Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Climate Doom Is Out. ‘Apocalyptic Optimism’ Is In.

News Feed
Sunday, April 21, 2024

The philanthropist Kathryn Murdoch has prioritized donations to environmental causes for more than a decade. She has, she said, a deep understanding of how inhospitable the planet will become if climate change is not addressed. And she and her colleagues have spent years trying to communicate that.“We have been screaming,” she said. “But screaming only gets you so far.”This was on a morning in early spring. Murdoch and Ari Wallach, an author, producer and self-proclaimed futurist, had just released their new PBS docuseries, “A Brief History of the Future,” and had hopped onto a video call to promote it — politely, no screaming required. Shot cinematically, in some never-ending golden hour, the six-episode show follows Wallach around the world as he meets with scientists, activists and the occasional artist and athlete, all of whom are optimistic about the future. An episode might include a visit to a floating village or a conversation about artificial intelligence with the musician Grimes. In one sequence, marine biologists lovingly restore a rehabbed coral polyp to a reef. The mood throughout is mellow, hopeful, even dreamy. Which is deliberate.“There’s room for screaming,” Wallach said. “And there’s room for dreaming.”“A Brief History of the Future” joins some recent books and shows that offer a rosier vision of what a world in the throes — or just past the throes — of global catastrophe might look like. Climate optimism as opposed to climate fatalism.Hannah Ritchie’s “Not the End of the World: How We Can be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet” argues that many markers of disaster are less bad than the public imagines (deforestation, overfishing) or easily solvable (plastics in the oceans). In “Fallout,” the television adaptation of the popular video game that recently debuted on Amazon Prime Video, the apocalypse (nuclear, not climate-related) makes for a devastated earth, sundry mutants and plenty of goofy, kitschy fun — apocalypse lite.“Life as We Know It (Can Be),” a book by Bill Weir, CNN’s chief climate correspondent, that is structured as a series of letters to his son, centers on human potential and resilience. And Dana R. Fisher’s “Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action” contends that the disruptions of climate change may finally create a mass movement that will lead to better global outcomes. Fisher, a sociologist, coined the term “apocalyptic optimism” to describe a belief that humans can still avoid the worst ravages of climate change.In confronting the apocalypse, these works all insist that hope matters. They believe that optimism, however qualified or hard-won, may be what finally moves us to action. While Americans are less likely than their counterparts in the developed world to appreciate the threats that climate change poses, recent polls show that a significant majority of Americans now agree that climate change is real and a smaller majority agree that it is human-caused and harmful. And yet almost no expert believes that we are doing enough — in terms of technology, legislation or political pressure — to alleviate those harms.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Focusing on disaster hasn’t changed the planet’s trajectory. Will a more upbeat approach show a way forward?

The philanthropist Kathryn Murdoch has prioritized donations to environmental causes for more than a decade. She has, she said, a deep understanding of how inhospitable the planet will become if climate change is not addressed. And she and her colleagues have spent years trying to communicate that.

“We have been screaming,” she said. “But screaming only gets you so far.”

This was on a morning in early spring. Murdoch and Ari Wallach, an author, producer and self-proclaimed futurist, had just released their new PBS docuseries, “A Brief History of the Future,” and had hopped onto a video call to promote it — politely, no screaming required. Shot cinematically, in some never-ending golden hour, the six-episode show follows Wallach around the world as he meets with scientists, activists and the occasional artist and athlete, all of whom are optimistic about the future. An episode might include a visit to a floating village or a conversation about artificial intelligence with the musician Grimes. In one sequence, marine biologists lovingly restore a rehabbed coral polyp to a reef. The mood throughout is mellow, hopeful, even dreamy. Which is deliberate.

“There’s room for screaming,” Wallach said. “And there’s room for dreaming.”

“A Brief History of the Future” joins some recent books and shows that offer a rosier vision of what a world in the throes — or just past the throes — of global catastrophe might look like. Climate optimism as opposed to climate fatalism.

Hannah Ritchie’s “Not the End of the World: How We Can be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet” argues that many markers of disaster are less bad than the public imagines (deforestation, overfishing) or easily solvable (plastics in the oceans). In “Fallout,” the television adaptation of the popular video game that recently debuted on Amazon Prime Video, the apocalypse (nuclear, not climate-related) makes for a devastated earth, sundry mutants and plenty of goofy, kitschy fun — apocalypse lite.

“Life as We Know It (Can Be),” a book by Bill Weir, CNN’s chief climate correspondent, that is structured as a series of letters to his son, centers on human potential and resilience. And Dana R. Fisher’s “Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action” contends that the disruptions of climate change may finally create a mass movement that will lead to better global outcomes. Fisher, a sociologist, coined the term “apocalyptic optimism” to describe a belief that humans can still avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

In confronting the apocalypse, these works all insist that hope matters. They believe that optimism, however qualified or hard-won, may be what finally moves us to action. While Americans are less likely than their counterparts in the developed world to appreciate the threats that climate change poses, recent polls show that a significant majority of Americans now agree that climate change is real and a smaller majority agree that it is human-caused and harmful. And yet almost no expert believes that we are doing enough — in terms of technology, legislation or political pressure — to alleviate those harms.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

As Green Bonds Tank, Analysts Fear Greenwashing Is to Blame

Major banks were underwriting bonds by energy giants that failed to meet climate goals. The post As Green Bonds Tank, Analysts Fear Greenwashing Is to Blame appeared first on .

When Italian energy giant Enel announced in April that it had failed to meet the carbon emissions reduction goals in a third of its sustainability linked bonds (SLB), it exposed significant deficiencies in a once-coveted form of loan aimed at reining in climate-altering carbon emissions.  It also raised concerns about whether companies such as Enel and the banks that underwrite the sustainability linked bonds were truly interested in combating climate change or in merely making misleading claims of being environmentally friendly, a practice known as greenwashing. Enel was the first and largest corporate issuer of sustainability linked bonds, which are a form of green bonds that raise capital for general corporate purposes rather than for specific renewable energy projects. With SLBs, a discounted rate of about 10%-15% is tied to reaching certain sustainability indicators, such as decarbonization metrics, renewable energy consumption or generation and the volume of recycled materials.  At their debut in 2019, sustainability linked bonds were welcomed as a way for industrial companies and banks to show that they were taking steps to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. With the bonds, climate change could even be addressed by heavy polluters, such as automakers or steel manufacturers, which otherwise might not have projects eligible for traditional green bonds.  Initially, the sustainability linked bond market grew rapidly, soaring to over $100 billion in global volume in 2021. But since then the market has hit a wall. In the first quarter of 2024, the global SLB volume peaked at $3.1 billion, down 37% from the same period the prior year. Experts attribute the steep drop to growing investor concerns that the bonds are failing to induce any real reductions in carbon emissions.  Enel missed its target for direct emissions by about 8%, a deficiency that triggered an automatic 0.25% increase in the interest rate on the affected bonds. The financial hit was relatively minor, amounting to around $100 million over the remaining life of the bonds for a company whose annual revenue was $103 billion last year.  Enel attributed the shortfall to higher-than-expected coal-based electricity generation, in part mandated by the Italian government in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent disruption in European gas supplies. But that explanation did not temper reactions in the sustainability linked bond market. Enel had embraced SLBs as part of a well-publicized strategy to develop a business model in line with the Paris Agreement to limit the average global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F).  In the wake of Enel’s failure to meet its emission goals, concerns grew that if the sustainability linked bonds were insufficient to ensure that Enel’s highly motivated sustainability program reached its goals, what were the odds the bonds would have a consequential impact on the decarbonization efforts of a less committed bond issuer? Moreover, investors and underwriters supporting the sustainability linked bond market — a group that in Enel’s case included major financial players such as BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Citigroup, Commerzbank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Societe Generale — often did so to claim these instruments as part of their “green” portfolios.  “SLBs can be a valuable climate change tool, a difference maker, but two things are necessary: The target goals must be ambitious, offering a credible decarbonization pathway, and the consequences of failing to meet those goals must be a deterrent to falling short,” said Kevin Leung, a sustainable finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.  Despite the high hopes for sustainability linked bonds, about 86% of the 800 bonds that so far have been issued lack adequate greenhouse gas reduction targets to achieve global climate change goals, according to Climate Bonds Initiative, which analyzes the green bond marketplace.  In general, the bonds’ sustainability indicators are either too ambiguous or too shortsighted to align with science-based carbon abatement solutions or their monitoring protocols are not sufficiently robust or transparent — shortcomings often ignored by investors. As a result, a Climate Bonds analysis of more than 150 bonds from top issuers through November 2023 found that in about half of the cases, companies are not on track to meet their climate goals or have failed to provide evidence of their progress. Only 25% appear to be on target to reach their goals.  French oil and gas major TotalEnergies provides an apt illustration of the gap between the purpose of sustainability linked bonds and their results. In 2021, Total announced that all its future debt would be issued as SLBs, linked to its climate targets. To kick off this strategy, in January 2021 Total issued about $3.2 billion in SLB-style bonds with an average interest rate of 1.875%, in part to further its development of nonfossil fuel energy sources, the company said. Total reveled in the discounted cost of capital, describing it as “comparable to that of pure players in renewables.”  To get this advantageous rate, Total did the minimum, offering only generic claims about its sustainability initiatives, including the promise of a mere 20% reduction in the carbon intensity of its oil products by 2030, when most companies would aim for a more robust reduction. Total also stated, without any guarantees, that a transition to renewable energy was its unwavering priority. No scheduled metrics for monitoring the organization’s performance was included in the loan.  By contrast, a more robust goal was laid down by Kinetik, a U.S.-based natural gas company that issued nearly $4 billion in sustainability-linked bonds in 2022 and 2023. The company has targeted a 35% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions from its operations by 2030.  Even Total’s vague assurances appear to run counter to Total’s actual plans. In 2030, two-thirds of Total’s capital expenditures will still be earmarked for oil and gas with nearly half for new fields, according to an analysis by Oil Change International. By that time, oil and gas will account for 80% of Total’s energy mix, compared with 95% in 2021, which actually means that Total’s fossil fuel production will increase by about 3%, a separate report by Reclaim Finance found.  But if Total has become a symbol of how sustainability linked bonds can be misused and rendered toothless, the company’s lenders have not been put off. During shareholder votes about Total’s decarbonization policies, investment managers Amundi and AXA said that by merely vowing to focus on energy transition,Total has proved its intention to adopt more ambitious climate targets over time. And BlackRock said it was satisfied that Total’s “stated carbon neutrality strategy meets our expectations of a company committed to the energy transition.”  In fact, global asset manager BlackRock believed that Total’s enthusiastic embrace of sustainability linked bonds was evidence enough that it would ultimately achieve net zero goals. That justification for supporting Total’s debt has not aged well: In April, three years after announcing its SLB strategy and issuing debt at discounted interest rates, Total said it was abandoning the approach. According to one analyst who follows SLBs closely but asked to remain anonymous because of his relationship with other companies he does business with, Total’s investors told him they had become less willing to give the company discounted loans for empty promises and little headway towards addressing climate change.  Most sustainability linked bonds are more explicit about targeted outcomes than Total’s bonds. But that only highlights a fundamental flaw in this type of debt. Generally, the issuers meet or come close to their goals only because their metrics are not particularly difficult to achieve — in some cases, reflecting results reached prior to the bond issuance — or are not connected to the way a particular company can impact climate change.  Compounding matters, some of the most crucial measurements of decarbonization are often absent from sustainability linked bond goals. Scope 3 emissions, those that occur outside an organization’s direct control and usually account for the largest source of a company’s carbon output, are not covered in 70% of sustainability linked bonds underwritten by top issuers. Estimating Scope 3 emissions is difficult, but there are ways to cover these greenhouse gases, such as metrics that measure the share of renewable energy in a supply chain, or the percentage of a company’s products recycled by consumers.  On the demand side of sustainability linked bonds, the pricing and penalties mechanisms are also contributing to the deficient key performance indicators (KPI), the metrics used to measure environmental performance.  “The major problem here is that the link between KPIs and the interest rate paid in the loan is weak,” said Joachim Klement, a London-based investment strategist. He and others believe that the discounts of a few basis points that issuers receive are not large enough to entice companies to undertake an expensive and potentially disruptive decarbonization program. Moreover, the penalties for not meeting climate change goals — generally a 0.25% increase in interest rates — are too weak to deter missed targets, especially for big companies like Enel. Since sustainability goals take time to reach, companies can often enjoy interest discounts for several years before paying a step-up for a short period until the bond matures.  Unless sustainability linked bonds (and other green bonds) begin to play a perceptible role in addressing climate change, net zero and global temperature goals are likely impractical and out of reach. And to a large degree, that puts the onus on financial backers and underwriters to set the SLB market straight, demanding meaningful and carefully defined environmental improvements in return for real and advantageous interest rate discounts — and to require strict and scientific monitoring protocols to certify the key performance indicators are met.  Additionally, if SLB shortcomings are not addressed, regulators may ultimately determine that these bonds should not even be categorized as green investments. That possibility has already made sustainability linked bonds less attractive to some investors, say experts.  Still, many climate change investment supporters are hopeful that SLBs can play a constructive role in corporate decarbonization and provide a venue for credible green investments. It is somewhat fitting, perhaps, that it took bond defaults by Enel, a true believer in using lending as a cudgel against climate change, to inspire a reckoning about sustainability linked bonds.  Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Has extreme weather made voters care more about climate change?

The answer depends on their political affiliation.

Among those concerned about the climate, it’s become something of a self-evident truth that as people suffer more severe and more frequent extreme weather and grapple with global warming’s impact on their daily lives, they’ll come to understand the problem at a visceral level. As a result, they’ll be eager for action. In other words, many climate activists believe that even if advocates and academics can’t sway the hardened opinions of the dismissive, extreme weather can wake anyone up. The data disagrees. Over the last seven years, as the effects of climate change have begun to envelop the world in smoke and storm, natural disasters have in fact leapt front of mind for voters when they contemplate the most important reasons to take climate action. Those concerns, however, aren’t shared evenly across the political spectrum. Preventing extreme weather ranked among the top three reasons to address the crisis among 37 percent of voters surveyed this year, according to an analysis by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. That’s up from 28 percent seven years ago. For Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale program, this shift reflects the fact that, while many Americans regard climate change with a certain psychological distance, the increasingly shared experience of smoke-filled skies, life-threatening heat, and earth-cracking droughts means “climate change is no longer distant in time and space,” Leiserowitz said. “It’s right here, right now.”  Mainstream media outlets are making that increasingly clear for their audiences, thanks in large part to the nascent field of attribution science that allows researchers to describe in real time the links between global warming and a given weather system. Grist The shift Leiserowitz and his colleagues detected was driven in large part by moderate and right-leaning Democrats. In 2017, less than one-third of those voters included preventing extreme weather among their top three reasons for desiring action, but by this year, half of moderate and conservative Democrats ranked it that highly. The opinions of moderate and left-leaning Republicans, however, stayed mostly unchanged, with just under 30 percent of those voters citing extreme weather as a top three reason to reduce global warming. Perhaps surprisingly, extreme weather even increased in relevance among conservative Republicans, with 21 percent listing it as a leading reason compared to just 16 percent in 2017. But even as extreme weather became increasingly salient among the most conservative voters, far more of them selected the survey option “global warming isn’t happening.” In 2024, a full 37 percent of conservative Republicans denied the reality of climate change, compared to 27 percent just seven years earlier. “People’s beliefs about climate change are driven predominantly by political factors,” said Peter Howe, an environmental social scientist at Utah State University who has worked with Leiserowitz in the past but was uninvolved in this analysis. The political and social circles a person occupies and the beliefs they hold not only mediate one’s overall opinions about climate change, Howe pointed out, but they influence how that person experiences extreme weather. When Howe collected and reviewed studies analyzing the connections between extreme weather and personal opinions about climate change, he found that although those already concerned about the crisis often had their anxieties heightened by a natural disaster, those who were dismissive before the event often remained so, ignoring any potential connection to global warming. When Constant Tra, an environmental economist at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and his colleagues published a similar study in May, he found that disasters don’t shove people toward concern and alarm in the way he expected. At best, “it kind of nudges people,” he said, but rarely moves someone from an entrenched position of categorical denial, especially when those around them aren’t concerned. This dynamic reflects a groundbreaking experiment conducted in 1968 in which a college student was placed in a room with two actors. As smoke trickled into the room, if the actors pretended that all was fine, the test subjects rarely reacted with alarm or reported the smoke. In fact, they often assumed it wasn’t dangerous. In the climatic reprise of this “smoky room experiment” currently playing out in America, climate deniers are filling the role of the actors, trying to convince everyone around them that everything’s fine. Over time, those views spread and positions harden. But the smoky room experiment and Leiserowitz’s own research make something clear: Concern can be contagious, too. Screaming from the clock towers, however, is not enough on its own, Leiserowitz added. “It’s really important that people have an accurate understanding of the risks,” he said, without exaggeration or ignoring the fact that every little bit matters. That clear-eyed accounting of the risks must also be paired with an exploration of the solutions that exist, that we can implement with ease and efficiency, and that can make a meaningful impact today. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Has extreme weather made voters care more about climate change? on Sep 20, 2024.

Biden Administration Nears Approval for Ioneer's Nevada Lithium Mine

By Ernest Scheyder(Reuters) - The Biden administration on Thursday published a key environmental report for ioneer's Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine in...

(Reuters) - The Biden administration on Thursday published a key environmental report for ioneer's Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine in Nevada, the last step needed before approving what would become one of the largest U.S. sources of the electric vehicle battery metal.The move comes after a review process of more than six years and as part of Washington's ongoing efforts to boost domestic critical minerals production and offset China's market dominance. If approved, the mine would be the first lithium project permitted by Biden officials.The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a final environmental impact statement that sets in motion a review period of at least 30 days before a record of decision - essentially a mine's permit - can be issued. The BLM also published an opinion on how a rare flower at the mine site can best be protected.Shares of ioneer trading in New York jumped 11% on Thursday morning.The proposed mine, roughly 225 miles (362 km) north of Las Vegas, contains one of North America's largest sources of lithium and could produce enough of the metal to power roughly 370,000 EVs each year. Ford Motor signed a binding supply agreement in 2022 with ioneer.The U.S. Geological Survey has labeled lithium a critical mineral vital for the U.S. economy and national security. As part of a push to boost domestic production, the U.S. Department of Energy last year said it would lend ioneer up to $700 million to develop the mine.The site is also home to the Tiehm's buckwheat flower, which is found nowhere else on the planet and was declared an endangered species in 2021. Some conservation groups thus oppose ioneer's project, making it a lightning rod in the debate over whether biodiversity matters more than the fight against climate change.The BLM said on Thursday that it worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the company to craft "significant protections for the plant," including changing mine design plans and a formal protection plan."We're steadfast in our commitment to be responsible stewards of our public lands as we deliver the promise of a clean energy economy," said BLM director Tracy Stone-Manning.The 30-day review process for the environmental report is a routine part of the federal permitting process.Bernard Rowe, ioneer's CEO, said the report reflects the company's willingness to work with the government to protect the flower and develop a domestic source of lithium."It's a testament to the approach that we took, and that was one of engagement, addressing the sensitive issues, seeing if we can come up with solutions. And we've done that," Rowe told Reuters.The mysterious death of more than 17,000 flowers near the mine site in 2020 sparked allegations from conservationists of a "premeditated" attack. Australia-based ioneer denied harming the flowers. The U.S. government later blamed thirsty squirrels.South Africa's Sibanye Stillwater agreed in 2021 to buy half of the project for $490 million, but only once ioneer obtains final permits.(Reporting by Ernest Scheyder; Editing by Conor Humphries)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

The Odd Arctic Military Projects Spawned by the Cold War

Many offbeat research efforts were doomed to fail, from atomic subways to a city under the ice.

In recent years, the Arctic has become a magnet for climate change anxiety, with scientists nervously monitoring the Greenland ice sheet for signs of melting and fretting over rampant environmental degradation. It wasn’t always that way. At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s, as the fear of nuclear Armageddon hung over American and Soviet citizens, ­idealistic scientists and engineers saw the vast Arctic region as a place of unlimited potential for creating a bold new future. Greenland emerged as the most tantalizing proving ground for their research. Scientists and engineers working for and with the U.S. military cooked up a rash of audacious cold-region projects—some innovative, many spitballed and most quickly abandoned. They were the stuff of science fiction: disposing of nuclear waste by letting it melt through the ice; moving people, supplies and missiles below the ice using subways, some perhaps atomic-powered; testing hovercraft to zip over impassable crevasses; making furniture from a frozen mix of ice and soil; and even building a nuclear-powered city under the ice sheet. Today, many of their ideas, and the fever dreams that spawned them, survive only in the yellowed pages and covers of magazines like Real (billed as “the exciting magazine for men”) and dozens of obscure Army technical reports. Karl and Bernhard Philberth, both physicists and ordained priests, thought Greenland’s ice sheet the perfect repository for nuclear waste. Not all the waste—first they’d reprocess spent reactor fuel so that the long-lived nuclides would be recycled. The remaining, mostly short-lived radionuclides would be fused into glass or ceramic and surrounded by a few inches of lead for transport. They imagined several million radioactive medicine balls about 16 inches in diameter scattered over a small area of the ice sheet (about 300 square miles) far from the coast. Because the balls were so radioactive, and thus warm, they would melt their way into the ice, each with the energy of a bit less than two dozen 100-watt incandescent light bulbs—a reasonable leap from Karl Philberth’s expertise designing heated ice drills that worked by melting their way through glaciers. The hope was that by the time the ice carrying the balls emerged at the coast thousands or tens of thousands of years later, the radioactivity would have decayed away. One of the physicists later reported that the idea was shown to him by God, in a vision. A U.S. Air Force C-119 Flying Boxcar delivering a bulldozer to northern Greenland U.S. Air Force Of course, the plan had plenty of unknowns and led to heated discussion at scientific meetings when it was presented—what, for example, would happen if the balls got crushed or caught up in flows of meltwater near the base of the ice sheet? And would the radioactive balls warm the ice so much that the ice flowed faster at the base, speeding the balls’ trip to the coast? Logistical challenges, scientific doubt and politics sunk the project. Producing millions of radioactive glass balls wasn’t yet practical, and the Danes, who at the time controlled Greenland, were never keen on allowing nuclear waste disposal on what they saw as their island. Some skeptics even worried about climate change melting the ice. Nonetheless, the Philberths made visits to the ice sheet and published peer-reviewed scientific papers about their waste dream. Arctic military imagination predates the Cold War. In 1943, that imagination spawned the Kee Bird—a mythical creature. An early description appears in a poem by Aviation Cadet Warren M. Kniskern published in the Army’s weekly magazine for enlisted men, Yank. The bird taunts men across the Arctic with its call: “Kee-Kee-Keerist, but it’s cold!” Its name was widely applied. Best-known was a B-29 bomber named Kee Bird that took off from Alaska with a heading toward the North Pole, but then got badly lost and put down on a frozen Greenland lake in 1947 as it ran out of fuel. An ambitious plan to fly the nearly pristine plane off the ice in the mid-1990s was thwarted by fire. But the Kee Bird lineage was by no means extinct. In 1959, the Detroit Free Press, under the headline “The Crazy, Mixed-Up Keebird Can’t Fly,” reported that the Army was testing a new over-snow vehicle. This Keebird was not a flying machine but rather a snowmobile/tractor/airplane chimera that would cut travel time across the ice sheet by a factor of ten or more. Unlike similar but utilitarian contraptions of the 1930s, developed in the central plains of North America and Russia and equipped with short skis, boxy bodies and propellors that pushed them along, this new single-propped version was built for sheer speed. The prototype hit 40 miles per hour at the Army’s testing facility in Houghton, Michigan, thanks to the “almost friction-proof” Teflon coating on its around 25-foot-long skis and a 300-horsepower airplane engine that spun the propellor. The goal was for the machine to hit 70 miles per hour, but after several failed tests, and a few technical publications, it warranted only the one syndicated newspaper article written by Jean Hanmer Pearson, who was a military pilot in World War II before she became a journalist and one of the first women to set foot on the South Pole. The Soviet version, known as an “airsleigh”, was short, stout and armed with weapons for Arctic combat. There’s no record the Army’s Keebird carrying weapons. In 1964, the Army tested a distant relative of the Keebird in Greenland. The Carabao, which floated over the ground and over water or snow on a cushion of air, was developed by Bell Aerosystems Company and had been previously tested in tropical locales, including southern Florida. It carried two men and 1,000 pounds of cargo, and had a top speed of 100 miles per hour. The air cushion vehicle skimmed over crevasses but was grounded by even moderate winds, an all-too-common occurrence on the ice sheet. U.S. Army test of the Carabao air cushion vehicle over snow in Greenland, in the 1960s U.S. Army Another problem: The craft went uphill fine, but going downhill was another matter, because it had no brakes. Unsurprisingly, the Carabao—its namesake a Philippine water buffalo—proved to be unsuited for ice travel despite the claim that: “All this is no mere pipe-dream following an overdose of science fiction. The acknowledged experts are thinking hard about the future use of hovercraft in polar travel.” Despite all the hard thinking, hovercraft have yet to catch on and are still rarely used for Arctic travel and research. In 1956, Colliers, a weekly magazine once read by millions of Americans, published an article titled “Subways Under the Icecap.” It was a sensationalized report of Army activities in Greenland and opened with a photograph of an enlisted soldier holding a pick. Behind him, a 250-foot tunnel, mostly excavated by hand and lit only by lanterns, probed the Greenland ice sheet. Colliers included a simple map and a stylistic cut-away showing an imaginary rail line slicing across northwestern Greenland. But the Army’s ice tunnels ended only about a thousand feet from where they started—doomed by the fragility of their icy walls, which crept inward up to several feet each year, closing the tunnels like a healing wound. The subway never happened. That didn’t stop the Army from proposing Project Iceworm—a top-secret plan that might represent peak weirdness. A network of tunnels would crisscross northern Greenland over an area about the size of Alabama. Hundreds of missiles, topped with nuclear warheads, would roll through the tunnels on trains, pop up at firing points and, if needed, respond to Soviet aggression by many annihilating many Eastern Bloc targets. Greenland was much closer to Europe than North America, allowing a prompt strategic response, and the snow provided cover and blast protection. Iceworm would be a giant under-snow shell game of sorts, which the Army would power using portable nuclear reactors. A tunnel cut into the Greenland ice sheet by the Army in the 1950s, mostly using hand tools. The tunnel was a prototype for a subway system—in part to move nuclear missiles under the ice—that never came to fruition. U.S. Army via United Press Except it wasn’t a game. The Army hired the Spur and Siding Constructors Company of Detroit to scope out and price the rail project. A 1965 report, complete with maps of stations and sidings where trains would sit when not in use, concluded that contractors could build a railroad stretching 22 miles over land and 138 miles inside the ice sheet for a mere $47 million (or roughly $470 million today). The company suggested studying nuclear-powered locomotives because they reduced the risk of heat from diesel engines melting the frozen tunnels. Never mind that no one had ever built a nuclear locomotive or run rails through tunnels crossing constantly shifting crevasses. But in the end, Iceworm amounted only to a single railcar, 1,300 feet of track and an abandoned military truck on railroad wheels. The split personality of Arctic permafrost frustrated Army engineers. When frozen in the winter, it was stable but difficult to excavate. But in the summer, under the warmth of 24-hour sunshine, the top foot or two of soil melted, creating an impassable quagmire for people and vehicles. When the permafrost under airstrips melted, the pavement buckled, and the resulting potholes could damage landing gear. The military responded by painting Arctic runways white to reflect the constant summer sunshine and keep the underlying permafrost cool—a potentially good idea grounded in physics that was stymied by the fact that the paint reduced the braking ability of planes. The military engineers, ever optimistic, put a more positive spin on permafrost. Trying to use native materials in the Arctic, where transportation costs were exceptionally high, they made a synthetic version of permafrost that they nicknamed permacrete—a mash-up of the words permafrost and concrete. First, they mixed the optimal amount of water and dry soil. Then, after allowing the mix to freeze solid in molds, they made beams, bricks, tunnel linings and even a chair. But permacrete never caught on as a building material, likely because one warm day was all it would take to turn even the most robust construction project into a puddle of mud. The Army’s most ambitious Arctic dream actually came true. In 1959, engineers began building Camp Century, known by many as the City Under the Ice. A 138-mile ice road led to the camp that was about 100 miles inland from the edge of the ice sheet. Almost a vertical mile of ice separated the camp from the rock and soil below. Camp Century contained several dozen massive trenches, one more than a thousand feet long, all carved into the ice sheet by giant snowplows and then covered with metal arches and more snow. Inside were heated bunkrooms for several hundred men, a mess hall and a portable nuclear power plant. The first of its kind, the reactor provided unlimited hot showers and plenty of electrical power. The camp was ephemeral. In less than a decade, flowing ice crushed Century—but not before scientists and engineers drilled the first deep ice core that eventually penetrated the full thickness of Greenland’s ice sheet. In 1966, the last season the Army occupied Camp Century, drillers recovered more than 11 feet of frozen soil from beneath the ice—another first. One module of a portable nuclear reactor being moved into Camp Century. The first of its kind, the reactor provided unlimited hot showers and plenty of electrical power to the camp.  Jon Fresch / U.S. Army Little studied, the Camp Century soil vanished in the early 1990s, but it was rediscovered by Danish scientists in the late 2010s, safely frozen in Copenhagen. Samples revealed that the soil contained abundant plant and insect fossils, unambiguous evidence that large parts of Greenland were free of ice some 400,000 years ago, when the Earth was about the same temperature as today but had almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the half century or so since the demise of Camp Century, global warming has begun melting large amounts of Greenland’s ice. The past ten years are the warmest on record, and the ice sheet is shrinking a bit more every year. That’s science, not fiction, and a world away from the heady optimism of the Cold War dreamers who once envisioned a future embedded in ice.Paul Bierman is a geoscientist who teaches at the University of Vermont. He is the author, most recently, of When the Ice Is Gone: What a Greenland Ice Core Reveals About Earth’s Tumultuous History and Perilous Future, a study of Greenland, the Cold War, and the collection and analysis of the world’s first deep ice core. Bierman’s research in Greenland is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation. This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Methane Levels Still Rising, Despite Global Methane Pledge

Satellite data shows the U.S. releasing more and more of the potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, researchers said, despite pledges to cut back.

The United States’ booming fossil-fuel industry continues to emit more and more planet-warming methane into the atmosphere, new research showed, despite a U.S.-led effort to encourage other countries to cut emissions globally.Methane is among the most potent greenhouse gases, and “one of the worst performers in our study is the U.S., even though it was an instigator of the Global Methane Pledge,” said Antoine Halff, the co-founder of Kayrros, the environmental data company issuing the report. “Those are red flags.”Much of the world’s efforts to combat climate change focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which result largely from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, and whose heat-trapping particles can linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. But methane’s effects on the climate — which have earned it the moniker “super pollutant” — have become better appreciated recently, with the advent of more advanced leak-detection technology, including satellites.Unlike carbon dioxide, methane emissions don’t derive from consumption, but rather from production and transportation of the gas, which is the main component of what is commonly known as natural gas. Methane can leak from storage facilities, pipelines and tankers, and is also often deliberately released. Methane is also released from livestock and landfills, and occurs naturally in wetlands.Kayrros focused on fossil fuel facilities, where the practices of “venting,” or the intentional release of large quantities of methane, and “flaring,” which is when it is intentionally burned off, are both common. Kayrros used satellite data combined with artificial intelligence analysis of the data to draw its conclusions.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.