Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' Documentary Attacks Climate Solutions
01 May
Insights + Opinion
Michael Moore at the 72nd annual Cannes Film Festival on May 25, 2019 in Cannes, France. Vittorio Zunino Celotto / Getty Images
By Dana Nuccitelli
Environmentalists and renewable energy advocates have long been allies in the fight to keep unchecked industrial growth from irreversibly ruining Earth's climate and threatening the future of human civilization. In their new YouTube documentary "Planet of the Humans," director Jeff Gibbs and producer Michael Moore argue for splitting the two sides. Their misleading, outdated, and scientifically sophomoric dismissal of renewable energy is perhaps the most dangerous form of climate denial, eroding support for renewable energy as a critical climate solution.
<p><br/></p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-documentary-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial/" target="_blank"><em>Yale Climate Connections.</em></a></p>
<p>"Planet of the Humans" by the end of April had more than 4.7 million views and fairly high scores at the movie critic review aggregator <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/planet_of_the_humans" target="_blank">Rotten Tomatoes</a>. The documentary has received <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/24/1939980/-Planet-Of-The-Humans-Is-Moore-Trouble-Than-It-s-Worth-A-Non-Review" target="_blank">glowing reviews from numerous climate "deniers"</a> whose names are familiar to those in the climate community, including Steve Milloy, Marc Morano, and James Delingpole. Some environmentalists who have seen the movie are beginning to oppose wind and solar projects that are absolutely necessary to slow climate change.</p><p>The film by these two "progressive" filmmakers may succeed where Fox News and right-wing talk radio have failed: to undermine humanity's last best hope for positive change. As energy journalist <a href="https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/" target="_blank">Ketan Joshi wrote</a>, the film is "selling far-right, climate-denier myths from nearly a decade ago to left-wing environmentalists in the 2020s."</p><p>The film follows Gibbs as he visits various green technology sites in the United States and ostensibly learns that each one is just as bad as the fossil fuel infrastructure that it would replace. Unfortunately, the movie is littered with misleading, skewed, and outdated scenes.</p><p>"Planet of the Humans"' approach is fundamentally flawed – Gibbs focuses almost exclusively on the imperfections of technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, and electric cars without considering their ability to reduce carbon and other pollutants. The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad, thus implying that the very existence of human civilization is the problem while offering little in the way of alternative solutions.</p>
A Badly Outdated Portrait of Solar and Wind
<p>In an interview with Reuters, Michael Moore summarized the premise of the film: "I assumed solar panels would last forever. I didn't know what went into the making of them."</p><p>It's true. Solar panels and wind turbines don't last forever (though they do last several decades), and like every other industrial product, they require mining and manufacturing of raw materials. Sadly, that's about as deep as the film delves into quantifying the environmental impacts of renewable energy versus fossil fuels. In fact, the misinformation in the film is at times much worse than ignorance.</p><p>In one scene, author and film co-producer Ozzie Zehner falsely asserts, "You use more fossil fuels [manufacturing renewables infrastructure] than you're getting benefit from. You would have been better off burning the fossil fuels in the first place instead of playing pretend."</p><p><span></span>That's monumentally wrong. A <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints" target="_blank">2017 study in Nature Energy</a> found that when accounting for manufacturing and construction, the lifetime carbon footprints of solar, wind, and nuclear power are about 20 times smaller than those of coal and natural gas, even when the latter include expensive carbon capture and storage technology. The energy produced during the operation of a solar panel and wind turbine is 26 and 44 times greater than the energy needed to build and install them, respectively. There are many life-cycle assessment studies arriving at similar conclusions.</p><p>The film's case is akin to arguing that because fruit contains sugar, eating strawberries is no healthier than eating a cheesecake.</p><p>It's true that the carbon footprint of renewable energy is not zero. But the film somehow fails to mention that it's far lower than the fossil fuel alternatives, instead falsely suggesting (with zero supporting evidence) that renewables are just as bad. The closest defense of that argument comes when Zehner claims that wind and solar energy cannot displace coal, and instead retired coal power plants are being replaced by even larger natural gas plants.</p><p>In reality, coal power generation in the U.S. has declined by about half (over 1 trillion kilowatt-hours) <a href="https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-2019/" target="_blank">over the past decade</a>, and it's true that natural gas has picked up about two-thirds of that slack (670 kWh). But growth in renewables has accounted for the other one-third (370 kWh). As a result, power sector carbon emissions in the U.S. have fallen by one-third since 2008 and continue to decline steadily. In fact, electricity is the only major sector in the U.S. that's achieving significant emissions reductions.</p><p>It's true that natural gas is a fossil fuel. To reach zero emissions, it must be replaced by renewables with storage and smart grids. But thus far the path to grid decarbonization in the U.S. has been a success story that the film somehow portrays as a failure. Moreover, that decarbonization could be accelerated through policies like pricing carbon pollution, but the film does not once put a single second of thought into policy solutions.</p><p>In perhaps its most absurd scene, Gibbs and Zehner visit a former solar facility in Daggett, California, built in the mid-1980s and replaced 30 years later. Gazing upon the sand-covered landscape of the former facility, Gibbs declares in an ominous tone, "It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at: a solar dead zone."</p><p>Daggett is located in the Mojave Desert. Sand is the natural landscape. Solar farms don't create dead zones; in fact, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/" target="_blank">some plants thrive</a> under the shade provided by solar panels.</p><p>It suddenly dawned on me how hard the film was trying to portray clean energy in a negative light.</p>
A Shallow Dismissal of Electric Vehicles
<p>In another science, Gibbs travels to a General Motors facility in Lansing, Michigan, circa 2010, as GM showcased its then-new Chevy Volt plug-in electric hybrid vehicle. Gibbs interviews a representative from the local municipal electric utility provider, who notes that they generate 95% of their supply by burning coal, and that the power to charge the GM facility's EVs will not come from renewables in the near future.</p><p>That is the full extent of the discussion of EVs in the film. Viewers are left to assume that because these cars are charged by burning coal, they're just <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing" target="_blank">greenwashing</a>. In reality, because of the high efficiency of electric motors, an electric car charged entirely by burning coal still produces less carbon pollution than an internal combustion engine car (though more than a hybrid). The U.S. Department of Energy has <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html" target="_blank">a useful tool</a> for comparing carbon emissions between EVs, plug-in hybrids, conventional hybrids, and gasoline-powered cars for each state. In Michigan, on average, EVs are the cleanest option of all, as is the case for the national average power grid. In West Virginia, with over 90% electricity generated from coal, hybrids are the cleanest option, but EVs are still cleaner than gasoline cars.</p><p>In short, EVs are an improvement over gasoline-powered cars everywhere, and their carbon footprints will continue to shrink as renewables expand to supply more of the power grid.</p>A Valid Critique of Wood Biomass
<p>The film devotes a half hour to the practice of burning trees for energy. That's one form of biomass, which also includes burning wood waste, garbage, and biofuels. Last year, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3" target="_blank">1% of U.S. electricity</a> was generated by burning wood, but it accounted for 30% of the film run time.</p><p>In fairness, Europe is a different story, where wood biomass accounts for around 5% of electricity generation, and which imports a lot of wood chips from America. It's incentivized because the European Union considers burning wood to be carbon neutral, and it can thus be used to meet climate targets. That's because new trees can be planted to replace those removed, and the EU assumes the wood being burned would have decayed and released its stored carbon anyway.</p><p>There are <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass" target="_blank">numerous problems</a> with those assumptions, one of which is unavoidable: time. Burning trees is close to carbon neutral once a replacement tree grows to sufficient maturity to recapture the lost carbon, but that takes many decades. In the meantime, the carbon released into the atmosphere accelerates the climate crisis at a time when slashing emissions is increasingly urgent. That's why <a href="https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Scientist-Letter-to-Governor-Cooper_11-15_2017.pdf" target="_blank">climate scientists are increasingly calling on policymakers</a> to stop expanding this practice. So has 350.org founder Bill McKibben since 2016, <a href="https://350.org/response-planet-of-the-humans-documentary/" target="_blank">despite his depiction in the film</a> as a villainous proponent of clearcutting forests to burn for energy.</p><p>It's complicated, but the carbon footprint of biomass <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/is-burning-wood-for-energy-worse-for-the-climate-than-coal" target="_blank">depends on where the wood comes from</a>. Burning waste (including waste wood) as biomass that would decay anyway is justifiable, but also generally only practical at a relatively small scale. A more detailed investigation of the wood biomass industry could make for a worthwhile documentary. It's still a small-time player, but it does need to stay that way.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Gibbs asks, "Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?"</p><p>Why not? Industrial civilization has a non-zero climate and environmental footprint, but the impact of green technologies like EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels is much smaller than the alternatives. They represent humanity's best chance to avoid a climate catastrophe.</p><p>The filmmakers call for an end to limitless economic growth and consumption. It's difficult to envision that goal being achieved anytime soon, but even if it is, human civilization will continue to exist and require energy. To avert a climate crisis, that energy must be supplied by the clean renewable technologies pilloried in the film. To expand on the earlier analogy, the filmmakers seem to believe we should improve nutrition not by eating healthier foods like strawberries, but rather by eating a bit less cheesecake.</p><p>Like Fox News and other propaganda vehicles, the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men. It applies an environmental purity test that can seem convincing for viewers lacking expertise in the topic. Any imperfect technology – which is every technology – is deemed bad. It's a clear example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. In reality, this movie is the enemy of humanity's last best chance to save itself and countless other species from unchecked climate change through a transition to cleaner technologies.</p>
Read More
Show Less
An electric Nissan Leaf charging at a loading station in Moss, Norway on August 3, 2015. Sigrid Harms / picture alliance / Getty Images
By Maddy Savage
Americans love their cars — their gas-guzzling, air-polluting, smog-producing cars. Although the vast majority agree that if we all drove electric vehicles we could reduce oil consumption and pollution, only a third would consider buying one anytime soon. Far fewer are actually making the switch.
<p>The adoption of all-electric and plug-in hybrids has been <a href="http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/usa/" target="_blank">steadily creeping up</a> over the last decade, yet electric cars make up only <a href="http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/" target="_blank">about 2%</a> of new car sales in the U.S.</p><p>Compare that to the situation in Norway, the world's unofficial leader in EV driving, where <a href="https://ofv.no/bilsalget/bilsalget-i-2019" target="_blank">more than 40% of new cars sold are now electric</a> and <a href="https://autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/manufacturers-purposely-delaying-ev-models-states-norway-association" target="_blank">thousands of drivers</a> are on waiting lists for the latest models. It's a trend 30 years in the making.</p><p>"These things take time, because you need those first guys willing to break the mold, buy an EV and tell their pals, 'Shut up, this car is awesome!'" said Daniel Milford Flathagen, 36, from Trondheim, a government agency employee who waited 18 months for a Hyundai Kona Electric, his second electric vehicle.</p>
<p>Norway, a small, largely rural country with a population of just 5 million, has been steadily building hype for electric cars. Given their significantly larger populations, China and the U.S. report higher total sales numbers (around <a href="http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/china/" target="_blank">1.2 million</a> and <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10567" target="_blank">360,000</a>, respectively, including plug-in hybrids, in 2018). The Scandinavian nation has the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/chart-of-the-day-half-of-new-cars-sold-in-norway-are-electric-or-hybrid/" target="_blank">highest share of new electric vehicle purchases in the world</a>.</p><p>Credit for this could go to an evolved cultural acceptance of functional electric cars over more "macho" gas-guzzlers, or Norway's long-held reputation as a nature-loving, environmentally friendly population. But there's a more direct, prosaic explanation: In Norway, it pays to drive electric. </p><p>"The environmental aspect is a very good bonus for everyone," said Elisabeth Sakkestad, a 32-year-old EV user who works for an aid organization in Stavanger. "You feel better about driving an electric car than a fossil-fueled one."</p><p>But it is what Sakkestad described as the "economic benefits" that have played by far the greatest role in persuading her — and huge swaths of the population — to switch to emissions-free vehicles.</p>
<p>Successive Norwegian governments from across the political spectrum have been offering financial incentives to electric car owners as part of their wider efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And, as electric vehicles have become increasingly advanced in terms of speed, range and aesthetics, growing numbers of consumers have become motivated to cash in on the perks.</p><p>"In Norway we tax what we don't want and we promote what we want, and the consumer has, in this way, actually the opportunity to make the right choice," said Christina Bu, secretary-general of <a href="https://elbil.no/english/about-norwegian-ev-association/" target="_blank">Norsk elbilforening</a>, the Norwegian EV Association.</p><p>In Norway, most cars are imported. On top of the regular 25% consumption tax (Value Added Tax, or VAT) charged on most consumer goods, all vehicles used to be subject to an additional purchase tax. But that tax was scrapped for electric cars in 1990. EV buyers also became exempt from paying VAT in 2001. A few years later, they scored a fast-track commute when they were given permission to drive in bus lanes.</p>
<p>Until 2017, EV owners were exempt from charges for toll roads and eligible for free parking. Current rules allow municipalities to charge them no more than 50% the standard toll and parking rates.</p><p>The center-right governing coalition in Norway has promised to keep most of the incentives running until at least 2021 and aims to <a href="https://qz.com/1341155/nine-countries-say-they-will-ban-internal-combustion-engines-none-have-a-law-to-do-so/" target="_blank">ban all new sales of gas-powered cars by 2025</a>.</p><p>In Norway, as everywhere, electric cars tend to be pricier than their conventional counterparts. Bloomberg analysts <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-12/electric-vehicle-battery-shrinks-and-so-does-the-total-cost" target="_blank">predict</a> price parity in 2022, but Norway's tax breaks mean that in some cases greener models are already cheaper. The base import price for a Volkswagen e-Golf, for example, is around $36,000, compared to $24,000 for a regular Golf. But after VAT, emissions taxes and other fees, the electric version is nearly $1,000 less ($36,300 versus $37,200).</p>
<p>"Buying a new electric car is more or less the same price as buying a nice petrol or diesel car now," said Bu, even before you factor in additional savings such as not having to pay for gas and lower maintenance costs.</p><p>Some critics have argued that the country's incentives favor those who are already wealthy enough to afford new cars, while low-income owners can often only afford <em>used</em> gas-fueled models, which remain cheaper than used EVs.</p><p>Ask Ibsen Lindal, energy spokesperson for Norway's Green Party, sees the second-hand market for gas cars as an impediment to the nationwide trend toward electric cars, but he said he hopes it's just a matter of time until EVs become affordable for virtually all Norwegians.</p>
<p>"What's been the most important goal of the Norwegian electric car incentive is that ... you hope to start the market moving, and then prices will fall and that is what we are seeing now within a very short time," Isben Lindal said.</p><p>He said he expects that in three to five years, EVs will push nearly all new gas-powered cars out of the Norwegian market.</p><p>Globally, analysts worry about how electric vehicle sales will fare with the <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/coronavirus" target="_blank">coronavirus pandemic </a>shaking consumer markets and oil prices plunging. One new report <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/electric-vehicle-sales-set-to-crash-in-2020-as-coronavirus-bites-and-oil-stays-cheap" target="_blank">predicts</a> worldwide EV sales will tank in 2020, a factor it partly pegs to global uncertainty, which may make people less willing to take a chance on technology that's new to them.</p>
<p>A potential glimmer of hope? A <a href="https://electrek.co/2020/04/09/study-pandemic-lockdowns-are-encouraging-more-consumers-to-buy-electric-cars/" target="_blank">small survey</a> of U.K. consumers in April found that air quality improvements resulting from stay-at-home measures are inspiring new interest in buying non-fossil fuel cars.</p><p>How quickly other countries around the world might catch up with Norway's incentivized buying is an ongoing debate in the electric vehicle industry.</p><p>Bu said she accepts that it is "probably politically very difficult" for most governments, including in the U.S., to introduce the type of wide-ranging tax differences for electric and fossil-fuel-powered cars that Norway has used. </p>
<p>"I think we will see different countries following faster than the others, but interest is growing," she said. "We definitely will start seeing the same development in country after country." </p><p>In <a href="https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/road/Vehicles/bonus-malus/bonus/" target="_blank">Sweden</a>, EV buyers get a bonus of up to 60,000 Swedish krona (roughly $6,000) paid to them six months after their purchase, while Germany recently <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/germany-to-boost-electric-car-incentives-in-push-to-lift-demand" target="_blank">expanded its subsidies</a> to a similar amount, as long as owners keep their car for at least nine months. <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/costa-rica-wildlife-conservation-endangered-animals_n_5d0a8e72e4b0f7b7442b499b" target="_blank">Costa Rica</a>, which has committed to going carbon neutral by 2050, exempts electric car owners <a href="https://ticotimes.net/2019/07/08/costa-rica-upholds-tax-breaks-for-electric-cars-solar-panels" target="_blank">from its regular 13% sales tax</a> on vehicles.</p><p>In the U.S., the federal government has boosted EV sales by offering a $7,500 tax credit to buyers. But that amount phases down once manufacturers sell 200,000 cars; Tesla has already <a href="https://www.myev.com/research/buyers-sellers-advice/comparing-all-2019-electric-vehicles" target="_blank">hit the threshold</a> for all its models, as has the Chevrolet Bolt. In December, Congress <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/want-tax-credit-buying-electric-vehicle-move-fast/" target="_blank">declined to expand</a> the federal credit program.</p>
<p>Nearly every state and Washington, D.C., offers some <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&keyword=&select_all_loc=all&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=US&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=AL&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=AK&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=AZ&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=AR&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=CA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=CO&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=CT&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=DE&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=DC&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=FL&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=GA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=HI&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=ID&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=IL&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=IN&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=IA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=KS&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=KY&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=LA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=ME&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MD&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MI&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MN&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MS&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MO&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=MT&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NE&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NV&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NH&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NJ&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NM&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NY&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=NC&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=ND&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=OH&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=OK&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=OR&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=PA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=RI&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=SC&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=SD&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=TN&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=TX&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=UT&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=VT&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=VA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=WA&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=WV&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=WI&loc%5B%5D=0&loc%5B%5D=WY&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=ELEC&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&tech%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bincentive%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bincentive%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bincentive%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bincentive%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bincentive%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bregulation%5D%5B%5D=0&ir%5Bincentive%5D%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=IND&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0&user%5B%5D=0" target="_blank">incentives</a> for buying an electric vehicle. But while the majority of Americans <a href="https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ConsumerReports-UnionofConcernedScientists-2019-EV_Survey-7.17.19.pdf" target="_blank">support the idea</a> of tax breaks or other incentives, and even those who aren't actively considering buying an EV say such a break would encourage them to do so, <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2019/05/22/for-widespread-adoption-of-electric-vehicles-many-roadblocks-ahead/" target="_blank">eight out of 10 of people</a> don't know whether any are available in their state, according to one 2019 poll.</p><p>Cost issues aside, American drivers, most of whom <a href="https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Consumer-EV-Awareness_ICCT_Working-Paper_23032017_vF.pdf" target="_blank">can't name an electric car make and model or describe how the vehicles work</a>, are <a href="https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/05/why-arent-americans-plugging-in-to-electric-vehicles/" target="_blank">still largely paralyzed</a> by two key worries: that they won't be able to get where they're going on a single charge, and that they won't be able to find a charging station when they need one.</p><p>Such anxieties persist among consumers even though today's EVs generally have enough range to handle most drivers' daily travel. The average American drives less than than 30 miles a day, <a href="https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-household-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts" target="_blank">according to the U.S. Department of Transportation</a>, while <a href="https://www.myev.com/research/comparisons/the-longest-range-electric-vehicles-for-2019" target="_blank">more than half a dozen electric models</a> now get over 200 miles on a single charge. </p>
<p>When it comes to charging infrastructure, Norway is miles ahead. It has been rapidly increasing the availability of charging points and electricity supply since 2015, when the government set the goal of having at least one fast charging station every 31 miles on major highways, offering subsidies to providers in order to accelerate installations. By mid-2017, there were <a href="https://elbil.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/EVS30-Charging-infrastrucure-experiences-in-Norway-paper.pdf" target="_blank">more than 1,500</a> stations along these key routes, up from 300 in 2014.</p><p>The country was also the first in the world to introduce <a href="https://elbil.no/%ef%bb%bfnorway-now-has-the-worlds-no-1-fast-charging-station/" target="_blank">supercharger points</a>, where more than two dozen vehicles can charge at the same time. The capital, Oslo, is working with housing cooperatives to install thousands more charging points outside people's homes, and it has started a program that provides <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-electric-taxis/oslo-to-become-first-city-to-charge-electric-taxis-over-the-air-idUSKCN1R21ED" target="_blank">wireless charging for its taxi network</a>. </p><p>Environmental activists like Ibsen Lindal argue that Norway still isn't quite keeping up with demand. He said that although Oslo has gained a reputation as something of a trailblazer when it comes to charging infrastructure, other cities and municipalities are further behind.</p>
<p>Nationwide, there were about 1.7 electric vehicles per charging point in 2011, compared with around 19.5 today. Ibsen Lindal said that while hard data is limited, anecdotal evidence suggests some electric car users who are frustrated with the current infrastructure may be returning to fossil-fueled vehicles for convenience.</p><p>"There have been some reports on people buying electric cars, but then after a few months, they say that there are too many people in line waiting at charging stations, making EV ownership impractical for some people today," he said.</p><p>Trondheim EV-owner Flathagen said he has observed long queues at some rural stations and met customers, usually elderly people, who "aren't really prepared for how rapid charging differs from getting gas at a petrol station" or how to use some of the other necessary related technologies, such as apps or SMS messages to pay for electricity. (Norsk ebilforening's research suggests that while early adopters tended to be young, educated men, a much wider range of consumers are now buying the vehicles, including increasing numbers of women and people over 50 years of age.)</p>
<p>Geir Kulia, a 28-year-old in southern Norway who recently bought an electric BMW i3, admitted that while it's been surprisingly easy to charge his car, "the planning phase is a bit more important" when it comes to longer trips. "There is a limit to your freedom; you have to consider where to charge and the time it takes to charge, so you can't just go off driving around Europe." </p><p>For Americans with range anxiety, Flathagen said that although Norway is far smaller than the United States, in some ways it's a perfect proving ground.</p><p>"It's a rural country with a cold climate, where people drive longer distances than most other European countries," he said. (<a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/buying-an-electric-car-for-a-cold-climate-double-down-on-range/" target="_blank">Cold weather saps batteries</a> faster.) "If EVs work here, they should work everywhere."</p>
<p class=""><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/" target="_blank">HuffPost</a> and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Electric Vehicle Sales More Than Doubled in 2017 - EcoWatch ›
- Will Norway Ban Sales of Gas-Powered Cars by 2025? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A school bus rides through the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston on Sept. 11, 2019. Boston's public school district held a contest last year to more effectively move its 25,000 students to more than 200 schools. Barry Chin / The Boston Globe via Getty Images
By Raphael Gindrat
Advocates of autonomous mobility are looking forward to the day when zero-emission, shared autonomous vehicles deliver services that dramatically reduce urban congestion and pollution. But as the mass deployment of autonomous vehicles seems farther and farther off, it is important to point out that we don't have to wait for autonomy to realize many of the efficiencies that shared mobility can provide.
<p>Trip-optimization technology that can make shared transport work already exists — whether a computer or a human is driving. One proof point can be found in a project to make Boston's public school buses more efficient. What can the humble yellow school bus teach us about efficient urban transport? Plenty, as it turns out.</p>
<h3>Learning From Schools</h3><p>In 2019, Boston's <a href="https://www.routefifty.com/tech-data/2019/08/boston-school-bus-routes/159113/" target="_blank">public school district</a> held a contest to find a solution that could better move its 25,000 students to more than 200 schools across 20 zip codes. Parents are allowed to select their children's schools, so the transportation patterns are irregular. To further complicate matters, Boston's schools have different start times. Student transit was costing the district $2,000 per student — 10% of its budget.</p><p>Researchers at MIT's Operations Research Center rose to the challenge. They developed an algorithm capable of ingesting all ride requirements simultaneously instead of optimizing service for each school independently, one by one. By optimizing the entire network, under the new schedule, some buses dropped students off at multiple schools. In short, the algorithm enabled the district to eliminate 50 buses, more than a million miles of driving, and 9,000kg of CO2 emissions per day. Student ride times and walking distances were not impacted. And the district now has $5 million per year in savings to invest in education programs.</p>
<h3>Sharing the Future</h3><p>Many, including me, have argued that the future of urban transport is <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric</a>, autonomous and shared. I still believe this to be true. But the real key to reducing traffic and pollution comes from sharing — and we don't have to wait for the widespread adoption of electric and/or autonomous vehicles to achieve significant efficiency gains that remove cars and their emissions from city streets.</p><p>Multiple studies have found that shared autonomous vehicles can dramatically improve traffic:</p><p>· An International Transport Forum (ITF) study of traffic in <a href="http://oecdinsights.org/2015/05/13/the-sharing-economy-how-shared-self-driving-cars-could-change-city-traffic/" target="_blank">Lisbon</a> found that shared self-driving cars combined with the existing public transport system could reduce traffic by 90% with a maximum wait time of five minutes.</p><p>· A University of Texas simulation of traffic in <a href="http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB15SAVsinAustin.pdf" target="_blank">Austin</a> found that one shared autonomous vehicle could do the work of nine private vehicles with extra ride times of two to five minutes.</p><p>· A study of traffic in <a href="https://blog.ptvgroup.com/en/city-and-mobility/oslo-study-autonomous-vehicles/" target="_blank">Oslo</a> by the PTV Group found that shared autonomous vehicles could meet the city's rush hour needs with just 7% of today's vehicles, and that combining the services with public transport would reduce trip times by an average of 11 minutes.</p><p>Swap autonomous vehicles that receive instructions into a computer with human-driven vehicles that receive instructions through a driver's mobile app, and you can achieve the same results — albeit today with fossil fuel-powered cars. But reducing the number of vehicles on streets by as much as 90% would enable proportionate emissions reductions.</p>
<h3>Public Benefits</h3><p>Critical to the success of these models is the integration of services with public transport. The flip side of the equation would be to use shared services in place of public transport, which would likely worsen congestion. Shared transport integrated with public mass transit would have to be mandated by cities rather than deployed as a free-for-all — which is how peer-to-peer ride-hailing services were introduced. Unregulated and unintegrated, these services have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ride-hail-utopia-that-got-stuck-in-traffic-11581742802" target="_blank">dramatically worsened traffic in most large cities</a>.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg5NjIwMy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTQ0OTI2Nn0.thAw0WXhmkLQd1iKRnz8pejSYW-ZsnkQVqggSmyZEso/img.png?width=980" id="7a1c9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9fec6c02a25e9a4bcdd9c9593f8af474" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<h3>Orchestrating Success</h3><p>Analysts at Accenture <a href="https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/industry-x-0/orchestrating-mobility-ecosystem" target="_blank">recently released a report</a> calling for cities to take the lead in creating coordinated, "orchestrated" mobility ecosystems. Limiting shared services to routes that connect people with mass transit would be one way to deploy human-driven services now and to prepare for driverless services in the future. Services and schedules can be linked at the backend, and operators can, for example, automatically send more shared vehicles to a train station when the train has more passengers than usual; or the cars can wait for a train that is running late.</p><p>Orchestrating large fleets and processing large volumes of ride requests simultaneously and in real time, and dispatching vehicles and pooling ride requests in the most efficient manner possible, are extremely complex processes. This complexity increases as most urban environments are continually changing. Traffic, weather, special events, construction and other conditions can impact trip times and wait times.</p>
<h3>Managing Space</h3><p>Managing urban congestion and mobility comes down to managing space. Cities are characterized by restricted residential, commercial and transportation spaces. Private autos are the most inefficient use of transportation space, while mass transit represents the most efficient use of transportation space. Getting more people out of private cars into shared feeder routes to and from mass transit modes is the most promising way to reduce auto traffic. Computer models show that it can be done, and we don't need autonomy to realize the benefits of shared mobility. With our <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a> growing more acute by the day, we can and should start implementing shared mobility now.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/how-to-move-more-people-in-fewer-vehicles-today/" target="_blank">World Economic Forum</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Motorway A8 with a wind farm in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The European commission's effort to transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon emitter received input from ExxonMobil. imageBROKER / Lilly / Getty Images
The European commission's effort to transition the 27-country economic bloc from a high-carbon to a low-carbon emitter in a few decades received input from the fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil in the weeks prior to its passage, according to a watchdog that monitors lobbying activity, as The Guardian reported.
<p>As Common Dreams reported, a <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/An-InfluenceMap-Note-ExxonMobil-Lobbies-the-EU-Commission-add01200dc694b00e9ac4bebf660227b" target="_blank">report</a> released last week by InfluenceMap revealed that Exxon lobbyists met with commission officials in November to request an extension of the Green Deal's carbon pricing policy, known as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), to tailpipe emissions.</p><p>The report revealed that just ahead of the December announcement of the Green Deal, Exxon lobbyists met with Frans Timmermans, a member of the commission's cabinet, after the company avoided penalties for failing to attend a hearing on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate denial</a>, as the <a href="https://euobserver.com/green-deal/147646" target="_blank">EU Observer</a> reported.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/An-InfluenceMap-Note-ExxonMobil-Lobbies-the-EU-Commission-add01200dc694b00e9ac4bebf660227b" target="_blank">InfluenceMap</a> wrote in its <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/An-InfluenceMap-Note-ExxonMobil-Lobbies-the-EU-Commission-add01200dc694b00e9ac4bebf660227b" target="_blank">report</a>:<span></span></p><blockquote>"In the meeting, the lobbyist for ExxonMobil tried to stall an overhaul of the transportation sector. ExxonMobil representatives pushed for the EU Commission to change its approach to climate regulation in the transport sector, including removing the EU's strict CO2 vehicle tailpipe standards, in what appears to have been an effort to stall a push towards <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric vehicles</a>. A direct extract from the meeting notes indicate the un-named ExxonMobil officials argued that the EU should: 'Give serious consideration to extending ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) beyond stationary sources. Tail pipe emission legislation should be substituted with power plant to wheel emission regulation.'" </blockquote><p>According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/exxonmobil-tried-to-get-european-green-deal-watered-down-claims-climate-lobbying-watchdog" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, the maneuver aimed to tamp down knowledge about the carbon footprint of driving a combustion engine running on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a>. And the lobbying effort seems to have worked, since the European Commission did not include plans to phase out combustion engines. It also did not include cars running on fossil fuels in its carbon-pricing plan.</p><p>Furthermore, the move aims to create unrest that would be politically unfeasible. The only way for a carbon-pricing plan for tailpipe emissions to be influential is for it to make greenhouse gas emissions very expensive. Yet, that type of action that transfers costs to consumers has been the bedrock of protests like the Yellow Vests protests in France, which stemmed from a proposed tax on diesel and gasoline, as the <a href="https://euobserver.com/green-deal/147646" target="_blank">EU Observer</a> reported.</p>
<p>Edward Collins, a director at InfluenceMap, said the document "represents yet another evidence piece" of ExxonMobil's efforts to protect its profits by thwarting meaningful regulatory action and shifting the focus to long-term technical solutions, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/06/exxonmobil-tried-to-get-european-green-deal-watered-down-claims-climate-lobbying-watchdog" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.<br></p><p>The lack of decisive and meaningful regulatory actions that would change the transportation sector and the energy infrastructure of Europe in the immediate future drew the ire of climate activists, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/greta-thunberg-eu-climate-law-2645391457.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1">EcoWatch</a> reported. The Green Deal requires that European countries reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which many scientists say is too late to stop the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"Net zero emissions by 2050' for the EU equals surrender. It means giving up," Greta Thunberg and 33 other youth climate activists wrote in an open letter published Tuesday and reported by <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-eu-law/eu-unveils-climate-law-thunberg-calls-it-surrender-idUKKBN20R1OC" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. "We don't just need goals for just 2030 or 2050. We, above all, need them for 2020 and every following month and year to come."</p><p>As <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/06/exxon-lobbyists-pushed-european-officials-water-down-green-deal-carbon-pricing-plan" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a> pointed out:</p><blockquote>"Exxon's attempt to further weaken the European Green Deal represents 'a shift from the propagation of climate science denial towards a range of more subtle tactics and narratives to distract policymakers and the public away from an urgent and robust policy intervention on climate on the scale recommended by the IPCC's 2018 special report on 1.5 [degrees Celsius] warming,' said InfluenceMap."</blockquote>
Related Articles Around the Web
- Unlike the U.S. Democrats' Green New Deal, the EU's Version Is ... ›
- Three questions EXXON doesn't want you to ask - Greenpeace ... ›
- Oil and gas giants spent 250m on EU lobbying since 2010: green ... ›
- Your guide to Europe's 'Green New Deal,' the continent's new plan ... ›
- Exxon lobbyists allowed to keep EU access badges – EURACTIV.com ›
Read More
Show Less
Around 42 percent of all ride-hailing driving time on average is spent waiting for and driving to pick up passengers. Asia-Pacific Images Studio / E+ / Getty Images
Ride-hailing services such as Lyft and Uber are creating more climate pollution and road congestion per trip than the transportation options they displace, according to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
<p>Looking at data from seven major U.S. cities, the authors found that a non-pooled trip from a ride-hailing service creates 47 percent more emissions than the equivalent trip in a private vehicle with average fuel efficiency, partially due to the "deadhead" miles without a passenger that a ride-hailing car travels in between trips.</p><p>Around 42 percent of all ride-hailing driving time on average is spent waiting for and driving to pick up passengers,<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-emissions/ride-hailing-increases-emissions-contributes-to-climate-pollution-study-idUSKBN20J27K" target="_blank"> Reuters reported</a>.</p>
<p>Worse still, ride-hailing trips create 69 percent more carbon emissions than if the passengers had opted to travel via public transportation, biking or walking. The authors said the increase stems from ride-hailing services increasing, not replacing, the total number of car trips by pulling passengers away from other, more climate-friendly methods.</p><p>"While ride-hailing trips today are higher emitting than other types of trips, we were encouraged by the fact that they can be significantly lower polluting with efforts to electrify and pool rides," Don Anair, report author and research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Transportation program, told <a href="https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/484990-study-uber-lyft-generate-more-pollution-than" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p>
<p>For the report, the authors analyzed publicly available data gathered in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Washington. They also looked at previously published studies, including one commissioned last year by Uber and Lyft.</p><p>The ride-sharing industry has grown tremendously since Uber's launch in 2010. Citing data from both companies, the report authors note that Uber and Lyft have accumulated a combined 11 billion trips as of 2018. At the same time, the transportation sector is now the U.S.'s largest source of human-generated greenhouse gases, according to the<a href="https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions" target="_blank"> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a>.</p>
<p>The report marks the first time researchers have tried to quantify the pollution impact of ride-hailing services, Reuters reported.</p><p>"Certainly the evidence to date points to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with ride-hailing under current market conditions," Giovanni Circella, director of the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program within UC Davis' Institute of Transportation Studies, told<a href="https://www.axios.com/uber-lyft-ride-sharing-climate-change-172d9da3-784a-4257-9f45-e173c257971e.html" target="_blank"> Axios</a>. The Institute of Transportation Studies provided some of the data used in the Union of Concerned Scientists report.</p><p>The authors found that ride-hailing companies can reduce emissions and congestion by switching more of their fleet to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles" target="_self">electric vehicles</a>, encouraging customers to take more pooled rides, improving connections to mass transit and collaborating with governments on policy.</p>
<p>For instance, a pooled and electrified trip could reduce emissions by 68 percent compared to a private vehicle trip with average fuel efficiency, or by 79 percent when compared to a non-pooled trip in a ride-hailing vehicle. Currently, however, the authors estimate that only 15 percent of ride-hailing trips in the U.S. are pooled.<br></p><p>"When combined with robust public transit and safe places to bike and walk, electric, pooled ride-hailing has the potential to reduce the need to own a car and reduce overall emissions from transportation," Jeremy Martin, director of Fuels Policy and senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program, told EcoWatch. "But we're currently a long way from that future."</p><p>A Lyft spokesperson called the report "misleading" and touted the company's efforts to electrify its fleet, encourage shared rides and partner with cities on sustainable transportation, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/25/21152512/uber-lyft-climate-change-emissions-pollution-ucs-study" target="_blank">The Verge reported</a>.</p><p>In its own statement, Uber did not acknowledge the report, but referenced its <a href="https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/a-step-forward-on-sustainability-4e0abce60b6e" target="_blank">existing sustainability goals</a> which include support for reduced car ownership and greater use of green transportation, <a href="https://www.citylab.com/environment/2020/02/uber-lyft-pollution-data-carbon-emissions-ride-hailing-study/607063/" target="_blank">CityLab reported</a>.</p><p>For ride-hailing to become truly green, the authors emphasized the need for more collaboration on these efforts.</p><p>"Companies, governments, and individuals all need to take action to make sure ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are part of a clean transportation system, rather than continuing to contribute to climate change and congestion," Martin said.</p><p><em><strong>Update, March 3: </strong>This story has been updated to include a quote by Union of Concerned Scientists along with some minor changes for clarity.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Self-Driving Cars Could Cause More Pollution – Unless Electric Grid ... ›
- Can Uber and Lyft Be a Climate Solution? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Charging EVs in Stockholm: But where does a dead battery go? Ranjithsiji / Wikimedia Commons
By Kieran Cooke
Driving an electric-powered vehicle (EV) rather than one reliant on fossil fuels is a key way to tackle climate change and improve air quality — but it does leave the old batteries behind as a nasty residue.
<p>New technologies give rise to their own sets of problems. The all-important battery in an EV has a limited life span — due to high operating temperatures, changing discharge rates and other factors, batteries in EVs in use today are <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/second-life-ev-batteries-the-newest-value-pool-in-energy-storage" target="_blank">unlikely to last for more than 10 years</a>.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://climatenewsnetwork.net/old-batteries-can-be-source-of-new-energy/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate News Network</a>. </em></p>
<p>The question is what to do with all those batteries once they have reached the end of their operating life. The dumping of electronic or e-waste — made up of old computers and other everyday equipment — is already <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51385344" target="_blank">a massive worldwide problem</a>: EV industry analysts say <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/6/20951807/electric-vehicles-battery-recycling" target="_blank">similar difficulties could develop when EVs and their batteries</a> reach the end of their lives.</p><p>But a recent study by scientists at <a href="https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/energy/research/centre-strategic-elements-critical-materials/future-of-batteries/faraday-Institution.aspx" target="_blank">the University of Birmingham</a>, UK, and colleagues, published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5" target="_blank">Nature</a>, comes up with some solutions. It says valuable materials, including cobalt, could be extracted or "harvested" from the EV lithium-ion batteries when they no longer work: these materials could then be used to make new batteries.</p>
<p>Such processes can be hazardous: the study's authors say recycling systems with operating robots could be set up to carry out the work.</p><p>"In the future, electric vehicles may prove to be a valuable secondary resource for critical materials, and it has been argued that high cobalt-content batteries should be recycled immediately to bolster cobalt supplies", the study says.</p><p>"If tens of millions of electric vehicles are to be produced annually, careful husbandry of the resources consumed by electric-vehicle battery manufacturing will surely be essential to ensure the sustainability of the automotive industry of the future."</p><p>The study says an EV battery — much like a battery in a mobile phone — loses some of its effectiveness during its life cycle, but can still hold up to 80 percent of its power. While it's not suitable for continued road use, it can be adapted for other purposes.</p>
Powering Local Shops
<p>Banks of old EV batteries could store power: they could be used to store energy to feed into the electricity grid or directly into buildings. In Japan the Toyota car company has pioneered <a href="https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/22833613.html?padid=ag478_from_kv" target="_blank">a scheme which hooks up old EV batteries with solar panels</a> to power convenience stores.</p><p>In 2017 more than a million EVs were sold worldwide. The study estimates that when those cars reach the end of the road they will produce 250,000 tonnes of discarded battery packs. It's vital, say the study's authors, that this problem be addressed now.</p><p>It's estimated that <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/18/fossil-vehicle-sales-in-global-freefall-down-4-7-in-2019-electric-vehicle-sales-continue-to-grow/" target="_blank">EV global sales combined with sales of plug-in hybrid cars amounted to more than 2.2 million last year</a>. At the same time, sales of fossil fuel cars have been falling.</p><p>All the big vehicle manufacturers are <a href="https://autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/more-evs-way-co2-targets-cause-rush-development" target="_blank">making heavy commitments to EV manufacturing</a>. Deloitte, the market research group, <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/manufacturing/deloitte-uk-battery-electric-vehicles.pdf" target="_blank">forecasts global EV sales rising to 12 million in 2025</a> and to more than 20 million by 2030. It predicts that as economies of scale are achieved and costs of manufacturing batteries decline, the price of EVs will fall.<em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Renewables Are Gaining Traction, but We Need to Be Able to Store ... ›
- Driving on Sunshine: Nissan Rolls Out Solar + Storage System ... ›
- Germany Converts Coal Mine Into Giant Battery Storage for Surplus ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trees that Tesla wants to clear in order to build a Gigafactory near Gruenheide, Germany on Jan. 21, 2020. Sean Gallup / Getty Images
Tesla can continue clearing a forest outside Berlin in order to build a new Gigafactory factory, a German court ruled Thursday.
<p>The company is planning its first European <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles" target="_self">electric car</a> and battery factory in the town of Gruenheide, but local environmental groups opposed the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trees" target="_self">tree</a> clearing necessary to construct it, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-gigafactory/court-allows-tesla-to-clear-forest-for-german-gigafactory-idUSKBN20E2UH" target="_blank">Reuters explained</a>. The court had issued a temporary injunction against the tree felling Sunday, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/germans-divided-plans-tesla-electric-car-factory-environmentalists-tree-felling" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>, but its decision now to allow the trees to be cleared is final and cannot be appealed, <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/german-court-tosses-injunction-allows-tesla-to-clear-trees-for-factory-near-berlin-2020-02-20" target="_blank">MarketWatch pointed out</a>.</p>
<p>The factory has divided environmentalists in Germany, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/tesla-wins-court-approval-to-build-gigafactory-by-clearing-forest-in-germany/a-52454649" target="_blank">DW explained</a>. On the one hand, Tesla plans to clear 92 hectares of forest for its factory. Local environmental groups are worried about how it will impact <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> and water supply, and their vocal opposition has surprised authorities, according to Reuters. Demonstrations against the plant have drawn hundreds.</p><p>Local environmental group Grüne Liga Brandenburg (Green League Brandenburg) also argued that the company should not have been granted permission to clear trees until the March 5 deadline for environmental groups to comment on the factory, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-20/tesla-gets-go-ahead-to-resume-clearing-forest-for-german-factory" target="_blank">Bloomberg reported</a>.</p>
<p>"To fell half of the forest when many aspects of this process are yet to be clarified seems fairly problematic, which is why we have asked the court to deal with it," Heinz-Herwig Mascher of Grüne Liga said, according to The Guardian. "It is not that we have something as such against Tesla as a company or its objectives. But we are concerned the preferential treatment they're being given could set a precedence."</p><p>On the other hand, the Gigafactory will produce at least 500,000 electric cars every a year, DW pointed out, making it part of the fight against the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has also argued that the forest was not natural, but was planted for cardboard. He also said the plant would not use as much water as the peak estimates that had alarmed activists.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1220938613862436865" id="twitter-embed-1220938613862436865" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1220938613862436865&created_ts=1579929424.0&screen_name=elonmusk&text=%40EvaFoxU+%40Tesla+Sounds+like+we+need+to+clear+up+a+few+things%21+Tesla+won%E2%80%99t+use+this+much+net+water+on+a+daily+basis.%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F0oi9YhR8yh&id=1220938613862436865&name=Elon+Musk" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="WX99TM1582293911"></iframe>
<p>Some environmental leaders took his side.</p><p>"[Y]ou don't always have to oppose everything," Berlin Green Party politician Ramona Pop said, as DW reported. "It is absurd to declare a pine plantation as a forest. We need to keep some perspective. Tesla's future investment should be allowed quickly for clean mobility and climate protection."</p><p>In its ruling Thursday, the court decided that the local authorities did not violate any laws when they allowed work on the factory to start, Bloomberg reported. Their decision means that Tesla should be able to finish clearing and begin construction before the breeding and nesting period for local wildlife in mid March. This will put the company on track to meeting its goal of opening the Gigafactory in the middle of 2021.</p>Musk said on Twitter that the plant would be designed with "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability" target="_self">sustainability</a> and the environment in mind," and that the company would plant three trees for every tree cut down.
Related Articles Around the Web
- Elon Musk: Brexit to blame for building Tesla Gigafactory in Germany ›
- Tesla 2019 Highlights & Lowlights — Sustainable Energy ... ›
- Tesla faces protest at Gigafactory 4 site over cutting down the forest ... ›
- Planned Tesla Gigafactory in Germany drives wedge between locals ... ›
- We went to the German town where Tesla's new Gigafactory will be ... ›
Read More
Show Less
By Petros Kusmu, George Patrick Richard Benson
- We can all take steps to reduce the environmental impact of our work-related travels.
- Individual actions — like the six described here — can cumulatively help prompt more collective changes, but it helps to prioritize by impact.
- As the saying goes: be the change you want to see in the world.
<p>For those who, like us, operate in work environments that demand significant amounts of travel, the toll it can take on both their health and the planet is significant — but eco-conscious professionals concerned about their environmental footprint can take tangible and impactful steps to reduce it while they are on the road.</p>
<p>The important overarching principle for reducing one's environmental footprint is "don't sweat the small stuff." <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916517710685" target="_blank">Study after study shows</a> that people tend to focus their attention on small, tangible things to help the environment; our intention here is for you to get the most bang for your buck with the actions that are still within your power as an individual. <a href="https://businessblog.trivago.com/sustainable-hospitality-trends-eco-friendly-hotel-tips/" target="_blank">The cumulative impact of these can be absolutely transformative thanks to the buying power of consultants and active professionals</a>, and can help shift entire industries. Furthermore, modeling eco-conscious behaviors at work can encourage colleagues to reflect on their own footprints, particularly for those in senior leadership positions, ultimately creating a "ripple effect" of green behaviors.</p><p>Here are six ways we recommend you get started, in order from the easiest to implement to the most environmentally impactful:</p>
1. Travel With Trust
<p>When looking for a place to stay, look for accommodations that utilize various sustainability standards. This may include facilities that use renewable energies or are a part of coalitions such as <a href="https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/" target="_blank">We Mean Business</a> that are striving to reduce waste in all aspects of their operations. Use the Global Sustainable Tourism Council's <a href="https://www.gstcouncil.org/gstc-criteria/gstc-recognized-standards-for-hotels/" target="_blank">list</a> of trusted standards used in different countries as a guide.</p>2. Travel Light
<p>Just like at home, traveling is an opportunity to think carefully about what you consume and how. Minimize your use of the mini toiletries at your hotel (most of which are being <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/9/19/20863270/tiny-plastic-toiletries-ban" target="_blank">phased out</a> since they are single-use, non-recyclable plastics). Reduce your overall water footprint by opting for "green choice" programs to reuse your towels and sheets during your stay. Better yet, leave a note saying you would like to see more package-free, sustainable purchasing in all of the hotel's operations! Take a step further by reducing or eliminating your own waste by bringing your own items, like a reusable coffee cup, water bottle and other utensils. (Foldable cups, bottles and utensils are ideal for most business baggage and are a great way to impress clients and colleagues.) More impactfully, change your dietary choices by opting for red meat-free or plant based meals.</p>3. Travel Small
<p>Whether flying, on the ground, or in your room, small is generally better. If you must fly, get better carbon savings by staying in economy. If you can't take a train or bus and need to take a car (taxi, ride-hailing, or otherwise) opt to pool, and look for a small hybrid, or ideally an electric vehicle (EV).</p>4. Travel Slowly
<p>Avoiding air travel all together is an impactful way to reduce your carbon emissions. Compared to most of our European counterparts, those of us in North America have a hard time getting a good train or bus; but Amtrak, VIA Rail, regional transit and bus services are improving and, throughout the world, many of these options are readily available. "<a href="https://www.impacttravelalliance.org/" target="_blank">Slow travel</a>" is gaining traction around the world and offers opportunities to travel not only with lower emissions, but more comfortably, too.</p>5. Travel Regeneratively
<p>Concepts like <a href="https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/" target="_blank">carbon offsetting</a> can be complex, but the principle behind them is simple: if we cannot avoid certain negative impacts in what we do, we must always search for ways to mitigate those impacts. To be fair, there are many valid and varied critiques of carbon offsets and other mechanisms like them. However, so long as air travel and other environmentally significant travel are options that cannot be avoided, negotiate with your employer to purchase carbon offsets as a meaningful way to help repair some of the damage we inflict while doing sometimes unavoidable work.</p>6. Travel Carefully
<p>The most important decision that someone who travels for work can make is whether or not they need to travel at all. Telecommuting isn't always ideal, but the energy associated with travel — particularly for high-income or high-ranking professionals — is immense and one has to really be able to make a clear rationale for why a particular trip matters. Use carbon calculators and have a clear sense of the metrics you're measured on, as to how this trip can contribute (or not) to your work.</p>From Behavioral Change to Systems Change
<p>As Millennials and Generation Z move into positions of greater authority in the workplace, it is incumbent on us to leave a better path for those who come next.</p><p>Many Global Shapers are starting to explore ways to embed sustainable travel in both our individual and organizational practices and we invite you — the reader — to <a href="mailto:%20vancouvershapers@gmail.com?subject=6%20ways%20travelling%20professionals%20can%20cut%20their%20carbon%20footprint%20-%20Feedback" target="_blank">reach out to us</a> with any ideas and suggestions on our list. This could look like building a contractor or employment agreement for your job that explicitly mandates or supports sustainable travel. Better yet, use your conscientious travel as an opportunity to spark an organization-wide conversation about developing a sustainable travel policy.</p><p>In the end, the climate crisis and environmental challenges around the world require both individual and collective action. Global Shapers, and members of the World Economic Forum, are privileged, connected and prominent leaders. We cannot wait for policies or procedures to be in place before we start mobilizing for change, but rather we can and must leverage our positions in society to create the baseline of expectations for living in balance with the planet. As the old saying goes, we must be the change we wish to see in the world.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Change the Way You Wash Your Hair to Help Save the Environment ... ›
- One Simple Trick to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint - EcoWatch ›
- The Essential Guide to Eco-Friendly Travel - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
London's Heathrow airport. Ohole12 / Wikimedia Commons
By Paul Brown
If it is to achieve its target of net zero climate emissions by 2050, all UK airports must close by mid-century and the country will have to make other drastic and fundamental lifestyle changes, says a report from a research group backed by the government in London.
<p>With the UK due to host this year's round of crucial UN climate talks in Glasgow in November, a group of academics has embarrassed the British government by showing it has currently no chance of meeting its own legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nothing within 30 years.</p><p>Their report, <a href="https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/299414/Absolute-Zero-digital-280120-v2.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y" target="_blank">Absolute Zero</a>, published by the University of Cambridge, says no amount of government or public wishful thinking will hide the fact that the country will not reach zero emissions by 2050 without barely conceivable changes to policies, industrial processes and lifestyles. Its authors include colleagues from five other British universities.</p><p>All are members of a group from UK Fires, a research program sponsored by the UK government, aiming to support a 20% cut in the country's true emissions by 2050 by placing resource efficiency at the heart of its future industrial strategy. The report was <a href="https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/" target="_blank">paid for under the UK Fires program</a>.</p>
<p>As well as a temporary halt to flying, the report also says British people cannot go on driving heavier cars and turning up the heating in their homes.</p><p>The government, industry and the public, it says, cannot continue to indulge themselves in these ways in the belief that new technologies will somehow save them – everyone will have to work together to change their way of life.<br></p><p>Because electric or zero-emission aircraft cannot be developed in time, most British airports will need to close by the end of this decade, and all flying will have to stop by 2050 until non-polluting versions are available.</p>
<p>Electrification of surface transport, rail and road, needs to be rapid, with the phasing out of all development of petrol and diesel cars immediately. Even if all private cars are <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric</a>, the amount of traffic will have to fall to 60% of 2020 levels by 2050, and all cars will have to be smaller.</p><p>The report also suggests that ships, currently heavy users of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>, need to convert to electric propulsion in order to allow for necessary imports and exports.</p>
<h3>Not Enough Time<br></h3><p>The reasoning behind the report is that technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/carbon-capture-and-storage" target="_blank">carbon capture and storage</a>, will not be developed in time and on a large enough scale to make a difference to emission reductions by 2050.</p><p>Nor is it any use exporting energy-intensive industries like steel-making, because the emissions will still take place abroad.</p><p>Instead, homegrown industries need to be developed that use no fossil fuels but are powered by electricity. The report says blast furnaces need to be phased out and replaced by existing technologies that recycle steel using <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable electricity</a>.</p><p>It calls for public debate and discussion about the lifestyle changes that will be essential. Although such luxuries as flying away on holiday and driving large cars will have to be foregone, and eating beef and lamb curtailed, the scientists say that life could be just as rich as today.</p><p>They say: "… sports, social life, eating, hobbies, games, computing, reading, TV, music, radio, volunteering (and sleeping!) We can all do more of these without any impact on emissions."</p>
<h3>Offsets Won't Work<br></h3><p>They want the public to help by lobbying for airport closures, more trains, no new roads and more renewable electricity.</p><p>The report insists that the government should not try to hide any of its emissions by importing goods: "The UK is responsible for all emissions caused by its purchasing, including imported goods, international flights and shipping."</p><p>Nor can there be any meaningful "carbon offsets." The only short-term option we have of reducing emissions – at least by 2050 – is to plant trees. "Even a massive increase in forestry would only have a small effect compared to today's emissions."</p><p>The authors comment: "There are no invisible solutions to climate change. We urgently need to engage everyone in the process of delivering the changes that will lead to zero emissions."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://climatenewsnetwork.net/uk-airports-must-shut-to-reach-2050-climate-target/" target="_blank">Climate News Network</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Electric Vehicles Likely to Be as Cheap as Conventional Cars by 2025, Says Economist
17 January
Popular
With well over a billion cars worldwide, electric vehicles are still only a small percentage. An economist from the University of Michigan Energy Institute says that is likely to change. Maskot / Getty Images
In 2018, there were about 5 million electric cars on the road globally. It sounds like a large number, but with well over a billion cars worldwide, electric vehicles are still only a small percentage.
<div class="rm-embed embed-media"><iframe allowfullscreen="" height="45" mozallowfullscreen="" msallowfullscreen="" oallowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/12468596/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" style="border: none" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="100%"></iframe></div><p>One barrier to people making the switch from conventional cars is cost. Electric vehicle prices generally remain high, mainly because batteries are still expensive.<br/></p>
<p>But Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, senior economist at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, says that's changing.</p><p>"We are observing that many manufacturers as well as technology companies and innovative start-ups are driving that cost lower," she says. "We expect that in the next three to five years, that battery cost will be very competitive."</p><p>She says that by 2025, an electric car will likely cost the same as a comparable gas-powered one.</p>
<p>That will make them more accessible to consumers, even without financial incentives, which have already brought down the price of electric vehicles in many countries.</p><p>So as battery technology continues to evolve, more electric cars are likely to hit the road.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/economist-electric-vehicles-likely-to-be-as-cheap-as-conventional-cars-by-2025/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Amsterdam Plans to Ban All Non-Electric Vehicles by 2030 - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's Christmas Gift to Big Oil: Killing Hopes of Electric Car Tax ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Microsoft's main campus in Redmond, Washington on May 12, 2017. GLENN CHAPMAN / AFP via Getty Images
Microsoft announced ambitious new plans to become carbon negative by 2030 and then go one step further and remove by 2050 all the carbon it has emitted since the company was founded in 1975, according to a company press release.
<p><br>The focus on taking the enormous step of clearing all the carbon it has contributed in the last 45 years sets the tech giant apart from other companies that have focused on reducing their current and future emissions, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-microsoft/in-climate-push-microsoft-to-erase-its-carbon-footprint-from-atmosphere-idUSKBN1ZF2CG" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. Ikea pledged to go carbon negative as well, but it did not commit to removing all the carbon it is responsible for in its history, according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796758230/microsoft-pledges-to-remove-from-the-atmosphere-all-the-carbon-its-ever-emitted" target="_blank">NPR</a>.<br></p><p>"If the last decade has taught us anything, it's that technology built without these principles can do more harm than good," said Chief Executive Satya Nadella at a media event at Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Washington, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-microsoft/in-climate-push-microsoft-to-erase-its-carbon-footprint-from-atmosphere-idUSKBN1ZF2CG" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p>
<p>Microsoft also said it will campaign for policies that force companies to pay for their carbon emissions and policies that will accelerate scaling clean energy infrastructure. The company is one of the founding members of the <a href="https://clcouncil.org/founding-members/" target="_blank">Climate Leadership Council</a> — a coalition of corporate giant advocating for a carbon tax, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-plans-to-be-carbon-negative-by-2030-removing-its-entire-carbon-footprint-since-1975-founding/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p><p>"When it comes to carbon, neutrality is not enough," Brad Smith, the company's president, said on Thursday, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-plans-to-be-carbon-negative-by-2030-removing-its-entire-carbon-footprint-since-1975-founding/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported. "We have to get ourselves to net zero."</p><p>This year Microsoft is expected to emit 16 million metric tons of carbon, which it wants to cut in half, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/tech/microsoft-climate-pledge-2030/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>Microsoft created a detailed plan to take gradual steps over the next decade to reach net-zero emissions by overhauling its entire supply chain to reduce emissions. The company already asks employees to consider greenhouse gas emissions in all its business decision. Microsoft's plan includes using 100 percent <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> and relying on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles">electric vehicles</a>, according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796758230/microsoft-pledges-to-remove-from-the-atmosphere-all-the-carbon-its-ever-emitted" target="_blank">NPR</a>.</p><p>"While the world will need to reach net zero, those of us who can afford to move faster and go further should do so," Microsoft President Brad Smith said in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/tech/microsoft-climate-pledge-2030/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>The company will help fund the initiative by expanding its internal carbon fee. Already, all of Microsoft's business units pay a tax of $15 per metric ton for their carbon emissions. The company will broaden the scope of the fee to include indirect emissions from manufacturing, business travel and the electricity customers may use on its products, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/tech/microsoft-climate-pledge-2030/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>"I've never seen that before," said Cynthia Cummis, the director of private sector climate mitigation at the World Resources Institute, to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796758230/microsoft-pledges-to-remove-from-the-atmosphere-all-the-carbon-its-ever-emitted" target="_blank">NPR</a>. "They're going to decarbonize at a very fast rate and then [use] carbon removals to balance out those remaining emissions. That's what's in line with science and what we want to see all companies doing."</p><p>Even activists, who are notoriously skeptical of companies "green washing" their deleterious past behavior, praised Microsoft's pledge and plans. <a href="https://rebellion.earth/" target="_blank">Extinction Rebellion</a> called Microsoft's announcement "an important step in the right direction," as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796758230/microsoft-pledges-to-remove-from-the-atmosphere-all-the-carbon-its-ever-emitted" target="_blank">NPR</a> reported.</p><p><a href="https://rebellion.earth/" target="_blank">Extinction Rebellion</a> then asked, "Who will follow next?"</p><p>There are several methods to remove carbon using nature-based solutions, such as planting large swaths of trees or using soil management techniques that absorb carbon, to technological methods that are still in their infancy, like capturing carbon directly from the air. Microsoft will first focus on restoring degraded <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/forests">forests</a> and planting new ones, while investing $1 billion in carbon-capturing technology, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-plans-to-be-carbon-negative-by-2030-removing-its-entire-carbon-footprint-since-1975-founding/" target="_blank">CBS News.</a></p>
<p>"Technology does exist that does this, but getting the price and the scalability to where we need it to be is a significant challenge," said Lucas Joppa, Microsoft's chief sustainability officer, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-plans-to-be-carbon-negative-by-2030-removing-its-entire-carbon-footprint-since-1975-founding/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported. He added, "If we're going to achieve what <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> says we have to achieve, we have to remove carbon [from the atmosphere.]"</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less