Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

www.facebook.com

The recent documentary, Sea of Life, exposes key threats to the oceans, and calls for action.

Sea of Life follows filmmaker Julia Barnes on a three year adventure, spanning seven countries, to save coral reefs.

Although they cover less than 1 percent of the sea floor coral reefs support up to 30 percent of all species in the ocean at some stage in their life cycles. Often referred to as the rainforests of the ocean, coral reefs are one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet. They're also an indicator for the future of the oceans and all life on Earth.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Heads of state cheer after the Paris climate change agreement was signed at COP21 in 2015 by 197 parties. Wikipedia

The world is worried as Decision Day nears.

Read More Show Less

Donald Trump finally opened his mouth about dams and hydropower last week. The result is as bad as you can imagine.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch

G20 meeting.

By Nadia Prupis

Finance ministers for the Group of 20 (G20), which comprises the world's biggest economies, dropped a joint statement mentioning funding for the fight against climate change after pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

A G20 official taking part in the annual meeting told Reuters that efforts by this year's German leadership to keep climate funding in the statement had hit a wall.

"Climate change is out for the time being," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous.

French Finance Minister Michel Sapin stressed that the move did not mark the end of the road for the statement. The G20 is scheduled to meet in full in July in Hamburg.

"There can be a way to overcome disagreements today—that is, not writing about it in the communique," Sapin told reporters on Friday. "But not writing about it doesn't mean not talking about it. Not writing about it means that there are difficulties, that there is a disagreement and that we we must work on them in the coming months."

The statement does mention the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but overall the language appears weaker than previous communiques, critics said.

Bloomberg reported:

The 23-page draft, obtained by Bloomberg News, outlines how the most prosperous nations can lead by example, cutting their own greenhouse-gas emissions, financing efforts to curb pollution in poorer countries and take other steps to support the landmark Paris climate accord.

"The link between global warming and the organization of financial markets and even the organization of the global economy" is particularly important for France, Sapin said in Baden-Baden. "We'll see whether there'll be agreement with the U.S. administration, but there can be no going back on this for the G-20."

At the last G20 meeting in July 2016, the group's financial leaders urged all countries that had signed onto the landmark Paris climate accord to bring the deal into action as soon as possible. But President Trump, who has referred to global warming as a "Chinese hoax," took office vowing to remove the U.S. from the voluntary agreement.

On Thursday, a day before the finance meeting, the Trump administration unveiled its "skinny budget" proposal, which included a 31 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

As Friends of the Earth senior political strategist Ben Schreiber said at the time, "With this budget, Trump has made it clear that he is prioritizing Big Oil profits over the health of the American people."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

Trending

It's an honor to address this group of distinguished faculty, proud parents, supportive family members and friends.

We're gathered here in this idyllic location to celebrate the accomplishments of these young adults as they successfully complete one great challenge and prepare for others to come.

So please join me in congratulating Green Mountain College's (GMC) Class of 2017.

Read More Show Less
ABC News Video

By Kevin Kalhoefer & Lisa Hymas

President Donald Trump has decided to exit the Paris climate agreement, according to Axios. The news site also reported that the Scott Pruitt-led U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been "quietly working" with opponents of the agreement to help them place op-eds in newspapers. Media Matters identified a number of anti-Paris agreement op-eds that have been published in papers around the U.S. in recent weeks, spreading misinformation about the expected economic impacts of the agreement, the commitment of developing countries to cutting emissions and climate science in general.

Read More Show Less

By Lauren McCauley

Underscoring the dangers of U.S. President Trump's broad attacks on air and water regulations, a pair of reports published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Monday revealed that one in four young children die each year as a result of unhealthy environments.

"A polluted environment is a deadly one—particularly for young children," said WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan in a press statement on Monday. "Their developing organs and immune systems and smaller bodies and airways, make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water."

Beginning in utero, children are exposed to harmful environmental risks. According to the studies, roughly 1.7 million children under the age of 5 die each year from factors that could have been prevented through addressing environmental risks, which WHO called "a shocking missed opportunity."

The first study, Inheriting a Sustainable World: Atlas on Children's Health and the Environment, provides a detailed update on a similar 2004 study, now incorporating some of the latest factors that affect children's health, including "increasing urbanization, industrialization, globalization and climate change."

A companion report delves into the details of environment-related death statistics. Among the known threats that kill hundreds of thousands of children each year, the studies found:

  • 570,000 children under 5 years die from respiratory infections, such as pneumonia, attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution and second-hand smoke.
  • 361,000 children under 5 years die due to diarrhea, as a result of poor access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene.
  • 270,000 children die during their first month of life from conditions, including prematurity, which could be prevented through access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene in health facilities as well as reducing air pollution.
  • 200,000 deaths of children under 5 years from malaria could be prevented through environmental actions, such as reducing breeding sites of mosquitoes or covering drinking-water storage.

Less is known about the impact of emerging environmental hazards, which include exposure to chemicals, electronic waste and climate change.

WHO notes that the toxicity of many chemicals "is not well understood," nor adequately assessed by regulators. "Chemicals from pesticides, plastics and other manufactured goods, as well as from environmental contamination, eventually find their way into the food chain," the health atlas notes. "These include arsenic, fluoride, lead, mercury, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants, among others."

The report also warns that climate change is "one of the greatest new threats to children's environmental health," with higher levels of atmospheric carbon increasing rates of asthma and warming temperatures extending the range of infectious diseases. Further, WHO observes that on a hotter planet "[d]isruption to fresh water supplies and food crop harvests will exacerbate malnutrition and stunting," while "[m]ore frequent heat waves will put children at risk of heat stress, renal disease and respiratory illness."

Global efforts to stymie climate change are currently under threat due to President Trump's repeated promise to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Further, these shocking statistics come amid a concerted regulatory rollback in the U.S. on the part of the Trump administration, which is poised to gut regulations on vehicle emissions and has already undercut a rule that protects drinking water, another that required fossil fuel companies to report how much toxic methane they release into the environment and yet another that prevented mining companies from dumping coal waste into waterways.

And that's not all. The president has vowed to "cut regulations by 75 percent, maybe more," which many have warned will have a massive toll on the nation's public health.

"A polluted environment," Dr. Maria Neira, director at WHO's Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, said Monday, "results in a heavy toll on the health of our children."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

By Nika Knight

A new report shows that many previous estimates of global sea level rise by 2100 were far too conservative, the Washington Post reported Thursday, and the research comes as new maps and graphics from Climate Central vividly show how disastrous that flooding will be for U.S. cities.

Read More Show Less

Trending

By Nika Knight

Our window of time to act on climate may be shrinking even faster than previously thought.

We may only have one year remaining before we lock in 1.5 C of warming—the ideal goal outlined in the Paris climate agreement—after which we'll see catastrophic and irreversible climate shifts, many experts have warned.

That's according to the ticking carbon budget clock created by the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). The clock's countdown now shows that only one year is left in the world's carbon budget before the planet heats up more than 1.5 C over pre-industrial temperatures.

That's under the most pessimistic calculations. According to the most optimistic prediction, we have four years to kick our carbon habit and avert 1.5 C of warming.

And to limit warming to 2 C—the limit agreed upon in the Paris climate accord—we have nine years to act under the most pessimistic scenario, and 23 years to act under the most optimistic.

"So far, there is no track record for reducing emissions globally," explained Fabian Löhe, spokesperson for MCC, in an email to Common Dreams. "Instead, greenhouse gas emissions have been rising at a faster pace during the last decade than previously—despite growing awareness and political action across the globe. Once we have exhausted the carbon budget, every ton of CO2 that is released by cars, buildings or industrial plants would need to be compensated for during the 21st century by removing the CO2 from the atmosphere again. Generating such 'negative emissions' is even more challenging and we do not know today at which scale we might be able to do that."

(Climate activists and environmentalists have also long warned of the potential negative consequences of geoengineering and other carbon capture schemes, as Common Dreams has reported).

"Hence, the clock shows that time is running out: it is not enough to act sometime in the future, but it is necessary to implement more ambitious climate policies already in the very short-term," Löhe added.

"Take all of the most difficult features of individual pathways to 2 C—like fast and ambitious climate action in all countries of the world, the full availability of all required emissions reduction and carbon removal technologies, as well as aggressive energy demand reductions across the globe—the feasibility of which were so heatedly debated prior to Paris," Löhe said. "This gives you an idea of the challenge associated with the more ambitious 1.5 C goal."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

For those who missed out on the action, or just want to relive it, Pathway to Paris released Wednesday an album of its two-night event last December in Paris, which coincided with the UN's climate change conference, COP21.

Pathway to Paris, an initiative in partnership with 350.org, brings musicians, artists, activists, academics, politicians and innovators together to participate in live concerts to raise consciousness, foster dialogue and inspire climate action and the need to transition to renewable energy. Co-founders Jesse Paris Smith and Rebecca Foon organized the Dec. 4 and 5 events at Le Trianon concert hall in Paris.

The evening included performances by renowned artists and speeches by prominent environmentalists. The Path to Paris Live @ Le Trianon album includes:

  • Wing by Patti Smith
  • Bloom by Thom Yorke
  • Elemental Prayer by Tenzin Choegyal
  • White Nile by Flea and Warren Ellis
  • Service by Fally Ipupa
  • Nature by Patti Smith, Jesse Paris Smith and Rebecca Foon
  • Heartstrings by Tenzin Choegyal
  • Peaceable Kingdom by Patti Smith
  • Two Suits by Flea and Warren Ellis
  • Sweet Life by Fally Ipupa
  • People have the Power by Patti Smith
Speakers on the album include:

All proceeds from the the album will benefit 350.org and the United Nations Development Programme. Pathway to Paris @ Le Trainon can be purchased online for $9.99.

For a taste of the album's content, watch the following two videos that recap both nights of performances:

Dec. 4, 2015:

Dec. 5, 2015:

Trending

By Simon Evans

What does the UK's shock vote to leave the European Union mean for energy and climate change?

Speaking simultaneously on Wednesday morning at separate events in London, Amber Rudd, secretary of state for energy and climate change and Andrea Leadsom, energy minister, both sought to offer reassurances that UK energy and climate commitments would continue.

What does the UK's shock vote to leave the European Union mean for energy and climate change? Abdullah Bin Sahl / Flickr

Rudd said, in unscripted comments added to her planned speech:

"We made a clear commitment to acting on climate change in our manifesto last year. That will continue."

She confirmed commitments to the UK Climate Change Act, a phaseout of unabated coal, thecapacity market to secure electricity supplies and support for offshore wind and new nuclear. Leadsom also said the referendum would not affect climate and energy policy.

However, Rudd conceded that the referendum result had made the path to climate action harder, raising a host of questions. Adding to the air of uncertainty, there is now the prospect of a new Conservative prime minister being in place by September, as well as the possibility of a snap general election.

Carbon Brief has assembled a lengthy and probably incomplete, list of post-referendum questions for climate and energy policy.

Questions Remain

In the days following the referendum, a range of questions and possible answers have already been offered on the climate and energy implications of the vote.

Policy Exchange looks at impacts across environment policy. Business Green has 12 unanswered questions for the green economy, Climate Home has six questions for UK and EU climate ambition and another three questions on whether Brexit means a climate policy "bonfire." Meanwhile, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has five energy and climate predictions.

Elsewhere, consultancy Aurora Energy Research, the Economist Intelligence Unit and Nick Butler for the Financial Times look at what it means for energy and climate, with a focus on markets.

The expected approval this week of the UK's fifth carbon budget for 2028-2032 would provide a key reference point for future policy. Still, uncertainty is sure to continue for months, if not years.

Here are some of the many unanswered questions.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change:

  • Will the UK ratify it while still an EU member state, allowing the EU to ratify it, too?
  • If the UK and EU delay ratification, (when) will the agreement enter force?
  • Will the UK be able to retain a strong voice in international climate talks, outside of Europe?
  • Or will the spending be pared back as part of a move to end the UK commitment to spend 0.7 percent of national income on international aid?

UK Policy:

  • Is the cross-party commitment to UK climate ambition assured, as Rudd claimed this week?
  • Will the next prime minister believe in continued climate action?
  • Are doubts over the climate views of leading contender, Boris Johnson, unfounded?
  • What are the views of other contenders, such as home secretary Theresa May or work and pensions secretary Stephen Crabb?
  • How long will Rudd remain secretary of state for energy and climate change and Leadsom as energy minister, with both tipped for promotion if their side won the referendum?
  • Who will replace them if they are moved on?
  • Will the Department of Energy and Climate Change continue to exist under a new government?

UK Climate Change Act:

  • The indications are that the government will put legislation on the fifth carbon budget before parliament on June 30, but Carbon Brief understands that parliamentary process means it may not pass into law before the end-of-June legal deadline. Will that legislation be in line with the advice of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to cut emissions by 57 percent by 2032, against 1990 levels?
  • Will carbon accounting rules be amended, as per CCC advice, so that all UK emissions are counted towards carbon budget compliance?
  • Will the government still publish a UK carbon plan by the end of 2016, on how the whole economy can decarbonize in line with the fourth and fifth carbon budgets for 2023-2032?
  • If this plan is delayed or abandoned, how long can stasis continue without jeopardizing UK carbon targets?
  • Would a delay or abandonment be subject to legal challenge, given the Act requires a planto be presented "as soon as is reasonably practicable" after the carbon budget is set?
  • Does the act itself retain the overwhelming support of parliament, given all but six MPs approved it in 2008?
  • Does it count for anything that Andrea Leadsom—Leave supporter, energy minister and potential Conservative leadership candidate—has said both before and after the referendum (see above) that the UK's climate commitment would be secure after Brexit?

Energy Bills:

  • What price premium on loans will be demanded by investors in UK energy infrastructure to cover the costs of political uncertainty? Rudd was unable to offer a direct answer to this "depressing" question from Carbon Brief.
  • How much will this add to the costs of building new electricity generating capacity?
  • Will any impacts vary by technology type, potentially favoring lower- or higher-carbon sources of power?
  • How quickly will exchange-rate driven increases filter through to pump prices and energy bills, via the fuel used to heat homes and generate electricity?
  • Is it realistic to expect any new government to mitigate this impact through a promised end to the 5 percent rate of VAT on energy, given the £2bn a year it brings the exchequer?
  • How will steel and other energy-intensive industries cope with the expectation of higher energy prices?
  • For instance, will the hoped-for Tata Steel rescue still go ahead?
  • Will the government's Levy Control Framework, designed to limit the impact of low-carbon support on energy bills, remain in place?
  • Could a new government seek to scrap the UK carbon price floor as a means to reduce energy bills for homes, businesses and industry, even though it brings in more than £1.5bn a year for the Treasury?
  • How would this be squared with consequential increases in the level of required support for low-carbon sources of power?
  • Will rising UK wholesale electricity prices attract investment in new generating capacity or will the rising cost of imported fuel outweigh any benefit?
  • Could a post-Brexit cut in tariffs on Chinese solar module imports offset the impact of a falling pound?
  • Will windfarms get more expensive in the UK, as sterling's fall pushes up the price of imported steel or turbine parts?

UK Energy Markets:

  • Will Brexit lead to weaker economic growth and reduced energy use, as expected?
  • Will this ease pressure on electricity supplies and reduce UK emissions?
  • How will the new administration approach fuel duty, which has been repeatedly frozen by current Chancellor George Osborne?
  • Is there still a business case for new interconnectors if the UK leaves the EU internal energy market and how will that case be affected by currency swings and changes in carbon pricing in the UK, France or other countries?
  • How will energy firms operating in the UK and elsewhere fare if the value of sterling remains depressed, affecting relative earnings denominated in pounds, euros and dollars?
  • Will the City of London still remain a leading lender to oil and coal projects around the world, as well as a center for carbon trading?
  • Rudd has this week reiterated plans to phase out unabated coal, but when will the consultation on how to achieve this be published and what policy levers will it propose?
  • Could the fall in the pound revive the UK coal-mining industry, which is currently embroiled in contentious efforts to expand despite the UK's coal phaseout plans?
  • Will the new government heed climate-sceptic calls to back out of the EU Industrial Emissions Directive, blamed for the closure of aging coal-fired power stations?
  • Will the government invoke provisions of the 2013 Energy Act, allowing it to set a 2030 decarbonization target for the power sector, once it has set the fifth carbon budget?
  • How will support for shale gas exploration be affected by changes in government personnel?
  • How will the nascent fracking industry fare with a weaker economy and pound?
  • When will the government publish the CCC's report on fracking and UK carbon budgets?
  • Will North Sea industry benefit from currency movements as costs become relatively cheaper or will restrictions on freedom of labor movement pose greater challenges?

Low-Carbon Energy:

  • Will the UK now abandon efforts to meet its EU 2020 renewable energy targets, which it has in any case been widely expected to miss?
  • Could the UK still be fined by the European Court of Justice if Brexit is slow and the UK is still a member of the EU when the target bites in 2020?
  • Is there cross-government backing for new renewable heat and transport subsidies?
  • When will the government set out the details and budget of the next auction for low-carbon electricity subsidies, supposedly due to take place later this year?
  • Will this year's Autumn Statement set out post-2020 arrangements for low-carbon support under the Levy Control Framework, as suggested this week by Leadsom?
  • Will there be support for low-carbon technologies other than offshore wind, which has received the clearest government backing but is more costly than solar and onshore wind?
  • Rudd has given post-referendum assurances to French firm EDF over the Hinkley C new nuclear plant, but can the scheme hope to retain the high-level political support it has enjoyed from David Cameron, George Osborne and the French government?
  • Does Brexit render Austria's legal challenge to the Hinkley C scheme irrelevant?
  • Would a UK exit from the EU free the UK's hand to subsidize further new nuclear reactors without the need to seek state aid approval from the European Commission?
  • Will the new government be as keen on small modular nuclear reactors as the current one?
  • After Siemens' decision to freeze its UK wind power plans and with UK access to the EU's single market in doubt, can the UK attract new renewable manufacturing investments?
  • What will a weaker pound mean for the cost of burning imported biomass at power stations including Drax, formerly the UK's largest coal plant?
  • Does the prospect of Brexit mean the UK can award further biomass subsidies to Drax, before the ongoing EU state aid investigation into the planned support has concluded?
  • When will the government publish follow-up research it commissioned on the climate impacts of burning wood, mostly imported from north America, to generate electricity?
  • Could a new administration reverse the current government's skepticism over financial support for carbon capture and storage or tidal energy?

EU Policy:

  • How will Brexit affect the balance of power between EU member states on the European Council, given the UK has been part of a progressive alliance on climate and energy?
  • Could Brexit strengthen Germany's hand, with its backing for more interventionist and target-led approaches such as binding energy efficiency and renewable energy targets?
  • Or will Brexit give eastern European countries more leverage as they attempt to limit EU climate ambition?
  • Will the UK relinquish its EU presidency, scheduled for the second half of 2017?
  • Will the EU continue to negotiate its effort-sharing decision on member state climate targets for 2030, despite the prospect of Brexit?
  • If the EU's 2030 target is recast with no UK participation, will it keep its headline goal of a 40 percent emissions reduction on 1990 levels or will it choose a new goal for 2030 emissions, either by simply removing the UK contribution or formally renegotiating country shares?
  • Will the UK remain part of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)? (Non-EU members including Norway are part of the scheme).
  • Are currently-proposed EU ETS reforms still considered sufficient to cope with market shocks, such as that experienced in the wake of the UK vote?
  • Does the fall in EU ETS prices of more than 20 percent in a week suggest further reform, perhaps an EU-wide floor price, is necessary to maintain decarbonization momentum?
  • Who will lead the reform process now that British MEP Iain Duncan has resigned from the role of European Parliament rapporteur?
  • Will the UK remain part of the EU Energy Union, with its plans for closer coupling between European energy markets?
  • Would current or future energy infrastructure investments, including electricityinterconnectors to the continent, automatically lose EU funding after Brexit? (The EU isinvesting more than €2bn in UK energy projects, more than any other member state).
  • Will the UK remain subject to EU product standards, including on the energy efficiency of vehicles and household goods?

Scotland and Northern Ireland:

  • If Brexit triggers a successful Scottish independence referendum, what would become of UK climate policy and how would UK climate targets be divided? (Scotland already has its own climate goals, but the rest of the UK does not).
  • Would consumers in the rest of the UK be willing to continue paying for a planned expansion of renewable energy in Scotland?
  • Could the rest of the UK meet its climate targets without Scottish renewables?
  • Would Scotland be willing to shoulder the cost of North Sea oil and gas decommissioning, which being funded via tax breaks on the industry?
  • Are moves to unite Northern Ireland with the Irish republic likely to gain any traction and what would that mean for UK, Irish and EU climate pledges?

Other Issues:

  • What are the prospects for a third runway at Heathrow, given the committed opposition of Boris Johnson, a leading candidate to become prime minister?
  • Does Brexit ease its path, given the UK's long-running breach of EU air pollution rules has been seen as a barrier to approval or will its demise enable the UK to meet suggested targets for aviation emissions more easily?
  • How will the UK respond to this week's ruling that it breached EU air pollution rules in relation to the coal plant at Aberthaw in south Wales?
  • Will the National Infrastructure Commission, seen as a personal project of current Chancellor George Osborne, still be able to carve out the significant policy role it had been poised to secure?
  • Will a new government reverse the decision to scrap rules for zero carbon homes?
  • How will it approach planning law, in particular the major pieces of UK environmental legislation that originate in EU law?
  • If these EU planning rules are scrapped, will it become easier to build new energy infrastructure including wind farms, fracking sites or marine renewables?
  • Will a new government continue to respect EU law during any transitional period, as called for by some lawyers?

Update 6/29/16—The question on the fifth carbon budget was amended. It previously said, in line with earlier press reports, that the fifth carbon budget would pass in to law on June 30, meeting the legal deadline. However, Carbon Brief now understands that the parliamentary process will not be completed on June 30.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Free Trade, DNC Platform and the Climate Crisis

Glyphosate Given Last-Minute Approval Despite Failure to Secure Majority Support

Kochs Dump Trump to Fund Climate-Denying Senators in Ohio and Nevada

Germany Bans Fracking But Does It Go Far Enough?

A day before officially declaring Donald Trump as the Republican Party's presidential nominee, the party released its 2016 platform that promises sweeping changes to climate and environmental policies.

The platform calls for pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement, ending all renewable energy incentives and demoting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—set up by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970—to a commission.

"If this extremist platform were ever actually implemented, it would imperil clean air and clean water for all Americans," Sierra Club Political Director Khalid Pitts said. "Donald Trump has vowed to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, and now the Republican Party has codified a radical and dangerous path to enable Trump and his anti-environmental ideology.

"This double-dealing platform both praises NASA while simultaneously rejecting the scientific consensus on the climate crisis, which NASA has affirmed time and time again. The Republican platform has gone beyond partisan politics and extended into cartoonish absurdity. Any voter who cares about our climate has to help make sure that Donald Trump never becomes president, and that this platform never gets near a piece of legislation."

Calling climate change "not proven science," the Republican platform promises to cancel the Clean Power Plan, oppose "any carbon tax" and prioritize fossil fuels. Free-market group Partnership for Responsible Growth has launched efforts to get the Republican Party to accept climate science and climate action efforts, including an ad running on Fox News where President H.W. Bush, among other GOP leaders, said "We cannot allow a question such as climate change to be characterized as a debate."

For a deeper dive:

News: Guardian, ClimateWire, Grist, Deutsche Welle, Greenwire, E&E News

Commentary: New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait column; Washington Post, Steven Mufson column; The Hill, John D. Graham op-ed

For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter andFacebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.

Yes, Houston, we have a problem: Our oceans are dying.

As the brilliant futurist Buckminster Fuller used to point out, our Spaceship Earth is hurtling through space at a great speed.

Read More Show Less
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

www.facebook.com

The recent documentary, Sea of Life, exposes key threats to the oceans, and calls for action.

Sea of Life follows filmmaker Julia Barnes on a three year adventure, spanning seven countries, to save coral reefs.

Although they cover less than 1 percent of the sea floor coral reefs support up to 30 percent of all species in the ocean at some stage in their life cycles. Often referred to as the rainforests of the ocean, coral reefs are one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet. They're also an indicator for the future of the oceans and all life on Earth.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Heads of state cheer after the Paris climate change agreement was signed at COP21 in 2015 by 197 parties. Wikipedia

The world is worried as Decision Day nears.

Read More Show Less

Donald Trump finally opened his mouth about dams and hydropower last week. The result is as bad as you can imagine.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch

G20 meeting.

By Nadia Prupis

Finance ministers for the Group of 20 (G20), which comprises the world's biggest economies, dropped a joint statement mentioning funding for the fight against climate change after pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

A G20 official taking part in the annual meeting told Reuters that efforts by this year's German leadership to keep climate funding in the statement had hit a wall.

"Climate change is out for the time being," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous.

French Finance Minister Michel Sapin stressed that the move did not mark the end of the road for the statement. The G20 is scheduled to meet in full in July in Hamburg.

"There can be a way to overcome disagreements today—that is, not writing about it in the communique," Sapin told reporters on Friday. "But not writing about it doesn't mean not talking about it. Not writing about it means that there are difficulties, that there is a disagreement and that we we must work on them in the coming months."

The statement does mention the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but overall the language appears weaker than previous communiques, critics said.

Bloomberg reported:

The 23-page draft, obtained by Bloomberg News, outlines how the most prosperous nations can lead by example, cutting their own greenhouse-gas emissions, financing efforts to curb pollution in poorer countries and take other steps to support the landmark Paris climate accord.

"The link between global warming and the organization of financial markets and even the organization of the global economy" is particularly important for France, Sapin said in Baden-Baden. "We'll see whether there'll be agreement with the U.S. administration, but there can be no going back on this for the G-20."

At the last G20 meeting in July 2016, the group's financial leaders urged all countries that had signed onto the landmark Paris climate accord to bring the deal into action as soon as possible. But President Trump, who has referred to global warming as a "Chinese hoax," took office vowing to remove the U.S. from the voluntary agreement.

On Thursday, a day before the finance meeting, the Trump administration unveiled its "skinny budget" proposal, which included a 31 percent cut to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

As Friends of the Earth senior political strategist Ben Schreiber said at the time, "With this budget, Trump has made it clear that he is prioritizing Big Oil profits over the health of the American people."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

Trending

It's an honor to address this group of distinguished faculty, proud parents, supportive family members and friends.

We're gathered here in this idyllic location to celebrate the accomplishments of these young adults as they successfully complete one great challenge and prepare for others to come.

So please join me in congratulating Green Mountain College's (GMC) Class of 2017.

Read More Show Less
ABC News Video

By Kevin Kalhoefer & Lisa Hymas

President Donald Trump has decided to exit the Paris climate agreement, according to Axios. The news site also reported that the Scott Pruitt-led U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been "quietly working" with opponents of the agreement to help them place op-eds in newspapers. Media Matters identified a number of anti-Paris agreement op-eds that have been published in papers around the U.S. in recent weeks, spreading misinformation about the expected economic impacts of the agreement, the commitment of developing countries to cutting emissions and climate science in general.

Read More Show Less

By Lauren McCauley

Underscoring the dangers of U.S. President Trump's broad attacks on air and water regulations, a pair of reports published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Monday revealed that one in four young children die each year as a result of unhealthy environments.

"A polluted environment is a deadly one—particularly for young children," said WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan in a press statement on Monday. "Their developing organs and immune systems and smaller bodies and airways, make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water."

Beginning in utero, children are exposed to harmful environmental risks. According to the studies, roughly 1.7 million children under the age of 5 die each year from factors that could have been prevented through addressing environmental risks, which WHO called "a shocking missed opportunity."

The first study, Inheriting a Sustainable World: Atlas on Children's Health and the Environment, provides a detailed update on a similar 2004 study, now incorporating some of the latest factors that affect children's health, including "increasing urbanization, industrialization, globalization and climate change."

A companion report delves into the details of environment-related death statistics. Among the known threats that kill hundreds of thousands of children each year, the studies found:

  • 570,000 children under 5 years die from respiratory infections, such as pneumonia, attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution and second-hand smoke.
  • 361,000 children under 5 years die due to diarrhea, as a result of poor access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene.
  • 270,000 children die during their first month of life from conditions, including prematurity, which could be prevented through access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene in health facilities as well as reducing air pollution.
  • 200,000 deaths of children under 5 years from malaria could be prevented through environmental actions, such as reducing breeding sites of mosquitoes or covering drinking-water storage.

Less is known about the impact of emerging environmental hazards, which include exposure to chemicals, electronic waste and climate change.

WHO notes that the toxicity of many chemicals "is not well understood," nor adequately assessed by regulators. "Chemicals from pesticides, plastics and other manufactured goods, as well as from environmental contamination, eventually find their way into the food chain," the health atlas notes. "These include arsenic, fluoride, lead, mercury, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants, among others."

The report also warns that climate change is "one of the greatest new threats to children's environmental health," with higher levels of atmospheric carbon increasing rates of asthma and warming temperatures extending the range of infectious diseases. Further, WHO observes that on a hotter planet "[d]isruption to fresh water supplies and food crop harvests will exacerbate malnutrition and stunting," while "[m]ore frequent heat waves will put children at risk of heat stress, renal disease and respiratory illness."

Global efforts to stymie climate change are currently under threat due to President Trump's repeated promise to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Further, these shocking statistics come amid a concerted regulatory rollback in the U.S. on the part of the Trump administration, which is poised to gut regulations on vehicle emissions and has already undercut a rule that protects drinking water, another that required fossil fuel companies to report how much toxic methane they release into the environment and yet another that prevented mining companies from dumping coal waste into waterways.

And that's not all. The president has vowed to "cut regulations by 75 percent, maybe more," which many have warned will have a massive toll on the nation's public health.

"A polluted environment," Dr. Maria Neira, director at WHO's Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, said Monday, "results in a heavy toll on the health of our children."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

By Nika Knight

A new report shows that many previous estimates of global sea level rise by 2100 were far too conservative, the Washington Post reported Thursday, and the research comes as new maps and graphics from Climate Central vividly show how disastrous that flooding will be for U.S. cities.

Read More Show Less

Trending

By Nika Knight

Our window of time to act on climate may be shrinking even faster than previously thought.

We may only have one year remaining before we lock in 1.5 C of warming—the ideal goal outlined in the Paris climate agreement—after which we'll see catastrophic and irreversible climate shifts, many experts have warned.

That's according to the ticking carbon budget clock created by the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). The clock's countdown now shows that only one year is left in the world's carbon budget before the planet heats up more than 1.5 C over pre-industrial temperatures.

That's under the most pessimistic calculations. According to the most optimistic prediction, we have four years to kick our carbon habit and avert 1.5 C of warming.

And to limit warming to 2 C—the limit agreed upon in the Paris climate accord—we have nine years to act under the most pessimistic scenario, and 23 years to act under the most optimistic.

"So far, there is no track record for reducing emissions globally," explained Fabian Löhe, spokesperson for MCC, in an email to Common Dreams. "Instead, greenhouse gas emissions have been rising at a faster pace during the last decade than previously—despite growing awareness and political action across the globe. Once we have exhausted the carbon budget, every ton of CO2 that is released by cars, buildings or industrial plants would need to be compensated for during the 21st century by removing the CO2 from the atmosphere again. Generating such 'negative emissions' is even more challenging and we do not know today at which scale we might be able to do that."

(Climate activists and environmentalists have also long warned of the potential negative consequences of geoengineering and other carbon capture schemes, as Common Dreams has reported).

"Hence, the clock shows that time is running out: it is not enough to act sometime in the future, but it is necessary to implement more ambitious climate policies already in the very short-term," Löhe added.

"Take all of the most difficult features of individual pathways to 2 C—like fast and ambitious climate action in all countries of the world, the full availability of all required emissions reduction and carbon removal technologies, as well as aggressive energy demand reductions across the globe—the feasibility of which were so heatedly debated prior to Paris," Löhe said. "This gives you an idea of the challenge associated with the more ambitious 1.5 C goal."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

For those who missed out on the action, or just want to relive it, Pathway to Paris released Wednesday an album of its two-night event last December in Paris, which coincided with the UN's climate change conference, COP21.

Pathway to Paris, an initiative in partnership with 350.org, brings musicians, artists, activists, academics, politicians and innovators together to participate in live concerts to raise consciousness, foster dialogue and inspire climate action and the need to transition to renewable energy. Co-founders Jesse Paris Smith and Rebecca Foon organized the Dec. 4 and 5 events at Le Trianon concert hall in Paris.

The evening included performances by renowned artists and speeches by prominent environmentalists. The Path to Paris Live @ Le Trianon album includes:

  • Wing by Patti Smith
  • Bloom by Thom Yorke
  • Elemental Prayer by Tenzin Choegyal
  • White Nile by Flea and Warren Ellis
  • Service by Fally Ipupa
  • Nature by Patti Smith, Jesse Paris Smith and Rebecca Foon
  • Heartstrings by Tenzin Choegyal
  • Peaceable Kingdom by Patti Smith
  • Two Suits by Flea and Warren Ellis
  • Sweet Life by Fally Ipupa
  • People have the Power by Patti Smith
Speakers on the album include:

All proceeds from the the album will benefit 350.org and the United Nations Development Programme. Pathway to Paris @ Le Trainon can be purchased online for $9.99.

For a taste of the album's content, watch the following two videos that recap both nights of performances:

Dec. 4, 2015:

Dec. 5, 2015:

Trending

By Simon Evans

What does the UK's shock vote to leave the European Union mean for energy and climate change?

Speaking simultaneously on Wednesday morning at separate events in London, Amber Rudd, secretary of state for energy and climate change and Andrea Leadsom, energy minister, both sought to offer reassurances that UK energy and climate commitments would continue.

What does the UK's shock vote to leave the European Union mean for energy and climate change? Abdullah Bin Sahl / Flickr

Rudd said, in unscripted comments added to her planned speech:

"We made a clear commitment to acting on climate change in our manifesto last year. That will continue."

She confirmed commitments to the UK Climate Change Act, a phaseout of unabated coal, thecapacity market to secure electricity supplies and support for offshore wind and new nuclear. Leadsom also said the referendum would not affect climate and energy policy.

However, Rudd conceded that the referendum result had made the path to climate action harder, raising a host of questions. Adding to the air of uncertainty, there is now the prospect of a new Conservative prime minister being in place by September, as well as the possibility of a snap general election.

Carbon Brief has assembled a lengthy and probably incomplete, list of post-referendum questions for climate and energy policy.

Questions Remain

In the days following the referendum, a range of questions and possible answers have already been offered on the climate and energy implications of the vote.

Policy Exchange looks at impacts across environment policy. Business Green has 12 unanswered questions for the green economy, Climate Home has six questions for UK and EU climate ambition and another three questions on whether Brexit means a climate policy "bonfire." Meanwhile, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has five energy and climate predictions.

Elsewhere, consultancy Aurora Energy Research, the Economist Intelligence Unit and Nick Butler for the Financial Times look at what it means for energy and climate, with a focus on markets.

The expected approval this week of the UK's fifth carbon budget for 2028-2032 would provide a key reference point for future policy. Still, uncertainty is sure to continue for months, if not years.

Here are some of the many unanswered questions.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change:

  • Will the UK ratify it while still an EU member state, allowing the EU to ratify it, too?
  • If the UK and EU delay ratification, (when) will the agreement enter force?
  • Will the UK be able to retain a strong voice in international climate talks, outside of Europe?
  • Or will the spending be pared back as part of a move to end the UK commitment to spend 0.7 percent of national income on international aid?

UK Policy:

  • Is the cross-party commitment to UK climate ambition assured, as Rudd claimed this week?
  • Will the next prime minister believe in continued climate action?
  • Are doubts over the climate views of leading contender, Boris Johnson, unfounded?
  • What are the views of other contenders, such as home secretary Theresa May or work and pensions secretary Stephen Crabb?
  • How long will Rudd remain secretary of state for energy and climate change and Leadsom as energy minister, with both tipped for promotion if their side won the referendum?
  • Who will replace them if they are moved on?
  • Will the Department of Energy and Climate Change continue to exist under a new government?

UK Climate Change Act:

  • The indications are that the government will put legislation on the fifth carbon budget before parliament on June 30, but Carbon Brief understands that parliamentary process means it may not pass into law before the end-of-June legal deadline. Will that legislation be in line with the advice of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to cut emissions by 57 percent by 2032, against 1990 levels?
  • Will carbon accounting rules be amended, as per CCC advice, so that all UK emissions are counted towards carbon budget compliance?
  • Will the government still publish a UK carbon plan by the end of 2016, on how the whole economy can decarbonize in line with the fourth and fifth carbon budgets for 2023-2032?
  • If this plan is delayed or abandoned, how long can stasis continue without jeopardizing UK carbon targets?
  • Would a delay or abandonment be subject to legal challenge, given the Act requires a planto be presented "as soon as is reasonably practicable" after the carbon budget is set?
  • Does the act itself retain the overwhelming support of parliament, given all but six MPs approved it in 2008?
  • Does it count for anything that Andrea Leadsom—Leave supporter, energy minister and potential Conservative leadership candidate—has said both before and after the referendum (see above) that the UK's climate commitment would be secure after Brexit?

Energy Bills:

  • What price premium on loans will be demanded by investors in UK energy infrastructure to cover the costs of political uncertainty? Rudd was unable to offer a direct answer to this "depressing" question from Carbon Brief.
  • How much will this add to the costs of building new electricity generating capacity?
  • Will any impacts vary by technology type, potentially favoring lower- or higher-carbon sources of power?
  • How quickly will exchange-rate driven increases filter through to pump prices and energy bills, via the fuel used to heat homes and generate electricity?
  • Is it realistic to expect any new government to mitigate this impact through a promised end to the 5 percent rate of VAT on energy, given the £2bn a year it brings the exchequer?
  • How will steel and other energy-intensive industries cope with the expectation of higher energy prices?
  • For instance, will the hoped-for Tata Steel rescue still go ahead?
  • Will the government's Levy Control Framework, designed to limit the impact of low-carbon support on energy bills, remain in place?
  • Could a new government seek to scrap the UK carbon price floor as a means to reduce energy bills for homes, businesses and industry, even though it brings in more than £1.5bn a year for the Treasury?
  • How would this be squared with consequential increases in the level of required support for low-carbon sources of power?
  • Will rising UK wholesale electricity prices attract investment in new generating capacity or will the rising cost of imported fuel outweigh any benefit?
  • Could a post-Brexit cut in tariffs on Chinese solar module imports offset the impact of a falling pound?
  • Will windfarms get more expensive in the UK, as sterling's fall pushes up the price of imported steel or turbine parts?

UK Energy Markets:

  • Will Brexit lead to weaker economic growth and reduced energy use, as expected?
  • Will this ease pressure on electricity supplies and reduce UK emissions?
  • How will the new administration approach fuel duty, which has been repeatedly frozen by current Chancellor George Osborne?
  • Is there still a business case for new interconnectors if the UK leaves the EU internal energy market and how will that case be affected by currency swings and changes in carbon pricing in the UK, France or other countries?
  • How will energy firms operating in the UK and elsewhere fare if the value of sterling remains depressed, affecting relative earnings denominated in pounds, euros and dollars?
  • Will the City of London still remain a leading lender to oil and coal projects around the world, as well as a center for carbon trading?
  • Rudd has this week reiterated plans to phase out unabated coal, but when will the consultation on how to achieve this be published and what policy levers will it propose?
  • Could the fall in the pound revive the UK coal-mining industry, which is currently embroiled in contentious efforts to expand despite the UK's coal phaseout plans?
  • Will the new government heed climate-sceptic calls to back out of the EU Industrial Emissions Directive, blamed for the closure of aging coal-fired power stations?
  • Will the government invoke provisions of the 2013 Energy Act, allowing it to set a 2030 decarbonization target for the power sector, once it has set the fifth carbon budget?
  • How will support for shale gas exploration be affected by changes in government personnel?
  • How will the nascent fracking industry fare with a weaker economy and pound?
  • When will the government publish the CCC's report on fracking and UK carbon budgets?
  • Will North Sea industry benefit from currency movements as costs become relatively cheaper or will restrictions on freedom of labor movement pose greater challenges?

Low-Carbon Energy:

  • Will the UK now abandon efforts to meet its EU 2020 renewable energy targets, which it has in any case been widely expected to miss?
  • Could the UK still be fined by the European Court of Justice if Brexit is slow and the UK is still a member of the EU when the target bites in 2020?
  • Is there cross-government backing for new renewable heat and transport subsidies?
  • When will the government set out the details and budget of the next auction for low-carbon electricity subsidies, supposedly due to take place later this year?
  • Will this year's Autumn Statement set out post-2020 arrangements for low-carbon support under the Levy Control Framework, as suggested this week by Leadsom?
  • Will there be support for low-carbon technologies other than offshore wind, which has received the clearest government backing but is more costly than solar and onshore wind?
  • Rudd has given post-referendum assurances to French firm EDF over the Hinkley C new nuclear plant, but can the scheme hope to retain the high-level political support it has enjoyed from David Cameron, George Osborne and the French government?
  • Does Brexit render Austria's legal challenge to the Hinkley C scheme irrelevant?
  • Would a UK exit from the EU free the UK's hand to subsidize further new nuclear reactors without the need to seek state aid approval from the European Commission?
  • Will the new government be as keen on small modular nuclear reactors as the current one?
  • After Siemens' decision to freeze its UK wind power plans and with UK access to the EU's single market in doubt, can the UK attract new renewable manufacturing investments?
  • What will a weaker pound mean for the cost of burning imported biomass at power stations including Drax, formerly the UK's largest coal plant?
  • Does the prospect of Brexit mean the UK can award further biomass subsidies to Drax, before the ongoing EU state aid investigation into the planned support has concluded?
  • When will the government publish follow-up research it commissioned on the climate impacts of burning wood, mostly imported from north America, to generate electricity?
  • Could a new administration reverse the current government's skepticism over financial support for carbon capture and storage or tidal energy?

EU Policy:

  • How will Brexit affect the balance of power between EU member states on the European Council, given the UK has been part of a progressive alliance on climate and energy?
  • Could Brexit strengthen Germany's hand, with its backing for more interventionist and target-led approaches such as binding energy efficiency and renewable energy targets?
  • Or will Brexit give eastern European countries more leverage as they attempt to limit EU climate ambition?
  • Will the UK relinquish its EU presidency, scheduled for the second half of 2017?
  • Will the EU continue to negotiate its effort-sharing decision on member state climate targets for 2030, despite the prospect of Brexit?
  • If the EU's 2030 target is recast with no UK participation, will it keep its headline goal of a 40 percent emissions reduction on 1990 levels or will it choose a new goal for 2030 emissions, either by simply removing the UK contribution or formally renegotiating country shares?
  • Will the UK remain part of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)? (Non-EU members including Norway are part of the scheme).
  • Are currently-proposed EU ETS reforms still considered sufficient to cope with market shocks, such as that experienced in the wake of the UK vote?
  • Does the fall in EU ETS prices of more than 20 percent in a week suggest further reform, perhaps an EU-wide floor price, is necessary to maintain decarbonization momentum?
  • Who will lead the reform process now that British MEP Iain Duncan has resigned from the role of European Parliament rapporteur?
  • Will the UK remain part of the EU Energy Union, with its plans for closer coupling between European energy markets?
  • Would current or future energy infrastructure investments, including electricityinterconnectors to the continent, automatically lose EU funding after Brexit? (The EU isinvesting more than €2bn in UK energy projects, more than any other member state).
  • Will the UK remain subject to EU product standards, including on the energy efficiency of vehicles and household goods?

Scotland and Northern Ireland:

  • If Brexit triggers a successful Scottish independence referendum, what would become of UK climate policy and how would UK climate targets be divided? (Scotland already has its own climate goals, but the rest of the UK does not).
  • Would consumers in the rest of the UK be willing to continue paying for a planned expansion of renewable energy in Scotland?
  • Could the rest of the UK meet its climate targets without Scottish renewables?
  • Would Scotland be willing to shoulder the cost of North Sea oil and gas decommissioning, which being funded via tax breaks on the industry?
  • Are moves to unite Northern Ireland with the Irish republic likely to gain any traction and what would that mean for UK, Irish and EU climate pledges?

Other Issues:

  • What are the prospects for a third runway at Heathrow, given the committed opposition of Boris Johnson, a leading candidate to become prime minister?
  • Does Brexit ease its path, given the UK's long-running breach of EU air pollution rules has been seen as a barrier to approval or will its demise enable the UK to meet suggested targets for aviation emissions more easily?
  • How will the UK respond to this week's ruling that it breached EU air pollution rules in relation to the coal plant at Aberthaw in south Wales?
  • Will the National Infrastructure Commission, seen as a personal project of current Chancellor George Osborne, still be able to carve out the significant policy role it had been poised to secure?
  • Will a new government reverse the decision to scrap rules for zero carbon homes?
  • How will it approach planning law, in particular the major pieces of UK environmental legislation that originate in EU law?
  • If these EU planning rules are scrapped, will it become easier to build new energy infrastructure including wind farms, fracking sites or marine renewables?
  • Will a new government continue to respect EU law during any transitional period, as called for by some lawyers?

Update 6/29/16—The question on the fifth carbon budget was amended. It previously said, in line with earlier press reports, that the fifth carbon budget would pass in to law on June 30, meeting the legal deadline. However, Carbon Brief now understands that the parliamentary process will not be completed on June 30.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Free Trade, DNC Platform and the Climate Crisis

Glyphosate Given Last-Minute Approval Despite Failure to Secure Majority Support

Kochs Dump Trump to Fund Climate-Denying Senators in Ohio and Nevada

Germany Bans Fracking But Does It Go Far Enough?

A day before officially declaring Donald Trump as the Republican Party's presidential nominee, the party released its 2016 platform that promises sweeping changes to climate and environmental policies.

The platform calls for pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement, ending all renewable energy incentives and demoting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—set up by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970—to a commission.

"If this extremist platform were ever actually implemented, it would imperil clean air and clean water for all Americans," Sierra Club Political Director Khalid Pitts said. "Donald Trump has vowed to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, and now the Republican Party has codified a radical and dangerous path to enable Trump and his anti-environmental ideology.

"This double-dealing platform both praises NASA while simultaneously rejecting the scientific consensus on the climate crisis, which NASA has affirmed time and time again. The Republican platform has gone beyond partisan politics and extended into cartoonish absurdity. Any voter who cares about our climate has to help make sure that Donald Trump never becomes president, and that this platform never gets near a piece of legislation."

Calling climate change "not proven science," the Republican platform promises to cancel the Clean Power Plan, oppose "any carbon tax" and prioritize fossil fuels. Free-market group Partnership for Responsible Growth has launched efforts to get the Republican Party to accept climate science and climate action efforts, including an ad running on Fox News where President H.W. Bush, among other GOP leaders, said "We cannot allow a question such as climate change to be characterized as a debate."

For a deeper dive:

News: Guardian, ClimateWire, Grist, Deutsche Welle, Greenwire, E&E News

Commentary: New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait column; Washington Post, Steven Mufson column; The Hill, John D. Graham op-ed

For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter andFacebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.