The Guardian headlines about nature for September

September 09

Environment / World on brink of five ‘disastrous’ climate tipping points, study finds

Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible change

September 15

Will the once ‘green prince’ clash with his fracking-friendly government? Phoebe Weston

I remember discovering as a child that then-Prince Charles spoke to his plants, and laughing about it with my mum. His courtiers also claimed he gives branches of trees a “friendly shake” to wish them well as he walks by. Even by today’s standards these practices still might seem pretty odd, but lots of Charles’s other “dotty” environmental views over the years have aged well. Since his 20s, the new king has been banging on about plastic pollution and nature-based solutions. In 1970, he spoke about the “cancerous forms” of pollution – oil at sea, chemicals in rivers, air pollution from factories, cars and aeroplanes. Last year, the Washington Post said he could be the “21st century’s first eco-king”. More recently, Charles revealed to the BBC he forgoes meat and fish for two days a week, and dairy for one day a week. His 50-year-old Aston Martin runs on surplus English white wine and cheese (no, really). Solar panels are now up on Clarence House, and he’s written a 336-page book in which he makes a “call to revolution”. He must be the first monarch to do so. Charles has always genuinely taken the climate seriously which is much more than the rest of the royal family can profess to do – even if he does have an astronomical carbon footprint himself, living in mansions and travelling by private jet. Until now he has shown no sign of slowing down. But now, as king, Charles is obliged to take an oath of silence. Will he continue to speak out on the environment from the throne? “Definitely not,” Jonathon Porritt, the environmentalist and Green politician, who also advised Charles as Prince of Wales, told my colleague Fiona Harvey. But this green stuff is so ingrained in Charles, it could be hard for him to change the habit of a lifetime. With signs suggesting the UK government is moving in the wrong direction on climate change it might be difficult for him to not be active behind the scenes. He will meet with the prime minister once a week, and this is where King Charles III may have power to hold Liz Truss – or whoever else in the future – to account on the issues he cares about. Of course, one of the Queen’s strengths was that we rarely knew what she believed in private, so the fact Charles has been so vocal about so many issues could be to his detriment. But equally, it also means the royal family could have an unlikely fanbase. Head cheerleader is my great-aunt Tina, who says she doesn’t really like the monarchy but messaged me this the other day: “King Charles will not like fracking or digging up more oil and gas in the north sea, or stopping the green levies, long live King Charles!!”. It may seem a bit depressing that the best leadership on the environment is coming from an unelected monarch with questionable views about homeopathy and shaking hands with plants. Many of us are hoping that the green prince becomes a green king, but what a sad state of affairs that you have to rely on the monarchy to speak up for the destruction of the natural world. Right now it feels like most of the government has a vow of silence on the environment. It would be great if those elected to be in power could speak up about these issues first. Especially when many obligations, such as cutting carbon emissions, are in fact enshrined in law – speaking about many of these issues shouldn’t be controversial.

Composted reads Story of the week World on brink of five ‘disastrous’ climate tipping points, study finds Giant ice sheets, ocean currents and permafrost regions may already have passed point of irreversible change The good news Patagonia’s billionaire owner gives away company to fight climate crisis Pine marten spotted in London for first time in more than a century The endangered mustelid was driven to extinction in England a hundred years ago and was only sighted again for the first time in the Shropshire hills in 2015, remaining an extremely rare animal. + Research in Northern Ireland has shown that pine martens normally avoid busy urban areas but there is plenty of food available in London, with grey squirrels a particularly easy target. Experts believe it is unlikely to have been targeting the hedgehogs in the woodland although pine martens have been recorded taking young hedgehogs. The bad news Soaring energy costs could threaten future of electric cars, experts warn US lobster put on ‘red list’ to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales Essential reads The west is ignoring Pakistan’s super-floods. Heed this warning: tomorrow it will be you Fatima Bhutto Tourism is sucking Utah dry. Now it faces a choice – growth or survival?

September 22

Extreme weather has displaced millions – the world must help

Oliver Milman The latest in a carousel of climate disasters have varied in scale and method: hurricanes knocking out power in the Caribbean, vast floods submerging a huge chunk of Pakistan, drought parching parts of Africa and the Middle East. But one common theme is likely to be a hefty displacement of people. Last year, an estimated 59 million people globally were forced from their homes, the large majority through floods, fires and other climate-related maladies. The United Nations estimates that the number of climate refugees will top 200 million by 2050 – “an intolerable tide of people moving from their homes due to the impacts of climate change,” says UN special rapporteur Ian Fry. The contours of this crisis are becoming clearer but there is still no firm plan over how to deal with this upheaval. Most displacement occurs internally, within a country’s borders, but those who are forced to foreign lands have little protection under international refugee statues that prioritise those fleeing due to war or persecution. Advocates are attempting to change this, however, and in New York this week there has been the formation of a new group aimed at finding better solutions to what threatens to become an overwhelming problem. The Climate Migration Council, created by a diverse group including a former CIA director and the ex-foreign minister of Colombia, is looking to prod governments gathered at this week’s UN general assembly to do more to support refugees. People uprooted by climate disaster will create “further pressure on an international system that is already confronting unprecedented levels of displaced people,” warned Roberta Jacobson, a former US ambassador to Mexico and part of the new group. Activists have recently pressed both the US and Canada to come up with a proper framework for climate migrants, frustrated by the slow pace of progress. Climate change is not waiting for the world to get its act together on this. Since mid-June, some of the worst floods in Pakistan’s history have enveloped around a third of the country, displacing an incredible 33 million people – more than the entire population of Australia. Many now live in tents surrounded by stagnant water, a perfect breeding ground for mosquito-transferred diseases. The scale of such a crisis demands not just aid but a rethink of why people move, and to where. In some wealthy countries an obstacle to this may well be a deficit of sympathy – just last week, Republican-led states in the US sent an array of announced planes and buses filled with migrants to Democratic-leaning areas of the country, leaving local communities scrambling to find food and shelter for the unexpected newcomers. Many of those transferred were from Central America, a region ravaged in recent years by a barrage of storms and prolonged drought that has forced farmers and their families to move in search of livable climes. The Republican leaders of states such as Texas and Florida have little time for such problems, and have vowed to keep moving new migrants on until Joe Biden “secures the border” with Mexico. The scale of the climate crisis, however, suggests far more will be required to deal with the issue than political stunts and new walls.

Composted reads

Story of the week Fracking could impact protected areas across England as ban lifted Guardian analysis finds 151 licences already granted threaten environmentally important spots

The good news ‘This is what a river should look like’: Dutch rewilding project turns back the clock 500 years Ethereum cryptocurrency completes move to cut CO2 output by 99%

The bad news Pakistan reels from floods: ‘We thought we’d die of hunger. Now we fear death from water’ Fury over ‘forever chemicals’ as US states spread toxic sewage sludge

Essential reads This nine-year-old was enslaved in the US. Her story could help stop a chemical plant Why should Pakistan pay for catastrophic floods we had no part in causing? Sherry Rehman

September 29

It’s unsafe, unproductive and unpopular – so why is the UK once again backing fracking?

Fiona Harvey Fracking is back in the news in the UK. New prime minister Liz Truss is an avowed fan, and has lifted a moratorium that had prevented any new drilling since 2019 – though the industry was making little headway in the UK even prior to the ban. The push for fracking is unlikely to do much to alleviate the UK’s energy woes, for several reasons. Despite Truss’s enthusiasm, there is little public appetite for fracking – polls consistently show small support, far outweighed by opponents. Protests against fracking will reignite at any likely sites, and every possible legal process will be exhaustively invoked. Even if fracking did produce any gas – and more than a decade of efforts by the only company to have fracked a well using modern technology in the UK, Cuadrilla, never produced any gas for commercial sale – by the most optimistic forecasts, it would make only a dent in the UK’s gas deficit, and even that would take years. As for bringing down costs – the price of gas is set by international markets, so no price falls would follow. The prime minister and her team seem determined to press on, ignoring misgivings from their own backbenchers , and the likely reaction of voters. One factor they have overlooked, though, is geology. According to the geologist who founded Cuadrilla in 2007, Dr Chris Cornelius, the UK’s shale rock formations – unlike those of the US and Canada – are not well suited to fracking. The shale tends to be compartmentalised, making it difficult to hydraulically fracture at any scale, he told the Guardian. Add to that the densely populated nature of the British countryside, and the need to industrialise it on a large scale to get volumes of gas worth the vast investment required, and the future for frackers looks bleak. Cornelius, in a broadside quoted against Truss in parliament, said fracking – which he still supports, in other parts of the world – was not going to take off in the UK, and ministers would do better to look at geothermal energy and tidal power. Fracking has brought a boom in onshore oil and gas to the US in the last two decades, and predictions of a decline of fracking there as some early wells peter out have proven wide of the mark, with the current soaring gas prices encouraging further investment. But fracking across the US must also undergo a transformation, if the White House is to meet the climate goals it has set. Last year, at the Cop26 UN climate summit, the US affirmed a new global partnership to cut methane emissions. Methane – a potent greenhouse gas, which is the major component in natural gas – arises from various sources, including rotting vegetation and animal manure, but drilling and fracking for natural gas are among the biggest sources. At present, poorly enforced regulations and a rush to volume have meant that much of the fracking infrastructure in the US is leaky. Methane seeps to the surface uncollected, and when the fugitive methane reaches the atmosphere has a heating effect scores of times greater than that of carbon dioxide. If the US is to meet its targets to cut methane emissions under the partnership president Joe Biden has forged, fracking must be in the spotlight. For the rest of the world, there are lessons. Fracking in densely populated regions is problematic: gas leaks, water and air pollution, and health and safety issues plague the operations even where it is regulated; and fracking even in areas that are prepared for industrialisation and devastation of the landscape damages the climate by far more than just the carbon dioxide that burning the gas emits. The International Energy Agency has warned that no new oil and gas exploration should take place, if we are to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. To stave off the worst of the climate crisis, that must include fracking. Composted reads Story of the week Carbon bombs and Gulf Stream collapse: the most urgent climate stories of our time The last 12 months have produced alarming incidents of extreme weather across the globe, leading to serious ripple effects, from energy shortages to severe food insecurity. Guardian journalists are prioritising this foremost crisis of our times The good news Wolves and brown bears among wildlife making ‘exciting’ comeback in Europe ‘It’s a miracle’: Gran Abuelo in Chile could be world’s oldest living tree The bad news European leaders blame sabotage as gas pours into Baltic from Nord Stream pipelines More than 1,700 environmental activists murdered in the past decade – report Essential reads Lady of the Gobi: trucking coal across the desert to China Short menus, local produce, no tablecloth: how to choose a restaurant and help save the planet