Help Support EcoWatch
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience while browsing it. By clicking 'Got It' you're accepting these terms.
Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Harbour Air pilot and CEO Greg McDougall flies the worlds first all-electric, zero-emission commercial aircraft during a test flight on the Fraser River in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada on Dec. 10, 2019. DON MACKINNON / AFP via Getty Images
A Canadian seaplane operator on Tuesday successfully test flew the world's first all-electric commercial aircraft, in a three-minute flight it said had launched a new era of aviation.
Vancouver-based Harbour Air, which claims to be North America's largest seaplane airline, and Seattle-based all-electric propulsionmaker magniX, tested a 63-year-old DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver retrofitted with a 750-horsepower electric motor on the Fraser River near Richmond, British Columbia.
The yellow e-plane was piloted by Harbour Air CEO and founder Greg McDougall.
"Today, we made history," McDougall said in a statement.
Here's a look at the Harbour Air eplane test flight this morning. The age of electric aviation is right around the corner. pic.twitter.com/HzFekRhAXR
— Karin Larsen (@CBCLarsen) December 10, 2019
"In December 1903, the Wright Brothers launched a new era of transportation — the aviation age — with the first flight of a powered aircraft. Today, 116 years later, with the first flight of an all-electric powered commercial aircraft, we launched the electric era of aviation," said Roei Ganzarski, CEO of magniX.
Global aviation is a major source of climate change causing greenhouse gas emissions.
Ganzarski said that in addition to zero emissions, e-planes are low-cost and will allow savings on fuel.
Harbour Air plans to electrify its entire fleet of more than 40 aircraft.
But first, the e-plane has to begin a two-year certification and approval process for the propulsion system and the retrofitting of aircraft, the companies said in a statement.
One limitation is that an aircraft like that one flown Tuesday can only fly 100 miles (160 kilometers) on lithium battery power, said Ganzarski.
However, that range is sufficient for most short-haul flights run by Harbour Air.
Several other companies are also working on electric planes, including Boeing and Airbus.
Reposted with permission from DW.
From Your Site Articles
- EasyJet Plans to Fly Electric Planes Within 10 Years - EcoWatch ›
- Norway Aims for Electric Planes to Help Slow Climate Change ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Pexels
By Daniel Yetman
Bleach and vinegar are common household cleaners used to disinfect surfaces, cut through grime, and get rid of stains. Even though many people have both these cleaners in their homes, mixing them together is potentially dangerous and should be avoided.
<p>The type of <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cleaning-with-bleach-can-release-harmful-airborne-particles" target="_blank">bleach</a> typically used for household cleaning is a made of sodium hypochlorite diluted to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441921/" target="_blank">3 to 8%</a> in water. Vinegar is a diluted form of acetic acid. When sodium hypochlorite is mixed with acetic acid or any other type of acid, it releases potentially lethal <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/chlorine-poisoning" target="_blank">chlorine gas</a>.</p><p>In 2016, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported more than <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29185815" target="_blank">6,300</a> exposures to chlorine gas. About 35% of these exposures were caused by mixing household cleaners.</p><p>Keep reading to find out if there are any situations when it's okay to mix bleach and vinegar together and what you should do if you accidentally breathe in chlorine gas.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/bleach-and-vinegar" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
Can You Mix Bleach and Vinegar?
<p>Bleach can refer to any chemical that's used to get rid of stains or disinfect surfaces. The most typical form used as a cleaner is sodium hypochlorite. By itself, bleach can damage your skin but is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441921/" target="_blank">non-toxic</a> when inhaled. However, it can become potentially lethal to inhale when mixed with other household cleaners.</p><p>Sodium hypochlorite is made up of a sodium, oxygen, and chlorine atoms. When this molecule is mixed with the acetic acid in vinegar or other types of acid, it releases chlorine gas. <a href="https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp" target="_blank">Chlorine gas</a> is extremely dangerous to human health. It's so powerful that Germany used it during World War I as a chemical weapon.</p><p>Vinegar isn't the only cleaner you need to be careful mixing with bleach. Bleach also reacts with <a href="https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/HealthyHome/Contaminants/BleachMixingDangers" target="_blank">ammonia</a> to create chlorine gas. Bleach can also react to some oven cleaners, insecticides, and hydrogen peroxide.</p><p>Many household cleaners contain a chemical called <a href="https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2019/acs-presspac-october-2-2019/cleaning-with-bleach-could-create-indoor-air-pollutants.html" target="_blank">limonene</a> that gives them a citrus smell. When bleach fumes mix with limonene, they create small particles that may be damaging to both people's and animals' health. However, more research is needed to examine these particles' potential health risks.</p>Is it Safe to Mix Them in Small Amounts?
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/HealthyHome/Contaminants/BleachMixingDangers" target="_blank">Washington State Department of Health</a>, even low levels of chlorine gas, less than 5 parts per million (ppm), is likely to irritate your eyes, throat, and nose. It's never a good idea to mix these two cleaners together.</p><p>Unlike some other dangerous chemicals like carbon monoxide, chlorine gives off a distinctly <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537213/" target="_blank">pungent and irritating odor</a>. If you notice a strong smell after mixing cleaners, it's a good idea to immediately leave the area.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136961/" target="_blank">severity of symptoms</a> you develop after breathing in chlorine gas depends on how concentrated it is, measured in parts per million (ppm), and how long you inhale it.</p><ul><li><strong>0.1 to 0.3 ppm.</strong> At this level, humans can smell the pungent odor of chlorine gas in the air.</li><li><strong>5 to 15 ppm. </strong>A concentration over 5 ppm causes irritation to the mucus membranes in your mouth and nose.</li><li><strong>Over 30 ppm.</strong> At a concentration higher than 30 ppm, chlorine gas can cause chest pain, shortness of breath, and coughing.</li><li><strong>Above 40 ppm.</strong> Concentrations higher than 40 ppm can cause potentially dangerous fluid build-up in your lungs.</li><li><strong>Above 430 ppm</strong>. Breathing in more than <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537213/" target="_blank">430 ppm</a> of chlorine gas can be lethal within 30 minutes.</li><li><strong>Above 1,000 ppm</strong>. Inhaling chlorine gas above this level can be deadly immediately.</li></ul>Can You Combine Bleach and Vinegar in a Washing Machine?
<p>Mixing bleach and vinegar in your washing machine is also a bad idea. Chlorine gas may be released from your washing machine when you take your clothes out. It may also leave traces of chlorine gas on your clothes.</p><p>If you use bleach in your laundry, it's a good idea to wait several loads before using vinegar.</p>Symptoms of Exposure to a Bleach and Vinegar Reaction
<p>The severity of the symptoms you'll develop after chlorine exposure depends on the amount of chlorine gas you inhale. Symptoms usually start fairly quickly. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537213/" target="_blank">Most people</a> exposed to low amounts of chlorine gas recover without complications.</p><p>If your exposure to chlorine gas is relatively brief, you may notice irritation of your nose, mouth, and throat. Lung irritation may develop if you breathe in chlorine deeply.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>, if you accidentally breathe in chlorine, you can experience the following:</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/eye-health/sudden-blurred-vision" target="_blank">blurry vision</a></li><li>a burning sensation in your nose, throat, or eyes</li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/cough" target="_blank">coughing</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/chest-pain" target="_blank">tightness in your chest</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/breathing-difficulties" target="_blank">trouble breathing</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/pulmonary-edema" target="_blank">fluid in your lungs</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/nausea" target="_blank">nausea</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/vomiting" target="_blank">vomiting</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/epiphora" target="_blank">watery eyes</a></li><li><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/wheezing" target="_blank">wheezing</a></li></ul>What to Do if You Get Bleach and Vinegar on Your Skin or Inhaled Chlorine Gas Vapors
<p>There's <a href="https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp" target="_blank">no cure</a> for breathing in chlorine gas. The only treatment option is removing the chlorine from your body as quickly as possible and seeking immediate medical attention to treat your symptoms.</p><p>If you breathe in chlorine gas, you can follow these steps to help get the chlorine out of your system:</p><ul><li>Immediately go somewhere where you can breathe in fresh air.</li><li>Change and wash any clothes that may have been contaminated.</li></ul><blockquote><strong>MEDICAL EMERGENCY<br><br></strong>If your symptoms are severe, call 911 or the National Capital Poison Center (NCPC) at 800-222-1222 and follow their instructions.<br></blockquote><p>Spilling <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/bleach-on-skin#first-aid" target="_blank">bleach</a> can cause irritation to your skin. You can take the following steps to reduce your chances of developing complications:</p><ul><li>Remove jewelry or clothes that came in contact with bleach and clean them after you wash your skin.</li><li>Rinse your skin with a sponge or an absorbent cloth over a sink.</li><li>Avoid touching other parts of your body such as your face while cleaning.</li><li>Seek immediate medical attention if you spill bleach in your eyes or if you burn your skin.</li></ul><p>Vinegar may also irritate your skin. Even though it's unlikely to cause any serious health complications, it's a good idea to wash vinegar off your skin to avoid any redness or soreness.</p>Takeaway
<p>Mixing bleach and vinegar creates potentially lethal chlorine gas. If you notice a pungent smell after mixing household cleaners, you should immediately leave the area and try to breathe in fresh air.</p><p>If you or somebody you know notice any symptoms of chlorine gas poisoning, it's a good idea to immediately call 911 or the NCPC at 800-222-1222<em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 8 Toxic Products You Should Not Bring in Your Home + Natural ... ›
- How to Make Your Own Natural Cleaning Products - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Green Cleaning Products for Tackling Messy Homes - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
During a protest action on May 30 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Datteln in front of the site of the Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant, Greenpeace activists projected the lettering: "Climate crisis - Made in Germany" onto the cooling tower. Guido Kirchner / picture alliance / Getty Images
Around 500 climate activists on Saturday gathered outside the new Datteln 4 coal power plant in Germany's Ruhr region, to protest against its opening.
<p>Fridays for Future, Greenpeace, as well as German groups Ende Gelände and the German Federation for Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND) were represented at the protests.</p><p>During the night into Saturday, climate activists graffitied the slogan "Climate crisis, made in Germany" on the side of the tower.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-protest-germanys-new-datteln-4-coal-power-plant/a-53632887" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646137253#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
<p>The plant, owned by Dusseldorf-based energy company Uniper, began running on Saturday, after a nearly 10-year delay to its initial start date. It fired up just months after Germany unveiled a plan to phase out coal by 2038.</p>
<p>The protests were reported to be largely peaceful, despite several actions during the day-long event. One action included members of Ende Gelände swimming and using canoes in a canal used for cooling, while holding a floating banner with the slogan: "Shut it down."</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1263057783290724353" id="twitter-embed-1263057783290724353" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1263057783290724353&created_ts=1589971416.0&screen_name=Luisamneubauer&text=Klimaprotest+in+Zeiten+von+%23Corona+ist+nicht+leicht.+Aber+wir+machen+es+m%C3%B6glich%2C+denn+notwendig+ist+es+offensichtli%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FoKazEWwaGv&id=1263057783290724353&name=Luisa+Neubauer" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="38e575ed16e09279dfea210cafaa44f0"></iframe>
Climate Activists Speak Out
<p>Speaking at the protest, German Fridays for Futures climate activist Luisa Neubauer said: "It's a post-factual power plant. The facts speak for themselves." She said it was a "provocation," to mark the planned coal phaseout with a new coal power plant.</p><p>"We're going to stop this power plant, we're going to bring it to a standstill, we will win this conflict," Neubauer added.</p><p>Former miners also attended the protest. "We condemn the fact that coal mining in Germany was halted and jobs were lost, only for coal now to be imported from other countries to power Datteln 4," said Sebastian Suszka, a former workers' council member.</p><p>Greta Thunberg, founder of climate activist movement Fridays for Futures tweeted that Saturday was "a shameful day for Europe.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1266646886896881664" id="twitter-embed-1266646886896881664" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1266646886896881664&created_ts=1590827125.0&screen_name=GretaThunberg&text=Today+is+a+shameful+day+for+Europe%2C+as+we+open+up+a+brand+new+coal+power+plant.+We+have+signed+up+to+lead+the+way+t%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FBFX5PcGejv&id=1266646886896881664&name=Greta+Thunberg" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="c4980f9c8b3d58f5d4075f5174690372"></iframe>
Germany's Coal Phaseout
<p>Earlier this year, Germany announced a roadmap to see coal phased out, at the latest by 2038. It laid out plans for eight coal-fired power plants to be taken off the grid in 2020.</p><p>It was an important step for the largest contributor of carbon emissions in the EU — accounting for more than 22 percent of the bloc's CO2 emissions. Over a third of the electricity generated in Germany comes from burning coal.</p><p>Germany's coal commission has recommended that solutions be found for coal plants that are already built but not-yet-in-use to keep them from operating.<br></p><p>The state of North-Rhine Westphalia insisted that the additional carbon dioxide emissions from the new plant would be compensated by the closure of four other power plants.</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Sponsored
Dr. Mark Brunswick (2R), Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Quality, walks through the lab at Sorrento Therapeutics in San Diego, California on May 22. ARIANA DREHSLER / AFP / Getty Images
By Julia Ries
Around the world, there have been several cases of people recovering from COVID-19 only to later test positive again and appear to have another infection.
<p>Such cases have had doctors and researchers puzzling over whether recovered people continue to be contagious, and if they could get a second infection.</p><p>Now, new <a href="https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030" target="_blank">research</a> published by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that recovered COVID-19 patients who test positive again aren't infectious.</p><p>The study also found that most patients who recover have neutralizing antibodies — the type of antibody that confers immunity and protects people from getting sick again.</p><p>"This study addresses the question of whether patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are still infectious, and which is a question that has been troubling us for some time," said <a href="https://www.yalemedicine.org/doctors/heidi_zapata/" target="_blank">Dr. Heidi J. Zapata</a>, a Yale Medicine infectious disease doctor. "This study suggests that patients that are recovered are no longer contagious."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-reinfected-with-covid-19-werent-infectious" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
The Viral Material in Re-Positive Cases Isn’t Infectious
<p>The Korean study examined 285 patients who tested positive again for the new coronavirus after they recovered from COVID-19, which had been confirmed via a negative test result.</p><p>The researchers swabbed the patients and examined the viral material to determine whether it was still actively infectious.</p><p>The team was unable to isolate live viral material, indicating that the positive diagnostic tests were picking up dead virus particles.</p><p>"[This] may speak for the fact that the virus may be dead or not be fit enough to grow — therefore the virus may not be fit enough to infect a new host," said <a href="http://www.providence.org/doctors/profile/1099717-andres-romero" target="_blank">Dr. Andres Romero</a>, an infectious disease specialist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, California.</p><p>The researchers also tested 790 people who'd been in close contact with the "re-positive" patients. Of the 27 who tested positive, no cases appeared to be caused from exposure to someone who appeared to have a reinfection.</p><p>The report also found that the vast majority of recovered patients (96 percent) had neutralizing antibodies, indicating that they conferred immunity.</p><p>"Whether this is indicative of a completely protective response remains to be proven. If this study holds true, then people who have recovered can get back to work," Zapata said.</p><p>In response to the new findings, South Korea eliminated a policy requiring discharged patients to isolate for 2 weeks.</p>Conducting and Interpreting PCR Tests
<p>The tests widely used to diagnose COVID-19 are called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.</p><p>The tests swab a person's nose or throat and try to pick up the virus's genetic material, or RNA.</p><p>According to <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html" target="_blank">guidance</a> from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a positive result on a PCR test doesn't "necessarily mean infectious virus is present or that the patient is contagious."</p><p>Infectious disease experts have suspected that the test kits aren't picking up actively infectious viral material in recovered patients who test positive again, but rather dead remnants of the virus.</p><p>We see this occur with other viruses, too.</p><p>"We know other viruses like parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus, or RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] may linger for months in certain patients, and that does not represent infectious state," Romero said. "Coronavirus may be the same."</p>We Still Need to Practice Caution
<p>While the findings are promising, infectious disease experts say we still need to practice caution.</p><p>More research is needed to validate these findings and determine whether they apply to distinct parts of the population, such as those who are immunocompromised.</p><p>It's common for immunocompromised patients — such as those with cancer — to continue testing positive for a virus for longer, since it takes their immune system more time to clear the virus out of their body.</p><p>"I don't think we can be 100 percent certain of whether each recovered person is no longer contagious. Again, this may differ with distinct population groups," Zapata said.</p><p>Physicians are seeing some hospitalized patients testing positive for a month after they were first swabbed for COVID-19. It's unclear whether these patients still shed infectious virus, according to Zapata.</p><p>Everyone's body mounts a distinct immune response based on their age and overall health. Different individuals will clear the virus out at different speeds, according to Zapata.</p><p>Until we have more data and a preventive vaccine, it's crucial to continue adhering to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html" target="_blank">safety precautions</a> laid out by the CDC.</p><p>"The reality is that moving forward, the best approach will be keeping social/physical distancing, wearing a mask, and frequent hand hygiene in order to control the spread of the virus," Romero said.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Doctors and researchers have been unsure whether people who recover from COVID-19 who test positive again continue to be contagious, or if they could get a second infection.</p><p>New <a href="https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030" target="_blank">research</a> published by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that recovered COVID-19 patients who test positive again aren't infectious.</p><p>The study also found that most patients who recover have neutralizing antibodies that protect them from getting sick again.</p><p>Though the study is promising, health experts say we need more data to validate the findings and determine whether they apply to all patient populations.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Asymptomatic COVID-19: Five Questions Answered - EcoWatch ›
- What Does 'Recovered From Coronavirus' Mean? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Juukan 1 and 2 in June, 2013. Puutu Kunti Kurrama And Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation
By Samantha Hepburn
In the expansion of its iron ore mine in Western Pilbara, Rio Tinto blasted the Juukan Gorge 1 and 2 — Aboriginal rock shelters dating back 46,000 years. These sites had deep historical and cultural significance.
<p>
The shelters are the only inland site in Australia showing human occupation continuing through the last Ice Age.
</p>
<p>
<em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/rio-tinto-just-blasted-away-an-ancient-aboriginal-site-heres-why-that-was-allowed-139466" target="_blank">The Conversation</a></em><em>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139466/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<p>The mining blast caused significant distress to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama traditional land owners. It's an <a href="https://skugal.org/blast-destroys-one-of-countrys-oldest-known-aboriginal-heritage-sites/" target="_blank">irretrievable loss</a> for future generations.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265472431772188672" id="twitter-embed-1265472431772188672" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265472431772188672&created_ts=1590547113.0&screen_name=ngaarda&text=Ancient+rock+shelters+destroyed+in+Pilbara+mining+blast+on+Sunday.+PKKP+Aboriginal+Corporation+devastated+at+loss+o%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FVfpJUGTH1g&id=1265472431772188672&name=Ngaarda+Media+Pilbara" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="2b97bf3b4746640cc311e88e8ea7d900"></iframe><p>Aboriginal cultural heritage is a fundamental part of Aboriginal community life and cultural identity. It has global significance, and forms an important component of the heritage of all Australians.</p><p>But the destruction of a culturally significant Aboriginal site is not an isolated incident. Rio Tinto was acting within the law.</p><p>In 2013, Rio Tinto was given ministerial consent to damage the Juukan Gorge caves. One year later, an archaeological dig unearthed incredible artefacts, such as a 4,000-year-old plait of human hair, and evidence that the site was much older than originally thought.</p><p>But state laws let Rio Tinto charge ahead nevertheless. This failure to put timely and adequate regulatory safeguards in place reveals a disregard and a disrespect for sacred Aboriginal sites.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM2MjIxNS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDQzNjk4MX0.artQnLjdRbrMrOaOJ0amy6qSRSbDEOH0Nnr512471Lg/img.png?width=980" id="ca677" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fdaddc06e2494a4c2dd8ae34fc0dfa1a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The destruction of a significant Aboriginal site is not an isolated incident. Puutu Kunti Kurrama And Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation
Not an Isolated Incident
<p>The history of large developments destroying Indigenous heritage sites is, tragically, long.</p><p>A $2.1 billion light rail line in Sydney, completed last year, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/this-is-a-tragic-loss-sydney-light-rail-construction-destroyed-heritage-site-20190322-p516qk.html" target="_blank">destroyed a site</a> of considerable significance.</p><p>More than 2,400 stone artifacts were unearthed in a small excavated area. It indicated Aboriginal people had used the area between 1788 and 1830 to manufacture tools and implements from flint brought over to Australia on British ships.</p><p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/the-rocks-remember-the-fight-to-protect-burrup-peninsulas-rock-art" target="_blank">ancient rock art</a> on the Burrup Peninsula in north-western Australia is under increasing threat from a gas project. The site contains more than one million rock carvings (petroglyphs) across 36,857 hectares.</p><p>This area is under the custodianship of Ngarluma people and four other traditional owners groups: the Mardudhunera, the Yaburara, the Yindjibarndi and the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo.</p><p>But a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/BurrupPeninusla/Report" target="_blank">Senate inquiry</a> revealed emissions from adjacent industrial activity may significantly damage it.</p><p><span></span>The West Australian government is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jan/29/australia-lodges-world-heritage-submission-for-50000-year-old-burrup-peninsula-rock-art" target="_blank">seeking world heritage listing</a> to try to increase protection, as the regulatory frameworks at the national and state level aren't strong enough. Let's explore why.</p>What Do the Laws Say?
<p>The recently renamed federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is responsible for listing new national heritage places, and regulating development actions in these areas.</p><p>At the federal level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/" target="_blank">EPBC Act</a>) provides a legal framework for their management and protection. It is an offence to impact an area that has national heritage listing.</p><p>But many ancient Aboriginal sites have no national heritage listing. For the recently destroyed Juurkan gorge, the true archaeological significance was uncovered <em>after</em> consent had been issued and there were no provisions to reverse or amend the decision once this new information was discovered.</p><p>Where a site has no national heritage listing, and federal legislation has no application, state laws apply.</p><p>For the rock shelters in the Western Pilbara, Rio Tinto was abiding by Western Australia's <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/wa/consol_act/aha1972164/" target="_blank">Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972</a> — which is now nearly 50 years old.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265226523167977472" id="twitter-embed-1265226523167977472" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265226523167977472&created_ts=1590488484.0&screen_name=Sophiemcneill&text=What+a+story+on+%23SorryDay+%40RioTinto+blows+up+one+of+country%27s+oldest+known+Aboriginal+heritage+sites.+And+the+worst%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F1iU4zdGaGr&id=1265226523167977472&name=Sophie+McNeill" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="b152f672b8b0fa6c7000ca7503bc4c2b"></iframe><p>Section 17 of that act makes it an offence to excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter any Aboriginal site without the ministerial consent.</p><p>But, Section 18 allows an owner of the land — and this includes the holder of a mining licence — to apply to the <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/acmc" target="_blank">Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee</a> for consent to proceed with a development action likely to breach section 17.</p><p>The committee then evaluates the importance and significance of the site, and makes a recommendation to the minister. In this case, the minister allowed Rio Tinto to proceed with the destruction of the site.</p>
No Consultation With Traditional Owners
<p>The biggest concern with this act is there's no statutory requirement ensuring traditional owners be consulted.</p><p>This means traditional owners are left out of vital decisions regarding the management and protection of their cultural heritage. And it confers authority upon a committee that, in the words of a <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/11dd5b41-fcf9-4216-a1ac-06ece672c087/AH-Review-Position-Comparison-for-Aboriginal-People" target="_blank">discussion paper</a>, "lacks cultural authority."</p><p>There is no statutory requirement for an Indigenous person to be on the committee, nor is there a requirement that at least one anthropologist be on the committee. Worse still, there's no right of appeal for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/20/traditional-owners-rally-against-changes-to-wa-aboriginal-heritage-act" target="_blank">traditional owners</a> from a committee decision.</p><p>So, while the committee must adhere to procedural fairness and ensure traditional owners are given sufficient information about decisions, this doesn't guarantee they have a right to consultation nor any right to provide feedback.</p>
Weak in Other Jurisdictions
<p>The WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 is <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/aha-review" target="_blank">under review</a>. The proposed reforms seek to abolish the committee, ensuring future decisions on Aboriginal cultural heritage give appropriate regard to the views of the traditional Aboriginal owners.</p><p><span></span>NSW is the only state with no stand-alone Aboriginal heritage legislation. However, a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/aborigines-land-and-national-parks-in-nsw/02-97.pdf" target="_blank">similar regulatory framework</a> to WA applies in NSW under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.</p><p>There, if a developer is likely to impact cultural heritage, they must apply for an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit. The law requires "regard" to be given to the interests of Aboriginal owners of the land, but this vague provision does not mandate consultation.</p><p>What's more, the burden of proving the significance of an Aboriginal object depends upon external statements of significance. But Aboriginal people, not others, should be responsible for determining the cultural significance of an object or area.</p><p>As in WA, the NSW regulatory framework is weak, opening up the risk for economic interests to be prioritized over damage to cultural heritage.</p>Outdated Laws
<p>The federal minister has discretion to assess whether state or territory laws are already effective.</p><p>If they decide state and territory laws are ineffective and a cultural place or object is under threat, then the federal <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aatsihpa1984549/" target="_blank">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984</a> can be used.</p><p>But this act is also weak. It was first implemented as an interim measure, intended to operate for two years. It has now been in operation for 36 years.</p><p>In fact, <a href="http://ymac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Extracts-from-Evatt-Review-of-the-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Heritage-Protection-Act-1984.pdf" target="_blank">a 1995 report</a> assessed the shortcomings of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.</p><p>It recommended minimum standards be put in place. This included ensuring any assessment of Aboriginal cultural significance be made by a properly qualified body, with relevant experience.</p><p>It said the role of Aboriginal people should be appropriately recognized and statutorily endorsed. Whether an area or site had particular significance according to Aboriginal tradition should be regarded as a subjective issue, determined by an assessment of the degree of intensity of belief and feeling of Aboriginal people.</p><p><span></span>Twenty-five years later, this is yet to happen.</p>Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Meadow Lake wind farm in Indiana. Anthony / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Tara Lohan
The first official tallies are in: Coronavirus-related shutdowns helped slash daily global emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 percent in April. But the drop won't last, and experts estimate that annual emissions of the greenhouse gas are likely to fall only about 7 percent this year.
<p>After that, unless we make substantial changes to global economies, it will be back to business as usual — and a path that leads directly to runaway climate change. If we want to reverse course, say the world's leading scientists, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/" target="_blank">we have about a decade</a> to right the ship.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/stokes-clean-energy/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>
<p>That's because we've squandered a lot of time. "The 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s were lost decades for preventing global climate disaster," political scientist <a href="https://www.leahstokes.com/" target="_blank">Leah Stokes</a> writes in her new book <em><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/short-circuiting-policy-9780190074265?cc=us&lang=en" target="_blank">Short Circuiting Policy</a></em><em>, </em>which looks at the history of clean energy policy in the U.S.</p><p>But we don't all bear equal responsibility for the tragic delay.</p><p>"Some actors in society have more power than others to shape how our economy is fueled," writes Stokes, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "We are not all equally to blame."</p><p><em>Short Circuiting</em> <em>Policy</em> focuses on the role of one particularly bad actor: electric utilities. Their history of obstructing a clean-energy transition in the U.S. has been largely overlooked, with most of the finger-pointing aimed at fossil fuel companies (and for good reason).</p><p>We spoke with Stokes about this history of delay and denial from the utility industry, how to accelerate the speed and scale of clean-energy growth, and whether we can get past the polarizing rhetoric and politics around clean energy.</p>
What lessons can we learn from your research to guide us right now, in what seems like a really critical time in the fight to halt climate change?
<p>What a lot of people don't understand is that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we actually have to reduce emissions by around 7-8 percent <em>every single year</em> from now until 2030, which is what the emissions drop is likely to be this year because of the COVID-19 crisis.</p><p>So think about what it took to reduce emissions by that much and think about how we have to do that <em>every single year</em>.</p><p>It doesn't mean that it's going to be some big sacrifice, but it does mean that we need government policy, particularly at the federal level, because state policy can only go so far. We've been living off state policy for more than three decades now and we need our federal government to act.</p>Where are we now, in terms of our progress on renewable energy and how far we need to go?
<p>A lot of people think renewable energy is growing "so fast" and it's "so amazing." But first of all, during the coronavirus pandemic, the renewable energy industry is actually doing very poorly. It's losing a lot of jobs. And secondly, we were not moving fast enough even before the coronavirus crisis, because renewable energy in the<em> best </em>year grew by only 1.3 percent.</p><p>Right now we're at around 36-37 percent clean energy. That includes nuclear, hydropower and new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal. But hydropower and nuclear aren't growing. Nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the grid and hydro about 5 percent depending on the year. And then the rest is renewable. So we're at about 10 percent renewables, and in the best year, we're only adding 1 percent to that.</p><p>Generally, we need to be moving about eight times faster than we've been moving in our best years. (To visualize this idea, I came up with the <a href="https://grist.org/fix/how-quickly-do-we-need-to-ramp-up-renewables-look-to-the-narwhal/" target="_blank">narwhal curve</a>.)</p>How do we overcome these fundamental issues of speed and scale?
<p>We need actual government policy that supports it. We have never had a clean electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard at the federal level. That's the main law that I write all about at the state level. Where those policies are in place, a lot of progress has been made — places like California and even, to a limited extent, Texas.</p><p>We need our federal government to be focusing on this crisis. Even the really small, piecemeal clean-energy policies we have at the federal level are going away. In December Congress didn't extend the investment tax credit and the production tax credit, just like they didn't extend or improve the electric vehicle tax credit.</p><p>And now during the COVID-19 crisis, a lot of the money going toward the energy sector in the CARES Act is going toward propping up <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-15/-stealth-bailout-shovels-millions-of-dollars-to-oil-companies" target="_blank">dying fossil fuel companies</a> and not toward supporting the renewable energy industry.</p><p>So we are moving in the wrong direction.</p>Clean energy hasn’t always been such a partisan issue. Why did it become so polarizing?
<p>What I argue in my book, with evidence, is that electric utilities and fossil fuel companies have been intentionally driving polarization. And they've done this in part by running challengers in primary elections against Republicans who don't agree with them.</p><p>Basically, fossil fuel companies and electric utilities are telling Republicans that you can't hold office and support climate action. That has really shifted the incentives within the party in a very short time period.</p><p>It's not like the Democrats have moved so far left on climate. The Democrats have stayed in pretty much the same place and the Republicans have moved to the right. And I argue that that's because of electric utilities and fossil fuel companies trying to delay action.</p>And their reason for doing that is simply about their bottom line and keeping their share of the market?
<p>Exactly. You have to remember that delay and denial on climate change is a profitable enterprise for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities. The longer we wait to act on the crisis, the more money they can make because they can extract more fossil fuels from their reserves <em>and</em> they can pay more of their debt at their coal plants and natural gas plants. So delay and denial is a money-making business for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.</p>There’s been a lot of research, reporting and even legal action in recent years about the role of fossil fuel companies in discrediting climate science. From reading your book, it seems that electric utilities are just as guilty. Is that right?
<p>Yes, far less attention has been paid to electric utilities, which play a really critical role. They preside over legacy investments into coal and natural gas, and some of them continue to propose building new natural gas.</p><p>They were just as involved in promoting climate denial in the 1980s and 90s as fossil fuel companies, as I document in my book. And some of them, like Southern Company, have continued to promote climate denial to basically the present day.</p><p>But that's not the only dark part of their history.</p><p>Electric utilities promoted energy systems that are pretty wasteful. They built these centralized fossil fuel power plants rather than having co-generation plants that were onsite at industrial locations where manufacturing is happening, and where you need both steam heat — which is a waste product from electricity — and the electricity itself. That actually created a lot of waste in the system and we burned a lot more fossil fuels than if we had a decentralized system.</p><p><span></span>The other thing they've done in the more modern period is really resisted the energy transition. They've resisted renewable portfolio standards and net metering laws that allow for more clean energy to come onto the grid. They've tried to roll them back. They've been successful in some cases, and they've blocked new laws from passing when targets were met.</p>You wrote that, “Partisan polarization on climate is not inevitable — support could shift back to the bipartisanship we saw before 2008.” What would it take to actually make that happen?
<p>Well, on the one hand, you need to get the Democratic Party to care more about climate change and to really understand the stakes. And if you want to do that, I think the work of the <a href="https://www.justicedemocrats.com/" target="_blank">Justice Democrats</a> is important. They have primary-challenged incumbent Democrats who don't care enough about climate change. That is how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected. She was a primary challenger and she has really championed climate action in the Green New Deal.</p><p>The other thing is that the public supports climate action. Democrats do in huge numbers. Independents do. And to some extent Republicans do, particularly young Republicans.</p><p>So communicating the extent of public concern on these issues is really important because, as I've shown in other research, politicians don't know how much public concern there is on climate change. They dramatically underestimate support for climate action.</p><p>I think the media has a really important role to play because it's very rare that a climate event, like a disaster that is caused by climate change, is actually linked to climate change in media reporting.</p><p>But people might live through a wildfire or a hurricane or a heat wave, but nobody's going to tell them through the media that this is climate change. So we really need our reporters to be doing a better job linking people's lived experiences to climate change.</p>With economic stimulus efforts ramping up because of the COVD-19 pandemic, are we in danger of missing a chance to help boost a clean energy economy?
<p>I think so many people understand that stimulus spending is an opportunity to rebuild our economy in a way that creates good-paying jobs in the clean-energy sector that protects Americans' health.</p><p>We know that <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200427-how-air-pollution-exacerbates-covid-19" target="_blank">breathing dirty air</a> makes people more likely to die from COVID-19. So this is a big opportunity to create an economy that's more just for all Americans.</p><p>But unfortunately, we really are not pivoting toward creating a clean economy, which is what we need to be doing. This is an opportunity to really focus on the climate crisis because we have delayed for more than 30 years. There is not another decade to waste.</p>
Read More
Show Less