Last year was the hottest on record and the Earth is headed towards a global warming of 2.7 degrees, yet top fossil fuel and cement producers show a disregard for climate change and actively make things worse. A new Carbon Majors Database report found that just 57 companies were responsible for 80 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions between 2016 and 2022. Thirty-eight percent of total emissions during this period came from nation-states, 37 percent from state-owned entities and 25 percent from investor-owned companies. 

Nearly 200 parties adopted the 2015 Paris Agreement, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, 58 of the 100 state- and investor-owned companies in the Carbon Majors Database have increased their production in the years since (The Climate Accountability Institute launched Carbon Majors in 2013 to hold fossil fuel producers accountable and is hosted by InfluenceMap). This number represents producers worldwide, including 87 percent of those assessed in Asia, 57 percent in Europe and 43 percent in North America. 

It's not a clear case of things slowly turning around, either. The International Energy Agency found coal consumption increased by eight percent over the seven years to 8.3 billion tons — a record high. The report names state-owned Coal India as one of the top three carbon dioxide producers. Russia's state-owned energy company Gazprom and state-owned oil firm Saudi Aramco rounded out the trio of worst offenders. 

Exxon Mobil topped the list of United States companies, contributing 1.4 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. "These companies have made billions of dollars in profits while denying the problem and delaying and obstructing climate policy. They are spending millions on advertising campaigns about being part of a sustainable solution, all the while continuing to invest in more fossil fuel extraction," Tzeporah Berman, International Program Director at Stand.earth and Chair at Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, said in a statement. "These findings emphasize that, more than ever, we need our governments to stand up to these companies, and we need new international cooperation through a Fossil Fuel Treaty to end the expansion of fossil fuels and ensure a truly just transition." 

Since 1979, Arctic ice has shrunk by 1.35 million square miles, a new JPL study found ice loss in Greenland is far worse than previously thought and Antarctic ice is now at the lowest level since records began. The more they melt, the faster the rate of decline for the ice that remains until we’re faced with a series of catastrophes. The most immediate of which is sea level rise which threatens to eradicate whole nations that are situated on low-lying islands. How do we stop such a problem? While we remedy the longer-term issues around fossil fuel consumption, we might have to buy ourselves more time with geoengineering.

The severity of this situation can’t be stressed enough. Professor John Moore of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland, says that we’re long past the point where emissions reductions alone will be effective. “We are faced with this situation where there’s no pathway to 1.5 [degrees] available through mitigation,” he said. “Things like the ice sheets [melting] and other tipping points will happen regardless,” adding that the Earth’s present situation is akin to a patient bleeding out on the operating table, “we are in this situation where we cannot mitigate ourselves out of the shit.”

Moore is one of the figures behind Frozen Arctic, a report produced by the universities of the Arctic and Lapland alongside UN-backed thinktank GRID-Arendal. It’s a rundown of sixty geoengineering projects that could slow down or reverse polar melting. A team of researchers opted to examine every idea, from those already in place to the ones at the fringes of science. “We wanted to be thorough,” said Moore, “because even the craziest idea might have a nugget of gold in there.” Each approach has been given a brief analysis, examining if it’s feasible on a scientific or practical basis, if it would be potentially helpful and how much it would cost. The report even went so far as to look at pykrete, a wacky World War Two initiative to create artificial glaciers for strategic use by mixing sawdust or paper products into ice.

If you’re curious and don’t have a day or two to read the report yourself, you can boil down the approaches to a handful of categories. The first is Solar Radiation Management, i.e. making the polar regions more reflective to bounce away more of the sun’s heat. Second, there’s artificial ice generation to compensate for what has already been lost. Third, enormous engineering work to buttress, isolate and protect the remaining ice — like massive undersea walls that act as a barrier against the seas as they get warmer. Finally, there are measures that nibble at the edges of the problem in terms of effect, but have more viable long-term success, like preventing flora and fauna (and the warmth they radiate) from encroaching on regions meant to remain frozen.

If you’re a climate scientist, the likely most obvious approach is the first, because we’ve seen the positive effects of it before. Albedo is the climate science term to describe how white ice acts as an enormous reflector, bouncing away a lot of the sun’s heat. Ice ages dramatically increase albedo, but there are more recent examples in living memory: In 1991 Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines, erupted, spewing an enormous amount of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. (The event also caused a large amount of damage, displaced 200,000 people and claimed the lives of at least 722.) According to NOAA, the ash dumped into the atmosphere helped reflect a lot of solar heat away from the Earth, causing a temporary global cooling effect of roughly 1.5 degrees celsius. The devastation of Pinatubo isn’t desirable, nor was the ozone depletion that it caused, but that cooling effect could be vital to slowing global warming and polar melting.

It’s possible to do this artificially by seeding the clouds with chemicals deposited by an airplane or with ground-based smoke generators, which can also be used to promote rain clouds. This is a tactic already used in China to help make rain for agriculture and to alleviate drought-like conditions. In this context, the clouds would act as a barrier between the sun and the ice caps, bouncing more of that solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with this approach, which is that it’s incredibly expensive and incredibly fussy. The report says it’s only viable when the right clouds are overhead, and the work would require enormous infrastructure to be built nearby. Not to mention that while we have some small shreds of evidence to suggest it might be useful, there’s nothing proven as yet.

And then there are the second order effects when these approaches then spill over into the rest of the global ecosystem. “If you do sunlight reflection methods and you put anything up in the atmosphere, it doesn’t stay where you put it.” That’s the big issue identified by Dr. Phil Williamson, honorary associate professor at the University of East Anglia and a former contributor to the UN’s keystone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. His concern is that regional, targeted climate solutions “don’t solve the problem for the whole world,” and that if you’re not tackling climate change on a global scale, then you’re “just accentuating the difference.” With a cold arctic, but rising temperatures elsewhere, you’re climbing aboard a “climate rollercoaster.”

Second in the ranking of hail-mary climate approaches is to build a freezer to both cool down the existing ice and make more. Sadly, many ideas in this area forget that ice sheets are not just big blocks of immovable ice and are, in fact, liable to move. Take the idea of drilling down two miles or so into the ice sheet and pumping out the warm water to cool it down: Thanks to the constantly shifting ice and water, a new site would need to be drilled fairly regularly.

There’s another problem: The report says one project to bore a hole down 2.5km (1.5 miles) burned 450,000 liters of fuel. Not to mention how much energy it would consume to run the heat exchangers or freezers to create fresh ice on such a scale. That's a considerable amount of greenhouse gas pollution for a project meant to undo that exact type of damage. Dumping a layer of artificially-made snow on a mountain may work fine for a ski resort when the powder’s a little thin, but not the whole planet.

As hard as the scientific and engineering battles will be, there’s also the political one that will need addressing. “A lot of people get quasi-religiously upset about putting stuff into the stratosphere,” said Professor John Moore, “you’d think they’d get similarly upset about greenhouse gasses.” One strategy under consideration is to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to replicate the cooling effects observed after major volcanic eruptions. The sulfur would form SO2, creating thick layers of dense cloud to block more heat from reaching the ice. But if you, like me, have a high school-level knowledge of science, that’s a scary prospect given that sulfur dioxide would resolve to sulfuric acid. Given the microscopic quantities involved, there would be little-to-no impact on the natural world. But the image of acid rain pouring down from the clouds means it’d be a hard sell to an uninformed population.

But if there is a reason for concern, it’s that any unintended consequences could pose a problem in the global political space. “It’s almost like declaring war on the rest of the world if [a nation] goes it alone,” says Phil Williamson, “because any damage or alteration to the global climate system, the country that did it is responsible for all future climatic disasters because the weather isn’t the same.”

Of course, Moore knows that the Frozen Arctic report’s conclusions aren’t too optimistic about a quick fix. He feels its conclusions should serve as a wake-up call for the planet. “Nobody is going to scale up something for the entire arctic ocean overnight,” he said, but that this is the time to “find ideas that might be valuable [...] and then put resources into finding out if [those ideas] really are useful.” He added that the short turnaround time before a total climate disaster isn’t much of an issue, saying “engineers can pretty much do anything you ask them to if you put enough resources into it.” Because the alternative is to do nothing, and “every day that we choose to do nothing, we accept more of the damages that are coming.”

Want some bad news as a lead up to the weekend? NASA just released its annual global temperature report and, lo and behold, 2023 was the hottest year on record since measurements began back in 1880. Global temperatures last year were approximately 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA’s baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

Compared to the 1880s, the planet was 2.5 degrees warmer in 2023. If you do the math, you’ll find that the vast majority of that increase occurred after NASA’s baseline period. In other words, the past several decades have been the worst of the worst. July of 2023 was the hottest month ever measured, which is a record nobody wanted or asked for but, well, here we are.

“NASA and NOAA’s global temperature report confirms what billions of people around the world experienced last year; we are facing a climate crisis,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “From extreme heat, to wildfires, to rising sea levels, we can see our Earth is changing.”

NASA’s not burying its head in the sand and pretending this is a natural phenomenon. We did this, with Gavin Schmidt, director at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), saying the temperature shift was primarily caused by “our fossil fuel emissions.”

2023 was not an outlier. The past ten consecutive years have been the warmest on record. To that end, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently reported that 2024 has a one-in-three chance of being even hotter. Yay.

It’s also worth noting that 2023 featured some cooling events that actually worked to lower temperatures a bit, including volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere due to the January 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai underwater volcano. However, these events couldn’t keep up with constant greenhouse gas emissions and the heating effects of this year’s El Niño weather event.

“We will continue to break records as long as greenhouse gas emissions keep going up,” Schmidt said. “And, unfortunately, we just set a new record for greenhouse gas emissions again this past year.”

The Biden-Harris administration has done a few things to try to slow down our transformation into a Mad Max dystopia. The White House recently launched the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Center to make critical climate data readily available and last year’s Inflation Reduction Act set aside $369 billion for climate and clean energy programs. President Biden has also pledged to bring emission levels to at least 50 percent below what we experienced in 2005 by 2025. These are good incremental moves, of that there’s no doubt, but we seem to have sped past “f*ck around” and are careening wildly into “find out.” What was that curse again? Oh yeah. May you live in interesting times.

Climate change isn't going away, and it isn't going to get any better — at least if we keep legislating as we have been. In Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, a multidisciplinary collection of subject matter experts discuss the increasingly intertwined fates of American ecology and democracy, arguing that only by strengthening our existing institutions will we be able to weather the oncoming "long emergency."

In the excerpt below, contributing author and Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, Holly Jean Buck, explores how accelerating climate change, the modern internet and authoritarianism's recent renaissance are influencing and amplifying one another's negative impacts, to the detriment of us all.  

MIT Press

Excerpted from Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation, edited by David W. Orr. Published by MIT Press. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.

Burning hills and glowing red skies, stone-dry riverbeds, expanses of brown water engulfing tiny human rooftops. This is the setting for the twenty-first century. What is the plot? For many of us working on climate and energy, the story of this century is about making the energy transition happen. This is when we completely transform both energy and land use in order to avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change — or fail to.

Confronting authoritarianism is even more urgent. About four billion people, or 54 percent of the world, in ninety-five countries, live under tyranny in fully authoritarian or competitive authoritarian regimes. The twenty-first century is also about the struggle against new and rising forms of authoritarianism. In this narration, the twenty-first century began with a wave of crushed democratic uprisings and continued with the election of authoritarian leaders around the world who began to dismantle democratic institutions. Any illusion of the success of globalization, or of the twenty-first century representing a break from the brutal twentieth century, was stripped away with Russia’s most recent invasion of Ukraine. The plot is less clear, given the failure of democracy-building efforts in the twentieth century. There is a faintly discernable storyline of general resistance and rebuilding imperfect democracies.

There’s also a third story about this century: the penetration of the Internet into every sphere of daily, social, and political life. Despite turn-of-the-century talk about the Information Age, we are only beginning to conceptualize what this means. Right now, the current plot is about the centralization of discourse on a few corporate platforms. The rise of the platforms brings potential to network democratic uprisings, as well as buoy authoritarian leaders through post-truth memes and algorithms optimized to dish out anger and hatred. This is a more challenging story to narrate, because the setting is everywhere. The story unfolds in our bedrooms while we should be sleeping or waking up, filling the most quotidian moments of waiting in line in the grocery store or while in transit. The characters are us, even more intimately than with climate change. It makes it hard to see the shape and meaning of this story. And while we are increasingly aware of the influence that shifting our media and social lives onto big tech platforms has on our democracy, less attention is devoted to the influence this has on our ability to respond to climate change.

Think about these three forces meeting — climate change, authoritarianism, the Internet. What comes to mind? If you recombine the familiar characters from these stories, perhaps it looks like climate activists using the capabilities of the Internet to further both networked protest and energy democracy. In particular, advocacy for a version of “energy democracy” that looks like wind, water, and solar; decentralized systems; and local community control of energy.

In this essay, I would like to suggest that this is not actually where the three forces of rising authoritarianism x climate change x tech platforms domination leads. Rather, the political economy of online media has boxed us into a social landscape wherein both the political consensus and the infrastructure we need for the energy transition is impossible to build. The current configuration of the Internet is a key obstacle to climate action.

The possibilities of climate action exist within a media ecosystem that has monetized our attention and that profits from our hate and division. Algorithms that reap advertising profits from maximizing time-on-site have figured out that what keeps us clicking is anger. Even worse, the system is addictive, with notifications delivering hits of dopamine in a part of what historian and addiction expert David Courtwright calls “limbic capitalism.” Society has more or less sleepwalked into this outrage-industrial complex without having a real analytic framework for understanding it. The tech platforms and some research groups or think tanks offer up “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the framework, which present the problem as if the problem is bad content poisoning the well, rather than the structure itself being rotten. As Evgeny Morozov has quipped, “Post-truth is to digital capitalism what pollution is to fossil capitalism — a by-product of operations.”

A number of works outline the contours and dynamics of the current media ecology and what it does — Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Antisocial Media, Safiya U. Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, Geert Lovink’s Sad by Design, Shoshana Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism, Richard Seymour’s The Twittering Machine, Tim Hwang’s Subprime Attention Crisis, Tressie McMillan Cottom’s writing on how to understand the social relations of Internet technologies through racial capitalism, and many more. At the same time, there’s reasonable counter-discussion about how many of our problems can really be laid at the feet of social media. The research on the impacts of social media on political dysfunction, mental health, and society writ large does not paint a neat portrait. Scholars have argued that putting too much emphasis on the platforms can be too simplistic and reeks of technological determinism; they have also pointed out that cultures like the United States’ and the legacy media have a long history with post-truth. That said, there are certainly dynamics going on that we did not anticipate, and we don’t seem quite sure what to do with them, even with multiple areas of scholarship in communication, disinformation, and social media and democracy working on these inquiries for years.

What seems clear is that the Internet is not the connectedness we imagined. The ecology and spirituality of the 1960s, which shaped and structured much of what we see as energy democracy and the good future today, told us we were all connected. Globally networked — it sounds familiar, like a fevered dream from the 1980s or 1990s, a dream that in turn had its roots in the 1960s and before. Media theorist Geert Lovink reflects on a 1996 interview with John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and Grateful Dead lyricist, in which Barlow was describing how cyberspace was connecting each and every synapse of all citizens on the planet. As Lovink writes, “Apart from the so-called last billion we’re there now. This is what we can all agree on. The corona crisis is the first Event in World History where the internet doesn’t merely play ‘a role’ — the Event coincides with the Net. There’s a deep irony to this. The virus and the network ... sigh, that’s an old trope, right?” Indeed, read through one cultural history, it seems obvious that we would reach this point of being globally networked, and that the Internet would not just “play a role” in global events like COVID-19 or climate change, but shape them.

What if the Internet actually has connected us, more deeply than we normally give it credit for? What if the we’re-all-connected-ness imagined in the latter half of the twentieth century is in fact showing up, but manifesting late, and not at all like we thought? We really are connected — but our global body is neither a psychedelic collective consciousness nor a infrastructure for data transmission comprising information packets and code. It seems that we’ve made a collective brain that doesn’t act much like a computer at all. It runs on data, code, binary digits — but it acts emotionally, irrationally, in a fight-or-flight way, and without consciousness. It’s an entity that operates as an emotional toddler, rather than with the neat computational sensing capacity that stock graphics of “the Internet” convey. Thinking of it as data or information is the same as thinking that a network of cells is a person.

The thing we’re jacked into and collectively creating seems more like a global endocrine system than anything we might have visualized in the years while “cyber” was a prefix. This may seem a banal observation, given that Marshall McLuhan was talking about the global nervous system more than fifty years ago. We had enthusiasm about cybernetics and global connectivity over the decades and, more recently, a revitalization of theory about networks and kinship and rhizomes and all the rest. (The irony is that with fifty years of talk on “systems thinking,” we still have responses to things like COVID-19 or climate that are almost antithetical to considering interconnected systems — dominated by one set of expertise and failing to incorporate the social sciences and humanities). So — globally connected, yet divided into silos, camps, echo-chambers, and so on. Social media platforms are acting as agents, structuring our interactions and our spaces for dialogue and solution-building. Authoritarians know this, and this is why they have troll farms that can manipulate the range of solutions and the sentiments about them.

The Internet as we experience it represents a central obstacle to climate action, through several mechanisms. Promotion of false information about climate change is only one of them. There’s general political polarization, which inhibits the coalitions we need to build to realize clean energy, as well as creates paralyzing infighting within the climate movement about strategies, which the platforms benefit from. There’s networked opposition to the infrastructure we need for the energy transition. There’s the constant distraction from the climate crisis, in the form of the churning scandals of the day, in an attention economy where all topics compete for mental energy. And there’s the drain of time and attention spent on these platforms rather than in real-world actions.

Any of these areas are worth spending time on, but this essay focuses on how the contemporary media ecology interferes with climate strategy and infrastructure in particular. To understand the dynamic, we need to take a closer look at the concept of energy democracy, as generally understood by the climate movement, and its tenets: renewable, small-scale systems, and community control. The bitter irony of the current moment is that it’s not just rising authoritarianism that is blocking us from good futures. It’s also our narrow and warped conceptions of democracy that are trapping us.

On Monday, meteorologists documented the hottest day in recorded history, according to US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (via Reuters). July 3rd, 2023 saw average global temperatures edge past 17-degrees Celsius (62.62 Fahrenheit) for the first time since satellite monitoring of global temperatures began in 1979. Scientists believe Monday is also the hottest day on record since humans began using instruments to measure daily temperatures in the late 19th century. The previous record was set in August 2016 when the world’s average temperature climbed to 16.92C (62.45 Fahrenheit).

This week, the southern US is sweltering under a heat dome that has sent local temperatures past the 110 Fahrenheit mark (43C). Even places that normally aren’t known for their warm weather have been unseasonably hot in recent days and weeks, with the Vernadsky Research Base in Antarctica recording a July high of 8.7C.

Scientists attribute the recent heat to a combination of El Niño and ongoing human-driven emissions of greenhouse gases. Studies have shown that climate change is contributing to heat waves that are more frequent, last longer and hotter than ever. "The average global surface air temperature reaching 17C for the first time since we have reliable records available is a significant symbolic milestone in our warming world," climate researcher Leon Simons told BBC News. "Now that the warmer phase of El Niño is starting we can expect a lot more daily, monthly and annual records breaking in the next 1.5 years.”

Two employee groups at Amazon have joined together to stage a corporate walk out today, uniting to protest the company's return-to-office policy and to raise concerns about Amazon's climate impact.

Standing in front of Amazon's Seattle Headquarters, the group streamed the event live on Twitter — featuring speakers for both groups advocating for their united cause. Some speakers vented their frustrations with the company's policy to have workers return to the office for at least three days a week, telling stories about how the remote work kicked off by the COVID pandemic bought them precious hours at home with their family and saved them from hours of daily commute time. Another speaker married this idea to the company's climate goals, highlighting how remote work allowed more families to become one-car households. This dovetails into some of the groups' complaints that Amazon is failing to meet its own goals in its climate pledge of reaching zero emissions by 2040.

According to the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice Twitter page, more than 1900 Amazon employees pledged to participate in the walk out. Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Over 18 months after YouTube pledged to demonetize climate change denial content, researchers say they found 100 videos that violate the policy and still feature ads. They said in a report that ads for brands such as Costco, Politico and Tommy Hilfiger were displayed alongside the videos, which collectively had more than 18 million views.

An ad for the movie 80 For Brady appeared before a video claiming that climate change is a hoax, according to The New York Times. Jane Fonda, who stars in the film and runs a PAC focused on tackling climate change, told the publication she was "appalled" to find out an ad for one of her movies was running next to such a video.

Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD), a coalition of more than 50 environmental organizations and the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said the videos it found included claims like "there is no link between CO2 and temperature” and “every single model [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] ever have put out is wrong.” The researchers added that YouTube bans videos containing "harmful misinformation" from receiving ad revenue. This policy applies to videos that contradict "authoritative scientific consensus on the existence of and causes behind climate change."

CAAD said it found another 100 videos with more than 55 million total views that didn't violate YouTube's policies but met its own definition of climate misinformation and disinformation. The group claimed that's an indication of YouTube profiting from videos that fall outside of its "narrow definition" of what constitutes climate disinformation.

The researchers said that by the time they completed their research, YouTube had demonetized eight of the videos in the dataset. CAAD said the videos that were still monetized collectively had more than 71 million views. 

Content moderation is a complex issue and some videos that violate YouTube policies will inevitably slip through the cracks. However, some of the climate change denial videos that CAAD found were on channels with more than a million subscribers. 

YouTube spokesperson Michael Aciman told the Times that the platform has removed ads from many of the videos identified by the researchers, including the one with the 80 For Brady promo. Aciman said YouTube was okay with "policy debate or discussions of climate-related initiatives, but when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we remove ads from serving on those videos."

Last month, TikTok updated its community guidelines to add policies that prohibit videos with climate change misinformation on the app. As The Daily Beast notes, the change is taking effect today, April 21st. According to the service's announcement, TikTok will no longer allow content that "undermines well-established scientific consensus" regarding the climate crisis. 

TikTok will still allow videos that tackle discussions about climate change, such as government policies related to it, as long as they don't go against scientific consensus. However, it will start deleting content that violate its new policy today, and any user searching for climate information will be directed to "authoritative information" that TikTok had decided on in partnership with the United Nations. 

Back in 2022, internet trust researchers at NewsGuard have published a report about misinformation. They had found that TikTok is full of false information about, among other topics, climate change, and looking for the term brings up search suggestions like "climate change debunked" and "climate change doesn’t exist." During the height of the pandemic, looking for COVID-19 videos would also bring up suggestions that include "covid vaccine hiv." In addition, misinformation was especially prevalent during the presidential election season in the US. TikTok had ended up removing over 300,000 election-related videos and over 50,000 videos sharing COVID-19 misinformation. 

When TikTok introduced its new policy regarding climate change, it also added new rules covering AI tech that creates content. All digitally manipulated or created media on TikTok must now come with the appropriate tag, such as "synthetic," "fake" or "altered."

Following two weeks of negotiations that felt doomed to go nowhere, the COP27 climate conference delivered a breakthrough deal to help developing nations cope with the often catastrophic effects of climate change. The Washington Post reports dignitaries agreed to create a “loss and damage fund” in the early hours of Sunday morning after two extra days of negotiations. The Alliance of Small Island States, an organization that includes countries whose very existence is threatened by climate change, called the agreement “historic.” However, as with the Glasgow Climate Pact that came out of last year’s COP26 conference, the consensus is that COP27 failed to deliver the action that is desperately needed to meet the demands of the current moment.

For one, the conference failed to see nations agree to new and stronger commitments to reduce their carbon emissions. According to The Post, China and Saudi Arabia were strongly against language calling for a phaseout of all fossil fuels, as were many African nations. Alok Sharma, the chair of COP26, said (via Phys.org) a clause on energy was "weakened, in the final minutes.”

The conference also left many of the most important details related to the loss and damage fund to be sorted out by a committee that will need to answer some difficult questions in the coming months. Among the issues that need to be decided on is how much the United States, historically the greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions globally, should pay out to vulnerable countries. The conference also ended without a clear commitment from China to pay into the fund.

The committee now has a year to draft recommendations for next year’s climate meeting in Dubai. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said governments took “an important step towards justice,” but fell short in pushing for the commitments that would ultimately protect the world’s most vulnerable people from the worst effects of climate change. "Our planet is still in the emergency room," Guterres said. "We need to drastically reduce emissions now and this is an issue this COP did not address."

With global temperatures expected to rise as much as 2.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the island nation of Tuvalu says it has no choice but to build a digital version of itself. On Tuesday, Simon Kofe, the country’s foreign minister, told the COP27 climate summit Tuvalu would look to the metaverse to preserve its culture and history amid rising sea levels (via Reuters).

“As our land disappears, we have no choice but to become the world’s first digital nation. Our land, our ocean, our culture are the most precious assets of our people. And to keep them safe from harm, no matter what happens in the physical world, we’ll move them to the cloud,” Kofe said in a video that sees the camera slowly zooming out to reveal that he’s in front of a greenscreen recreation of his home.

At last year’s COP26 summit, Kofe famously addressed the conference standing knee-deep in seawater to highlight the existential threat climate change poses to island nations like Tuvalu. In his latest address, the metaverse is framed as a potential home for all countries if there's not a global effort to address the problem.

“Only concerted global effort can ensure that Tuvalu does not move permanently online and disappear forever from the physical plane,” he said. “Without a global conscience and a global commitment to our shared well-being, we may soon find the rest of the world joining us online as their lands disappear.

Tuvalu is an archipelago consisting of nine islands located between Australia and Hawaii. It’s home to approximately 12,000 people. Climate scientists anticipate the entire country will be underwater by the end of the 21st century.

To achieve the 1.5C target put forward by the Paris Agreement and avoid significantly worse climate outcomes, the world has eight years to reduce annual global emissions by a further 45 percent, compared with projections based on current policies. To limit the rise in temperatures to under 2C, an extra 30 percent reduction in emissions is needed.