The Democratic debate Sunday night discussed important issues to our food and water, including the contamination of Flint, Michigan's water supply and climate change. The fact that CNN allowed University of Michigan student Sarah Bellaire to ask the candidates whether or not they support fracking—bringing a real discussion about dirty fossil fuels to center stage—shows how large and influential our movement to ban fracking has become.
Bernie Sanders' concise response after Hillary Clinton's long list of “conditions" that must be met in order for her to support fracking was met with thunderous applause: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."
Watch here:
While the Obama administration—including Clinton herself as secretary of state—has been a staunch promoter of fracking, touting industry claims about energy security and that it could be a bridge to renewables, a growing movement is forcing Democratic leaders to acknowledge that fracking is bad for our environment and public health and a disaster for our climate.
Here is what Clinton—who has fundraising ties to the oil and gas industry—had to say about fracking:
"You know, I don't support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one; I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present; I don't support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using—so by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that's the best approach. Because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones I just mentioned are met."
The State of Fracking in the Democratic Party
While Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo effectively banned fracking in New York in 2014 after a massive grassroots movement to halt it, some Democratic governors—including Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, Gov. Jerry Brown in California (who has been dealing with his own climate disaster) and Gov. John Hickenlooper in Colorado—continue to support fracking. Moderator Anderson Cooper asked Sanders about this insistence from some Democratic governors that fracking is safe. “I happen to be a member of the environmental committee ... And I talk to scientists who tell me fracking is doing terrible things to water systems all over this country," responded Sanders.
The Washington Post's Fact Checker took on Sanders' statement, citing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) study released last year asserting that fracking and drinking water that fracking has had no “widespread, systemic" effects on water. After we contacted them, Fact Checker updated the piece to acknowledge the continuing controversy around that claim, including the EPA's own scientific advisory board questioning that conclusion and calling for the agency to revise the statement. The EPA had long abandoned its investigations in Dimock, Pennsylvania; Pavillion, Wyoming; and Parker County, Texas. And inexplicably, the EPA had excluded their “high-profile" cases of contamination from the assessment. Public testimonies from people suffering from contaminated water also continue to undermine the legitimacy of the study.
Today, nine months after the release of that study, the agency is holding a public teleconference about the ongoing controversy. The case of the claim there has been no “widespread, systemic" contamination is far from over. And the movement to ban fracking is taking on the Democratic establishment, as Sanders calls it, descending on the Democratic National Convention in July demanding action to leave fossil fuels in the ground and transition swiftly to clean energy.
Five years ago, when Food & Water Watch became the first large, national organization to come out strongly for a ban—following the lead of communities that had already been grappling with concerns about the practice—we didn't think we'd come so far so fast. The Democratic debate shows the power of organizing to shift decision makers. In fact, continuing to apply pressure on our leaders to keep fossil fuels in the ground is the only way to bring about a true, clean energy future. Market-based schemes like pollution trading and pricing carbon will only prolong our fossil fuel addiction. Our planet can no longer accommodate business as usual and we're pleased to see the Democratic debates reflecting this discussion that our nation needs to have.
This piece was originally featured on Food & Water Watch.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EPA Scientists Call Foul on Fracking Study
Clinton and Sanders Clash Over Fracking at Flint Debate
Rise of Fracking Wastewater Injections in Ohio Sparks Fears of Earthquakes, Water Contamination
Bill McKibben Arrested + 56 Others in Ongoing Campaign Against Proposed Gas Storage at Seneca Lake
Contribute
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
Trending
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
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
19h
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
The label of one of the recalled thyroid medications. FDA
If you are taking medication for an underactive thyroid, check your prescription.
<p>Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC is recalling some of its NP Thyroid® tablets because they are not strong enough to work properly, according to an announcement published by the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/acella-pharmaceuticals-llc-issues-voluntary-nationwide-recall-two-lots-np-thyroidr-thyroid-tablets" target="_blank">Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Thursday</a>. Patients with underactive thyroids, technically known as hypothyroidism, who take weaker medicine may experience symptoms of the condition. These include fatigue, dry skin, low heart rate, depression and unexpected weight loss or gain.</p><p>"To date, Acella has received four reports of adverse events for these lot numbers possibly related to this recall," the company said.</p>
<p>The recall marks the second time this month that a thyroid drug was pulled for being too weak, or subpotent, <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/health-care/article245872655.html" target="_blank">the Miami Herald pointed out</a>. RLC Labs, Inc. <a href="https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/rlc-labs-inc-issues-voluntary-nationwide-recall-all-lots-nature-throidr-and-wp-thyroidr-current" target="_blank">recalled</a> nearly 500 lots of Nature-Throid® and WP Thyroid® for the same reason Sept. 3. Weeks before that, several lots of thyroid medication were recalled for being too strong, <a href="https://www.slashgear.com/popular-thyroid-drugs-recalled-because-theyre-weaker-than-expected-05636932/" target="_blank">SlashGear reported</a>.</p><p>The most recent recall concerns one lot of Acella's 15-mg NP Thyroid® and one lot of its 120-mg NP Thyroid®. The recall comes because testing revealed the lots to be subpotent. They may contain as little as 87 percent of the amount of levothyroxine, or T4, indicated on the label.</p><p>"Acella is proactively notifying its wholesalers by email and phone to discontinue distribution of the two above referenced lots being recalled and is arranging for return of all recalled products," the company said in the recall announcement. "Patients who are currently taking NP Thyroid® from the lots being recalled should not discontinue use without contacting their healthcare provider for further guidance and/or a replacement prescription."</p>
<p>Pregnant or elderly patients with hypothyroidism face additional risks if they take subpotent medication. For pregnant people, the weakened drug could cause early miscarriage or damage to the fetus such as impairment of skeletal or brain development or the onset of fetal hyperthyroidism. In elderly patients or patients with preexisting heart conditions, taking the weakened drugs could lead to palpitations, heart pain or cardiac arrhythmia.</p><p>The recalled products were packed in 100-count bottles and had expiration dates of Oct. and Nov. 2020. Their lot numbers were M327E19-1 and M328F19-3.</p><p>"[C]onsumers may be able to determine that their product is not impacted by the recall if the 'use by,' 'discard after,' or 'expiration date' on their prescription bottle is on or after December 2020," the recall notice said.</p><p>If patients experience any harmful side effects from taking the medication, they should contact their healthcare providers. They can also report the adverse reaction to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program <a href="https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-and-adverse-event-reporting-program/reporting-serious-problems-fda" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>Anyone with questions about the recall can contact Acella Pharmaceuticals at recall@acellapharma.com or 1-888-280-2044.</p>
Read More
Show Less