Marmolada: The Highest Glacier in the Dolomites Is Disappearing

Marmolada: The Highest Glacier in the Dolomites Is Disappearing

in

The Marmolada Glacier, the largest glacier in the Dolomites, is losing ice at an ever-increasing rate. Recent measurements indicate that by 2026, the glacier front will have retreated an average of about 23 meters—nearly three times as much as in the previous year. In just one year, the glacier’s area shrank from about 92 to 83 hectares.

As a result, about nine hectares of glacier ice were lost within a year—an area roughly the size of twelve soccer fields.

The change is particularly pronounced in certain sections. On the western front, a retreat of up to 120 meters was recorded over a two-year period. The glacier front is now located at an elevation of over 2,900 meters.

 

An Exceptionally Warm Summer

A major contributing factor is the persistent heat at high altitudes. According to recent studies, the summer of 2026 was the hottest on record in the higher elevations of the Dolomites since measurements began in 1991.

High temperatures do more than just accelerate surface ice melt. Meltwater can seep deep into the glacier through crevasses and affect the stability of individual sections of ice.

In August, crevasses filled with meltwater were once again observed on the Marmolada above the area where a massive ice and rock avalanche occurred in 2022. Eleven people lost their lives in that incident.

This does not mean that another major ice break-off is imminent. Such a prediction cannot be derived from the observations. However, they do show how rapidly conditions on the glacier are changing and why monitoring and risk assessment are becoming increasingly important.

 

It's not just the Marmolada that's changing

This trend is typical of the glaciers in the Alps. Rising temperatures are pushing the snow line higher, shortening the period during which the glaciers are protected by a snow cover, and leaving ever-larger areas of glacial ice unprotected during the summer.

This, in turn, is changing the high-mountain region itself. Where ice is disappearing, rock faces and slopes can become more unstable. At the same time, the water cycle, landscape, and alpine ecosystems are changing.

 

Facts & Figures

* The Marmolada glacier front is projected to retreat an average of about 23 meters by 2026
* It retreated about 8 meters in 2025
* Glacier area decreased from approximately 92 to 83 hectares within one year
* Approximately 9 hectares of ice area lost in one year
* Up to 120 meters of retreat on the western front within two years
* Glacier front now at an elevation of over 2,900 meters
* 11 fatalities in the ice and rock avalanche in July 2022

 

Conclusio

The Marmolada illustrates just how quickly climate change is altering the appearance of the Alps. Glacier retreat, which has been observable over decades, is increasingly becoming a process that transforms entire landscapes within just a few years.

If summers like that of 2026 were to recur, there might be hardly anything left of the Marmolada Glacier—which still exists today—within just a few decades. At the same time, new risks are emerging in the high mountains, and the tourism industry, mountain rescue services, and government agencies must adapt to them.

The retreat of the Marmolada is therefore more than just the loss of ice. It is a visible sign of how rapidly conditions are changing in Europe's high mountains

Construction Debris for Climate Protection in the Ocean? A New Experiment in Gran Canaria Using Ground Concrete Rubble

Construction Debris for Climate Protection in the Ocean? A New Experiment in Gran Canaria Using Ground Concrete Rubble

in

Over the next seven weeks, the harbor of the small town of Taliarte on the east coast of Gran Canaria will become an open-air laboratory. In twelve mesocosms—enclosed, floating experimental tanks—an international research team led by the GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel will test for the first time whether concrete debris is suitable for increasing the alkalinity of seawater. Targeted alkalinization (Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement, OAE) mimics the process of natural rock weathering and can increase the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. It is also intended to help mitigate the increasing acidification of the oceans caused by the climate crisis.

 

“This year, the goal is to compare a liquid source of alkalinity with ground concrete rubble and to assess how well both substances are tolerated by the marine environment,” explains Professor Emeritus Dr. Ulf Riebesell, a marine biologist at GEOMAR and co-director of the experiment, in a press release. The experiment is part of the international research project OceanAlkAlign, which aims to standardize measurement and assessment methods for OAE and thus create a robust foundation for future decisions.

 

Why We Need Active CO2 Removal

The idea of adding additional alkalinity to the ocean is part of a larger context. Since the beginning of industrialization, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen sharply; a significant portion of the gas dissolves in the ocean, altering its chemistry. The result is progressive acidification, which can put particular pressure on organisms that form calcareous structures—such as mussels or corals. At the same time, the additional CO2 is driving global warming.

According to many current scenarios, emissions reductions alone will not be sufficient to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. For this reason, methods for active carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are coming into focus. OAE is considered an option with high potential, provided it can be implemented effectively and in an environmentally responsible manner.

 

Increase CO2 Absorption by Seawater

Ocean alkalinization increases the buffer capacity of seawater. Put simply, this causes a decrease in pH, allowing the water to absorb more CO2 and store it in more stable dissolved forms. This is chemically straightforward; however, it remains unclear how marine ecosystems respond to different sources of alkalinity, concentrations, and forms of input, and where the tolerance limits lie. This is where the mesocosm experiments come in: Like giant test tubes, they replicate a section of the ecosystem—including planktonic food webs, microorganisms, and biogeochemical processes—and thus allow for comparisons under controlled conditions.

 

Concrete Rubble: Waste with Potential—and Questions

Concrete demolition waste is one of the largest waste streams worldwide: an estimated five billion metric tons are generated each year, and only a fraction of that has been reused to date. Because concrete contains cement, which has alkaline properties, finely ground material could, in principle, serve as a source of alkalinity. Model-based estimates are therefore being used to assess whether this could be used to sequester larger amounts of CO2 in the long term.

However, a material that seems unproblematic on land can have different effects in the ocean. Particles can increase turbidity or harm microorganisms, which in turn could impact food webs. “A waste product doesn’t automatically become a sustainable solution just because it’s available,” says Associate Professor Dr. Kai Schulz of Southern Cross University (Australia), co-leader of the experiment. “We need data showing under what conditions OAE could be ecologically acceptable and where the limits lie.”

 

An Open-Air Laboratory at PLOCAN

It is no coincidence that the experiment is taking place in Taliarte: The Canary Islands Marine Research Institute (PLOCAN, Plataforma Oceánica de Canarias), a long-standing research partner of GEOMAR, is located right on the harbor here. From here, the mesocosms are deployed, filled, and monitored throughout the entire duration of the experiment.

 

Goal: Define a “safe space for action”

The results from Taliarte are intended to help determine threshold values: Which dosages alter water chemistry in the desired way—and at what point do ecological effects become apparent? What differences are evident between solid particles and dissolved alkalinity? And how can findings from laboratory, mesocosm, and field studies be synthesized in a way that makes them suitable as a scientific basis for decision-making? “Understand before scaling up—that’s the key,” emphasizes Schulz. “If OAE is ever discussed on a larger scale, it should be based solely on transparent data regarding benefits and risks.”

 

Link

GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel

Who Pays for Adaptation to Climate Change?

Who Pays for Adaptation to Climate Change?

in

Europe is investing billions in climate protection. At the same time, a second bill is growing at an ever-faster rate: the costs of adapting to those consequences of climate change that can no longer be prevented even today.

Heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires do more than just cause damage. Cities need more cooling and green spaces; rivers and coastlines need better flood protection; and agriculture needs new irrigation systems and more resilient crops. Power grids, roads, rail lines, and buildings must be prepared for higher temperatures and extreme weather.

As a result, the question is increasingly no longer whether Europe needs to invest in climate adaptation—but who will pay for it.

 

Spain Calls for a European Climate Adaptation Fund

In early September, Spain proposed its own European fund to finance climate adaptation. The idea is that the necessary investments should not fall primarily on individual countries, municipalities, and citizens.

To secure funding, Spain is proposing, among other things, a tax on the profits of oil and gas companies. Joint European funding options are also under discussion.

At the same time, Spain is calling for more binding European targets for climate change adaptation—for example, in the areas of water, agriculture, and health.

 

The bill is getting bigger

According to the European Environment Agency, extreme weather and climate events caused economic damage totaling approximately 822 billion euros in the EU between 1980 and 2024.

The trend over the past few years is particularly striking: About 208 billion euros of these losses occurred in the years 2021 through 2024 alone.

And a large portion of the losses remains uninsured. Less than one-fifth of all climate-related damage since 1980 was covered by private insurance.

 

Facts & Figures

822 billion euros
Economic losses caused by extreme weather and climate events in the EU between 1980 and 2024.

208 billion euros
of which was generated between 2021 and 2024 alone.

According to the European Environment Agency, 53 to 137 billion euros per year
could be needed by 2050 just for adaptation measures in agriculture, energy, and transportation.


, approximately 15 to 16 billion euros per year are currently available to these sectors for climate adaptation.

Less than 20 percent
of the climate-related economic losses since 1980 were covered by private insurance.

 

Who should pay?

This is precisely where a political and social debate begins that is likely to be a major focus of attention in Europe in the coming years.

If climate adaptation measures are financed primarily with taxpayer money, citizens and businesses will ultimately bear the costs. If insurance companies become more heavily involved, premiums in particularly vulnerable regions could rise significantly—or, at some point, certain risks might no longer be insurable at all.

Greater involvement by the fossil fuel industry, on the other hand, would be in line with the polluter-pays principle: Companies whose business models have contributed significantly to greenhouse gas emissions over decades would bear a portion of the adaptation costs.

One thing is clear, in any case: Not investing is not a cost-effective alternative.

 

Conclusion

Alongside climate protection, climate adaptation is becoming one of Europe's major financial challenges. Consequently, the key question is increasingly no longer whether billions need to be invested, but how the costs will be distributed.

Spain has now launched this discussion at the European level. It is likely just getting started.

After all, the longer necessary adjustments are put off, the higher the bill will be in the end.

"Bad Food – How We Can Regain Control Over Our Diet"

"Bad Food – How We Can Regain Control Over Our Diet"

in

"The junk food industry is just as bad as tobacco companies": In his newly published book, the head of foodwatch calls for stricter regulation of the food industry

The food industry must be regulated to the same extent as the tobacco industry. That is the call from foodwatch director Dr. Chris Methmann. He points out that just as many people in Germany die from the consequences of an unhealthy diet as from tobacco use. Yet the food industry continues to market its junk food and sugary drinks unchecked, even to children. It is time to consistently curb the influence of Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and others on our diets, he argues in his book “Bad Food – How We Can Regain Control Over Our Diet, ” which was published on August 27. For example, he says, a “soda tax,” age restrictions on energy drinks, and restrictions on junk food advertising are needed to protect children.

 

“The junk food industry is just as bad as the tobacco companies. Much like cigarette companies did in the past, junk food manufacturers aggressively advertise their unhealthy products, cast doubt on scientific findings, and use massive lobbying budgets to fight regulation around the world. While we’ve pushed the tobacco industry out of our lives and fewer and fewer people are smoking, the junk food industry continues to sell its disease-causing products completely unchecked—even targeting children and babies. Why do we put up with this?”

Dr. Chris Methmann, Executive Director of foodwatch Germany

 

The culture war over food distracts attention from those who are truly influential

In “Bad Food,” Chris Methmann analyzes: There’s an incredibly tense atmosphere surrounding the topic of food. Vegans are at odds with meat-eaters. Right-wing populists claim that we’re being forced to eat insects or that schnitzel is being banned. For others, healthy eating has become a kind of substitute for religion. But this cultural battle over food, according to the thesis in “Bad Food,” merely distracts from who really has a major influence on our diets: the food industry.

Chris Methmann argues that companies like McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé must be regulated just as strictly as Marlboro and others. Measures such as price increases, advertising restrictions, and smoking bans have succeeded in curbing the tobacco industry: While nearly 90 percent of men smoked in the 1950s, that figure had dropped to just 22 percent by 2021. In contrast, however, there is a lack of political will to take on the food industry. Federal Minister of Food Alois Rainer apparently does not even consider himself responsible for the issue.

Yet there is broad public support for stricter regulation. For example, 60 percent of Germans support a “soda tax” to encourage manufacturers to use less sugar in their beverages. 87 percent favor an age restriction on energy drinks. And 70 percent would be willing to pay more for meat if the proceeds went toward more humane animal husbandry.

“People don’t want to be told what to eat. Instead, they expect those in charge to implement effective nutrition policies,” said Chris Methmann. His plea: “Instead of constantly feeling guilty about what we eat or getting into arguments with each other over our eating habits, we must finally put those who truly determine what ends up on our plates in their place: the junk food industry!”

 

Link

"Bad Food – How to Regain Control of Our Diet" by Chris Methmann, published on August 27 by Ullstein Verlag: https://www.ullstein.de/werke/bad-food/hardcover/9783550204913