In den USA scheint das Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft sehr gering zu sein in Sachen Klima. Das meint der Autor eines Artikels bei Phys.org.
“Despite increasing catastrophic weather events such as wildfires, flooding and news reports that hurricanes like Idalia have become wetter, windier and more intense because of rising global temperatures, the study revealed that almost half of U.S. voters (45%) believe climate change isn’t a problem at all, and 41% of voters believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon not caused by humans.
Professor Debnath said, “This lack of trust in higher education and evidence-based research makes the public more vulnerable to opinion-based arguments from powerful actors who disproportionately profit from climate denialism.”
Among all the variables studied, such as age, gender, race, education and region, the most statistically significant factor in driving climate denialism was trust in institutions, the authors said. Young registered voters were most likely to trust institutions.
The co-authors said that this distrust in climate science is one of the challenges to the successful implementation of climate action policies, such as climate change taxes (carbon taxes), congestion charges and efforts to end sales of the most-polluting vehicles.”
Ausgangspunkt war eine Befragung in den USA, die hier publiziert wurde.
Scientists have developed a strong consensus that Earth’s climate is changing and that human activities play an important role in these changes. However, current research shows that in the United States, there is significant partisan polarization on climate change and its causes, leading to climate denialism. In this paper, we shed light on the political and social determinants of climate action. Using a May 2022 nationally representative survey of American registered voters (n = 2,096), we examine the multivariate correlates of trust in university research and opinions about climate change.
Our results confirm that segments of the American electorate do not believe climate change is a problem for the United States and that climate change is not a consequence of human activities. But we also show that part of the problem regarding climate denialism is a lack of trust in university research. We argue for a comprehensive four-stage research strategy based on the empirical results. First, more research must be done to understand who trusts or distrusts university research on climate change and who is persuadable. Second, more research is needed on climate communication framing and messaging. Third, additional research on appropriate messaging is necessary. Finally, we need to develop a culture of trust in climate research and how it is communicated across society.
+++
Ob da jemand die Cannabis-Freigabe schon vorzeitig aktiv gelebt hat? Jürgen Trittin im Spiegel-Interview (Bezahlschranke) lässt Fragen offen. Auf die berühmte Kugel Eis angesprochen meinte die Grüne Eminenz, dass er Wort gehalten habe und fabuliert von weniger EEG-Kosten. Praktisch haben sich die Stromkosten seit Einführung der Energiewende stetig nach oben entwickelt. Kosten wie Netzentgelte für eine immer aufwendigere Infrastruktur interessieren Trittin offenbar nicht. Es schickt das EEG vor.
Sonne und Wind schicken keine Rechnung, das ist das Narrativ. Das haben die beiden noch nie gemacht, Rechnungen kamen stets vom Versorger. Noch schräger ist allerdings die Aussage, dass seine Amtsnachfolger die Energiewende sabotiert hätten. Nochmal zur Erinnerung, der Mann war mal Umweltminister und die Energie fällt ins Ressort Wirtschaft.
+++
Es wird eng werden auf der Nordsee. Laut Enformer, dem Energieblog von RWE, sind gewaltige Ausbauten der Windkapazitäten geplant.
“Nach einem Rückgang des Ausbautempos erwarten die Analysten in den kommenden Jahren eine deutliche Beschleunigung auf durchschnittlich 1,3 Gigawatt (GW) pro Jahr. Seit 2022 werden Projekte aus den Ausschreibungsrunden 2017/2018 umgesetzt. Damals wurden Lizenzen zum Bau von Offshore-Windparks mit einer Gesamtleistung von 3,1 GW versteigert. Zu erwarten ist laut Deutscher Windguard, dass diese Kapazität bis Ende 2025 vollständig installiert sein wird. Dann könnten Windkraftanlagen in deutschen Küstengewässern Strom mit einer maximalen Leistung von 10,9 GW einspeisen.
Mit der Novelle des Windenergie-auf-See-Gesetzes (WindSeeG), die Anfang des Jahres in Kraft trat, hat die Bundesregierung die Ausbauziele der Offshore-Windkraft hinaufgesetzt. Im Jahr 2030 sollen die Offshore-Anlagen nun 30 GW ins deutsche Netz einspeisen können.
Stand heute müssen also in den letzten fünf Jahren des Jahrzehnts mehr als 19 GW Einspeisekapazität in deutschen Gewässern installiert werden. Das sind im Durchschnitt fast 4 GW pro Jahr, wobei abzusehen ist, dass das Gros der Inbetriebnahmen in die Jahre ab 2028 fallen wird. Zum Vergleich: Im bisherigen Rekordjahr 2015 gingen 2,3 GW Offshore-Windstrom ans Netz.”
+++
Entspannung bei der Dürre-Situation in Deutschland laut DLF.
“Nach Angaben des Helmholtz-Zentrums für Umweltforschung in Leipzig sind die Böden bis auf eine Tiefe von 60 Zentimetern deutschlandweit gut durchfeuchtet.
Bei der Bodentiefe von 60 Zentimetern bis zwei Metern sehe das aber anders aus. Dieser Dürreschwerpunkt liegt demnach vor allem in Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen und Teilen Niedersachsens. Ein Grund: Im Osten herrscht ein tendenziell trockeneres Kontinentalklima.Nach Angaben der Experten hat es für die Landwirtschaft deutschlandweit in diesem Jahr keine Probleme mit Dürre gegeben. Der Wald dagegen sei immer noch gestresst. Vor allem im Osten fehlt es demnach an mehreren zusätzlichen Monatsniederschlägen, um die Bodendürre aufzulösen. Denn die Niederschläge erreichen die tiefen Wurzelregionen nicht, der Grundwasserspiegel ist hier entscheidend.”
+++
Susanne Gaschke in der NZZ:
DER ANDERE BLICK: Aktivismus statt Journalismus: Wie sich der «Spiegel» den Klima-Klebern andient
[…] Das aktuelle Thema, das viele Journalisten offensichtlich zu der Überzeugung bringt, sie sollten ihr Publikum nicht bloss informieren, sondern anleiten, ist der Klimawandel. Oder dramatischer: die «Klimakrise». Und das neue Sturmgeschütz der Klimabewegung ist der «Spiegel». Dessen neue Titelgeschichte über die Extremisten der Letzten Generation ist ein derart drastisches Beispiel für kampagnenhafte Berichterstattung, dass es sich als Lehrmaterial für Journalismusschüler anböte.
Der Text des «Teams um Titelautor Jonas Schaible» hätte erforschen können, was viele Menschen in Deutschland, mutmasslich auch viele «Spiegel»-Leser, umtreibt: also die Frage, ob eine weitere Radikalisierung der Letzten Generation zu befürchten sei. Im Heft erfährt man dann aber vor allem, was die Kritik an der Letzten Generation über die «Fehler der Bundesregierung» verrate. Dass der «allgemeine Umgang» mit der Letzten Generation immer radikaler werde. Und dass die vom «Spiegel» interviewten Anhänger der Bewegung «weiterhin bereit seien, ihr geordnetes Leben aufzugeben für den verzweifelten Kampf gegen die Erderwärmung».
+++
Robbie Williams auf The Conversation:
Before the colonists came, we burned small and burned often to avoid big fires. It’s time to relearn cultural burning
For 60,000 years, many First Nations peoples managed the land that sustained us. Fire, for us, was not destructive. It created new life. We believe bringing back cultural burning is an important step towards creating a more just and sustainable future.
We are from the Githabul and Ngarakbul peoples of the Yoocum Yoocum Moeity. Our traditional lands span what is now northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. But the knowledge of how to burn and when to burn spans the entire continent.
We want to pass this knowledge on, from First Nations to the ones who came later. Farmers, landholders, people with bush blocks – these are the people who need this knowledge.
Over a decade ago, we ran a workshop for Jayn Hobba, a non-Indigenous woman who has a nature reserve property outside Stanthorpe. We taught her about the art of tree thinning and cultural burns.
She writes: “Working alongside traditional owners who are the fire, soil and water keepers of their culture, I’ve also gained much practical knowledge in thinning out native black cypress, conserving old growth eucalyptus and mosaic cool burning. A decade later, I can see culturally appropriate fire regimes and conservative thinning of vegetation are benefiting the ecosystems and reducing fuel load.”
Why is cultural burning undertaken?
Every group burned country differently. The knowledge of what to burn – and when to burn – is known as lore. By burning the right areas at the right time, we burn off the fuel loads and keep Australia’s fire-loving trees from starting dangerous fires.
The way we burn is known as mosaic cool burning – burn this area, leave this area – which produces a pattern of newer and older growth across the landscape. Traditionally, these mosaics produced new growth attracting kangaroos and wallabies, which could then be hunted.
Our thousands of years of cultural burning made much of Australia look like a park – stands of trees, large tracts of grass and shrub, as historian Bill Gammage has detailed.
After the colonists came, much knowledge was lost. Cultural burning, too, could have been lost. But it survived.
How does it differ from hazard reduction burns?
Cultural burns are cool, low intensity burns which stay on the ground. Hazard burns are usually hot burns, done with more intensity.
Cool burns are best done at night or early in the morning. Many Australian trees sweat flammable oils during the day, making it a more dangerous time. Early morning dew helps to cool the fire. The wind is often gentle during a morning burn, assisting us as we direct the fire.
Cool fires do not bake seeds or nutrients into the soil, nor do they destroy root systems. Because the flames are so low, they cannot leap up to set tree canopies on fire and can only char the bottom bark.
Cool fires help change ground vegetation by reducing the density of plants such as bracken fern and casuarina, which lead to high fuel loads. Hot fires will encourage their regrowth.
If fires are started too early in the season, thick shrub grows afterwards which adds to fuel loads. If fires are started too late, dried-out fuel can make fires more intense and even lead trees to explode.
Hazard reduction burns are performed to control overgrowth of bush. If cool burns aren’t done, fallen branches, leaf litter and dead trees keep building up and up. Australia’s trees are very messy – many of them shed bark and leaves and branches to encourage fire.
First Nations people did everything they could to avoid intense, destructive bushfires. By burning small and burning often, we made sure the fuel never built up to extreme levels.
But after we were colonised, cultural burning almost entirely stopped. Forests grew back, covering some grasslands. Fuel began to build up. And immense bushfires began. Black Friday, 1939. Black Saturday, 2009. And the devastating Black Summer of fire in 2019-2020. These show us what happens when we do not burn country properly.
How is it done?
Cultural burning is complex and nuanced. To do it properly, you need thorough knowledge of the natural environment. You can’t simply walk into a field or forest and set it alight.
Fire lore is passed on from knowledge holders to initiates. We are taught to read signs in the land and signals in the environment to know when to burn, from different grasses drying out to trees beginning to flower, seed or fruit, to animal breeding and migration.
The reason for this is simple. Burning at the wrong time in the wrong place risks a cool burn running hot. As our firefighters know, it’s very hard to find the right time to do burns.
Each country contains its own season for fire – the time when fire can help cleanse, reset and safekeep the land, ready for the rebirth that comes after burning.
The return of cultural burning
The Black Summer had many causes, ranging from climate change to misuse of land and bad land and water use. The absence of cultural burning and traditional land management practices made matters worse.
Cultural burning and land management can improve soil health, dampen down the impact of weeds and invasive species, control pests, sequester carbon and improve runoff and water quality.
Cultural burning could help create a better future
Using fire in this way is an ancient artform. We consider it a sacred tool.
As we grapple with ever-larger bushfires, it’s time to start involving Traditional Owners more in talks, negotiations and planning – especially when it affects our own country. Our knowledge of this continent may help save lives, land, flora and fauna – and help protect all of us from the ravages of climate change.
Our organisation and others like it work with non-Indigenous Australian landowners and farmers to undertake cultural burns – and to pass on the lore.