Saab Bio Power

The concentration of greenhouse gas will soon be higher than it has ever been in the past millions of years. But what does that mean for the future?

The way to the secrets of the earth’s history often leads to the sea floor. There are fossils from bygone times in the rock layers – a treasure for geologists like Gavin Foster from the University of Southampton. He and his team examined fossilized zooplankton from the Caribbean sea floor, about the size of a pinhead, in order to draw conclusions about the CO₂ content in the atmosphere millions of years ago – and to compare it with today’s values.

Because the acidification of the oceans is closely related to the CO₂ in the air. Because carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid, the oceans absorb a large part of the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Foster and his colleagues used this relationship between the pH value and CO₂ in the atmosphere in their studies of fossilized plankton. The boron content in its shells told them how high the pH was in the water when the tiny organisms drifted through the oceans. Based on the acidity, the scientists were then able to infer the CO₂ content in the air at that time.

The results sound worrying: By 2025 there will probably be as much CO₂ in the atmosphere as there has not been for around 3.3 million years , the scientists report in the journal Scientific Reports . In that period, the Pliocene, it was significantly warmer than today, an average of two to four degrees. Trees grew in Antarctica, gazelles jumped across Europe, and the sea level was 15 to 25 meters higher.

“There’s no blueprint for what’s happening. We’re playing with fire.”

When the CO₂ content soon leaves the maximum values ​​from the Pliocene behind it, it will move towards a new phase in geological history: the Miocene, which dates back to 23 million years. But its CO₂ maxima could also be cracked over the coming decades if humanity continues to emit as much carbon dioxide as it does at present.

Climate change deniers like to use such historical CO₂ highs as an argument that climate change is not a real threat. The earth and its inhabitants would have survived the CO₂ concentration at that time, they say. But what do such comparisons say? And if there was already as much CO₂ in the atmosphere as there is today, why did the CO₂ content decrease again?

Mojib Latif from Geomar in Kiel is one of the most renowned German climate researchers. The CO₂ record reports worry him. “However, historical maximum CO₂ values ​​can only be compared with the current situation to a limited extent,” says the chairman of the German Climate Consortium. What Latif means: Before humans started building machines and cars, the CO₂ content in the atmosphere changed much more slowly than since the beginning of industrialization. Fluctuations stretched over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Changes in the earth’s orbit and axis alternately resulted in more and less solar radiation.

As a result, temperatures rose and fell, as did the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. In the current climate change, however, these factors – scientists speak of the Milanković cycles – play no role. The period in which we humans drove up the CO₂ values ​​is far too short. “There is no blueprint for what is happening,” says Latif. That is exactly what makes climate change so dangerous. “We’re playing with fire.”

Nevertheless, a lot can be learned from the past warm and cold periods, says Latif. Because even if the causes were different back then – the consequences are, at least in principle, the same today. However, it also applies here that everything is happening much faster at the moment, emphasizes Latif.

“Knowledge of CO₂ levels in the past shows us how the climate system, the ice caps at the poles and the sea level have reacted to it,” says Elwyn de la Vega, one of the researchers on Foster’s team. After the last glacial period, for example, the sea level rose over a very long period of time, but by no means continuously at a snail’s pace, but occasionally jerkily in short and violent spurts. “Using simulations, we are trying to find out exactly how that happened back then – and whether there could be similar attacks in the coming years as a result of climate change,” says Latif.

Gazelles are unlikely to be hopping across Europe anytime soon

As an ingredient for climate simulations, historical CO₂ values ​​are quite useful – but completely unsuitable for general comparisons, because back then it is about many millennia and now about a few decades. In the past, living beings had enough time to adapt to increased temperatures and higher sea levels: over the course of several generations, animals moved, and evolution brought about new species.

The current, rapid climate change, however, leaves nature and humans hardly time to react – gazelles are unlikely to be hopping through Europe anytime soon. “Our civilization today only developed significantly after the last great warm periods,” says Georg Feulner from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “In earlier warm periods, for example, there were no cities near the coast that could have been endangered by rising sea levels.”

According to estimates by the United Nations, around ten percent of humanity lived in coastal regions in 2017 that are less than ten meters above sea level – if the water levels were to rise to the Pliocene level again, these areas would be significantly below sea level. According to Gavin Foster and his colleagues, the fact that coastal cities have not yet been flooded is solely due to the fact that it will take a while for the earth to fully react to the higher CO₂ content in the atmosphere. However, the consequences of man-made climate change are already evident today. Meteorologists recently reported that the past twelve months were among the warmest on record , with an average of almost 1.3 degrees Celsius warmer than before industrialization.

Environmental activists are often murdered for fighting illegal mining or deforestation, the non-governmental organization says. In some countries, their use is particularly dangerous.

Protests against mines and deforestation, hydropower plants and large farms are dangerous in many places: According to a count by the non-governmental organization Global Witness, at least 212 environmentalists were killed worldwide. That’s an average of more than four murders a week – and more than any previous report. In addition, environmentalists in many countries are repeatedly threatened, slandered and brought to justice because of their work.

Most of the murders of environmental activists, according to the report, took place in Colombia (64), the Philippines (43) and Brazil (24). Global Witness registered more than two thirds of all cases in Latin America. But also in the EU country Romania two environmental activists were killed last year who had campaigned against the illegal deforestation of Europe’s last primeval forests. The organization assumes that the actual number of environmentalists killed is significantly higher because many cases are covered up or not reported.

According to the non-governmental organization, behind the acts of violence are mostly companies, farmers and, in some cases, state actors as well as criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and rebels. “Agriculture, oil, gas and mining create violence against environmentalists – these are the very industries that fuel climate change through deforestation and emissions,” says Rachel Cox of Global Witness.

Farmers are already feeling the consequences of insect death. Without wild bees and other pollinators, fewer apples, cherries and blueberries end up on supermarket shelves.

“Man of work, woke up and recognize your power, all wheels stand still when your strong arm wants it,” says the founding song of the General German Workers’ Association, from which the SPD later emerged. What was true in the factories of the 19th century also seems to have significance for the modern agricultural industry: If busy bees stay away from the cultivated areas, the pollen is not distributed, fruits do not ripen, and the harvesting machines stand just as idle as the steam engines 150 years ago . However, the proletarians on the run do not go on general strike of their own free will – there are simply fewer and fewer. The death of insectsindustrial agriculture is largely responsible for it itself; Fertilizers, pesticides and the loss of natural habitats have depleted stocks worldwide.

It has long been known what serious consequences the extinction of many insects has on flora and fauna. A new study by US and Canadian researchers shows how much agriculture itself is suffering from home-made insect mortality: In the large growing areas of North America, insects no longer pollinate apple, blueberry and cherry blossoms sufficiently, which is causing harvests to shrink noticeably. The report’s 31 scientists led by biologist James Reilly in their study that this Wednesday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B has been released.

The fewer insects flew over the orchards, the fewer fruits grew on trees and bushes

The researchers systematically investigated which popular and therefore mass-grown fruits in North America suffer from a lack of bees and other pollinators. To do this, they visited 131 cultivation areas and counted honey bees, wild bees and other insects that came to flowers there. The researchers compared these figures with the crop yields of the farms they visited. In apple, cherry and blueberry farms, they found a clear connection: the fewer insects flew over the orchards, the fewer fruits grew on trees and bushes. Melons, almonds and pumpkins, however, have so far hardly been affected by insect death.

In order for the missing bees to shrink the harvests substantially, the fruits must above all be healthy. Because if diseases, pests, drought or lack of nutrients mean that fewer flowers grow anyway, the missing pollinators are of little consequence: even severely decimated swarms of bees can then cope with the comparatively few flowers.

The biologists estimate the value of the wild bee work at just under 1.3 billion euros

The researchers also found that wild bees – many species of which are threatened with extinction – and honey bees share the work fairly fairly. Even in intensively cultivated areas, the wild bees pollinated almost as many plants as honey bees bred by beekeepers. For a long time it was assumed that honey bees are more important for agricultural production than wild bees. However, a few years ago studies indicated that wild bees can do at least as much. According to the scientists, honey bees fly more frequently, but wild bees transport more pollen per flight. However, the researchers rarely observed other pollinating insects such as flies or butterflies on the plantations examined. They also play an important role elsewhere.

One thing is clear: the death of insects is causing immense economic damage. The biologists estimate the economic value of wild bee work at just under 1.3 billion euros – for the blueberry, apple, cherry, almond, melon and pumpkin cultivation in North America alone. Scientists try again and again to monetize the value of so-called eco-services such as pollination work. According to an estimate from 2008, all of humanity owes bees, bumblebees and other pollinators more than 150 billion euros for their worldwide services in fields and orchards.

First and foremost, the authors of the study recommend better protecting wild bee populations – above all by growing wild flowers. But they also mention that some farmers are now artificially pollinating their plants, be it with the help of drones or human workers. A few weeks ago, Japanese researchers even reported that they had pollinated fruit blossoms with soap bubbles containing pollen. The masterminds of the labor movement in the 19th century also foresaw that capital would replace the workers as soon as technical progress allows it. Unlike factory workers, however, there are no new jobs for wild bees – their extinction would be irreversible and the damage to nature considerable.