The EPA's 4 Major Environmental Concerns Water Issues Air Issues Waste and Land Pollution Climate Change In certain areas of the world, groundwater contamination has significantly limited locals' access to drinkable water. Clint McKoy via Unsplash 1. Water Issues One of the most important areas of environmental concern is the earth's water supply. The first Earth Day reflected a major increase in public awareness of and concern about environmental problems in the US. The massive involvement of people across the United States made clear to politicians that this was an important issues and the following years there was a relatively quick succession of environmental legislation such as the Birmingham drug-dealers have resorted to packing their class A drugs in RE-USABLE packaging amid concerns over the environment. Drug pushers have reportedly taken to packing narcotics in eco We have introduced many difficult trade-offs confronting environmental policies, for example, between our consumption now and our environmental quality now. But we have also uncovered some evidence of win-win opportunities. In Figure 20.26, we look again at the estimates of the marginal abatement costs that we previously saw in Figure 20.9. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the nation's biofuel policy, is considering changes to the program. Under the RFS, Congress set blending requirements through 2022, but 3. Synthetic Clothing. Another way microplastics enter the environment is through our clothing. When we wear or wash any clothing made from synthetic material, small cloth fibres are rubbed and come apart from the larger piece of clothing. These small pieces of synthetic fibres, known as microfibres, are also a type of microplastic. mvAf5Nf. Many doubt success of international efforts to reduce global warming Mud-covered cars stand piled up near Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler in western Germany on July 22, days after deadly floods caused major damage in the region. Christof Stache/AFP via Getty Images This analysis focuses on attitudes toward global climate change around the world. For this report, we conducted nationally representative Pew Research Center surveys of 16,254 adults from March 12 to May 26, 2021, in 16 advanced economies. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the UK, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. In the United States, we surveyed 2,596 adults from Feb. 1 to 7, 2021. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel ATP, an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. This study was conducted in countries where nationally representative telephone surveys are feasible. Due to the coronavirus outbreak, face-to-face interviewing is not currently possible in many parts of the world. Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses. See our methodology database for more information about the survey methods outside the For respondents in the read more about the ATP’s methodology. A new Pew Research Center survey in 17 advanced economies spanning North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region finds widespread concern about the personal impact of global climate change. Most citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work at least some to combat the effects of global warming, but whether their efforts will make an impact is unclear. Citizens offer mixed reviews of how their societies have responded to climate change, and many question the efficacy of international efforts to stave off a global environmental crisis. Conducted this past spring, before the summer season ushered in new wildfires, droughts, floods and stronger-than-usual storms, the study reveals a growing sense of personal threat from climate change among many of the publics polled. In Germany, for instance, the share that is “very concerned” about the personal ramifications of global warming has increased 19 percentage points since 2015 from 18% to 37%. In the study, only Japan -8 points saw a significant decline in the share of citizens deeply concerned about climate change. In the United States, views did not change significantly since 2015. Young adults, who have been at the forefront of some of the most prominent climate change protests in recent years, are more concerned than their older counterparts about the personal impact of a warming planet in many publics surveyed. The widest age gap is found in Sweden, where 65% of 18- to 29-year-olds are at least somewhat concerned about the personal impacts of climate change in their lifetime, compared with just 25% of those 65 and older. Sizable age differences are also found in New Zealand, Australia, the France and Canada. Public concern about climate change appears alongside a willingness to reduce its effects by taking personal steps. Majorities in each of the advanced economies surveyed say they are willing to make at least some changes in how they live and work to address the threat posed by global warming. And across all 17 publics polled, a median of 34% are willing to consider “a lot of changes” to daily life as a response to climate change. Generally, those on the left of the political spectrum are more open than those on the right to taking personal steps to help reduce the effects of climate change. This is particularly true in the where citizens who identify with the ideological left are more than twice as willing as those on the ideological right 94% vs. 45% to modify how they live and work for this reason. Other countries where those on the left and right are divided over whether to alter their lives and work in response to global warming include Canada, the Netherlands, Australia and Germany. Beyond individual actions, the study reveals mixed views on the broader, collective response to climate change. In 12 of the 17 publics polled, half or more think their own society has done a good job dealing with global climate change. But only in Singapore 32%, Sweden 14%, Germany 14%, New Zealand 14% and the United Kingdom 13% do more than one-in-ten describe such efforts as “very good.” Meanwhile, fewer than half in Japan 49%, Italy 48%, the 47%, South Korea 46% and Taiwan 45% give their society’s climate response favorable marks. Abroad, the response to climate change is generally seen as wanting. Among the 16 other advanced economies surveyed, only Singaporeans are slightly positive in their assessment of American efforts 53% say the is doing a “good job” of addressing climate change. Elsewhere judgments are harsher, with six-in-ten or more across Australia, New Zealand and many of the European publics polled saying the is doing a “bad job” of dealing with global warming. However, China fares substantially worse in terms of international public opinion A median of 78% across 17 publics describe China’s handling of climate change as “bad,” including 45% who describe the Chinese response as “very bad.” That compares with a cumulative median of 61% who judge the American response as “bad.” At the cross-national level, the European Union’s response to climate change is viewed favorably by majorities in each of the advanced economies surveyed, except Germany where opinion is split 49% good job; 47% bad job. However, there is still room for improvement, as only a median of 7% across the publics polled describe the EU’s efforts as “very good.” The United Nations’ actions to address global warming are also generally seen in a favorable light A median of 56% say the multilateral organization is doing a good job. But again, the reviews are tempered, with just 5% describing the UN’s response to climate change as “very good.” Publics in the advanced economies surveyed are divided as to whether actions by the international community can successfully reduce the effects of global warming. Overall, a median of 52% lack confidence that a multilateral response will succeed, compared with 46% who remain optimistic that nations can respond to the impact of climate change by working together. Skepticism of multilateral efforts is most pronounced in France 65%, Sweden 61% and Belgium 60%, while optimism is most robust in South Korea 68% and Singapore 66%. These are among the findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted from Feb. 1 to May 26, 2021, among 18,850 adults in 17 advanced economies. People concerned climate change will harm them during their lifetimes Many people across 17 advanced economies are concerned that global climate change will harm them personally at some point in their lifetime. A median of 72% express at least some concern that they will be personally harmed by climate change in their lifetimes, compared with medians of 19% and 11% who say they are not too or not at all concerned, respectively. The share who say they are very concerned climate change will harm them personally ranges from 15% in Sweden to 57% in Greece. Roughly two-thirds of Canadians and six-in-ten Americans are worried climate change will harm them in their lifetimes. Only 12% of Canadians and 17% of Americans are not at all concerned about the personal impact of global climate change. Publics in Europe express various degrees of concern for potential harm caused by climate change. Three-quarters or more of those in Greece, Spain, Italy, France and Germany say they are concerned that climate change will harm them at some point during their lives. Only in Sweden does less than a majority of adults express concern about climate change harming them. Indeed, 56% of Swedes are not concerned about personal harm related to climate change. In general, Asia-Pacific publics express more worry about climate change causing them personal harm than not. The shares who express concern range from 64% in Australia to 88% in South Korea. About one-third or more in South Korea, Singapore and Australia say they are very concerned climate change will harm them personally. The share who are very concerned climate change will harm them personally at some point during their lives has increased significantly since 2015 in nearly every country where trend data is available. In Germany, for example, the share who say they are very concerned has increased 19 percentage points over the past six years. Double-digit changes are also present in the UK +18 points, Australia +16, South Korea +13 and Spain +10. The only public where concern for the harm from climate change has decreased significantly since 2015 is Japan -8 points. While many worry climate change will harm them personally in the future, there is widespread sentiment that climate change is already affecting the world around them. In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2019 and 2020, a median of 70% across 20 publics surveyed said climate change is affecting where they live a great deal or some amount. And majorities in most countries included as part of a 26-nation survey in 2018 thought global climate change was a major threat to their own country the same was true across all 14 countries surveyed in 2020. Those who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those who place themselves on the right to be concerned global climate change will harm them personally during their lifetime. This pattern is present across all 14 nations where ideology is measured. In 10 of these 14, though, majorities across the ideological left, center and right are concerned climate change will harm them personally. The difference is starkest in the Liberals are 59 percentage points more likely than conservatives to express concern for this possibility 87% vs. 28%, respectively. However, large ideological differences are also present in Australia with liberals 41 points more likely to say this, the Netherlands +35, Canada +30, Sweden +30 and New Zealand +23. Women are more concerned than men that climate change will harm them personally in many of the publics polled. In Germany, women are 13 points more likely than men to be concerned that climate change will cause them harm 82% vs 69%, respectively. Double-digit differences are also present across several publics, including the Sweden, the UK, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and the Netherlands. When this question was first asked in 2015, women were also more likely to express concern than their male counterparts that climate change will harm them in the Germany, Canada, Japan, Spain and Australia. Young people have been at the forefront of past protests seeking government action on climate change. In eight places surveyed, young adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 65 and older to be concerned climate change will harm them during their lifetime. The difference is greatest in Sweden, home of youth climate activist Greta Thunberg. Young Swedes are 40 points more likely than their older counterparts to say they are concerned about harm from climate change. Large age gaps are also present in New Zealand with younger adults 31 points more likely to say this, Australia +30 and Singapore +20. And young Americans, French, Canadians and Brits are also more likely to say that climate change will personally harm them in their lifetimes. While large majorities across every age group in Greece and South Korea are concerned climate change will harm them personally, those ages 65 and older are more likely to hold this sentiment than those younger than 30. Many across the world willing to change how they live and work to reduce effects of climate change Many across the publics surveyed say they are willing to make at least some changes to the way they live and work to reduce the effects of climate change. A median of 80% across 17 publics say they would make at least some changes to their lives to reduce the effects of climate change, compared with a median of 19% who say they would make a few changes or no changes at all. The share willing to make a lot of changes ranges from 8% in Japan to 62% in Greece. In North America, about three-quarters or more of both Canadians and Americans say they are willing to make changes to reduce the effects of climate change. Large majorities across each of the European publics surveyed say they are willing to change personal behavior to address climate change, but the share who say they are willing to make a lot of changes varies considerably. About half or more in Greece, Italy and Spain say they would make a lot of changes, while fewer than a third in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands say the same. Majorities in each of the Asia-Pacific publics polled say they would make some or a lot of changes to how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change, including more than three-quarters in South Korea, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. But in Japan, fully 44% say they are willing to make few or no changes to how they live and work to address climate change, the largest share of any public surveyed. In eight countries surveyed, those ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 65 and older to say they are willing to make at least some changes to how they live and work to help reduce the effects of climate change. In France, for example, about nine-in-ten of those younger than 30 are willing to make changes in response to climate change, compared with 62% of those 65 and older. Ideologically, those on the left are more likely than those on the right to express willingness to change their behavior to help reduce the effects of global climate change. The ideological divide is widest in the where 94% of liberals say they are willing to make at least some changes to how they live and work to help reduce the effects of climate change, compared with 45% of conservatives. Large ideological differences are also present between those on the left and the right in Canada a difference of 26 percentage points, the Netherlands 25 points, Australia 23 points and Germany 22 points. In most publics, those with more education are more likely than those with less education to say they are willing to adjust their lifestyles in response to the impact of climate In Belgium, for example, those with a postsecondary degree or higher are 14 points more likely than those with a secondary education or below to say they are willing to make changes to the way they live. Double-digit differences are also present between those with more education and less education in France, Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Australia. And in most places surveyed, those with a higher-than-median income are more likely than those with a lower income to express willingness to make at least some changes to reduce the effects of climate change. For example, in Belgium, about three-quarters 76% of those with a higher income say they would make changes to their lives, compared with 66% of those with a lower income. Many are generally positive about how their society is handling climate change Respondents give mostly positive responses when asked to reflect on how their own society is handling climate change. Around half or more in most places say they their society is doing at least a somewhat good job, with a median of 56% saying this across the 17 advanced economies. Roughly two-thirds 64% of Canadians say their country is doing a good job, while nearly half of Americans say the same. In most of the European publics surveyed, majorities believe their nation’s climate change response is at least somewhat good. Those in Sweden and the UK are especially optimistic, with around seven-in-ten saying their society is doing a good job dealing with climate change. In Europe, Italians are the most critical of their country’s performance 20% say their society is doing a very bad job, the largest share among all publics surveyed. Around eight-in-ten in Singapore and New Zealand say their publics are doing a good job – the highest levels among all societies surveyed. This includes around a third 32% in Singapore who say they are doing a very good job. Adults in the other Asia-Pacific publics surveyed are more circumspect; about half or fewer say their society is doing a good job. Political ideology plays a role in how people evaluate their own public’s handling of climate change. For adults in 10 countries, those on the right tend to rate their country’s performance with regard to climate change more positively. The difference is most stark in Australia 69% of those on the right say Australia is handling climate change well, compared with just 19% of those on the left – a 50-point difference. A striking difference also appears in the where conservatives are 41 points more likely than liberals to say the is doing a good job dealing with climate change. Evaluations are also tied to how people view governing parties. In 10 of 17 publics surveyed, people who see the governing party positively are more likely than those with a negative view of the party to think climate change is being handled well. The opposite is true in the where only 33% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the is handling climate change well, compared with 61% of those who do not support the Democratic Party. Only a median of 46% across the publics polled are confident that actions taken by the international community will significantly reduce the effects of climate change. A median of 52% are not confident these actions will reduce the effects of climate change. Canadians are generally divided on whether international climate action can reduce the impact of climate change. And 54% of Americans are not confident in the international community’s response to the climate crisis. In Europe, majorities in Germany and the Netherlands express confidence that international climate action can significantly address climate change. However, majorities in France, Sweden, Belgium and Italy are not confident in climate actions taken by the international community. South Koreans and Singaporeans say they are confident in international climate action, but elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, public opinion is either divided or leans toward pessimism about international efforts. Opinion of international organizations, like the United Nations, is linked to confidence that actions taken by the international community will significantly reduce the effects of global climate change. Those with a favorable view of the UN are more confident that actions taken by the international community will significantly reduce the effects of climate change than those with an unfavorable view of the UN. This difference is largest in the where 61% with a favorable view of the UN say international action will reduce the effects of climate change, compared with just 22% of those with an unfavorable view of the organization. Double-digit differences are present in every public polled. Similarly, in every EU member state included in the survey, those with favorable views of the bloc are more likely to have confidence in international efforts to combat climate change than those with unfavorable views. Little consensus on whether international climate action will harm or benefit domestic economies Relatively few in the advanced economies surveyed think actions taken by the international community to address climate change, such as the Paris climate agreement, will mostly benefit or harm their own economy. A median of 31% across 17 publics say these actions will be good for their economy, while a median of 24% believe such actions will mostly harm their economy. A median of 39% say actions like the Paris climate agreement will have no economic impact. In Sweden, about half 51% feel international climate actions will mostly benefit their economy. On the other hand, only 18% in France say their public will benefit economically from international climate agreements. In no public do more than a third say international action on climate change will harm their economy. But in the which pulled out of the Paris climate agreement under former President Donald Trump and has just recently rejoined the accord under President Joe Biden, a third say international climate agreements will harm the economy. For more on how international publics view Biden’s international policy actions, see “America’s Image Abroad Rebounds With Transition From Trump to Biden.” The more widespread sentiment among those surveyed is that climate actions will have no impact on domestic economies. In eight publics, four-in-ten or more hold this opinion, including half in France. And in two places – Japan and Taiwan – one-in-five or more offer no opinion. Those on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those on the right to say international action to address climate change – such as the Paris Agreement – will mostly benefit their economies. respondents are particularly divided by ideology. Roughly half 53% of liberals feel international actions related to climate change will benefit the economy, compared with just 12% of conservatives. The next largest difference is in Canada, where those on the left are 24 percentage points more likely than those on the right to think this type of international action will benefit their economy. Those on the right in many publics are, in turn, more likely than those on the left to think international actions such as the Paris Agreement will mostly harm their economies. Here again, ideological divisions in the are much larger than those in other publics 65% of conservatives say international climate change actions will harm the American economy, compared with 12% of liberals who say the same. In several advanced economies, those who say their current economic situation is good are more likely to say that actions taken by the international community to address climate change will mostly benefit their economies than those who say the economic situation is bad. In Sweden, for example, a majority 55% of those who say the current economic situation is good also believe international action like the Paris Agreement will benefit the Swedish economy, compared with 31% who are more negative about the state of the economy. Evaluating the climate change response from the EU, UN, and China In addition to reflecting on their own public, respondents were asked to evaluate how four international organizations or countries are handling global climate change. Of the entities asked about, the European Union receives the best ratings, with a median of 63% across the 17 publics surveyed saying the EU is doing a good job handling climate change. A median of 56% say the same for the United Nations. Far fewer believe the or China – the two leading nations in carbon dioxide emissions – are doing a good job. EU handling of climate change receives high marks in and outside of Europe Majorities in all but two of the publics surveyed think the EU is doing a good job addressing climate change. However, this positivity is tempered, with most respondents saying the EU’s effort is somewhat good, but few saying it is very good. Praise for the bloc’s response to climate change is common among the European countries surveyed. In Spain and Greece, around seven-in-ten say the EU is doing at least a somewhat good job, and about six-in-ten or more in the UK, Italy, Sweden and France agree. The Dutch and Germans have more mixed feelings about how the EU is responding to climate change. Notably, only about one-in-ten say the EU is doing a very bad job handling climate change in every European country surveyed but Sweden, where only 5% say so. Seven-in-ten Canadians believe the EU is doing a good job dealing with climate change, and 62% in the express the same view. The Asia-Pacific publics surveyed report similarly positive attitudes on the EU’s climate plans. Around seven-in-ten Australians and Singaporeans consider the EU’s response to climate change at least somewhat good. About six-in-ten or more in New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan echo this sentiment. Climate change actions by UN seen positively among most surveyed Majorities in most publics also consider the UN response to climate change to be good. A median of 49% across all publics surveyed say that the UN’s actions are somewhat good, and a median of 5% say the actions are very good. Canadians evaluate the UN’s performance on climate more positively than Americans do. In Canada, roughly six-in-ten say the multilateral organization is doing at least a somewhat good job handling climate change. About half of those in the agree with that evaluation, with 43% of Americans saying the UN is doing a bad job of dealing with climate change. In Europe, majorities in Spain, Sweden, the UK, Greece and Italy approve of how the UN is dealing with climate change. Fewer than half of adults in the Netherlands, France and Belgium agree with this evaluation, and only about a third in Germany say the same. Singaporeans stand out as the greatest share of adults among those surveyed who see the UN’s handling of climate change as good. This includes 14% who say the UN response is very good, which is at least double the share in all other societies surveyed. Majorities in Australia and New Zealand similarly say that the UN is doing a good job. Many critical of approach to climate change In most publics surveyed, adults who say the is doing a good job of handling climate change are in the minority. A median of 33% say the is doing a somewhat good job, and a median of just 3% believe the is doing a very good job. About half of Americans say their own country is doing a good job in dealing with global climate change, but six-in-ten Canadians say their southern neighbor is doing a bad job. Across Europe, most think the is doing a bad job of addressing climate change, including 75% of Germans and Swedes. And at least a quarter in all European nations surveyed except the UK and Greece say the is doing a very bad job. Singaporeans offer the approach to climate change the most praise in the Asia-Pacific region and across all publics surveyed; around half say they see the strategy positively. New Zealanders are the most critical in the Asia-Pacific region Only about a quarter say the is doing at least a somewhat good job. Political ideology is linked to evaluations of the climate strategy. In 12 countries, those on the right of the political spectrum are significantly more likely than those on the left to say the is doing a good job dealing with global climate change. The difference is greatest in Australia, Canada and Italy. Few give China positive marks for handling of climate change The publics surveyed are unenthusiastic about how China is dealing with climate change. A median of 18% across the publics say China is doing a good job, compared with a median of 78% who say the opposite. Notably, a median of 45% say that China is doing a very bad job handling climate change. Just 18% of Americans and Canadians believe China is doing a good job handling climate change. Similarly, few in Europe think China is dealing effectively with climate change. In fact, more than four-in-ten in nearly all European countries polled say China is doing a very bad job with regards to climate change. Criticism is less common in Greece, where a third give China positive marks for its climate change action. Adults in the Asia-Pacific region also generally give China poor ratings for dealing with climate change. South Koreans are exceptionally critical; about two-thirds say China is doing a very bad job, the highest share in all publics surveyed. About four-in-ten or more in New Zealand, Japan and Australia concur. Singaporeans stand out, as half say China is doing a good job, nearly 20 percentage points higher than the next highest public. In nine countries surveyed, those with less education are more positive toward China’s response to climate change than those with more education. Likewise, those with lower incomes are more inclined to provide positive evaluations of China’s climate change response. Those with less education or lower incomes are also less likely to provide a response in several publics. CORRECTION Oct. 13, 2021 In the chart “Publics are divided over the economic impact of international actions to address global climate change,” the “Don’t Know” column has been edited to reflect updated percentages to correct for a data tabulation error. These changes did not affect the report’s substantive findings. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC recently released the first report of the sixth assessment cycle. Three others will follow in 2022. This volume of nearly 4,000 pages has observations on climate change from the past 150 years and projections for climate change up to the end of this century. It is being published 31 years after the first assessment cycle and eight years after the fifth assessment cycle. Overall, this latest report does not provide major new insights into climate change or the impact of human activity on it. It does, however, improve our understanding of the human role in climate change and reduce uncertainty about anticipated future impacts. By refining observation methods and improving the accuracy of climate models, the report makes it possible to better define the future impacts on the densely populated areas of southern Ontario and Québec. We are professors of construction engineering and members of the HC3 — Hydrology Climate Climate Change Laboratory at the École de technologie supérieure de Montréal. The laboratory specializes in the study of hydrology, climate and the impact of climate change on water resources. Warming twice as fast The average global temperature on Earth has increased C since the pre-industrial era. Climate projections predict a temperature increase between 2 C and C by the end of this century. This does not take into account the most pessimistic greenhouse gas emissions scenario, which is now considered improbable by most experts. Read more 5 things to watch for in the latest IPCC report on climate science This warming, however, is not geographically uniform. On the whole, southern Ontario and Québec are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of the world. Northern regions are warming three times as fast. The faster warming is mainly because of the ice–albedo feedback loop that is linked to the progressive loss of snow cover. This process means, among other things, that solar radiation, which is normally reflected by the snow, will be absorbed instead. We should therefore anticipate an average annual warming of 3 C to 6 C over southern Québec by the end of the century. Swimmers bob in the wave pool for the Super Aqua Club in Pointe-Calumet. The Montréal region had its warmest August on record. The Canadian Press/Ryan Remiorz However, the warming will not be evenly distributed across the seasons. Winters will warm significantly more than summer. This means future winters will be C warmer, with less snow cover and a decrease in spring flooding from melting. Changes in extreme events Rising temperatures have several other adverse effects, including changes in extreme events. The evidence that these are due to human activity has strengthened since the IPCC’s Fifth Report. It is now well established that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an overall increase in the frequency and/or intensity of some extreme weather and climate events since the pre-industrial era. Future projections on a global scale are consistent with this trend. At the regional scale, the magnitude of change varies according to local factors related to changes in land use, such as urbanization or an increase in the area used for agriculture, aerosol emissions into the atmosphere via industrial activity and feedback mechanisms, such as ice-albedo feedback. Read more Scientists moor ship in Arctic ice for a year to better understand climate change The report provides little detail about heat waves on a regional scale. That said, for North America, an increase in frequency and intensity is expected by the end of the century. All North American regions will also experience an increase in the intensity and frequency of warm extremes and a decrease in the frequency and intensity of cold extremes. Rainfall and flooding The projected increases in rainfall extremes will depend on a number of factors, including the duration of rainfall events and their rarity. Short-duration rainfall extremes that occur infrequently once every 10 years or more will become more intense. But a good portion of the existing water management infrastructure, which has a long life span, will adapt poorly to these increases. Floods from spring snow melt will likely decrease, due to the decrease in snow cover. But there may be a large increase in “flash floods,” caused by extreme summer and autumn rainfall. These are particularly likely to affect small rural catchments and urbanized areas. Firefighters make their way down a flooded street in Ste-Marthe-sur-la-Lac, in May 2019. With climate change, there will be a potentially large increase in flooding from extreme summer and fall rains. The Canadian Press/Ryan Remiorz The IPCC analyzed other indicators, including extreme heat, drought and winter conditions. Using these indicators, a number of conclusions can be drawn for southern Ontario and Québec. By the end of the century, the maximum daily temperature could regularly exceed 35 C during the summer months. Read more Extreme heat waves are putting lakes and rivers in hot water this summer Only the most pessimistic emissions scenario points to an increase in the severity of droughts. For the other scenarios, no clear signals emerge, which means further studies are clearly needed. The snow season is expected to shorten by the end of the century compared to 1995-2014. A shorter frost season is also expected. Adapting to climate change Ontario and Québec are warming and are not immune to the effects of anthropogenic climate change. While efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be pursued, it is essential to implement adequate adaptation measures to face an uncertain future climate. This first volume of the IPCC’s sixth report mentions the need to strengthen climate services, which is encouraging. These services are provided by a variety of organizations around the world. They are aimed at providing climate information to support decision-making, by linking science and data production with communication and application by citizens and decision makers. More details will be provided in the second volume of the report. NEW YORK AP — Smoke from Canadian wildfires poured into the East Coast and Midwest on Wednesday, covering the capitals of both nations in an unhealthy haze, holding up flights at major airports, postponing Major League Baseball games and prompting people to fish out pandemic-era face officials asked other countries for additional help fighting more than 400 blazes nationwide that already have displaced 20,000 people. Air with hazardous levels of pollution extended into the New York metropolitan area, central New York state and parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Massive tongues of unhealthy air extended as far as North Carolina and Indiana, affecting millions of people.“I can taste the air,” Dr. Ken Strumpf said in a Facebook post from Syracuse, New York, which was enveloped in an amber pall. The smoke, he later said by phone, even made him a bit dizzy. The air quality index, a Environmental Protection Agency metric for air pollution, exceeded a staggering 400 at times in Syracuse, New York City and Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. A level of 50 or under is considered good; anything over 300 is considered “hazardous,” when even healthy people are advised to curtail outdoor physical activity. In Baltimore, Debbie Funk sported a blue surgical mask as she and husband, Jack Hughes, took their daily walk around Fort McHenry, a national monument overlooking the Patapsco River. The air hung thick over the water, obscuring the horizon.“I walked outside this morning, and it was like a waft of smoke,” said Funk. Canadian officials say this is shaping up to be the nation’s worst wildfire season ever. It started early on drier-than-usual ground and accelerated very quickly, exhausting firefighting resources across the country, fire and environmental officials from the blazes in various parts of the country has been lapping into the since last month but intensified with recent fires in Quebec, where about 100 were considered out of control Wednesday — which, unsettlingly, was national Clean Air Day in Canada. The smoke was so thick in downtown Ottawa, Canada’s capital, that office towers just across the Ottawa River were barely visible. In Toronto, Yili Ma said her hiking plans were canceled and she was forgoing restaurant patios, a beloved Canadian summer tradition.“I put my mask away for over a year, and now I’m putting on my mask since yesterday,” the 31-year-old lamented. Quebec Premier François Legault said the province currently has the capacity to fight about 40 fires — and the usual reinforcements from other provinces have been strained by conflagrations in Nova Scotia and elsewhere. Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre spokesperson Jennifer Kamau said more than 950 firefighters and other personnel have arrived from the Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and more are due soon. In Washington, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Joe Biden has sent more than 600 firefighters and equipment to Canada. His administration has contacted some governors and local officials about providing assistance, she Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Twitter that he spoke by phone with Biden and “thanked him for all the help Americans are providing as we continue to fight these devastating wildfires.”The largest town in Northern Quebec — Chibougamau, population about 7,500 — was evacuated Tuesday, and Legault said the roughly 4,000 residents of the northern Cree town of Mistissini would likely have to leave Wednesday. But later in the day, Mistissini Chief Michael Petawabano said his community remains safe and asked residents to wait for instructions from Cree Quebec got some rain Wednesday, but Montreal-based Environment Canada meteorologist Simon Legault said no significant rain is expected for days in the remote areas of central Quebec where the wildfires are more National Weather Service meteorologist Zach Taylor said the current weather pattern in the central and eastern is essentially funneling in the smoke. Some rain should help clear the air somewhat in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic this weekend or early next week, though more thorough relief will come from containing or extinguishing the fires, he York Gov. Kathy Hochul said 1 million N95 masks would be available at state facilities. New York City closed beaches, and Mayor Eric Adams told residents to stay indoors as much as possible as smoke smudged out the skyline. Zoos in the Bronx and Central Park closed early and brought their animals inside. The Federal Aviation Administration paused some flights bound for LaGuardia Airport and slowed planes to Newark Liberty and Philadelphia because the smoke was limiting visibility. It also contributed to delayed arrivals at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, where a heavy haze shrouded the Washington Monument and forced the cancellation of outdoor tours. Major League Baseball put off games in New York and Philadelphia, and even an indoor WNBA game in Brooklyn was called off. On Broadway, “Killing Eve” star Jodie Comer had difficulty breathing and left the matinee of “Prima Facie” after 10 minutes; the show restarted with an understudy, show publicists said. “Hamilton” and “Camelot” canceled Wednesday evening performances, with “Hamilton” publicists saying the the deteriorating air quality “made it impossible for a number of our artists to perform.” In Central Park, the popular outdoor Shakespeare in the Park performances were put off through in multiple states canceled sports and other outdoor activities, shifting recess inside. Live horse racing was canceled Wednesday and Thursday at Delaware Park in Wilmington. Organizers of Global Running Day, a virtual 5K, advised participants to adjust their plans according to air Jersey closed state offices early, and some political demonstrations in spots from Manhattan to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were moved indoors or postponed. Striking Hollywood writers were pulled off picket lines in the New York metropolitan area. The smoke exacerbated health problems for people such as Vicki Burnett, 67, who has asthma and has had serious bouts with bronchitis. After taking her dogs out Wednesday morning in Farmington Hills, Michigan, Burnett said, “I came in and started coughing and hopped back into bed.” Still, she stressed that she’s concerned for Canadians, not just herself. “It’s unfortunate, and I’m having some problems for it, but there should be help for them,” she reported from Toronto. Contributing were Associated Press journalists Randall Chase in Dover, Delaware; Michael Hill in Albany, New York; David Koenig in Dallas; Aamer Madhani in Washington; Brooke Schultz in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Lea Skene in Baltimore; Carolyn Thompson in Buffalo, New York; Ron Todt in Philadelphia; Corey Williams in West Bloomfield, Michigan; and Ron Blum, Mark Kennedy, Jake Offenhartz, Karen Matthews and Julie Walker in New York. ___This story has corrected the attribution of material about forecast for rain in Quebec to Montreal-based Environment Canada meteorologist Simon Legault, not Quebec Premier François Legault. The environmental movement seeks to protect the natural world and promote sustainable living. It had its beginnings in the conservation efforts of the early 1900s. During this time, conservationists aimed to slow the rapid depletion of Canadian resources in favour of more regulated management. Many scholars divide the evolution of the environmental movement into “waves.” These waves are periods in time easily characterized by certain themes. While the number of waves and their characterization may differ from scholar to scholar, they’re often defined as follows The first wave focused on conservation; the second, pollution; the third, the professionalization of environmental groups; and the fourth, climate change. The environmental movement seeks to protect the natural world and promote sustainable living. It had its beginnings in the conservation efforts of the early 1900s. During this time, conservationists aimed to slow the rapid depletion of Canadian resources in favour of more regulated management. Many scholars divide the evolution of the environmental movement into “waves.” These waves are periods in time easily characterized by certain themes. While the number of waves and their characterization may differ from scholar to scholar, they’re often defined as follows The first wave focused on conservation; the second, pollution; the third, the professionalization of environmental groups; and the fourth, climate change. Indigenous Peoples For centuries Indigenous peoples lived off the land causing little to no destruction. Many Indigenous peoples believe that human beings are part of an interconnected environment. There is no superiority over the land, plants or animals they share space with. Such practices as clearing areas for settlement and agriculture, or driving game by lighting fires, would have affected the natural environment. However, there is little evidence that these activities caused any long-term damage. Furthermore, First Nations and Inuit family groups often moved their settlements to new areas for better hunting. This allowed the regions left behind to grow back and repopulate with wildlife. For these reasons, there were few large-scale conservation problems before the first permanent European settlement in the 17th century. Early Influences Upon their arrival, explorers and European colonists began to catalogue Canada’s natural history. These studies laid the foundation for botany, geology, paleontology and zoology in Canada. Notable among these early naturalists were Samuel de Champlain. Champlain kept detailed accounts of the flora, fauna and climate he was experiencing for the first time. Other examples include pioneer writer Catharine Parr Trail and later, Frère Marie-Victorin. Initially, European scientific traditions shaped the views of these early naturalists. Writers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and Archibald Belaney and his wife, Anahareo, were also influential. American thinkers had an even greater effect. These thinkers included ornithologist John James Audubon, who visited Canada in the 1830s, and writers James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. American conservationists John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club 1892, and Gifford Pinchot were also significant. First Wave Late 1800s-Early 1900s Initially, European colonists viewed North America’s vast wilderness as inexhaustible. However, as the landscape shifted from forest to farmland, efforts to preserve the continent’s natural resources grew. These conservationist efforts came to characterize North America’s first wave of environmentalism. Individuals with close ties to the forestry industry initiated many of Canada’s early conservation efforts. These lumbermen witnessed the rapid depletion of Canadian forests. They advocated for controlled harvesting and reserved areas for future use. In 1900, Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière, former premier of Quebec, led the establishment of the Canadian Forestry Association. See also Forestry; Lumberjacks. Despite these early efforts, Americans were generally ahead of Canadians in organizing around conservationist goals. This was likely because there was more extensive settlement in the United States. This settlement demonstrated the harm that civilization could do. In Canada, the pioneer mentality of “unlimited” forests, lakes and wildlife persisted longer. It was American President Theodore Roosevelt, for example, who invited Mexico and Canada to join the United States at the North American Conservation Conference in 1909. The conference led to the establishment of Canada’s Commission of Conservation. Clifford Sifton, former minister of the interior, chaired the commission. It made recommendations that foreshadowed the tenets of more modern environmentalism. They included not overcutting forests, the use of organic agricultural fertilizers and recycling. First Wave National and Provincial Parks The development of national parks also illustrates the difference between early American and Canadian conservation action. For example, the first American national park, Yellowstone, opened in 1872. By comparison, while the first Canadian national park, Banff, wasn’t formed until 1885. Moreover, the purpose of Banff as well as Yoho and Glacier national parks, both created in 1886 was more economic than conservationist. In creating these Rocky Mountain reserves, the government aimed to generate revenue and promote tourist travel along the newly minted Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1916, the United States passed the National Park Service Act. The Act stated that parks were to be “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” As with the development of parks themselves, Canada also lagged behind the States in adopting this type of language. Finally, in 1930, the Canadian National Parks Act incorporated this type of wording. In this respect, 1930 marked a turning point in Canadian conservation thought. In the area of wildlife conservation, however, Canada did create several protected areas quite early see Wildlife Conservation and Management. For example, the first federal bird sanctuary in North America was created in Saskatchewan in 1887. By 1889, the plains bison had been reduced from about 60 million to less than 2,000 animals. So, in 1907 and 1909, the government purchased about 700 bison and placed them in national parks. In addition, between 1910 and 1920, three areas were set aside as reserves for antelope in Alberta and Saskatchewan though they were later abolished. In 1911, Canada formally established a parks branch. James Harkin was appointed the Dominion parks commissioner. The American conservation movement deeply influenced Harkin. He was probably the first leading Canadian to argue for protection of wilderness for its own sake. Canada’s first significant international conservation effort was a treaty with the United States 1916 for the protection of migratory birds. Until 1945, conservation in Canada focused on establishing national and provincial parks in remote areas. With increased urbanization and the proliferation of the automobile, parks increasingly became an escape for city dwellers. Emphasis shifted to expanding parks for recreational purposes by creating hiking trails, camping grounds and swimming facilities. Second Wave 1960s–1970s The 1960s marked a different era for conservation and the environmental movement in Canada. Conservationist attitudes were no longer restricted primarily to naturalist groups. In addition to using resources wisely, a growing number of Canadians became concerned about the effects of human activity on the environment. Second Wave Environmentalism During the 1960s, concern about pollution became a major public issue. Environmentalists, particularly those in urban areas, organized specialized groups. These groups included the Society for the Promotion of Environmental Conservation in British Columbia now Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, or SPEC, Pollution Probe in Ontario, and the Ecology Action Centre in the Maritimes. Scientists such as Donald Chant led these groups. Issues such as air pollution, water pollution, hazardous wastes and the careless use of pesticides deeply concerned Chant. In 1971, Greenpeace was founded in Vancouver. The organization soon became a high-profile, international activist force for various environmental causes. During the 1970s, Canadian environmentalists also focused on major energy projects. These projects included the James Bay Project in Quebec and the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. In each case, environmentalists brought the project’s ecological impacts, as well as its impact on Indigenous communities Cree and Inuit in Quebec; Dene, Inuit and Métis in the territories to the fore. While the James Bay Project went through, the pipeline was cancelled. Second Wave Conservation The nature conservation movement received a boost from the environmentalism of the 1960s. The Canadian Wildlife Federation was established in 1961, the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada now the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in 1963, the World Wildlife Fund Canada in 1967 and the Canadian arm of the Sierra Club in 1970. In addition, in 1971, the Canadian Audubon Society and several of its affiliates established the Canadian Nature Federation now Nature Canada, a national assembly of naturalist groups from across the country. Scientific biological associations and groups traditionally less active in conservation issues, such as game and fish associations, also increased their emphasis on environmental issues. During this period, the concern for nature conservation centred on preserving wilderness and protecting unique areas or ecosystems as ecological reserves. Each province experienced a burst in the growth of local groups focusing on local conservation and environmental issues. Provincial naturalist and conservation federations became increasingly active and vocal. In a single decade, federal and provincial governments established ministries or departments of the environment, environmental protection Acts and environmental assessment legislation see Environmental Impact Assessment. Acts to protect endangered species, such as that passed in Ontario in 1971, were unique in the world because they sought to protect rare or endangered species of all plants and animals including insects. In 1978, the intergovernmental Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSEWIC began to define a national list of species at risk see alsoEndangered Animals in Canada; Endangered Plants in Canada. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment convened in Stockholm. Canada was well represented. As a result, Canadian conservation efforts began to include participation in certain international agencies. These agencies included the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. As awareness grew that all people depend on clear air, water and healthy ecosystems, Canadians began to see environmental concerns in a global context. Third Wave 1980s–1990s Environmentalism at the end of the 20th century continued to focus on issues of global concern. Whereas earlier environmentalists were wary of business, environmentalists during this period were more willing to work with corporate culture in order to find solutions to environmental problems. In addition, non-governmental organizations NGOs began to play a stronger role in the environmental movement in Canada. For example, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain 1981–91 helped obtain agreements between Canada and the United States to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions see Acid Rain. In 1985, Ducks Unlimited launched the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The plan was a $ billion, 15-year effort to conserve wetlands in Canada. In late 1989, World Wildlife Fund Canada launched its 10-year national Endangered Spaces Campaign. The campaign aimed to complete a network of protected areas representing all terrestrial natural regions of Canada. Although the organization did not reach its goal, the campaign helped establish of over 1,000 new parks, wilderness areas and nature reserves. This effort more than doubled the number of protected areas across the country. Did you know? On 16 September 1987, 24 countries and the European Economic Community signed the Montreal Protocol in Montreal, Quebec. Sometimes referred to by its formal title, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the agreement regulates the consumption and production of approximately 100 man-made, ozone-depleting chemicals. By fall of 2009 it had been signed by every recognized nation on Earth, amounting to 197 signatories in total. To date, the Montreal Protocol is the only United Nations treaty that every country in the world has ratified. Canadian environmentalists also made huge gains through multi-party negotiations and agreements. For example, beginning in 1994, environmental groups focussed their efforts on British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest. They worked with companies such as Home Depot and Ikea to put pressure on logging companies. In 2006, these groups, along with multiple First Nations and the BC government, signed the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement. The agreement laid out measures to protect the forest through sustainable logging practices. Finally, this period marked the movement’s formal entry into politics with the founding of the Green Party of Canada in 1983. Since then, the party has witnessed major growth. In 2004, Green Party candidates ran in every federal riding for the first time. In 2011, leader Elizabeth May became the first Green Party member to be elected to the House of Commons. Fourth Wave 2000s At the turn of the 21st century, climate change emerged as an overarching global and national concern for environmental activists and nature conservationists alike. In the late 1980s, Canada was a leader in terms of climate change action. In 1988, for example, Canada hosted the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto, one of the earliest global meetings on the topic. Climate change drew international attention with the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The protocol required nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — the gases responsible for climate change — by a certain amount. With the notable exceptions of the United States, Australia and Monaco, every industrialized country ratified the agreement. Canada ratified the agreement in 2002 under the leadership of Jean Chrétien’s Liberals. In 2011, Canada withdrew from the agreement. The government of the day, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, cited a number of reasons for withdrawing, including how far Canada lagged behind the protocol’s targets. In the years that followed, the same administration made it increasingly difficult for environmentalists and their organizations to operate in Canada. Scientific institutions were eliminated or had their federal government funding reduced, and the public’s access to scientific research became increasingly limited. For example, environmental charities faced an increasing number of federal government audits, a time-consuming process that slowed their work and put them at risk of losing their charitable status. Critics also accused the government of trying to put a chill on environmental protest by branding environmental groups as radicals or potential threats to national security. For example, a 2012 anti-terrorism strategy referred to environmental grievances as a source of domestic extremism. “Environmentalism has failed,” David Suzuki wrote in a 2012 blog post. Against the backdrop of decreasing government support for environmental initiatives, the internationally renowned Canadian environmentalist lamented the global emphasis on “economy over environment.” Two years later he launched the Blue Dot campaign, an initiative aimed at having the right to a healthy environment recognized by all levels of government and enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite the setbacks articulated by Suzuki, certain initiatives instigated during environmentalism’s third wave now have a seemingly permanent place in Canadian society. Environmentally friendly products, for example, are often found on the shelves of grocery stores, and local food movements have taken hold in many communities across the country. Provinces have also made individual efforts at combatting climate change. For example, in 2014, Ontario closed the doors on its last coal-fired power plant, having replaced each with emission-free or lower-emission electricity facilities. Similarly, in 2008, British Columbia instituted a carbon tax an amount of money owed to the government for each tonne of greenhouse gases a company or individual produces. It was the first jurisdiction in North America to do so. In October 2015, Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister. He made climate change a focus of the first few months of his leadership, signing the Paris Agreement in April 2016. The agreement, signed by nearly 200 countries, outlines the ways in which the international community will cooperate to keep global warming to above pre-industrial levels. Trudeau also changed the name of Environment Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada — an important semantic shift for many environmentalists. Fourth Wave Youth Movement Youth are also playing an increasing role in environmental activism. In 2005, Montreal hosted the United Nations’ 11th annual Conference of the Parties COP. During COP meetings, signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meet to discuss their progress in combatting climate warming. Prior to COP11, youth from around the world met in Montreal. Together they created the first Conference of Youth. These conferences now take place annually in advance of the COP meeting. In 2016, then 12-year-old Autumn Peltier attended the annual meeting of the Assembly of First Nations. Peltier is a water rights advocate and member of the Wiikwemkoong First Nation. At the meeting, Peltier confronted Prime Minister Trudeau on his government’s environmental policies. In particular, she drew attention to Trudeau’s support of pipelines and the risk they pose to local waterways. Following the passing of her great-aunt Josephine Mandamin in February 2019, Peltier was named Chief Water Commissioner of the Anishinabek Nation. In August 2018, Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg protested in front of her country’s parliament every school day for three weeks. Thunberg’s strike was against Sweden’s lack of action in fighting climate change. Later that year, Thunberg spoke at the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP24. Thunberg’s activism inspired the Fridays For Future movement. As part of this movement, students around the world, including in Canada, leave school on Fridays to demand climate action. On 27 September 2019, Thunberg met with Justin Trudeau in Montreal, ahead of a climate change rally. She told the prime minister he is not doing enough in the fight against climate change, the same message she gives to every politician she speaks to. A person jogs through a Brooklyn park on a hazy morning resulting from Canadian wildfires on June 6 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Dozens of wildfires are burning in the Canadian province of Québec, and the smoke is so bad that it's causing air quality problems across large swaths of the The National Weather Service said air quality has "plummeted" across the Northeast. Officials from the Midwest to the East Coast and as far south as North Carolina are warning residents to take precautions as the hazy smoke floats south and poses a risk to public health. Canada has been experiencing a particularly brutal wildfire season this year, as extreme weather is worsening in part due to climate change. Blazes have recently flared up across Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Where did all of this thick, heavy smoke across the Northeast come from? Raging wildfires in Quebec are generating large smoke plumes to the north and ALL of the smoke is being funneled right into the Northeast. Unfortunately, more smoke is on the way for tonight and Wednesday. NWS Mount Holly NWS_MountHolly June 6, 2023 Earlier fires have also sent smoke into the neighboring and Canadian officials are warning that the country's wildfire situation may get worse as the summer wears on. "This is a scary time for a lot of people, not just in Alberta, but right across the country, including in the Atlantic, the North and Québec, too," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference on Monday. Canada is in the midst of an especially bad wildfire season So far this year, there have been 2,214 wildfires across Canada, according to Minister of Emergency Preparedness Bill Blair. The blazes have burned million hectares — or more than 8 million acres. The country is currently battling 413 wildfires, 249 of which are categorized as out of control, and an estimated 26,000 people remain evacuated from their homes. Across Québec, more than 150 fires are raging, many of which are burning out of control, according to the province's forest protection service. Authorities have restricted access to parts of the forest and closed some roads. Though officials said they hope precipitation forecasted for later in the week will help suppress the fires, the blazes were still sending smoke into the on Tuesday. The Statue of Liberty stands shrouded in a reddish haze as a result of Canadian wildfires on Tuesday. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images The Statue of Liberty stands shrouded in a reddish haze as a result of Canadian wildfires on Tuesday. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Some states are being blanketed by Canadian wildfire smoke The Environmental Protection Agency and state officials in New England were predicting that wildfire smoke would linger over the region for a few days. Poor air quality alerts were in effect for all or parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. New York issued an air quality health advisory Tuesday for fine particulate matter in many parts of the state, including the New York City metro area. Some Midwestern states were under threat from wildfire smoke, with air quality warnings in states including Minnesota, Wisconsin and Indiana. Southern states were also impacted. Charlotte, and nearby areas were under a code orange air quality action day on Tuesday. According to AirNow, an air quality database maintained by several federal agencies, moderate air quality and air quality unhealthy for certain groups was also recorded in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and several other states. Here's what one disaster preparedness expert says you should do "How concerned you should be has a lot to do with your own situation," Jeff Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, told NPR. Not everybody is equally vulnerable to poor air quality, he said. It can be especially harmful for certain groups, including those with lung and heart disease, the elderly and pregnant people. Poorer communities already at a higher risk for diseases that can be worsened by unsafe air are also less able to pay for protective measures needed to guard against exposure. The severity of poor air quality can also vary, which is why the uses a color-coded systems to communicate how bad the air is in a certain place at a given time. Under the Air Quality Index, green indicates the best conditions while maroon is the worst. Still, Schlegelmilch says everyone should heed officials' warnings about poor air quality. Common recommendations include staying indoors and using an air filter, wearing a mask like an N95 when outside and avoiding strenuous activities. Air quality has plummeted across much of the northeast as smoke from wildfires in Canada moves south. Poor air quality can be hazardous. Before spending time outdoors, check the air quality forecast. Make sure you aren’t doing yourself more harm than good. National Weather Service NWS June 6, 2023 "If you've got a red alert for air quality, it's probably not the time to go out and go for that jog or go for that run," he said, "because you're breathing in more air and you're breathing in more air more deeply." Schlegelmilch says people should treat poor air quality as an ongoing health concern rather than a one-off event, since extreme weather is only going to worsen in the future and even repeated exposure to low levels of poor air quality can have a cumulative negative impact on your health. "I think it's really important that we sort of think of these things as we do any other type of health or hygiene process. It's a process. It's not one moment in time that we take a specific action and we're protected," he said. "When the air quality is bad, we have to take some of these protective measures for ourselves, both for the short-term and the long-term." IPCC report Code red’ for human driven global heating, warns UN chief Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Scientists are also observing changes across the whole of Earth’s climate system; in the atmosphere, in the oceans, ice floes, and on land. Many of these changes are unprecedented, and some of the shifts are in motion now, while some - such as continued sea level rise – are already irreversible’ for centuries to millennia, ahead, the report warns. But there is still time to limit climate change, IPCC experts say. Strong and sustained reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide CO2 and other greenhouse gases, could quickly make air quality better, and in 20 to 30 years global temperatures could stabilize. Code red for humanity’ The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the Working Group's report was nothing less than "a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable". He noted that the internationally-agreed threshold of degrees above pre-industrial levels of global heating was "perilously close. We are at imminent risk of hitting degrees in the near term. The only way to prevent exceeding this threshold, is by urgently stepping up our efforts, and persuing the most ambitious path. "We must act decisively now, to keep alive." The UN chief in a detailed reaction to the report, said that solutions were clear. "Inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air and better health are possible for all, if we respond to this crisis with solidarity and courage", he said. He added that ahead of the crucial COP26 climate conference in Glasgow in November, all nations - especiall the advanced G20 economies - needed to join the net zero emissions coaltion, and reinforce their promises on slowing down and reversing global heating, "with credible, concrete, and enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions NDCs" that lay out detailed steps. Human handiwork The report, prepared by 234 scientists from 66 countries, highlights that human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years. In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years, and concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide were higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over a least the last 2,000 years. For example, temperatures during the most recent decade 2011–2020 exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6,500 years ago, the report indicates. Meanwhile, global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900, than over any preceding century in at least the last 3,000 years. The document shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately of warming between 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed of heating. Ice sheets in Jökulsárlón, Iceland. Time is running out The IPCC scientists warn global warming of 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century. Unless rapid and deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades, achieving the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement “will be beyond reach”. The assessment is based on improved data on historical warming, as well as progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused emissions. “It has been clear for decades that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the role of human influence on the climate system is undisputed,” said IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair, Valérie Masson-Delmotte. “Yet the new report also reflects major advances in the science of attribution – understanding the role of climate change in intensifying specific weather and climate events”. A major new UN climate report issues a code red for humanity Extreme changes The experts reveal that human activities affect all major climate system components, with some responding over decades and others over centuries. Scientists also point out that evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and their attribution to human influence, has strengthened. They add that many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming. This includes increases in the frequency and intensity of heat extremes, marine heatwaves, and heavy precipitation; agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions; the proportion of intense tropical cyclones; as well as reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover and permafrost. The report makes clear that while natural drivers will modulate human-caused changes, especially at regional levels and in the near term, they will have little effect on long-term global warming. Air pollution from power plants contributes to global warming. A century of change, everywhere The IPCC experts project that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions. For of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes are more likely to reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health. But it won’t be just about temperature. For example, climate change is intensifying the natural production of water – the water cycle. This brings more intense rainfall and associated flooding, as well as more intense drought in many regions. It is also affecting rainfall patterns. In high latitudes, precipitation is likely to increase, while it is projected to decrease over large parts of the subtropics. Changes to monsoon rain patterns are expected, which will vary by region, the report warns. Moreover, coastal areas will see continued sea level rise throughout the 21st century, contributing to more frequent and severe coastal flooding in low-lying areas and coastal erosion. Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once in 100 years could happen every year by the end of this century. The report also indicates that further warming will amplify permafrost thawing, and the loss of seasonal snow cover, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and loss of summer Arctic sea ice. Changes to the ocean, including warming, more frequent marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, and reduced oxygen levels, affect both ocean ecosystems and the people that rely on them, and they will continue throughout at least the rest of this century. Magnified in cities Experts warn that for cities, some aspects of climate change may be magnified, including heat, flooding from heavy precipitation events and sea level rise in coastal cities. Furthermore, IPCC scientists caution that low-likelihood outcomes, such as ice sheet collapse or abrupt ocean circulation changes, cannot be ruled out. Limiting climate change “Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net zero CO2 emissions. Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits both for health and the climate,” highlights IPCC Working Group I Co-Chair Panmao Zhai. The report explains that from a physical science perspective, limiting human-induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions. “Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in methane emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution”, IPCC scientists underscore. A 16-year-old child swims in the flooded area of Aberao village in Kiribati. The Pacific island is one of the countries worst affected by sea-level rise. About the IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization WMO in 1988 to provide political leaders with periodic scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies. In the same year the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by the WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. It has 195 member states. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. 'Before our very eyes' Multiple, recent climate disasters including devastating flooding in central China and western Europe have focused public attention as never before, suggested Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme UNEP. “As citizens and as businesses and as governments, we are well aware of the drama,” she said “The drama exists, we have seen it and we heard about it in every news bulletin. And that’s what we need to understand, that the expression of what the science says is exhibited before our very eyes, and of course what this excellent report does is, it projects those scenarios outward, and tells us, if we do not take action, what could be the potential outcomes, or if we do take action, what will be a very good outcome.” Climate adaption critical Apart from the urgent need for climate mitigation, "it is essential to pay attention to climate adaptation", said the WMO chief, Peteri Taalas, "since the negative trend in climate will continue for decades and in some cases for thousands of years. "One powerful way to adapt is to invest in early warning, climate and water services", he said."Only half of the 193 members of WMO have such services in place, which means more human and economic losses. We have also severe gaps in weather and hydrological observing networks in Africa, some parts of Latin America and in Pacific and Caribbean island states, which has a major negative impact on the accuracy of weather forecasts in those areas, but also worldwide. "The message of the IPCC report is crystal clear we have to raise the ambition level of mitigation."

concern for the environment is now at the