Latest news

Confectionery firm also launches M&Ms renewable energy campaign as part of a growing corporate backlash against the US’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal

The corporate backlash is growing against Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, with Mars launching a $1bn sustainability plan and an M&M’s campaign centred on renewable energy.

It is the latest climate move by the family owned firm, which emerged as a vocal critic of the US president’s decision to pull out of the 2015 climate pact, saying it was “disappointed” with the withdrawal and stressing that corporations could not go it alone when it came to tackling climate change.

Science agency stands in contrast to Australia’s biggest polluter, AGL, which parted ways with MCA over climate change

The Australian government’s science agency, the CSIRO, has paid tens of thousands of dollars to peak mining lobby group the Minerals Council of Australia, which fights against government action on climate change.

The CSIRO has been listed as an “associate member” of the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) since at least 2004 and new documents obtained by the Australian Institute, under freedom of information laws, show that in 2017 the “annual subscription” for membership was just under $10,000.

Related: Mining lobby calls for 10% limit on environmental charities' spending on advocacy

Related: Australia's shortage of climate scientists puts country at serious risk, report find

CSIRO has a long history collaborating with professional societies and bodies including industry associations. Memberships are an important part of our dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders by allowing us to build networks, share research results, collaborate on research projects, and generally help ensure the relevance and uptake of our research.

No organisation we are a member of has authority to speak or act on behalf of CSIRO. Further, as standard practice CSIRO officers must work within relevant policies to ensure our independence and impartially. For example, they cannot comment on policies of the government, opposition or any other political parties; or outside of their areas of expertise in their interactions with any industry body.

The variables in the climate change formula are mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. Denying the problem loads up on the suffering.

Human-caused climate change amplified the damages and suffering associated with Hurricane Harvey in several different ways. First, sea level rise caused by global warming increased the storm surge and therefore the coastal inundation and flooding from the storm. Second, the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, which intensifies extreme precipitation events like the record-shattering rainfall associated with Harvey. Third, warmer ocean waters essentially act as hurricane fuel, which may have made Harvey more intense than it would otherwise have been.

There are other possible human factors at play about which we have less certainty. For example, it’s possible that Harvey stalled off the coast of Texas because of changes in atmospheric circulation patterns associated with human-caused global warming. As climate scientist Michael Mann notes, his research has shown that these sorts of stationary summer weather patterns tend to happen more often in a hotter world, but we can’t yet say if that happened in Harvey’s case.

I think for opportunistic media to use events like this to, without basis or support, just to simply engage in a cause and effect type of discussion, and not focus upon the needs of people, I think is misplaced.

Global warming is here and is already affecting our climate, so prevention is no longer an option. Three options remain for dealing with the crisis: mitigate, adapt, and suffer.

It is possible to be killed by floods in Mumbai, but not really to be surprised by them. On 29 August, the city was battered by a monsoon storm which left homes, highways and hospital floors submerged, and shut down the commuter railway which has to carry more people every day than live in Denmark. More than 20 people are dead: swept away or crushed as multi-storey buildings collapsed. Bodies are still washing ashore.

Instead of feeling surprise, though, Mumbai treated the deluge like an unwelcome guest who keeps coming by and trashing the place. The most unnerving collective flashback was to 26 July 2005. Ferocious rainfall that day turned the city into a lethal aquatic obstacle course, which 700 people did not survive. That year’s flood, like this one, was followed by a flood of assurances from elected leaders, and civic pledges to protect waterways and mangroves, and renewed attention to how a metropolis built largely on tidal estuary and marine “reclamations” could so easily return to the water.

The storm in Mumbai deposited 15% of the city’s annual rainfall in a single day

Related: 'Not a single thing was dry': Mumbai's residents count the cost of floods