• Energy Research

Abstract Of all the interconnected threats facing the planet, the top two are the climate and the biodiversity crises. Neither problem will be solved if we ignore the ocean. To turn the tide in favour of humanity and a habitable planet, we need to recognize and better value the fundamental role that the ocean plays in the earth system, and prioritize the urgent action needed to heal and protect the ocean at the ‘Earthscape’ level – the planetary scale at which processes to support life operate. The countries gathering at COP26 have unparalleled political capacity and leadership to make this happen. COP26 could be the turning point, but there must be commitment to united action for the ocean, as well as planning to meet those commitments, based on science‐led solutions that address the interconnectivity of the ocean, climate, and biodiversity. Key ways in which the ocean both contributes to and acts as the major buffer for climate change are summarized, focusing on temperature, but not forgetting the role of storing carbon. It is noted with ‘high confidence’ that the ocean has stored 91% of the excess heat from global warming, with land, melting ice, and the atmosphere only taking up approximately 5, 3, and 1%, respectively. We also highlight the impact of the recent large release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere during the 2015–2016 El Niño. We then present six science‐based policy actions that form a recovery stimulus package for people, climate, nature, and the planet. Our proposals highlight what is needed to view, value, and treat the planet, including the ocean, for the benefit and future of all life.

Assessing three interlinked issues, plastic pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss separately can overlook potential interactions that may lead to positive or negative impacts on global ecosystem processes. Recent studies suggest that threatened species and ecosystems are vulnerable to both plastic pollution and climate change stressors. Here we consider the connectivity and state of knowledge between these three environmental issues with a focus on the Global South. Nine out of top ten Long-Term Climate Risk Index (CRI) (2000–2019) ranked countries are located within the Global South, yet research is focused in the Global North. A literature search for the top ten Long-Term Climate Risk Index (CRI) (2000–2019) ranked countries matched a total of 2416 (3.3% of global publications) search results on climate change, with 56 (4% of the global publications) on plastic pollution, and seven (7.7% of the global publications) on both climate change and plastic pollution. There is a strong correlation between the Global South and high biodiversity hotspots, high food insecurity and low environmental performance. Using Bangladesh as a case study, we show the erosion rates and sea level rise scenarios that will increase ocean-bound plastic pollution and impact high biodiversity areas. Poverty alleviation and promoting renewable energy and green practices can significantly reduce the stress on the environment. We recommend that these connected planetary threats can be best addressed through a holistic and collaborative approach to research, a focus on the Global South, and an ambitious policy agenda.

Plastic pollution and climate change have commonly been treated as two separate issues and sometimes are even seen as competing. Here we present an alternative view that these two issues are fundamentally linked. Primarily, we explore how plastic contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the beginning to the end of its life cycle. Secondly, we show that more extreme weather and floods associated with climate change, will exacerbate the spread of plastic in the natural environment. Finally, both issues occur throughout the marine environment, and we show that ecosystems and species can be particularly vulnerable to both, such as coral reefs that face disease spread through plastic pollution and climate-driven increased global bleaching events. A Web of Science search showed climate change and plastic pollution studies in the ocean are often siloed, with only 0.4% of the articles examining both stressors simultaneously. We also identified a lack of regional and industry-specific life cycle analysis data for comparisons in relative GHG contributions by materials and products. Overall, we suggest that rather than debate over the relative importance of climate change or marine plastic pollution, a more productive course would be to determine the linking factors between the two and identify solutions to combat both crises.