Trump Bails Out Oil Industry, Not U.S. Families, as Coronavirus Crisis Intensifies
Donald Trump during a news conference in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, on Friday, March 13. Zach Roberts / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Jon Queally
Climate action groups and progressive critics expressed disappointment and outrage on Friday afternoon after President Donald Trump — despite a continued failure to offer far-reaching support to the U.S. public — moved to bolster the bottom lines of oil and gas companies by announcing a massive federal purchase for the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
"Based on the price of oil, I've also instructed the Secretary of Energy to purchase at a very good price large quantities of crude oil for storage in the U.S. strategic reserve," Trump announced during a White House press conference — surrounded by CEOs from major corporations, including Walmart, CVS, and Target — in which he also declared an official national emergency in order to combat the outbreak of the coronavirus.
"We're going to fill it right up to the top," said of the SPR, but critics were quick to point out that move has everything to do with helping his wealthy friends and cronies in the fossil fuel industry, and nothing to do with helping average people now under threat from the spreading pandemic.
"Trump has once again put the interests of oil and gas executives ahead of the interests of people and communities," said Alex Doukas of Oil Change International. "With this move, Trump has rolled out a plan to prop up U.S. oil companies before he has even bothered to guarantee paid sick leave for US workers who are going to be on the frontlines of the coronavirus crisis for weeks to come."
The news came Friday as additional school closures were announced for states nationwide, grocery store shelves were wiped clean, and worry continues to spread about just how extensive the outbreak will become.
Greenpeace warned that the total cost of the oil purchase "could exceed $2.6 billion in public funds," a stark comparison when put next to the proposal put forth by House Democrats just hours earlier. Introducing the "Families First Coronavirus Response Act" which calls for an estimated $1.7 billion aimed at helping working families and children to weather the public health crisis, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "The American people expect and deserve a coordinated, science-based and whole-of-government response to keep them and their loved ones safe: a response that puts families first to stimulate the economy."
By putting his administration's emphasis on bailing out the oil industry, John Noël, a senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA, said the president is doing the opposite of putting people first.
"Trump's response to a global pandemic is to put billionaires and corporate polluters ahead of American families. There's no evidence that this handout would protect jobs, pensions, benefits, or ease the hardships facing fossil fuel workers or communities confronting the COVID-19 outbreak right now. It's nothing more than a gift to the industry that created the climate crisis."
Doukas agreed, calling it "wildly inappropriate" for Trump "to abuse the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a tool to prop up the oil and gas industry at a time when the White House should be focusing on how to help everyday people in the US."
"Where is the relief for workers grappling with caring for their families, retail workers risking exposure every day, families grappling with debt and mounting bills while their livelihoods are put at risk?" he asked. "No, today President Trump focused on propping up polluting industries and trotting out CEOs to sell their wares."
Despite the criticisms from those focused on the needs of families, it appeared the announcement during what was dubbed Trump's "Shock Doctrine press conference" had the desired result.
As CNBC reported, following Trump's late-day announcement, "crude futures jumped 5%" in the last hour of market trading.
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
Contribute
A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that human-caused global heating is making the world's oceans more stable. Michelle Maria / Pixabay
By Jessica Corbett
In a rare calm moment during a historically active Atlantic hurricane season, an international team of climate scientists on Monday published a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change showing that human-caused global heating is making the world's oceans more "stable"—which, as co-author Michael Mann explained, is "very bad news."
<p>Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-oceans-stabilizing-1534512" target="_blank">detailed</a> researchers' findings about ocean stratification in a piece for <em>Newsweek</em>. Using "more comprehensive data and a more sophisticated method for estimating stratification changes" than past studies, the scientists found that "oceans are not only becoming more stable, but are doing so faster than was previously thought."</p><p>The team—led by Guancheng Li of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in China—specifically found that stratification globally increased by a "substantial" 5.3% from 1960 to 2018, mostly in the upper 650 feet or so of the world oceans. "This seemingly technical finding has profound and troubling implications," Mann noted.</p><p>"The more stable the upper ocean, the less vertical mixing that takes place. This mixing is a primary means by which the ocean buries warming surface waters. So the surface warms up even faster. It's what we call a 'positive feedback'—a vicious cycle," he wrote. "That's bad for a number of reasons."</p>
<div id="e639b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d8d112e123588b9bf3c3eadcc89627e8"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1310602217825726465" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Thank you to @MichaelEMann for patiently and clearly explaining to non scientists why increased ocean stabilizati… https://t.co/yW2BmQhKGp</div> — Dr Naomi Wolf (@Dr Naomi Wolf)<a href="https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/statuses/1310602217825726465">1601306893.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Noting the ongoing storm season and previous warnings from scientists—<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/28/climatologist-michael-mann-2020-atlantic-hurricane-season-hate-say-we-told-you-so" target="_blank">including him</a>—that the increasingly devastating recent hurricanes "have fed off warmer surface waters," Mann explained that "a more stably stratified ocean potentially favors more intense, destructive hurricanes." Warmer waters also "absorb less atmospheric carbon dioxide" and "hold less dissolved oxygen."</p><p>In other words, the new study indicates that "humans have made the oceans more stable, and the result will be more extreme weather and the acceleration of climate change," as study co-author John Abraham <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/28/how-our-warmer-oceans-are-contributing-to-climate-breakdown" target="_blank">wrote</a> Monday for <em>The Guardian</em>. Like Mann, he detailed the research team's findings about the stratification of the oceans, and the implications. Then, he added:</p><blockquote>It is not all doom and gloom. The good news is we know why the climate is changing and we know how the oceans are responding. We can do something about this problem—we have the ability to slow down climate change. We just lack the will and leadership.<br><br>But if 2020 has shown us anything, it has revealed that humans can change and adapt quickly to situations. There is hope that we can navigate the challenges resulting from a more stable ocean—but we must start immediately.<br></blockquote><p>Both co-authors' pieces provoked calls for swift, bold, global efforts to address the climate crisis:</p>
<div id="85eca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="43780424fc8b04e23a525e1bad1086eb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1310608647651811336" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Canada has oceans on 3 sides-we can't ignore the climate news that The Oceans Appear to Be Stabilizing. Here's Why… https://t.co/SfWJWWRHr7</div> — Friends Of Halifax Common (@Friends Of Halifax Common)<a href="https://twitter.com/FriendsHalifax/statuses/1310608647651811336">1601308426.0</a></blockquote></div>
<div id="3e52e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f210e186b6e1481a64770e0c8722a438"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1310638669477236738" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"Das bedeutet, dass das CO2-Budget, das zur Vermeidung kritischer Erhitzung (z.B. 1,5°C) übrig bleibt, möglicherwei… https://t.co/675YBTSybJ</div> — Parents For Future #SystemChangeNotClimateChange (@Parents For Future #SystemChangeNotClimateChange)<a href="https://twitter.com/parents4future/statuses/1310638669477236738">1601315583.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Ending his piece on a similar note, Mann wrote that "in short, it's unwise to be complacent given the accumulating scientific evidence that climate change and its impacts may well be in the upper end of the range that climate scientists currently project. There is ever-greater urgency when it comes to acting on climate. But there is agency as well. Our actions <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/dangerous-new-form-climate-denialism-making-rounds-opinion-1455736" target="_blank">make a difference</a>—something to keep in mind as we head into a presidential election <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/greta-thunberg-donald-trump-true-leadership-climate-change-free-world-1461147" target="_blank">whose climate implications</a> are monumental."</p><p>Mann is on the mounting list of climate experts and advocates <a href="https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-endorsed-climate-scientists-24013990-0300-4c2c-ad95-57571b397196.html?fbclid=IwAR3vTCBmK5BwvoafwGefadTsnIMnKo9FS6ssc9PCdFLEeXr6p4KHlnrFWKU" target="_blank">supporting </a>Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in his effort to oust President Donald Trump—who has, at various points, ignored and exacerbated the climate emergency. Earlier this month, the <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/15/matter-life-and-death-after-175-years-scientific-american-backs-biden-magazines" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">editors</a> of<em> Scientific American</em> as well as the political action arms of both 350 and Friends of the Earth also <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/24/clarion-call-all-progressive-environmentalists-defeat-trumps-planetary-destruction" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">endorsed</a> the former vice president.</p><p>"The stakes are clear and present," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin from 350 Action said of the general election, for which early voting is already underway in some states. "The planet cannot withstand four more years of Trump."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 5 Things to Know About Earth's Warming Oceans - EcoWatch ›
- Report Details Climate Crisis Impacts on Coral Reefs, Warns of ... ›
- 'A Little Shocking': Ocean Currents Are Speeding up Significantly ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
President Donald Trump holds up a pen after signing a Presidential Proclamation shrinking Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments at the Utah State Capitol in Salt Lake City, Utah, December 4, 2017. Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images
By Hannah Murphy
When he talks about the Trump administration, David Doniger likes to say: "Imagine where we'd be if they knew what they were doing." The climate lawyer and senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund spends his days defending the environment from the U.S. government, and for the past three and a half years, that's meant a front-row seat to the Trump administration's relentless attacks on any regulation that's meant to slow the climate crisis.
<p>But it's also been a window into the hasty, sloppy, and legally dubious ways that they've gone about it. "One of the hallmarks of this administration is how incompetently they're doing this," says Doniger. "It shows up in how slowly they've been able to work, and how flimsy their legal rationales are." Almost all of Trump's attempts at deregulation — some 100 rules that he's tried to eliminate or weaken — are being challenged in court, and environmentalists are steadily winning. According to the <a href="https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Institute for Policy Integrity</a> at New York University, the Trump administration has lost 69 of the 83 legal challenges it's faced in its deregulatory blitz.</p><p>"We were saved by their incompetence," says Andrew Wetzler, from the NRDC Action Fund, mainly by their failure to follow basic rule-making procedures. They rushed through the process, often shortening or entirely skipping over the required 60 days for public comment, which provided a clear opening for their rule changes to be challenged in court. The administration's ineptitude has given environmentalists hope that if Trump loses the election, the policy impact of his unrelenting pro-fossil fuel agenda could ultimately be short-lived. "If he's a one-term wonder," says Doniger, "the biggest consequence of the Trump administration may just turn out to be lost time."</p><p>But time, at this hour of the climate fight, might be our most precious resource. As we stumble ever closer to the <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-climate-changes-worsens-a-cascade-of-tipping-points-looms" target="_blank">collapse of ice sheets, oceans and forests</a>, the range of meaningful action we could take narrows. There is now believed to be more carbon dioxide in the air than any time in the last 3 million years. Our oceans are on track by the end of this century to become more acidic than they've been in some 15 million years — when they were enduring a major extinction event. Those oceans are also rising steadily enough to threaten the homes of 150 million people in the next three decades. "We lost years at a critical time," says Wetzler. "We're on the precipice of a number of climate and biological tipping points." And, he says, we won't fully understand the impact of that loss for years. </p>
<p>If Biden wins in November, environmentalists say, his administration would have a slim window of opportunity to get our agencies back on track to meet the enormity of the climate crisis. "It means being aggressive from day one," says Brett Hartl from the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund. "And not futzing around — knowing what you're going to do and implementing it immediately." </p><p>Making up for the lost time won't be easy. Despite his slap-dash approach, Trump still managed to scramble the trajectory of American climate policy, creating a tangle of legal fights that will have to be cleared up for U.S. climate policy to move forward. And he left almost no part of our environmental regulatory structure untouched — greenlighting fossil fuel infrastructure like the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines, setting us back on emission-reduction goals by reversing the Clean Power Plan and higher fuel-efficiency standards, and gutting the federal agencies that should be at the helm of our climate response.</p><p>So how difficult will it be to unscramble this mess? It would have to happen in three parts, environmentalists say, and all three would have to start on day one. First, Biden would have a powerful arsenal of executive tools available to him — if he chooses to use them. A<a href="http://climatepresident.org" target="_blank"> coalition of over 500 environmental</a> groups has already assembled a plan for how he could effectively jumpstart our fight against the climate crisis using executive powers, which would avoid both going through Congress and the lengthy federal rule-making process.<br><br>Using executive power, Biden could declare a national climate emergency. It wouldn't just send an important message to Americans — and the rest of the world — that we're taking the climate crisis seriously; it would give the administration the power to mobilize the government on a massive scale, like ordering the Secretary of Defense to redirect military spending toward the rapid development of clean energy.<span></span><br></p>
<p>Biden could also immediately order federal agencies to reverse the climate rollbacks Trump introduced through executive order — like allowing oil and gas companies to side-step state approval — and start issuing his own. Most urgently, Biden would have the power to keep more fossil fuels in the ground: He could direct the Secretary of the Interior to halt oil-and-gas leasing and fracking on federal lands, reinstitute the ban on exporting crude oil, and order all federal agencies to deny permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure, like pipelines, storage facilities, and refineries.</p><p>He'd also be able to change the ways that money moves through the energy sector. He could prohibit the U.S. government from financing fossil fuel programs overseas and end all Department of Energy loans for fossil fuels stateside, while also requiring the Federal Reserve to manage climate risks — forcing it to acknowledge the current and future impact of <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a> on our economy. </p><p>Many of these tools were already available in the Obama era, but the administration chose not to use them. For example, "the Clean Air Act is actually quite clear that you have the authority to set national ambient air quality standards," says Hartl. "It would have been incredibly bold, and it actually wouldn't have had the problems that the Clean Power Plan had. They could have really moved the needle on greenhouse gases in a very, very powerful way." But, Hartl says, the Obama administration shied away from these kinds of actions for fear of political consequences. </p>
<p>Biden would face a very different national landscape. At the beginning of this year, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/21/how-americans-see-climate-change-and-the-environment-in-7-charts/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">two thirds of American adults said that protecting the environment should be a top priority of the federal government</a>, up from only 30 percent at the beginning of Obama's first term. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/19/914233038/poll-climate-becomes-top-priority-for-democrats-trump-struggles-on-race-covid-19" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">In a poll last week</a>, likely Democratic voters ranked climate change as the most important issue to them in this election, and Data for Progress, a progressive think tank, has found that talking about climate change could actually help persuade voters who are on the fence to vote for a Democrat. All of this is to say, a Biden administration could have an unprecedented political mandate to take action on the climate crisis. </p><p>In addition to issuing executive orders, beginning on day one Biden would also need to start the process of unwinding the deregulation efforts that Trump carried out through the federal rule-making process — like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/climate/endangered-species-act-changes.html" target="_blank">rollbacks on the Endangered Species Act</a> and fuel-emissions standards — and writing new ones to take their place. Environmentalists are confident that a new administration could systematically undo each rollback, but that process could take two years, according to Hartl.</p><p><span></span>And the Biden administration would need to learn from Trump's mistakes. Legal challenges from the industries that these regulations impact — the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association — are inevitable, "so you have to go in and be prepared to defend it the first time," says Hartl. That means following the process to the letter: establishing rules with legal backing from legislation like the Clean Air and Clean Water acts; opening the rule up to public comment; and then presenting a final rule that can stand up in court. Unlike Trump's deregulation efforts, which were fighting against decades of environmental legislation, the law would be on Biden's side. "The reality is that when Congress passed these laws," says Hartl, "they were designed to make the environment better." </p>
<p>Finally, Biden would have to start hiring like mad. Over the past four years, Trump's EPA and Interior Department have hemorrhaged talent. The Bureau of Land Management moved the majority of its staff out of Washington, D.C., leading some 70 percent of that staff to resign, and the EPA is nearly as small as it was during the Nixon era, when the EPA was founded. "That pattern, in the most extreme way, is mirrored throughout the environmental agencies," says Wetzler. "There's been a real brain drain of people who can't stand in an agency and support the agenda under the Trump administration, and we'll have to put back the pieces of very demoralized, and in some cases broken agencies." </p><p>But from those ashes, Biden could build a coalition of climate advocates across his Cabinet. His transition team, and the 4,000 people they appoint, <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/158198/inside-fight-shape-bidens-climate-policy" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">are arguably more influential than any campaign promises he could make</a>. "Personnel is policy," says Jamal Raad, co-founder and campaign director for Evergreen Action, founded by former staffers of Gov. Jay Inslee's presidential campaign. "We need to choose regulators that have a climate lens," and that lens doesn't end at the EPA — it can reach the Department of Agriculture, where we have to reimagine our food production to work with our changing climate, or the Treasury, where regulators could interpret the Dodd-Frank consumer protection act to include climate risks. And within the White House, Raad says, Biden could create a National Climate Council that's equivalent to the National Economic Council. "There needs to be a plan to reorient the federal government so that climate is a lens in all decision making." </p><p>Heading into the general election, pressure from the left wing of the party shaped Biden's $2 trillion climate plan, which is "a green new deal in all but name," <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/20/joe-biden-has-endorsed-the-green-new-deal-in-all-but-name" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">wrote activist and journalist Julian Brave NoiseCat</a>. "It's the most progressive, forward-leaning environmental plan that any candidate for president has ever released," says Wetzler of the NRDC Action Fund. "It would represent incredible progress." And while the Biden campaign hasn't laid out a timetable for the plan, "the Biden team has been signaling their prioritization of climate by making it central to their economic recovery plans," says Raad. "I think that folks should be cautiously optimistic — but vigilant — on the prospect of climate being a priority early in the first term."</p><p>Of course, this all hinges on what happens in November. And if Trump is re-elected, his administration would have the chance to establish a legacy of more than just incompetence and squandered time. Four more years of Donald Trump being in charge of the environment could permanently alter the American landscape.</p>
<p>In some cases, it would give the Trump administration time to fight back against the legal challenges they face, leaning on courts that they've stacked with anti-environmental judges. And damage could be done that will be near impossible to undo — rules can be changed, but mines can't be unmined. The Trump administration has pursued the largest rollback of federally protected land in U.S. history. Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, for example, which Trump shrunk by 85 percent in 2017, is in the crosshairs of uranium developers. Trump's move has been mired in lawsuits, but a second term could give them the time to untangle them, and hand the land over to the uranium lobbyists.<br></p><p>Likewise, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was just approved in August, leaving little time for leasing, let alone actual development, before Inauguration Day. But if Trump wins, those leases are likely to move forward, as will the roads, pipelines, and oil rigs that come with them, doing permanent damage to a vital and fragile ecosystem. "Over time you're looking at millions and millions of acres of fossil fuel leasing," says Hartl from the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund. "And eventually, once you get to the point where they're actually putting drills in the ground, it's very hard to undo that. You're locking in a tremendous amount of fossil fuel infrastructure."</p><p>Trump's influence on the Supreme Court looms heavily for the environment as well. With Trump already raring to appoint a new justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a second term is likely to offer him a fourth Supreme Court appointment, which would mean the highest court would house<em> seven</em> Republican-appointed justices. When you're suing over environmental issues, the court's make-up can be the difference between having your day in court, and not. "For example, there's a general judicial doctrine called 'standing,' or your ability to go to court to pursue your aggrieved interests," explains Hartl. "Conservative judges want to narrow who has standing as much as possible, because that limits access to the courts. When you're fighting for the environment, and your interest is protecting an endangered species or the atmosphere or the water, they've already made it hard for us to go to court, to have standing. And they can narrow it even further so that we don't even have recourse. Our ability to just <em>fight</em> for the environment is at stake."</p><p><span></span>The climate movement has never been more clear on what it is fighting for and what it needs to do, and finally has a presidential candidate who is signaling some willingness to do it. The prescription is fairly simple: Stop burning fossil fuels so we can begin drawing down the carbon in the atmosphere that's overheating our planet and disrupting the systems that have supported life on Earth as we know it. The president has a lot of power to take that action, and we have no time to lose. "It's true that we have 30 years [before an irreversible climate collapse], but <em>when</em> you act on that 30-year scale really affects how radically you have to act," says Wetzler. "If you think about where the United States was at the beginning of the Trump administration — and where the world was, in terms of taking climate change seriously — it's a huge, squandered opportunity." This November, we can choose to act, and set ourselves back on course. "If this is a one-time, Black Swan event, we're probably going to recover as a nation," says Doniger. "This is the project of the century." </p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com" target="_blank">Rolling Stone </a></em><em>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
- Trump's Climate Change Record Threatens the Planet - EcoWatch ›
- Climate Change Purged From White House Website - EcoWatch ›
- America Burns From Climate Change While Trump Officials Attend ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A photo illustration shows confirmed global cases and deaths from COVID-19 displayed on a smartphone and PC screen, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center on Sept. 29, 2020. Pavlo Gonchar / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images
The Johns Hopkins University tracker for worldwide coronavirus cases showed that the world passed a grim milestone early Tuesday morning, as more than 1 million have died from the virus and the infection it causes, COVID-19.
<p>That's equivalent to almost the entire population of San Jose, California. It's a larger number than the population of Boston, Seattle, Portland and nearly twice the population of Atlanta. In comparison to diseases, COVID-19 in just nine months has killed more people than HIV and dysentery, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/world/covid-1-million-deaths.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a> reported. It has also killed more than cholera, flu, measles and malaria combined. It's reached every corner of the globe, affecting every country in the world.</p>
<p>"This is a very serious global event, and a lot of people were going to get sick and many of them were going to die, but it did not need to be nearly this bad," said Tom Inglesby, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>In addition to the 1 million global deaths, the virus has infected nearly 33.5 million people. Many of the survivors never fully recover and end up with lingering effects that affect their lungs, joints, muscles and mental acuity. Those continued symptoms hamper their ability to return to normal life, according to another report in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/us/coronavirus-long-term-effects.html" target="_blank">The New York Times.</a></p>
<p>The U.S. accounts for 20 percent of the global deaths, by far the largest number of deaths, with more than 205,000 COVID-19 fatalities. The Johns Hopkins data shows that just four countries — the U.S., Brazil, India and Mexico — make up more than half the total of worldwide deaths, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>India is quickly catching up to the U.S. as the virus's transmission is accelerating there. As for the U.S., the numbers are continuing to climb as only 19 states are holding steady. CNN reported that 21 states recorded a higher number of cases in the past week compared to the previous week.</p>
<p>"It's not only that the number of infections keeps on going up. It's also that the test positivity rates are trending in the wrong direction," said emergency medicine physician Dr. Leana Wen to CNN.</p><p>"We're seeing more than a dozen states with a test positivity ... over 10%. And there are two states — Idaho and South Dakota — where the test positivity is over 20 percent," she added. "That means that not only do we have increasing infections in these states, we also don't have nearly enough testing."</p><p>For context, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that an area that wants to reopen businesses should have the number of positive cases at 5 percent or lower for 14 consecutive days, according to <a href="https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity" target="_blank">Johns Hopkins</a>.</p>
<p>Officials from the WHO believe the actual number of cases and deaths is underreported.</p><p>"If anything, the numbers currently reported probably represent an underestimate of those individuals who have either contracted COVID-19 or died as a cause of it," said Mike Ryan, the WHO's top emergencies expert, told a briefing in Geneva, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/29/global-coronavirus-deaths-pass-1m-with-no-sign-rate-slowing" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>"When you count anything, you can't count it perfectly but I can assure you that the current numbers are likely an underestimate of the true toll of COVID."</p><p>Secretary General of the United Nations António Guterres called the 1 million deaths threshold agonizing and suggested the world learn from its mistakes.</p><p>"Responsible leadership matters," he said, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/29/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "Science matters. Cooperation matters — and misinformation kills."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- US Coronavirus Deaths Pass 200000 as New Surge in Cases Begins ›
- U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Tops 170,000 Ahead of Flu Season ... ›
- U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Now No. 1 in World - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
On Thursday, Maryland will become the first state in the nation to implement a ban on foam takeout containers. guruXOOX / iStock / Getty Images Plus
Maryland will become the first state in the nation Thursday to implement a ban on foam takeout containers.
<p>The law, which was passed in 2019, prohibits restaurants and other institutions that serve food, such as schools, from using polystyrene containers, <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/environment/bs-md-stryrofoam-ban-takes-effect-20200925-dc57ytrblbdqrmbvsk4lddyw5a-story.html" target="_blank">The Baltimore Sun reported</a>.</p><p>"Single-use <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> are overrunning our <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean" target="_self">oceans</a> and bays and neighborhoods," chief bill sponsor Democratic Delegate Brooke Lierman <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/health/maryland-plastic-foam-ban-legislation-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">told CNN when it passed.</a> "We need to take dramatic steps to start stemming our use and reliance on them ... to leave future generations a planet full of wildlife and green space."</p><p>Lierman said she had tried twice before to pass the bill, but a shift in public opinion against plastic pollution finally pushed it over the finish line.</p>
<p>The law was originally scheduled to go into effect July 1, but officials delayed it by three months because of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/27/us/maryland-foam-container-ban-trnd/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">CNN reported further</a>. Dining has shifted from table service to takeout, and the government wanted to give impacted businesses more time to use up their extra foam, The Baltimore Sun explained.</p><p>Some restaurant owners still oppose the ban, arguing that foam containers are cheaper and longer-lasting than alternatives.</p><p>"We don't like increased costs," Dan Schuman of Captain Dan's Crabhouse in Eldersburg told The Baltimore Sun. "No restaurant does. Because we have to pass that onto the customer."</p><p>He said he was raising prices to cover the cost of new plastic containers, as well as an upcoming minimum wage increase.</p>
<p>However, other restaurants have already made the change on their own and were pleased with the results. Victoria Gastro Pub bar manager Megan Purcell said the Victoria Restaurant Group switched to compostable takeaway containers two years ago.</p><p>"It's just the right thing to do and it was time," Purcell told <a href="https://www.wmar2news.com/news/state/md-foam-container-ban-goes-into-effect-thursday" target="_blank">WMAR</a>.</p><p>Environmentalists, meanwhile, say the ban will help fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>, because foam containers are made from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>, The Baltimore Sun reported. It will also keep the containers out of waterways.</p><p>This has already been the case for Maryland localities and cities that have banned foam containers ahead of the state, including Baltimore City, Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.</p><p>In Baltimore, the trash wheels that prevent rubbish from entering the Inner Harbor reported a 40 percent reduction in polystyrene containers caught in their spokes.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/maine-bans-styrofoam-2636014775.html" target="_self">Maine</a>, New York and Vermont have passed similar bans, but they have not yet taken effect. Maryland regulators hope that their ban can be a model for these states and others considering phasing out the use of foam containers.</p><p>"We will learn how best to implement it," Maryland environment secretary Ben Grumbles told The Baltimore Sun, "and other states will watch us closely."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Jersey Legislature Passes 'Most Comprehensive' Plastics Ban ... ›
- Canada to Announce Ban on Single-Use Plastics - EcoWatch ›
- The Complex and Frustrating Reality of Recycling Plastic - EcoWatch ›
- Dunkin' Says Bye to Foam Cups (But Bring Your Own Thermos ... ›
- Maine and Vermont Pass Plastic Bag Bans on the Same Day ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A sea turtle and tropical fish swim in Oahu, Hawaii. M.M. Sweet / Moment / Getty Images
By Ajit Niranjan
Leaders from across the world have promised to turn environmental degradation around and put nature on the path to recovery within a decade.
<p><br/></p>
<p>"We are in a state of planetary emergency," the 65 leaders, who include German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, wrote ahead of a UN <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" target="_self">biodiversity</a> summit on Wednesday. "We commit ourselves not simply to words, but to meaningful action and mutual accountability."</p><p>The commitments, which come two days before a UN biodiversity summit in New York, include eliminating <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastic</a> leakage to the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_self">oceans</a> by 2050 and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/the-time-has-come-for-humanity-to-go-through-its-next-evolution/a-53589043" target="_blank">incentivizing banks and businesses</a> to value the natural world. The leaders identify unsustainable production and consumption as a key driver of environmental crises that "require urgent and immediate global action."</p><p>But strongmen leading some of the world's biggest polluters — <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-emissions-paris-agreement/a-55044341" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S., China, India, Russia and Brazil</a> — are not among the signatories.</p>
<h3>Missed Targets</h3><p>The pledge follows the September publication of a landmark assessment of biodiversity which showed humanity had failed to fully achieve any of the 20 global biodiversity targets set by the UN ten years ago. Just six of them had been "partly achieved," the report said. For one goal, on protecting <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/great-barrier-reef-suffers-third-mass-bleaching-in-5-years/a-52921894" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">coral reefs</a>, the world was found to be moving in the opposite direction.</p><p>Data from individual governments shows that a third of national biodiversity targets, which are set by the countries themselves, are on track to be met or exceeded. But these are less ambitious than the UN targets and less than a quarter match up well with the global goals to protect nature.</p><p>The vision for biodiversity set out in 2010 is only achievable if the world responds to "compelling evidence" that "transformative change" is required, said Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, executive secretary of the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity, which prepared the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO) report.</p>
<h3>Global Decline in Biodiversity</h3><p>The charge sheet is long. Pollution from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/environment-conservation-plastic-oceans/a-54436603" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">plastics</a> and pesticides have not been brought down to safe levels. Governments still subsidize businesses that <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/insect-apocalypse-dying-ecosystem-species-loss-a-52160360/a-52160360" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">damage ecosystems</a>. Coral reefs, which are dying across the world, are struck by the triple-threat of human action: climate change, pollution and overfishing. Some of those drivers are getting worse.</p><p>And even where there is progress, it is rarely enough. <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/illegal-logging-mining-threaten-an-amazon-river-community/a-45631645" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Deforestation</a> should have been halted by now, but has only been cut by a third, with Asia and Europe gaining forests while Africa and South America lose them at a faster rate.</p><p>Conservation efforts have saved species like the Puerto Rican amazon parrot and the Mongolian Przewalski's horse. But they have failed to keep others like the Western Black Rhino or the Christmas Island pipistrelle from being wiped out forever.</p><p>While the big trends in biodiversity loss were already known, the UN report included "systematic analysis" on how well the world has achieved the 2010 targets, said Josef Settele, an ecologist at the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany, who contributed research to the report but was not involved in writing it.</p>
<h3>Conservation Progress</h3><p>"There is also some brightness," Settele added. "The things we are doing are not completely in vain."</p><p>For instance, almost 100 countries have incorporated biodiversity values into national accounting systems. Over the last 20 years, the world has increased the share of <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/mauritius-oil-spill-compensation-pay/a-54725675" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">protected areas</a> from 10% to 15% on land and from 3% to 7% in water.</p><p>There are now more fish in waters managed by good fishing policies. Governments are increasingly eradicating invasive species from islands. And since 1993, conservation actions have prevented the extinction of between 28 and 48 bird and mammal species, according to a study published this month in the journal <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12762" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservation Letters</a> — though many remain highly threatened and may still become extinct.</p><p>"The progress toward conserving life on earth has been much greater than it would have been [without action]," said Thomas Brooks, chief scientist at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, who was a co-author of the Conservation Letters study but was not involved in the GBO. "The absolutely key question is how to scale up from where things currently are, in terms of responses, to meet targets comprehensively."</p>
<h3>Protecting Wildlife, Not Just Individual Species</h3><p>The way to get that scale, according to the GBO report, is by "mainstreaming" the opportunities and responsibilities from protecting nature. That means every level of society — from individuals and local communities to businesses and national governments — would need to factor biodiversity into their economic decisions.</p><p>Like climate change, ecological collapse is happening at breakneck speed. A 2019 report by IPBES, the UN panel of biodiversity experts, found that humans are altering the natural world at an "unprecedented pace" and threatening 1 million animal and plant species with extinction.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ0MzgxNC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMzIwOTYzN30.FCDShn8HREGKfOXpVICLoFTFn5Ua_QZDoq-LTH1ZJpI/img.png?width=980" id="d848f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="560723442ef37fb766ae77a14a2830de" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>Scientists say both issues require systemic changes, but individual actions can help. Agriculture is one of the greatest drivers of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. A study published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2705-y" target="_blank"><em>Nature</em></a> this month found that more than two-thirds of future biodiversity losses could be avoided by conserving and restoring land, reducing food waste and switching to more plant-based diets.</p><p>They are among many actions laid out in the GBO report to reduce and eventually restore lost biodiversity.</p><p>If we do not act faster, said Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Program, "biodiversity will continue to buckle" under the weight of overexploitation, climate change, pollution, invasive alien species and changes to land and sea. "This will further damage human health, economies and societies — with particularly detrimental effects on <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/environment-nature-rights-indigenous-activism-legal-personhood/a-52186866" target="_blank">indigenous peoples</a> and local communities."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/global-biodiversity-outlook-targets-extinction-summit-new-york-pledge/a-54932895?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">DW</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Destruction of Nature Is Triggering Pandemics, Say Leaders of WWF ... ›
- The UN Wants to Protect 30% of the Planet by 2030 - EcoWatch ›
- New WWF Report Calls for Protecting Nature to Prevent Future ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less