'Irreversible' Damage to Planet From Climate Change Says Leaked IPCC Report
Climate change is here, man-made and already having dangerous impacts, according to leaked drafts of the upcoming UN climate science report.
The leaked IPCC report warns it is increasingly likely the world will shoot past this point, and that limiting warming to within this level would require dramatic and immediate cuts in carbon pollution.
The 127-page final draft of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report shows the effects of global warming are already being felt across all continents and the oceans.
It warns that further emission rises will increase the likelihood of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”
The report will be a synthesis of the IPCC’s three comprehensive reports released in the past year, which examined the science of climate change, its impacts and potential mitigation options.
The report will be finalised after governments and scientists go over it line-by-line at a meeting in Copenhagen in October.
The leaked report, which has been circulated to several media outlets, shows temperatures have already increased by 0.85°C since 1880—a more rapid shift in the climate than that which heralded the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago.
The report mentions several impacts that could “already be considered dangerous” including extreme weather including heat waves, flooding and drought and rising sea levels.
It also raises the risk that climate change and its impacts could worsen violent conflicts and refugee problems, hinder efforts to grow more food and threaten public health.
Ocean acidification, which comes from the added carbon absorbed by the oceans, could also harm marine life, the draft warns.
“Climate change risks are likely to be high or very high by the end of the 21st century” without sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it says.
It is hoped the new report will focus minds ahead of the global UN climate talks to take place in Lima, Peru in December, where governments are expected to lay the groundwork for the crucial Paris Summit in late 2015.
It is here where countries have agreed to finalise a new global treaty on climate change.
In 2009, countries had agreed to set a goal of limiting global warming to below 2°C—the international agreed danger threshold for climate change.
However, the leaked IPCC report warns it is increasingly likely the world will shoot past this point, and that limiting warming to within this level would require dramatic and immediate cuts in carbon pollution.
Without action to limit the levels of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, it warns temperatures could increase by 2°C by mid-century compared to 1986 to 2005.
But the end of the century, that scenario could bring temperatures that are 3.7°C warming, it warns.
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
Leonardo DiCaprio Narrates Climate Change Films Urging Shift From Fossil Fuels to Renewables
The top three countries for total emissions from flying were the U.S., China and the UK. Caroline Purser / Getty Images
Another study finds evidence that the majority of climate-damaging flights are undertaken by a small minority of frequent travelers.
<p>The research, <a href="https://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/elite-status-how-a-small-minority-around-the-world-take-an-unfair-share-of-flights" target="_blank">published by the UK-based climate charity Possible</a>, is based on a review of the existing literature on global flight frequency before the coronavirus pandemic disrupted the aviation industry. It found extensive evidence of flight inequality both between and within countries.</p><p>"This report shows the same pattern of inequality around the world — a small minority of frequent flyers take an unfair share of the flights," Possible's Alethea Warrington told <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56582094" target="_blank">BBC News</a>. "While the poorest communities are already suffering the impacts of a warming climate, the benefits of high-carbon lifestyles are enjoyed only by the few. A lot of people travel. But only the privileged few fly often."</p><p>Globally, few people fly regularly. Less than 20 percent of people have ever flown, according to the report, and only five to 10 percent of the world's population flies in any year. Further, the wealthiest 10 percent of people are responsible for 76 percent of the energy consumption involved with packaged holidays.</p><p>Meanwhile, the top 10 countries for aviation emissions account for 60 percent of the world's total, while the top 30 account for 86 percent. The top three countries for total emissions from flying were the U.S., China and the UK, while the top five for per capita emissions from residents came from Singapore, Finland, Iceland, Australia and the UK.</p>
<p>At the same time, a gap remains within those top-flying countries between the most frequent flyers and everyone else.</p><ul><li>U.S.: 12 percent of the population takes 66 percent of the flights</li><li>UK: around 15 percent of the population takes 70 percent of the flights</li><li>France: two percent of the population takes 50 percent of the flights</li><li>Canada: 22 percent of the population takes 73 percent of the flights</li><li>Netherlands: eight percent of the population takes 42 percent of the flights</li></ul><p>To address these inequalities and reduce aviation emissions, Possible is proposing a Frequent Flyer Levy in the UK, which would tax people who take more flights.</p><p>"Air travel is a uniquely damaging behavior, resulting in more emissions per hour than any other activity, bar starting forest fires. So targeting climate policy at the elite minority responsible for most of the environmental damage from flights could help tackle the climate problem without taking away access to the most important and valued services that air travel provides to society," Leo Murray, Possible director of innovation, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/31/elite-minority-frequent-flyers-aviation-climate-damage-flights-environmental" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>Other environmental groups agree with the frequent flyer levy, but also argue for an end to frequent flyer rewards programs.</p>
<p>"Taxing frequent fliers is a good idea — but we also have to do something about air miles, which reward frequent fliers for flying more frequently," Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven told BBC News. "This is obscene during a climate crisis — and it should be stopped."<br></p><p>However, a UK treasury spokesperson noted that there would be some problems implementing a frequent flyer levy. It could be complicated to apply, raise privacy concerns, be hard to enforce for people holding more than one passport and pose a problem for people who travel for essential work.</p><p>The airline industry also opposed the tax and argued in favor of technological fixes.</p><p>"Taxes have proved to be an ineffective way to tackle emissions," Michael Gill, executive director at the International Air Transport Association, told The Guardian. "The focus instead should be on practical means to mitigate the CO2 impact of aviation, while still enabling people to fly for business and family reasons."</p><p>However, Finlay Asher, a climate activist and former airline engineer, said technological innovation was not likely to do the trick.</p><p>"As an engineer working on future aircraft technology, I quickly realized that technology development is moving too slowly compared with growth in air traffic," Asher told The Guardian. "The only way to reduce emissions from the sector in time is government policy to fairly limit demand for flights. Without that, no amount of technology will help."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Aviation Accounts for 3.5% of Global Warming Caused by Humans ... ›
- Coronavirus Shutdowns Causing Huge Drops in Traffic, Air Pollution ... ›
- To Fly or Not to Fly? The Environmental Cost of Air Travel - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Biking strenuously in polluted air may harm young people's heart health. Seung-il Ryu / NurPhoto via Getty Images
Exercise is good for human health, but air quality warnings typically warn against outdoor activity when particulate matter levels rise above certain levels. At what point do the dangers of air pollution outweigh the benefits of physical activity?
<p>To find that out, researchers at the Seoul National University College of Medicine in South Korea conducted a country-wide study of nearly 1.5 million young adults. The study, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab139/6189959" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">published in the European Heart Journal</a> Monday, concluded that strenuous exercise in very polluted air could put young people at risk for heart disease and stroke.</p>
<p>"This is an important result suggesting that, unlike middle-aged people over 40, excessive physical activity may not always be beneficial for cardiovascular health in younger adults when they are exposed to high concentrations of air pollution," study first author Dr. Seong Rae Kim told the <a href="https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Air-pollution-and-physical-exercise-when-to-do-more-or-less" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">European Society of Cardiology</a> (ESC).</p><p>The researchers had previously studied the impacts of air pollution and exercise on middle-aged adults at a single point in time, but this study was the first to look at the issue for young people over several years.</p>
<p>The study considered 1,469,972 adults aged 20 to 39 over a period of nine years. First, researchers considered how much exercise the participants undertook based on exams in 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, then follow ups from 2013 to 2018. Exercise was measured in units of metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes per week (MET-min/week). Air pollution was based on particulate matter data from the annual average from the National Ambient Air Monitoring System in South Korea and ranked as either low to moderate (less than 49.92 micrograms per cubic metre, or μm/m3, for PM10 and less than 26.43 μm/m3 for PM2.5) and high (49.92 μm/m3 for PM10 and 26.46 μm/m3 for PM2.5).</p><p>For participants exposed to low to moderate levels of air pollution, the impact of exercise was about what you would expect.</p>
<p>"We found that in young adults aged 20-39 years old, the risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke and heart attack, increased as the amount of physical activity decreased between the two screening periods," Kim told the ESC.</p><p>However, this was not the case for participants who increased their exercise above 1,000 MET-min/week while being exposed to high levels of air pollution, as <a href="https://airqualitynews.com/2021/03/30/air-pollution-while-exercising-may-decrease-the-cardiovascular-health-of-young-adults/" target="_blank">Air Quality News explained</a>:</p><blockquote>The researchers found that among people exposed to high levels of PM2.5, those who increased their exercise between the two screening periods had a 33% increased risk of cardiovascular disease during the follow-up period compared to those who were physically inactive and did not increase their exercise, although this result was slightly weaker than that needed to achieve statistical significance.<br><br>This means an extra 108 people per 10,000 might develop the cardiovascular disease during the follow-up period.</blockquote>
<p>To put these findings in perspective,1,000 MET-min/week is above the ESC's recommended exercise levels of 500-999 MET-min/week, which equates to running, cycling or hiking for 15-30 minutes five times a week, or brisk walking, doubles tennis or slow cycling for 30-60 minutes five times a week.</p><p>However, Kim argued for policy changes to allow young people to take full advantage of strenuous exercise.</p><p>"Ultimately, it is imperative that air pollution is improved at the national level in order to maximize the health benefits of exercising in young adults," Kim told the ESC. "These are people who tend to engage in physical activity more than other age groups while their physical ability is at its best. If air quality is not improved, this could result in the incidence of cardiovascular diseases actually increasing despite the health benefits gained from exercise."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Most Economists Agree: Benefits of 'Drastic' Climate Action Outweigh Costs of Status Quo
19h
Business
Climate change protesters urge climate action and funding for the Green New Deal on September 23, 2019 in Washington, DC. Mark Wilson / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
While scientists and campaigners continue calling on world leaders to pursue more ambitious policies to cut planet-heating emissions based on moral arguments and physical dangers, a U.S. think tank released survey results on Tuesday that make a clear economic case for sweeping climate action.
<p>The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law invited 2,169 Ph.D. economists to take a 15-question online survey "focused on climate change risks, economic damage estimates, and emissions abatement," according to a <a href="https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118665090&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8UlpxuBsD08ecvP9TNwOkply5Q2DuPP6dN8iM9Fv7PJ5gHZL5_IymPLQnoWxg4YmJ6ZqUHKSzQYgHyJ4zQXgiRADXbXA&utm_content=118665090&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">report</a> on the results. Nearly three-quarters of the 738 economists who participated in the survey say they agree that "immediate and drastic action is necessary."</p><p>"In sharp contrast, less than 1% believe that climate change is 'not a serious problem,'" the report says, noting a jump in support for bold climate action now compared with a 2015 survey. "Nearly 80% of respondents also self-report an increase in their level of concern about climate change over the past five years, underscoring the high level of overall concern among this group."</p>
<div id="2c758" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a3822d8d90de8c601eb93e546e723e73"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1376929649192669184" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Just out: an impressive new international survey of 738 economists with expertise in climate by @NYULaw… https://t.co/eHGdjvMLHl</div> — Dana Nuccitelli (@Dana Nuccitelli)<a href="https://twitter.com/dana1981/statuses/1376929649192669184">1617120585.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Of those surveyed, 76% believe the climate crisis will likely or very likely have a negative effect on global economic growth rates. Additionally, 70% think climate change will make income inequality worse within most countries and 89% think it will exacerbate inequality between high-income and low-income countries.</p><p>"People who spend their careers studying our economy are in widespread agreement that climate change will be expensive, potentially devastatingly so," said Peter Howard, economics director at the institute and co-author of the research, in a statement. "These findings show a clear economic case for urgent climate action."</p><p>As the report details:</p><blockquote>Respondents were asked to estimate the economic impacts of several different climate scenarios. They project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Their damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. As expected, experts believe that the risk of extremely high/catastrophic damages significantly increases at these high temperatures.<br></blockquote><p>Sixty-six percent of respondents "agree that the benefits of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 would likely outweigh the costs," compared with just 12% who disagree. As the report says: "Costs are often cited as a reason to delay or avoid strong action on climate change, but this survey of hundreds of expert economists suggests that the weight of evidence is on the side of rapid action."</p><p>The economists also foresee a "rapid expansion of clean energy technologies" in the coming decades, and 65% of respondents expect the costs of emerging zero-emission and negative-emission tech will drop rapidly, similar to the recent developments with solar and wind energy. While a majority also expects negative-emission technologies will become viable in the second half of the century, the report notes that "a very high percentage of 'No Opinion' responses underscores the uncertainty of this projection."</p>
<div id="124a9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2788989b4c66f6a664c501573849306c"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1376900704741232646" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Our global survey of over 700 economists gathered expert views on a series of key climate change questions. The ov… https://t.co/ftp9Ix3Sbq</div> — Institute for Policy Integrity (@Institute for Policy Integrity)<a href="https://twitter.com/PolicyIntegrity/statuses/1376900704741232646">1617113684.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"Economists overwhelmingly support rapid emissions reductions, and they are optimistic about key technology costs continuing to drop," said co-author Derek Sylvan, strategy director at the institute. "There is a clear consensus among these experts that the status quo seems far more costly than a major energy transition."</p><p>The survey comes as governments party to the Paris agreement are revising and releasing emissions pledges for the next decade ahead of a global summit in November. A United Nations report recently <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/02/26/red-alert-our-planet-new-un-report-shows-radically-bolder-action-needed-hit-15degc" target="_blank">warned</a> that the pledges put forth so far are dramatically inadequate. As Power Shift Africa director Mohamed Adow said: "It's staggering how far off track countries are to dealing with the climate crisis."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/30/most-economists-agree-benefits-drastic-climate-action-outweigh-costs-status-quo" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
An aerial picture shows a deforested area close to Sinop, Mato Grosso State, Brazil, taken on August 7, 2020. Florian Plaucheur / AFP / Getty Images
A new study published Wednesday found that the destruction of primary forest increased by 12% in 2020, impacting ecosystems that store vast amounts of carbon and shelter abundant biodiversity.
<p>Brazil saw the worst losses, three times higher than the next highest country, the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to the <a href="https://blog.globalforestwatch.org/data-and-research/global-tree-cover-loss-data-2020/" target="_blank">report from Global Forest Watch (GFW)</a> citing satellite data.</p><p>The driving factor of deforestation has been a combination of a demand for commodities, increased agriculture, and climate change. </p><p>2020 was meant to be a "landmark year" in the fight against deforestation in which companies, countries and international organizations had pledged to halve or completely stop forest loss, said the report. </p><h2>What Were the Main Takeaways?</h2><p>The report, which included data from the University of Maryland, study cited in the report registered the destruction of 10.4 million acres (4.2 million hectares) of primary forest. </p><p>The loss of tree cover ー which refers to plantations as well as natural forest ー was a total of 30 million acres. Australia saw a ninefold increase in tree cover loss from late 2019 to early 2020 compared to 2018 primarily driven by extreme weather. </p><p>Heat and drought also stoked huge fires in Siberia and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/amazon-rainforest-fire-deforestation-mining-slash-and-burn-brazil/a-54486689" target="_blank">deep into the Amazon</a>, researchers said.</p><p>The findings did, however, show signs of hope, particularly in southeast Asia. Indonesia and Malaysia saw downward trends for deforestation after implementing regulations such as a temporary <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/death-threats-for-peruvian-palm-oil-activists/a-42652689" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">palm oil</a> license ban — although that is set to expire in 2021. </p>
<h2>Researchers Voice Concern</h2><p>These losses constitute a "climate emergency. They're a biodiversity crisis, a humanitarian disaster, and a loss of economic opportunity," said Frances Seymour of the World Resources Institute, which is behind the </p><p>The destruction of tropical forests released vast amounts of CO2 in 2020, a total of 2.6 million tons. That equals the annual amount of emissions from India's 570 million cars, researchers said.</p><h2>COVID's Impact on Deforestation</h2><p>The study suggested that COVID-19 restrictions may have had an effect when it came to illegal harvesting because forests were less protected or the return of large numbers of people to rural areas. </p><p>Researchers, however, said that little had changed when it comes to the trajectory of forest destruction. They warned the worst could still be to come if countries slash protections in an attempt to ramp up economic growth, hampered by the pandemic. </p><p>If deforestation goes unchecked it could lead to a negative feedback loop ー where trees lost leads to more carbon in the air, which in turn leads to increased climate change impacts leading to more trees being lost, researchers said.</p><p>The aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic could offer and opportunity to reimagine policies and economies in a way that protects forest before it is too late, the report suggests.</p><p>Seymour said the most "ominous signal" from the 2020 data is the instances of forests themselves falling victim to climate change. </p><p>"The longer we wait to stop forestation, and get other sectors on to net zero trajectories, the more likely it is that our natural carbon sinks will go up in smoke," she said. </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/global-rainforest-destruction-saw-a-surge-in-2020-study-finds/a-57057241" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris during remarks on COVID-19 response and vaccinations at South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 29, 2021. Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post via Getty Images
Today in Pittsburgh, President Biden will outline his American Jobs Plan, proposals for major infrastructure investments in clean energy, water system updates, and other economy-growing initiatives designed to create millions of jobs, address aging infrastructure and lessen racial and other inequities throughout the economy.
<p>Biden's $2 trillion plan to fight climate change and revitalize the American economy includes calls for Congressional funding to the tune of: $16 billion to employ union oil and gas workers to cap orphaned oil and gas wells and clean up mines, $35 billion in clean tech R&D to address the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" target="_self">climate crisis</a>, $85 billion to modernize public transit systems, $174 billion to promote <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles" target="_self">electric vehicles</a> through consumer incentives, supply chain support, charging network build outs, school bus electrification, and electrifying the federal fleet, $100 billion for power grid modernization and resilience, and $213 billion to build, modernize, and weatherize affordable housing.</p>
<p>Biden's plan also calls for investing $111 billion to improve the country's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a> systems, including eliminating all lead water pipes and service lines in the country. Labor and environmental groups called for even greater ambition and spending to "build a more just, equitable, clean and more prosperous American economy" in a letter to Biden and Democratic Congressional leaders. Funding will pay for itself over 15 years, the administration says, by a combination of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, raising corporate taxes, ending offshore-tax havens and strengthening corporate tax enforcement.</p>
<p>The plan also calls for passage of a bill aimed at significantly strengthening workers' rights to organize. The $2 trillion plan push is just the first of the administration's massive two-part infrastructure investment agenda as Biden is expected to release part two, the "American Families Plan" in two weeks. </p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br/></p><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/03/31/biden-infrastructure-climate-plan/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_RArlqOPSkNGuWEQ2Exfn745iYfz7IIR2QbT3vqlPG4k4SSfjg0S2aS6K_bkKV6O3ymVDUZU0I00Rjt8gFI9v57uAiwg&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://login.politicopro.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscriber.politicopro.com%2Farticle%2F2021%2F03%2Fwhat-bidens-plan-seeks-for-climate-clean-energy-and-water-2045506%3Futm_campaign%3DHot%2520News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_9OeQ7yLbd5aWToK7H5E2OJvirpDGOdIJQ20H5nHoPyeHCPa5rYas5fvMhTJg4J2Z600ZqV_dvl-SuVGtNYbvdJPejhQ&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">POLITICO Pro</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/business/economy/biden-infrastructure-plan.html?searchResultPosition=1&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--nw8fDMowGLlJA-JCJWR9o0hNen04YVOeLq-cm2lpLdC7tQav8UBAIjc-PatFxnvt7iVImCHv7Fd1En3INHZcRpcWdcA&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/30/biden-infrastructure-plan-478627?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-__0OCkLT__BzecPoZsh9FFB5_6s7g2_EtvvZ6rPRvcLwBQhVhte3NtLWfIq5mFXC4uNDLaV7GItmL5yybfO9t7V-d0SA&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">POLITICO</a>, <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VW784p3Jqlf9V338b98qTgKKVNrtzX4pRkD7N3wqV775nxH1V3Zsc37CgTLGW97NTdB5Rb7lKVnmD3P9gBbX9W1QXBpW6N41tbW7t4fCQ69LkcyW5LNMDQ5ZNRzrW3wPlhx6ty4BSN5ynmbWfh0zbN2gMnQYPXh6DW66skJd6j75hvN4FJ_QrBSN8PW5Jw3MM44F8-ZW5dbDkP2Q8LqKW40c4TT3j9YMqW2P5gY72TKcsfW3_gdLQ3pbMlNW2_xzxM2S2pl8W8_d0bT8lWHH2W5Dpj0G6Q_ds-W5CWssf6xMPM_VkQg9k3gDZ1jW2lq2yG1jRzk-N1v9FjcQQ4vHW54Khk62jjR5ZW3_f0Md7bBnP6W2jK7sY73TgRdW467Vlh3ccc55W5PDQ8q100wpCN4hRzlW6KSXwW3c0wNf3NfX8kN5b-2BCf0x7KW1k9NT95tF6XPW1BKjWl8p7XB9W4KXD-88YmP0-https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2021/03/29/Joe-Biden-Pittsburgh-infrastructure-proposal-United-Steelworkers-Conor-Lamb/stories/202103290090?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_6OIdHhZshdz756ULxsIxSRUubrxp10Nx_O-8EQSXyt3igJ8oe1_13FUnfKIdjY8SC330edKxkSzks-21RN92uQgNw5Q&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a>, <a href="https://www.vox.com/22334274/joe-biden-infrastructure-climate-push-explained?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_cSN9RrswTO4aBf5cGh2QOsiF9c6FsLdHX3urytAWkymb1UnvOSp7C-Yij2TiXOyqKoe1zu5pHAo37W9kNmmg-cDAxQw&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Vox</a>; Labor and green groups: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/biden-urged-to-spend-4-trillion-by-labor-environment-groups?sref=oUjKJw8m&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-93OO7mEMnsiw5wtxdKeodW2QoyGaPsqR_k_iqAP9T404BYdMx7Fawd76m3n7ajCfW26asXA89H0E6dfhboFIjFqH58zg&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>; Pay-fors and taxes: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-makes-a-big-gamble-on-infrastructure-spending--and-higher-taxes-on-the-wealthy-to-pay-for-it/2021/03/30/6fc7d928-90da-11eb-9668-89be11273c09_story.html?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8AkcItXDCTeFaO55ZNv0Vyr8hJQLbC10Gkk5v9n_X2EKq6PRGzGYMQ5S8dzmBpGIhAli3mBVao99wm5QFMG_I8JPuRNg&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/30/blue-state-democrats-salt-taxes-478556?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9wzXWI54uwaY34BAB7G5bCom6IxIxxMzMBVWgQSrjX7YsqIm-tcYuI1lK1Nxqsv87e4CNxnacCwFyDYZQIRZOd30O4Zw&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">POLITICO</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/business/economy/biden-infrastructure-taxes.html?searchResultPosition=3&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=118865891&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--uISMA_pOXi4rnr-PrNYjlj4mUuNCHidkqFeH2OMmNcivTE1QPSrpBEz2ACVhUOdGKXxeIfx21PLuwdAjoS4bM-QYQBg&utm_content=118865891&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, sign up for daily </em><a href="https://www.linktrack.live/hot-news-sign-up" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>, and visit their news site, </em><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Nexus Media News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less