There is no question: 2014 has been a key year for the politics of climate change already, even as the latest round of climate talks get under way in Lima, Peru, this week.
This is the year that you, and people like you, turned the latest, frightening warnings from climate science into a message of hope and defiance. More than 400,000 people marching in New York to call for fast and just climate action were the powerful symbol of a climate movement reawakening all over the world.
As historic as the march in New York was, the end of China's coal boom, the very boom that made the first ten years of the 21st century the worst ever for our global climate was also important. The latest data shows coal use falling faster than thought in China. If this turn into a long term trend, China's emissions can stop their relentless rise soon.
China and the U.S. have together, for the first time, agreed to reduce carbon pollution and to drastically increase the use of clean energy. Their agreement—just like the new goals that the European Union has set for itself—are painfully inadequate in the face of the urgency we face. But they change the dynamic of the global climate conversation.
For years, global climate meetings were the place where countries would say to each other: “you go first, you know this issue is important.” Now we are moving to a different world. Now countries say: “I can act, if you can act.” This is a major mental shift. This thinking makes collective action a possibility.
To deliver actions that can actually prevent climate chaos, though, we need to go further. We need more countries to say, “I want to act faster than you, because that will be better for me (and you).” This is not a pipe dream because acting on climate change delivers jobs, livelihoods and opportunities. The days when acting against climate change could be considered a burden are over. Clean, renewable energy is getting bigger, better and cheaper every day and can provide the solutions the world needs. Renewables are the most economical solution for new power capacity in an ever-increasing number of countries.
100 percent of new power capacity added in the U.S. in August was renewable and countries such as Denmark and Germany are producing new clean electricity records almost every month. China is installing as much solar this year as the U.S. has ever done.
As the warnings are getting louder and louder—this year will, it is predicted, be the warmest on record—the bricks are quietly being laid in national policies around the world, that could deliver much more decisive climate action—and a meaningful agreement in Paris next year.
For that to happen, governments in Lima must agree a few key issues:
- They must get the direction right and call for 100 percent renewables for all and a phase out of fossil fuels by 2050. There is already a sentence in the draft negotiation text setting out a “long-term goal of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050.” That needs to stay. In addition, governments need to spell out that they are committed to the just transition to renewables for all that the goal implies.
- Lima must agree that governments can't delay action. That means that all governments must tell us what they plan to commit to in Paris before March 2015. It also means agreeing that targets are set for 5 years at a time—and be reviewed after 5 years regularly. All countries must say at Paris what they will do between 2020 and 2025. Targets must not be locked in for 2030, which could delay actions (after all, politicians in many countries will no longer be in power in 2030).
- Lima must also agree that the fairness and adequacy of what countries are putting forward in the next months (we expect by March 2015) is reviewed before governments meet again in Paris in December 2015. The world deserves to know in Paris who is doing their fair share and who is to blame if there is still a big gap between what governments put forward and what a safe climate for our children needs
Of course, there is no guarantee that Lima will deliver these key demands (and the many other things the conference could make progress on). Over the next two weeks, governments will often make me despair and remind me of the absurd theatre that the climate negotiations often are. Sometimes, I may even wonder if there really has been progress made at all this year … especially when listening to the governments of Canada and Australia, whom I expect to speak on behalf of the oil and coal industries, not their people. And who will have many—too many—supporters, as with too many countries, the polluters of the past dominate domestic politics.
But, as Kumi Naidoo said at a recent TEDxAmsterdam talk:
"When people in large numbers start believing that change is possible, only then does change become possible.”
We are getting there on climate change. The urgency of the climate science, the increasingly attractive economics of renewables, and the rising global climate movement, means that progress on climate action is now inevitable. Leaders in Lima can do their job on behalf of their people speed up the transition to a world run on renewables for all. But even if they dither, they will not be able to change the fact, that the momentum is on our side as we end 2014.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Momentous Pressure on World Leaders as Climate Talks Begin in Lima
Extreme Weather Will Be ‘New Climate Normal’ Without Immediate Action, Warns World Bank
Hottest October on Record Puts Planet on Track for Hottest Year Ever
In a new study, my colleagues Anisha Patel, Francesca Weaks and I estimate that approximately 61.4 million people in the U.S. did not drink their tap water as of 2017-2018. Our research, which was released in preprint format on April 8, 2021, and has not yet been peer reviewed, found that this number has grown sharply in the past several years.
Other research has shown that about 2 million Americans don't have access to clean water. Taking that into account, our findings suggest that about 59 million people have tap water access from either their municipality or private wells or cisterns, but don't drink it. While some may have contaminated water, others may be avoiding water that's actually safe.
Water insecurity is an underrecognized but growing problem in the U.S. Tap water distrust is part of the problem. And it's critical to understand what drives it, because people who don't trust their tap water shift to more expensive and often less healthy options, like bottled water or sugary drinks.
I'm a human biologist and have studied water and health for the past decade in places as diverse as Lowland Bolivia and northern Kenya. Now I run the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University. To understand water issues, I talk to people and use large datasets to see whether a problem is unique or widespread, and stable or growing.
An Epidemic of Distrust
According to our research, there's a growing epidemic of tap water distrust and disuse in the U.S. In a 2020 study, anthropologist Sera Young and I found that tap water avoidance was declining before the Flint water crisis that began in 2014. In 2015-2016, however, it started to increase again for children.
Our new study found that in 2017-2018, the number of Americans who didn't drink tap water increased at an alarmingly high rate, particularly for Black and Hispanic adults and children. Since 2013-2014 – just before the Flint water crisis began – the prevalence of adults who do not drink their tap water has increased by 40%. Among children, not consuming tap has risen by 63%.
To calculate this change, we used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative survey that releases data in two-year cycles. Sampling weights that use demographic characteristics ensure that the people being sampled are representative of the broader U.S. population.
Racial Disparities in Tap Water Consumption
Communities of color have long experienced environmental injustice across the U.S. Black, Hispanic and Native American residents are more likely to live in environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods, with exposure to water that violates quality standards.
Our findings reflect these experiences. We calculated that Black and Hispanic children and adults are two to three times more likely to report not drinking their tap water than members of white households. In 2017-2018, roughly 3 out of 10 Black adults and children and nearly 4 of 10 Hispanic adults and children didn't drink their tap water. Approximately 2 of 10 Asian Americans didn't drink from their tap, while only 1 of 10 white Americans didn't drink their tap water.
When children don't drink any water on a given day, research shows that they consume twice as many calories from sugary drinks as children who drink water. Higher sugary drink consumption increases risk of cavities, obesity and cardiometabolic diseases. Drinking tap water provides fluoride, which lowers the risk of cavities. Relying on water alternatives is also much more expensive than drinking tap water.
A4: Choosing to drink fluoridated tap water over sugar-sweetened beverages to quench thirst is vital to protecting… https://t.co/3tm8wuWjeZ— Oral Health Watch (@Oral Health Watch)1600795750.0
What Erodes Trust
News reports – particularly high-visibility events like advisories to boil water – lead people to distrust their tap water even after the problem is fixed. For example, a 2019 study showed that water quality violations across the U.S. between 2006 and 2015 led to increases in bottled water purchases in affected counties as a way to avoid tap water, and purchase rates remained elevated after the violation.
The Flint water crisis drew national attention to water insecurity, even though state and federal regulators were slow to respond to residents' complaints there. Soon afterward, lead contamination was found in the water supply of Newark, New Jersey; the city is currently replacing all lead service lines under a legal settlement. Elsewhere, media outlets and advocacy groups have reported finding tap water samples contaminated with industrial chemicals, lead, arsenic and other contaminants.
Many other factors can cause people to distrust their water supply, including smell, taste and appearance, as well as lower income levels. Location is also an issue: Older U.S. cities with aging infrastructure are more prone to water shutoffs and water quality problems.
It's important not to blame people for distrusting what comes out of their tap, because those fears are rooted in history. In my view, addressing water insecurity requires a two-part strategy: ensuring that everyone has access to clean water, and increasing trust so people who have safe water will use it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Building Confidence
As part of his proposed infrastructure plan, President Joe Biden is asking Congress for $111 billion to improve water delivery systems, replace lead pipelines and tackle other contaminants. The plan also proposes improvements for small water systems and underserved communities.
These are critical steps to rebuild trust. Yet, in my view, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should also provide better public education about water quality testing and targeted interventions for vulnerable populations, such as children and underserved communities. Initiatives to simplify and improve water quality reports can help people understand what's in their water and what they can do if they think something is wrong with it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Who delivers those messages is important. In areas like Flint, where former government officials have been indicted on charges including negligence and perjury in connection with the water crisis, the government's word alone won't rebuild trust. Instead, community members can fill this critical role.
Another priority is the 13%-15% of Americans who rely on private well water, which is not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These households are responsible for their own water quality testing. Public funding would help them test it regularly and address any problems.
Public distrust of tap water in the U.S. reflects decades of policies that have reduced access to reliable, safe drinking water in communities of color. Fixing water lines is important, but so is giving people confidence to turn on the tap.
Asher Rosinger is an assistant professor of biobehavioral health, anthropology, and demography and director of the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Penn State University.
Disclosure statement: Asher Rosinger receives funding from the National Science Foundation on an unrelated project. This work was supported by the Ann Atherton Hertzler Early Career Professorship funds, and the Penn State Population Research Institute (NICHD P2CHD041025). The funders had no role in the research or interpretation of results.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Life-Saving Drinking Water Disinfectants Have a 'Dark Side ... ›
- Tap Water Safety: There's Good News and Bad News - EcoWatch ›
- How Healthy Is America's Public Health Infrastructure? - EcoWatch ›
- 170 Million Americans Drink Radioactive Tap Water - EcoWatch ›
- Report: 64% of Bottled Water Is Tap Water, Costs 2000x More ... ›