A few days every year, air pollution at Big Bend National Park causes some of the worst air quality in terms of visible impairment at any park. daveynin / CC BY-2.0
Ninety-six percent of America's national parks have significant air pollution issues ranging from unhealthy breathing conditions to contaminated soils and waterways, according to a new report released by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA).
"When people think of iconic parks like Joshua Tree or the Grand Canyon, they think of unspoiled landscapes and scenic views. I think they would be shocked to know that these are actually some of our most polluted national parks," said NPCA President and CEO Theresa Pierno.
Data compiled by the National Park Service was analyzed in order to evaluate more than 400 parks in four categories: harm imposed on nature, hazy skies, unhealthy air and climate change. Each park was ranked based as significant, moderate or little to no concern. Researchers found that 85 percent of parks have air that is unhealthy to breathe while almost 90 percent of parks suffer from either haze pollution or soil and water pollution that negatively impacts sensitive species and habitats. Moreover, climate change was dubbed a significant concern for 80 percent of national parks, though all will be affected to some degree in the coming years.
Unhealthy air that may pose negative effects on health was observed at 354 parks, 87 of which exhibited ozone levels of significant concern. Similarly, a 2018 study found that many national parks had similar ozone values to 20 of the largest major cities in the U.S. between 1990 and 2014. For example, Northern California's Sequoia National Park compared to Los Angeles for days when the air was considered "unhealthy for sensitive groups" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
"Air pollution is also posing a health risk to some of the 330 million people who visit our parks each year, as well as the communities who surround them," Pierno said. "The challenges facing our parks are undeniable, but so is our resolve to help clear their air and ensure they are protected as they were meant to be, by both their founders and by the laws in place to protect them."
Hazy skies documented at 370 parks of moderate or significant concern cause the average national park visitor to miss out on an estimated 50 miles of scenery. This has been seen at parks around the country, such as Big Bend National Park in Texas. A few days every year, air pollution here causes some of the worst air quality in terms of visible impairment at any park, reducing the visibility to less than 30 miles 6 percent of the time, according to the National Park Service.
Most air pollution does not originate in parks but is capable of traveling hundreds of miles through the wind, bringing with it deposits of nitrogen and sulfur compounds to even the most remote ones, particularly in the face of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Harm to sensitive species and habitat was observed in 368 parks seeing artificially enriched soils and acidifying water systems. Ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains, Cascades and Sierra Nevada are particularly sensitive to increased nitrogen to the point that the NPS has developed a monitoring program dedicated to such measures.
Climate change is considered a significant concern because of increases in temperature, precipitation and early onset spring. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Glacier National Park in Montana is experiencing some of the biggest impacts as many of its namesake glaciers are melting or have already disappeared because of such extremes.
Going, Going, Gone: Only 26 Glaciers Left in Glacier National Park https://t.co/UsLKuiiE4L @climatehawk1 @NRDC @SierraClub @MichaelEMann
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) May 11, 2017
From Your Site Articles
- 5 Ways Trump Is 'Gaslighting' Us on U.S. Air Pollution Levels ... ›
- Air Pollution in National Parks as Bad as 20 Largest U.S. Cities ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Contribute
Gov. Jay Inslee on the Climate Crisis: ‘We Cannot Give in to Defeat and Pessimism’
11m
Insights + Opinion
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington comforts Marsha Maus, 75, whose home was destroyed during California's deadly 2018 wildfires, on March 11, 2019 in Agoura Hills, California. Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images
By Governor Jay Inslee
Climate Week this year coincides with clear skies in Washington state for the first time in almost two weeks.
In just a few days in early September, Washington state saw enough acres burned – more than 600,000 – to reach our second-worst fire season on record. Our worst fire season came only five years ago. Wildfires aren't new to the west, but their scope and danger today is unlike anything firefighters have seen. People up and down the West Coast – young and old, in rural areas and in cities – were choking on smoke for days on end, trapped in their homes.
Fires like these are becoming the norm, not the exception.
<p>That's because as the climate changes, our fires change. Climate scientists tell us that if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current path, later this century the <em>average </em>year in Washington will eventually be warmer than the single hottest year of the 20th century. The heat leaves our land and vegetation dry and primed for ignition, with blazes for which our landscapes are not evolved to cope. We're seeing more acres burned, and more days with our state swathed in hazardous smoke and ash.</p><p>Rain, cooler weather, and heroic firefighting efforts have finally tamped down the fires and poor air quality; but the burn scars remain, and they are most acutely felt by those who lost homes, businesses, and loved ones in fires this year.</p><p>I have seen the chaos firsthand in recent visits to burned areas both east and west of the Cascade Mountains. As communities in Malden, Bonney Lake, and Graham, Washington, recover from the damage done this month, it's not enough for us as leaders to help our towns recover from one devastating event after another. We need a plan to stop these increasingly ferocious natural disasters from becoming uncontrollable. The situation demands that <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a> be front and center in this plan – because it is the root and stem of the new challenges we face in disaster response.</p>
<p>While wildfires are the most recent, and some of the most visceral images of climate change, they are unfortunately just one manifestation of a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a> with far-reaching implications.</p><p>From the woods and prairies to the oceans, rivers and streams, we see the damaging effects of climate change. West Coast marine waters are acidifying at twice the global rate, our streams are becoming too warm to support salmon, and our agricultural productivity is falling as a result of record heat.</p><p>But we cannot give in to defeat and pessimism. This is not a lost cause.</p><p>There is broad consensus on what we need to do to slow and turn back the effects of human-driven climate change: all hands on deck for a global decarbonization that grows jobs and protects communities.</p>
<p>Every year, Climate Week gives us the opportunity to highlight this urgent need. But we need every week to be Climate Week. Given the science, knowledge and tools at our disposal, it is unacceptable that more has not been done to address the terrifying implications of climate change in the 21st century. We have no more time to waste.</p><p>We face a powerful oil and gas industry that has sunk its claws into Congress and numerous state governments, and a presidential administration backed by a major political party dedicated to protecting polluters and spreading lies and confusion about the science. On the flip side is the urgent and painfully clear scientific consensus, coupled with the fact that the majority of Americans support action now on climate change.</p><p>This is a battle that we can – and must – win, beginning with our votes in November.</p><p>And winning the fight won't just protect our communities from the dangerous effects of climate change. It will create enormous new economic opportunity.</p>
<p>The latest jobs report from E2, a national nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors focused on sustainable energy policies, shows there are already more than 3 million clean energy jobs in America today. If we can find the will to massively accelerate the development of renewable resources, we can create millions of more jobs.</p><p>If 2020 has taught us anything, it's that facts are stubborn things, and denial can be fatal. The federal government's failure to accept the reality of the Covid-19 crisis once again demonstrated why aloofness is no replacement for proactive leadership.</p><p>While we know this administration would be wise to change its destructive path – by bringing our country back into the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, by putting in place strong clean car standards, or by restoring key environmental protections razed by Trump's cronies – we know they won't. However, public opinion is clear even after years of misinformation and downright lies. There is not enough oil money in the world to stop the American people from rising up for what's right, and it's time to hit back.</p><p>Let this Climate Week be a reminder not merely of the long road ahead, but of our own power to make that journey together. Start now, so that in Climate Week 2021 we'll have a little less distance to cover.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em><em> <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone </a></em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Vote as if the Climate and the Future of Humanity Depend on It—Because They Do
47m
Insights + Opinion
Four more years will be enough to cement in place Trump's anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. Enrique Meseguer / Pixabay
By Bill McKibben
To understand the planetary importance of this autumn's presidential election, check the calendar. Voting ends on November 3—and by a fluke of timing, on the morning of November 4 the United States is scheduled to pull out of the Paris Agreement.
President Trump announced that we would abrogate our Paris commitments during a Rose Garden speech in 2017. But under the terms of the accords, it takes three years to formalize the withdrawal. So on Election Day it won't be just Americans watching: The people of the world will see whether the country that has poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other over the course of history will become the only country that refuses to cooperate in the one international effort to do something about the climate crisis.
<p>Trump's withdrawal benefited oil executives, who have donated millions of dollars to his reelection campaign, and the small, strange fringe of climate deniers who continue to insist that the planet is cooling. But most people living in the rational world were appalled. Polling showed widespread opposition, and by some measures, Trump is more out of line with the American populace on environmental issues than any other. In his withdrawal announcement he said he'd been elected "to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris"; before the day was out, Pittsburgh's mayor had pledged that his city would follow the guidelines set in the French capital. Young people, above all, have despised the president's climate moves: Poll after poll shows that climate change is a top-tier issue with them and often the most important one—mostly, I think, because they've come to understand how tightly linked it is not just to their future but to questions of justice, equity, and race. </p><p>Here's the truth: At this late date, meeting the promises set in Paris will be nowhere near enough. If you add up the various pledges that nations made at that conference, they plan on moving so timidly that the planet's temperature will still rise more than 3 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels. So far, we've raised the mercury 1 degree Celsius, and that's been enough to melt millions of square miles of ice in the Arctic, extend fire seasons for months, and dramatically alter the planet's rainfall patterns. Settling for 3 degrees is kind of like writing a global suicide note. </p>
<p>Happily, we could go much faster if we wanted. The price of solar and wind power has fallen so fast and so far in the last few years that they are now the cheapest power on earth. There are plenty of calculations to show it will soon be cheaper to build solar and wind farms than to operate the fossil fuel power stations we've already built. Climate-smart investments are also better for workers and economic equality. "We need to have climate justice, which means to invest in green energy, [which] creates three times more jobs than to invest in fossil fuel energy," United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in an interview with Covering Climate Now in September. If we wanted to make it happen, in other words, an energy revolution is entirely possible. The best new study shows that the United States could cut its current power sector emissions 80 percent by 2035 and create 20 million jobs along the way. </p><p>Joe Biden and Kamala Harris haven't pledged to move that quickly, but their climate plan is the farthest-reaching of any presidential ticket in history. More to the point, we can pressure them to go farther and faster. Already, seeing the polling on the wall, they've adopted many of the proposals of climate stalwarts like Washington Governor Jay Inslee. A team of Biden and Bernie Sanders representatives worked out a pragmatic but powerful compromise in talks before the Democratic National Convention; the Biden-Harris ticket seems primed to use a transition to green energy as a crucial part of a push to rebuild the pandemic-devastated economy. </p>
<p>Perhaps most important, they've pledged to try to lead the rest of the world in the climate fight. The United States has never really done this. Our role as the single biggest producer of hydrocarbons has meant that our response to global warming has always been crippled by the political power of Big Oil. But that power has begun to slip. Once the biggest economic force on the planet, the oil industry is a shadow of its former self. (You could buy all the oil companies in America for less than the cost of Apple; Tesla is worth more than any other auto company on earth.) And so it's possible that the hammerlock on policy exercised by this reckless industry will loosen if Trump is beaten.</p><p>But only if he's beaten. Four more years will be enough to cement in place his anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. The world's climate scientists declared in 2018 that if we had any chance of meeting sane climate targets, we had to cut emissions almost in half by 2030. That's less than 10 years away. We're at the last possible moment to turn the wheel of the supertanker that is our government. Captain Trump wants to steer us straight onto the rocks, mumbling all the while about hoaxes. If we let him do it, history won't forgive us. Nor will the rest of the world.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.thenation.com" target="_blank">The Nation</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A woman marks down her vote on a ballot for the Democratic presidential primary election at a polling place on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020 in Herndon, Virginia. Samuel Corum / Getty Images
By Oliver Milman
The climate crisis is set to be a significant factor in a U.S. presidential election for the first time, with new polling showing a clear majority of American voters want decisive action to deal with the threats posed by global heating.
<p>Seven in 10 voters support government action to address climate change, with three-quarters wanting the U.S. to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind within 15 years.</p><p>Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports the complete shift to clean energy, with a further seven in 10 voters supporting US involvement in the Paris climate agreement, which commits countries to tackling dangerous heating. Two-thirds of voters said climate should be a priority for whoever wins the election.</p><p>"There may be a divide on Capitol Hill but the large majority of us are worried about climate change and want to see leaders deal with it," said Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication. "This is the first election where climate change has featured heavily. It's unlike anything we've seen in American politics before."</p><p>Over the past decade, the crisis has become a sharply partisan political topic as Republicans embraced denial and obfuscation of the escalating crisis. Donald Trump called climate science a "hoax" and his administration set about dismantling every policy put in place by Barack Obama to reduce planet-heating emissions.</p><p>However, the new polling, on behalf of the Guardian, Vice Media Group and Covering Climate Now, by Climate Nexus, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, shows that the political landscape among voters appears to be shifting.</p>
Do you support or oppose each of the following policies as part of the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic?
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzODcyMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjg4MzY4OX0.B-bt9mltOhK0MHFbzK8G3_8sBkDAeUsAWm-AhNZYoxQ/img.png?width=980" id="acd43" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8724178274b9f96e27055f74a1bafe20" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzODcyMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTk1OTAzMH0.F8_i9pQeThex_R0SLjOoE0Xk11avxGilB6n6RmRzxe8/img.png?width=980" id="cde28" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="36da755f25cfa2d1120f46f112e7d577" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>Democrats are becoming increasingly alarmed over the climate crisis, with 90% describing it as either a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem and more than eight in 10 supporting a Green New Deal, a vast government-led climate program, to combat it.</p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/22/us-politics-minute-sign-up-email-newsletter-app-notification" target="_blank"></a><p>This concern is filtering through, to a lesser degree, to Republican voters. More than half say climate change is a very or somewhat serious problem, with 41% backing the Green New Deal, despite it being widely vilified by Republican party leaders. A further 51% of Republican voters support U.S. involvement in the Paris climate accords.</p><p>The polling suggests Trump, who has triggered the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement and routinely disparages climate science, will be the first U.S. president to face a voter backlash over the climate crisis. His Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, meanwhile, has vowed to reduce U.S. energy emissions to net zero by 2050 and promised a $2tn investment to create millions of new jobs in clean energy industries.</p>
<p>"Republican officeholders really do have to worry about this," said Maibach. "Young Republicans are becoming less accepting of the party line that climate change isn't real or isn't a serious problem. They don't want climate denial any more, moderate Republicans don't want climate denial any more and women voters largely don't want to support climate denialist candidates any more either."</p><p>The surge in voter appetite for climate action follows a barrage of disasters that have hit the U.S. recently, including huge wildfires that have scorched the west coast and powerful hurricanes that have pummeled the U.S. south. Scientists say rising global temperatures, caused by humans burning fossil fuels, are aiding the spread of wildfires and making hurricanes more intense.</p><p>Trump's first term in office has also seen a growing youth-led climate protest movement, with the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg as its figurehead. Younger U.S. voters see the climate crisis as a top-tier issue, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=19-11-25%20climate&org=982&lvl=100&ite=5010&lea=1139465&ctr=0&par=1&trk=" target="_blank">polling has shown</a>, while the latest opinion research shows broad support for a greater focus on the issue in the media.</p><p>More than six in 10 respondents said the media should explicitly outline the link between extreme weather events and the climate crisis, while nearly three-quarters want moderators to ask questions about the climate crisis during the three televised presidential debates, which start next week. In 2016, no questions were asked about climate during the debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> </em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
A black bear cub climbs a tree at Tongass National Forest in Alaska. sarkophoto / iStock / Getty Images Plus
America's largest national forest, Tongass National Forest in Alaska, will be opened up to logging and road construction after the Trump administration finalizes its plans to open up the forest on Friday, according to The New York Times.
<p>The plans to open up the forest to logging have been in the works for years. In March, the Trump administration faced a setback when a federal judge halted plans to open 1.8 million acres to logging and road building because the administration had failed to evaluate the environmental impact fully, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-%202645476974.html" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported at the time.</p><p>The roughly 9 million acres that the administration wants to open up now have been protected since the 2001 by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, or Roadless Rule, which prohibits construction in nationally protected wild areas, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/24/tongass-national-forest-trump-administration-logging" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. The U.S Forest Service is expected to release a full environmental impact statement later on Friday, saying that lifting the rule will not damage the 16.7 million-acre temperate rainforest in southeast Alaska. The administration will consequently revoke the Roadless Rule and move forward with plans to lease the land for logging.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzODc5OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTAyNzY2MX0.SZTIW9byPmjJzEqUrAY4midPIAU14f50liCctiggGcI/img.jpg?width=980" id="c3d9b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="646dd5c09a8e4f58d9f702f13abedff5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Aerial view of the Tongass National Forest. Alan Wu / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0
<p><br></p><p>The drive to open up Tongass National Forest to logging, as well as energy and mineral exploration, started in 2018 when Alaska's Governor Bill Walker asked the federal government to consider removing protections for the forest. While Alaska's senators have supported the idea, environmental advocates have criticized it, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/environment-juneau-bill-walker-forests-alaska-14542223458790b775b98c1384cb333a" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p><p>The U.S. Forest Service evaluated several plans, including more moderate ones that would maintain protections for 80 percent of the forest and another that would have opened up logging and road construction to 2.3 million acres. The Forest Service, however, decided to fully remove the Roadless Rule protections and open 9 million acres to developers and loggers, according to a <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2020/09/24/us-department-agriculture-releases-final-environmental-impact" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">statement</a> from the Department of Agriculture, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>"This administration has opted to take the road well traveled by continuing to spend tens of millions of dollars every year to expand logging roads for a dying old-growth timber industry," said Andy Moderow, a director for the Alaska Wilderness League, in a statement, as The Guardian reported. "This is bad for people, bad for a sustainable economy and bad for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a>."</p><p>Earthjustice, an environmental legal-advocacy group that successfully stopped development in Tongass in March, said it would fight the plan in the courts. Katie Glover, an attorney for Earthjustice, said, "We will use every tool available to continue defending this majestic and irreplaceable national forest," as the AP reported.</p>
<p>Scientists have also criticized the plan, saying that Tongass is one of the world's largest carbon sinks, absorbing nearly 8 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution that the U.S. emits. Scientists also note that cutting down the old growth trees will put trapped greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere, which is particularly imprudent when the world is grappling with increasingly severe heat waves and wildfires triggered by the climate crisis, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>"The Forest Service's environmental impact statement is junk science on assessing the impacts of releasing the carbon," said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist and president of Geos Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies climate change, to The New York Times. "They are saying that the carbon that would be released by logging the timber is insignificant. There's no science that supports their analysis."</p><p>That sentiment was echoed by Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity, who vowed to fight the lifting of the Roadless Rule, as the AP reported. She said in a statement that the new plan will pour "gasoline on the inferno of climate change. These towering ancient trees take enormous amounts of carbon out of the air and we need them now more than ever. We'll do everything possible to keep these magnificent giants standing for centuries to come."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Admin Proposes Drilling for Oil in National Forests - EcoWatch ›
- Forest Service Wants to Fast-Track Logging Without Environmental ... ›
- Trump Admin Moves Closer to Slashing Protections for World's ... ›
- Judge Rules Against Trump's Attempt to Log in America's Largest ... ›
- Trump Moves to Open 16.7 Million Acre Alaskan Rainforest to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg protests in front of the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm on September 25, 2020. Jonathan Nackstrand / AFP / Getty Images
By Ruby Russell and Ajit Niranjan
Hamstrung by coronavirus lockdowns, frustrated school strikers have spent months staging digital protests against world leaders failing to act urgently on climate change.
<p>Today they are <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-global-climate-strikers-take-on-inactive-leaders/a-55039689" target="_blank">taking to the streets once more</a>.</p><p>The Fridays for Futures movement, which started with activist Greta Thunberg skipping school to sit alone outside the Swedish Parliament in 2018, has become a global youth force calling for climate justice. But a surge in support last year was hobbled after coronavirus lockdowns closed schools and kept children at home. </p><p>The protest on Friday is the group's first global action since the pandemic struck and follows meetings between prominent activists and world leaders. Last month, Thunberg and three other climate activists presented German Chancellor Angela Merkel with <a href="https://climateemergencyeu.org/#letter" target="_blank">a letter signed by nearly 125,000 people</a> demanding EU leaders "stop pretending that we can solve the climate and ecological crisis without treating it as a crisis."</p>
<p>They have called for an immediate halt to investments and subsidies in fossil fuels and, in Germany, pressured the government to bring forward its deadline to phase out coal from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/germany-approves-coal-phaseout-by-2038/a-54040605" target="_blank">2038 to 2030</a>, and to go carbon-neutral by 2035 instead of 2050.</p><p>Line Niedeggen, a physics student at the University of Heidelberg and Fridays for Future spokesperson, believes Germany has a responsibility to lead on climate action. Historically it has been one of the world's <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-emissions-paris-agreement/a-55044341" target="_blank">biggest carbon emitters</a>, she says, is also rich enough to adopt cleaner energy systems, and last month it adopted presidency of the EU Council.</p><p>"We have to use this role as the leader of one of the biggest emitters in the world to start a change of direction because, scientifically, 2020 is the last year we can make changes to actually reach 1.5 degrees," Niedeggen told DW. </p>
Pandemic Stalls Protests
<p>Last November, the head of the UN Environment Program was among the public and scientific figures to warn that 2020 offered a last chance to cut emissions. Then, few could have suspected this deadline would coincide with an unprecedented public health emergency.</p><p>The pandemic has <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/tough-times-ahead-for-climate-protesters-during-corona-pandemic/a-52978469" target="_blank">dealt climate activism a blow</a>. Niedeggen says that as a movement demanding that the world act on scientific advice, the school strikers took lockdown restrictions extremely seriously, halted public protests immediately and took their activism online.</p><p>On April 24, Fridays for Future organized a "digital strike," with Niedeggen hosting a that racked up close to a quarter of a million views. "We were not physically standing together, but we were all fighting together," she says.</p><p><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-strikers-get-inventive-during-the-covid-19-crisis-fridays-for-future/a-53229262" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Activists also gathered thousands of placards</a> from across Germany to lay out in front of the German Bundestag around the central slogan: "Fight every crisis."</p><p>Still, corona inevitably pushed <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/life-after-coronavirus-we-can-shape-a-totally-different-world/a-53496208" target="_blank">climate change down the agenda</a>, and according to a poll conducted by Postbank only 6% of German 16 to 18-year-olds joined an online strike, compared to nearly a third who had been to a physical Fridays for Future protest.</p><p>Elsewhere in the world, the shift to online activism may have been even more damaging.</p><p>Fatou Jeng, a climate activist from Gambia, says that in Africa, school strikes are anyway less effective than they are in Europe, although they have inspired other action. Her own activism has mainly focused on conservation work, planting trees to protect vulnerable coastlines, and educating communities about climate change. </p><p>Most of these activities have had to stop as a result of COVID-19, and while Gambian activists have continued to use digital means to pressure those in power, "the provincial areas which are more vulnerable to the impact of climate change don't really have access to the internet," Jeng told DW.</p>
Opportunity for a New Normal
<p>Last September's Global Climate Strike drew young and old protestors around the world, with organizers estimating a global turnout of 7.6 million, including an estimated 270,000 people in Berlin. Activists have adjusted this year's event to account for social distancing and different levels of coronavirus restrictions in cities taking part.</p><p>They say COVID-19 also presents opportunities.</p><p>"The pandemic shows that we can change our normal daily life, and we are very able to adjust to a situation of crisis," she says. The key question is how economies get back on their feet: "We have the possibility to build a new normal, to build a renewable world order, and an environmentally just, climate-just normal for everybody."</p><p>In July, Jeng was among 20 female Fridays for Future activists from the Global South to sign an open letter to G20 finance ministers warning that their decisions in "exclusive backrooms" over stimulus packages and corporate bailouts would "lock in development pathways for decades."</p><p>"The system is not broken, it was built to be unjust. We don't need recovery, we need a reboot," the letter reads, stressing that "black people, indigenous peoples and people of color," have been disproportionately hit by the economic, climate and coronavirus crises. </p>Policy 'Not Quite There Yet'
<p>Figures on stimulus spending do not suggest their words had much impact. The ministers were criticized for failing to relieve the debt of poorer countries, and according to <a href="https://www.energypolicytracker.org/region/g20/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Energy Policy Tracker</a>, G20 countries by August had pledged $169 billion (142 billion euros) to fossil fuels since the beginning of the pandemic.</p><p>Katrin Uba, associate professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden, is researching Fridays for Future. She says that despite the movement raising awareness and gaining access to policymakers, real policy change "is not there yet."</p><p>Still, she stresses that social movements go through waves of mobilization as public attention on their core issues ebbs and flows. And perhaps one of Fridays for Future's biggest achievements is birthing a politically active generation that will keep the fight up long after corona becomes a memory. </p><p>"We know clearly from our research that many of the people who came to the streets hadn't done any protesting before in their lives," she told DW. "And we also know that if you do one protest, you are likely to do more."</p>From Your Site Articles
- 60,000-Strong Fridays for Future Protest in Hamburg, Germany ... ›
- 7.6 Million Join Week of Global Climate Strikes - EcoWatch ›
- Greta Thunberg Kicks Off Third Year of Fridays for Future Protests ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less