Challenging Censorship: Antonello Pasini and Global Warming

Credits

Text from Città Nuove, courtesy of Antonello Pasini
Introduction by Alessandro Scolaro
In an era where information is more accessible than ever, the specter of censorship remains a significant concern.

Whether overt or subtle, censorship poses a threat to the free exchange of ideas and critical dialogue on pressing issues. This is particularly alarming when it interferes with discussions on urgent global matters such as climate change.

A recent example of this troubling trend involves Antonello Pasini, a distinguished physicist and researcher. His insightful commentary on the connection between extreme weather events and global warming was recently removed from a TG1 broadcast, a major Italian news outlet. This act of censorship not only stifles crucial scientific discourse but also raises questions about the integrity of media reporting and the broader implications for public understanding of climate issues.

At our publication, we stand firmly against any form of censorship that impedes the dissemination of important information.

In support of transparency and the free exchange of ideas, we are proud to present Pasini’s original article, first published in Città Nuova.
HOW TO SERIOUSLY ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
by Antonello Pasini for Città Nuova
Climate at Risk. A Good News? It’s Human Responsibility.
The Fundamental Strategy is to Reduce the 75% of Emissions

In the past century, the global average temperature at the Earth’s surface has increased by approximately 1.2°C. It’s getting warmer, but it’s not just about sweating a bit more. What concerns us are the impacts of this warming on lands, ecosystems, and humans, including our health and productive activities, foremost among them agriculture, as well as the effects on international instability, such as conflicts and migrations driven by climate change. Around the world, we are beginning to see very strong impacts, and Italy is no exception.

Unlike in the distant past, this recent rapid change is caused by human activities based on fossil fuels. The increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases in the atmosphere enhances the natural greenhouse effect, “trapping” more and more heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere.

Today, it is estimated that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 75% due to fossil fuel combustion and 25% due to poor land use, mainly deforestation and unsustainable agriculture.

In this situation, I always say that discovering that human activity is the “culprit” of recent warming is not a disaster but good news because if this change were natural, we would have had no choice but to defend ourselves. Instead, we can address the causes of the change to avoid undesirable effects.

But how can we do this?

Well, it is said that humans especially like “additive” solutions (as discovered in many sociological and psychological studies), and indeed, some people think of combating global temperature rise by adding cooling powders to the atmosphere, similar to those released by erupting volcanoes. It has been observed that after the most powerful eruptions, global temperatures drop a bit because these powders act as a shield to sunlight, reducing the amount that reaches the Earth’s surface, thus allowing it to cool. However, this “solution” of geoengineering is neither practical nor effective, primarily because it would lead to a disruption of the so-called “water cycle,” with entire subcontinents potentially turning into deserts and hundreds of millions of people being forced to migrate.

Therefore, the solution is not to add another human influence to the climate but to reduce the ones we have been responsible for since the Industrial Revolution: greenhouse gas emissions and poor land use. If we really like to add something, let’s add trees, which are CO2 absorbers and can help remove it from the atmosphere. They also provide collateral benefits: they mitigate extreme temperatures and absorb (along with the soil they are on) heavy rainfall, thus reducing the impacts of heatwaves and extreme rain events. Recent studies have shown that planting peri-urban forests, i.e., at the edges of cities, provides all the aforementioned benefits. In short, having more trees is obviously important and beneficial, in terms of its relationship with nature, and I encourage everyone to plant and care for them. However, this should not distract from the fundamental and effective climate strategy: significantly reducing that 75% of emissions from fossil fuel combustion, moving towards renewable energy production (which we can contribute to as individuals or through sustainable energy communities), increased energy efficiency, alternative mobility, etc

But is this really the solution to the climate problem?

As I always say, we scientists have the vice of calculating, and this helps us understand how significant a particular action is in terms of its final climate effects. In pre-industrial times, i.e., before global warming, there were about 5,000 billion trees on Earth, while today there are about 3,000 billion left. Planting 1,000 billion trees would thus make up for half of the missed absorption (less than half of that 25%, since it also includes other factors besides deforestation). It is certainly an important help but not the solution to the problem. Not to mention that it is not enough to plant the trees; they also need to be cared for and have enough water to grow. For such a large quantity, this seems very difficult. Moreover, today, in a regime of global warming, this strategy appears very fragile, for example, due to the risk of possible fires.

We need to start reducing and subtracting, rather than adding, and we have all the means to do it.
Globally, we need to consider a range of different but impactful actions. And be cautious: when an action is ineffective and does not make a significant impact, it risks distracting from fundamental measures and may amount to greenwashing.

Check the original article here: https://www.cittanuova.it/come-affrontare-seriamente-il-cambiamento-climatico/