A woman is seen shopping in a boutique. Thomas Barwick / Getty Images
By Amol Mehra
Set against rising calls for action to combat growing inequality and the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of the key drivers of industry and economic reform: workers, communities and the environment.
<p>The crisis has laid bare the perils of relying on purely market-based approaches. This should not be a surprise to those who have long railed against the free market, shareholder-centric approach, derived from current neoliberal economic narratives.</p><p>The tide is turning, however, and business leaders are starting to understand that their legitimacy may hinge on how they respond. Those who seize this moment will surely benefit from the swing in momentum towards a more human and environment-centered approach to doing business.</p><p>Take for example the calls to "Build Back Better" from the "We Mean Business Coalition" – a group of over 1000 companies with a market cap of over $24 trillion who are organizing to support climate action and just economy approaches.</p><p>Through setting commitments for companies and building collective power to lobby governments and policy-makers, this group is joining the chorus of human rights, labour and environmental movements which have been ringing the alarm for change for some time. Together, the approach has huge potential to shift the debate – and to lead to meaningful action on the part of policy-makers to commit to tackling the threats posed by the climate crisis.</p><p>These two industries – the built environment and fashion – are sectors that are ripe for transformation and where even subtle shifts have potential for wide-reaching transformation. Here's why:</p>
The Built Environment
<p>The built environment – the physical places and structures that we inhabit – is a huge potential change agent in this regard. Buildings and construction account for massive amounts of energy usage and about 40% of global CO2 emissions, providing a clear pathway to shift current consumption and production pathways.</p><p>The construction sector accounts for around <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Capital%20Projects%20and%20Infrastructure/Our%20Insights/Reinventing%20construction%20through%20a%20productivity%20revolution/MGI-Reinventing-Construction-In-Brief.pdf" target="_blank">13% of the world's GDP </a>and<a href="https://iloblog.org/2020/05/11/the-construction-sector-can-help-lead-the-economic-recovery-heres-how/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> for 7.2% of the global workforce</a>. Many of the jobs linked to these sector have a negative history of labour rights, especially with respect to <a href="https://laborrights.org/issues/migrant-labor" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">migrant laborers</a>. As <a href="https://iloblog.org/2020/05/11/the-construction-sector-can-help-lead-the-economic-recovery-heres-how/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">experts have noted</a>, the scale of the industry and its relative impacts on labour markets and the environment make it a prime agent of transformation of the broader global economy.</p><p>By prioritizing approaches that focus on decarbonization and the promotion of labor rights protections, we can create economic opportunities that promote healthy, regenerative structures. Efforts are starting to seed in this regard, with <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/21058051/climate-change-building-materials-mass-timber-cross-laminated-clt" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increased attention</a> being placed to mass timber and other wood products in construction, as well as the use of natural materials in buildings.</p><p>At the same time, leading human rights organizations are looking more closely at promoting <a href="https://www.ihrb.org/focus-areas/built-environment/commentary-linking-climate-human-rights-built-environment-lifecycle" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rights-based approaches</a>.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDc5Njg3OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2ODY2ODIxN30.DdMP_t-06f1kheN1d9k2tV6MHLQA_9MyXP9nNjNP-q8/img.jpg?width=980" id="668e9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a60d36e164c6ca1a4fd961adf50569ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Not all industries are equal. ourworldindata.org
Fashion
<p>But this isn't the only sector with transformative power. The fashion sector produces <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/fashion-industry-carbon-unsustainable-environment-pollution/" target="_blank">nearly 10% of the world's carbon emissions and is the second largest consumer of the water</a>, all while employing between <a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/industries-and-sectors/textiles-clothing-leather-footwear/lang--ja/index.htm" target="_blank">60 and 70 million</a> workers in garment supply chains.</p><p>While there have been laudable innovations in recent years towards adopting circularity and increasing the use of organic materials, there is still huge potential to promote transformative change in protections for workers.</p><p>Workers in the sector are often left without social protections, exposing them to vulnerability. In recognition of this need, the International Labor Organization, business actors and labor rights leaders have <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---dialogue/documents/statement/wcms_742371.pdf" target="_blank">committed to take</a> action to protect garment workers' income, health and employment, and to work together to establish sustainable systems of social protection for a more just and resilient garment industry.</p><p>This "Call to Action" launched in April 2020 and now needs steady implementation. The effort should seek to cast a wide tent, bringing in other industry players and leveraging development actors as well.</p><p>What's clear from the examples above is that critical, much needed efforts are starting to emerge and that these efforts need to be encouraged and accelerated. As social movements, consumers, investors, regulators and businesses themselves start to realize the value of transforming practices, the momentum will increase for other sectors to follow suit. This domino effect will spur the economic transformation that is so desperately needed to ensure that the environment, and the people who inhabit it, can live in a healthy, just society.</p><p>There can be no doubt: transformation of our economic system is imperative. The moment is now for businesses, and the industries they are part of, to seize it.</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A baby orangutan displaced by palm oil plantation logging is seen at Nyaru Menteng Rehabilitation Center in Borneo, Indonesia on May 27, 2017. Jonathan Perugia / In Pictures / Getty Images
The world's largest financial institutions loaned more than $2.6 trillion in 2019 to sectors driving the climate crisis and wildlife destruction, according to a new report from advocacy organization portfolio.earth.
<p>For some perspective, portfolio.earth notes that $2.6 trillion is more than the entire GDP of Canada. The paper, Bankrolling Extinction, found that the world's largest banks funded an acceleration toward mass extinction in 2019 without trying to limit their impact on ecosystems, <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-biodiversity-banks/bank-loans-scrutinized-for-harm-to-wildlife-as-well-as-climate-idUKKBN27D001" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p><p>The top 10 banks implicated are Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Mizuho Financial, Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, HSBC, SMBC Group and Barclays, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/28/banks-lent-1-9tn-linked-to-ecosystem-and-wildlife-destruction-in-2019-report-aoe?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco&fbclid=IwAR2EberDUKgkfo7DFK19vxuZL3kBj8tzeIcnsBXG6ZjzxFOXUTQjOG07Jys" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>The authors of the report note that not only do the banks lack an internal system to limit, monitor or measure the impact of their loans on biodiversity, but the current financial system rules protect the banks from any consequences.</p>
<p>To determine how much money adversely affected the natural world, the researchers matched the loans and underwriting services from 50 large investment banks to areas the United Nations has identified as driving biodiversity loss, The Guardian reported. The most threatening sectors are food and agriculture, forestry, mining, fossil fuels, infrastructure, tourism, transportation and logistics.</p><p>For example, Bankrolling Extinction stressed the outsized role that industrial agriculture plays in biodiversity loss, especially when tropical forests in the Amazon and Asia are cleared to make way for cattle ranches and commodity crops.</p><p>Some banks have responded to pressure from investors and limited investments in Arctic drilling, coal and new oil exploration, The Guardian reported. </p>
<p>"Banks are starting to realize that if they invest in sectors that cause climate change, that will hurt their returns," Liz Gallagher, director of portfolio.earth, told Reuters. "Banks need to understand that the same holds true for destroying biodiversity."</p><p>However, The Guardian reported that an analysis by Rainforest Action Network found that the world's leading banks had not aligned their investments with the goals of the 2016 Paris climate agreement.</p><p>"This report from portfolio.earth confirms what our research also shows, that banks globally still need to step up their game and develop an approach to protect biodiversity," Peter van der Werf, senior engagement specialist at Netherlands-based asset manager Robeco, told Reuters.<br></p>
<p>If banks changed their lending patterns, that money could prevent mass extinction and tackle the climate crisis.</p><p>"Imagine a world in which projects can only raise capital when they have demonstrated that they will contribute meaningfully and positively to restoring the planet's bounty and a safe climate for all? That's the future this report envisions and builds toward," Professor Kai Chan of the Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia told The Guardian.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Climate Crisis May Cause the Next Financial Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- World's Banks Have Given $2.7 Trillion to Fossil Fuels Since Paris ... ›
- World's Biggest Banks Are Driving Climate Change, Pumping ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Tesla has more than doubled its third-quarter profits, delivering a record number of electric automobiles despite the pandemic. Tesla
By Kristie Pladson
U.S. electric carmaker Tesla has more than doubled its third-quarter profits, the company has announced, delivering a record number of electric automobiles amid a pandemic that has crippled fellow automakers.
<p>In a letter to investors, the company said it delivered 139,300 vehicles in the third quarter, a new quarterly record. It aims to have produced and delivered 500,000 cars by the end of the year.</p><p>Net profits in the third quarter reached $331 million, more than twice the $143 million posted at the same time a year earlier. Revenue went up nearly 40% to $8.7 billion, exceeding analysts' expectations.</p><p>The value of Tesla shares — which have increased fivefold since the beginning of the year — were up 4.3% to $440.81 in extended trading, news agency Reuters reported. </p><p>This marks the fifth straight quarter of profits for the company. As of September, Tesla reported making $451 million in 2020 and seems on course to post its first annual profit.</p>
CO2 Offset Sales Still Key
<p>An uptick in demand abroad countered a drop in US car sales of nearly 10% over the last year; global deliveries increased 44% in the third quarter.</p><p>But Tesla still partly owes its success to competitor carmakers: as in past quarters, the electric car company's profits relied on the sale of CO2 credits to fellow carmakers, which allow them to offset their emissions and reach government climate targets. Valuing $331 million in the third quarter, Tesla would not have been profitable otherwise. </p>Competition Heats Up
<p>While traditional automakers are suffering in a global economy marked by a pandemic, Tesla is no longer alone in its electric ambitions.</p><p>"The company is still incredibly highly rated, as if it were working in a vacuum. But the competitors are working like mad to catch up," said analyst Craig Irwin of Roth Capital Partners, pointing to hundreds of new battery-powered vehicles that are expected to be released by 2024.</p><p>Volkswagen group is investing over €40 billion ($47 billion) into developing an electric car portfolio, and other competitors have announced similar initiatives.</p><p>"With more electric vehicle launches on the horizon, Tesla has a big red target on its back," said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights for the Edmunds.com auto website.</p><p>In its letter, Tesla admitted that reaching its production targets "has become more difficult" and it will rely on of its Model Y small SUV as well as greater activity at its China plant.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A Stop the Money Pipeline protester holds a banner outside JP Morgan headquarters in NYC on Feb. 25, 2020; JP Morgan is a top contributor to the fossil fuel industry. Erik McGregor / LightRocket / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
Green groups applauded Sen. Jeff Merkley on Wednesday for introducing a pioneering pair of bills that aim to "protect the long-term health and well-being of the American people and their economy from the catastrophic effects of climate chaos" by preventing banks and international financial institutions from financing fossil fuels.
<p>"How we invest our money reflects our values today and will drive our future tomorrow," the Oregon Democrat <a href="https://www.merkley.senate.gov/news/press-releases/merkley-introduces-pair-of-bills-to-protect-american-lives-and-livelihoods-from-climate-chaos-2020" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement about his new legislative proposals, citing a September report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/09/while-trump-commission-warns-climate-risk-financial-system-recommendations-fall" target="_blank">warning</a> that the human-caused climate crisis endangers the U.S. financial system.</p><p>"Fossil fuel investments play a key role in accelerating climate chaos, which continues to spiral further and further out of control and claim lives and livelihoods in the process," Merkley added. "It's time to prioritize the interests of the American people and the planet above the wishes of fossil fuel CEOs who want to hold our economy hostage."</p><p>The <a href="https://www.merkley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/20.10.21%20Protecting%20America's%20Economy%20from%20the%20Carbon%20Bubble%20Act%20of%202020.pdf" target="_blank">Protecting America's Economy from the Carbon Bubble Act of 2020 </a> "would help safeguard the economy by prohibiting financial companies from making new investments in fossil fuels," according to his office. The <a href="https://www.merkley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/20.10.21%20Sustainable%20International%20Financial%20Institutions%20Act%20of%202020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sustainable International Financial Institutions Act of 2020</a> "would elevate that priority to the international stage by ensuring that the United States uses its voice and vote in international financial institutions to divest from fossil fuel investments."</p>
<div id="815e9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="eb5133bc08c84a247e6c577bb4c4ba59"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1318967338482364416" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Yes! @SenJeffMerkley just introduced new legislation that would stop banks and other financial institutions from fu… https://t.co/Bk15N9Sewk</div> — Stop the Money Pipeline (@Stop the Money Pipeline)<a href="https://twitter.com/StopMoneyPipe/statuses/1318967338482364416">1603301293.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The legislation was enthusiastically endorsed by members of Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 130 advocacy organizations that <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/09/climate-movement-takes-aim-wall-street-because-money-only-language-fossil-fuel" target="_blank">launched</a> in January to pressure asset managers, banks, and insurance companies to "stop financing fossil fuels and deforestation and start respecting human rights and Indigenous sovereignty."</p><p>"Sen. Merkley is showing real leadership by introducing the first-ever bills to cut the money pipeline fueling the climate crisis," declared David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, in a coalition statement Wednesday.</p><p>Kelly Martin, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign, similarly said that "we applaud Sen. Merkley for his leadership in working to cut off the flow of money to dirty and destructive fossil fuels."</p><p>"Investments from major financial institutions are driving the climate crisis and environmental injustice worldwide," Martin added. "In order to tackle this crisis, we need to put a stop to business as usual and reinvest in a clean energy economy that works for all of us."</p>
<div id="f84b7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f6742078b73d4f72ad0cdb0b28c45bf8"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1318975843717287936" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"When there’s an out of control fire, the worst thing you can do is pour more gas on it. It’s time for Congress ste… https://t.co/YfjbtiWeRY</div> — 350 dot org (@350 dot org)<a href="https://twitter.com/350/statuses/1318975843717287936">1603303321.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Sue Stafford and Toby Woll of Mothers Out Front Corporate Responsibility Team called Merkley's legislation "important and necessary" while Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law said that "ending financing for fossil fuels should be a no-brainer."</p><p>"As this year has made abundantly clear, fossil fuels are not just terrible for people and the planet, they are terrible investments, too," Reisch continued. "Sen. Merkley's bills would finally require financial institutions to do what they should have long since done on their own: stop bankrolling climate catastrophe."</p><p>While welcoming the senator's bills, campaigners also slammed financial institutions for "driving the destruction of the climate, deforestation, and furthering harms to public health and communities" by "pouring billions into the dying fossil fuel industry," in the words of Osprey Orielle Lake, executive director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network.</p><p>Lake urged Congress to urgently enact the measures—a call that was echoed by Lukas Ross from Friends of the Earth U.S., who warned that "whether it is Wall Street behemoths or public institutions like the Export-Import Bank, financial institutions are lending the climate over a cliff."</p>
<div id="f35ca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f0306ad9e315c3763299c349c4056f90"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1318969691767930880" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: @SenJeffMerkley just introduced new legislation that would help end the financing of fossil fuels! 👏👏👏 W… https://t.co/831xi0UPfo</div> — Moira Birss (@Moira Birss)<a href="https://twitter.com/moira_kb/statuses/1318969691767930880">1603301854.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"Public and private banks are squandering over $4 trillion annually subsidizing the destabilization of our global climate by the fossil fuel industry," noted Daphne Wysham at the Center for Sustainable Economy. "Finally, in Sen. Merkley, we have a climate champion willing to stand up to this madness and call for banks to invest in a liveable future."</p><p><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/03/18/banking-climate-change-report-reveals-banks-funded-climate-chaos-trillions-paris" target="_blank">According to</a> a report released in March by climate advocacy groups, 35 global banks have collectively poured more than $2.7 trillion into the fossil fuel industry since the Paris climate agreement was finalized in late 2015. The four top spots were all held by U.S. institutions: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America.</p><p>"Sen. Merkley's new divestment bills are exactly the sort of real climate leadership we need from our elected officials and regulators," said David Turnbull of Oil Change International (OCI). "If banks won't stop funding climate devastation, our government must force their hand, and Sen. Merkley's bills would force the action we need."</p><p>In addition to helping to ensure a habitable planet in the years to come, 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben pointed out that there could be some added benefits for lawmakers. As he put it: "Fighting the climate crisis and saving big money at the same time—a few more laws like this and people may start liking Congress!"</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/21/merkley-unveils-pioneering-bills-make-financial-institutions-stop-bankrolling?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank"> Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
A Subway sandwich. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
The bread used to make Subway sandwiches isn't legally bread.
<p>At least that's what Ireland's Supreme Court <a href="https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c102c0f0/2020_IESC_60%20%28Unapproved%29.pdf/pdf#view=fitH" target="_blank">ruled Tuesday</a> after an Irish Subway franchise tried to get out of paying value added tax (VAT) on its foodstuffs. The franchise, Bookfinders Ltd, argued that its bread was a staple <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> and should therefore be exempt from the tax, <a href="https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/irish-court-rules-subway-bread-is-not-bread" target="_blank">The Guardian explained</a>. But Ireland's Value-Added Tax Act of 1972 has a very clear definition of bread: It can't contain more sugar than 2 percent of the weight of flour in its dough.</p><p>Subway's bread, however, contains five times more sugar than that.</p><p>"In this case, there is no dispute that the bread supplied by Subway in its heated sandwiches has a sugar content of 10% of the weight of the flour included in the dough, and thus exceeds the 2% specified in subpara," the court ruled.</p>
<p>In fact, a six-inch Subway roll contains the same amount of sugar as two digestive cookies and slightly less than a Big Mac bun, The Guardian calculated.</p><p>Subway pushed back against a literal interpretation of the ruling and said it was reviewing the decision.</p><p>"Subway's bread is, of course, bread," the U.S. company said in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/919189045/for-subway-a-ruling-not-so-sweet-irish-court-says-its-bread-isnt-bread?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2ijoqsVYvE6ukloiKvKbvdxhXtXXVaSGxIGvfeQzlTv7MS9Wm2Ob_OuCo&fbclid=IwAR3Ke3wyXbU1i0Dsdjkaeci3GSL6CB--SRdpdDGMtMbcJlfF9f-NSar-T2k&fbclid=IwAR3sb5Cg2_ArJ4NWoT4utsC_1fE4xPubOwlPbxDXm8_-QqD8rDzFLxd8vtk" target="_blank">NPR</a>. "We have been baking fresh bread in our restaurants for more than three decades and our guests return each day for sandwiches made on bread that smells as good as it tastes."</p>
<p>The case came about when Bookfinders appealed a 2006 decision by the Revenue Commissioners not to refund it for VAT it had paid between 2004 and 2005, <a href="https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sandwiches-in-subway-too-sugary-to-meet-legal-definition-of-being-bread-39574778.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Irish Independent reported</a>. Bookfinders had been taxed at a rate of 9.2 percent but argued it should have been taxed at zero percent because it was selling staples. By ruling Subway's "bread" was too sweet to be a staple, the court rejected the franchise's appeal.</p><p>This is not the first time the content of Subway's sandwich bread has caused controversy. In 2014, the sandwich chain was the target of a petition urging it to stop using azodicarbonamide in its bread, <a href="https://www.foodandwine.com/news/subway-bread-sugar-content-ireland-court-ruling" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Food & Wine pointed out</a>. Azodicarbonamide is a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a> used to whiten flour and condition dough, but it is also used in yoga mats and fake leather. It is still approved for culinary use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but is banned from food in Australia and the EU.</p><p>Subway decided six years ago to honor the petition and ditch the ingredient.</p><p>"Even though this ingredient is safe, we are removing it from Subway bread," the company said at the time.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- The 7 Healthiest Types of Bread - EcoWatch ›
- Why Sourdough Bread Is One of the Healthiest - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
People protest coronavirus working conditions outside of an Amazon warehouse fulfillment center on May 1, 2020 in Staten Island, New York City. Stephanie Keith / Getty Images
Online retail giant Amazon, which has seen its profits soar since COVID-19 lockdowns began, announced Thursday that nearly 20,000 of its employees either tested positive or have been presumed positive for the coronavirus, CNN reported.
<p>Amazon revealed 19,816 COVID-19 cases, or roughly 1.44 percent of its front-line workforce, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/01/amazon-workers-covid-positive/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported.</p><p>In a corporate blog post, Amazon said it examined data for about 1.37 million front-line employees who worked at Amazon and Whole Foods from March 1 to September 19. Amazon then compared the results to the official statistics reported by the <a href="https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html" target="_blank">Johns Hopkins University</a> coronavirus tracker. If Amazon's infection rate were commensurate with the general population, it would total almost 34,000 cases, the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-amazoncom-inc-whole-foods-market-inc-a9e270b8991d13d21516728ae6b58477" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>However, Amazon claims that its numbers are 42 percent lower than expected based on that comparison, CNN reported.<br></p>
<p>When CNN asked Amazon for a breakdown between Whole Foods and Amazon employees, the company declined to provide that information.</p><p>Another caveat to the data is that it does not include the company's large pool of delivery drivers, who are usually independent contractors, Amazon spokesperson Kelly Cheeseman told The Washington Post.</p><p>Health officials have had a difficult time obtaining accurate data from Amazon about infection rates at its facilities. An <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/lack-oversight-transparency-leave-amazon-employees-dark-covid-19-n1241549" target="_blank">NBC News</a> investigation revealed earlier this week that managers at a Wisconsin warehouse pushed hundreds of employees into a windowless room during a tornado warning back in August — just a day after employees learned about more of their coworkers testing positive. Afterward, the company refused to provide data on how many new cases resulted from the incident. </p>
<p>The county health director in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Dr. Jen Freiheit, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6961783-Amazon-Redacted.html#document/p20/a578637" target="_blank">described</a> Amazon as "less than easy to work with," NBC News reported.</p><p>Amazon has received pushback from its employees who have criticized working conditions. In March, more than 1,500 employees across the U.S. and Europe signed a petition asking the company to adopt and enforce stricter safety protocols. At the time, one employee called the working conditions "totally insufficient" to keep people healthy, The Washington Post reported.</p><p>Despite efforts to improve safety conditions, including increased cleanings, temperature checks and mandatory face masks, some employees believe the company still has a long way to go.</p>
<p>Amazon's disclosure "is the most damning evidence we have seen that corporate America has completely failed to protect our country's front line workers in this pandemic," Marc Perrone, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, said in a statement in The Washington Post.</p><p>Meanwhile, the company's profits have soared as demand for online shopping increased during the pandemic, The Washington Post reported. Amazon's stock price has almost doubled, adding tens of billions of dollars to founder Jeff Bezos' net worth in 2020, reported CNN.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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>
From Your Site Articles
- New Zealand Passes 'Historic' Zero Emissions Bill - EcoWatch ›
- New Zealand Government to Plant 100 Million Trees Yearly ... ›
- New Zealand Will Consider Climate Crisis in All Major Policy ... ›
- New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern Wins Historic Victory Following Science-Based Leadership on COVID and Climate - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
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
Trending
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
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 ›
- Exxon Plans to Increase Its Climate Pollution - EcoWatch ›
- Scientists Say Methane Release Is Starting in Arctic Ocean. How Concerned Should We Be? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less