Harvey Wasserman
In the thick of the 1970s Arab oil embargo, Nixon said there’d be 1000 such reactors in the U.S. by the year 2000. As of today, there are 100. Four have shut here this year. Citizen activism has put the “nuclear renaissance” into full retreat.
Just two of 54 reactors now operate in Japan, where Fukushima has joined Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in permanently scarring us all. Germany is shutting its entire fleet and switching to renewables. France, once the poster child for the global reactor industry, is following suit. South Korea has just shut three due to fraudulent safety procedures. Massive demonstrations rage against reactors being built in India. Only the Koreans, Chinese and Russians remain at all serious about pushing ahead with this tragic technology.
Cheap gas has undercut the short-term market for expensive electricity generated by obsolete coal and nuke burners. But the vision of Solartopia—a totally green-powered Earth—is now our tangible long-term reality. With falling prices and soaring efficiency, every moving electron our species consumes will be generated by a solar panel, wind turbine, bio-fueled or geothermal generator, wave machine and their green siblings.
As of early this year, Southern California Edison's path to a re-start at San Onofre seemed as clear as any to be expected by a traditional atomic tyrannosaur. But with help from Sen. Boxer (D-CA) and Senator-to-be Markey (D-MA), a powerful citizen uprising stopped it dead.
So did the terrifying incompetence and greed that has defined the nuclear industry from the days of Nixon and before. San Onofre Unit One shut in the 1990s due largely to steam generator problems. In the early 2000s, Units Two & Three needed new steam generators of their own. In the usual grasp for more profits, Edison chose untested, unlicensed new designs. But they failed. And the whole world was watching. In the wake of Fukushima, two more leaky tsunami-zone reactors surrounded by earthquake faults were massively unwelcome.
So a well-organized non-violent core of local, state and national activists and organizations rose up to stop the madness. At Vermont Yankee, Indian Point, Seabrook, Davis-Besse and dozens of other reactors around the U.S. and world, parallel opposition is escalating.
Make no mistake—this double victory at San Onofre is a falling domino. Had the public not fought back, those reactors would have been “fixed” at public expense. Today, they are dead. Worldwide, there are some 400 to go. Each of them—including the 100 remaining in the U.S.—could do apocalyptic damage. We still have our work cut out for us.
But a huge double-step has been taken up the road to Solartopia. There will be no Fukushimas at San Onofre. A green-powered Earth is that much closer. And we have yet another proof that citizen action makes all the difference in our world.
Visit EcoWatch’s ENERGY and NUCLEAR pages for more related news on this topic.
——–
Click here to tell Congress to Expedite Renewable Energy.
Yves Adams / Instagram
A rare yellow penguin has been photographed for what is believed to be the first time.
<p>Belgian <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> photographer Yves Adams snapped the shot in December 2019 on an island in South Georgia during a two-month expedition, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/yellow-penguin-photo-south-atlantic-b1804738.html" target="_blank">The Independent reported</a>. However, he first posted the photograph on Instagram this month.</p><p>"While unpacking our rubberboats merely after landing on a remote beach on the island of South-Georgia, this leucistic King penguin walked up straight to our direction in the middle of a chaos full of Sea elephants and Antarctic fur seals, and thousands of other King penguins," Adams wrote in his post. "How lucky could I be!"</p>
<div id="e2064" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="22643ae32c96712187d32a109fd380b4"><blockquote class="instagram-media"
data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-version="4" style=" background:#FFF; border:0;
border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15);
margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px);
width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:8px;">
<div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50% 0; text-align:center;
width:100%;">
<div style=" background:url();
display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;">
</div></div><p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;">
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CLbVN4FAT2u/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;
word-wrap:break-word;" target="_top"></a></p>
</div></blockquote></div>
<p>Leucism is a genetic mutation that causes some but not all of an animal's melanin to disappear, <a href="https://www.livescience.com/yellow-penguin-south-georgia.html" target="_blank">Live Science explained</a>. King penguins typically have black and white feathers with a yellow bow-tie-like stripe on the collar. Melanin, or dark pigment, is responsible for the darker feathers. While pigment anomalies in penguins are rare, they can be either melanistic (all black), albanistic (all white) or leucistic (a mix of both).</p><p>Dee Boersma, a University of Washington conservation biologist who was not a part of Adams's expedition, told Live Science that she agreed with his diagnosis.</p>
<p>However, Kevin McGraw, an integrative behavioral ecologist at Arizona State University who also was not a part of the expedition, was less sure, as he told Live Science:</p><blockquote>"It does look albino from the perspective that it lacks all melanin" in its plumage, feet and eyes, McGraw said. Still, "we'd need feather samples for biochemical testing if we aimed to unequivocally document," whether melanin is present, he said.</blockquote><blockquote>Animals can be albino but still have non-melanin pigment, he added.</blockquote>
<p>McGraw added that the mutation might put the unique penguin at a disadvantage, since penguins use their coloring for choosing mates and protecting themselves from both predators and the sun.</p><p>"It's conceivable that such color aberrations could impact both survival and reproduction," McGraw said.</p><p>For whatever the reason, the white-and-yellow coloring is rare enough that it has never been seen before, as far as experts are aware. A white chinstrap penguin was spotted in Antarctica in 2012, The Independent reported.</p><p>The rarity made Adams feel especially lucky to get a chance to photograph this individual. He said that it was one of at least 120,000 penguins in the colony.</p><p>"It was heaven that he landed by us. If it had been 50 metres away, we wouldn't have been able to get this show of a lifetime," Adams told The Independent.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- World-Renowned Photographer Documents Most Remote ... ›
- This Penguin Colony Has Fallen by 77% on Antarctic Islands ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Crystal building in London, England is the first building in the world to be awarded an outstanding BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) rating and a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) platinum rating. Alphotographic / Getty Images
By Stuart Braun
We spend 90% of our time in the buildings where we live and work, shop and conduct business, in the structures that keep us warm in winter and cool in summer.
But immense energy is required to source and manufacture building materials, to power construction sites, to maintain and renew the built environment. In 2019, building operations and construction activities together accounted for 38% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, the highest level ever recorded.
<p>To ensure that the Paris climate targets are met, the building and construction industry needs to become a climate leader by moving towards net-zero construction. Its CO2 emissions need to be cut in half by 2030 for building stock to be carbon-free by 2050, according to a recent <a href="https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/building-sector-emissions-hit-record-high-low-carbon-pandemic" target="_blank">report</a> by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).</p><p>In response, a raft of new net-zero building initiatives are focused on curbing emissions across the whole building lifecycle.</p><p>DW looks at five key points in understanding the push to carbon-free construction.</p>
<h3>1. Urbanization Is Skyrocketing, and That's a Problem</h3><p>A rapidly urbanizing world is compounding the massive impact of buildings and infrastructure on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a>. According to urban climate-action initiative <a href="https://www.c40.org/networks/clean-construction-forum" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">C40 Cities,</a> 2.5 billion more people will flood cities (mostly in Asia and Africa) in the next three decades, while 60% of buildings required by 2050 still have to be built.</p><p>With the equivalent of a city of around 1.5 million people being constructed each week, carbon-heavy construction is skyrocketing, meaning the sector must rapidly decarbonize if global heating is to remain within the IPCC's limit of 1.5- to well below 2 degrees Celsius <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/will-it-soon-be-too-late-to-save-the-climate/a-49889771" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">above 1990 levels.</a></p><p>This will not be easy.</p><p>A <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en?redir=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">European Union directive</a> to achieve nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (nZEBs) in all new structures by the end of 2020 was on track to achieve an 80% CO2 reduction, according to Lukas Kranzl, a senior scientist at the Vienna-based Energy Economics Group that is <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/zebra2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">monitoring</a> the nZEBs. Kranzl says this won't be enough to meet the Paris targets.</p><p>"We will need [almost] complete decarbonization in the building sector before 2050," he told DW, meaning that 95-100% emission cuts will be required.</p>
<h3>2. Independent Initiatives Might Have the Solution</h3><p>While Kranzl fears that some EU member states are not on the path to building and construction decarbonization, new independent initiatives are bringing together cities, companies and organizations to achieve net-zero building across the whole lifecycle.</p><p>The World Green Building Council's (WorldGBC) Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment is one such global initiative in which diverse stakeholders pledge to reach net-zero emissions for all new buildings by 2030, and all buildings by 2050.</p><p>Created in partnership with C40, the target was upgraded in September 2019 to include <a href="https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">embodied carbon</a>, which is to say emissions generated, not only during operational life but "during the manufacturing, transportation, construction and end of life phases of all built assets." Embodied carbon itself contributes around 11% of all global carbon emissions.</p><p>According to Victoria Burrows, director of Advancing Net Zero at the World Green Building Council, this shift reflects a "wholesized approach to carbon emissions in the building and construction sector."</p><p>While net-zero buildings were previously focused on operational performance, especially in terms of energy efficiency via solar power or passive design, embodied emissions include the significant "upfront" emissions created during the extraction and manufacture of building materials. The whole lifecycle measure includes "use stage" and "end of life" carbon generated through building maintenance and final deconstruction.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY4NDU4OC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDk5Mjk5NX0.qOhZ3X163RwVw2B-obIoQfgtOUDGpAQ5pU2oGZhS-Dc/img.png?width=980" id="845d5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9d642ce031c41c20718cf1186b88bbfb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1920" data-height="2424" />
<h3>3. Cement Causes More Pollution Than You Would Think</h3><p>When addressing embodied emissions, the construction phase that generates around 25% of greenhouse emissions is fundamental to the net-zero building revolution.</p><p>Reducing reliance on <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/carbon-intensive-cement-industry-feeling-the-heat/a-50546807" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">carbon-intensive cement</a>, the most widely used building material on earth that alone accounts for around <a href="https://reader.chathamhouse.org/making-concrete-change-innovation-low-carbon-cement-and-concrete#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">8% of global CO2 emissions,</a> will be key.</p><p>Designers of carbon-neutral building are replacing cement framing in larger buildings with new sustainable cross-laminated <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/wood-renewable-construction-material-of-the-future/a-42012053" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">timber,</a> for example. Achieving a 20% reduction in building weight is matched by a similar reduction in "embodied energy." The end result is a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710219302542" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">26.5% reduction in the "global warming potential"</a> of the building.</p><p>A new five-story apartment building in Boston's Roxbury district is leading the way. Its designers <a href="http://news.mit.edu/2020/mass-timber-sustainable-building-boston-0305" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">are using the revolutionary timber framing</a> to significantly reduce emissions from steel and concrete and achieve a net-zero standard.</p>
<h3>4. Scandinavia Is Becoming a Net-Zero Pioneer</h3><p>A report released by C40 in October 2019 showed that the construction industry alone could cut emissions from buildings and infrastructure by 44% by 2050. Oslo, Copenhagen and Stockholm have since <a href="https://www.c40.org/press_releases/mayors-of-copenhagen-oslo-and-stockholm-commit-to-clean-construction" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">committed to take a leadership role</a> in creating a global market for low-emission construction materials and zero-emission machinery.</p><p>Oslo, for instance, aims to make all city-owned construction machinery and construction sites operate with zero emissions by 2025. Meanwhile, Copenhagen's bold plan to be climate-neutral by 2025 will draw heavily on its commitment to zero-carbon construction. This will be achieved in part through "fossils- or emission-free construction machinery in construction projects," said Frank Jensen, mayor of Copenhagen.</p><p>With Stockholm also part of a cross-border tender for sustainable procurement of mobile construction machinery, such unified demand is designed to send a signal to the market, according to Victoria Burrows. The end result will be to "create a ripple effect" that will help kickstart the net-zero building transition.</p>
<h3>5. Diverse Sectors Embracing Carbon-Free Construction</h3><p>The success of the net-zero carbon buildings commitment hinges on involving stakeholders across the whole building supply chain, says Burrows. With building and construction able to "cut across many other sectors" in the fight against climate change, she notes that cement and engineering firms, cultural institutions like the Sydney Opera House, universities and city governments are committing to net-zero building.</p><p>So, too, are real-estate companies that might once have prioritized profits over reducing emissions. British global property giant Grosvenor Group and Canada's Avison Young, another international real-estate powerhouse, are among many others implementing a net-zero building roadmap — with or without government targets.</p><p>In December, Grosvenor Europe committed to reducing its carbon impact by 50% by 2030. It will partly achieve this by cutting energy use in its buildings by one-third, and the embodied carbon intensity of its developments by one half.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/5-things-to-know-about-carbon-free-construction/a-52747374" target="_blank">DW</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Could IKEA's New Tiny House Help Fight the Climate Crisis ... ›
- Los Angeles City-Owned Buildings to Go 100% Carbon Free ... ›
- New Jersey Will Be First State to Require Building Permits to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Houses and wooden debris are shown in flood waters from Hurricane Katrina Sept. 11, 2005 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Jerry Grayson / Helifilms Australia PTY Ltd / Getty Images
By Eric Tate and Christopher Emrich
Disasters stemming from hazards like floods, wildfires, and disease often garner attention because of their extreme conditions and heavy societal impacts. Although the nature of the damage may vary, major disasters are alike in that socially vulnerable populations often experience the worst repercussions. For example, we saw this following Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey, each of which generated widespread physical damage and outsized impacts to low-income and minority survivors.
<p>Social vulnerability researchers seek to understand the impediments and capacities of people and communities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from extreme natural hazards. A major tool in this work is social vulnerability modeling, the use of which is expanding in large part because of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/30/opinions/hurricane-laura-hurricane-katrina-15-anniversary-climate-justice-russell/index.html" target="_blank">growing awareness</a> of the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/688786177/how-federal-disaster-money-favors-the-rich" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">social equity implications of disasters</a>.</p>
<p>This modeling applies knowledge garnered from disaster case studies describing how chronic marginalization translates to disproportionate adverse outcomes to identify the most vulnerable population groups. Such populations often include those living in poverty, the very old and young, minoritized ethnic and racial groups, renters, and recent immigrants [<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25381/framing-the-challenge-of-urban-flooding-in-the-united-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine</em></a>, 2019]. Social vulnerability modelers select demographic variables representing these groups and combine them to construct spatial indicators and indexes that enable comparisons of social vulnerability across places.</p>
Mapping Social Vulnerability
<p>Figure 1a is a typical map of social vulnerability across the United States at the census tract level based on the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) algorithm of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002" target="_blank"><em>Cutter et al.</em></a> [2003]. Spatial representation of the index depicts high social vulnerability regionally in the Southwest, upper Great Plains, eastern Oklahoma, southern Texas, and southern Appalachia, among other places. With such a map, users can focus attention on select places and identify population characteristics associated with elevated vulnerabilities.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY4NDI3Ni9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTAzMjg0MH0.v1q8kvdcaspP-06Y3lP3-fpjepuK4DByrALDDlLLTuY/img.png?width=980" id="dabfe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cf5abb87eb49497c7585585a853aa449" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2740" data-height="1062" />
Fig. 1. (a) Social vulnerability across the United States at the census tract scale is mapped here following the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI). Red and pink hues indicate high social vulnerability. (b) This bivariate map depicts social vulnerability (blue hues) and annualized per capita hazard losses (pink hues) for U.S. counties from 2010 to 2019.
<p>Many current indexes in the United States and abroad are direct or conceptual offshoots of SoVI, which has been widely replicated [e.g., <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-016-0090-9" target="_blank"><em>de Loyola Hummell et al.</em></a>, 2016]. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html" target="_blank">has also developed</a> a commonly used social vulnerability index intended to help local officials identify communities that may need support before, during, and after disasters.</p><p>The first modeling and mapping efforts, starting around the mid-2000s, largely focused on describing spatial distributions of social vulnerability at varying geographic scales. Over time, research in this area came to emphasize spatial comparisons between social vulnerability and physical hazards [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9376-1" target="_blank"><em>Wood et al.</em></a>, 2010], modeling population dynamics following disasters [<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11111-008-0072-y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Myers et al.</em></a>, 2008], and quantifying the robustness of social vulnerability measures [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0152-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Tate</em></a>, 2012].</p><p>More recent work is beginning to dissolve barriers between social vulnerability and environmental justice scholarship [<a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304846" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Chakraborty et al.</em></a>, 2019], which has traditionally focused on root causes of exposure to pollution hazards. Another prominent new research direction involves deeper interrogation of social vulnerability drivers in specific hazard contexts and disaster phases (e.g., before, during, after). Such work has revealed that interactions among drivers are important, but existing case studies are ill suited to guiding development of new indicators [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Rufat et al.</em></a>, 2015].</p><p>Advances in geostatistical analyses have enabled researchers to characterize interactions more accurately among social vulnerability and hazard outcomes. Figure 1b depicts social vulnerability and annualized per capita hazard losses for U.S. counties from 2010 to 2019, facilitating visualization of the spatial coincidence of pre‑event susceptibilities and hazard impacts. Places ranked high in both dimensions may be priority locations for management interventions. Further, such analysis provides invaluable comparisons between places as well as information summarizing state and regional conditions.</p><p>In Figure 2, we take the analysis of interactions a step further, dividing counties into two categories: those experiencing annual per capita losses above or below the national average from 2010 to 2019. The differences among individual race, ethnicity, and poverty variables between the two county groups are small. But expressing race together with poverty (poverty attenuated by race) produces quite different results: Counties with high hazard losses have higher percentages of both impoverished Black populations and impoverished white populations than counties with low hazard losses. These county differences are most pronounced for impoverished Black populations.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY4NDI3OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTc3NjUwNX0.bfkxzYwjdvBUvGu3zsI0iI_710xQyiARxVgrww1ZhpA/img.png?width=980" id="52f88" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="799dc45654e18d5e42c72f96c704e218" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1464" data-height="1432" />
Fig. 2. Differences in population percentages between counties experiencing annual per capita losses above or below the national average from 2010 to 2019 for individual and compound social vulnerability indicators (race and poverty).
<p>Our current work focuses on social vulnerability to floods using geostatistical modeling and mapping. The research directions are twofold. The first is to develop hazard-specific indicators of social vulnerability to aid in mitigation planning [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04470-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Tate et al.</em></a>, 2021]. Because natural hazards differ in their innate characteristics (e.g., rate of onset, spatial extent), causal processes (e.g., urbanization, meteorology), and programmatic responses by government, manifestations of social vulnerability vary across hazards.</p><p>The second is to assess the degree to which socially vulnerable populations benefit from the leading disaster recovery programs [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Emrich et al.</em></a>, 2020], such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) <a href="https://www.fema.gov/individual-disaster-assistance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Individual Assistance</a> program and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) <a href="https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg-dr/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Disaster Recovery</a> program. Both research directions posit social vulnerability indicators as potential measures of social equity.</p>Social Vulnerability as a Measure of Equity
<p>Given their focus on social marginalization and economic barriers, social vulnerability indicators are attracting growing scientific interest as measures of inequity resulting from disasters. Indeed, social vulnerability and inequity are related concepts. Social vulnerability research explores the differential susceptibilities and capacities of disaster-affected populations, whereas social equity analyses tend to focus on population disparities in the allocation of resources for hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. Interventions with an equity focus emphasize full and equal resource access for all people with unmet disaster needs.</p><p>Yet newer studies of inequity in disaster programs have documented troubling disparities in income, race, and home ownership among those who <a href="https://eos.org/articles/equity-concerns-raised-in-federal-flood-property-buyouts" target="_blank">participate in flood buyout programs</a>, are <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063477407" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">eligible for postdisaster loans</a>, receive short-term recovery assistance [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102010" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Drakes et al.</em></a>, 2021], and have <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/25/texas-natural-disasters--mental-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">access to mental health services</a>. For example, a recent analysis of federal flood buyouts found racial privilege to be infused at multiple program stages and geographic scales, resulting in resources that disproportionately benefit whiter and more urban counties and neighborhoods [<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120905439" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Elliott et al.</em></a>, 2020].</p><p>Investments in disaster risk reduction are largely prioritized on the basis of hazard modeling, historical impacts, and economic risk. Social equity, meanwhile, has been far less integrated into the considerations of public agencies for hazard and disaster management. But this situation may be beginning to shift. Following the adage of "what gets measured gets managed," social equity metrics are increasingly being inserted into disaster management.</p><p>At the national level, FEMA has <a href="https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200220/fema-releases-affordability-framework-national-flood-insurance-program" target="_blank">developed options</a> to increase the affordability of flood insurance [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018]. At the subnational scale, Puerto Rico has integrated social vulnerability into its CDBG Mitigation Action Plan, expanding its considerations of risk beyond only economic factors. At the local level, Harris County, Texas, has begun using social vulnerability indicators alongside traditional measures of flood risk to introduce equity into the prioritization of flood mitigation projects [<a href="https://www.hcfcd.org/Portals/62/Resilience/Bond-Program/Prioritization-Framework/final_prioritization-framework-report_20190827.pdf?ver=2019-09-19-092535-743" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Harris County Flood Control District</em></a>, 2019].</p><p>Unfortunately, many existing measures of disaster equity fall short. They may be unidimensional, using single indicators such as income in places where underlying vulnerability processes suggest that a multidimensional measure like racialized poverty (Figure 2) would be more valid. And criteria presumed to be objective and neutral for determining resource allocation, such as economic loss and cost-benefit ratios, prioritize asset value over social equity. For example, following the <a href="http://www.cedar-rapids.org/discover_cedar_rapids/flood_of_2008/2008_flood_facts.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2008 flooding</a> in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, cost-benefit criteria supported new flood protections for the city's central business district on the east side of the Cedar River but not for vulnerable populations and workforce housing on the west side.</p><p>Furthermore, many equity measures are aspatial or ahistorical, even though the roots of marginalization may lie in systemic and spatially explicit processes that originated long ago like redlining and urban renewal. More research is thus needed to understand which measures are most suitable for which social equity analyses.</p>Challenges for Disaster Equity Analysis
<p>Across studies that quantify, map, and analyze social vulnerability to natural hazards, modelers have faced recurrent measurement challenges, many of which also apply in measuring disaster equity (Table 1). The first is clearly establishing the purpose of an equity analysis by defining characteristics such as the end user and intended use, the type of hazard, and the disaster stage (i.e., mitigation, response, or recovery). Analyses using generalized indicators like the CDC Social Vulnerability Index may be appropriate for identifying broad areas of concern, whereas more detailed analyses are ideal for high-stakes decisions about budget allocations and project prioritization.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY4NDMyMy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTA2OTU2NX0.GKHtixn35Mwpubn_GE8KBYNs4P2npvnM_Y9bXC-ONoM/img.png?width=980" id="c2ef1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7d3650965f39a777c809cb3093c8bb76" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1308" data-height="860" /><p>Selecting the relevant modes of equity for analysis is crucial. Is the primary interest to quantify disparities in the distribution of hazard impacts or procedural disparities in accessing resources? Is the focus on individual populations or on combinations of population characteristics? As social inequities often accrue to low-income households, analysts should consider assessing economic losses in both absolute and proportional terms.</p><p>Creating valid measures of equity requires not only statistical expertise but also a fundamental understanding of the underlying processes of social marginalization. This facilitates selection of optimal proxy indicators and their geographic scales. However, practical considerations like data availability and cost can lead to indicator selection that diverges from conceptual bases. For example, for disaster assistance received by households, an equity analysis should ideally be conducted at the household scale. Unfortunately, data describing some dimensions of inequity, like race, are rarely collected by disaster agencies, necessitating analysis using census data at larger geographic scales.</p>
<p>The final major challenge is to develop statistically robust measures and best practices for assessing disaster equity that strengthen the foundation for policy interventions. Doing so may require expanding current approaches to include sensitivity analyses to assess how choices of parameters (e.g., input variables, geographic scale) in building social vulnerability indicators affect the statistical stability of resulting measures, and how these measures correlate with observed disaster impacts like dislocation, assistance eligibility, and recovery time.</p><p>The stakes for improving our understanding of relationships among hazards, vulnerability, and social equity are high, as climate disasters from flooding, drought, tropical cyclones, and wildfire have been increasing in their frequency and destruction. By definition, sustainable solutions that empower communities to resist, recover from, and adapt to these threats must be not only economically viable and environmentally sound but also socially equitable. Well-designed measures of disaster equity are an important tool for quantifying disaster disparities, which is the first step toward dismantling them.</p><p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://eos.org/science-updates/assessing-social-equity-in-disasters" target="_blank">Eos</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 gray wolf is seen howling outside in winter. Wolfgang Kaehler / Contributor / Getty Images
Wisconsin will end its controversial wolf hunt early after hunters and trappers killed almost 70 percent of the state's quota in the hunt's first 48 hours.
<p>By the end of Tuesday, the second day of the hunt, 82 wolves had been killed, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-wolves-animals-eau-claire-monroe-4319806de94ca754dcfc95e19b869694" target="_blank">The Associated Press reported</a>. As of Wednesday morning, 135 had been killed, exceeding the quota, according to the <a href="https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/hunt/wolf/index.html" target="_blank">Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)</a>.</p><p>"Wisconsin's actions offer a tragic glimpse of a future without federal wolf protections," the Wolf Conservation Center <a href="https://twitter.com/nywolforg/status/1364338681776070657" target="_blank">tweeted</a> in response.</p><p>President Donald Trump's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gray-wolves-endangered-trump-2649746799.html" target="_self">delisting</a> of gray wolves under the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species-act" target="_self">Endangered Species Act</a> triggered the hunt. The DNR originally set a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gray-wolf-wisconsin-hunt-2650553450.html" target="_self">quota of 200 wolves </a>to be killed between Feb. 22 and Feb. 28. Of the 200, 81 were allocated to the Ojibwe Tribes in accordance with treaty rights, the <a href="https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/article_d575dba3-6e63-54de-9927-e59c2ca5cfb9.html?fbclid=IwAR06BdtuJaJmVPgX4cSgM_H2jH0fHCFXsFi2kDzBssU6Tm7Kec1jybQwqTs" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wisconsin State Journal reported</a>. Hunters killed about half of the remaining 119 by Tuesday morning and 69 percent by Tuesday afternoon, The Associated Press reported. By Wednesday morning, hunters exceeded the quota by 16 wolves.</p><p>Hunters also exceeded the quota set for three of the state's hunting zones, according to DNR. They killed 33 of an 18-wolf quota in zone 2, located in the northeast; 24 of a 20-wolf quota in zone 3 located in the center; and 30 of a 17-wolf quota in southern zone 6. The hunt ended Wednesday at 10 a.m. CT in the most depleted zones and will end at 3 p.m. CT for the remaining half.</p>
<p>The hunt is the state's first since 2014, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. After wolves were returned to state management under Trump in January 2021, Wisconsin intended to plan a hunt for November 2021, arguing that it needed the time to study the population and consult with Native American tribes and the general public. However, pro-hunting group Hunter Nation sued the state to start the hunt earlier in the year, with a judge ruling in their favor. This past Friday, an appeals court dismissed the Wisconsin DNR's appeal, <a href="https://www.wpr.org/wolf-hunt-will-move-forward-after-panel-judges-dismisses-dnr-appeal" target="_blank">Wisconsin Public Radio reported</a>.</p><p>"The reckless slaughter of 135 wolves in just three days is appalling," said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Sound science was ignored here in favor of catering to trophy hunters who were all too eager to kill wolves even at the height of breeding season. It will take years for Wisconsin's wolf population to recover from the damage done this week. And without federal protections, this bloody spectacle could easily play out in other states."</p><p>The hunt killed about 12 percent of Wisconsin's wolves, which last numbered between 1,034 and 1,057 according to 2020 DNR <a href="https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATURDPtJG0H2bp-2FS2p7qmrdoE1k0lZGUnoapBLdZjmTJCK15VS_9DWd1IQpF0pa6moAa2K0USVLPw-2BdyUxYOf6Uxh7iNF2j-2F-2B0i4WsvfzVmvKM60HQTKBTl7-2FdSSDZkDf9HSA47QUmgHfQ3pfCbKBt6d7suISzSlDId36RWi2csLv7-2FEXhWWSkoFglobYU5KfJ7V3rYnRLAHtVsTP8O04pEbdY9PBs-2FAxY8iDOIk6FL2bAvqwldRziPkNjC-2BKVHe2TrnwXpAIlV04TbyPn9o7CtwxLPlvMAhJI3e9jhBOxTwgwhRoCaVts11Bai8tW99bXDuohXcTwxsWRJcrKOj5sA0Ou0d4lTdNEXHwRnqoYdIhdKAhslQX1vA6J-2Bi9MX9nfC-2BVBjgrRm0YUvz-2FtiGSLBiybmIHg-3D" target="_blank">data</a>.</p><p>Other <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="_self">conservation</a> groups also raised concerns about the rushed hunt. At the same time, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous" target="_self">Indigenous</a> communities criticized the lack of consultation. The state is required by law to consult with tribes on resources management.</p><p>"This hunt is not well-thought-out, well-planned, totally inadequate consultation with the tribes," Peter David, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission wildlife biologist, told Wisconsin Public Radio. "And maybe the biggest concern of all is that this season is not so much a hunting season as it is a killing season. No justification, really, was given for what was the legitimate purpose other than killing wolves."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Tom Vilsack speaks on December 11, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware after being nominated to be Agriculture Secretary by U.S. President Joe Biden. Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday was the lone progressive to vote against Tom Vilsack reprising his role as secretary of agriculture, citing concerns that progressive advocacy groups have been raising since even before President Joe Biden officially nominated the former Obama administration appointee.
<p>The Senate <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00063" target="_blank">voted</a> 92-7 to confirm Vilsack, with Sanders (I-Vt.) and six Republicans opposing his appointment. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) was the only member who did not vote.</p><p>In a statement on his decision, Sanders first said that "I have known Tom Vilsack for many years and look forward to working with him as our new secretary of agriculture."</p><p>"I opposed his confirmation today because at a time when corporate consolidation of agriculture is rampant and family farms are being decimated, we need a secretary who is prepared to vigorously take on corporate power in the industry," Sanders explained. "I heard from many family farmers in Vermont and around the country who feel that is not what Tom did when he last served in this job."</p><p><em>The Hill</em> <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/540137-sanders-votes-against-biden-usda-nominee-vilsack" target="_blank">reports</a> Sanders made similar remarks about Vilsack to journalists after the vote, saying that "I think he'll be fine, but not as strong as I would like."</p><p>The progressive group RootsAction praised Sanders on Twitter for taking a stand against Biden's pick to run the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).</p>
<div id="a420d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5369c498a5855fe2143b86fa07e23dff"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1364300806988652548" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🚨🚨🚨 Bernie Sanders voted against Tom Vilsack's nomination. It's great to see the Senator stick to his principles a… https://t.co/u4XNU4viNC</div> — RootsAction (@RootsAction)<a href="https://twitter.com/Roots_Action/statuses/1364300806988652548">1614109634.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout also welcomed Sanders' move.</p><p>"This is the correct vote. Vilsack failed farmers, farmworkers, the land, and the public, and Shirley Sherrod," Teachout <a href="https://twitter.com/ZephyrTeachout/status/1364313747284705284" target="_blank">tweeted</a>, referencing the former Georgia state director of rural development at USDA who was ousted under Vilsack.</p><p>Sherrod, who is Black, recently <a href="https://19thnews.org/2020/12/shirley-sherrod-holds-no-ill-will-against-usda-nominee-who-ousted-her/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told</a> <em>The 19th</em> that "I have no ill will towards him, none at all," but added that if Vilsack returned as USDA chief, "he should be ready to get on the ground to make real change this time around. And we need to hold him to it. Black people need to see some real change."</p><p>As <em>Common Dreams</em> previously <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/08/sustainable-farming-advocates-warn-biden-vilsack-very-bad-pick-ag-secretary" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, Vilsack has faced criticism for the USDA's treatment of Black farmers when he headed the department during the Obama administration—among other critiques.</p>
<p>Center for Food Safety policy director Jaydee Hanson <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/08/sustainable-farming-advocates-warn-biden-vilsack-very-bad-pick-ag-secretary" target="_blank">said</a> in December that Biden's potential selection of Vilsack was "a huge step backwards in our urgent need to support agricultural systems that protect public health, the environment, and mitigate the ongoing climate crisis."</p><p>Early Tuesday, in anticipation of Vilsack's bipartisan confirmation, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter—whose group <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/08/sustainable-farming-advocates-warn-biden-vilsack-very-bad-pick-ag-secretary" target="_blank">has been raising alarm</a> about him for months now—<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2021/02/23/vilsacks-confirmation-usda-warning-sign-family-farmers-and-food-worker-safety" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">issued</a> a warning about what to expect going forward.</p><p>"We can confidently predict what Tom Vilsack's leadership of the Agriculture Department will look like, because he's led it before. And the prediction is grim," she said. "In his previous stint at USDA, Vilsack backed mass corporate consolidation of our food system at the expense of struggling family farmers. Similarly, he readily advanced industry-driven initiatives allowing companies to inspect their own poultry processing plants, dismantling federal oversight of food and worker safety."</p><p>"This administration needs to drastically shift course from the Trump era by supporting sustainable, independent farming, halting the toxic expansion of polluting factory farms, and ultimately, prioritizing consumer health and worker safety," Hauter added. "We have little hope that Tom Vilsack cares to undertake this effort, so we will be pressuring him doggedly to see the light."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/02/23/citing-concerns-about-corporate-power-bernie-sanders-votes-against-bidens-choice" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less