinds of algae as temperate water species were replaced by subtropical and tropical species. Five years later, kelp forest recovery has still not been observed. A few days of extreme heat resulted in apparently irreversible change.

The frequency and intensity of extreme events, like marine heatwaves, are only expected to increase, and their consequences are hard to predict. But while some of these extreme events could be devastating, it isn’t all doom and gloom. Even though human-induced climate change is happening, local steps can be taken to help alleviate the impacts on our marine environments. And by focusing on a localised approach, we could make a positive difference on a global scale.

For example, in Australia, the government of Queensland spent AUS$7m on a 560 square kilometre cattle station in a bid to protect the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Site. This cattle station had been producing as much as 40% of the sediment running into the Normanby River system and ultimately the Great Barrier Reef.

Great Barrier Reef. Image: Wise Hok Wai Lum, CCBYSA 4.0

The very existence of the Great Barrier Reef and its extraordinary biodiversity ultimately depends on the health of the corals. When they are covered by sediment, their ability to photosynthesise is dramatically reduced, resulting in less healthy coral. Unhealthy reefs are less able to deal with predators and other damaging events.

In buying the cattle station the government is able to stem the sediment runoff away from the Great Barrier Reef and provide a healthier environment in which the coral can thrive. This is just one example of scientists using local knowledge successfully to inform ministers to make decisions on the local scale that alleviate the problems faced by marine ecosystems of climate change, over fishing and pollution.

To apply such processes in more places in the world, organising climate information and action must move from a global to a regional scale. Overfishing and pollution can be much more effectively dealt with by focusing on local responses.

The Pacific Islands for example, rely heavily on the tuna fish industry. But they have faced major problems of over fishing and reducing stocks – from both small vessels and industrialised ships from other countries. Only a united front would enable control over stocks and a future for the industry.

So in 1982, a collective of islands focused on the conservation and management of tuna in the pacific set up the Naura agreement. Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Naura, the federated states of Micronesia and Palau, and more recently Tokelau, all signed up to the Vessel Day Scheme for Pacific tuna, which limits the amount of days available for fishing to maintain tuna populations. In the last five years the collective has received global recognition for its sustainable management methods – and an increase in revenue from US$60m to US$360m.

Over in the Caribbean, meanwhile, Antigua has some of the most degraded coral reefs in the region. Overfishing is thought to be a main reason for this as it has reduced the amount of herbivorous fish, resulting in the proliferation of seaweed – a main competitor of the corals.

A sea change

To improve the health of the reef, marine protected areas – and specifically a “no take zone” – were created in 2014 in conjunction with the local fishermen. Within a year, this change in local management led to significant increases in the biomass of target fish species. This allowed herbivore fishes to actively graze on the seaweed biomass, enabling respite and providing recovery time for the corals.

In Fiji, mangrove trees are being planted to combat coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels and increasing storm surges. While a direct benefit to Fiji’s inhabitants against potential harm from the ocean, this action also creates a habitat and a site of refuge for many juvenile marine species that will also be affected by future climate change.

Mangrove trees, Fiji. Image: J.-M. Lebigre, CCBYSA3.0

Lessons can be learned from all of these local strategies which could be replicated in similar environments facing similar problems. But developing these initiatives will depend on our understanding of key organisms and their interactions with each other. These are some of the areas suggested by professors Daniela Schmidt and Philip Boyd, in a commentary on what ocean scientists should consider when informing policymakers.

Small island nations will feel the impact of global changes on the ocean first, so they are leading the way in adaption and mitigation techniques in retaliation to changing climates. With the additional threat of America no longer being a part of the international agreements on global warming, tackling climate change on a local and regional scale may be our only hope.

Article written by Cabot Institute member Leanne Melbourne and originally hosted on The Conversation