Story of the Week... Toon of the Week... Climate Feedback Article Review... Coming Soon on SkS... SkS Week in Review... Poster of the Week...
Important Coastal Barrier at Risk from Increased Pollution
Cyclone Amphan, the most powerful to strike in the Bay of Bengal in 20 years, made landfall on the India-Bangladesh coast last month. Amphan ripped off roofs, washed away homes, and flooded farms. Crucially, Bangladesh was able to mitigate impact and save lives because of its robust emergency response system with early warnings and mass-evacuations.
But coastal communities were also protected by Bangladesh’s natural storm shield: the Sundarbans. A protected World Heritage site, this mangrove forest holds land together with its roots as the tides rise. As climate change increases the intensity of extreme weather events like Amphan, the Sundarbans are at risk when they’re needed most.
But the Bangladesh government threatens to destroy these life-saving forests by building coal-fired power plants that could subject them, and the nearly 2.5 million people who depend on them for their livelihoods, to harmful pollution. And while the mangroves slow climate change by soaking up carbon, coal-fired plants contribute greenhouse gas emissions that fuel global warming.
Of particular concern is the proposed Rampal Thermal Power Plant, just north of the Sundarbans. Scientists and activists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the plant could spell disaster for the world’s largest mangrove forest. But the government has fought calls to cancel or relocate the project, using tear gas and rubber bullets against protestors and insisting, contrary to scientific evidence, that the plant will do no harm.
Bangladesh Coal Plants Threaten World’s Largest Mangrove Forest by Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Rights Watch, June 18, 2020
Click here to access the entire article as originally published on the Human Rights Watch website.
Hat tip to the Stop Climate Science Denial Facebook page.
Article Analyzed: Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows by Jonathan Watts, Environment, Guardian, June 13, 2020
Six scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Exaggerating, Misleading.
Article in The Guardian misleads readers about sensitivity of climate models by narrowly focusing on single study, Edited by Nikki Forrester, Article Reviews, Climate Feedback, June 18, 2020
Posted by John Hartz on Sunday, 21 June, 2020
 |
The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. |