New Zealand could be the first country in the world to require its major financial institutions to report on the risks posed by the climate crisis. Lawrence Murray / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 2.0
New Zealand could be the first country in the world to require its major financial institutions to report on the risks posed by the climate crisis.
<p>This means that about 200 of the country's biggest companies and banks would have to report on the impact that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather" target="_self">extreme weather</a> events or climate polices will have on their business, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300107158/election-2020-financial-sector-will-have-to-report-on-climate-change-risk-in-worldfirst-move" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Stuff explained</a>.</p><p>"Today is another step on the journey this Government is taking towards a low carbon future for Aotearoa New Zealand and a cleaner, safer planet for future generations," said Minister for Climate Change James Shaw Tuesday, <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2009/S00127/new-zealand-first-in-the-world-to-require-climate-risk-reporting.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Scoop reported</a>.</p><p>The move builds on New Zealand's emerging legacy of climate action, such as its historic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-zealand-zero-emissions-2641247378.html" target="_self">Zero Carbon Bill</a> that committed the country to honoring the goals of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a> and achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050.</p>
<p>However, New Zealand's parliament is currently dissolved ahead of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-zealand-ardern-renewable-energy-2647595133.html" target="_self">Oct. 17 election</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/15/new-zealand-minister-calls-for-finance-sector-to-disclose-climate-crisis-risks-in-world-first" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. In order for it to enter into force, Shaw's party, the Green Party, would have to enter a coalition government after the election and the proposal would then have to pass parliament.</p><p>If it passes, every New Zealand bank, building society, credit union, insurer or Crown Financial Institution with more than $1 billion in assets will have to report annually on the risk climate change poses to its business or explain why it cannot, according to Stuff. That report would include what the risks are, how the institution is managing them and how it is working to address the impacts of climate change.</p><p>"Many large businesses in New Zealand do not currently have a good understanding of how climate change will impact on what they do," Shaw said. "The changes I am announcing today will bring climate risks and resilience into the heart of financial and business decision making. It will ensure the disclosure of climate risk is clear, comprehensive and mainstream."</p>
<p>Shaw said that Australia, Canada, UK, France, Japan and the European Union were developing some form of climate risk reporting, but New Zealand's plan was more ambitious because it included the whole financial system, according to Scoop. The institutions covered by the policy account for 90 percent of the assets controlled in New Zealand, Stuff reported.</p><p>If the proposal passes parliament, the climate reporting would begin in 2023.</p><p>Nobel Laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz praised the proposed plan, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"Once again, New Zealand is leading the world… It led the world in showing how democratic countries could manage the risks of Covid-19," he said. "And now, New Zealand is leading the way in showing how we can help manage the risk of climate change."</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
As Coronavirus Cases Surge, Georgia Gov. Sues to Stop Atlanta Mayor From Requiring Masks in Public
17 July
Politics
L: Georgia Governor Brian Kemp on Jan. 26, 2019. U.S. Army National Guard photo by Spc. Tori Miller. R: Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms on March 27, 2019. Netherlands Embassy / CC BY 2.0
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp sued the Atlanta City Council and Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms Thursday to block a city-wide order requiring face masks in public, in the latest example of how public health has been politicized as coronavirus cases continue to surge across the U.S.
<p>Kemp argued that the Atlanta rule is not "legally enforceable" because he signed an executive order prohibiting municipalities from enacting stricter requirements than the state, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/16/politics/georgia-kemp-mask-mandate/index.html" target="_blank">CNN reported</a>. On Wednesday, he signed an executive order suspending all local mask mandates.</p><p>"It is officially official. Governor Kemp does not give a damn about us," Savannah Mayor Van Johnson, whose city also requires masks, tweeted in response to Wednesday's order. "Every man and woman for himself/herself. Ignore the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/science/" target="_self">science</a> and survive the best you can."</p>
<div id="887f8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="99ee7cad06d56d78dc58a72fe87ffa7c"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1283580794129219584" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">It is officially official. Governor Kemp does not give a damn about us. Every man and woman for himself/herself. Ig… https://t.co/s5xm4dCOj2</div> — Mayor Van Johnson (@Mayor Van Johnson)<a href="https://twitter.com/MayorJohnsonSAV/statuses/1283580794129219584">1594864483.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Kemp's justifications for the lawsuit were largely economic. In the text of the lawsuit itself, Kemp argued that Atlanta's mask rule created uncertainty for people and businesses and would cause people to "suffer immediate and irreparable harm," <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-governor-kemp-sues-atlanta-mayor-bottoms-city-council-mask-mandate-coronavirus/" target="_blank">CBS News reported</a>. He said some Atlanta restaurants had closed because they thought it was necessary to escape enforcement measures.</p><p>"This lawsuit is on behalf of the Atlanta business owners and their hardworking employees who are struggling to survive during these difficult times," he tweeted Thursday. "These men and women are doing their very best to put food on the table for their families while local elected officials shutter businesses and undermine economic growth."</p>
<div id="f2d91" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a5ea43bae154a5923498b778a80935e6"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1283882873666383878" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">These men and women are doing their very best to put food on the table for their families while local elected offic… https://t.co/96KTE8OQRG</div> — Governor Brian P. Kemp (@Governor Brian P. Kemp)<a href="https://twitter.com/GovKemp/statuses/1283882873666383878">1594936505.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Bottoms, meanwhile, who has herself tested positive for the virus, defended her order on public health grounds.</p><p>"Public health experts overwhelmingly agree that wearing a face covering helps slow the spread of this sometimes deadly virus," she said during a press conference Thursday, as <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/16/892109883/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-sues-atlanta-mayor-keisha-lance-bottoms-over-face-mask-or" target="_blank">NPR reported</a>. "It's a simple thing to do."</p><p>She also responded to the lawsuit on Twitter, noting that 3,104 Georgians had died of the virus so far and 106,000 had tested positive.</p>
<p>Bottoms' order, passed July 8, also bans public gatherings of more than 10 people. That is much lower than the statewide limit on gatherings of more than 50, as CBS reported. Those who do not wear masks within Atlanta's city limits could face a fine or up to six months in jail, according to CNN.</p><p>At least 15 Georgia municipalities require masks, according to CBS. In at least one of them, Dunwoody, the requirement was actually passed at the request of small business owners, Mayor Lynn Deutsch said in a Twitter thread.</p><p>"You know who is caught in the battle between the Georgia Governor and Local governments? Grocery store clerks, retail workers, and restaurant servers," he tweeted. "In other words, just the folks who aren't likely to have health insurance and paid time off."</p>
<div id="60269" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="44b6e51ed003d4ef29a22bbcacfa3a14"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1283584651509080064" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Multiple hospitals are on diversion, struggling with an increase in the number of patients and a workforce that is… https://t.co/V0cE39EU25</div> — Lynn Deutsch (@Lynn Deutsch)<a href="https://twitter.com/lynndeutsch/statuses/1283584651509080064">1594865403.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>It is unknown if Kemp will bring lawsuits against other local governments that require masks, CNN reported.</p><p>The dispute comes as coronavirus cases in Georgia continue to surge. On Wednesday, the day Kemp banned mask requirements, the state reported 3,871 new confirmed cases and 37 deaths, its second-highest daily case count, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/16/891718516/georgias-governor-issues-order-rescinding-local-mask-mandates" target="_blank">NPR reported at the time</a>. On Thursday, the state reported 3,441 new cases and 13 deaths, according to CBS, as well as 244 hospitalizations.</p><p>It also comes the same week that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield strongly encouraged the use of masks during a visit to Charlotte, North Carolina on Wednesday.</p><p>"If all of us would put on a face-covering now for the next four weeks, six weeks, I think we could drive this epidemic into the ground," Redfield said, as <a href="https://wcti12.com/news/state-news/cdc-director-covid-19-outbreak-could-be-halted-in-as-little-as-4-weeks-with-mask-wearing" target="_blank">ABC 12 reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- A Second Wave of COVID-19 Looms Large—and It's Not Because of ... ›
- Younger People Now Driving Spikes in New Coronavirus Cases ... ›
- Voting Is Now a Public Health Issue - EcoWatch ›
- Surge in Coronavirus Cases Leaves Labs Overwhelmed, Tests Delayed - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A container of Johnson's baby powder made by Johnson & Johnson. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Johnson & Johnson will stop selling its iconic but increasingly controversial talc baby powder in the U.S. and Canada, the company announced Tuesday.
<p>The announcement comes as the company faces more than 19,000 lawsuits from consumers who say the product was contaminated with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> and caused them or their loved ones to develop cancer, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-babypowder-idUSKBN22V32U?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1HfUTODSZrfmj0qHPRt2WqNj5q58hMe7ApEaQ2YfF3cYJBGicpAIRfsiI" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. Johnson & Johnson continues to insist the product is safe, but a 2018 Reuters investigation <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/johnsons-baby-powder-asbestos-2623643052.html" target="_self">found</a> that the company had known its talc products sometimes tested positive for asbestos since at least 1971 and had failed to inform the public.</p><p>"It means no more little girls are going to go through what we went through," Krystal Kim, who was part of a victorious lawsuit against the company in 2018 after developing ovarian cancer following a lifetime use of the baby powder, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/business/johnson-baby-powder-sales-stopped.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR0uzUgZqUqB-xFaeKz1d9eUGW74R3RfmbKLdraU4w5YVXr0z__fLK2-tTI" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "This stops now. That monster is off the shelves."</p>
<p>Because talc and asbestos sometimes occur side by side, it is possible for talc to be contaminated with asbestos during the mining process. Thousands of women who used the product sued after developing ovarian cancer, which was linked to asbestos in 1958. A smaller number developed mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer often connected to asbestos. In October 2019, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/johnson--johnson-baby-powder-recall-asbestos-2641053013.html" target="_self">company recalled</a> 33,000 bottles after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found trace amounts of asbestos in one of them. Also in 2019, the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-subcommittee-s-year-long-investigation-leads-to-johnson-johnson" target="_blank">began</a> a 14-month investigation that showed Johnson & Johnson knew about the asbestos risks for decades.</p><p>"Today, in a major victory for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, Johnson & Johnson's asbestos-containing baby powder finally will be taken off store shelves," Subcommittee chair Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said in a statement.</p>
<div id="8e492" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fbc74efe5795912af5cb6b3e9cd7c8de"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1262890458503688194" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today, in a major victory for public health, Johnson & Johnson’s asbestos-containing baby powder will be taken off… https://t.co/QtXjbmyzge</div> — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (@Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi)<a href="https://twitter.com/CongressmanRaja/statuses/1262890458503688194">1589931523.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Johnson & Johnson continues to maintain that its product is safe, but blamed negative publicity for a drop in sales.</p><p>"Demand for talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising," the company wrote.</p><p>The company said it made the decision after it had paused shipping certain items in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. It said its current inventory of the powder would be sold, but no more would be produced for U.S. and Canadian markets. In the U.S., the product contributed only around 0.5 percent of the company's Consumer Health business.</p><p>Johnson & Johnson will continue to sell the product in other countries and to defend its safety in court.</p>
<p>Cornstarch baby powder, which the company developed in 1980 as an alternative once concerns of asbestos contamination were raised by health advocates, will continue to be sold in the U.S. and Canada, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Consumer advocates welcomed the news, but pointed out that Johnson & Johnson isn't the only company whose talc products pose a health risk.</p><p>"It's good news that Johnson & Johnson will soon end the sale of talc-based baby powders in the U.S. and Canada," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> (EWG) senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/major-win-consumers-johnson-johnson-ends-sale-talc-based-baby-powders?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1589935453&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR25bsStfQ_-Ciwc8pZnAlsUNIkqY3EB_G3fhFXPlvpJFXp1eWonwb8FHyw" target="_blank">said</a> in response to the news. "Now other companies need to follow their lead."</p>
<div id="26067" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5547f6a2aa178525f254f75987e64466"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1262884496854208513" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">MAJOR WIN -- Johnson & Johnson will end the sale of talc-based baby powders in the US and Canada.
We call on other… https://t.co/UeYJiDXgPB</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1262884496854208513">1589930101.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Just last week, the EWG found asbestos in two talc Jmkcoz eyeshadow palettes. Asbestos was also found in Claire's cosmetics in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/claires-cosmetics-test-positive-for-asbestos-fda-warns-2630826087.html" target="_self">March</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/asbestos-claires-cosmetics-2638757734.html" target="_self">June</a> of 2019.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Asbestos, Ubiquitous and Unavoidable, Is a Deadly Threat to Our Kids ›
- Johnson & Johnson Knew About Asbestos in Baby Powder for ... ›
- Johnson & Johnson Recalls 33,000 Baby Powder Bottles After FDA ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Shell protesters. Dana Drugmand
Two years after internal documents surfaced showing that Royal Dutch Shell, like ExxonMobil, knew about climate dangers decades ago, the oil giant released its latest annual report outlining its business strategy and approach to addressing climate change. Despite clear warnings from scientists, global health experts and even central banks of impending climate-driven crises, Shell's report largely sends a message that everything is fine and the company's "business strategy is sound."
<p>That is not to say that Shell is ignoring the challenges facing it and other oil majors. But overall Shell appears to be toeing the line between saying it is responding to the climate challenge and inevitable energy transition on the one hand, and maintaining its core oil and gas business model on the other.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/19/shell-s-latest-annual-report-more-greenwashing">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>Shell's <a href="https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2019/servicepages/downloads/files/download2.php?file=shell_annual_report_2019.pdf" target="_blank">2019 Annual Report</a> is filled with statements that reveal the company's perspective on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Paris-agreement" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paris agreement</a>, the energy transition, and climate litigation and regulatory risk to its business. A few of these statements seem contradictory, and it is important to keep in mind the context of #ShellKnew when the company says now, in 2020, that it is committed to being part of the solution.</p>
Shell’s Strategy
<p>According to the report, there are three parts to Shell's overall strategy going forward: to thrive in the energy transition, to provide a world-class investment case, and to sustain a strong societal license to operate. That may sound good on paper, but in reality significant challenges are mounting for each of these pillars.</p><p>In terms of the energy transition, Shell appears to be paying lip service to it more than actually revamping its portfolio or overhauling its business model. Its core business remains oil and gas. Period.</p><p>The company may be ahead of some other oil giants like Exxon and Chevron in terms of adding alternative energies to its energy mix, but overall its commitment to clean energy is minimal.</p><p>Shell notes in its report that it spends "$1-2 billion a year until 2020 in different services and products from a range of cleaner sources," and "investments in power could grow to $2-3 billion a year on average" from 2021 to 2025. The vast majority of the company's capital expenditure ($24bn to $29bn in 2020) goes into oil and gas, and failure to replace proved reserves could have a "material adverse effect." Instead of aligning with the energy transition, Shell's business model is based on continual hydrocarbon exploitation.</p><p>In terms of a "world-class investment," the oil and gas sector is particularly vulnerable at the moment to financial pressure and investors are increasingly turning away from fossil fuels. Jim Cramer infamously dubbed fossil fuels "<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/01/cnbc-jim-cramer-fossil-fuel-industry-death-knell-phase" target="_blank">in the death knell phase</a>." Shell acknowledges this risk. It notes in its report that fossil fuel divestment "could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access capital markets."</p><p>Shell also recognizes its vulnerability to an eroding social license as the public and particularly younger generations start to scorn Big Oil.</p><p>"In 2019, many protested about climate change, sometimes directly targeting Shell," Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden wrote in the report. The company includes challenges to its reputation as a risk factor, noting, "There is increasing focus on the role of oil and gas in the context of climate change and energy transition. This could negatively affect our brand, reputation and licence to operate."</p><p>Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the risk to its social license.</p>
Shell Claims to Support Paris Agreement, Plans for Gradual Energy Transition
<p>In its report, Shell says it fully supports the Paris agreement goal to limit warming well below 2 degrees C, and supports "the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system." But, in <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bernard-looney-announces-new-ambition-for-bp.html" target="_blank">contrast to fellow European oil major BP</a>, Shell is not committing its own business to net zero emissions.</p><p>Shell says it has "no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years." Instead, Shell's Net Carbon Footprint "ambition" is to reduce emissions (including its customers' and suppliers' emissions) of its energy production and products by 20 percent by 2035 and by 50 percent by 2050. This is not aligned with climate science guidelines that say complete decarbonization or "net zero" is necessary by 2050 at the latest.</p><p>Shell's own business is therefore not aligned with the goal of the Paris agreement, and the company is <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/04/05/shell-sued-in-the-netherlands-for-insufficient-action-on-climate-change/" target="_blank">facing a lawsuit</a> over this in its home country of the Netherlands. Current emissions reduction plans or "Nationally Determined Contributions" (NDCs) submitted by countries under the Paris agreement are also inadequate. As Shell notes in its report, current NDCs amount to about 3 degrees C of warming. "In coming decades, we expect countries to tighten these NDCs to meet the goals of the Paris agreement," the report states. Shell's view appears to be that the world has decades to get its act together.</p><p>In that view, Shell says it is fully on board with the energy transition and plans to transform its own business "over time." The report includes statements like "Shell aims to become an integrated power player and grow, over time, a material new business", and, "for us, protecting the environment also means working to transform our product mix over time, for example, by expanding the choice of lower-carbon products we offer customers."</p><p>Yet, in a seeming contradiction to these statements, Shell says it "agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report," which clearly warned that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require, as Shell notes, "an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change."</p><p>While Shell claims to fully support the Paris agreement, in another seeming contradiction, the company states in its report that the government action necessary to meet Paris targets could harm its business: "Policies and regulations designed to limit the increase in global temperatures to well below 2°C could have a material adverse effect on Shell – through higher operating costs and reduced demand for some of our products."</p><p>Shell also says it is wary of governments actually taking climate action: "we believe measures taken by governments to control national energy transitions may also have unintended consequences." </p><p>Yet, at the same time, Shell says it expects to be subject to increasing regulation. "We also expect that <span style="background-color: initial;">GHG</span> regulation, as well as emission reduction actions by customers, will continue to result in suppression of demand for fossil fuels, either through taxes, fees and/or incentives to promote the sale of lower-carbon electric vehicles or even through the future prohibition of sales of new diesel or gasoline vehicles, such as the prohibition in the United Kingdom (<span style="background-color: initial;">UK</span>) beginning in 2035. This could result in lower revenue and, in the long term, potential impairment of certain assets," the report states.</p>
Climate Litigation Risk
<p>Shell, like other fossil fuel companies, has long been concerned about governments imposing climate policies or regulations that would affect its business. Shell and its industry peers are already facing climate lawsuits, and Shell is explicitly identifying climate litigation as part of a broader risk factor associated with "rising climate change concern."</p><p>In its report, Shell acknowledged the lawsuits could negatively impact its financial condition: "In some countries, governments, regulators, organisations and individuals have filed lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate change. While we believe these lawsuits to be without merit, losing any of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition."</p><p>Shell actually foresaw climate-related lawsuits as a possibility more than 20 years ago. One of the internal documents that a Dutch news organization first uncovered (and published on the site Climate Files) is a <a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1998-shell-internal-tina-group-scenarios-1998-2020-report/" target="_blank">1998 document of Shell planning scenarios</a> where the company hypothetically envisions a series of violent storms battering the eastern U.S., which then spur environmental <span style="background-color: initial;">NGO</span>s to bring "a class-action suit against the <span style="background-color: initial;">US</span> government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done."</p>Shell Knew
<p>One statement from Shell's annual report rings particularly true: "Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system." </p><p>Indeed, Shell has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s" target="_blank">long known</a> that fossil fuels are warming the planet and that the consequences would be of a huge magnitude.</p><p>One internal Shell document from 1988 called "The Greenhouse Effect" warned that GHG emissions would lead to warming over the next century, likely ranging from 1.5 C to 3.5 C. According to that document, "The changes may be the greatest in recorded history." Some parts of the planet may become uninhabitable, and there may be "significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather," it says. Impacts could be severe and "could have major social, economic, and political consequences."</p><p>What did Shell do with that knowledge? It started introducing doubt and giving weight to a 'significant minority' of 'alternative viewpoints' as the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism" target="_blank">full implications for the company's business model</a> became clear.</p><p>Shell was a member of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-climate-coalition" target="_blank">Global Climate Coalition</a>, a fossil fuel industry-funded group that worked to undermine climate science and block climate policy internationally. The group formed in 1988 and Shell was a member throughout much of the 1990s.</p><p>During that time Shell was <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/20/exclusive-company-docs-show-shell-secretly-studied-climate-risks-10-years-warning-investors" target="_blank">not exactly upfront with its own shareholders</a> about potential risks climate change posed to its business. The first time Shell even mentioned climate change was in a 1991 annual report. But it wasn't until 2004 that Shell made a clear warning in its annual report about financial risk associated with fossil fuel investment.</p><p>Critics have for many years accused Shell's <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/how-shell-greenwashed-its-image-internal-documents-warned-fossil-fuels-contribution-climate-change" target="_blank">of greenwashing</a> — acknowledging the climate threat and touting its "commitment" to being part of the solution, despite continuing to spend heavily on oil and gas with only minimal investment in alternative energy. Shell's latest annual report suggests the company isn't deviating far from that strategy.<span></span></p>From Your Site Articles
- A New Golden Age for Big Oil or a Golden Goodbye? - EcoWatch ›
- Shell Shareholders Vote Down Climate Change Proposal But Signal ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Detailed analysis has estimated a LEGO brick could survive in the ocean for as many as 1,300 years. Andrew Turner / University of Plymouth
The Danish building block toy LEGO has sprouted an empire of amusement park like stores, movies, and reality TV competitions premised on building complicated characters, vehicles and settings from inter-locking pieces of plastic. Unfortunately, all that plastic will be with us for a long, long time, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Pollution.
<p>The researchers from the University of Plymouth in England studied how the pieces from the popular toy broke down in a marine environment. It turns out, LEGO bricks can survive in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_blank">ocean</a> waters for up to 1,300 years, according to the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749119364152?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">study</a>. </p>
<p>The research team conducted the study by examining 50 LEGO bricks that had washed up in Cornwall, England. As <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/lego-bricks-survive-oceans-1300-years-1492563" target="_blank">Newsweek</a> reported, the recovered pieces were cleaned, measured, weighed and then compared to unused bricks. The scientists checked the chemical composition of each block. By identifying chemicals no longer used in the production process, the scientists were able to estimate the age of each brick. The team compared the level of wear and tear by comparing the bricks to pristine LEGO pieces from the 70s and 80s.</p>
<p>By conducting that complex comparison, the researchers were able to estimate that LEGO bricks can survive anywhere from 100 to 1,300 years in a marine environment, meaning their durability could be harmful to marine animals, according to a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-03/uop-ssl031320.php" target="_blank">statement</a> from the University of Plymouth. The researchers said their findings mean people need to be very careful about how they discard everyday household items. </p>
<p>"LEGO is one of the most popular children's toys in history and part of its appeal has always been its durability," Andrew Turner, associate professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Plymouth, said in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-03/uop-ssl031320.php" target="_blank">statement</a>. "It is specifically designed to be played with and handled, so it may not be especially surprising that despite potentially being in the sea for decades it isn't significantly worn down. However, the full extent of its durability was even a surprise to us."</p>
<p>Turner, who previously conducted extensive research on the chemical properties of items washed up as marine litter, warned about the scourge of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" rel="noopener noreferrer">microplastics</a> as LEGO bricks wear down.</p>
<p>"The pieces we tested had smoothed and discolored, with some of the structures having fractured and fragmented, suggesting that as well as pieces remaining intact they might also break down into microplastics," he said in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-03/uop-ssl031320.php" target="_blank">statement</a>. "It once again emphasizes the importance of people disposing of used items properly to ensure they do not pose potential problems for the environment." </p>
<p>Environmental activists noted that the study shows the harm of not disposing of toys properly or being careless with them on a visit to a beach or river. </p>
<p>"LEGO has brought joy to countless children around the world for decades, but this joy comes with a heavy price, an ocean crisis," Chris Thorne, an oceans campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/welsh-government-plastic-ban-ocean-waste-a9408166.html" target="_blank">The Independent</a>. "This study confirms what we already knew, that much of the plastic waste we've left in our oceans, including LEGO, will survive there for centuries, possibly even millennia."</p>
<p>"The impacts of this will be wide ranging, and harm marine ecosystems long after our generation is gone," Thorne added. "We must protect our oceans from all the pressures facing them, from climate change to overfishing and plastic pollution."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Crude oil extraction pump pulling crude oil up to the surface and pushing it into pipelines in the Permian Basin in West Texas on May 27, 2018. ©Studio One-One / Moment / Getty Images
ExxonMobil is a company capable of contradictions. It has been lobbying against government efforts to address climate change while running ads touting its own efforts to do so.
<p>And while the oil giant has been responsible for massive methane releases, Exxon has now proposed a new <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">regulatory framework</a> for cutting emissions of this powerful greenhouse gas that it hopes regulators and industry will adopt. As Exxon put it, the goal is to achieve "<a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">cost-effective and reasonable methane-emission regulations</a>."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/16/exxon-write-rules-regulating-methane-emissions">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>So, why is Exxon asking to be regulated?</p><p>The answer may be simply that Exxon is very good at public relations. As industry publication <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">Natural Gas Intelligence reported</a>, this announcement "comes as energy operators face increasing pressure from lenders and shareholders to engage in decarbonization by following environmental, social, and governance standards."</p>
<div id="3031e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A0CFO81584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1234997313581375490" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ExxonMobil is proposing new rules to cut methane emissions. We think it makes sense for industries to work together… https://t.co/NnLNZ2yO5O</div> — ExxonMobil (@ExxonMobil)<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/statuses/1234997313581375490">1583281279.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Exxon's proposed regulations have three main objectives: finding and detecting leaks, minimizing the direct venting of methane as part of oil and gas operations, and record keeping and reporting.</p><p>Casey Norton, Exxon's Corporate Media Relations Manager, explained to DeSmog that Exxon's proposal was not expected to be adopted as-is by regulatory agencies. "This is a starting point for conversations with policy makers and other regulators," he said. "For example, New Mexico, Argentina, the EU, who are all considering new regulations for methane emissions."</p><p>Under President Trump, the federal government last year rolled back Obama-era rules for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/trump-methane-rollback.html" target="_blank">for restricting these emissions during drilling</a> on public lands.</p><p>This isn't Exxon's first foray into voluntary regulations of methane. The corporation's natural gas subsidiary XTO started a <a href="https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-expands-methane-emissions-reduction-program" target="_blank">voluntary methane emissions</a> program in 2017. In June 2018, XTO noted that the voluntary program, which was mostly about replacing leaking valves, had reduced <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180625005080/en/ExxonMobil%25E2%2580%2599s-XTO-Energy-Announces-Progress-Methane-Emissions" target="_blank">methane emissions by 7,200 metric tons since 2016</a>.</p>
<p>However, leaking valves are not the biggest source of methane emissions. In February 2018, four months before XTO was touting the success of its methane reduction program, the company experienced the second largest methane leak in U.S. history. A gas well it operated in Ohio suffered a blowout, releasing huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas.</p><p>Did XTO's voluntary program accurately report this? As The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>, "XTO Energy said it could not immediately determine how much gas had leaked."</p><p>But a group of scientists using satellite data eventually did pin down the amount released — 120 metric tons an hour for 20 days. That adds up to roughly 50,000 metric tons more released than the 7,200 metric tons in reductions XTO was claiming months later. That one leak was estimated to be more than the methane emissions of the total oil and gas industry of countries like Norway.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/future-exxon-permian-flaring-crisis-air-pollution" target="_blank">DeSmog reported</a>, XTO is also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">flaring </a>the most natural gas of any company in the Permian oil field (natural gas is almost 90 percent methane). While flaring isn't as bad for the climate as directly venting the methane into the atmosphere, it is increasing the levels of carbon dioxide and toxic air pollutants and is another problem the industry is saying it will address even as the practice <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/permian-s-gas-burning-black-eye-is-30-worse-than-thought" target="_blank">continues on a large scale</a>.</p>
<p>And now the same company is recommending that the rest of the industry and regulators <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">adopt their approach</a> to regulating methane emissions.</p><p>"It is not target-based, it is not volume-based," Exxon's Norton said. "Again, it's starting a conversation, saying these are things that you can look at."</p><p>Robert Howarth, <a href="https://ecologyandevolution.cornell.edu/robert-warren-howarth" target="_blank">a biogeochemist at Cornell University</a> whose work focuses on methane emmissions in the oil and gas industry, drew attention to areas of Exxon's framework he thought were lacking. For starters, he pointed out that the proposed framework does not mention emissions from "imperfect well casings and from abandoned wells," which Howarth says "can be significant." He also noted that the proposal does not describe "a methodology for characterizing any of these emissions; there are techniques for doing so, but there is not much demonstrated use of these techniques by industry."</p><p>Finally — and this is the real danger with any sort of industry self-regulation — Howarth said there must be some type of independent oversight to assess actual emissions instead of relying on the industry to self-report. XTO's well blowout in Ohio is an excellent example of why this third-party verification is critical. Without oversight, the "system is ripe for abuse," according to Howarth.</p><p>Sharon Wilson of environmental advocacy group Earthworks <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/30/sharon-wilson-methane-leaks-permian-basin-oilfields" target="_blank">documents</a> the oil and gas industry's current widespread practices of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/14/methane-sharon-wilson-earthworks-permian-basin-fracking" target="_blank">flaring and venting methane. </a>Sharing her concerns about Exxon's methane emissions proposal, she told DeSmog,"Exxon's recent announcement is too little too late when it comes to the climate crisis they've help cause and are still making worse. Reducing methane emissions by any percentage is not enough when Exxon continues to expand sources of the same climate pollution." </p><p>Wilson called for the company to support federal and state rules to cut methane.</p>
Trump Administration Reversed Existing Methane Regulations
<p>Methane emissions have become <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/14/fracking-shale-gas-drilling-methane-spike-howarth" target="_blank">a much bigger issue</a> in the last decade since the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> boom in shale <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas">oil and gas</a> produced by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a>. Despite <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/investing/trump-energy-plan-obama-oil-boom/index.html" target="_blank">overseeing a huge rise in oil and gas production</a>, the Obama administration acknowledged the methane problem and <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/12/administration-takes-historic-action-reduce-methane-emission-oil-and-gas-sector" target="_blank">proposed and adopted new methane emissions regulations</a>, which the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/09/10/key-facts-trump-epa-plan-obama-methane-leaks-rule" target="_blank">Trump administration has since repealed</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration has staffed regulatory agencies with former industry executives and lobbyists who have been quite successful at rolling back environmental, health, and safety rules.</p><p>Last August former coal lobbyist and current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-updates-air-regulations-oil-and-gas-remove-redundant-requirements-and-1" target="_blank">explained the reasoning</a> for removing the Obama methane rules.</p><p>"EPA's proposal delivers on President Trump's executive order and removes unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burdens from the oil and gas industry," Wheeler said. "The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use."</p><p>The problem with this free-market assumption is that Wheeler is wrong about the industry's financial incentive to limit methane emissions.</p><div id="8445e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72W83E1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1113551571755982855" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The unreal natural gas prices in the #Permian get even more unreal:
Nat gas at the Waha hub (near El Paso) have ho… https://t.co/Zfj0XfXIJh</div> — Javier Blas (@Javier Blas)<a href="https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/statuses/1113551571755982855">1554326358.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/us-natural-gas-lng-export-chesapeake-financial-struggle" target="_blank">There is too much natural gas</a>, aka methane, flooding world energy markets right now. Current prices to buy it are lower than the costs to produce it. The methane currently produced in Texas' Permian Basin spent a good portion of last year at negative prices. There is no financial incentive for producers in the Permian to voluntarily cut methane emissions in the current market environment.</p><p>That is why Permian producers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">are flaring</a> (openly burning) it at record levels as well as directly releasing (venting) methane into the rapidly warming atmosphere. So much for letting the free market address the issue.</p>
Even the Remaining Regulations Are Controlled by Industry
<p>While the Trump administration has rolled back many regulations for the oil and gas industry, the regulatory system in the U.S. was already designed to protect industry profits — not the public or environment. When the federal government creates regulations, the process can be heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, and if they don't agree with the regulations, there are many ways they can get them revised to favor their companies.</p><p>While Exxon <a href="https://www.axios.com/exxon-epa-regulate-methane-emissions-oil-gas--0befdde6-e0fe-49db-a200-38299853b43d.html" target="_blank">did publicly say </a>in 2018 that it didn't support repealing the existing methane regulations, the company also wrote to the <span style="background-color: initial;">EPA</span> voicing support for certain aspects of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute's</a> (<span style="background-color: initial;">API</span>) comments on the issue, and the <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/oil-gas-lobby-split-by-trump-rollback-of-methane-rules/" target="_blank">approved removing the regulations.</a> In that letter Exxon used the same language it is now using with its propsed regulations, saying any rules need to be "cost-effective" and "reasonable." But if the regulations are cost-effective, will they actually be effective in reducing methane emissions in a meaningful way?</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg4MDY3NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjAyNjM1NH0._FkQjtD7IdxsBjyG4C48LKbFNnq5d0dj7n6kYoadYjw/img.png?width=980" id="ef457" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a80e7ae5ddbf00618b6efbabd60441f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Excerpt from Exxon letter to EPA about methane regulations. ExxonMobil
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-safety-rules-on-oil-drilling-were-changed-some-staff-objected-those-notes-were-cut-11582731559" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> recently highlighted the influence that the oil and gas industry and its major U.S. trade group the American Petroleum Institute can have over regulations. After the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government put into place new safeguards known as the "well control rule" in order to prevent another disaster during deepwater offshore drilling.</p><p>In 2019, the Trump administration revised the rule, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/720008093/trump-administration-moves-to-roll-back-offshore-drilling-safety-regulations" target="_blank">weakening it</a>, even though, as the Journal reported, federal regulatory staff did not agree "that an industry-crafted protocol for managing well pressure was sufficient in all situations, the records show." The staff was ignored. (And the move is <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/suit-filed-over-well-control-rule-repeal" target="_blank">undergoing a legal challenge</a>.)</p><p>Industry crafted protocol. Just the thing Exxon is now proposing.</p><p>This type of industry control over the regulatory process was also brought to light after two Boeing 737 MAX planes crashed and killed 346 people. Boeing had fought to make sure that pilots weren't required to undergo expensive and lengthy training to navigate the new plane.</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by-clowns-boeing-employees-ridicule-737-max-regulators-in-internal-messages-idUSKBN1Z902N" target="_blank">Reuters reported </a>on internal communications at Boeing which revealed the airplane maker simply would not let simulator training be required by regulators:</p><p>"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email.</p><p>"Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."</p><p>Boeing got its way. And 346 people died.</p><div id="384c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BGIMBL1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1236300589262405632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nearly a year after a second crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that led to its grounding, the full extent of the company’s… https://t.co/uUHyItbBrD</div> — The Daily Beast (@The Daily Beast)<a href="https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/statuses/1236300589262405632">1583592004.0</a></blockquote></div><p>For the past six years, I have reported on the failed regulatory process governing the moving of dangerous crude oil by rail (and even <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/07/09/bomb-trains-oil-rail-threat-book" target="_blank">wrote a book about it</a>). The only meaningful safety regulation that resulted from a multi-year process was requiring oil trains to have modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">I reported</a>, shortly after this regulation was enacted, Matthew Rose, CEO of the largest oil-by-rail company BNSF, told an industry conference that "the only thing we don't like about [the new regulation] is the electronic braking" and "this rule will have to be changed in the future." As per the wishes of Matthew Rose, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">that rule was repealed </a>despite the substantial evidence clearly showing this modern braking system greatly increases train safety. </p><p>A recent op-ed from an editor at the trade publication Railway Age referred to these oil trains as a "<a href="https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/double-trouble-in-saskatchewan/" target="_blank">clear and present danger</a>." Nevertheless, these trains hauling volatile oil through North American communities are still operating with braking systems engineered in the late 1800s.</p>
Exxon Touts 'Sound Science' Despite Its History
<p>Exxon's methane proposal states that any regulations should be based on "sound science." This statement is coming from a company whose scientists <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="_blank">accurately predicted the impacts of burning fossil fuels</a> on the climate decades ago and yet has spent the time since then <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/09/03/study-finds-exxon-misled-public-withholding-climate-knowledge" target="_blank">misleading the public</a> about that science.</p><p>The current regulatory system in America does not protect the public interest. Letting Exxon take the lead in the place of regulators doesn't seem like it's going to help.</p><p>Megan Milliken Biven is a former federal analyst for the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency that regulates the oil industry's offshore activity. Milliken Biven explained to DeSmog what she saw as the root cause of the regulatory process's failure.<br><br>"Regulatory capture isn't really the problem," Milliken Biven said. "The system was designed to work for industry so regulatory capture isn't even required."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Methane Reporting Gap Widens in Oil and Gas Industry - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Expected to Allow More Methane Emissions From Oil and Gas Industry - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Wind and Solar Power Will Soon Be Cheaper Than Coal Globally, New Research Shows
12 March
Renewable Energy
A new report shows that investments in coal plants may be a waste of money as renewables are cheaper than new coal plants, according to new research from the financial think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative.
<p>The new research, released today, shows that nearly $640 billion of investment in coal power capacity worldwide is at risk because it is less expensive to generate electricity from wind and solar power, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coal-power/nearly-640-billion-coal-investments-undercut-by-cheap-renewables-research-idUSKBN20Z001" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://carbontracker.org/reports/how-to-waste-over-half-a-trillion-dollars/" target="_blank">report</a> also found that more than 60 percent of global coal power plants are generating electricity at a higher cost than it could be produced by building new renewables. The researchers found that by 2030, at the latest, it will be cheaper to build new wind or solar capacity than continue operating with coal, according to a statement from the Carbon Tracker Initiative.</p>
<p>Right now, in all major markets, including the U.S., Europe, China, India and Australia it is cheaper to invest in renewables, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/coal-plant-investment-electricity-renewable-energy-cost-difference-a9394341.html" target="_blank">according to The Independent</a>. The report casts doubt on the future of the many countries who have investments in coal, including Australia's $26 billion thermal coal export industry, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>.</p>
<p>The authors of the report suggested the report should be a signal to policy makers to shift their priorities toward investments in renewables. </p>
<p>"Renewables are outcompeting coal around the world and proposed coal investments risk becoming stranded assets which could lock in high-cost coal power for decades," Matt Gray, Carbon Tracker co-head of power and utilities and co-author of the report, <a href="https://carbontracker.org/coal-developers-risk-600-billion-as-renewables-outcompete-worldwide/" target="_blank">said in a statement</a>. "The market is driving the low-carbon energy transition but governments aren't listening. It makes economic sense for governments to cancel new coal projects immediately and progressively phase out existing plants."</p>
<p>Despite the economic reality and the environmental impact of coal, many governments around the world are artificially propping up coal power with incentives and underwriting new plants. Governments are either giving subsidies to the industry or passing the cost down to consumers, as The Guardian reported.</p>
<p>The report found that a country like Japan, which invests heavily in coal power, is wasting its money. As The Guardian reported, in Japan, wind power costs less than new coal plants and is expected to be cheaper than existing coal by 2028. Solar power in Japan is forecast to outperform new coal plants by 2023 and existing coal by 2026.</p>
<p>The story was the same for China, which relies on a tremendous amount of coal power, and for South Korea. The report found that wind power is already cheaper than coal in China, and solar power will be cheaper by the end of this year. In South Korea, renewables will be cheaper than coal in two years, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and-solar-plants-will-soon-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-all-big-markets-around-world-analysis-finds" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>Institutional investors have started to run away from coal since it is not returning the profits it once did. Furthermore, the capital recovery period for new investments in coal plants is usually 15 to 20 years, making it a risky investment when cleaner, cheaper and more efficient power generation is starting to flood the market, as Reuters reported.</p>
<p>Reuters also noted that ditching coal is a mandatory step to putting a stop to global heating. According to a major UN report in 2018, the share of coal power in electricity generation needs to fall to under 2 percent by 2050 for global warming to stay within a 1.5 degree Celsius limit.</p>
<p>The new report echoed the UN's findings, noting that keeping global warming within a 1.5 degree Celsius limit, to avoid the worst impacts of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>, means coal use to generate electricity will have to fall by 80 percent from 2010 to 2030 around the world. Essentially, one coal plant has to shut down every day until 2040, the report said, as The Independent reported.</p>
<p>The Carbon Tracker report found that if the coal market were deregulated, market forces would drive it out of existence, as renewable energy developers would capitalize on the growing price gap.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Significant Renewable Energy Growth in U.S. Very Soon, New ... ›
- America Enters 'Coal Cost Crossover' as Solar and Wind Are Now ... ›
- Still Cheaper Than Coal: A Report on the Economics of Solar Power ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
JP Morgan Economists Warn of 'Catastrophic Outcomes' of Human-Caused Climate Crisis
22 February
Business
Climate activists protest Chase Bank's continued funding of the fossil fuel industry on May 16, 2019 by setting up a tripod-blockade in midtown Manhattan, clogging traffic for over an hour. Michael Nigro / Pacific Press / LightRocket / Getty Images
By Julia Conley
Climate campaigners on Friday expressed hope that policymakers who are stalling on taking decisive climate action would reconsider their stance in light of new warnings from an unlikely source: two economists at J.P. Morgan Chase.
<p>Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Rupert Read <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/21/jp-morgan-economists-warn-climate-crisis-threat-human-race" target="_blank">revealed</a> Thursday that he had obtained a report, entitled "Risky Business: Climate and the Macroeconomy," by J.P. Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray. The report issued warnings to bank clients similar to those promoted by climate action groups — describing extreme weather events and global conditions that could result from the continued extraction of fossil fuels.</p><p>In doing so, the economists implicated the bank's own investment activities in the potentially catastrophic effects of the climate crisis.</p>
<p>J.P. Morgan is the world's <a href="https://www.ran.org/issue/jpmc/" target="_blank">largest financial backer</a> of fossil fuel companies, helping to fund fracking, pipeline projects, and Arctic oil and gas exploration. The company has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/21/jp-morgan-economists-warn-climate-crisis-threat-human-race" target="_blank">contributed</a> $75 billion to such projects since the Paris climate agreement was forged in 2015. The agreement called on governments to reduce fossil fuel emissions to help limit global heating to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.</p><p>If activities like the ones funded by J.P. Morgan continue to release fossil fuels into the atmosphere, Murray and Mackie wrote, "We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened."</p><p>Failing to move away from global systems that scientists agree are causing the planet to warm "would likely push the Earth to a place that we haven't seen for many millions of years," they added.</p><p>On Twitter, Read pointed out the incongruity of such "radical truth-telling" coming from J.P. Morgan.</p>
<div id="4e2d1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="JLPB7X1582373721"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230118164366790656" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">P.1 of new report on ‘Risky business: climate and the macroeconomy’: “We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes wher… https://t.co/Re4ZWnE6Ag</div> — Rupert Read 🌍 (@Rupert Read 🌍)<a href="https://twitter.com/GreenRupertRead/statuses/1230118164366790656">1582117999.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Others highlighted the report as one that might catch the attention of others in the financial services industry and people who believe bold climate action is a cause embraced by a minority of extremists.</p>
<div id="04e29" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6MAJIQ1582373721"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230634890753953793" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Don’t want to hear @GretaThunberg or @ExtinctionR? Try JP Morgan instead https://t.co/ntXxdWvUJj</div> — christabel bradley (@christabel bradley)<a href="https://twitter.com/christabelbrad1/statuses/1230634890753953793">1582241196.0</a></blockquote></div>
<div id="92df2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EV2TOG1582373722"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230946368081973248" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">All those folks harassing @GretaThunberg and other climate activists over their age should read what JP Morgan foun… https://t.co/yliQyBAik3</div> — Matthew Smith (@Matthew Smith)<a href="https://twitter.com/MattSmithKIRO7/statuses/1230946368081973248">1582315458.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"Hardly a bank you could call communist now, is it?" <a href="https://twitter.com/domphillips/status/1230937005401542657" target="_blank">tweeted</a> journalist Dom Phillips.</p><p>Citing reports by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authors note that with the status quo kept in place, the planet is expected to reach a temperature 3.5° above pre-industrial levels.</p><p>In addition to major impacts on the world economy, the authors wrote, the climate crisis will affect human health, water supplies, and migration.</p><p>The report comes just weeks after CNBC host Jim Cramer <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/31/theyre-done-cnbcs-jim-cramer-says-fossil-fuel-industry-death-knell-phase" target="_blank">announced</a> fossil fuel investments are "in the death knell phase" and that "the world's turned on" the industry as it did on tobacco as understanding grew about the risks of smoking.</p><p>"It is clear that the Earth is on an unsustainable trajectory," reads the report. "Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive."</p><p>The authors <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51581098" target="_blank">advocated</a> for a global carbon tax but said, "This is not going to happen anytime soon" and called the continued investment in climate-warming fossil fuels a global problem with "no global solution ... in sight."</p><p>Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, suggested that as one solution, the economists "might want to talk with the Chase bankers who are guaranteeing [climate catastrophe] will happen by lending oil companies endless cash."</p>
<div id="d238e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WAL5N81582373722"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230922062451134464" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The JPMorganChase economists who are privately warning their high-end clients about the economic catastrophe of cli… https://t.co/NS56fgWLLs</div> — Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben)<a href="https://twitter.com/billmckibben/statuses/1230922062451134464">1582309663.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Activist Becky Brunton said the report offers the latest evidence that those with the power to stop supporting fossil fuel projects are fully aware of the damage their investments are doing to the planet.</p><p>"They know. They ALL know," <a href="https://twitter.com/BeckyIB/status/1230936281363963904" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Brunton. "But the now (profits) outweighs the future (earth)."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/21/jp-morgan-economists-warn-catastrophic-outcomes-human-caused-climate-crisis" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>. </em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Coca-Cola says it will not phase out its plastic bottles. Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket / Getty Images
Despite its status as the world's No. 1 corporate plastic polluter, Coca-Cola won't be phasing out its single-use plastic bottles anytime soon.
<p>The reason? Customers like them too much, the company's head of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability" target="_self">sustainability</a> Bea Perez told <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51197463" target="_blank">BBC News</a> at the World Economic Forum in Davos Tuesday. Perez said that customers value the bottles because they are lightweight and easily reseal, and argued that getting rid of them would hurt sales.</p><p>"Business won't be in business if we don't accommodate consumers," she said.</p><p>Instead, the company plans to focus on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/recycling" target="_self">recycling</a>. It has promised to recycle as many bottles as it uses by 2030, to use 50 percent recycled materials in packaging by that date and to work with nonprofits to better collect its waste.</p><p>"So as we change our bottling infrastructure, move into recycling and innovate, we also have to show the consumer what the opportunities are. They will change with us," Perez said.</p><p>However, environmental groups have argued that recycling is not the most effective solution to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a> crisis. In a statement emailed to EcoWatch, <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/" target="_blank">Greenpeace USA</a> Plastics Campaigner Kate Melges explained exactly what she thought was wrong with Perez's reasoning:</p>
<blockquote>It is mighty convenient for the world's worst plastic polluter to insist that people want their single-use plastic around. Coca-Cola continues to show how out of touch it is with the environmental crises communities around the world are facing. The solution is not to simply swap one throwaway material for another or continue to fall back on recycling. The solution is for Coca-Cola and other consumer goods giants to fundamentally rethink how they're bringing products to people, centering systems of reuse and package-free options. We cannot afford the levels of inaction that Coke has shown thus far. Soon, the company will realize just how sick and tired people are of its plastic addiction.<br><br>As long as companies like Coke keep pushing the myth that their bottles are being turned into new bottles over and over again, we are never going to solve the plastic pollution crisis. In the U.S., only 29 percent of plastic bottles are collected for recycling, and almost none of that is being made back into bottles. Instead, Coke's plastic bottles are being made from fossil fuels, which is a fact they'd rather not talk about.</blockquote><p>Coca-Cola currently produces around three million tonnes (approximately 3.3 million U.S. tons) of plastic packaging every year, according to BBC News. That comes to 200,000 bottles a minute. And currently, many of those bottles are not getting recycled.</p><p>For two years in a row, the <a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/" target="_blank">Break Free From Plastic</a> movement <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coke-pepsi-plastic-polluters-2641090767.html" target="_self">found</a> Coca-Cola to be the brand best represented among the world's plastic waste. Their most recent October 2019 <a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2019/" target="_blank">report</a>, based on litter collected in 484 cleanups in more than 50 countries and on six continents, found that Coca-Cola left more waste than the next three companies on the list ― Nestle, Pepsi and snack-maker Mondelez ― put together.</p><p>Worldwide, people use <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/recycling-plastic-reality-2615116844.html" target="_self">one million plastic bottles every minute</a>, and 91 percent of them are not recycled. Some of that unrecycled waste joins the more than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/8-million-metric-tons-of-plastic-dumped-into-worlds-oceans-each-year-1882012563.html" target="_self">eight million metric tons of plastic</a> dumped into the world's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_self">oceans</a> every year, threatening <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>.</p><p>"[C]orporations urgently need to do more to address the plastic pollution crisis they've created," Von Hernandez, global coordinator of the Break Free From Plastic movement, said in October. "Their continued reliance on single-use plastic packaging translates to pumping more throwaway plastic into the environment. Recycling is not going to solve this problem."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- How Coca-Cola and Climate Change Created a Public Health Crisis ... ›
- Greenpeace Slams Coca-Cola Plastic Announcement as 'Dodging ... ›
- Coca-Cola Produced More Than 110 Billion Plastic Bottles Last Year ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Electric Vehicles Likely to Be as Cheap as Conventional Cars by 2025, Says Economist
17 January
Popular
With well over a billion cars worldwide, electric vehicles are still only a small percentage. An economist from the University of Michigan Energy Institute says that is likely to change. Maskot / Getty Images
In 2018, there were about 5 million electric cars on the road globally. It sounds like a large number, but with well over a billion cars worldwide, electric vehicles are still only a small percentage.
<div class="rm-embed embed-media"><iframe allowfullscreen="" height="45" mozallowfullscreen="" msallowfullscreen="" oallowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/12468596/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" style="border: none" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="100%"></iframe></div><p>One barrier to people making the switch from conventional cars is cost. Electric vehicle prices generally remain high, mainly because batteries are still expensive.<br/></p>
<p>But Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, senior economist at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, says that's changing.</p><p>"We are observing that many manufacturers as well as technology companies and innovative start-ups are driving that cost lower," she says. "We expect that in the next three to five years, that battery cost will be very competitive."</p><p>She says that by 2025, an electric car will likely cost the same as a comparable gas-powered one.</p>
<p>That will make them more accessible to consumers, even without financial incentives, which have already brought down the price of electric vehicles in many countries.</p><p>So as battery technology continues to evolve, more electric cars are likely to hit the road.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/economist-electric-vehicles-likely-to-be-as-cheap-as-conventional-cars-by-2025/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Amsterdam Plans to Ban All Non-Electric Vehicles by 2030 - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's Christmas Gift to Big Oil: Killing Hopes of Electric Car Tax ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Nestlé is accelerating its efforts to bring functional, safe and environmentally friendly packaging solutions to the market and to address the global challenge of plastic packaging waste. Nestlé / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Nestlé, the world's largest food company, said it will invest up to $2 billion to address the plastic waste crisis that it is largely responsible for.
<p>The Swiss-based food giant said in a <a href="https://www.nestle.com/csv/global-initiatives/zero-environmental-impact/packaging-plastic-pollution" target="_blank">statement</a> yesterday that it will invest in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/technology" rel="noopener noreferrer">technology</a> to source more recycled plastic for packaging its products and it will reduce its use of new plastics by one third in the next five years, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. </p>
<p>The food and beverage giant, which packages most of its food and bottles with plastic, is regularly criticized for being one of the top plastic polluters in the world. In recognition of the plastic waste crisis, the company has vowed to make all of its packaging 100 percent recyclable by 2025, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>"We are high up on the list because we are one of the largest companies out there in packaged goods and now we're also taking pretty big steps in using our size to actually solve the problem," said Chief Executive Mark Schneider to journalists, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p>
<p>However, just because something is recyclable does not mean that it gets recycled. As <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a> noted, only nine percent of recyclable plastic actually gets recycled. The market for recyclable plastic has dried up as a number of developing countries have refused to accept more plastic from Western countries. Furthermore, companies will say a product is recyclable when they know it isn't, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/opinion/recycling-myths.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. </p>
<p>For its part, Nestlé will invest a considerable amount of money in making recycled plastic food-safe. The company will also pay market rate for recycled plastic as a way to incentivize manufacturers to produce recycled products suitable for packaging food, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Making recycled plastics safe for food is an enormous challenge for our industry," said Schneider, in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. "That is why in addition to minimizing plastics use and collecting waste, we want to close the loop and make more plastics infinitely recyclable."</p>
<p>Nestlé's total plastic packaging usage in 2018 weighed in at 1.7 million metric tons, according to Nestlé's own reporting, said <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. From that tremendous amount of plastic, only two percent of its plastic packaging is currently recycled, according to Sander Defruyt, the expert on plastics at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, who spoke to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p>
<p>Nestlé acknowledged as much when Chief Technology Officer Stefan Palzer said to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a> that "at the moment, outside PET bottles, there's not a lot of recycled plastic available that is suitable for packaging food."</p>
<p>Break Free From Plastic, an advocacy group, found that Nestlé was ranked with Coca Cola and Pepsi as the world's top plastic polluting brands, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coke-pepsi-plastic-polluters-2641090767.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" rel="noopener noreferrer">EcoWatch</a> reported. </p><p>"It is encouraging that Nestlé has finally committed to reducing its reliance on virgin plastic," said Matthias Wüthrich senior campaigner at Greenpeace Switzerland in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. "If Nestlé wants to stop polluting the world, it needs to end its reliance on plastic," he added, urging the company to "eliminate single-use packaging altogether."</p>
<p>Nestlé, however, has no plans to abandon its reliance on plastic. </p>
<p>"Food quality and safety are paramount, and packaging plays a major role in assuring this," said Nestlé, as <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nestle-to-invest-up-to-chf2-billion-in-sustainable-packaging-2020-01-16-21033123?link=MW_latest_news" target="_blank">MarketWatch</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Coke and Pepsi Are The World's Top Consumer Plastic Polluters ... ›
- Nestlé Plans to Plunder 1.1m Gallons a Day from Florida Natural ... ›
- No Nestlé, Bottled Water Is Not an 'Essential Public Service,' Court ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Climate activists hold a banner after climbing atop the roof of the entrance of the building as they protest outside offices of Youtube during the tenth day of demonstrations by the climate change action group Extinction Rebellion, in London, on Oct. 16, 2019. PAUL ELLIS / AFP / Getty Images
You don't have to look far to find misinformation about climate science continuing to spread online through prominent social media channels like YouTube. That's despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are driving the climate crisis.
<p>A new report by the global activist NGO <a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/page/en/" target="_blank">Avaaz</a> reveals that, despite YouTube's pledge to combat misinformation, the popular video site owned by Google has failed to crack down on this problem when it comes to climate change. Videos containing false or misleading information on climate change continue to reach millions of users through YouTube's recommendation algorithm. Furthermore, ads — including those from major brands and environmental groups — displayed on these videos provide a monetary incentive, not only to YouTube, but to the videos' creators to keep promoting fringe theories contrary to scientific reality.</p>
<div id="45fce" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1H8GPE1579278661"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1217762461803319296" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Avaaz asked @YouTube to extract such videos from its recommendation algorithms and include climate misinformation i… https://t.co/NzWjYntEMW</div> — Avaaz (@Avaaz)<a href="https://twitter.com/Avaaz/statuses/1217762461803319296">1579172170.0</a></blockquote></div><p><span style="background-color: initial;">"</span>We found that YouTube is driving millions of people to watch climate misinformation videos every day," Avaaz writes in its report, titled <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kw0pq7pfeNmVEBt8IbR0zgZmHKBoSGvA/view" target="_blank"><em>Why is YouTube Broadcasting Climate Misinformation to Millions?</em></a> "YouTube's recommendation algorithm is giving these videos free promotion and showing misinformation to millions who wouldn't have been exposed to it otherwise."</p>
Monetizing Misinformation
<p>Examples of videos identified as containing climate misinformation include titles such as "ACTUAL SCIENTIST: Climate Change is a Hoax" and "CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering Vaccination Dangers and 911." Other videos feature interviews with climate science deniers, such as <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore" target="_blank">Patrick Moore</a>, and promote false claims that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of climate change (<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf" target="_blank">there is and they are</a>).</p><p>Not all of the channels promoting misinformation are owned by pseudonymous individuals with fringe ideas. Some come from established media organizations such as Fox News and the conservative media nonprofit <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/prageru" target="_blank">PragerU</a>.</p><p>Avaaz uncovered these examples by reviewing over 5,000 videos using the search terms "global warming," "climate change," and "climate manipulation." The NGO found a number of videos containing misleading or false information for each search term.</p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">"</span>For the search term 'global warming,' 16 percent of the top 100 related videos included under the up-next feature had misinformation about climate change," the report states. The percentage of top 100 related videos with climate misinformation, promoted through YouTube's recommendation algorithm, dropped to 8 percent when the search term "climate change" was used. When the researchers typed in "climate manipulation," however, that percentage rose to 21 percent. According to Avaaz, the climate misinformation videos it reviewed had 21.1 million views collectively.</p><div id="383c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BK54XD1579278661"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1217762425757487106" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">If you search for terms such as “global warming” on @YouTube, you might end up watching #misinformation about… https://t.co/hOlAWVCRuN</div> — Avaaz (@Avaaz)<a href="https://twitter.com/Avaaz/statuses/1217762425757487106">1579172161.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Avaaz researchers also found that some of these climate misinformation videos had accompanying advertisements, indicating that YouTube is incentivizing climate misinformation through its monetization program. As the report points out, 55 percent of the fee that advertisers pay goes to the video creator, while 45 percent goes to YouTube.</p><p>Avaaz identified ads from over 100 brands appearing alongside the climate misinformation videos that it reviewed. These included major consumer brands such as Samsung and L'Oréal, ethical or green brands such as Ecosia and Nikin, and environmental groups such as WWF and Greenpeace.</p><p>"We from NIKIN want to join Avaaz in calling on YouTube to change their algorithm that disinformation doesn't get spread around the world and it should especially not be monetized," a company spokesperson for the Swiss sustainable fashion company said in response to the Avaaz report. "We from NIKIN are a sustainable brand that used YouTube as an advertising platform, but our videos got shown before videos that call climate change a hoax. This is completely against what we want and the responsibility lies in YouTube's hand to change that." </p>
Avaaz Recommends Further Action, Youtube Defends Its Policies
<p>Avaaz acknowledged steps that YouTube and Google have taken to update the video platform's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#staying-safe" target="_blank">Community Guidelines</a> policy and fight disinformation. In 2015 YouTube initiated a campaign to help "change the way people discuss climate change," and climate-related videos now include a Wikipedia link to basic, definitive information on the term "global warming."</p><p>In February 2019 Google issued a <a href="https://www.blog.google/documents/37/How_Google_Fights_Disinformation.pdf" target="_blank">white paper on fighting disinformation</a>, stating: "We set out to prevent our systems from serving up content that could misinform users in a harmful way, particularly in domains that rely on veracity, such as science, medicine, news, or historical events." Google said it introduced a "higher bar" for the promotion of YouTube videos. YouTube has also updated its policies on the kind of content it prohibits and has taken steps to protect its users from exposure to misinformation on vaccine safety and conspiracy theories.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjUyMzk0NC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODA1NDg4Mn0.tn3phWtzc0_AfpgrXvUo6TCups3J0wIJBTe1SOEKMnQ/img.png?width=980" id="6f6df" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6b713049219751b41d41e1d2d420a5ca" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The relative number and views of the top 100 videos found searching for "global warming" on YouTube and identifying those featuring climate misinformation. DeSmogBlog / Avaaz
<p>But Avaaz says these actions are not enough.</p><p>"Climate misinformation threatens the health and safety of our societies and our planet. YouTube has taken notable strides to act against disinformation, but our research proves that more is needed," said Julie Deruy, senior campaigner at Avaaz. "YouTube can and should immediately move to include climate misinformation in the company's borderline content policy and allow advertisers to exclude their ads from videos with climate misinformation." (Borderline content refers to videos that walk the line of violating YouTube's terms of service and has been the <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20992018/youtube-borderline-content-recommendation-algorithm-news-authoritative-sources" target="_blank">subject of much scrutiny</a>).</p><p>The Avaaz report outlines several recommendations, based on consultation with industry experts, advertisers, and legislators around the world. These recommendations, quoted here from the report, suggest the video platform: </p><ol><li><strong>Detox the YouTube Recommendation Algorithms</strong>: The company must end its free promotion of misinformation and disinformation videos by extracting such videos from its algorithms, starting immediately by including climate misinformation in its borderline content policy.</li><li><strong>Demonetize Disinformation</strong>: Add disinformation and misinformation to YouTube's relevant monetization policies, ensuring such content does not include advertising and is not financially incentivized. YouTube should start immediately with the option for advertisers to exclude their ads from videos with climate misinformation.</li><li><strong>Correct the Record</strong>: Work with independent fact-checkers to inform users who have seen or interacted with verifiably false or misleading information, and issue corrections alongside these videos.</li><li><strong>Transparency</strong>: Although YouTube promises to work openly with researchers, the company maintains an opaque process around its recommendation algorithms and on how effective its policies are in dealing with misinformation. YouTube should immediately release data showing the amount of views on misinformation content that were driven by its recommendation algorithms. YouTube must also work with researchers to ensure access to its recommendation algorithms to study misinformation.</li></ol><p>DeSmog reached out to one researcher who has studied YouTube's promotion of videos containing conspiracy theories or false information on climate change. Dr. Joachim Allgaier, senior researcher at <span style="background-color: initial;">RWTH</span> Aachen University in Germany, authored a <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036/full" target="_blank">study</a> published last summer finding that YouTube's video recommendation algorithm <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/07/30/youtube-video-suggestion-algorithm-climate-science-denial-study" target="_blank">boosted videos that misrepresented the scientific consensus on climate</a>. Of the 200 videos he reviewed, more than half presented views contrary to mainstream climate science. Allgaier's findings are consistent with those of Avaaz, and he said he supports the recommendations in its new report.</p><p>"I hope [YouTube] will be more transparent on how science-related videos get recommended or not and what exactly they are doing against the promotion of misinformation/disinformation," Allgaier said via email. "And they obviously need to stop the monetization of disinformation videos! To be more transparent and respond to requests and questions from researchers and NGOs would be a prerequisite for being a reliable source of information. From this point of view there still is a lot of room for improvement."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjUyMzk0NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMTQwODc4MX0.vUmcRYYO2CluZkGlEWA_dDogmUCpGeQzL-GuMZrPwNg/img.png?width=980" id="95f10" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="98fb0f5795292ab357d95e9b3632c7b1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/16/youtube-monetizing-climate-science-denial-videos-avaaz" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>Avaaz mock up of what effective misinformation corrections could look like on YouTube videos. DeSmogBlog / Avaaz
<p>DeSmog also reached out to Google, parent company of YouTube, and a company spokesperson defended YouTube's policies, saying that false information does not necessarily violate the site's community guidelines. YouTube indicated that it is not inclined to adopt the recommendations in the Avaaz report, due to concerns on limiting free speech.</p><p>"We can't speak to Avaaz's methodology or results, and our recommendations systems are not designed to filter or demote videos or channels based on specific perspectives. YouTube has strict <a href="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en" target="_blank">ad policies</a> that govern where ads are allowed to appear and we give advertisers tools to opt out of content that doesn't align with their brand," a YouTube spokesperson said in a statement responding to the report. </p><p>"We've also significantly invested in <a href="https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html" target="_blank">reducing</a> recommendations of borderline content and harmful misinformation, and <a href="https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/12/the-four-rs-of-responsibility-raise-and-reduce.html?m=1" target="_blank">raising up</a> authoritative voices on YouTube," the spokesperson continued. "In 2019 alone, the consumption on authoritative news publishers' channels <a href="https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/12/the-four-rs-of-responsibility-raise-and-reduce.html" target="_blank">grew</a> by 60 percent. As our systems appear to have done in the majority of cases in this report, we prioritize authoritative voices for millions of news and information queries, and surface information panels on topics prone to misinformation — including climate change — to provide users with context alongside their content. We continue to expand these efforts to more topics and countries."</p><p>Avaaz said it stands by its findings, and criticized YouTube for knowingly promoting false information on climate change.</p><p>"YouTube is the largest broadcasting channel in the world, and it is driving millions of people to climate misinformation videos," said Avaaz's Deruy. "This is not about free speech, this is about the free advertising YouTube is giving to factually inaccurate videos that risk confusing people about one of the biggest crises of our time. The bottom line is that YouTube should not feature, suggest, promote, advertise, or lead users to misinformation." </p>From Your Site Articles
- Bushfires, Bots and Arson Claims: Australia Flung in the Global ... ›
- Massachusetts Sues ExxonMobil For Climate Disinformation ... ›
- 'It's Not Going to Get Turned Around in 10 Years': Sen. Feinstein ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Rick Perry Rejoins Pipeline Company After He Steps Down From Trump Admin Energy Department
06 January
Energy
Former U.S. Sec. of Energy Rick Perry speaks at the 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0
By Sharon Kelly
Former Trump administration Energy Sec. Rick Perry, who resigned from his cabinet-level post effective last month, has joined the board of directors of the general partner of Energy Transfer LP, according to a filing made today with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Energy Transfer.
<p>Before joining the Trump administration, Perry had served on the board of Energy Transfer, the pipeline company behind controversial projects including <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-transfer-partners-bakken-oil-pipeline-through-iowa" target="_blank">Dakota Access</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/conflict-cajun-country-bayou-bridge-pipeline-louisiana-standing-rock" target="_blank">Bayou Bridge</a>, and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/03/energy-transfer-opens-mariner-east-2-pipeline-criminal-investigation-pennsylvania" target="_blank">Mariner East</a>, but resigned to become Secretary of the Department of Energy. On January 1, 2020, Perry was appointed as a director of LE GP, LLC, the general partner of Energy Transfer LP, according to today's SEC filing, made after the market closed. ("Energy Transfer is structured as a master limited partnership," Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-03/ex-energy-secretary-rick-perry-joins-energy-transfer-board" target="_blank">reports</a>.)</p>
<p>The news comes on the same day that Pennsylvania regulators announced a record $30.6 million fine for Energy Transfer over an explosion of the company's Revolution pipeline. State regulators said they would resume permitting for the firm's Mariner East project.</p><p>Energy Transfer is currently seeking to <a href="https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2020/01/02/energy-transfer-wants-to-nearly-double-dapl-capacity/" target="_blank">roughly double</a> the flow of fossil fuels along its Dakota Access project, raising the pipeline's capacity to 1.1 million barrels a day, up from the <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2019/12/27/energy-transfer-led-pipeline-group-wants-to-nearly-double-its-pumping-in-illinois/" target="_blank">560,000 barrels</a> of oil currently flowing through the Dakota Access system. </p><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/06/facing-felony-charges-rick-perry-joins-board-energy-transfer-partners" target="_blank">Perry first joined the board</a> of the company, then known as Energy Transfer Partners, in February 2015, as he was facing state-level felony charges, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/24/467946196/texas-appeals-court-tosses-final-felony-charge-against-former-gov-rick-perry" target="_blank">dismissed a year later</a>, for abuse of power during his term as Governor of Texas.</p>
<p>In 2017, after being chosen by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Department of Energy, Perry said that he <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/19/rick-perry-hopes-head-agency-he-once-forgot/96732676/" target="_blank">regretted his previous statements</a> about eliminating the very department he would go on to lead. During his tenure in the Trump administration, Perry sent a proposed rule to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (<span style="background-color: initial;">FERC</span>) to speed the approval of a proposal which would ensure that nuclear and coal plants received compensation for the "resilience" they give to the power grid, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-perry-urges-ferc-protect-coal-nuclear-power-plants/article/2636085" target="_blank">The Washington Examiner reported</a>.</p><p>Speaking at CERAWeek, an annual energy conference in Texas, in March 2018, Perry said "clean" fossil fuels are the future, and a focus on renewables isn't the answer. "Listen, we support renewables," he told the audience, but suggested that the focus under the Paris Agreement was not the right approach. "What are we supposed to do in the meantime?" he asked, pointing to projections that fossil fuels aren't going anywhere soon. </p>
The Revolving Door Spins
<p>The Trump administration has come under fire over revolving door concerns before — often involving the hiring of former corporate lobbyists for government roles. "At the halfway mark of President Donald Trump's first term, his administration has hired a lobbyist for every 14 political appointments made, welcoming a total of <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/trump-town/staffers/category/lobbyists" target="_blank">281 lobbyists</a> on board, a ProPublica and Columbia Journalism Investigations analysis shows," ProPublica reported in <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/we-found-a-staggering-281-lobbyists-whove-worked-in-the-trump-administration" target="_blank">October</a>.</p><p>Other former high-level Trump officials have also come under fire for accepting roles in industries previously under their purview, including former Interior Secretary <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/ryan-zinke" target="_blank">Ryan Zinke</a>. In July last year, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-23/former-interior-chief-zinke-now-enlisting-energy-mining-clients" target="_blank">Bloomberg reported</a> that Zinke began working as a consultant for oil and mining firms after leaving the Interior Department, drawing criticism from good governance watchdogs. Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-new-role-will-profit-from-child-separation-policy-2019-5" target="_blank">similarly drew condemnation</a> when he joined the board of Caliburn International, operator of the largest U.S. center for housing migrant children, after playing a role in policy debates over the separation of migrant children from their families. And former Environmental Protection Agency chief <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-pruitt" target="_blank">Scott Pruitt</a> was reportedly in talks in September 2019 to work as a consultant for a Kentucky coal mining executive, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/climate/pruitt-coal-consulting.html" target="_blank">according to</a> The New York Times.</p><p>A January 28, 2017 executive order issued by President Trump requires executive branch appointees to pledge that they will not lobby agencies where they previously worked for five years.</p>'Historic' Fine for Energy Transfer Announced in Pennsylvania, Permitting Bar Lifted
<p>Perry joins a company with a troubled track record when it comes to the law.</p><p>On the same day as the SEC filing announcing Perry's new role, Pennsylvania <a href="http://files.dep.state.pa.us/ProgramIntegration/PA%20Pipeline%20Portal/RevolutionPipeline/Consent_Order_and_Agreement_01-03-2020.pdf" target="_blank">announced</a> that it had reached an agreement with ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC, an Energy Transfer <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1276187/000127618719000011/et-12312018xex211.htm" target="_blank">subsidiary</a>, over the 2018 explosion of the Revolution pipeline, part of the state's expanding network connecting the shale gas industry and the plastics and petrochemical industry.</p><p>The agreement includes a $30.6 million fine, one of the largest in commonwealth history — dwarfing the <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2019/12/04/pennsylvania-prosecutor-accuses-energy-transfer-of-buy-a-badge-security-scheme/" target="_blank">$13 million</a> in prior fines <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/119459-pennsylvania-again-fines-me-2-total-penalties-exceed-13m?v=preview" target="_blank">issued as of September</a> last year by state regulators for environmental violations during Mariner East pipeline construction. It also lifts a permit bar that <a href="https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-issues-statement-dep-pipeline-permit-bar/" target="_blank">blocked</a> Energy Transfer from obtaining new permits for its pipeline construction projects, including an ongoing expansion of its Mariner East pipeline system.</p><p>"The settlement announced Friday means the company can also begin the process of repairing the Revolution pipeline, which links shale wells in Beaver and Butler counties to an Energy Transfer gas processing plant in Washington County," the Pittsburgh Post Gazette <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2020/01/03/Energy-Transfer-30M-penalty-pipeline-explosion-permit-ban-Revolution-Mariner-East/stories/202001030137" target="_blank">reports</a>.</p><p>In August, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/30/shell-beaver-county-pennsylvania-revolution-pipeline-permit-scandal" target="_blank">state auditors reported</a> that Revolution pipeline's permits were "reviewed and authorized" by a county-level office that lacked authority to review so-called "gathering" pipelines like Revolution.</p><p>Pennsylvania environmentalists decried the commonwealth's lifting of the permit ban, which was established in early February 2019 after Energy Transfer struggled to repair the site of the Revolution blast and repeatedly created sinkholes that exposed buried portions of the Mariner East 1 pipeline project.</p><p>"There has been a failure by Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries to respect our laws and our communities," Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/02/08/pa-dep-halts-new-pipeline-permits-for-mariner-east-cites-ongoing-violations-with-revolution-pipeline/" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement when the bar was announced. "This is not how we strive to do business in Pennsylvania, and it will not be tolerated."</p><p>Last month, Energy Transfer and its security contractors were <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/12/08/energy-transfer-tigerswan-bribery-conspiracy-charges/" target="_blank">charged</a> with criminal conspiracy, bribery, and other related offenses in the state over allegations centering on alleged intimidation tactics used by the firm's security guards, who also served as Pennsylvania state constables, in what prosecutors referred to as a "buy-a-badge" scheme. "We do not believe these charges have any merit," an Energy Transfer spokesperson <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/12/08/energy-transfer-tigerswan-bribery-conspiracy-charges/" target="_blank">told</a> The Intercept when those charges were announced.</p><p>"Given the disastrous environmental degradation Energy Transfer caused with its Revolution pipeline, the company has lost its social license to operate," Joseph Otis Minott, attorney for the Clean Air Council, said in a statement today on Pennsylvania's agreement with Energy Transfer.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/03/energy-secretary-rick-perry-rejoins-energy-transfer-board-dakota-access">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less