Is There a “Pink Corridor” in Our Ocean’s Future?

Now, a new report from the UN shows that we will blow past that goal of 1.5°C within the next few years and reach at least 1.8°C—even if all climate policies and commitments are implemented. The authors say that “. . . there are no good outcomes above 1.5°C,” and every fraction of a degree rise that is avoided will save lives, protect ecosystems, and reduce economic losses.

Not going beyond 1.8° C is the most optimistic outlook, according to the report, and most other scenarios predict higher peaks. The report, which is titled “Limiting Overshoot - Navigating exceedance of 1.5°C and pathways towards return,” says that we might be able to limit the peak temperature, hopefully to 2°C and then begin to lower it, avoiding higher increases.

To limit the damages to Earth, greenhouse gas emissions will need to be cut immediately and carbon dioxide will need to be removed from the atmosphere. Of course, the report recognizes that the goal of net zero emissions is politically contentious in some countries, but it is a milestone that cannot be disregarded. As most know, the Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

It was just over one year ago that the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that countries must prevent harm to the climate system, and if they did not, they could have to pay compensation. That case was brought by students from Pacific island countries where people are the most vulnerable to climate change. After last week’s report, Vishal Prasad, from Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said that it was terrifying for young people in the Pacific, and said that fossil fuel expansion must be ended and corporate profits cannot be allowed to extinguish their future.

There are a host of challenges, starting with onboard nuclear reactors, which could be vulnerable to piracy or sabotage. Insurance companies would be reluctant to cover these ships that could have a nuclear accident. Without insurance, few civilian ports would allow a nuclear-powered cargo ship to dock. Currently, constructing the ships doesn’t pencil out and daily operation with specialized staff would be too costly.

Still, nuclear-powered vessels have the appeal of dramatically cutting greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and traveling faster than existing cargo ships, which typically sail slowly to conserve fuel. 

Against that backdrop, the Trump administration is moving to establish a nuclear-powered merchant fleet that could challenge China’s dominance of shipping. The U.S. Maritime Administration has partnered with the British company Core Power in a deal that will fast-track the regulatory approval process, safety standards, and insurance, with the hope that nuclear-powered container ships could sail between Britain and the U.S. within a decade in a new transatlantic shipping route called the “pink corridor.” 

The pink corridor project—so named as the color is often used to denote nuclear power—is evaluating the requirements for port access, ship security, cyber resilience, and emergency response, among other challenges. Although the pink corridor is still theoretical and you won’t see these ships for some time, many observers see this as Trump going nuclear in his trade war with Beijing.

Under the Clean Water Act, individuals and companies must get a permit from the government before releasing contaminants, including silt and dredged up material, into waterways. However, the definition of what waterways are covered under the law has been contentious.

Both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a rule revision that would apply the law only to “relatively permanent” bodies of water that flow every day, except for temporary interruptions, as when a stream dries up because of a drought lasting less than 30 days. The earlier version the government had announced last November did not define “relatively permanent” as narrowly as the new one. Jon Devine, of the NRDC told the New York Times that very few wetlands border other bodies of water that flow every day, except for a few on the coast that are influenced by tides.

The redefinition of which waters are covered under the act is based upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2023 that removed vast areas of wetlands and streams from federal protections after a couple in Idaho sued the EPA. They wanted to build a house near a lake and began backfilling a lot that the agency said was protected wetlands. In that case, Justice Alito wrote that the law covered “Waters of the United States," which meant only those “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies.” He went further to say that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection are protected.

The new rule also removes almost 80 percent of the streams in the continental U.S. from protection. The NRDC said the new proposal declares “open season on the nation’s waterways” and endangers drinking water supplies. Last year, the initial and less restrictive rule was criticized as encouraging industries to plow more wetlands and streams, destroying thousands of miles of waterways critical to wildlife across the country, according to J.W. Glass of the Center for Biological Diversity. 

For people who live in Gilgit-Baltistan, a high-mountain territory in northern Pakistan, the best way to protect the nearly 13,000 glaciers that surround them—more than any other country on Earth outside the polar regions—is to “marry” them. 

“Glacial marriage,” also known as glacier grafting or Gang Khswa, is a traditional method in which local communities merge blocks of so-called "male" glacial ice—which are typically grey and contain debris like soil, sand, and rocks—with blocks of "female" ice, which are lighter and nearly transparent. 

The pieces of ice—about the size of a toaster oven—are carried by foot inside wooden baskets to a site chosen by elders that’s at least 4,000 meters above sea level, with high permafrost, maximum wind exposure, and ideally north facing. Once there, the ice blocks are placed inside a well or cave with clay pots filled with water that will separate the bride and groom. They are then covered with layers of sawdust, charcoal, and apricot kernels, to insulate the couple and its future "baby" glacier.

Over several months, the ice blocks will fuse into a single mass. If all goes well and the site receives good annual snowfall, a glacier will develop and expand, producing water around ten years later. Even though it could take another decade before it’s a reliable water source, locals see it as a safeguard to support farms and families during increasingly unstable times. The practice is considered to be a union as sacred as matrimony and is deeply steeped in tradition. Consummating the marriage includes reciting verses from the Quran, singing lullabies to the growing baby.  

Glacial marriage is increasingly receiving recognition and funding from outside sources as a resilient climate solution. Now, as climate change threatens these high-altitude regions, the Baltistan Culture & Development Foundation (BCDF), is seeking to have glacier grafting recognized by UNESCO as Intangible Cultural Heritage providing a reliable source of water for irrigation, livestock, and daily life.

Glacial marriages will start in just a few weeks, as October is the optimal time when temperatures are cold enough but before snows arrive. It’s a slow process in a rapidly changing world, but as wedding vows go, with any luck there will be water to have and to hold from this day forward.