The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Transformative Climate Action Is Possible — if Polluters Stay Away
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
That was before the release of two reports in the fall by scientists commissioned by the United Nations and the U.S. federal government. Both reports painted a dire picture of the coming climate catastrophe and a clear timeline. They warned that if we don't take drastic action to cut emissions globally, we will face global catastrophic effects of climate change. According to the U.N., we have about a decade. That's no time at all.
So it makes sense that at the very end of 2018, even as global greenhouse gas emissions rose alarmingly, two bold plans for climate action took hold of the public imagination: the international People's Demands for Climate Justice, and in the U.S., the Green New Deal. But in order to move these plans from visions to actual policies that are just and effective, we must address the largest obstacle that lies between today's status quo and a livable future for all: the influence of the fossil fuel industry on climate policy.
Demand for Bold Action Takes Hold
Both the People's Demands and the Green New Deal offer possibilities for bold, visionary and just climate solutions. The People's Demands call for keeping fossil fuels in the ground globally, advancing people-first solutions at the U.N., and providing resources to countries and communities that have done the least to cause climate change—and which are currently bearing the brunt of its effects.
The Green New Deal resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey envisions a rapid drawdown of greenhouse gas emissions, the creation of millions of well-paying jobs, and the advancement of equity and justice for communities on the front line of climate change.
In the U.S., the Green New Deal has taken hold of the progressive imagination. Globally, the People's Demands have become a rallying cry for hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of organizations, including at the last U.N. climate treaty talks.
This growing call for action can't be underestimated. We need great social and economic change to fully and justly solve the climate crisis, and no change on this scale happens without public engagement fueling the political will to create such changes. But we also must be clear-eyed about what stands in the way of achieving such transformative change.
Big Polluters, Big Obstacles
Certainly, for the Green New Deal—U.S. politics being what they are—the path from a visionary platform to actual policy is deeply fraught. But perhaps the biggest obstacle to the Green New Deal becoming the transformative set of policies we need it to be is the influence of the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries.
As David Roberts at Vox points out: "If the [Green New Deal] looks like it has any chance of becoming a reality, it will face a giant right-wing smear campaign, coordinated across conservative media, think tanks, and politicians, funded by effectively unlimited fossil fuel wealth." Indeed, fossil fuel wealth and influence has, for half a century, stymied necessary climate action at every level of policymaking—from the U.N. to national policy to state legislation. To succeed in moving both the Green New Deal and the People's Demands from vision to action requires that we effectively counter the fossil fuel and other industries as they bring to bear their full arsenal of money and influence.
This is not to say that the supporters of the Green New Deal have entirely neglected to address the influence of the fossil fuel industry. Proponents have been vocal about excluding members of Congress who have received money from fossil fuel PACs from shaping the plan, which is a good first step. But if it is to live up to its boldest visions, the Green New Deal will need to do far more to safeguard against the influence of big polluters and other industries seeking to profit from our most basic needs.
For one thing, influence peddling by polluting industries doesn't just come in the form of campaign contributions by fossil fuel PACs to members of Congress. In fact, corporate PAC donations are no longer the most important nor significant route of influence.
Increasingly, corporations wield their influence in a myriad of other ways: from positioning themselves as necessary "stakeholders" in policymaking, to establishing think tanks and front groups to sway public opinion, to selling "public-private partnerships" as a way to muscle their way into policymaking and actual control of public resources. If the champions of the Green New Deal are serious about making a true shift, they must create an impenetrable firewall between industry and policymaking.
Even at the nascent stages, there are warning signs. The Indigenous Environmental Network has highlighted several important ways in which the Green New Deal resolution falls short of getting to the root of the problem, allowing "industries and governments to continue causing harm to Indigenous communities."
Among other concerns, they point out that the "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" goal of the Green New Deal opens the door to carbon-pricing schemes, which give Big Polluters the opportunity "to continue the business-as-usual practices of extraction, transport and combustion" under a green-washed guise. Instead, the goal must be to keep fossil fuels in the ground and end subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel corporations.
There is also concern regarding industries beyond Big Polluters. Clean water and infrastructure are mentioned throughout the resolution. When it comes to our water infrastructure, the private water industry has long jockeyed to co-opt public funding for profit. It employs a sophisticated PR and political machine to get government infrastructure funds—and too often leaves residents worse off than before, as they are forced to face rate hikes, poor water quality and worker layoffs. We can expect this machine is already rolling to cash in on the Green New Deal.
A Global Mandate to Kick Big Polluters Out
For the Green New Deal to succeed in effectively addressing the threats of climate change, those leading the charge must resist the enormous pressure to consider the fossil fuel industry as "stakeholders." These are the entities that brought us into this crisis. They cannot be the ones to get us out.
Rather, we must follow the leadership of, and be in deep conversations with, communities currently on the front lines of climate change, who have been developing true and just solutions, as pointed out in a recent letter on the Green New Deal to Representative Ocasio-Cortez and other members of Congress. This includes Indigenous communities, communities of color and low-income communities in the U.S. and around the world. After all, climate change is a global problem. No single country, no matter how visionary, can solve it alone.
This is why the People's Demands were collectively developed by, and rooted in, climate justice organizations and people's movements around the world. At the heart of these demands is a recognition that big polluters are the primary cause of the lack of progress on international and national climate solutions.
For decades, using every weapon in their arsenal, big polluters have prevented the U.N. climate treaty from facilitating bold climate action—from a smear campaign targeting the scientists of an early U.N. climate report, to putting industry representatives on delegations, to all-out sponsoring the talks, and much more.
Therefore, ending big polluters' influence on the U.N. climate treaty process and advancing a conflict-of-interest policy is a core component of the People's Demands. Such a policy, text or mechanism would protect global climate policy from obstruction by Big Polluters and would urge governments to begin insulating policymaking from industry influence.
Having this kind of directive at the international level provides significant resources, leverage and political will to do the same at the national level. We've seen that with the World Health Organization's global tobacco treaty (formally known as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control), which safeguards public health policymaking from the influence of the tobacco industry. Since the adoption of the treaty in 2003, countries around the world have implemented policies keeping the tobacco industry away from the policymaking table. This has, in turn, enabled the implementation of lifesaving tobacco control measures, like graphic health warnings, bans on advertising and tobacco taxes.
To be sure, the specifics of climate change and the tobacco epidemic differ greatly, and the fossil fuel industry is more powerful than the tobacco industry. Nevertheless, successfully kicking big polluters out of the U.N. climate treaty process could pave the way for countries around the world—including the U.S.—to adopt strong firewalls between the fossil fuel industry and climate policymaking. Doing so will also give the Green New Deal the best shot at succeeding.
If 2018 was the year when many people in the Global North finally woke up to the existential danger posed by climate change, 2019 just might be the year that politicians around the world heed the call for visionary climate action—and begin the process of disentangling climate policymaking from the clutches of corporate capture. This just might be the only way we achieve the swift and massive change we need.
Patti Lynn is the executive director of Corporate Accountability.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Will Sarni
It is far too easy to view scarcity and poor quality of water as issues solely affecting emerging economies. While the images of women and children fetching water in Africa and a lack of access to water in India are deeply disturbing, this is not the complete picture.
The Past is No Longer a Guide to the Future
We get ever closer to "day zeros" — the point at when municipal water supplies are switched off — and tragedies such as Flint. These are not isolated stories. Instead they are becoming routine, and the public sector and civil society are scrambling to address them. We are seeing "day zeros" in South Africa, India, Australia and elsewhere, and we are now detecting lead contamination in drinking water in cities across the U.S.
"Day zero" is the result of water planning by looking in the rear-view mirror. The past is no longer a guide to the future; water demand has outstripped supplies because we are tied to business-as-usual planning practices and water prices, and this goes hand-in-hand with the inability of the public sector to factor the impacts of climate change into long-term water planning. Lead in drinking water is the result of lead pipe service lines that have not been replaced and in many cases only recently identified by utilities, governments and customers. An estimated 22 million people in the US are potentially using lead water service lines. This aging infrastructure won't repair or replace itself.
One of the most troubling aspects of the global water crisis is that those least able to afford access to water are also the ones who pay a disproportionately high percentage of their income for it. A report by WaterAid revealed that a standard water bill in developed countries is as little as 0.1 percent of the income of someone earning the minimum wage, while in a country like Madagascar a person reliant on a tanker truck for their water supply would spend as much as 45 percent of their daily income on water to get just the recommended daily minimum supply. In Mozambique, families relying on black-market vendors will spend up to 100 times as much on water as those reached by government-subsidized water supplies.
Finally, we need to understand that the discussion of a projected gap between supply and demand is misleading. There is no gap, only poor choices around allocation. The wealthy will have access to water, and the poor will pay more for water of questionable quality. From Flint residents using bottled water and paying high water utility rates, to the poor in South Africa waiting in line for their allocation of water — inequity is everywhere.
Water Inequity Requires Global Action — Now.
These troubling scenarios beg the obvious question: What to do? We do know that ongoing reports on the 'water crisis' are not going to catalyze action to address water scarcity, poor quality, access and affordability. Ensuring the human right to water feels distant at times.
We need to mobilize an ecosystem of stakeholders to be fully engaged in developing and scaling solutions. The public sector, private sector, NGOs, entrepreneurs, investors, academics and civil society must all be engaged in solving water scarcity and quality problems. Each stakeholder brings unique skills, scale and speed of impact (for example, entrepreneurs are fast but lack scale, while conversely the public sector is slow but has scale).
We also urgently need to change how we talk about water. We consistently talk about droughts happening across the globe — but what we are really dealing with is an overallocation of water due to business-as-usual practices and the impacts of climate change.
We need to democratize access to water data and actionable information. Imagine providing anyone with a smartphone the ability to know, on a real-time basis, the quality of their drinking water and actions to secure safe water. Putting this information in the hands of civil society instead or solely relying on centralized regulatory agencies and utilities will change public policies.
Will Sarni is the founder and CEO of Water Foundry.
Note: This post also appears on the World Economic Forum.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Circle of Blue.
- Newark Water Filters Are Working, Tests Suggest - EcoWatch ›
- Newark's Lead Crisis Escalates - EcoWatch ›
- Mice exposed to nicotine-containing e-cigarette vapor developed lung cancer within a year.
- More research is needed to know what this means for people who vape.
- Other research has shown that vaping can cause damage to lung tissue.
A new study found that long-term exposure to nicotine-containing e-cigarette vapor increases the risk of cancer in mice.
Six months: That's how much time Mexico now has to report on its progress to save the critically endangered vaquita porpoise (Phocoena sinus) from extinction.
It may seem innocuous to flush a Q-tip down the toilet, but those bits of plastic have been washing up on beaches and pose a threat to the birds, turtles and marine life that call those beaches home. The scourge of plastic "nurdles," as they are called, has pushed Scotland to implement a complete ban on the sale and manufacture of plastic-stemmed cotton swabs, as the BBC reported.
By Tim Radford
Scientists in the U.S. have added a new dimension to the growing hazard of extreme heat. As global average temperatures rise, so do the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves.
Oscar-award winning actress and long-time political activist Jane Fonda was arrested on the steps of Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on Friday for peacefully protesting the U.S. government's inaction in combating the climate crisis, according to the AP.
By Caroline Hickman
I'm up late at night worrying that my baby brothers may die from global warming and other threats to humanity – please can you put my mind at rest? – Sophie, aged 17, East Sussex, UK