Nature, not aid?

Nature is a source of solutions to many of the pressing challenges of development, from food security to climate change. Illustrations of this claim are increasing around the world, and the figures supporting it are now beyond dispute; they demonstrate just how closely dependent our societies are on nature and natural resources. Development actors – both international development aid organizations and donor governments – and nature conservation bodies have, however, not yet managed to find the right common denominator to link environmental issues definitively and irreversibly with those of human development. These two communities must redouble their joint efforts in the immediate future, in order to save nature and mankind.La nature est une source de solutions aux nombreux défis urgents auxquels doit faire face le monde en matière de développement, de la sécurité alimentaire au changement climatique. Les preuves sont chaque jour de plus en plus nombreuses et les chiffres sont aujourd’hui incontestables ; ils montrent que nos sociétés sont étroitement dépendantes de la nature et de ses ressources. Les acteurs du développement, à la fois les organisations internationales d’aide au développement et les gouvernements donateurs – et les organismes de conservation de la nature, n’ont toutefois pas réussi à trouver le dénominateur commun qui relie, de manière définitive et irréversible, la problématique environnementale à celle du développement de l’activité humaine. Dans un avenir immédiat, ces deux communautés vont devoir redoubler d’efforts pour sauver la nature et l’espèce humaine.La naturaleza puede brindar soluciones a muchos de los desafíos apremiantes del desarrollo, desde la seguridad alimenticia hasta el cambio climático. En el mundo hay cada vez más casos que ilustran esta alegación, y las cifras en las que se apoya son incontrovertibles y demuestran cuan estrecha es la dependencia entre nuestras sociedades y la naturaleza y los recursos naturales. Sin embargo, los actores del desarrollo – tanto agencias de ayuda como gobiernos donantes - y los organismos de conservación de la naturaleza aún no han logrado dar con el común denominador adecuado para vincular de manera definitiva e irreversible los temas medioambientales con los del desarrollo humano. Estas dos comunidades deben redoblar esfuerzos conjuntamente en el futuro inmediato para salvar a la naturaleza y a la humanidad

Knowledge for Our Planet

We are proud to present this special issue of S.A.P.I.EN.S dedicated to the work of IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and its Commissions.  IUCN is often referred to as the oldest and largest global environmental network dedicated to the vision of ‘a just world that values and conserves nature’. Set up as “networks of expert volunteers entrusted to develop and advance the institutional knowledge, experience and objectives of IUCN”, the Commissions enable IUCN to link to c..

The Initiation Factor TFE and the Elongation Factor Spt4/5 Compete for the RNAP Clamp during Transcription Initiation and Elongation

TFIIE and the archaeal homolog TFE enhance DNA strand separation of eukaryotic RNAPII and the archaeal RNAP during transcription initiation by an unknown mechanism. We have developed a fluorescently labeled recombinant M. jannaschii RNAP system to probe the archaeal transcription initiation complex, consisting of promoter DNA, TBP, TFB, TFE, and RNAP. We have localized the position of the TFE winged helix (WH) and Zinc ribbon (ZR) domains on the RNAP using single-molecule FRET. The interaction sites of the TFE WH domain and the transcription elongation factor Spt4/5 overlap, and both factors compete for RNAP binding. Binding of Spt4/5 to RNAP represses promoter-directed transcription in the absence of TFE, which alleviates this effect by displacing Spt4/5 from RNAP. During elongation, Spt4/5 can displace TFE from the RNAP elongation complex and stimulate processivity. Our results identify the RNAP “clamp” region as a regulatory hot spot for both transcription initiation and transcription elongation

Global carbon budget 2019

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019)

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO$_2$ emissions (E$_{FOS}$) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (E$_{LUC}$), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G$_{ATM}$) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO$_2$ sink (S$_{OCEAN}$) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO$_2$ sink (S$_{LAND}$) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B$_{IM}$), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2021, E$_{FOS}$ increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr$^{−1}$ when the cement carbonation sink is included), and E$_{LUC}$ was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr$^{−1}$, for a total anthropogenic CO$_2$ emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO$_2$). Also, for 2021, G$_{ATM}$ was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr$^{−1}$), S$_{OCEAN}$ was 2.9  ± 0.4 GtC yr$^{−1}$, and S$_{LAND}$ was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr$^{−1}$, with a B$_{IM}$ of −0.6 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in E$_{FOS}$ relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr$^{−1}$ persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO$_2$ fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO$_2$ flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b)

Search for muon neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts with the ANTARES neutrino telescope using 2008 to 2011 data

9 pages, 8 figures; added Fig. 1 with effective area, updated Fig. 8 (b) according to arXiv:1204.4219 ; Références publication Astron Astrophys 559 (2013) A9International audienceAims. We search for muon neutrinos in coincidence with GRBs with the ANTARES neutrino detector using data from the end of 2007 to 2011. Methods. Expected neutrino fluxes were calculated for each burst individually. The most recent numerical calculations of the spectra using the NeuCosmA code were employed, which include Monte Carlo simulations of the full underlying photohadronic interaction processes. The discovery probability for a selection of 296 GRBs in the given period was optimised using an extended maximum-likelihood strategy. Results. No significant excess over background is found in the data, and 90% confidence level upper limits are placed on the total expected flux according to the model

Global Carbon Budget 2023

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based f CO2 products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence on land and ocean sinks are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, and Earth system models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2022, EFOS increased by 0.9 % relative to 2021, with fossil emissions at 9.9 ± 0.5 Gt C yr−1 (10.2 ± 0.5 Gt C yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is not included), and ELUC was 1.2 ± 0.7 Gt C yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 11.1 ± 0.8 Gt C yr−1 (40.7±3.2 Gt CO2 yr−1). Also, for 2022, GATM was 4.6±0.2 Gt C yr−1 (2.18±0.1 ppm yr−1; ppm denotes parts per million), SOCEAN was 2.8 ± 0.4 Gt C yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8 ± 0.8 Gt C yr−1, with a BIM of −0.1 Gt C yr−1 (i.e. total estimated sources marginally too low or sinks marginally too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2022 reached 417.1 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2023 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2022 of +1.1 % (0.0 % to 2.1 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 419.3 ppm, 51 % above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean of and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2022, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 1 Gt C yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows the following: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living-data update documents changes in methods and data sets applied to this most recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2023 (Friedlingstein et al., 2023)