Hi Roger, why such an accusation? I dedicate my life to producing scientific evidence on environmental collapse & mass extinction. The paper proves how continued oil burning could be devastating, in line with what you advocate. Open to constructive criticism; read it, find flaws, let me know. Peace
Final version now available online:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Today’s policy decisions may lead to radically different food security futures. Shifting from conflict and inequality (SSP3-4) to sustainability (SSP1-2) could reduce end-of-century cumulative exposure to novel food crises by >50%.
Bottom line:
Climate change is a major driver of food crises
Socioeconomic choices determine how deadly it becomes
Today’s policies shape tomorrow’s food security.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Under pessimistic pathways, >230 million newborns could face a food crisis within their first year of life. These are not marginal differences—they are orders of magnitude apart.
Bottom line:
Climate change is a major driver of food crises
Socioeconomic choices determine how deadly it becomes
Today’s policies shape tomorrow’s food security.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
The burden is highly unequal. Most future food crises are projected in Africa and Asia, with children under 5 making up the majority of first-time exposures.
When combined with population & poverty projections, model's projections depict a stark future:
➤ SSP3–4 (conflict & inequality):>1.1 billion people exposed by 2100
➤ SSP1-2(sustainability & middle-of-the-road): exposure more than halved
I developed a machine learning model using temperature & precipitation data to predict the onset of novel, severe food crises based, the model captures both direct and indirect climate effects on food security—without relying on complex socioeconomic inputs.
Picture by Tucker Tangeman, https://unsplash.com/it/foto/sei-bambini-in-piedi-sul-deserto-9aAr_EFqYdc
Conflict & inequality (SSP3-4) might expose 1.1 Billion people (>600M children, many in their first year of life) to severe food crises. My new paper shows how climate+socioeconomic pathways drive this outcome. nature.com/articles/s41...
Deeply divergent human exposure to food crises across socioeconomic pathways
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Giant corals have survived for centuries — some sheltered in thermal refugia, others enduring repeated heatwaves. But with a looming coralgeddon, even these last giants may not be safe doi.org/10.1016/j.ge...
@marhecenter.bsky.social
New paper out, by Kevin Lafferty and me, where we map global coral vulnerability to stony coral tissue loss disease frontiersin.org/journals/mar...
Our latest @theconversation.com article out now:
Reality check: coral restoration won’t save the world’s reefs
theconversation.com/reality-chec...
#corals #coralreefs #coralrestoration #restorationecology 🌏🧪
Nature News & Views by @remotereefs.bsky.social
"A global analysis reveals that coral restoration sites are often located in areas with high human impacts & overlook current and future thermal stress, which places most restoration projects at high risk of failure"
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Restoration cannot be scaled up globally to save reefs from loss and degradation
Our new paper just out in @natureecoevo.bsky.social
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Reality check: coral restoration won’t save the world’s reefs
A coral ‘rope’ nursery in the Maldives. Luca Saponari/University of Milan, CC BY-ND Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Flinders University; Clelia Mulà, The University of Western Australia, and Giovanni Strona, University of Helsinki Coral reefs are…
Reality check: coral restoration won’t save the world’s reefs
theconversation.com/reality-chec...
"would cost >AU$1.6 billion to restore just 10% of degraded coral areas globally (lowest cost/hectare & assuming all projects successful) ... using highest cost estimates, it would be >$26 trillion"
