Help Support EcoWatch
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience while browsing it. By clicking 'Got It' you're accepting these terms.
Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
New Study Once Again Proves Mountaintop Removal Is Simply Not Worth It
Appalachian Voices
By Brian Sewell
To meet current U.S. coal demand through surface mining, an area the size of Washington, DC—about 68 square miles—would need to be mined every 81 days, according to a new study.
We talk a lot about the external costs of mountaintop removal. And by understanding the true costs that coal puts off on the landscapes, water and communities of Central Appalachia, it’s abundantly clear that the costs far outweigh the benefits to all but a few.
But still we hear arguments about the need for a balance between the environment and the economy.
As elected leaders and industry representatives delude themselves and others, yet another study has concluded that mountaintop removal is simply not worth it. Here’s the simple takeaway from the conclusion of The Environmental Price Tag on a Ton of Mountaintop Removal Coal: tremendous environmental capital is being spent to achieve what are only modest energy gains.
The study’s author, Brian D. Lutz, writes that while many studies have documented the severity of surface mining’s impacts on local ecosystems, less attention has been given to comparing the extent of mountaintop removal’s environmental impacts to the economic benefits of coal as an energy source. According to Lutz, an assistant professor at Kent State University who began the study during his postdoc at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment last year, “This is a critical shortcoming, since even the most severe impacts may be tolerated if we believe they are sufficiently limited in extent.”
To accurately measure the extent of land disturbance against coal production, Lutz and the studies co-authors took county-level coal production data for 33 counties in eastern Kentucky and 14 counties in southern West Virginia. They compared this data to satellite imagery and known mine delineations that extended back to 1976.
Back in 2007, Appalachian Voices contracted with SkyTruth to compile much of this data. We’re thrilled that it has been used to educate others and build a better case for ending mountaintop removal. What’s more, the original data underestimates the amount of land disturbed by mountaintop removal by up to 40 percent in some areas, according to a follow-up mapping study conducted in 2009.
The conclusions drawn from those comparisons are laid out in simple terms most of us can understand and even visualize. Check out the graphs above for another representation of the environmental toll required to meet coal demand for two years with surface mining. Here’s how a press release from Duke University sums up the study:
To meet current U.S. coal demand through surface mining, an area of the Central Appalachians the size of Washington, D.C., would need to be mined every 81 days. That’s about 68 square miles—or roughly an area equal to 10 city blocks mined every hour.
A one-year supply of coal would require converting about 310 square miles of the region’s mountains into surface mines, according to a new analysis by scientists at Duke University, Kent State University and the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies.
Creating 310 square miles of mountaintop mine would pollute about 2,300 kilometers of Appalachian streams and cause the loss of carbon sequestration by trees and soils equal to the greenhouse gases produced in a year by 33,600 average U.S. single-family homes.
We know that Appalachian forests, as denuded as they are, serve as a carbon sponge. At least they have for millennia. A report from earlier this year found that mountaintop removal could turn Appalachia from a carbon sink to a carbon source in the next 12 to 20 years. Lutz’s study breaks it down further.
Based on the carbon sequestration potential of Appalachian ecosystems it would take approximately 5,000 years for any given hectare of former mines reclaimed to grassland to sequester the carbon released from combustion of the coal removed from that hectare, that is, assuming the ecosystem could persist over that time period.
Lutz writes that “the scientific community has adequately demonstrated the severity of surface mining impacts.” We agree, but also have found that facts only go so far once they’re met with the denial of Appalachian legislators in accepting the true costs of mountaintop removal. Nonetheless, here we have it, again: mountaintop removal is bad energy policy, devastating to the environment and the regional economy, and, as we’re beginning to understand more, a double whammy on the climate. It’s a mantra we’ll repeat until we win.
In light of the amassing academic research, especially research like Lutz’s, which should speak to the pragmatic and business-minded as much as the environmentally conscious among us, we have to wonder what it will take for the most ardent supporters of mountaintop removal to see reason.
Visit EcoWatch’s MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL and COAL pages for more related news on this topic.
Contribute
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
During a protest action on May 30 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Datteln in front of the site of the Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant, Greenpeace activists projected the lettering: "Climate crisis - Made in Germany" onto the cooling tower. Guido Kirchner / picture alliance / Getty Images
Around 500 climate activists on Saturday gathered outside the new Datteln 4 coal power plant in Germany's Ruhr region, to protest against its opening.
<p>Fridays for Future, Greenpeace, as well as German groups Ende Gelände and the German Federation for Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND) were represented at the protests.</p><p>During the night into Saturday, climate activists graffitied the slogan "Climate crisis, made in Germany" on the side of the tower.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-protest-germanys-new-datteln-4-coal-power-plant/a-53632887" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646137253#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
<p>The plant, owned by Dusseldorf-based energy company Uniper, began running on Saturday, after a nearly 10-year delay to its initial start date. It fired up just months after Germany unveiled a plan to phase out coal by 2038.</p>
<p>The protests were reported to be largely peaceful, despite several actions during the day-long event. One action included members of Ende Gelände swimming and using canoes in a canal used for cooling, while holding a floating banner with the slogan: "Shut it down."</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1263057783290724353" id="twitter-embed-1263057783290724353" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1263057783290724353&created_ts=1589971416.0&screen_name=Luisamneubauer&text=Klimaprotest+in+Zeiten+von+%23Corona+ist+nicht+leicht.+Aber+wir+machen+es+m%C3%B6glich%2C+denn+notwendig+ist+es+offensichtli%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FoKazEWwaGv&id=1263057783290724353&name=Luisa+Neubauer" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="38e575ed16e09279dfea210cafaa44f0"></iframe>
Climate Activists Speak Out
<p>Speaking at the protest, German Fridays for Futures climate activist Luisa Neubauer said: "It's a post-factual power plant. The facts speak for themselves." She said it was a "provocation," to mark the planned coal phaseout with a new coal power plant.</p><p>"We're going to stop this power plant, we're going to bring it to a standstill, we will win this conflict," Neubauer added.</p><p>Former miners also attended the protest. "We condemn the fact that coal mining in Germany was halted and jobs were lost, only for coal now to be imported from other countries to power Datteln 4," said Sebastian Suszka, a former workers' council member.</p><p>Greta Thunberg, founder of climate activist movement Fridays for Futures tweeted that Saturday was "a shameful day for Europe.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1266646886896881664" id="twitter-embed-1266646886896881664" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1266646886896881664&created_ts=1590827125.0&screen_name=GretaThunberg&text=Today+is+a+shameful+day+for+Europe%2C+as+we+open+up+a+brand+new+coal+power+plant.+We+have+signed+up+to+lead+the+way+t%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FBFX5PcGejv&id=1266646886896881664&name=Greta+Thunberg" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="c4980f9c8b3d58f5d4075f5174690372"></iframe>
Germany's Coal Phaseout
<p>Earlier this year, Germany announced a roadmap to see coal phased out, at the latest by 2038. It laid out plans for eight coal-fired power plants to be taken off the grid in 2020.</p><p>It was an important step for the largest contributor of carbon emissions in the EU — accounting for more than 22 percent of the bloc's CO2 emissions. Over a third of the electricity generated in Germany comes from burning coal.</p><p>Germany's coal commission has recommended that solutions be found for coal plants that are already built but not-yet-in-use to keep them from operating.<br></p><p>The state of North-Rhine Westphalia insisted that the additional carbon dioxide emissions from the new plant would be compensated by the closure of four other power plants.</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Dr. Mark Brunswick (2R), Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Quality, walks through the lab at Sorrento Therapeutics in San Diego, California on May 22. ARIANA DREHSLER / AFP / Getty Images
By Julia Ries
Around the world, there have been several cases of people recovering from COVID-19 only to later test positive again and appear to have another infection.
<p>Such cases have had doctors and researchers puzzling over whether recovered people continue to be contagious, and if they could get a second infection.</p><p>Now, new <a href="https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030" target="_blank">research</a> published by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that recovered COVID-19 patients who test positive again aren't infectious.</p><p>The study also found that most patients who recover have neutralizing antibodies — the type of antibody that confers immunity and protects people from getting sick again.</p><p>"This study addresses the question of whether patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are still infectious, and which is a question that has been troubling us for some time," said <a href="https://www.yalemedicine.org/doctors/heidi_zapata/" target="_blank">Dr. Heidi J. Zapata</a>, a Yale Medicine infectious disease doctor. "This study suggests that patients that are recovered are no longer contagious."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-reinfected-with-covid-19-werent-infectious" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
The Viral Material in Re-Positive Cases Isn’t Infectious
<p>The Korean study examined 285 patients who tested positive again for the new coronavirus after they recovered from COVID-19, which had been confirmed via a negative test result.</p><p>The researchers swabbed the patients and examined the viral material to determine whether it was still actively infectious.</p><p>The team was unable to isolate live viral material, indicating that the positive diagnostic tests were picking up dead virus particles.</p><p>"[This] may speak for the fact that the virus may be dead or not be fit enough to grow — therefore the virus may not be fit enough to infect a new host," said <a href="http://www.providence.org/doctors/profile/1099717-andres-romero" target="_blank">Dr. Andres Romero</a>, an infectious disease specialist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, California.</p><p>The researchers also tested 790 people who'd been in close contact with the "re-positive" patients. Of the 27 who tested positive, no cases appeared to be caused from exposure to someone who appeared to have a reinfection.</p><p>The report also found that the vast majority of recovered patients (96 percent) had neutralizing antibodies, indicating that they conferred immunity.</p><p>"Whether this is indicative of a completely protective response remains to be proven. If this study holds true, then people who have recovered can get back to work," Zapata said.</p><p>In response to the new findings, South Korea eliminated a policy requiring discharged patients to isolate for 2 weeks.</p>Conducting and Interpreting PCR Tests
<p>The tests widely used to diagnose COVID-19 are called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.</p><p>The tests swab a person's nose or throat and try to pick up the virus's genetic material, or RNA.</p><p>According to <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html" target="_blank">guidance</a> from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a positive result on a PCR test doesn't "necessarily mean infectious virus is present or that the patient is contagious."</p><p>Infectious disease experts have suspected that the test kits aren't picking up actively infectious viral material in recovered patients who test positive again, but rather dead remnants of the virus.</p><p>We see this occur with other viruses, too.</p><p>"We know other viruses like parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus, or RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] may linger for months in certain patients, and that does not represent infectious state," Romero said. "Coronavirus may be the same."</p>We Still Need to Practice Caution
<p>While the findings are promising, infectious disease experts say we still need to practice caution.</p><p>More research is needed to validate these findings and determine whether they apply to distinct parts of the population, such as those who are immunocompromised.</p><p>It's common for immunocompromised patients — such as those with cancer — to continue testing positive for a virus for longer, since it takes their immune system more time to clear the virus out of their body.</p><p>"I don't think we can be 100 percent certain of whether each recovered person is no longer contagious. Again, this may differ with distinct population groups," Zapata said.</p><p>Physicians are seeing some hospitalized patients testing positive for a month after they were first swabbed for COVID-19. It's unclear whether these patients still shed infectious virus, according to Zapata.</p><p>Everyone's body mounts a distinct immune response based on their age and overall health. Different individuals will clear the virus out at different speeds, according to Zapata.</p><p>Until we have more data and a preventive vaccine, it's crucial to continue adhering to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html" target="_blank">safety precautions</a> laid out by the CDC.</p><p>"The reality is that moving forward, the best approach will be keeping social/physical distancing, wearing a mask, and frequent hand hygiene in order to control the spread of the virus," Romero said.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Doctors and researchers have been unsure whether people who recover from COVID-19 who test positive again continue to be contagious, or if they could get a second infection.</p><p>New <a href="https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030" target="_blank">research</a> published by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that recovered COVID-19 patients who test positive again aren't infectious.</p><p>The study also found that most patients who recover have neutralizing antibodies that protect them from getting sick again.</p><p>Though the study is promising, health experts say we need more data to validate the findings and determine whether they apply to all patient populations.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Asymptomatic COVID-19: Five Questions Answered - EcoWatch ›
- What Does 'Recovered From Coronavirus' Mean? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Juukan 1 and 2 in June, 2013. Puutu Kunti Kurrama And Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation
By Samantha Hepburn
In the expansion of its iron ore mine in Western Pilbara, Rio Tinto blasted the Juukan Gorge 1 and 2 — Aboriginal rock shelters dating back 46,000 years. These sites had deep historical and cultural significance.
<p>
The shelters are the only inland site in Australia showing human occupation continuing through the last Ice Age.
</p>
<p>
<em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/rio-tinto-just-blasted-away-an-ancient-aboriginal-site-heres-why-that-was-allowed-139466" target="_blank">The Conversation</a></em><em>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139466/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<p>The mining blast caused significant distress to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama traditional land owners. It's an <a href="https://skugal.org/blast-destroys-one-of-countrys-oldest-known-aboriginal-heritage-sites/" target="_blank">irretrievable loss</a> for future generations.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265472431772188672" id="twitter-embed-1265472431772188672" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265472431772188672&created_ts=1590547113.0&screen_name=ngaarda&text=Ancient+rock+shelters+destroyed+in+Pilbara+mining+blast+on+Sunday.+PKKP+Aboriginal+Corporation+devastated+at+loss+o%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FVfpJUGTH1g&id=1265472431772188672&name=Ngaarda+Media+Pilbara" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="2b97bf3b4746640cc311e88e8ea7d900"></iframe><p>Aboriginal cultural heritage is a fundamental part of Aboriginal community life and cultural identity. It has global significance, and forms an important component of the heritage of all Australians.</p><p>But the destruction of a culturally significant Aboriginal site is not an isolated incident. Rio Tinto was acting within the law.</p><p>In 2013, Rio Tinto was given ministerial consent to damage the Juukan Gorge caves. One year later, an archaeological dig unearthed incredible artefacts, such as a 4,000-year-old plait of human hair, and evidence that the site was much older than originally thought.</p><p>But state laws let Rio Tinto charge ahead nevertheless. This failure to put timely and adequate regulatory safeguards in place reveals a disregard and a disrespect for sacred Aboriginal sites.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM2MjIxNS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDQzNjk4MX0.artQnLjdRbrMrOaOJ0amy6qSRSbDEOH0Nnr512471Lg/img.png?width=980" id="ca677" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fdaddc06e2494a4c2dd8ae34fc0dfa1a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The destruction of a significant Aboriginal site is not an isolated incident. Puutu Kunti Kurrama And Pinikura Aboriginal Corporation
Not an Isolated Incident
<p>The history of large developments destroying Indigenous heritage sites is, tragically, long.</p><p>A $2.1 billion light rail line in Sydney, completed last year, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/this-is-a-tragic-loss-sydney-light-rail-construction-destroyed-heritage-site-20190322-p516qk.html" target="_blank">destroyed a site</a> of considerable significance.</p><p>More than 2,400 stone artifacts were unearthed in a small excavated area. It indicated Aboriginal people had used the area between 1788 and 1830 to manufacture tools and implements from flint brought over to Australia on British ships.</p><p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/the-rocks-remember-the-fight-to-protect-burrup-peninsulas-rock-art" target="_blank">ancient rock art</a> on the Burrup Peninsula in north-western Australia is under increasing threat from a gas project. The site contains more than one million rock carvings (petroglyphs) across 36,857 hectares.</p><p>This area is under the custodianship of Ngarluma people and four other traditional owners groups: the Mardudhunera, the Yaburara, the Yindjibarndi and the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo.</p><p>But a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/BurrupPeninusla/Report" target="_blank">Senate inquiry</a> revealed emissions from adjacent industrial activity may significantly damage it.</p><p><span></span>The West Australian government is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jan/29/australia-lodges-world-heritage-submission-for-50000-year-old-burrup-peninsula-rock-art" target="_blank">seeking world heritage listing</a> to try to increase protection, as the regulatory frameworks at the national and state level aren't strong enough. Let's explore why.</p>What Do the Laws Say?
<p>The recently renamed federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is responsible for listing new national heritage places, and regulating development actions in these areas.</p><p>At the federal level, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/" target="_blank">EPBC Act</a>) provides a legal framework for their management and protection. It is an offence to impact an area that has national heritage listing.</p><p>But many ancient Aboriginal sites have no national heritage listing. For the recently destroyed Juurkan gorge, the true archaeological significance was uncovered <em>after</em> consent had been issued and there were no provisions to reverse or amend the decision once this new information was discovered.</p><p>Where a site has no national heritage listing, and federal legislation has no application, state laws apply.</p><p>For the rock shelters in the Western Pilbara, Rio Tinto was abiding by Western Australia's <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/wa/consol_act/aha1972164/" target="_blank">Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972</a> — which is now nearly 50 years old.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265226523167977472" id="twitter-embed-1265226523167977472" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265226523167977472&created_ts=1590488484.0&screen_name=Sophiemcneill&text=What+a+story+on+%23SorryDay+%40RioTinto+blows+up+one+of+country%27s+oldest+known+Aboriginal+heritage+sites.+And+the+worst%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F1iU4zdGaGr&id=1265226523167977472&name=Sophie+McNeill" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="b152f672b8b0fa6c7000ca7503bc4c2b"></iframe><p>Section 17 of that act makes it an offence to excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter any Aboriginal site without the ministerial consent.</p><p>But, Section 18 allows an owner of the land — and this includes the holder of a mining licence — to apply to the <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/acmc" target="_blank">Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee</a> for consent to proceed with a development action likely to breach section 17.</p><p>The committee then evaluates the importance and significance of the site, and makes a recommendation to the minister. In this case, the minister allowed Rio Tinto to proceed with the destruction of the site.</p>
No Consultation With Traditional Owners
<p>The biggest concern with this act is there's no statutory requirement ensuring traditional owners be consulted.</p><p>This means traditional owners are left out of vital decisions regarding the management and protection of their cultural heritage. And it confers authority upon a committee that, in the words of a <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/11dd5b41-fcf9-4216-a1ac-06ece672c087/AH-Review-Position-Comparison-for-Aboriginal-People" target="_blank">discussion paper</a>, "lacks cultural authority."</p><p>There is no statutory requirement for an Indigenous person to be on the committee, nor is there a requirement that at least one anthropologist be on the committee. Worse still, there's no right of appeal for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/20/traditional-owners-rally-against-changes-to-wa-aboriginal-heritage-act" target="_blank">traditional owners</a> from a committee decision.</p><p>So, while the committee must adhere to procedural fairness and ensure traditional owners are given sufficient information about decisions, this doesn't guarantee they have a right to consultation nor any right to provide feedback.</p>
Weak in Other Jurisdictions
<p>The WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 is <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/aha-review" target="_blank">under review</a>. The proposed reforms seek to abolish the committee, ensuring future decisions on Aboriginal cultural heritage give appropriate regard to the views of the traditional Aboriginal owners.</p><p><span></span>NSW is the only state with no stand-alone Aboriginal heritage legislation. However, a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/aborigines-land-and-national-parks-in-nsw/02-97.pdf" target="_blank">similar regulatory framework</a> to WA applies in NSW under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.</p><p>There, if a developer is likely to impact cultural heritage, they must apply for an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit. The law requires "regard" to be given to the interests of Aboriginal owners of the land, but this vague provision does not mandate consultation.</p><p>What's more, the burden of proving the significance of an Aboriginal object depends upon external statements of significance. But Aboriginal people, not others, should be responsible for determining the cultural significance of an object or area.</p><p>As in WA, the NSW regulatory framework is weak, opening up the risk for economic interests to be prioritized over damage to cultural heritage.</p>Outdated Laws
<p>The federal minister has discretion to assess whether state or territory laws are already effective.</p><p>If they decide state and territory laws are ineffective and a cultural place or object is under threat, then the federal <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aatsihpa1984549/" target="_blank">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984</a> can be used.</p><p>But this act is also weak. It was first implemented as an interim measure, intended to operate for two years. It has now been in operation for 36 years.</p><p>In fact, <a href="http://ymac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Extracts-from-Evatt-Review-of-the-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Heritage-Protection-Act-1984.pdf" target="_blank">a 1995 report</a> assessed the shortcomings of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.</p><p>It recommended minimum standards be put in place. This included ensuring any assessment of Aboriginal cultural significance be made by a properly qualified body, with relevant experience.</p><p>It said the role of Aboriginal people should be appropriately recognized and statutorily endorsed. Whether an area or site had particular significance according to Aboriginal tradition should be regarded as a subjective issue, determined by an assessment of the degree of intensity of belief and feeling of Aboriginal people.</p><p><span></span>Twenty-five years later, this is yet to happen.</p>Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Meadow Lake wind farm in Indiana. Anthony / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Tara Lohan
The first official tallies are in: Coronavirus-related shutdowns helped slash daily global emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 percent in April. But the drop won't last, and experts estimate that annual emissions of the greenhouse gas are likely to fall only about 7 percent this year.
<p>After that, unless we make substantial changes to global economies, it will be back to business as usual — and a path that leads directly to runaway climate change. If we want to reverse course, say the world's leading scientists, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/" target="_blank">we have about a decade</a> to right the ship.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/stokes-clean-energy/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>
<p>That's because we've squandered a lot of time. "The 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s were lost decades for preventing global climate disaster," political scientist <a href="https://www.leahstokes.com/" target="_blank">Leah Stokes</a> writes in her new book <em><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/short-circuiting-policy-9780190074265?cc=us&lang=en" target="_blank">Short Circuiting Policy</a></em><em>, </em>which looks at the history of clean energy policy in the U.S.</p><p>But we don't all bear equal responsibility for the tragic delay.</p><p>"Some actors in society have more power than others to shape how our economy is fueled," writes Stokes, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "We are not all equally to blame."</p><p><em>Short Circuiting</em> <em>Policy</em> focuses on the role of one particularly bad actor: electric utilities. Their history of obstructing a clean-energy transition in the U.S. has been largely overlooked, with most of the finger-pointing aimed at fossil fuel companies (and for good reason).</p><p>We spoke with Stokes about this history of delay and denial from the utility industry, how to accelerate the speed and scale of clean-energy growth, and whether we can get past the polarizing rhetoric and politics around clean energy.</p>
What lessons can we learn from your research to guide us right now, in what seems like a really critical time in the fight to halt climate change?
<p>What a lot of people don't understand is that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we actually have to reduce emissions by around 7-8 percent <em>every single year</em> from now until 2030, which is what the emissions drop is likely to be this year because of the COVID-19 crisis.</p><p>So think about what it took to reduce emissions by that much and think about how we have to do that <em>every single year</em>.</p><p>It doesn't mean that it's going to be some big sacrifice, but it does mean that we need government policy, particularly at the federal level, because state policy can only go so far. We've been living off state policy for more than three decades now and we need our federal government to act.</p>Where are we now, in terms of our progress on renewable energy and how far we need to go?
<p>A lot of people think renewable energy is growing "so fast" and it's "so amazing." But first of all, during the coronavirus pandemic, the renewable energy industry is actually doing very poorly. It's losing a lot of jobs. And secondly, we were not moving fast enough even before the coronavirus crisis, because renewable energy in the<em> best </em>year grew by only 1.3 percent.</p><p>Right now we're at around 36-37 percent clean energy. That includes nuclear, hydropower and new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal. But hydropower and nuclear aren't growing. Nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the grid and hydro about 5 percent depending on the year. And then the rest is renewable. So we're at about 10 percent renewables, and in the best year, we're only adding 1 percent to that.</p><p>Generally, we need to be moving about eight times faster than we've been moving in our best years. (To visualize this idea, I came up with the <a href="https://grist.org/fix/how-quickly-do-we-need-to-ramp-up-renewables-look-to-the-narwhal/" target="_blank">narwhal curve</a>.)</p>How do we overcome these fundamental issues of speed and scale?
<p>We need actual government policy that supports it. We have never had a clean electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard at the federal level. That's the main law that I write all about at the state level. Where those policies are in place, a lot of progress has been made — places like California and even, to a limited extent, Texas.</p><p>We need our federal government to be focusing on this crisis. Even the really small, piecemeal clean-energy policies we have at the federal level are going away. In December Congress didn't extend the investment tax credit and the production tax credit, just like they didn't extend or improve the electric vehicle tax credit.</p><p>And now during the COVID-19 crisis, a lot of the money going toward the energy sector in the CARES Act is going toward propping up <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-15/-stealth-bailout-shovels-millions-of-dollars-to-oil-companies" target="_blank">dying fossil fuel companies</a> and not toward supporting the renewable energy industry.</p><p>So we are moving in the wrong direction.</p>Clean energy hasn’t always been such a partisan issue. Why did it become so polarizing?
<p>What I argue in my book, with evidence, is that electric utilities and fossil fuel companies have been intentionally driving polarization. And they've done this in part by running challengers in primary elections against Republicans who don't agree with them.</p><p>Basically, fossil fuel companies and electric utilities are telling Republicans that you can't hold office and support climate action. That has really shifted the incentives within the party in a very short time period.</p><p>It's not like the Democrats have moved so far left on climate. The Democrats have stayed in pretty much the same place and the Republicans have moved to the right. And I argue that that's because of electric utilities and fossil fuel companies trying to delay action.</p>And their reason for doing that is simply about their bottom line and keeping their share of the market?
<p>Exactly. You have to remember that delay and denial on climate change is a profitable enterprise for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities. The longer we wait to act on the crisis, the more money they can make because they can extract more fossil fuels from their reserves <em>and</em> they can pay more of their debt at their coal plants and natural gas plants. So delay and denial is a money-making business for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.</p>There’s been a lot of research, reporting and even legal action in recent years about the role of fossil fuel companies in discrediting climate science. From reading your book, it seems that electric utilities are just as guilty. Is that right?
<p>Yes, far less attention has been paid to electric utilities, which play a really critical role. They preside over legacy investments into coal and natural gas, and some of them continue to propose building new natural gas.</p><p>They were just as involved in promoting climate denial in the 1980s and 90s as fossil fuel companies, as I document in my book. And some of them, like Southern Company, have continued to promote climate denial to basically the present day.</p><p>But that's not the only dark part of their history.</p><p>Electric utilities promoted energy systems that are pretty wasteful. They built these centralized fossil fuel power plants rather than having co-generation plants that were onsite at industrial locations where manufacturing is happening, and where you need both steam heat — which is a waste product from electricity — and the electricity itself. That actually created a lot of waste in the system and we burned a lot more fossil fuels than if we had a decentralized system.</p><p><span></span>The other thing they've done in the more modern period is really resisted the energy transition. They've resisted renewable portfolio standards and net metering laws that allow for more clean energy to come onto the grid. They've tried to roll them back. They've been successful in some cases, and they've blocked new laws from passing when targets were met.</p>You wrote that, “Partisan polarization on climate is not inevitable — support could shift back to the bipartisanship we saw before 2008.” What would it take to actually make that happen?
<p>Well, on the one hand, you need to get the Democratic Party to care more about climate change and to really understand the stakes. And if you want to do that, I think the work of the <a href="https://www.justicedemocrats.com/" target="_blank">Justice Democrats</a> is important. They have primary-challenged incumbent Democrats who don't care enough about climate change. That is how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected. She was a primary challenger and she has really championed climate action in the Green New Deal.</p><p>The other thing is that the public supports climate action. Democrats do in huge numbers. Independents do. And to some extent Republicans do, particularly young Republicans.</p><p>So communicating the extent of public concern on these issues is really important because, as I've shown in other research, politicians don't know how much public concern there is on climate change. They dramatically underestimate support for climate action.</p><p>I think the media has a really important role to play because it's very rare that a climate event, like a disaster that is caused by climate change, is actually linked to climate change in media reporting.</p><p>But people might live through a wildfire or a hurricane or a heat wave, but nobody's going to tell them through the media that this is climate change. So we really need our reporters to be doing a better job linking people's lived experiences to climate change.</p>With economic stimulus efforts ramping up because of the COVD-19 pandemic, are we in danger of missing a chance to help boost a clean energy economy?
<p>I think so many people understand that stimulus spending is an opportunity to rebuild our economy in a way that creates good-paying jobs in the clean-energy sector that protects Americans' health.</p><p>We know that <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200427-how-air-pollution-exacerbates-covid-19" target="_blank">breathing dirty air</a> makes people more likely to die from COVID-19. So this is a big opportunity to create an economy that's more just for all Americans.</p><p>But unfortunately, we really are not pivoting toward creating a clean economy, which is what we need to be doing. This is an opportunity to really focus on the climate crisis because we have delayed for more than 30 years. There is not another decade to waste.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Andrey Nikitin / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Adrienne Santos-Longhurst
Plants are awesome. They brighten up your space and give you a living thing you can talk to when there are no humans in sight.
Turns out, having enough of the right plants can also add moisture (aka humidify) indoor air, which can have a ton of health benefits.
<p>Yep, the right amount of humidity in the air can:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>relieve <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/dry-skin" target="_blank">dry skin</a> and <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/skin/home-remedies-for-chapped-lips" target="_blank">lips</a></li><li>prevent <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/dry-throat" target="_blank">dry throat</a></li><li>soothe <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/dry-sinuses" target="_blank">dry sinuses</a> and nasal irritation</li><li>prevent <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/nosebleed" target="_blank">nosebleeds</a></li><li>reduce the likelihood of <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/infections" target="_blank">infections</a> and <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/allergies" target="_blank">allergies</a></li></ul><p>Plants increase humidity in the air through a process called evapotranspiration.</p><p>Water from the soil makes its way up through the roots of the plant, through the stems, and up to the leaves (transpiration), where it's evaporated into the air through pores on the leaves, called stomata.</p><p>Ready to work on your green thumb? We'll cover which plants to get and which ones to avoid, and even throw in a few pro tips to help you make the most of your plants.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/humidifying-plants" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
Spider Plant
<p>Spider plants are one of the best plants you can buy for increasing indoor humidity, according to <a href="https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/35195/803.full.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y" target="_blank">research</a> from 2015.</p><p>Even NASA agrees. It did a <a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930073077.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> in the '80s that found spider plants are able to remove toxins like carbon monoxide and formaldehyde from indoor air.</p><p>Perhaps the coolest part of all? They're super easy to grow.</p><p>Their stems grow long. A hanging container is best so the plant has room to cascade.</p><p>Spider plants grow best in bright, indirect sunlight, so try to keep them near a window that gets a lot of natural light. Aim to keep the soil moist, but not soggy.</p>Jade Plant
<p><a href="https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/35195/803.full.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y" target="_blank">Research</a> shows that a jade plant can increase the relative humidity in a room. Most of its evapotranspiration happens in the dark, making it a good option for increasing humidity during darker months of the year.</p><p>To help keep a jade plant thriving, keep it in a bright spot, like near a south-facing window. As for watering, how much you give it depends on the time of the year.</p><p>The spring and summer is its active growing time, so you'll want to water it deeply, and wait till the soil is almost dry to water it again.</p><p>In the fall and winter, growing slows or stops, so you can let the soil dry completely before watering again.</p>Areca Palm
<p>Palms tend to be great for adding humidity, and the areca palm — also called the butterfly or yellow palm — is no exception.</p><p>They're relatively low maintenance, but they do require lots of sun and moist soil. Keep them near a window that gets a lot of sunlight. Water them enough to keep their soil moist, especially in the spring and summer.</p><p>They can grow up to 6 or 7 feet tall and don't like crowded roots, so you'll need to repot it every couple of years as it grows.<span></span></p>English Ivy
<p>English ivy (<em>Hedera helix</em>) is easy to care for and gives you a lot of bang for your buck because it grows like crazy.</p><p>It's also been <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-018-0618-9" target="_blank">shown</a> to have one of the highest transpiration rates. This makes it a good option for increasing relative humidity AND removing carbon monoxide from indoor air.</p><p>A hanging basket is best for this small-leafed ivy. It'll grow as long and lush as you let it. To keep it controlled, just prune to the size you want.</p><p>English ivy likes bright light and soil that's slightly dry. Check the soil to make sure it's almost dry before watering again.</p>Lady Palm
<p>The lady palm is a dense plant that's low maintenance when it comes to sunlight and water needs.</p><p>It does best in bright light, but is adaptable enough to grow in low-light spots, too, though at a slightly slower pace.</p><p>Lady palms like to be watered thoroughly once the surface is dry to the touch, so always check the soil before watering.</p>Rubber Plant
<p>The rubber plant isn't as finicky as other indoor tropical plants, making it really easy to care for. Rubber plants also have a high transpiration rate and are great for helping clean indoor air.</p><p>Rubber plants like partial sun to partial shade. They can handle cooler temps and drier soil (perfect for people who tend to kill every plant they bring into the home).</p><p>Let the soil dry before watering again. In the fall and winter months, you'll be able to cut watering in half.</p>Boston Fern
<p>The Boston fern has air-purifying properties that add moisture and remove toxins from indoor air. Did we mention they're lush and gorgeous, too?</p><p>To keep a Boston fern healthy and happy, water it often enough so the soil is always moist, and make sure it gets a lot of indirect sunlight by placing it in a bright part of the room.</p><p>Occasionally misting the fern's leaves with a spray bottle of water can help keep it perky when you have the heat blasting or fireplace going.</p>Peace Lily
<p>Peace lilies are tropical evergreens that produce a white flower in the summer. They usually grow up to around 16 inches tall, but can grow longer in the right conditions.</p><p>A peace lily feels most at home in a room that's warm and gets a lot of sunlight. It takes its soil moist.</p><p>No need to stress if you forget to water it on occasion. It'll handle that better than being overwatered.</p><p>If you have cats, you'll want to keep this plant out of reach or avoid it. Lilies are <a href="https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/toxic-and-non-toxic-plants/lily" target="_blank">toxic</a> to our feline friends.</p>Golden Pothos
<p>Golden pothos is also called devil's ivy and devil's vine because it's pretty much impossible to kill. You can forget to water it and even forget to give it light for long periods, and it'll still be green whenever you finally remember.</p><p>That said, it thrives in brighter spaces and does like some water. Let it dry out between watering.</p><p>Its trailing stems grow as long as you want it to, so it's perfect for hanging planters or setting on a higher shelf.</p><p>The higher the better if you have pets, though, since some of its compounds are toxic to dogs and cats… and horses, if you happen to live in a big apartment with really relaxed pet rules.</p>Dwarf Date Palm
<p>Dwarf date palms are also called pygmy date palms. They're perfect as far as plants go. They're basically mini versions of the palm trees you see on tropical postcards.</p><p>They can help keep a room's air clean and increase humidity, and are super easy to maintain.</p><p>They can grow to be anywhere from 6 to 12 feet tall with bright, indirect sunlight and moist — not soaking wet — soil.</p><p>They also prefer a slightly toasty environment, so avoid placing them near a drafty window or source of cold.</p>Corn Plant
<p>The corn plant won't give you an endless supply of corn — just leaves that look like corn leaves and the occasional bloom if you treat it nice. It also helps humidify indoor air and remove toxic vapors.</p><p>Maintenance is easy. Let the top inch or so of soil dry before watering, and keep in a well-lit room where it can get a good amount of indirect sunlight.</p>Parlor Palm
<p>This is another high-transpiration palm that doesn't take any real skill to grow. You're welcome.</p><p>Parlor palms like partial sun, but can manage in full shade, too, as long as you keep the soil consistently moist with a couple of waterings per week.</p><p>To help it grow, make sure it's got enough space in the pot by sizing up every year or two, or whenever it starts to look crowded.</p>Plants to Avoid
<p>Plants are generally good for your environment, but some do have the opposite effect when it comes to humidity.</p><p>These plants tend to draw moisture <em>in</em> instead of letting it out. This doesn't happen instantly, and a couple of plants won't have enough of an effect to really zap the moisture out of your home.</p><p>Still, if you're looking for maximum moisture, you may want to limit these.</p><p>Plants that fall into this category are those that require very little water to survive. Think plants that you find in dry climates, like the desert.</p><p>These include plants like:</p><ul><li>cactuses</li><li>succulents</li><li>aloe vera</li><li>euphorbia, also called "spurge"</li></ul>Pro Tips
<p>If you really want to take advantage of all the moisture and purification these plants offer, here are some tips to consider:</p><ul><li><strong>Size matters.</strong> Plants with bigger leaves typically have a higher transpiration rate, so go bigger to humidify and purify a room.</li><li><strong>The more the merrier.</strong> Have at least two good-sized plants per 100 square feet of space — more is even better.</li><li><strong>Keep 'em close.</strong> Group your plants closer together to increase the humidity in the air and help your plants thrive, too.</li><li><strong>Add pebbles.</strong> If you're dealing with dry indoor air, put your plants on a pebble tray with water to create more humidity for your plants <em>and</em> your room.</li></ul>The Bottom Line
<p>If you're looking to combat dry air in your home and have some space, consider stocking up on some houseplants. Just keep in mind that this is one area where less definitely isn't more.</p><p>For a noticeable impact on the air in your home, try to have at least several plants in each room. If you only have room for a few plants, try to go for larger ones with big leaves.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 5 Common Houseplants That Clean the Air for a Healthier Home ... ›
- 20 Plants That Improve Air Quality in Your Home - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A bald eagle chick inside a nest in Rutland, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
A bald eagle nest with eggs has been discovered in Cape Cod for the first time in 115 years, according to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Mass Wildlife), as Newsweek reported.
<p><br/></p>
<p>That nest is part of a dramatic uptick in the number of active nests, with more than 70 spotted this spring, according to a post on the Mass Wildlife website, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/bald-eagles-massachusetts-scn-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. While spotting active nests is not rare, one with eggs is. Also, for the first time, there is a documented case of eagles nesting on nearby Martha's Vineyard.</p><p>The 1905 nest with eggs was in the town of Sandwich.</p><p>On its website, Mass Wildlife said the population of bald eagles is soaring this season. The birds are currently in the middle of their nesting season, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bald-eagle-nest-eggs-spotted-on-cape-cod-for-the-first-time-in-115-years/" target="_blank">CBS News</a>.</p>
<p>The return of bald eagles is a testament to the strength of the Endangered Species Act, since the birds have recovered from the brink of extinction. Bald eagles recently improved from threatened to special concern on the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act list thanks to successful <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="_self">conservation</a> measures. Mass Wildlife embarked on an eagle reintroduction program in the 1980s that has led to an uptick in the population of bald eagles in the New England area, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/bald-eagles-massachusetts-scn-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>A bald eagle that hatched in Massachusetts holds the record for the oldest bald eagle in New Hampshire. The eagle, which was photographed in New Hampshire this spring, was identified by banding records as a 23-year-old male that hatched in Ware, Massachusetts, in 1997, according to <a href="https://www.wcvb.com/article/bald-eagle-nest-with-eggs-spotted-on-cape-cod-massachusetts-for-first-time-in-105-years-officials-say/32692454" target="_blank">WCVB</a>, Boston's ABC News affiliate.</p>
<p>While bald eagles are no longer on the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species" target="_self">endangered species</a> list, they are still <a href="https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/history/protections.html" target="_blank">protected under multiple federal laws</a>, including the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.</p><p>However, their new found strength could spell trouble for other birds.</p><p>In one example, Mass Wildlife said, "[a]n eagle pair took over an osprey nest and were incubating eggs when the ospreys returned from their wintering grounds. The osprey pair that most likely built the nest harassed the incubating eagle who would flip upside down with its talons in the air in defense. Eventually the eagle cracked the eggs doing this, and this historic nesting attempt failed."</p>
<p>In another example, "[t]wo other eagle nests on the mainland have also failed as a result of an intruding eagle invading the territory and killing the chicks in the nest."</p><p>"Although difficult for observers to witness, these events are all signs of a thriving eagle population in Massachusetts," MassWildlife said, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bald-eagle-nest-eggs-spotted-on-cape-cod-for-the-first-time-in-115-years/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported. "On the upside, more and more people across the Commonwealth are experiencing the thrill of seeing eagles in their own neighborhoods as these birds continue to expand their range to urban and suburban landscapes."</p><p>Bald eagles build the largest nests of any bird in North America. Mating pairs build their nests in winter months and then return to them every year to add to the nest.</p><p>The species holds the record for the largest nest ever recorded, with a nest spotted near St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1963 that measured nine feet, six inches wide and 20 feet deep, and was estimated to weigh more than 4,400 pounds, according to <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bald-eagle-nest-cape-cod-first-time-century-1507010" target="_blank">Newsweek</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Beat the COVID-19 Blues With These Wildlife and Nature Livecams ... ›
- Bald Eagles Are Still Dying From Lead Poisoning - EcoWatch ›
- Ospreys' Recovery From Pollution and Shooting Is a Global ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The office of Rover.com sits empty with employees working from home due to the coronavirus pandemic on March 12 in Seattle, Washington. John Moore / Getty Images
The office may never look the same again. And the investment it will take to protect employees may force many companies to go completely remote. That's after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new recommendations for how workers can return to the office safely.
<p>If companies choose to follow the guidelines, it would lead to a dramatic change in the corporate work experience, and likely increase pollution. One of the most striking features of the recommendations is that they upend years of environmental activism that urged people to take public transportation or car-pool. The new recommendations suggest avoiding public transportation and driving to work alone, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/health/cdc-coronavirus-offices.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported.</p>
<p>The CDC's new recommendations suggest making this cost-effective. "Offer employees incentives to use forms of transportation that minimize close contact with others, such as offering reimbursement for parking for commuting to work alone or single-occupancy rides," the guidelines say.</p><p>However, the guidelines did not address the environmental impact of such policies or the health impacts from increasing traffic congestion.</p>
<p>Besides making the commute a lonelier and less environmentally friendly, the guidelines also make the office environment lonelier. The CDC recommends placing workers six feet apart. If that's not possible, then companies should erect plastic shields around desks, remove seats in common areas, and avoid perks like coffee machines and snack bins that encourage communal activities and many people touching them, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/health/cdc-coronavirus-offices.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>In another environmentally damaging recommendation, the CDC does leave room for replacing those items with pre-packaged single-serve coffee and snacks.</p><p>"Replace high-touch communal items, such as coffee pots, water coolers, and bulk snacks, with alternatives such as prepackaged, single-serving items," the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/office-buildings.html" target="_blank">guidelines</a> say.</p>
<p>The guidelines also address the technical aspects of the office. The CDC recommends employers ensure that building ventilation systems are operating properly. It also encourages allowing as much fresh air as possible by opening windows and doors, when feasible, to "increase circulation of outdoor air as much as possible," as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/health/amid-coronavirus-cdc-offers-guidelines-on-office-reopenings" target="_blank">Fox News</a> reported.</p><p>The guidelines also eliminate many office norms and pleasantries that were once common place. The guidelines tell employers to "[p]rohibit handshaking, hugs, and fist bumps." It also recommends that employees wear a cloth face mask "in all areas of the business," as <a href="https://www.axios.com/cdc-guidelines-coronavirus-office-business-jobs-ab19791a-357e-412a-9a5d-516f78610b4c.html" target="_blank">Axios</a> reported.</p><p>The guidelines encourage daily health checks, including temperature screenings before employees enter the workplace, and to send home sick workers. Then the office should go through enhanced cleaning and disinfection, as <a href="https://www.axios.com/cdc-guidelines-coronavirus-office-business-jobs-ab19791a-357e-412a-9a5d-516f78610b4c.html" target="_blank">Axios</a> reported.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/health/cdc-coronavirus-offices.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> noted that many white-collar offices have successfully transitioned to a fully distributed workforce and are finding that their office environment is able to continue through video conferencing and Slack channels. With that in mind, companies might find the cost of putting protective measures in place too steep, or they might find that isolation in the office makes it difficult to recruit and retain talent. Businesses may decide to allow their workers to stay home.</p><p>Already companies like Twitter and Square have decided that their employees never need to come back to the office.</p><p>"Companies, surprisingly, don't want to go back to work," said Russell Hancock, president and CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a nonprofit think tank, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/health/cdc-coronavirus-offices.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "You will not see the drum beat and hue and cry and rush to get back to the office."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Admin Rejects CDC Reopening Guidelines - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Labor Department Encourages States to Report Workers ... ›
- White House Ordered Coronavirus Meetings Be Classified - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less