Join us and stand up for reality. http://climaterealityproject.org – This film exposes the parallels between Big Tobacco’s denial of smoking’s cancer-causing effects and the campaign against the science of climate change — showing that not only are the same strategies of denial at work, but often even the same strategists.

Dolf Gielen, Colorado School of Mines and Morgan Bazilian, Colorado School of Mines

Much of the news coming out of the U.N. climate conference has focused on the spectacle, and how countries’ pledges aren’t on track to prevent dangerous climate change. But behind the scenes, there is reason for hope.

In many countries, the energy transition is already underway as falling costs make renewable energy ubiquitous and more affordable than fossil fuels. A growing number of world leaders agreed at the climate summit to reduce methane emissions and aim for net-zero emissions.

The challenge for government officials now is figuring out how to help scale up clean energy dramatically while reducing fossil fuel emissions, and still meeting the rapidly growing energy demands of billions of people in developing and emerging economies. With an ongoing energy crisis creating shortages and record high prices in several countries, navigating this early stage of the energy transition requires thoughtful policies and well-prioritized plans.

As climate policy experts with decades of experience in international energy policy, we identified six strategic priorities that could help countries navigate this tricky terrain.

1) Deploy carbon pricing and markets more widely

Only a few countries, states and regions currently have a carbon price that is high enough to push polluters to cut their emissions.

A price on carbon, often created through a tax or carbon market system, captures the cost of harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions that companies don’t currently pay for, such as climate change, damage to crops and rising health care costs. It is particularly critical for power production and energy-intensive industries.

One goal of the Glasgow negotiations is to write rules to help carbon markets function well and transparently. That’s essential for effectively meeting the many net-zero climate goals that have been announced by countries from Japan and South Korea to the U.S., China and those in the European Union. It includes rules on the use of carbon offsets, which allow individuals or companies to invest in projects elsewhere to offset their own emissions. Carbon offsets are currently highly contentious and not delivering trustworthy emissions credits.

2) Focus attention on the hard-to-decarbonize sectors

Shipping, road freight and industries like aluminum, cement and steel are all difficult places for cutting emissions, in part because they don’t yet have tested, affordable replacements for fossil fuels. While there are some innovative ideas, competitiveness concerns – such as companies moving production out of the country to avoid regulations – have been a key barrier to progress.

Europe is trying to overcome this barrier by establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would tax imports of goods that didn’t face the same level of carbon taxes at home.

The United States and the European Union also announced at the summit that they would work to negotiate a global agreement to reduce the high emissions in steel production.

3) Get China and other emerging economies on board

It is clear that coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, needs to be phased out fast, and doing so is critical to both the U.N.‘s energy and climate agendas. Given that more than half of global coal is consumed in China, its actions stand out, although other emerging economies such as India, Indonesia and Vietnam are also critical.

This will not be easy. Notably half of the Chinese coal plants are less than a decade old, a fraction of a coal plant’s typical life span. China has raised its climate commitments, including pledging to reach net-zero emissions by 2060 and agreeing to end financing of coal power plants in other countries, but its current pathway will not yield substantial reductions this decade.

A major announcement by India’s prime minister at the COP around a net-zero goal for his country by 2070, with interim targets for ratcheting down emissions before then, is an early win.

4) Focus on innovation

Support for innovation has brought cutting-edge renewable power and electric vehicles much faster than anticipated. More is possible. For example, offshore wind, geothermal, carbon capture and green hydrogen are new developments that can make a big difference in years to come.

At the climate conference, a coalition of world leaders launched what they call the “Breakthrough Agenda” – a framework for bringing governments and businesses together to collaborate on clean energy and technology. The Glasgow Breakthroughs include making electric vehicles the affordable norm, bringing down clean energy costs, scaling up hydrogen energy storage and getting steel production to near-zero emissions, all by 2030.

The countries and companies that lead in developing these new technologies will reap economic benefits, including jobs and economic growth. More opportunities exist in market design, social acceptance, equity, regulatory frameworks and business models. Energy systems are deeply interconnected to social issues, so changing them will be successful only if the solutions look beyond the technology to societal needs.

5) Prioritize green financing

Over 160 banks and investment groups are involved in another coalition that has agreed to put pressure on high-emissions industries by tying lending decisions to the goal of global net-zero emissions by 2050.

Ramping up green financing will require transparent taxonomies, or guidelines, for defining green and clean investments; science-based transition plans for companies and financial institutions; and a hard look at portfolios of financial institutions given the risk of substantial stranded fossil fuel assets, such as coal power plants that haven’t reached the end of their life spans but can no longer be used.

Meeting the transition funding needs of developing economies should be a high priority.

6) Reduce short-lived greenhouse gases

The Biden administration announced a sweeping set of rules on Nov. 2, 2021, for reducing emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide that comes from leaking oil and gas infrastructure, coal mines, agriculture and landfills. Methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long, so stopping emissions can have faster climate benefits while carbon emissions are reduced.

The U.S. and the European Union also launched a new global pledge to cut methane emissions by nearly one-third by 2030. Over 100 countries have signed on.

This type of coalition, based on a tightly focused issue, can bring meaningful emissions reductions in places that are less likely to support broader climate agreements.

Not one solution

It is likely that U.N. energy and climate deliberations will continue to move in fits and starts. The real work needs to take place at a more practical implementation level, such as in states, provinces and municipalities.

If there is one thing we have learned, it is that mitigating climate change will be a long slog. While it’s uncontested that the benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation far exceed the costs, politicians need to show that the many energy transitions emerging are good for economies and communities, and can create long-lasting jobs and tax revenue.

This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage of COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.

Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. Read more of our U.S. and global coverage.

This article was updated Nov. 3, 2021, with over 100 countries signing onto the methane pledge.

Dolf Gielen, Director for Technology and Innovation at the International Renewable Energy Agency and Payne Institute Fellow, Colorado School of Mines and Morgan Bazilian, Professor of Public Policy and Director, Payne Institute, Colorado School of Mines

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Betsy Weatherhead, University of Colorado Boulder

With the United Nations’ climate conference in Scotland turning a spotlight on climate change policies and the impact of global warming, it’s useful to understand what the science shows.

I’m an atmospheric scientist who has worked on global climate science and assessments for most of my career. Here are six things you should know, in charts.

What’s driving climate change

The primary focus of the negotiations is on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is released when fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are burned, as well as by forest fires, land use changes and natural sources.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s started an enormous increase in the burning of fossil fuels. It powered homes, industries and opened up the planet to travel. That same century, scientists identified carbon dioxide’s potential to increase global temperatures, which at the time was considered a possible benefit to the planet. Systematic measurements started in the mid-1900s and have shown a steady increase in carbon dioxide, with the majority of it directly traceable to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide tends to stay there for a very long time. A portion of the carbon dioxide released through human activities is taken up by plants, and some is absorbed directly into the ocean, but roughly half of all carbon dioxide emitted by human activities today stays in the atmosphere — and it likely will remain there for hundreds of years, influencing the climate globally.

During the first year of the pandemic in 2020, when fewer people were driving and some industries briefly stopped, carbon dioxide emissions from fuels fell by roughly 6%. But it didn’t stop the rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide because the amount released into the atmosphere by human activities far exceeded what nature could absorb.

If civilization stopped its carbon dioxide-emitting activities today, it would still take many hundreds of years for the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to fall enough naturally to bring the planet’s carbon cycle back into balance because of carbon dioxide’s long life in the atmosphere.

How we know greenhouse gases can change the climate

Multiple lines of scientific evidence point to the increase in greenhouse emissions over the past century and a half as a driver of long-term climate change around the world. For example:

• Laboratory measurements since the 1800s have repeatedly verified and quantified the absorptive properties of carbon dioxide that allow it to trap heat in the atmosphere.

• Simple models based on the warming impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere match historical changes in temperature.

• Complex climate models, recently acknowledged in the Nobel Prize for Physics, not only indicate a warming of the Earth due to increases in carbon dioxide but also offer details of the areas of greatest warming.

• Long-term records from ice cores, tree rings and corals show that when carbon dioxide levels have been high, temperatures have also been high.

• Our neighboring planets also offer evidence. Venus’ atmosphere is thick with carbon dioxide, and it is the hottest planet in our solar system as a result, even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

Temperatures are rising on every continent

The rising temperatures are evident in records from every continent and over the oceans.

The temperatures aren’t rising at the same rate everywhere, however. A variety of factors affect local temperatures, including land use that influences how much solar energy is absorbed or reflected, local heating sources like urban heat islands, and pollution.

The Arctic, for example, is warming about three times faster than the global average in part because as the planet warms, snow and ice melt makes the surface more likely to absorb, rather than reflect, the sun’s radiation. Snow cover and sea ice recede even more rapidly as a result.

What climate change is doing to the planet

Earth’s climate system is interconnected and complex, and even small temperature changes can have large impacts – for instance, with snow cover and sea levels.

Changes are already happening. Studies show that rising temperatures are already affecting precipitation, glaciers, weather patterns, tropical cyclone activity and severe storms. A number of studies show that the increases in frequency, severity and duration of heat waves, for example, affect ecosystems, human lives, commerce and agriculture.

Historical records of ocean water level have shown mostly consistent increases over the past 150 years as glacier ice melts and rising temperatures expand ocean water, with some local deviations due to sinking or rising land.

While extreme events are often due to complex sets of causes, some are exacerbated by climate change. Just as coastal flooding can be made worse by rising ocean levels, heat waves are more damaging with higher baseline temperatures.

Climate scientists work hard to estimate future changes as a result of increased carbon dioxide and other expected changes, such as world population. It’s clear that temperatures will increase and precipitation will change. The exact magnitude of change depends on many interacting factors.

A few reasons for hope

On a hopeful note, scientific research is improving our understanding of climate and the complex Earth system, identifying the most vulnerable areas and guiding efforts to reduce the drivers of climate change. Work on renewable energy and alternative energy sources, as well as ways to capture carbon from industries or from the air, are producing more options for a better prepared society.

At the same time, people are learning about how they can reduce their own impact, with the growing understanding that a globally coordinated effort is required to have a significant impact. Electric vehicles, as well as solar and wind power, are growing at previously unthinkable rates. More people are showing a willingness to adopt new strategies to use energy more efficiently, consume more sustainably and choose renewable energy.

Scientists increasingly recognize that shifting away from fossil fuels has additional benefits, including improved air quality for human health and ecosystems.

[Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

Betsy Weatherhead, Senior Scientist, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

From Nature (Jeff Tollefson):

A Nature survey reveals that many authors of the latest IPCC climate-science report are anxious about the future and expect to see catastrophic changes in their lifetimes.

As a leading climate scientist, Paola Arias doesn’t need to look far to see the world changing. Shifting rain patterns threaten water supplies in her home city of Medellín, Colombia, while rising sea levels endanger the country’s coastline. She isn’t confident that international leaders will slow global warming or that her own government can handle the expected fallout, such as mass migrations and civil unrest over rising inequality. With such an uncertain future, she thought hard several years ago about whether to have children.

“My answer was no,” says Arias, a researcher at the University of Antioquia in Medellín, who was one of the 234 scientists who wrote a climate-science report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in August (see go.nature.com/3pjupro). That assessment, which makes clear that the world is running out of time to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, will figure prominently in climate negotiations over the next two weeks at the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, UK.

Many other leading climate researchers share Arias’s concerns about the future. Nature conducted an anonymous survey of the 233 living IPCC authors last month and received responses from 92 scientists — about 40% of the group. Their answers suggest strong scepticism that governments will markedly slow the pace of global warming, despite political promises made by international leaders as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Six in ten of the respondents said that they expect the world to warm by at least 3 °C by the end of the century, compared with what conditions were like before the Industrial Revolution. That is far beyond the Paris agreement’s goal to limit warming to 1.5–2 °C.

Most of the survey’s respondents — 88% — said they think global warming constitutes a ‘crisis’, and nearly as many said they expect to see catastrophic impacts of climate change in their lifetimes. Just under half said that global warming has caused them to reconsider major life decisions, such as where to live and whether to have children. More than 60% said that they experience anxiety, grief or other distress because of concerns over climate change.

For Arias, who frequently sees the impacts of political instability out of her office window as immigrants from strife-torn Venezuela wander the streets seeking food and shelter, the choice about children came naturally. She says many friends and colleagues have arrived at the same conclusion. “I’m not saying that that is a decision that everyone should make,” she says, “but it’s not something I am struggling with much any more.”

The pessimism expressed by some IPCC panellists underscores the vast gulf between hopes and expectations for the climate summit that began this week in Glasgow. In advance of the meeting, the United States, the European Union, China and others have announced new plans to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, although scientific analyses suggest those plans still fall well short of the Paris goals. Over the next two weeks, countries will formalize — and perhaps even strengthen — those commitments. But making them a reality will require as-yet-unprecedented political mobilization at the national level once leaders return home.

“Right now, governments are just at the stage of providing green promises, but so far we have not seen any actions to curb greenhouse-gas emissions,” says Mouhamadou Bamba Sylla, an IPCC author and climate modeller at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Kigali, Rwanda. Sylla says his home country of Senegal has gone through all the motions and developed adaptation plans for a warming climate, but is anything changing on the ground? “I don’t think so,” he says.

Climate anxiety

The scientists surveyed by Nature are part of the IPCC working group charged with assessing the causes and extent of climate change. Their latest report, approved by 195 governments in August, concluded that fossil-fuel emissions are driving unprecedented planetary changes, threatening both people and the ecosystems that humans rely on for food and other resources. “Unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 °C or even 2° C will be beyond reach,” the IPCC said. But in announcing the report, IPCC scientists stressed that these goals could still be achieved.

A separate report from the United Nations Environment Programme last week projected that the climate commitments already announced by nations would put the world on a path towards 2.7 °C of warming by the end of the century (see http://go.nature.com/3vphvtu). Other projections raise the possibility of even more reductions. The Climate Action Tracker, a consortium of scientific and academic organizations, estimates that warming would be limited to 2.4 °C if countries follow through on their latest pledges under the Paris agreement. One of the goals of the climate negotiations is to prompt more-ambitious steps for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, but most respondents to the Nature survey seemed to be pessimistic about future policies and the amount of warming (see Supplementary information for survey data tables).

The survey results might not be surprising given the decades of limited progress in tackling climate change, but the opinions of climate researchers should raise alarms, says Diana Liverman, a geographer who studies climate at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “I suppose the fact that they’re pessimistic should make us even more worried.”

The Nature survey has limitations: it doesn’t capture the views of 60% of the IPCC authors, and two scientists wrote separately to Nature expressing concerns about the poll precisely because it taps into opinions rather than science. Those who took part did so in a personal capacity, not as representatives of the IPCC. Still, the survey provides a snapshot of the views of a significant proportion of the researchers who wrote the report.

Positive signals

Although the results indicate that many harbour deep concerns, the survey also revealed signs of optimism. More than 20% of the scientists said they expect nations to limit global warming to 2 °C, and 4% said the world might indeed meet its most aggressive goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C — a target that many scientists and academics wrote off from the moment the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.

Charles Koven, a climate scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, draws hope about the future because of advances in science and technology, and rapidly evolving public opinion. One positive development, he says, is that results in the past few years indicate that global average temperatures will level off quickly once humanity stops emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is contrary to long-held expectations that warming would continue for decades even if emissions were halted, owing to a lag in the climate system. He also cites plummeting costs of clean-energy technologies, as well as rising public demand for action in the face of increasingly visible climate impacts — such as the wildfires that he and his family have grown accustomed to each year in California.

“Fundamentally, I believe that the majority of people really do care about the future, and that it is possible for governments to coordinate and avoid the worst climate outcomes,” Koven says.

Two-thirds of the respondents said they engage in climate advocacy, and almost all of those who do said they promote climate science through speeches, publications or videos. Some 43% of those who engage said they have signed letters or petitions, and 40% said they have contacted lawmakers to advocate for climate policies. One-quarter said they have joined demonstrations.

The tables turned, however, when scientists considered whether the IPCC should take on more of an advocacy role, which would be a sharp break from its remit of neutrally assessing the science: nearly three-quarters of the respondents said the IPCC should refrain from climate advocacy. One survey respondent gave the IPCC credit for sticking to its core mission. “By focusing on the best available scientific information, it has avoided the politicization that has occurred with other scientific issues, such as masking and vaccinating for COVID-19,” the respondent said.

When asked to name the biggest accomplishments of the IPCC’s climate-science working group, nearly 40% of the respondents said the panel effectively informs the public and policymakers about climate change and the part that humans are playing. Many (27%) also value how the IPCC assesses and synthesizes evidence.

Since it issued its first report in 1990, the IPCC has gradually increased the representation of researchers from the global south. Nearly 80% of respondents said that the IPCC includes suitable representation of experts from all countries. Arias disagrees, saying it could do more to actively recruit scientists from the global south. Sylla says the IPCC has done an adequate job on that front, given the geographical imbalance in the broader climate-science community. However, he adds, the organization could do more in terms of local outreach to promote the science and to engage policymakers after its reports are published. “I want the IPCC to be more aggressive on that,” he says.

Like Arias, Sylla sees the impacts of political and economic instability as people pile aboard small boats leaving Senegal for a perilous journey in search of a better future. He also fears the situation will only get worse as the climate warms. Although he is currently planning to build a house for his family — far from the sea and in a location that is unlikely to flood — Sylla isn’t convinced that Senegal is where he wants to ride out the climate storm. But he is keenly aware of the fact that Europe and the United States are also vulnerable to the inevitable impacts of global warming. “So the question is, where do you go?”

Nature 599, 22-24 (2021)

From the United Nations Development Programme:

http://dontchooseextinction.com

The world spends an astounding US$423 billion annually to subsidize fossil fuels for consumers – oil, electricity that is generated by the burning of other fossil fuels, gas, and coal. This is four times the amount being called for to help poor countries tackle the climate crisis, one of the sticking points ahead of the COP26 global climate conference next week, according to new UN Development Programme (UNDP) research.

The amount spent directly on these subsidies could pay for COVID-19 vaccinations for every person in the world, or pay for three times the annual amount needed to eradicate global extreme poverty. When indirect costs, including costs to the environment, are factored into these subsidies, the figure rises to almost US$6 trillion, according to data published recently by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Instead, UNDP’s analysis highlights that these funds, paid for by taxpayers, end up deepening inequality and impeding action on climate change.

The main contributor to the climate emergency is the energy sector which accounts for 73 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel subsidy reforms would contribute to reducing CO2 emissions and benefit human health and well-being, and they are a first step towards correctly pricing energy – one that reflects the ‘true’ and full cost of using fossil fuels to society and the environment.

But UNDP’s analysis shows that fossil fuel subsidy reforms can also be unfair and harmful for households and society if they are poorly designed. While fossil fuel subsidies tend to be an unequalising tool – as the lion’s share of the benefits concentrate among the rich – these subsidies also represent an important portion of poor peoples’ incomes that otherwise must be paid for energy consumption. Fossil fuel subsidies’ removal thus could easily become an income- and energy-impoverishing strategy. This contributes to making fossil fuels reform difficult, and imposes a key barrier to transitioning to clean and renewable energy sources.

The Don’t Choose Extinction campaign features a collective intelligence platform, the Global Mindpool, to help tackle the most important issues of our time. Linking insights from around the world – on the climate emergency, the crisis in nature and inequality – the Global Mindpool will support UNDP to better inform and equip policy makers in government, civil society, and the private sector.

For more information on the ‘Don’t Choose Extinction’ campaign, visit http://www.dontchooseextinction.com

UNDP is the leading United Nations organization fighting to end the injustice of poverty, inequality, and climate change. Working with our broad network of experts and partners in 170 countries, we help nations to build integrated, lasting solutions for people and planet.

From The Colorado Sun (Trish Zornio):

For decades scientists have tried to make people care about climate change. We present cogent arguments with perfectly graphed facts and figures. We hold lectures, write articles and point out extreme weather phenomena.

Despite clear data, only six in 10 American adults think climate change might impact them personally, and one third still doesn’t acknowledge human-caused climate change at all.

From a neuroscience perspective, it’s not entirely surprising. Climate change is the perfect challenge for human beings. Our brains are best wired for imminent threats, not ones in the future. Especially when our present-day actions have little to no immediate repercussions — or worse, when our bad behavior is reinforced — it’s particularly challenging to make changes.

Take gas-powered vehicles for example. At least two thirds of Americans recognize these are bad for the environment, yet most continue to use them — even many policy leaders and activists who could otherwise afford to switch. Why the contradiction?

It’s not strictly economics or infrastructure, although these certainly contribute. A large part is arguably due to there being no immediate punishment to driving these vehicles and, rather, they usually offer us a reward by getting us where we need to go. Psychologically, there’s little to inspire immediate change, and even those who want electric vehicles are faced with perceived punishments such as higher upfront costs.

In this light, facts and figures can rarely compete with such reinforcements. Other than strict regulations — which we should also implement for this reason — what else might help?

One possibility may be to increase the perceived urgency through messaging that makes the topic more relatable on a daily basis. While it’s highly accurate to discuss extreme weather events or long-term impacts to steel bridges, these can sometimes feel like more conceptual topics rather than everyday, personal implications.

On the other hand, tackling climate change by featuring the effects on popular topics such as food could help spur interest on a more regular basis. For example:

Chocolate

In 25 to 30 years, cacao production may be extinct. In eight years, major chocolate companies already expect deficits of an estimated 4.4 billion pounds. This stems from changes in cacao growing environments, specifically evapotranspiration, and chocolatiers have been investing billions in bioengineering hoping to save their products. In this context, it’s almost like every time you drive a gas-powered car you kill a Kit Kat bar.

Coffee

Industry leaders project that up to half of the lands currently producing the best coffee beans could be inactive by 2050. In some regions, that number could be as high as 88%. This is in part due to a disease called “stem rust” that increases with climate change. As one small coffee farmer put it, “Climate change is good … if you sell rust.”

Wine

Wine grapes are incredibly sensitive to changes in climate, making even small changes seem big. Vintners are attempting to overcome the challenges with relocation and growing season strategies, but unfortunately, some vineyards have already been lost due to extreme wildfires, heat exposure or severe drought.

Pasta

Hopefully you’re ready to switch to gluten-free pasta, or are at least prepared to pay 50% more for the real deal, because shortages of durum wheat are already happening due to extreme droughts. Other staples like corn, beans and rice are also being affected.

Seafood

Thanks to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the oceans, a process called ocean acidification is threatening a wide range of species harvested as culinary delights including scallops, oysters, lobsters and many fish.

Maple Syrup

National Public Radio clearly has a social scientist writing their headlines. In a 2018 article titled, “Climate Change Could Mean Less Maple Syrup For Your Pancakes” the news outlet encapsulated the argument in a nutshell: It might take 80 years for the full effects to be felt, but your kid’s breakfast might one day be drier than ever.

Pumpkin spice

It’s the perfect time of year with pumpkin spice everything. But climate change is costing you precious time. In data analyzed from 1952 to 2011, researchers found that every season except for summer was shrinking. Autumn lost nearly a week during that time, with an average loss of one day per decade and growing.

Certainly, shortages or extinctions of popular foods are merely one effect of a rapidly changing climate. However, focus on popular topics may resonate more strongly than messages of extreme weather thanks to the emotional relationship we have with them.

For political reasons, we may not ever be able to convince the remaining one third of Americans that human-caused climate change is a fact, but creating an increased sense of urgency in the Americans who do may help expedite political will for changes in policy.

Trish Zornio is a scientist, lecturer and writer who has worked at some of the nation’s top universities and hospitals. She’s an avid rock climber and was a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado.