Is Privatized Uranium Company Too Rigged to Fail?
After a round of loan guarantees for renewable energy projects, bracketed by investigations and hearings on the Solyndra scandal, just one big project remains on the docket of the beleaguered Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy (DOE). The applicant is the formerly government-owned uranium enricher, USEC Inc., the same company that supplied the uranium fuel melted down inside the reactors at Fukushima. If Solyndra has been a nightmare for the Obama Administration, USEC is a recurring psychotic-break flashback to a bad acid trip.
USEC has spun a decade-long saga over whether it will or won't build a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant, in the key swing region of Appalachian Ohio, near Piketon. The company now faces a series of financing and performance deadlines, starting Nov. 1. On Friday, Oct. 21, USEC announced an alleged deal with the DOE that would inaugurate hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of new federal spending in support of the "privatized" company.
Four days later, however, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent letters to Congress suggesting that any commitment to USEC would require a congressional appropriation, tossing the radioactive potato into U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner's (R-OH) lap. Boehner, whose congressional district neighbors that of Piketon, immediately came under intense fire for support of USEC from his own right wing, expressed best in a piece in the National Review: Another Solyndra—Henry Sokolski & Autumn Hanna—National Review Online. It carries the caustic subtitle Ohio Republicans join the energy subsidy racket.
Subsequently, USEC retreated from its claim of a deal, saying late on Halloween—trick or treat—only that "advanced talks" with DOE and Congress continue (USEC Inc. News Release: USEC Provides Update on American Centrifuge Project).
The Archetype of Planned Failure
Piketon has been the proving ground for the strategic wastage of federal funds on a gargantuan scale since 1952, when Democrat Alvin Barkley of Kentucky (Truman's vice president) and Republican Robert Taft of southern Ohio (a perennial presidential candidate) teamed up to site the largest and most energy-consuming facility in the world, in the most impoverished corner of the state most critical for electoral college victories. (Pike County retains the highest unemployment rate of Ohio's eighty-eight counties).
That enrichment plant, which at opening required more electricity than the city of New York, was closed in 2001, but accomplishing that closure required the titular privatization of USEC, to remove accountability for the layoffs from the politicians of both parties. The site and all the buildings upon it are still owned by the federal government.
"Privatized" USEC now seeks a $2 billion federal loan guarantee—nearly four times the Solyndra loss—though the total market valuation of USEC is only about one eighth of that amount. USEC's future revenue is severely constrained by scheduled closure of its remaining gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky (Barkley's home town), in just seven months, and by expiration of its sweetheart concession on the sale of downblended Russian uranium from dismantled warheads in just two years. USEC has about $800 million in debt to bondholders coming due in 2014, at least three years before any new facility possibly could come online. That impending triple-whammy makes USEC the worst bet since huckster Bobby Riggs in his challenge match against tennis pro Billie Jean King.
Make it a quadruple-whammy with the collapse of the projected market for nuclear fuel, since the Fukushima disaster and the resulting wave of nuclear roll-back decisions in Japan, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Scotland, Belgium and even Texas.
As with Solyndra, USEC's technology faces stiff commercial competition. Unlike Solyndra, USEC's default risk is entirely predictable in advance of any loan, and the competition is domestic, with projects now completed or underway in New Mexico, Idaho and North Carolina. Ohio's politicians now complain that AREVA USA, purveyor of the Idaho project that has already been awarded a $2 billion DOE loan guarantee, is the subsidiary of a French-owned company. The complainers sang a different tune when they tried to woo the same plant to Ohio.
DOE already rejected USEC's application in 2009 on all three criteria—technical, financial and regulatory—but USEC was then granted an extension of the review, against the rules, by the flex of pure political muscle. The biggest flexor was then-governor, Democrat Ted Strickland, who hails from Piketon's general neighborhood and had served on the USEC Privatization Board in the 1990s as congressman from the district.
To his credit, Strickland originally opposed the privatization as a scandal-plagued "exercise in private enrichment" (pun intended), but curiously, after a decade as the lead beneficiary of USEC campaign contributions, Strickland became the company's shill-in-chief. Strickland received more than $30,000 in corporate contributions from USEC for his 2010 gubernatorial reelection campaign, not counting a $6,000 contribution that had to be returned because it was timed too closely to a meeting that Strickland held with Energy Secretary Chu, explicitly to lobby for a USEC loan guarantee.
At the 13th anniversary of its privatization, USEC can claim a string of bad luck for the record-books. Announcement of the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) was postponed twice in 2003—first, when Iran revealed its far-along centrifuge program, which President G.W. Bush unthinkingly called a "criminal" enterprise (unthinking about the pending USEC extravaganza for an operation much like that in Iran), and second, when Muammar Gaddafi said that he, too, had a centrifuge program, obviously more advanced than USEC's.
If tent-colonel Gaddafi could beat you to the hi-tech punch, your machinery couldn't exactly be counted as cutting-edge. Adding irony, Gaddafi's surrendered stock of enriched uranium was shipped for storage to Piketon, where the old enrichment plant had given way to a uranium waste warehouse, with the habitual false promise of salvaging Ohio jobs. (Now that uranium has been moved to Oak Ridge, Tennessee).
In early 2004, when USEC finally did unveil ACP, with patriotic ballyhoo that was trademark Ohio-country baloney, it was absent any financing plan for the facility, now estimated to cost at least five billion dollars, except for some vague idea that the government would pay for it, negating the letter and spirit of privatization. In the fantasy scenario of ACP opening for business, it would make the highest-priced reactor fuel in the world, by design.
After applying for a DOE loan guarantee in 2008, USEC had the misfortune of spotlighting ACP's lead future customer, which was Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), owner of the nuclear reactors to be stricken and shut down at Fukushima. That blooper was compounded when USEC claimed it would seek needed additional financing for ACP—between $600 million and $1 billion—from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. There's been no sign of that financing either before or since the nuclear disaster in Japan, and it's difficult to comprehend why a Japanese national bank would choose to subsidize a non-competitive U.S. nuclear project at this particular point in time.
Within ten days of the meltdowns in March of 2011, USEC signaled defeat by signing an agreement to satisfy its customers with uranium supplied by the Russian company TENEX, and also to support a future TENEX centrifuge plant to be built on U.S. soil. The American Centrifuge Plant thus transmuted into the Russo-Japanese Centrifuge Plant.
With no case to make for commercial viability, USEC's public relations crew has fallen back on the vague assertion that the plant would serve a unique role for "national security," which has the unsavory consequence of making USEC's project sound much like those in Iran and North Korea. U.S. Senator Rob Portman, who represented Pike County in Congress post-Strickland, has disclosed that ACP would make the fuel for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power reactors, which also provide tritium for the replenishment of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Representative Jean Schmidt (R-OH) who inherited the congressional seat when Portman was tapped to become U.S. Trade Representative, recently said that ACP failure would "handcuff our foreign policy, weaken our military posture and put at risk American business interests worldwide." Schmidt, you may recall, is the national security expert who made her debut on the House floor by implying that ex-Marine Jack Murtha was a coward.
Regarding, Schmidt's assertions about ACP, the opposite is true. USEC's national defense claim rests on the fact that other new enrichment technologies are under foreign license restrictions that bar military applications. Contrary to advertisement, USEC also employs some unspecified components that are manufactured and licensed abroad. However, USEC licenses the core of its technology directly from DOE, fulfilling a requirement of the USEC Privatization Act for development of "advanced technology" that can meet hypothetical future U.S. needs for weapons-grade uranium, a defect in the Act since we can neither gauge long-range future needs, nor meet those needs in a backhanded way through commercial private projects. The royalties on the technology—$100 million owed the U.S. government—have been deferred until the hypothetical plant opens, another hidden subsidy since it never will.
Enriched uranium has not been used as material in U.S. nuclear weapons since it was banned for such use by Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
In fact, USEC's enormous forty-foot high centrifuges are not "innovative" as claimed, because they were developed by the U.S. government more than thirty years ago, specifically to replace the problem-plagued high-assay enrichment facility at the old Ohio plant. The commercial limitations of this technology are related to its dual-use design. DOE's interest in continuing R&D on the centrifuge technology, as expressed in the recent letters from Chu, may reside solely in maintaining a future capacity to make weapons-grade uranium, an interest wholly distinct from the commercial advertisements of USEC.
It's the dual-use character of ACP that undermines real security interests and non-proliferation objectives. The U.S. cannot continue to oppose potential dual-use centrifuge facilities in Iran or North Korea, if we blur the line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons with our "new build."
Nor is it practical. The government stockpile of weapons-grade uranium easily can be downblended to feed the reactors at TVA. And in anticipation of ACP's demise, DOE has created a new stockpile of reactor-grade uranium called the "Strategic Uranium Reserve," obviously with replacement of USEC uranium in mind.
The American Centrifuge Plant boils down to a failed commercial program recast as a clandestine military research and development project, in order to roust up the necessary support for congressional appropriations. Thus, for the sake of a petty political game in the root hills of southern Ohio, we tempt terrible consequences. If the U.S. or Israel were to strike at Iran's bunkered centrifuge facilities, where would the Iranians symmetrically target in reprisal? Even if ACP never operates commercially, that would be Piketon. But for the American people this is all hush-hush.
A Done Deal?
DOE has pushed back against USEC efforts to extort a loan guarantee, which would only be a formula for future default. The problem is that presidential politics and the power of "super" congressmen from southern Ohio, including Boehner and Portman, make Pike County nuclear boondoggles practically non-cancelable. Six of USEC's test centrifuges crashed last June, but the pols can keep spinning promises of jobs, jobs that never materialize, ad infinitum.
It's in that context that USEC announced in late October "ongoing negotiations," with DOE over an immediate direct government bailout of $300 million, instead of a loan guarantee. Allegedly, this money would pay for a research and development program for ACP technology that might attract the kind of private investment USEC hasn't had. Boeing, which fleetingly agreed to co-manufacture the USEC centrifuges, fled the project with no explanation in 2008.
Apparently, USEC jumped the gun and revealed the new deal before one actually has been struck, either to preempt leakage of the news that a guarantee has been denied yet again, or to head off a crash in USEC stock price, or both. Within days of the announcement, the story from DOE has changed substantially.
First reports, including one by the Associated Press, mentioned an immediate DOE cash infusion of $150 million, from unspecified "existing funds," with an additional $150 million contingent on congressional appropriation. But hurried letters from Chu and other DOE officials seem to deny that there is an "existing" source for USEC funding, and suggest that any substitution for the non-forthcoming loan guarantee would need to be appropriated by Congress.
That clarification follows upon a scathing report by the Government Accountability Office, issued in September, which found that two USEC programs at Piketon were rogue operations, funded illegally through DOE usurping the legislature's "power of the purse." http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11846.pdf
DOE is also smarting from charges in the Solyndra case that the Loan Programs Office vastly exceeded its authority to structure bailout terms on its own. When the USEC loan guarantee was denied in 2009, DOE offered a compensatory package that included $45 million in research and development assistance, and up to $200 million in a no-bid contract for make-work "stimulus" jobs at Piketon, just to keep USEC workers on payroll. That offer was creatively funded outside of congressional authority through a "barter" of uranium that was claimed to not constitute an actual government "expenditure."
The arrangement had shades of the Iran-Contra Affair, whereby a government agency invents ways to fund shadow-government operations, minus accountability or oversight. The difference in this case is that the black-market Autonomous Republic of USEC was established at the center of the American heartland in Ohio.
The uranium barter also brought intense opposition from western governors and legislators, upset about the undercutting of their uranium mining industry. And perpetual bailouts of USEC at this point constitute effective renationalization of the company, contrary to the statute by which USEC was created.
If Congress does salivate to the Ohio bellwether, the new USEC funding would come in addition to unaccounted billions of dollars already wasted by the federal government on the corruption-plagued centrifuge program at Piketon since 1977. Former GOP U.S. Senator George Voinovich once slipped and referred to additional funds for USEC as "pouring money down a rat hole," and the same phrase was repeated recently by Democratic U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, while Brown was struggling to advocate for USEC.
USEC was obligated to complete its Lead Cascade demonstration project in 2005. It never did, and there is substantial evidence that USEC intentionally ditched the demonstration because resulting data would prove the technology commercially nonviable. Instead, USEC has belligerently demanded federal backing for a $2 billion loan before the company has met any of the Title XVII requirements for feasibility and credit-worthiness. (In July of 2009, DOE reviewers were specific on that point. In a draft copy of the denial announcement, released under the Freedom of Information Act, DOE staff wrote: "the project is not yet ready to move to commercial scale operations and therefore USEC's application would likely not meet the legal requirements of the 2005 EPACT statute and the subsequent Title 17 loan guarantee regulations)." It is nonsensical that years of additional delay and substantial additional cost for ACP would make it more competitive, when it already lags behind the competition on timing and cost, and when new technology developed by GE-Hitachi in North Carolina surpasses centrifuges in efficiency.
Lastly, and of personal import to me, artificial life support for a project destined to remain unfinished prohibits constructive alternative use of the site, and keeps the whole area locked in a state of high-security suspended animation. That is the opposite of a jobs and revitalization program, and it represents continued political exploitation of this Appalachian community.
Obviously, the Obama Administration doesn't really think that a new subsidy for USEC will breathe life into ACP. The actual objective is to kick the can past the 2012 election, without "giving USEC the knife" as a congressional staffer put it to me. Postponing USEC's collapse, it is hoped, could be just the thing to secure Ohio's electoral votes for Obama.
That's idiotic thinking coming from people who fancy themselves quite smart. The country can ill afford continued infrastructure wastage to maintain a federal site for a private project that has no future. Thirty-five years of nuclear flimflam has taught us a thing or two. If the Administration wants to screw my community by keeping mostly-empty buildings at the federal site fenced off with high security, at tremendous national expense, I'm here to say that it won't be done on the down-low.
Duds'n'Suds—or—It all Comes out in the Wash
It's worth recalling that the great Teapot Dome scandal was perpetrated by Warren G. Harding's Ohio Gang, involving crooked concessions for the supply of diesel fuel to the U.S. Navy. The Piketon plant, not far from Harding's hometown, also made fuel for the Navy, updated for the Atomic Age, but the modus operandi remained very much the same. Buckeye State corruption operates on the assumption that the rest of the country never catches on.
The U.S. centrifuge program emerged out of a crass promise made by Jimmy Carter when campaigning in Ohio in 1976. The promise, to build a second full-sized gaseous diffusion plant next to the existing one at Piketon, was cynically stupid, but it won Carter the Presidency—he prevailed in Pike and surrounding counties, carrying Ohio by about a quarter of one percent.
That's not a strategy recommendation. A woman at the Duds'n'Suds Laundromat in Piketon put it best, when asked her feelings about another hoax nuclear proposal for Piketon. She said with a grimace: "What are they promising now?" (It should be noted that the machines at the Duds'n'Suds do spin quite well, with no federal subsidy.)
For the sake of our treasury, our security, and this community's future, the site that is adjacent to my backyard should finally be freed for viable development. USEC's alleged privatization should be acknowledged as a sham. Continued federal support for USEC should be rejected, and the Department of Energy's authority to negotiate secret deals with USEC should be revoked.
For a decade now, the scions of both major political parties have been hawking the American Centrifuge Plant as a symbol of "innovation" that will go like gangbusters for the nation. Turns out it was only another Ohio Gang going bust.
By Dana M Bergstrom, Euan Ritchie, Lesley Hughes and Michael Depledge
In 1992, 1,700 scientists warned that human beings and the natural world were "on a collision course." Seventeen years later, scientists described planetary boundaries within which humans and other life could have a "safe space to operate." These are environmental thresholds, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and changes in land use.
The Good and Bad News<p><span>Ecosystems consist of living and non-living components, and their interactions. They work like a super-complex engine: when some components are removed or stop working, knock-on consequences can lead to system failure.</span></p><p>Our study is based on measured data and observations, not modeling or predictions for the future. Encouragingly, not all ecosystems we examined have collapsed across their entire range. We still have, for instance, some intact reefs on the Great Barrier Reef, especially in deeper waters. And northern Australia has some of the most intact and least-modified stretches of savanna woodlands on Earth.</p><p><span>Still, collapses are happening, including in regions critical for growing food. This includes the </span><a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/importance-murray-darling-basin/where-basin" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Murray-Darling Basin</a><span>, which covers around 14% of Australia's landmass. Its rivers and other freshwater systems support more than </span><a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/latestproducts/94F2007584736094CA2574A50014B1B6?opendocument" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">30% of Australia's food</a><span> production.</span></p><p><span></span><span>The effects of floods, fires, heatwaves and storms do not stop at farm gates; they're felt equally in agricultural areas and natural ecosystems. We shouldn't forget how towns ran out of </span><a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/issues-murray-darling-basin/drought#effects" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">drinking water</a><span> during the recent drought.</span></p><p><span></span><span>Drinking water is also at risk when ecosystems collapse in our water catchments. In Victoria, for example, the degradation of giant </span><a href="https://theconversation.com/logging-must-stop-in-melbournes-biggest-water-supply-catchment-106922" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mountain Ash forests</a><span> greatly reduces the amount of water flowing through the Thompson catchment, threatening nearly five million people's drinking water in Melbourne.</span></p><p>This is a dire <em data-redactor-tag="em">wake-up</em> call — not just a <em data-redactor-tag="em">warning</em>. Put bluntly, current changes across the continent, and their potential outcomes, pose an existential threat to our survival, and other life we share environments with.</p><p><span>In investigating patterns of collapse, we found most ecosystems experience multiple, concurrent pressures from both global climate change and regional human impacts (such as land clearing). Pressures are often </span><a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.13427" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">additive and extreme</a><span>.</span></p><p>Take the last 11 years in Western Australia as an example.</p><p>In the summer of 2010 and 2011, a <a href="https://theconversation.com/marine-heatwaves-are-getting-hotter-lasting-longer-and-doing-more-damage-95637" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">heatwave</a> spanning more than 300,000 square kilometers ravaged both marine and land ecosystems. The extreme heat devastated forests and woodlands, kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs. This catastrophe was followed by two cyclones.</p><p>A record-breaking, marine heatwave in late 2019 dealt a further blow. And another marine heatwave is predicted for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/24/wa-coastline-facing-marine-heatwave-in-early-2021-csiro-predicts" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this April</a>.</p>
What to Do About It?<p><span>Our brains trust comprises 38 experts from 21 universities, CSIRO and the federal Department of Agriculture Water and Environment. Beyond quantifying and reporting more doom and gloom, we asked the question: what can be done?</span></p><p>We devised a simple but tractable scheme called the 3As:</p><ul><li>Awareness of what is important</li><li>Anticipation of what is coming down the line</li><li>Action to stop the pressures or deal with impacts.</li></ul><p>In our paper, we identify positive actions to help protect or restore ecosystems. Many are already happening. In some cases, ecosystems might be better left to recover by themselves, such as coral after a cyclone.</p><p>In other cases, active human intervention will be required – for example, placing artificial nesting boxes for Carnaby's black cockatoos in areas where old trees have been <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/factsheet-carnabys-black-cockatoo-calyptorhynchus-latirostris" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">removed</a>.</p><p><span>"Future-ready" actions are also vital. This includes reinstating </span><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/gardening/factsheets/a-burning-question-fire/12395700" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cultural burning practices</a><span>, which have </span><a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-you-have-unfinished-business-its-time-to-let-our-fire-people-care-for-this-land-135196" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">multiple values and benefits for Aboriginal communities</a><span> and can help minimize the risk and strength of bushfires.</span></p><p>It might also include replanting banks along the Murray River with species better suited to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/gardening/factsheets/my-garden-path---matt-hansen/12322978" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warmer conditions</a>.</p><p>Some actions may be small and localized, but have substantial positive benefits.</p><p>For example, billions of migrating Bogong moths, the main summer food for critically endangered mountain pygmy possums, have not arrived in their typical numbers in Australian alpine regions in recent years. This was further exacerbated by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-million-hectares-of-threatened-species-habitat-up-in-smoke-129438" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2019-20</a> fires. Brilliantly, <a href="https://www.zoo.org.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zoos Victoria</a> anticipated this pressure and developed supplementary food — <a href="https://theconversation.com/looks-like-an-anzac-biscuit-tastes-like-a-protein-bar-bogong-bikkies-help-mountain-pygmy-possums-after-fire-131045" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bogong bikkies</a>.</p><p><span>Other more challenging, global or large-scale actions must address the </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iICpI9H0GkU&t=34s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">root cause of environmental threats</a><span>, such as </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0504-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">human population growth and per-capita consumption</a><span> of environmental resources.</span><br></p><p>We must rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero, remove or suppress invasive species such as <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mam.12080" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">feral cats</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-buffel-kerfuffle-how-one-species-quietly-destroys-native-wildlife-and-cultural-sites-in-arid-australia-149456" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">buffel grass</a>, and stop widespread <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-reduce-fire-risk-and-meet-climate-targets-over-300-scientists-call-for-stronger-land-clearing-laws-113172" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">land clearing</a> and other forms of habitat destruction.</p>
Our Lives Depend On It<p>The multiple ecosystem collapses we have documented in Australia are a harbinger for <a href="https://www.iucn.org/news/protected-areas/202102/natures-future-our-future-world-speaks" target="_blank">environments globally</a>.</p><p>The simplicity of the 3As is to show people <em>can</em> do something positive, either at the local level of a landcare group, or at the level of government departments and conservation agencies.</p><p>Our lives and those of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-are-our-future-and-the-planets-heres-how-you-can-teach-them-to-take-care-of-it-113759" target="_blank">children</a>, as well as our <a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-care-of-business-the-private-sector-is-waking-up-to-natures-value-153786" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">economies</a>, societies and <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-address-the-ecological-crisis-aboriginal-peoples-must-be-restored-as-custodians-of-country-108594" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cultures</a>, depend on it.</p><p>We simply cannot afford any further delay.</p><p><em><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dana-m-bergstrom-1008495" target="_blank" style="">Dana M Bergstrom</a> is a principal research scientist at the University of Wollongong. <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/euan-ritchie-735" target="_blank" style="">Euan Ritchie</a> is a professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences at Deakin University. <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lesley-hughes-5823" target="_blank">Lesley Hughes</a> is a professor at the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University. <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-depledge-114659" target="_blank">Michael Depledge</a> is a professor and chair, Environment and Human Health, at the University of Exeter. </em></p><p><em>Disclosure statements: Dana Bergstrom works for the Australian Antarctic Division and is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Wollongong. Her research including fieldwork on Macquarie Island and in Antarctica was supported by the Australian Antarctic Division.</em></p><p><em>Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council, The Australia and Pacific Science Foundation, Australian Geographic, Parks Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC. Euan Ritchie is a Director (Media Working Group) of the Ecological Society of Australia, and a member of the Australian Mammal Society.</em></p><p><em>Lesley Hughes receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia, a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and a Director of WWF-Australia.</em></p><p><em>Michael Depledge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/existential-threat-to-our-survival-see-the-19-australian-ecosystems-already-collapsing-154077" target="_blank" style="">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>
- Coral Reef Tipping Point: 'Near-Annual' Bleaching May Occur ... ›
- Scientists Warn Humanity in Denial of Looming 'Collapse of ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
To save the planet, we must save the Amazon rainforest. To save the rainforest, we must save its indigenous peoples. And to do that, we must demarcate their land.
A new EarthxTV film special calls for the protection of the Amazon rainforest and the indigenous people that call it home. EarthxTV.org
- Meet the 'Women Warriors' Protecting the Amazon Forest - EcoWatch ›
- Indigenous Tribes Are Using Drones to Protect the Amazon ... ›
- Amazon Rainforest Will Collapse by 2064, New Study Predicts ... ›
- Deforestation in Amazon Skyrockets to 12-Year High Under Bolsonaro ›
- Amazon Rainforest on the Brink of Turning Into a Net Carbon Emitter ... ›
By Anke Rasper
"Today's interim report from the UNFCCC is a red alert for our planet," said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
The report, released Friday, looks at the national climate efforts of 75 states that have already submitted their updated "nationally determined contributions," or NDCs. The countries included in the report are responsible for about 30% of the world's global greenhouse gas emissions.
- World Leaders Fall Short of Meeting Paris Agreement Goal - EcoWatch ›
- UN Climate Change Conference COP26 Delayed to November ... ›
- 5 Years After Paris: How Countries' Climate Policies Match up to ... ›
- Biden Win Puts World 'Within Striking Distance' of 1.5 C Paris Goal ... ›
- Biden Reaffirms Commitment to Rejoining Paris Agreement ... ›
India's New Delhi has been called the "world air pollution capital" for its high concentrations of particulate matter that make it harder for its residents to breathe and see. But one thing has puzzled scientists, according to The Guardian. Why does New Delhi see more blinding smogs than other polluted Asian cities, such as Beijing?
- This Indian Startup Turns Polluted Air Into Climate-Friendly Tiles ... ›
- How to Win the Fight Against Plastic - EcoWatch ›
In a historic move, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) voted Thursday to ban hydraulic fracking in the region. The ban was supported by all four basin states — New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York — putting a permanent end to hydraulic fracking for natural gas along the 13,539-square-mile basin, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
- Appalachian Fracking Boom Was a Jobs Bust, Finds New Report ... ›
- Long-Awaited EPA Study Says Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water ... ›
- Pennsylvania Fracking Water Contamination Much Higher Than ... ›