Dear readers,
let's talk about money again.
On Sunday, October 17th, the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the foundation of Prince William and Duchess Kate, will award five people with an "Earthshot Prize": Received for ideas on how to solve pressing environmental problems the winners a million pounds each.
With this money they should in turn support environmental and nature conservation projects.
The plan is for five Earthshot prizes to be awarded annually by 2030, i.e. for more than ten years - and that means that 50 solutions "for the world's greatest environmental problems" will be funded with a total of 50 million pounds.
£ 50 million is a sign, a small one
You can of course accuse the royals of only washing their image green with such an action.
Because the lifestyle of the royal family is not particularly climate-friendly: the gas and power supply of the palaces and estates caused CO₂ emissions of almost 5000 tons between April 2017 and March 2019 - how much will be attributed to William and Kate will not broken down.
Probably more than the UK average per capita energy use over the same period, which was less than 12 tonnes.
The official journeys of the Royals resulted in CO₂ emissions of a further 3,344 tons during the period mentioned.
A resident of London can fly to New York about a thousand times for this.
But: Duke and Duchess' commitment to climate protection can also be seen as a signal.
After all, they don't have to invest their money in climate protection projects.
Many even richer people don't either.
And are not legally obliged to do so - unlike the 195 states that signed the Paris Agreement.
Among these countries, the 20 most important industrial and emerging countries in the world, the G20, play a special role.
These 20 countries are responsible for around 80 percent of global CO₂ emissions.
And these 20 states would also have the financial means to significantly advance climate protection.
But a recent report shows again: The G20 are nowhere near spending enough money to have even one chance of achieving their goals.
The G20 are currently heading for a plus of 2.4 degrees
The international research alliance Climate Transparency, in which institutes and NGOs from 14 G20 countries are involved, comes to the conclusion in its report on the climate protection efforts of the G20 states: The current climate policy that the G20 is currently pursuing is leading to global warming of 2.4 degrees compared to pre-industrial times.
For example, since the corona pandemic began, the G20 has made $ 1.8 trillion available for economic recovery and reconstruction measures. But only $ 300 billion went into "green" programs. A missed opportunity, write the authors. Because with almost as much money the G20 would have subsidized the fossil fuel industry between January 2020 and August 2021. Earlier promises to cut these subsidies have been ignored.
Adapting to the effects of the climate crisis, which are already evident, costs money - that would be wisely invested: If one were to invest 1.8 trillion dollars in early warning systems, climate-resistant infrastructure, dry fields, mangrove protection and water extraction between 2020 and 2030, this would bring an estimated net benefit of $ 7.1 trillion, according to the report.
There has long been a consensus among climate scientists: In the long term - for everyone - it will be much more expensive not to invest now.
About
how
to talk to you, about
whether
not
So how fitting that the heads of state and government will meet in Glasgow for the 26th UN climate conference in two weeks' time.
One can hope that at this summit the global community will commit to an investment program that will really achieve the climate goals.
Of course, it is possible to wrestle
about
how
, but
actually not
about
whether
.
If you like, we will inform you once a week about the most important things about the climate crisis - stories, research results and the latest developments on the biggest topic of our time. You can subscribe to the newsletter here.
The topics of the week
Fatal CO₂ balance of pets: My dog, the organic sow
cats and dogs eat around a million tons of meat per year and thus exacerbate the climate crisis.
Researchers are looking for ways to reduce the ecological paw print.
Can Hasso also be vegan?
Climate crisis: the rise in sea levels will not simply end
Even if the global community reaches the 1.5 degree target, the rise in sea levels will not be averted, a study shows.
Numerous cities would have to prepare for devastating floods.
Fridays for Future: "Every election in which young people are not allowed to participate is a scandal"
The Fridays for Future activists Linus Steinmetz and Franziska Wessel object to the federal election - because they were not allowed to participate as young people.
What is that supposed to help?
»Climate report« podcast: Should we darken the sun?
Imitating a volcanic eruption, darkening the sun and lowering temperatures worldwide: Science is looking for radical ways out of the climate crisis.
Should we dare to intervene in nature like this?
Greenland Ice Sheet: Melting glaciers even affect the groundwater
. A huge reservoir lies beneath Greenland.
A new study shows: The melting of the ice sheet has an impact on this fresh water - and possibly on important currents in the ocean.
IEA report: The energy transition requires three times as much money
Without significantly higher investments, the international community will fail to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality, warns the International Energy Agency.
As things stand at present, CO₂ emissions would only drop by 40 percent.
Climate crisis: EU calls for stopping oil and gas production in the Arctic
The rapidly melting Arctic ice is devastating for the climate.
Oil, gas and coal should therefore remain in the ground in the north, according to a European Union plan.
Interventions in nature: agriculture and urbanization are driving insect deaths
An even greater danger for insects in Germany than the climate crisis is human beings. That is the result of a field study from Bavaria.
The influence of intensive agriculture is therefore particularly great.
Stay confident
Your Viola Kiel