Colette Pichon Battle, attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy. Colette Pichon Battle
By Karen L. Smith-Janssen
Colette Pichon Battle gave a December 2019 TEDWomen Talk on the stark realities of climate change displacement, and people took notice. The video racked up a million views in about two weeks. The attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP) advocates for climate justice in communities of color. Confronted with evidence showing how her own South Louisiana coastal home of Bayou Liberty will be lost to flooding in coming years, the 2019 Obama Fellow dedicates herself to helping others still reeling from the impacts of Katrina face the heavy toll that climate change has taken—and will take—on their lives and homelands. Her work focuses on strengthening multiracial coalitions, advocating for federal, state, and local disaster mitigation measures, and redirecting resources toward Black communities across the Gulf South.
<h4>How did Hurricane Katrina—which <a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/150082.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">displaced more than 1 million people</a> in the Gulf region—propel your work, and how does it shape your mission today?</h4><p>I got into this work in the aftermath of the hurricane in 2005, and it's been 15 years as of August 29. Katrina was a massive disaster that I felt compelled to respond to. It was my hometown. I stayed because I began to understand how that disaster was a manifestation of a global climate reality.</p><p>We are anchoring the <a href="https://m4bl.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Movement for Black Lives</a> work that's centered around a national black climate agenda, and part of that will include in-depth communications to bring climate into the realm of Black lives—into communities that have been marginalized and targeted by our colonizing system. Part of our work is to begin a process of acknowledging the trauma that comes with being a person of color in this country, being in an environmental justice community and being poisoned every day, and going through a climate disaster. <em>We</em> are on the frontlines.</p>
<h4>How do you help communities heal from this trauma when the underlying problems have not been solved? </h4><p>The most difficult and time-consuming layer is building, healing, and strengthening relationships between different communities and acknowledging that many of us, especially people of color, have been systematically pitted against each other as part of a broader social infrastructure. What does it mean to reconcile these communities with each other? For example, we're making a <a href="https://www.gcclp.org/heal-and-reconcile" target="_blank">Sacred Waters Pilgrimage</a> down the Mississippi River for Black and Indigenous women to address the tensions between those two communities in the U.S. and begin to heal those relationships. In the climate movement, these are the people who are tokenized; it's just assumed they can stand on the frontlines together with no acknowledgment that there's a deep history of mistrust and tension between these groups—not of their own creation, and rooted in colonization. You've got to take some time to understand how the cultures are different and how people are perceived. You've got to reconcile and heal before you can work, and only then can the work that you do together stand. Otherwise, the work that you do together will fall.</p>
<h4>In addition to building coalitions, what kinds of services does the GCCLP provide to help residents cope with the impacts of extreme storms?</h4><p>We started out providing free legal services to folks recovering after a disaster. We are there as service providers but we also offer a political education about what is happening to you and why. We don't just get your <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/going-under-long-wait-times-post-flood-buyouts-leave-homeowners-underwater" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FEMA paperwork completed for flood remittance</a>, although that's part of what we'll do. You're also going to leave with an understanding of the frequency of flooding, the climate impacts, and how your area in particular has just been affected and is going to be affected in the future.</p><p>Today, we have four main programs, and in each, we have a level of advocacy within them: We do Equitable Disaster Recovery; Water Equity/Water Economy; <a href="https://www.gcclp.org/copy-of-equitable-disaster-recovery" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sustainable Economy/Energy Democracy</a>; and Land, Labor and Just Transition. Our federal disaster advocacy work centers around the modification and re-envisioning of the Stafford Act, which controls and activates FEMA. We also do some state-level advocacy around mitigation planning here in the five Gulf South states. That involves educating decision makers not just on what the community needs but pointing out what's out there and within our budgetary reach or legislative duty. </p>
<h4>A lot of the initial recovery work following Katrina centered around <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-best-rebuild-hurricane-ravaged-city-listen-residents-says-new-orleans-native" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">building climate-resilient communities</a> that could withstand future storms. Has that work been successful?</h4><p>Over the years, as we've watched people trying to create resilient communities that are more physically ready for the storms that are coming, we've seen it either lead to gentrification or segregation or investment in non-Black, non-Native places. Money never makes it to the frontline. So we've got to put in our own infrastructure systems at the community level, rooted in political education around economy, racialized capitalism, and wealth-building.</p><p>In our understanding of climate change, the economy plays a major (if not <em>the</em> major) role in how we got to this place. The economic philosophy of this country is one of extraction; it's an extractive economy that started with the attempted genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans, all for profit, power, land, and control. So, we help communities to practice receiving, making decisions about, and distributing money to places where they want to see their dollars go—which is basically holding Black wealth. We help local organizations set up community-controlled funds all across the Gulf South region after every disaster. Yes, the community receives dollars, but they also go through a 12-month process to collectively develop a system of shared governance so that, should this happen again, we have systems of our own around our own money and its destination.</p>
<h4>The practice of "<a href="https://qz.com/1876202/new-flood-risk-maps-could-undermine-marginalized-neighborhoods/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">blue-lining</a>" is a new climate-driven threat that withdraws support for vulnerable communities living in high-risk flood areas. How did that manifest in New Orleans after Katrina, and how might it impact other areas?</h4><p>It's happening already in places south of New Orleans where decision makers have understood we will not make it. We're going to lose those areas. My community is one. You watch as <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/our-national-flood-insurance-program-going-underwater" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal flood insurance becomes impossible</a> because of the designations of flood risk by the Army Corps of Engineers. A point comes when you can't even get flood insurance to protect your home. After Katrina, officials said, "Everything below Interstate 10 is pretty much written off so if you live below I-10, you should begin to plan to move."</p><p>I think we're going to see false information about flood lines. On flood maps of south Louisiana, the city of New Orleans is not shown in the flood zone because of the levee system, which was only rebuilt to the standards that failed the first time. As a result, people in New Orleans can get insurance but people south of New Orleans can't.</p>
<h4>How do you reach community members who are not already part of the climate conversation but face climate change impacts in their immediate futures?</h4><p>Outreach is mainly folks just talking to the people they know. And we're part of larger coalitions that help us build new relationships. The problem is that the climate conversation has not yet made it into the daily rhetoric of Black, Indigenous, and brown communities, so giving generic information is not good enough. We're going to do more virtual education because video and social media are just how people get their information now in this COVID reality.</p><p>But the majority of folks we're trying to reach do not sit on a computer all day so there's still the problem of how to make it real. You have to understand that communication is not just words, especially down here in the South. You can sit under a tree next to somebody for a long time without words, yet a lot is actually being communicated, and they can feel that your energy is serious and authentic. I never had a problem communicating urgency to people of the Gulf South. They know I'm from here, that I love this place, and that I wouldn't be taking their time talking like this if it weren't serious.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/connector-gulf-south-15-years-and-counting" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A palm tree plantation in Malaysia. Yann Arthus-Bertrand / Getty Images Plus
Between 2000 and 2013, Earth lost an area of undisturbed ecosystems roughly the size of Mexico.
<p>That's the mind-melting finding of a <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30418-8?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2590332220304188%3Fshowall%3Dtrue" target="_blank">new study published in One Earth</a> Friday, and the researchers say it has "profound implications" for global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" target="_self">biodiversity</a> and for humans who rely on natural resources.</p><p>"We were expecting there to be high levels of intact ecosystem and wilderness loss, but the results were shocking," lead researcher Brooke Williams of the University of Queensland told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/19/shocking-wilderness-the-size-of-mexico-lost-worldwide-in-just-13-years-study-finds?fbclid=IwAR2XlFeNEaoMktkBPoteocAS4Bi-Kx5dErhWX9qzNB-CZ9VBsBpxmdEMrTw" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "We found substantial area of intact ecosystems had been lost in just 13 years – nearly two million square kilometres – which is terrifying to think about. Our findings show that human pressure is extending ever further into the last ecologically intact and wilderness areas."</p>
<p>In total, the researchers found that 1.9 million square kilometers (approximately 700,000 square miles) of previously intact ecosystem area had been "highly modified" during the study period. They also found that 58.4 percent of Earth's land ecosystems were under "moderate or intense" pressure from human activity, while only 41.6 percent of ecosystems were intact and 25 percent were true wilderness.</p><p>The 1.9 million square kilometers lost were mostly tropical and subtropical grasslands in Asia, South America and Africa, according to the <a href="https://newsroom.wcs.org/News-Releases/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/14950/STUDY-Since-2000-A-Mexico-Sized-Chunk-of-Intact-Land-Has-Been-Swallowed-up-by-Humanity.aspx" target="_blank">Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which participated in the research</a>. The rainforests of Southeast Asia also suffered significant human encroachments.</p>
<p>To achieve these results, an international team of 17 scientists from six countries used satellite imagery to assess the human footprint on land-based ecosystems and how it had changed between 2000 and 2013, The Guardian explained. The researchers found that human pressure increased on nearly 20 percent of the globe and decreased on only around six percent.</p><p>"Data does not lie," senior author James Watson from WCS and the University of Queensland said in the WCS press release. "Humanity keeps on shrinking the amount of land that other species need to survive. In a time of rapid <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a>, we need to proactively secure the last intact ecosystems on the planet, as these are critical in the fight to stop extinction and halt climate change."</p>
<p>The study comes amidst other dire news for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> and biodiversity. A UN study <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nature-destruction-biodiversity-loss-un-2647682550.html" target="_self">released last week</a> found that world governments had failed to achieve any of the 20 targets they had set for preserving biodiversity by 2020. Another study <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/humans-destroying-wildlife-report-2020-2647567577.html" target="_self">published this month</a> found that wildlife populations had plummeted 68 percent on average over the last 50 years.</p><p>Williams explained to WCS why the loss of intact ecosystems is such a big deal for humans and other animals.</p><p>"Intact lands are relied on by biodiversity for habitat, and by people for ecosystem services such as climate regulation and clean water," Williams said. "We continue to take these last functioning places for granted, and our results show urgent action is needed to protect those lands that do remain intact."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Planting Projects, Backyard Habitats Can Re-Create Livable Natural ... ›
- Humans Are Destroying Wildlife at an Unprecedented Rate, New ... ›
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- Scientists Warn Worse Pandemics Are on the Way if We Don't ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
Read More
Show Less
A home burns during the Bobcat Fire in Juniper Hills, California on September 18, 2020. Kyle Grillot / AFP/ Getty Images
By Stuart Braun
"These are not just wildfires, they are climate fires," Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, said as he stood amid the charred remains of the town of Malden west of Seattle earlier this month. "This is not an act of God," he added. "This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways."
<p>As megafires devastated the entire West Coast of the U.S., Inslee rejected reference to wildfires since the word implies naturally occurring fires.</p><p>By contrast, the term climate fires explicitly links record-breaking blazes that have burned across California, Oregon and Washington to global heating caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas. </p><p>As California Governor Gavin Newsom inspected the ashen countryside in the county of Oroville in his home state, he doubled down on the source of the fires. "This is a climate damn emergency," he said.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNzMwNy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTY1MzE3OH0.AJoxfvXx3isdh4RDPwAsP3EQ5hROX38poO_ZU9eRBJ4/img.png?width=980" id="eaf1a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7168b081bbcd14500a8bcef691b4d659" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>The pointed link to climate has been partly a response to <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-downplays-climate-concerns-over-deadly-us-wildfires/a-54928125" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">President's Donald Trump's insistence</a> that poor forest management, not climate change, is to blame for the fires. Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/cable-news/cable-news-largely-failed-mention-connection-between-climate-change-and-wildfires-its" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">research shows</a> barely 13% of broadcast news segments about the West Coast fires during their peak mentioned climate change.</p>
'These Aren't Wildfires'
<p>Sam Ricketts, who led climate policy and strategy for Governor Jay Inslee's 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted on September 11 that "These aren't wildfires. These are #climatefires, driven by fossil fuel pollution."</p><p>"The rate and the strength and the devastation wrought by these disasters are fueled by climate change," Ricketts told DW of fires that have burnt well over 5 million acres across California, Oregon, Washington State, and into neighboring Idaho. </p><p>In a two-day period in early September, Ricketts notes that more of Washington State burned than in almost any entire fire season until now, apart from 2015. </p><p>California, meanwhile, was a tinderbox after its hottest summer on record, with temperatures in Death Valley reaching nearly 130 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. National Weather Service. It has been reported as the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth.</p><div id="29ad9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8346fe7350e1371d400097cd48bf45a2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306969603180879872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drought-parched wetlands in South America have been burning for weeks. https://t.co/pjAKdFcKPg #Pantanal https://t.co/ImN2C5vwcp</div> — NASA Earth (@NASA Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/statuses/1306969603180879872">1600440810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>As evidenced by Australia's apocalyptic Black Summer of 2019-2020, fires are burning bigger and for longer, with new records set year-on-year. Right now, Brazil's vast and highly biodiverse Pantanal wetlands are suffering from catastrophic fires.</p>
#climatefires Started in Australia
<p>Governor Inslee this month invoked the phrase climate fires for arguably the first time in the U.S., according to Ricketts.</p><p>But the term was also used as fires burnt out of control in Australia in late 2019. In the face of a 2000km (more than 1,200 miles) fire front, and government officials and media who <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-climate-change-denial-emissions-environment-germany-fake-heartland-seibt/a-52688933" target="_blank">played down the link to climate change</a>, Greens Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and a friend decided that reference to bushfires was inadequate. </p><p>"We both just said, we've got to start calling them climate fires, that's what they are," the Australian Senator told DW.</p><p>Hanson-Young says scientists have been warning for decades that these would be the effects of global heating. "We've been told these kinds of extreme weather events and destruction is what climate change would look like, and it's right here on our doorstep," she said from her home state of South Australia — where by early September fire warnings had already been issued.</p><p>"Calling them climate fires was making it absolutely crystal clear. It is essential that there's no ambiguity," she said </p><p>Having deliberately invoked the term, Hanson-Young soon started to push it on social media via a #climatefires hashtag. </p>How to Talk About the Urgency of Global Heating
<p>The need to use more explicit language when talking about extreme weather events linked to climate change is part of a broader push to express the urgency of global heating. In 2019, activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the term "climate change" did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. </p><p>"Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?" she wrote. </p><p>"Climate change has for a long time been talked about as something that is a danger in the future," said Hansen-Young. "But the consequences are already here. When people hear the word crisis, they understand that something has to happen, that action has to be taken."</p><p><span></span>Some terms are now used in public policy, with state and national governments, and indeed the EU Parliament, declaring an official climate emergency in the last year. </p>Words That Reflect the Science
<p>But while the West Coast governors all fervently link the fires to an unfolding climate crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to avoid any reference to climate. In a briefing about the fires, he responded to overtures by Wade Crowfoot, California's Natural Resources Secretary, to work with the states on the climate crisis by stating: "It'll start getting cooler. You just watch." Crowfoot replied by saying that scientists disagreed. Trump rejoined with "I don't think science knows, actually." </p><p>It was reminiscent of the anti-science approach to the coronavirus pandemic within the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-admits-playing-down-coronavirus-risks/a-54874350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least publicly</a>. Fossil fuel companies are also benefiting from his disavowal of climate science, with the Trump administration having <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-trumps-paris-climate-accord-exit-isnt-really-a-problem/a-51124958" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pulled out of the Paris Agreement</a> and reopened fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. </p><p>But the science community has responded, with Scientific American magazine endorsing Trump's Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. </p><p>Hanson-Young says the use of explicit language like climate fires has also been important in Australia due to the climate denialism of politicians and the press, especially in publications owned by Rupert Murdoch. As fires burnt out much of Australia's southeast coast, they were commonly blamed on arson — a tactic also recently used in the U.S.</p>Climate Rhetoric Could Help Decide Election
<p>The language of climate has begun to influence the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Democratic nominee Joe Biden labelling President Trump a "climate arsonist."</p><p>Biden is touting a robust climate plan that includes a 2050 zero emissions target and a return to the Paris Agreement. Though lacking the ambition of The New Green Deal, it has been front and center of his policy platform in recent days, at a time when five hurricanes are battering the U.S. Gulf Coast while smoke blanketing the West Coast spreads all the way to the East. </p><p>People are experiencing the climate crisis in a visceral way and almost universally relate to the language of an emergency, says Ricketts. "They know something is wrong."</p>From Your Site Articles
- The Vicious Climate-Wildfire Cycle - EcoWatch ›
- How Climate Change Ignites Wildfires From California to South Africa ›
- 31 Dead, 250,000 Evacuated in California Fires as Governor ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
7h
Climate
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world. PickPik
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world, The Guardian reported. The study examined 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions and wealth inequality from 1990 to 2015.
<p>The findings, <a href="https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y" target="_blank">Confronting Carbon Inequality: Putting climate justice at the heart of the COVID-19 recovery</a>, reveal how current economic systems have created extreme carbon inequity and brought the planet to the brink of ecological collapse. It also provides a roadmap for governments around the world to create fairer, more sustainable economies.</p><p>"Our current economic model has been an enabler of catastrophic climate change and equally catastrophic inequality," former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in the report.</p><p>The brief found that the roughly 630 million people who make up the world's wealthiest 10 percent were responsible for 52 percent of the world's carbons emissions from 1990-2015. They alone depleted the world's "carbon budget" by 31 percent. Carbon budgets define the total amount of carbon emissions allowed within a set period. By contrast, the world's poorest 50 percent, consisting of nearly 3.1 billion people, were responsible for just seven percent of global emissions and four percent of the available carbon budget.</p><p>The analysis further examined how wealth correlates to carbon emissions. It found that the richest one percent, about 63 million people, were responsible for 15 percent of carbon emissions. The wealthiest five percent were responsible for more than a third of carbon emissions growth over the 25-year time frame. The growth emissions from the top one percent amounted to three times the growth in emissions compared to the bottom 50 percent.</p>
<p>"The over-consumption of a wealthy minority is fueling the climate crisis yet it is poor communities and young people who are paying the price," Tim Gore, Head of Climate Policy at Oxfam and author of the report said in a <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Such extreme carbon inequality is a direct consequence of our governments decades long pursuit of grossly unequal and carbon intensive economic growth."</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/climatechange-emissions-wealth/in-suvs-and-on-planes-richest-1-drive-climate-heating-emissions-idUSL8N2GF31C" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported that consumption from the world's wealthiest people had depleted the carbon budget to the point where there isn't much room for poorer countries to grow without worsening the climate crisis.</p><p>In order to keep the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, poorer countries will need to develop renewable energy sources while the wealthiest people and nations will need to limit over-consumption, reported Reuters.</p><p>"The global carbon budget has been squandered to expand the consumption of the already rich, rather than to improve humanity," Gore told the Guardian. "A finite amount of carbon can be added to the atmosphere if we want to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. We need to ensure that carbon is used for the best."</p>
<p>The report noted that if emissions continue to go unchecked, the wealthy will use up the world's available carbon budget by 2030, even if the rest of the world slashed its emissions to zero today.</p><p>Oxfam reported that transportation contributed about a quarter of current global emissions, citing SUVs as the second biggest contributing factor.</p><p>"Simply rebooting our outdated, unfair, and polluting pre-Covid economies is no longer a viable option," Gore said in the Oxfam release.</p><p>"Governments must curb the emissions of the wealthy through taxes and bans on luxury carbon such as SUVs and frequent flights. Revenues should be invested in public services and low carbon sectors to create jobs, and help end poverty," Gore added.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The Metronome, a famous art installation in Union Square that used to display the time of day, has been repurposed into a "Climate Clock" for Climate Week NYC. Zack Winestine
By Jessica Corbett
This story was originally published on Common Dreams on September 19, 2020.
Some advocates kicked off next week's Climate Week NYC early Saturday by repurposing the Metronome, a famous art installation in Union Square that used to display the time of day, as a massive "Climate Clock" in an effort to pressure governments worldwide to take swift, bold action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and rein in human-caused global heating.
<p><br/></p>
<p>"The clock is a way to speak science to power," project co-founder Andrew Boyd said in a statement. "The clock is telling us we must reduce our emissions as much as we can as fast as we can. The technology is there. We can do this—and in the process, create a healthier, more just world for all of us. Our planet has a deadline. But we can turn it into a lifeline."</p><p>Launched as people across the country are facing the deadly, devastating <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/18/climate-floods-climate-droughts-climate-fires-interactive-map-illustrates-how" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">impacts of climate change</a>—from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/11/fires-ravaging-us-west-bellwether-future-says-oregon-governor-half-million-residents" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">historic wildfires</a> in western states to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/17/bolstering-calls-climate-action-mutant-sloth-hurricane-sally-leaves-major-mess-gulf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">slow-moving hurricanes</a> and the resulting floods on the Gulf Coast—the clock in New York City on Saturday warned that the international community only has seven years and 102 days to "undertake bold transformation of our energy system and economy" in hopes of keeping global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius.</p><p>"Climate Change is already here. This clock is not an alarm clock saying, in seven years it will ring and we need to wake up! It's more like a stopwatch already running that we have to keep pace with," explained Gan Golan, the project originator. "We need to take action today, tomorrow, and the day after that. Let's get moving. Every second counts. We need to act in time."</p>
<div id="0bde7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="002ce26d8d0c627f76d752e14d234d6e"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1307397838884741121" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">LIVE: #ClimateClock about to go live at Union square replacing the atronomical clock, with a carbon countdown!… https://t.co/5OzxwUwWDf</div> — Greg Schwedock🌹(⧖) (@Greg Schwedock🌹(⧖))<a href="https://twitter.com/GregSchwedock/statuses/1307397838884741121">1600542909.0</a></blockquote></div><p>A mobile climate clock that Swedish youth activist Greta Thunberg "now carries with her, as well as the larger Climate Clock project, was assembled by a team of artists, makers, scientists, and activists based in New York, and is part of the Beautiful Trouble community of projects," according to <a href="https://climateclock.world/" target="_blank">Climateclock.world</a>, which details the science behind the numbers displayed and how to install clocks in other cities.</p>
<div id="5160f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="75ffdd348e9e589c32b324c77f650b1b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1204581474218807296" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">LIVE: Greta Thunberg's worldwide #ClimateClock launches https://t.co/sglWCLwdsG</div> — act.tv (@act.tv)<a href="https://twitter.com/actdottv/statuses/1204581474218807296">1576029578.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"In an accompanying app, the artists include more detail about solutions," <em>Fast Company</em> <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90552230/manhattans-classic-digital-clock-is-now-counting-down-to-climate-disaster" target="_blank">reported</a> Saturday. "Another number tracks the current percentage of renewable energy in the world. An interactive tool shows how to 'flatten the climate curve' and how much difference it makes to invest more now, and to move more quickly. A DIY maker kit explains how to make a countdown clock of your own."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/19/massive-climate-clock-urging-governments-actintime-unveiled-metronome-new-york-city" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 5 Virtual Events to Check Out This Climate Week NYC - EcoWatch ›
- Covering Climate Now Highlights Solutions for Earth Week - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks onstage at the event Fourth Annual Berggruen Prize Gala Celebrates 2019 Laureate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in New York City on Dec. 16, 2019. Ilya S. Savenok / Getty Images for Berggruen Institute
The passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg means the nation's highest court has lost a staunch advocate for women's rights and civil rights. Ginsburg was a tireless worker, who continued to serve on the bench through multiple bouts of cancer. She also leaves behind a complicated environmental legacy, as Environment and Energy News (E&E News) reported.
<p>While it was often assumed that Ginsburg would decide in favor of environmental advocates in cases argued before the Supreme Court, the truth is that she often decided based on the nuances of the law rather than the decision that was best for the planet, according to E&E News.</p><p>She sided with the majority in the 5-4 decision of <em><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruth-bader-ginsburg-leaves-a-nuanced-legacy-on-environmental-issues/" target="_blank">Massachusetts v. EPA</a></em>. That case, argued before the court in 2006 and decided in 2007, found that the Clean Air Act gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that are spewed from the tailpipes of cars, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/ginsburgs-long-environmental-legacy-418324" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">POLITICO</a>.</p><p>That decision was instrumental in the Obama administration raising the tailpipe emissions standard to make new cars 5 percent more efficient annually until 2026. That rule was then rolled back by the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump</a> administration to make them just 1.5 percent more efficient, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions/trump-finalizes-rollback-of-obama-era-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-standards-idUSKBN21I25S" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>And yet, Ginsburg also wrote the opinion of the court in the 2011 decision of <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut</a></em>. That decision stripped the authority of the states and private companies to sue power companies for their contribution to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a> in federal court under a public nuisance law, as E&E news reported.</p><p>Ginsburg, in that decision, emphasized the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, as POLITICO reported. That authority paved the way for the Obama administration to issue new rules for power plants that drastically reduced how much pollution they could spew into the air and waterways.</p><p>The decision, which on its face seemed to limit the rights of people and states to hold polluters accountable for their actions, actually empowered state attorneys general to sue in state court. This authority has been upheld, despite repeated attempts by the fossil fuel industry to move the cases to the federal courts, according to POLITICO.</p>
<p>Ginsburg did look to expand the authority of regulatory agencies to rein in polluters. She joined the dissent in two notable cases, <em>Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers</em> and <em>Rapanos v. United States</em>, both of which would have expanded the definition of the Clean Water Act, according to E&E News.</p><p>In 2014, Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in a case that allowed the EPA to regulate coal plants where their emissions blew across state lines and affected the air quality of states that were downwind, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-upholds-epa-rule-on-cross-state-pollution/2014/04/29/7978fd14-cfce-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. That case is credited with putting an end to some of the country's filthiest power plants, according to POLITICO.</p><p>Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator under Obama and now the president and CEO of the National Resources Defense Council, said in 2014 that the decision was "a resounding victory for public health and a key component" of the agency's attempts to "make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe," as The Washington Post reported.</p>
<p>In an NRDC <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200918" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">statement</a> on Friday, McCarthy praised Ginsburg's life work. "From her pathbreaking advocacy for gender equality to her relentless defense of democracy itself, Justice Ginsburg widened our vision of who we are, enlarged in law the values we share and raised, forever, the possibility of what we might become."</p><p>Other environmental advocates issued statements praising the late justice as well.</p><p>"Justice Ginsburg was a pioneer for gender equality, civil rights, and the right of citizens to sue to protect their environment. The legal community lost a champion for the underdog and the nation as a whole," said Trent Dougherty, general counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council, in a <a href="https://theoec.org/press-releases/rbg0920/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director said in a <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/09/sierra-club-statement-passing-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg" target="_blank">statement</a>, "As we mourn the loss of Justice Ginsburg, we should reflect on her words that 'Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time. Those of us who strive to make change for good in this world — whether it be fighting for racial justice, reproductive rights, or for a livable future — must continue the fight in her honor."<span></span></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ... ›
- Supreme Court Upholds Virginia's Ban on Uranium Mining - EcoWatch ›
- In Major Win for Indigenous Rights, Supreme Court Rules Much of ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Plastic waste is bulldozed at a landfill. Needpix
The plastic recycling model was never economically viable, but oil and gas companies still touted it as a magic solution to waste, selling the American public a lie so the companies could keep pushing new plastic.
<p>"The bottle may look empty, yet it's anything but trash," claims a 1990 ad showing a plastic bottle bouncing out of a garbage truck, <a href="https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energy-environment/2020/09/13/381750/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled/" target="_blank">Houston Public Media</a> reported. It's full of potential.… We've pioneered the country's largest, most comprehensive plastic recycling program to help plastic fill valuable uses and roles."</p><p>While the ad and countless others like it extolling the value of recycling sound environmentalist in nature, they were paid for by the plastics industry and their lobbying and trade organizations, the news report added.</p><p>Americans believed these ads and have been recycling plastic for decades, trusting the discards would be kept out of burgeoning landfills and oceans and reborn as new goods. The reality, however, is that most plastic can't and won't be recycled, reported NPR. According to the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data" target="_blank">EPA</a>, in the last 40 years, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/recycling-plastic-reality-2615116844.html" target="_self">less than 10% of plastic has been recycled</a>.</p><p>Up until 2018, most recyclable plastic was shipped to China to deal with, reported Forbes. When the latter banned imports of 24 kinds of waste, including plastic from the U.S., more plastic ended up in U.S. landfills, the news report said. In 2017, 35,370 tons of plastic were produced and 26,820 tons of that was landfilled, the EPA estimated, reported Forbes.</p>
<p>A series of investigative reports done by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/822597631/plastic-wars-three-takeaways-from-the-fight-over-the-future-of-plastics" target="_blank">NPR</a> and the PBS series <em>Frontline</em> this year found that the oil and gas industries — the makers of plastic — knew all along that plastic recycling would never be realistically feasible on a large scale, yet they spent tens of millions of advertising dollars each year telling the public that plastic can and should be recycled.</p><p>Internal documents from the 1970s and former executives confirmed that the industry knew all along that recycling at a large scale would never be economically viable because the process costs more than making new plastic, NPR reported.</p><p>Larry Thomas, who led the industry's lobbying group for more than a decade, broke his silence about what happened decades ago. The plastic industry never wanted recycling to work, because recycling was in direct competition with their business of selling as much oil as they possibly could, <a href="https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energy-environment/2020/09/13/381750/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled/" target="_blank">Houston Public Media</a> reported.</p><p>"You know, they were not interested in putting any real money or effort into recycling because they wanted to sell virgin material," Thomas told the news report.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, starting in the late 1980s, the industry misled consumers into believing that recycling could be a magic panacea. Spending $50 million a year, big oil and plastic ran ads, installed collection centers and funded recycling projects and public regulation campaigns to convince the public that recycling works, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled" target="_blank">NPR</a> reported.</p><p>"Selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn't true," another former plastic executive told NPR.</p><p>Most of these projects never came to fruition before funding was cut, or have long since ended, reported Houston Public Media.</p><p>The industry also lobbied 40 states to put recycling symbols with numbers on all plastic, even if they weren't recyclable, to bolster the public image that plastic can be a renewable resource, the news report found.</p>
<p>"It's pure manipulation of the consumer," Coy Smith, a frustrated recycler out of San Diego, told Houston Public Media. He witnessed firsthand how the symbols caused consumers to think any plastic with the symbol was recyclable.</p><p>Again, lobbying groups and the plastics industry knew all this. A 1993 industry report said that the codes created "unrealistic expectations" about how much plastic can actually be recycled and were being misused by companies as a "green marketing tool," Houston Public Media reported.</p><p>When plastic bans started to pop up in the '80s and '90s, the industry similarly promoted recycling as an alternative to the bans, NPR reported. The industry again decided to "advertise [its] way out" of cultural and policy shifts that could potentially lead to falling sales of new plastic, NPR reported.</p><p>"The feeling was the plastics industry was under fire, we got to do what it takes to take the heat off, because we want to continue to make plastic products," Thomas told NPR. "If the public thinks the recycling is working, then they're not going to be as concerned about the environment."</p>
<p>The strategy worked, and the companies promoted recycling while selling billions of dollars worth of new plastic. Meanwhile, old plastic continued to get trashed.</p><p>In response to the investigation, industry representative Steve Russell said the industry has never intentionally misled the public about recycling and is committed to ensuring all plastic is recycled, Forbes reported. Still, according to the news report, the oil industry makes $400 billion a year producing plastic and is discussing how to increase investment in plastic production given that demand for oil for cars is down.</p><p>As the truth about recycling comes out, states and environmentalists struggle to see <a href="https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/13/fix-recycling-america/" target="_blank">if the broken system can be fixed at all</a>. While they do that, plastic production is predicted to triple by 2050, NPR reported, and, "once again, the industry is spending money on ads and public relations to promote plastics and recycling."</p>
<p> <br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- U.S. Products Labeled Recyclable Really Aren't, Greenpeace ... ›
- The Recycling Dilemma: Good Plastic, Bad plastic? - EcoWatch ›
- The Complex and Frustrating Reality of Recycling Plastic - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Climate Group
Every September for the past 11 years, non-profit the Climate Group has hosted Climate Week NYC, a chance for business, government, activist and community leaders to come together and discuss solutions to the climate crisis.
<p>This September is no different. Despite the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a>, <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/climate-week-nyc-2020" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Climate Week NYC</a> is returning for its 12th year next week from Sept. 21 to 27, making it the largest climate summit taking place this year. And, because of the new focus on virtual events, you don't have to physically be in New York City to participate.</p><p>"We're really excited that Climate Week NYC is going to be able to bring together so many important events and conversations, both in New York City and around the world," head of Climate Week NYC Adam Lake told EcoWatch in an email. "With an understandably strong focus on digital events this year, we're grateful to work with Facebook to help support event organizers use tools and platforms to host events and connect with the climate community. Together, Climate Week NYC 2020 will be the most engaging, inclusive and truly global Climate Week we've ever seen."</p>
<p>All of the Climate Group's events will be available to watch on its <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/TheClimateGroup/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Facebook page</a> starting Monday. The page will also feature highlights of more than 350 affiliated events being organized in New York City and elsewhere. You can check out the full events calendar <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/events-program" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>. But, to help you out, here are five free Climate Week NYC events you can participate in from the comfort and safety of your couch.</p>
<p>1. <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/event/play-planet" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Play for the Planet</a>: Are you a musician or artist? Do you care about stopping climate change? <a href="https://climatemusic.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ClimateMusic</a> is asking artists to send them their answers to short interview questions, concluding with a video answer to the prompt, "What do you want the future to sound like?" The responses will appear in a series of testimonials on the organization's website. Participants are also encouraged to share their answers on social media using the hashtags #PlayforthePlanet and #ClimateMusic. <em>All week.</em></p>
<p>2. <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/event/chance-lifetime-how-governments-and-businesses-are-achieving-green-economic-recovery" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Chance of a Lifetime? How Governments and Businesses are Achieving a Green Economic Recovery</a>: Listen to business, non-profit and government leaders discuss how we can recover from the coronavirus pandemic in a way that halves greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 years. This Climate Group hosted event will feature speakers including Climate Group CEO Helen Clarkson, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/covid-vaccine-trial-stopped-2647532475.html" target="_self">AstraZeneca</a> Executive Vice President Katarina Ageborg and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Basil Seggos. Watch on the Climate Group's <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/TheClimateGroup" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Facebook Watch</a> page. <em>Tuesday, Sept. 22, 9:45 - 11:25 a.m.</em></p>
<p>3. <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/event/expressing-climate-grief" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Expressing Climate Grief</a>: Are you overwhelmed with emotion when you think about everything happening to the earth and its creatures? Sustaining All Life and United to End Racism will lead a digital workshop in expressing these emotions and healing them so that you can go back into your community and work to stop the climate crisis without burning out. Register <a href="https://sal.rc.org/workshop/expressingclimategrief2020" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>. <em>Wednesday, Sept. 23, 1 - 2:30 p.m.</em></p>
<p>4. <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/event/climate-change-and-american-voter" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Climate Insights 2020: Climate Change and the American Voter</a>: With the November election less than two months away, everyone wants to know how climate change will impact voters' decisions. Speakers including Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University and Christina Chan of the World Resources Institute will discuss the latest results of a survey assessing the priorities of U.S. voters. RSVP <a href="https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Y8MA8IOzRtKP3kuGqNo9pA" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>. <em>Thursday, Sept. 24, 11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.</em></p>
<p>5. <a href="https://www.climateweeknyc.org/event/climate-justice-and-resilience-farmers-and-communities-front-lines" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Climate Justice and Resilience: Farmers and Communities on the Front Lines</a>: This roundtable discussion hosted by the <a href="https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Rainforest Alliance</a> will seek to answer how governments and corporations can best support rural farmers and Indigenous communities on the front lines of the climate crisis. It will include a focus on "climate-smart agriculture" and how it can be expanded. Speakers will include International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change Co-chair Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, Ghanaian cocoa farmer Elijah Owusu-Cashiedom and Unilever Chief Sustainability Officer Rebecca Marmot. Register <a href="https://raorg.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_PLB8Fhp_T2ujgEgdvv0KZg" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>. <em></em><em>Friday, Sept. 25, 9 - 10:30 a.m.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Covering the 2020 Elections as a Climate Story - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Delays 2020 Earth Overshoot Day by Three Weeks ... ›
- Massive 'Climate Clock' Is Unveiled in New York City - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A field of sunflowers near the Mehrum coal-fired power station, wind turbines and high-voltage lines in the Peine district of Germany on Aug. 3, 2020. Julian Stratenschulte / picture alliance via Getty Images
By Elliot Douglas
The coronavirus pandemic has altered economic priorities for governments around the world. But as wildfires tear up the west coast of the United States and Europe reels after one of its hottest summers on record, tackling climate change remains at the forefront of economic policy.
<p>The German Economics Minister Peter Altmaier made history last week by announcing the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-climate-change-co2/a-54891520" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"historic compromise" of a new climate charter</a> for Europe's economic powerhouse. Days later, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the EU's Green New Deal climate goals would become even more ambitious, with a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the bloc by 55% by 2030.</p><p>Germany's climate charter would bring the country in line with Brussels' plans and put Germany at the forefront of green policy. But is Altmaier's charter just political posturing?</p>
<h3>What Is the Climate Charter?</h3><p>"This is the first time the economics ministry of a major country has openly embraced policies suggested by groups like Fridays for Future," climate change policy expert Miranda Schreuers told DW. "That is really quite dramatic."</p><p>Schreuers is a professor of environment and climate policy at the Technical University of Munich, and is among those who cautiously welcome Altmaier's announcement.</p><p>Youth environmentalist movement Fridays for Future, led by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, has enjoyed widespread support in Germany — millions of people took to the streets in what became known as climate strikes last year.</p><p>The establishment of the "Charter for Climate Neutrality and Economic Strength" may indeed be a response to some of their demands. Altmaier's announcement also enshrines the EU goal of complete climate neutrality by 2050, with the application of annual goals in Germany. But prominent London-based think tank Energy Transmissions Commission <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/net-zero-emissions-mission-possible-by-2050-says-industrial-think-tank/a-54946076" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">described the goal as "mission impossible" on Wednesday</a>.</p>
<div id="b8f89" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ee9d985b6f927ce8f72d98cd509f2889"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306543640886599680" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">We owe it to our children and grandchildren to take action now.
Cutting net EU greenhouse gas emissions by 55% com… https://t.co/qkpOUTxQHX</div> — European Commission 🇪🇺 (@European Commission 🇪🇺)<a href="https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/statuses/1306543640886599680">1600339253.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Other key points include subsidies for German businesses which use <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> sources and the introduction of a scoreboard to rate companies for how efficiently they cut emissions.</p><p>But Altmaier's most radical announcement — at least politically — was his admission that he has made mistakes by not acting faster and that the goals can only be achieved if political parties work together.</p><p>"We have failed to adequately explain our policy. A lot could have happened quicker and faster," the close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel said.</p>
<h3>Importance of the Economic Model</h3><p>Schreuers believes that getting certain key industries to work with the climate charter will be crucial to the success of Altmaier's plan.</p><p>"If we don't manage to get certain industries on board — automobile manufacturing and steel for example — then it simply won't work," she explained.</p><p>"Big industry needs to stay in the country, and it needs to become competitive and green."</p><p>Germany's reliance on high-emitting industries has long cast a shadow on its green reforms. Altmaier hopes that a reform of CO2 pricing can help improve this.</p><p>"The only concrete measure in his plan is the idea of reforming CO2 pricing," said Antje von Broock of environmental organization Friends of the Earth Germany. "And he could have done that in September 2019."</p><p>That was when Germany announced its climate package ahead of the EU's Green New Deal.</p><p>In the new green Europe, which von der Leyen wants to see as the world's first climate-neutral continent, Germany can only keep up if it protects big industry, Schreuers believes.</p>
<h3>Is Germany a World Leader for Climate Protection?</h3><p>But Schreuers also thinks that Germany's role as a world leader in this issue may have been overstated in the last few years.</p><p>"Although Germany has been seen as a leader in climate protection policy, you could argue that Germany has really been crucial in putting on the brakes," Schreuers says. "But now Germany is waking up to the reality that other parts of the world are already streets ahead of them."</p><p>China, Japan and the U.S. state of California are all in the process of developing ambitious renewable energy systems that could leave the EU, and Germany with it, trailing behind.</p><p>Schreuers also believes that this November's U.S. presidential election will be a game-changer for the EU and Germany's climate goals.</p><p>"Right now, it looks like [Democratic presidential candidate Joe] Biden will win — and he wants 100% carbon-free electricity in the U.S. by 2035," Schreuers explains. "That will change the global playing field hugely."</p>
<h3>An Early Start to the Election Campaign?</h3><p>The timing of Altmaier's announcement may also be significant, with Germany heading to the polls in less than a year.</p><p>Von Broock of Friends of the Earth Germany largely dismisses the 20-point plan as electioneering. "Peter Altmaier wants to use climate protection policy to increase his profile in the pre-election campaign."</p><p>There is all to play for in 2021 for Altmaier's center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), as the enduringly popular Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down. The CDU is currently in coalition with the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), but the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-projected-to-gain-in-key-local-election/a-54913456" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Green party is catching up with the SPD.</a> Many national polls put the Greens as Germany's second most popular party.</p><p>"All of this means the CDU are setting themselves up for a new coalition partner — possibly the Greens," said Schreuers. The climate charter may be a concession toward this possible future pact.</p><p>Altmaier was insistent that the new charter will "cross party lines" and that the CDU is ready to work together with other parties.</p><p>For both academic Schreuers and activist von Broock, the proof will be in the achievement of the goals.</p><p>"What we need are serious social efforts, led by politicians who courageously initiate the necessary ecological and social transformation," says von Broock. "It is therefore fundamentally to be welcomed that Minister Altmaier wants to bring the economy on board. However, the 20 points of his climate charter do not go far enough."</p><p>"Germany needs to be a player in the next stage of global climate protection," Professor Schreuers explains. "If you are a player, you have more power to shape the narrative. And Germany needs to shape the narrative if it wants to remain an economic powerhouse."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-climate-charter-what-will-it-change/a-54957054?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">DW</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- German Business Leaders Call for Climate Action With COVID-19 ... ›
- Climate Activists Protest Germany's New Datteln 4 Coal Power Plant ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Monarch Butterflies’ Spectacular Migration Is at Risk – An Ambitious Plan Aims to Save It
18 September
Animals
Monarch butterflies in Mexico's Oyamel forest in Michoacan, Mexico after migrating from Canada. Luis Acosta / AFP / Getty Images
By D. André Green II
One of nature's epic events is underway: Monarch butterflies' fall migration. Departing from all across the United States and Canada, the butterflies travel up to 2,500 miles to cluster at the same locations in Mexico or along the Pacific Coast where their great-grandparents spent the previous winter.
<p>
<br/>
</p>
<p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/d-andre-green-ii-798108" target="_blank">D. André Green II</a> is an </em>Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan.<em><br/>
</em>
</p><p>
<em>Disclosure statement: </em><em>D. André Green II receives funding from the National Geographic Society.</em>
</p><p>
<em><span></span>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/monarch-butterflies-spectacular-migration-is-at-risk-an-ambitious-new-plan-aims-to-help-save-it-136479" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><iframe height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136479/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1"></iframe>
<p>Human activities have an outsized impact on monarchs' ability to migrate yearly to these specific sites. Development, agriculture and logging have reduced monarch habitat. Climate change, drought and pesticide use also reduce the number of butterflies that complete the journey.</p><p>Since 1993, the area of forest covered by monarchs at their overwintering sites in Mexico has fallen from a peak of 45 acres in 1996-1997 to <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2020/03/number-of-monarch-butterflies-wintering-in-mexico-down-by-more-than-half/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as low as 1.66 acres</a> in the winter of 2013-2014. A 2016 study warned that monarchs were dangerously close to a predicted "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23265" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">point of no return</a>." The 2019 count of monarchs in California was the lowest ever recorded for that group.</p><p>What was largely a bottom-up, citizen-powered effort to save the struggling monarch butterfly migration has shifted toward a top-down conversation between the federal government, private industry and large-tract landowners. As a <a href="https://greendeilab.com/" target="_blank">biologist studying monarchs</a> to understand the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15178" target="_blank">molecular and genetic aspects of migration</a>, I believe this experiment has high stakes for monarchs and other imperiled species.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNDIxNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1Mjk4NDY0MH0.ye1oi-21CqYxK1BS7nBwiii6g_9dQIuHZfR2sT-PL5Y/img.png?width=980" id="5cab0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cafebfff5a437115e805a31f67002fed" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Millions of People Care About Monarchs
<p>I will never forget the sights and sounds the first time I visited monarchs' overwintering sites in Mexico. Our guide pointed in the distance to what looked like hanging branches covered with dead leaves. But then I saw the leaves flash orange every so often, revealing what were actually thousands of tightly packed butterflies. The monarchs made their most striking sounds in the Sun, when they burst from the trees in massive fluttering plumes or landed on the ground in the tussle of mating.</p><p>Decades of educational outreach by teachers, researchers and hobbyists has cultivated a generation of monarch admirers who want to help preserve this phenomenon. This global network has helped restore not only monarchs' summer breeding habitat by planting milkweed, but also general pollinator habitat by planting nectaring flowers across North America.</p><p>Scientists have calculated that restoring the monarch population to a stable level of about 120 million butterflies will require <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12198" target="_blank">planting 1.6 billion new milkweed stems</a>. And they need them fast. This is too large a target to achieve through grassroots efforts alone. A <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/CCAA.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">new plan</a>, announced in the spring of 2020, is designed to help fill the gap.</p>Pros and Cons of Regulation
<p>The top-down strategy for saving monarchs gained energy in 2014, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/petition/monarch.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> listing them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A decision is expected in December 2020.</p><p>Listing a species as endangered or threatened <a href="https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf" target="_blank">triggers restrictions</a> on "taking" (hunting, collecting or killing), transporting or selling it, and on activities that negatively affect its habitat. Listing monarchs would impose restrictions on landowners in areas where monarchs are found, over vast swaths of land in the U.S.</p><p>In my opinion, this is not a reason to avoid a listing. However, a "threatened" listing might inadvertently threaten one of the best conservation tools that we have: public education.</p><p>It would severely restrict common practices, such as rearing monarchs in classrooms and back yards, as well as scientific research. Anyone who wants to take monarchs and milkweed for these purposes would have to apply for special permits. But these efforts have had a multigenerational educational impact, and they should be protected. Few public campaigns have been more successful at raising awareness of conservation issues.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="91165203d4ec0efc30e4632a00fdf57d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KilPRvjbMrA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
The Rescue Attempt
<p>To preempt the need for this kind of regulation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/pdfs/Monarch%20CCAA-CCA%20Public%20Comment%20Documents/Monarch-Nationwide_CCAA-CCA_Draft.pdf" target="_blank">Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement for Monarch Butterflies</a>. Under this plan, "rights-of-way" landowners – energy and transportation companies and private owners – commit to restoring and creating millions of acres of pollinator habitat that have been decimated by land development and herbicide use in the past half-century.</p><p>The agreement was spearheaded by the <a href="http://rightofway.erc.uic.edu/" target="_blank">Rights-of-Way Habitat Working Group</a>, a collaboration between the University of Illinois Chicago's <a href="https://erc.uic.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Energy Resources Center</a>, the Fish and Wildlife Service and over 40 organizations from the energy and transportation sectors. These sectors control "rights-of-way" corridors such as lands near power lines, oil pipelines, railroad tracks and interstates, all valuable to monarch habitat restoration.</p><p>Under the plan, partners voluntarily agree to commit a percentage of their land to host protected monarch habitat. In exchange, general operations on their land that might directly harm monarchs or destroy milkweed will not be subject to the enhanced regulation of the Endangered Species Act – protection that would last for 25 years if monarchs are listed as threatened. The agreement is expected to create up to 2.3 million acres of new protected habitat, which ideally would avoid the need for a "threatened" listing.</p><div id="5756a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="60ebca608cf0dade6850bc4cbeb28045"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1168708823814742016" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Massive #monarch roosts all over the farm, can't move around without setting off a storm. #Minnesota #native #plants https://t.co/XStLDeuouK</div> — Dustin Demmer (@Dustin Demmer)<a href="https://twitter.com/DustinDemmer/statuses/1168708823814742016">1567476871.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Many questions remain. Scientists are still learning about factors that cause monarch population decline, so it is likely that land management goals will need to change over the course of the agreement, and partner organizations will have to adjust to those changes.</p><p>Oversight of the plan will fall primarily to the University of Illinois, and ultimately to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. But it's not clear whether they will have the resources they need. And without effective oversight, the plan could allow parties to carry out destructive land management practices that would otherwise be barred under an Endangered Species Act listing.</p>
A Model for Collaboration
<p>This agreement could be one of the few specific interventions that is big enough to allow researchers to quantify its impact on the size of the monarch population. Even if the agreement produces only 20% of its 2.3 million acre goal, this would still yield nearly half a million acres of new protected habitat. This would provide a powerful test of the role of declining breeding and nectaring habitat compared to other challenges to monarchs, such as climate change or pollution.</p><p>Scientists hope that data from this agreement will be made publicly available, like projects in the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/MCD.html" target="_blank">Monarch Conservation Database</a>, which has tracked smaller on-the-ground conservation efforts since 2014. With this information we can continue to develop powerful new models with better accuracy for determining how different habitat factors, such as the number of milkweed stems or nectaring flowers on a landscape scale, affect the monarch population.</p><p>North America's monarch butterfly migration is one of the most awe-inspiring feats in the natural world. If this rescue plan succeeds, it could become a model for bridging different interests to achieve a common conservation goal.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Solar geoengineering would involve injecting reflective aerosols from high-altitude planes into the layer of the upper atmosphere known as the stratosphere to reduce the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gases. namoliang / Pixabay
By Betsy Mason
For decades, climate scientist David Keith of Harvard University has been trying to get people to take his research seriously. He's a pioneer in the field of geoengineering, which aims to combat climate change through a range of technological fixes. Over the years, ideas have included sprinkling iron in the ocean to stimulate plankton to suck up more carbon from the atmosphere or capturing carbon straight out of the air.
<p>Keith founded a company that develops technology to remove carbon from the air, but his specialty is solar geoengineering, which involves reflecting sunlight away from Earth to reduce the amount of heat that gets trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. The strategy hasn't been proven, but modeling suggests it will work. And because major volcanic eruptions can have the same effect, there are some real-world data to anchor the idea.</p><p>In the near future, Keith and his colleagues hope to launch one of the first tests of the concept: a high-altitude balloon that would inject tiny, reflective particles into the layer of the upper atmosphere known as the stratosphere. The place and time for the experiment are still to be determined, but it would be a baby step toward showing whether artificial stratospheric particles could help cool the planet the way eruptions do naturally.</p><p>But the idea of using a technological fix for climate change is controversial. Talking about — let alone researching — geoengineering has long been considered taboo for fear that it would dampen efforts to fight climate change in other ways, particularly the critical work of reducing carbon emissions. That left geoengineering on the fringes of climate research. But people's attitudes may be changing, Keith says. He argues that while geoengineering by itself cannot solve the problem of climate change, it could help mitigate the damage if implemented carefully alongside emissions reductions.</p><p>In 2000, Keith <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245" target="_blank">published an overview of geoengineering research</a> in the <em>Annual Review of Energy and the Environment</em>, in which he noted that major climate assessments up until that point had largely ignored it. Earlier this year, he spoke in Seattle about the current state of the field at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. <em>Knowable Magazine</em> talked with Keith about how the scientific, technological and geopolitical landscape has changed in the intervening decades.</p><p><span></span>This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.</p>
<p><strong>Twenty years ago you called geoengineering "deeply controversial." How has the controversy changed since then?</strong></p><p>Back then it was something that a pretty small group of people who thought about climate knew about — and mostly agreed they wouldn't talk about. And that was it. Now it's much more widely discussed. I think the taboo is reduced, for sure. It's certainly still controversial, but my sense is that there has been a real shift. An increasing number of people who are in climate science or in public policy around climate or in environmental groups now agree that this is something we should talk about, even if many think it should never be implemented. There's even growing agreement that research should happen. It feels really different.</p><p><strong>Why was there a taboo against talking about geoengineering, and do you think was it valid?</strong></p><p>I think it's well-intentioned; people are right to worry that talking about geoengineering might reduce the effort to cut emissions. I don't think this concern about moral hazard is a valid reason not to do research. There were people who argued that we shouldn't allow the AIDS triple-drug cocktail to be distributed in Africa because it would be misused, creating resistance. Others argued against implementation of airbags, because people would drive faster. There is a long history of arguing against all sorts of potentially risk-reducing technologies because of the potential for risk compensation — the possibility that people will change behavior by taking on more risks. I think it's an ethically confused argument.</p><p>For me, the most serious concern is some entities — like big fossil-fuel companies that have a political interest in blocking emissions cuts — will attempt to exploit the potential of geoengineering as an argument against emissions cuts. This concern has likely been the primary reason that some big civil-society groups want to block or contain discussion of this stuff so it doesn't enter more widely into the climate debate. For me the concern is entirely justified, but I think the right answer is to confront it head-on rather than avoiding debate. I don't want a world where decisions are made by elites talking behind closed doors.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNDEzNy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2Mjg3Mzg4OH0.GSB_7f7L144wE4rga4w1XPslOxI8DqRStp4uHqnaQtc/img.png?width=980" id="a58a6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5d73a752c69eb9af003518c4bf48cb4b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Solar geoengineering would involve injecting reflective aerosols from high-altitude planes into the layer of the upper atmosphere known as the stratosphere, which stretches between 10 to 50 kilometers (6 to 31 miles) above Earth's surface. The idea is that the aerosol particles would reflect a small amount of sunlight away from the planet, reducing the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gases and mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
<p><strong>Has the amount of geoengineering research increased in the past two decades?</strong></p><p>Dramatically, even in the last couple of years. When I wrote that <em>Annual Reviews </em>paper in 2000, there was virtually zero organized research. There were a few researchers occasionally getting interested and putting in like 1 percent of their time.</p><p>Now there are little research programs almost everywhere you care to mention. There's a Chinese program that's pretty serious; there's an Australian one that's better funded than anything in the United States; there are several in Europe.</p><p><strong>What has been the biggest surprise over the past 20 years in how solar geoengineering might work?</strong></p><p>The big surprise has been recent results, including two studies I was involved in, showing that the effects of a global solar geoengineering program wouldn't be as geographically unequal as was feared. What matters for real public policy is who is made worse off.</p><p>For one paper <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0398-8" target="_blank">published last year in <em>Nature</em> <em>Climate Change</em></a>, we used a very high-resolution computer model, and we compared, over all the land surface, two worlds: one world where we have two times preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide and the other world where we have enough solar geoengineering to reduce the temperature change by half. For each of the 33 geographical study regions designated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we tried to look at whether solar geoengineering would move a particular climate variable back toward preindustrial levels, which we call "moderated," or move it further away from preindustrial, which we call "exacerbated."</p><p>We focused on some of the most important climate variables: change in extreme temperature, change in average temperature, change in water availability and change in extreme precipitation. And what we found seems almost too good to be true: There wasn't a single variable in a single region that was exacerbated. That was a surprise.</p><p>In a paper <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab76de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">published in March in <em>Environmental Research Letters</em></a>, we did the same analysis with another model, and we found that with solar geoengineering, everything is moderated in all regions except four. But all four of those are dry regions that get wetter. So my guess is many residents of those regions would actually prefer that outcome because in general people are more worried about getting drier than wetter.</p><p><span></span>Now, what the model shows may or may not be true in the real world. But if there is a single reason to really look at these technologies and evaluate them in experiments, it's results like this that show you can reduce almost all or many of the major perturbations of climate without making any region significantly worse. That's quite a thing.</p>
<p><strong>How would your planned real-world experiment, known as the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), work?</strong></p><p><a href="https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SCoPEx</a> is a stratospheric balloon experiment to put aerosols in the stratosphere and measure their interaction over the first hours and the first kilometer or so after release in a plume. It involves a high-altitude balloon that will lift a gondola carrying a package of scientific instruments to an altitude of 20 kilometers. It will release a very small amount of materials such as ice, calcium carbonate (essentially powdered limestone) or sulfuric acid droplets known as sulfates. The gondola will be fitted with propellers that were originally made for airboats so that it can fly through the plume of released materials to take measurements.</p><p>The amount of released material will be on the order of 1 kilogram, which is far too small to have any direct health or environmental impact once released. The goal is not to change climate or even to see if you can reflect any sunlight. The goal is simply to improve our models of the way aerosols form in the stratosphere, especially in plumes, which is very relevant for understanding how solar geoengineering would work. We hope to launch the experiment soon. But when and where that will happen depends on balloon availability and recommendations from an advisory committee.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNDEzOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjg2ODY3MH0.3U_DRbmIyhxI_P7IBUIZlP4SJcmoKsO3SZzW9pdLFvk/img.png?width=980" id="5406a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c6b45d397ea3f887b57d2e47565a1a23" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The planned Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment will send a balloon carrying scientific instruments in a gondola into the stratosphere. The instruments will release a small amount of material — likely ice or mineral dust — to form a kilometer-long plume of aerosol particles (left). Modified airboat propellers will allow the gondola to maneuver above the plume (middle) and lower instruments into the plume to take repeated measurements of how the particles spread through the stratosphere (right). ADAPTED FROM J.A. DYKEMA ET AL / PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A 2014
<p><strong>We know there are health risks related to sulfuric acid pollution in the lower atmosphere. Are there potential health risks from injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere?</strong></p><p>Anything we put in the stratosphere will end up coming down to the surface, and that's one of the risks we must consider. A full-scale solar geoengineering program might involve injecting around 1.5 million tons of sulfur and sulfuric acid into the stratosphere per year. This could be done using a fleet of aircraft; roughly 100 aircraft would need to continuously fly payloads up to about 20 kilometers (12 miles) altitude. You would not be wrong to think this sounds crazy. We know that sulfuric acid pollution in the lower atmosphere kills many people every year, so putting sulfuric acid into the stratosphere is obviously a risk. But it's important to understand how much 1.5 million tons a year really is.</p><p>The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines, poured about 8 million tons of sulfur in one year into the stratosphere. It cooled the climate and had implications for all sorts of systems. Current global emissions of sulfur are about 50 million tons a year into the lower atmosphere, and that kills several million people every year from fine particulate air pollution. So the relative risk from solar geoengineering is fairly small, and it has to be weighed against the risk of not doing solar geoengineering.</p><p><strong>How quickly could a full-scale solar geoengineering program get off the ground?</strong></p><p>It could happen very fast, but all the ways it happens very fast are bad cases, basically where one country just jumps on it very quickly. It's obvious that what would be best is for countries not to just start doing it but to articulate clear plans and build in checks and balances and so on. </p><p>If there were much wider research over the next half-decade to decade — which is possible because attitudes really are changing — then it's plausible that some coalition of countries could begin to inch toward real implementation with serious, visible plans that can be critiqued by the scientific community starting by the end of this decade. I don't expect it will happen that fast, but I think it's possible.</p><p><strong>How does geoengineering fit in with other efforts to combat climate change such as reducing fossil-fuel emissions and removing carbon from the air?</strong></p><p>The first, and by far the most important, thing we do about climate change is decarbonizing the economy, which breaks the link between economic activity and carbon emissions. There's nothing I can say about solar geoengineering that changes the fact that we have to reduce emissions. If we do not do that, we're done.</p><p>Then carbon removal, which involves capturing and storing carbon that has already been emitted, could break the link between emissions and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Large-scale carbon removal really makes sense when emissions are clearly heading toward zero, and we're getting toward the harder chunk of the economy to mitigate. And then solar geoengineering is a thing that might partially and imperfectly weaken, but not break, the link between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate changes — changes in sea level, changes in extreme events, changes in temperature, etc.</p><p>So if you look at the curve of overall greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you can think of emissions cuts as flattening the curve. Carbon removal takes you down the other side of the curve. And then solar geoengineering can cut off the top of the curve, which would reduce the risk of the carbon dioxide that is in the air already.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyNDE0MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzYyNjc3Nn0.WhGB9DFe-ucsjzoLNjhzrOVdFc_qk8e-Klq11axhHq0/img.png?width=980" id="5c86a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4e8f4f3a17e517e8f3d154e7f4a280d9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.knowablemagazine.org/" target="_blank">Knowable Magazine</a> </em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>David Keith envisions using multiple approaches to combat climate change. The red line shows how the impacts of climate change would worsen with a business-as-usual scenario of unabated burning of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emissions. Aggressively cutting emissions bends that curve, and removing carbon from the atmosphere offers further cuts, but there are still consequences from the already high levels of carbon dioxide. In this scenario, solar geoengineering would lessen the impact from existing atmospheric carbon dioxide, effectively carving the top off the curve.
<p>Some people think we should use it only as a get-out-of-jail card in an emergency. Some people think we should use it to quickly try to get back to a preindustrial climate. I'm arguing we use solar geoengineering to cut the top off the curve by gradually starting it and gradually ending it.</p><p><strong>Do you feel optimistic about the chances that solar geoengineering will happen and can make a difference in the climate crisis?</strong></p><p>I'm not all that optimistic right now because we seem to be so much further away from an international environment that's going to allow sensible policy. And that's not just in the US. It's a whole bunch of European countries with more populist regimes. It's Brazil. It's the more authoritarian India and China. It's a more nationalistic world, right? It's a little hard to see a global, coordinated effort in the near term. But I hope those things will change.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Geoengineering is Not the Answer to Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
- Can Geoengineering Tame Devastating Hurricanes? - EcoWatch ›
- World's Largest Geoengineering Study Triggers Major Controversy ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New Report Reveals How Plastic Polluters Have Avoided Regulation Worldwide for Decades
18 September
Climate
A boy walks through plastic waste on Juhu beach in Mumbai, India on June 2, 2018. Punit Paranjpe / AFP / Getty Images
By Lisa Newcomb
Analysis released Thursday of the world's top 10 biggest plastic polluters in 15 countries reveals how major corporations hide behind the veneer of corporate responsibility while actively working to thwart regulatory legislation around the globe.
<p><br/></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/17/delay-distract-and-derail-new-report-reveals-how-plastic-polluters-have-avoided?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
<p>"This report is a damning exposé of the tactics employed by the plastics industry and shines a welcome light on the shadowy world of corporate lobbying," Natalie Fee, founder of City to Sea, which supported the research conducted by the Changing Markets Foundation, <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement.</p><p>"For too long," said Fee, "the true cost of plastic production has been externalized, meaning plastic producers continue to get away with ecocide while waste management companies, consumers and marginalized communities around the world are left to deal with millions of tonnes of toxic plastic waste."</p>
<div id="5899a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f2af5e24600e9a04a59098846be0795c"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306489782529335296" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Out now! 📢 Our ground-breaking new report reveals the hypocrisy of the world’s biggest #plasticpolluters, who claim… https://t.co/TWutruUlqA</div> — Changing Markets Foundation (@Changing Markets Foundation)<a href="https://twitter.com/ChangingMarkets/statuses/1306489782529335296">1600326412.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The report—titled "<a href="https://talking-trash.com/" target="_blank">Talking Trash: The Corporate Playbook of False Solutions</a>,"—exposes how Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, Mars Incorporated, Mondelēz International, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Perfetti Van Melle, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">deploy</a> "tactics to undermine legislation in individual countries are in fact part of a global approach by Big Plastic to ensure that the corporations most responsible for the plastic crisis evade true accountability for their pollution."</p><p>According to Changing Markets Foundation Thursday, the investigations <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">found</a>:</p><ul><li>Big Plastic is a well-organized network of organizations that fight against proven solutions to the plastic pollution crisis through similar tactics across the world</li><li>Voluntary commitments and group initiatives from the ten biggest plastic polluters are used to distract consumers and governments, enabling polluters to continue with business as usual</li><li>Corporations work behind the scenes to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/31/there-no-end-big-oils-evil-campaigners-condemn-industry-plan-pour-us-plastics-africa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">delay and derail</a> legislation and ensure they can continue flooding the world with cheap, disposable plastic packaging</li><li>Plastic producers have co-opted the Covid-19 pandemic and capitalized on people's fear to call for regulatory rollbacks and delays on environmental legislation</li></ul>
<div id="688ca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3370c14123ff2ac521085479120d1260"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306488205198401536" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">DELAY, DISTRACT and DERAIL: 3 tactics that help Big Plastic fight plastic legislation behind the scenes across the… https://t.co/f29Pc86aMj</div> — GAIA (@GAIA)<a href="https://twitter.com/GAIAnoburn/statuses/1306488205198401536">1600326036.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"This report exposes the two-faced hypocrisy of plastic polluters, which claim to be committed to solutions, but at the same time use a host of dirty tricks to ensure that they can continue pumping out cheap, disposable plastic, polluting the planet at a devastating rate," <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">said</a> Nusa Urbanic, campaigns director for the Changing Markets.</p><p>"Plastic is now pouring into the natural world at a rate of one garbage truck a minute, creating a crisis for wildlife, the climate and public health," Urbanic continued. "The responsibility for this disaster lies with Big Plastic—including major household brands—which have lobbied against progressive legislation for decades, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/18/greenpeace-finds-labels-plastic-products-mislead-public-and-harm-americas-recycling" target="_blank">greenwashed</a> their environmental credentials, and blamed the public for littering, rather than assuming responsibility for their own actions."</p><p>Big Plastic jumped at the opportunity presented by the Covid-19 pandemic—which has caused a <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/single-use-plastic-covid-180975312/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">surge</a> in single-use plastic consumption—to pressure lawmakers to roll back current regulations and prevent new ones, according to the report. </p><p>Additionally, Changing Markets <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">noted</a> that plastic pollution has devastating effects on the environment and is a key contributor to the climate crisis.<span></span></p><p>According to the group:</p><blockquote>"The plastic pollution crisis is a deeply interconnected climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis, and a public health crisis all combined... Plastic saturates almost every surface of the planet—from the deepest abysses to the highest mountains and remotest islands—causing an unprecedented crisis for wildlife... Virgin-plastic production is a major contributor to climate change, generating enough emissions—from the moment they leave the ground as fossil fuels, and throughout their entire life cycle—to use up 10 to 15% of our entire carbon budget by 2050 at current rates of growth. Disposal of plastics through incineration and backyard burning also contributes to climate change and creates a toxic fallout undermining human and planetary health."</blockquote><p>The industry's contribution to the global climate emergency is nothing new, but progressive legislators continue to face an uphill battle when it comes to regulating these powerful corporations.</p><p>President Donald Trump, for example, has called climate change a "hoax," and, despite pleas from environmental advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers, many Democratic lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—as well as presidential nominee Joe Biden—still do not <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/31/despite-poll-showing-aggressive-climate-action-winning-issue-biden-boasts-i-am-not" target="_blank">support </a>the Green New Deal.</p>
<div id="eaab1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0f6dbe75ec7e7ed4656a767958238c89"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306313773511303169" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Amount of federal government subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry every year: $15 billion. The amount it sh… https://t.co/NRWQWRiw5f</div> — Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statuses/1306313773511303169">1600284448.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Urbanic urged lawmakers to act to protect the planet.</p><p>"The voluntary initiatives and commitments by the industry have failed," she said in a statement. "Policymakers should look past the industry smokescreen and adopt proven, progressive legislation globally to create the systemic change that this crisis so urgently needs."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 22 Facts About Plastic Pollution (And 10 Things We Can Do About It ... ›
- Plastics: The History of an Ecological Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Atlantic Ocean Holds 10x More Plastic Pollution Than Previously ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New Zealand could be the first country in the world to require its major financial institutions to report on the risks posed by the climate crisis. Lawrence Murray / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 2.0
New Zealand could be the first country in the world to require its major financial institutions to report on the risks posed by the climate crisis.
<p>This means that about 200 of the country's biggest companies and banks would have to report on the impact that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather" target="_self">extreme weather</a> events or climate polices will have on their business, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300107158/election-2020-financial-sector-will-have-to-report-on-climate-change-risk-in-worldfirst-move" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Stuff explained</a>.</p><p>"Today is another step on the journey this Government is taking towards a low carbon future for Aotearoa New Zealand and a cleaner, safer planet for future generations," said Minister for Climate Change James Shaw Tuesday, <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2009/S00127/new-zealand-first-in-the-world-to-require-climate-risk-reporting.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Scoop reported</a>.</p><p>The move builds on New Zealand's emerging legacy of climate action, such as its historic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-zealand-zero-emissions-2641247378.html" target="_self">Zero Carbon Bill</a> that committed the country to honoring the goals of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a> and achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050.</p>
<p>However, New Zealand's parliament is currently dissolved ahead of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-zealand-ardern-renewable-energy-2647595133.html" target="_self">Oct. 17 election</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/15/new-zealand-minister-calls-for-finance-sector-to-disclose-climate-crisis-risks-in-world-first" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. In order for it to enter into force, Shaw's party, the Green Party, would have to enter a coalition government after the election and the proposal would then have to pass parliament.</p><p>If it passes, every New Zealand bank, building society, credit union, insurer or Crown Financial Institution with more than $1 billion in assets will have to report annually on the risk climate change poses to its business or explain why it cannot, according to Stuff. That report would include what the risks are, how the institution is managing them and how it is working to address the impacts of climate change.</p><p>"Many large businesses in New Zealand do not currently have a good understanding of how climate change will impact on what they do," Shaw said. "The changes I am announcing today will bring climate risks and resilience into the heart of financial and business decision making. It will ensure the disclosure of climate risk is clear, comprehensive and mainstream."</p>
<p>Shaw said that Australia, Canada, UK, France, Japan and the European Union were developing some form of climate risk reporting, but New Zealand's plan was more ambitious because it included the whole financial system, according to Scoop. The institutions covered by the policy account for 90 percent of the assets controlled in New Zealand, Stuff reported.</p><p>If the proposal passes parliament, the climate reporting would begin in 2023.</p><p>Nobel Laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz praised the proposed plan, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"Once again, New Zealand is leading the world… It led the world in showing how democratic countries could manage the risks of Covid-19," he said. "And now, New Zealand is leading the way in showing how we can help manage the risk of climate change."</p>
Read More
Show Less