By Jessica Corbett
In stark contrast to the U.S. position under former President Donald Trump, the Biden administration on Thursday signaled support for developing a global treaty to tackle marine plastic pollution, winning swift applause from environmental campaigners.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made the announcement while visiting the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya, on the heels of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland earlier this month.
"It is encouraging to see the U.S. throwing its support behind a global plastic treaty," said Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar. "Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time, with the impacts growing more serious every day. Plastic is a global problem, and requires action and coordination at a global scale. As a major producer and exporter of plastic, the U.S. has a responsibility to take a leadership role."
Hocevar also said that "our focus must be broader than keeping plastic waste out of the ocean. We have put so much plastic into the environment that it is in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. Plastic is fueling the climate crisis and harming our health. The damage caused by plastic production and disposal is a major environmental justice issue, with communities of color often suffering the worst impacts."
"Voluntary measures are not going to be sufficient," he added. "We need to see real leadership, and that means initiatives at all geographic scales that will swiftly move us away from our reliance on plastic and facilitate a transition to package-free options and reuse. Plastic is a problem that must be addressed at the source. Until we stop making so much plastic, the damage to our oceans, our climate, and our health will only get worse."
We applaud this commitment to a global treaty on fighting plastic pollution from the US. A coordinated and ambitious approach from governments, businesses and civil society that accelerates us toward a circular economy for plastics is exactly what we need.https://twitter.com/SecBlinken/status/1461329066397741056\u00a0\u2026— WWF-US Action Team (@WWF-US Action Team) 1637255962
During his remarks Thursday, Blinken also highlighted the importance of global cooperation on the problem.
"Today, we are... stepping up our efforts to tackle another pollutant that threatens our planet, plastic, by announcing the United States support for multilateral negotiations on a global agreement to combat ocean plastic pollution," he said. "By launching these negotiations at the UN Environmental Assembly in February 2022, our goal is to create a tool that we can use to protect our oceans and all of the life that they sustain from growing global harms of plastic pollution."
"It's crucial that the agreement call on countries to develop and enforce strong national action plans to address this problem at its source," Blinken continued. "Many countries, climate and ocean advocates, private companies, have supported this effort for some time. We're grateful for the serious work that they've already put into this effort and look forward to working with them. The private sector in particular will need to do more to cut plastic pollution and invest in innovation."
The U.S. diplomat acknowledged that millions of tons are dumped into the ocean each year, and "can take anywhere from decades to millions of years to break down." He also noted the serious impacts on sea creatures and humanity, explaining that "microplastics can tear apart animals' organs, clog their intestines, and give them the illusion they're full, causing them to starve to death. And because plastics absorb toxins, when we eat seafood, we're not only consuming microplastics, but toxins as well."
"We face a monumental challenge of protecting our oceans, but if we're ambitious in both our global and our local efforts, if we can combine the efforts of government and industry with those of communities and individuals, if we empower the innovative approaches that we've seen," Blinken added, "I'm convinced we can overcome this challenge... We can meet it together."
Erin Simon, head of plastic waste and business at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), said Thursday that "as the plastic pollution crisis continues to suffocate our planet, there's never been a more important time to show U.S. government support for a UN treaty on plastic pollution. Secretary Blinken's commitment sends a strong signal to global leaders that this is an urgent problem that can only be solved when everyone comes to the table."
"If we want to solve this crisis, we can't wait. A coordinated and ambitious approach from governments, businesses, and civil society that accelerates us toward a circular economy for plastics is exactly what we need, and what a global treaty at UNEA-5 can deliver," added Simon, referencing the assembly session that begins early next year.
Although Trump signed some bipartisan legislation to address ocean plastic pollution, Agence France-Presse noted Thursday that the former administration wasn't supportive of other efforts:
[E]nvironmentalists say that the previous administration stymied international efforts by opposing a treaty and blaming the problem squarely on China—a major source of plastic processing but of material often coming from the West.
In 2019, the United States did not join around 180 governments which agreed in Geneva to create a legally binding framework to regulate plastic waste.
The United States did not vote as it is not party to the Basel Convention, a UN treaty reached in 1989 that regulates the movement of hazardous waste.
Before President Joe Biden took office in January, a coalition of over 550 groups encouraged him to become the #PlasticFreePresident and take on the crisis through executive actions that would help "protect vulnerable frontline communities and marine life while addressing a key driver of climate change."
As Common Dreams reported last month, a recent UNEP report emphasized the need for "a drastic reduction in unnecessary, avoidable, and problematic plastic," warning that such pollution in waterways could triple by 2040.
UNEP's executive director, Inger Andersen, introduced Blinken on Thursday and welcomed his announcement. She told him that "your presence here today is hugely important. Your being here demonstrates that the United States wants to be part of multilateral solutions that will keep the environmental action up and running."
"Meaningful action on pollution will require us to journey beyond our comfort zones, engaging with numerous environmental agreements with business and finance, with cities, with civil society, with entrepreneurs, and with people everywhere," Andersen said. "As we seek to work together to address a triple-planetary crisis — the crisis of climate change, the crisis of biodiversity and nature loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste — we have a real opportunity to push full speed ahead towards environmental multilateralism that makes an impact, a positive impact, on people's lives."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- 550 Groups Urge Biden to Become #PlasticFreePresident With 8 ... ›
- 'Plastic Pollution Is a Social Justice Issue,' New Report Warns ... ›
Big Ag Furious as EPA Says Popular Herbicides Are Driving Species to Extinction
By Brett Wilkins
As Big Ag fumed Monday over a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determination that herbicides including the endocrine-disrupting atrazine and carcinogenic glyphosate are likely to harm more than 1,600 protected plant and animal species, environmentalists pointed to the agency's findings as proof of the need for stricter limits on the use of the dangerous poisons.
After decades of refusing to comply with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA on Friday released its final biological evaluations for atrazine, glyphosate, and simazine in order to comply with a 2016 legal agreement with the advocacy groups Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network. The EPA evaluations concluded that the chemicals are likely to adversely affect 1,676 animals and plants on the federal threatened or endangered species lists.
"It's no surprise that these chemical poisons are causing severe harm to imperiled wildlife since U.S. use exceeds 70 million pounds of atrazine and 300 million pounds of glyphosate every year," Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
Both atrazine and glyphosate have been re-approved for use in the past two years. Earlier this year, the EPA was denounced by environmental and consumer advocacy groups after the agency argued that Bayer's glyphosate-based Roundup — the world's most widely used herbicide — should remain on the market despite acknowledging that a Trump-era review of the chemical was flawed and required reevaluation.
What's worse, EPA re-registered both glyphosate and atrazine in the past 2 years, BEFORE it completed these ESA analyzes and vital protections, KNOWING it is in violation, threating imperiled species from spraying. That's one reason we are in Court challenging those approvals.https://twitter.com/LoriAnnBurd/status/1460389479265361920\u00a0\u2026— George A Kimbrell (@George A Kimbrell) 1637019393
Bayer announced in July that it would end U.S. sales of Roundup for residential use by 2023.
In 2019, the administration of former President Donald Trump moved to increase the allowable levels of atrazine, which has been linked to hermaphroditic amphibians, and birth defects, cancer, and other ailments in humans.
While green groups welcomed the delayed evaluations, commercial agricultural interests expressed anger over the EPA's findings. Several Big Ag lobby groups including the American Farm Bureau Association and American Soybean Association claimed the agency failed to use the "best available science and data" when formulating its decision.
The @EPA has determined that the #pesticides #atrazine and #glyphosate are each likely to harm more than 1,000 of the nation's most endangered plants and animals. Both were reapproved in the past 2 years.https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-two-most-widely-used-pesticides-likely-harm-majority-of-endangered-species-2021-11-15/\u00a0\u2026— Center for Bio Div (@Center for Bio Div) 1637017373
The EPA's findings will now be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, which will determine what steps to take to protect affected species and ensure that the herbicides do not further harm animals and plants at risk of extinction.
"It's long past time for atrazine to be banned, and the EPA needs to crack down on the reckless overuse of glyphosate," Donley added. "Without real conservation action, these pesticides will continue to push our most endangered wildlife closer to extinction."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Biden EPA Admits Faulty Glyphosate Review Under Trump But Still ... ›
- 'Ban Neonicotinoids Right Now,' Say Conservationists After EPA ... ›
Average Cost of Solar Panels in Arizona: What to Expect (2022)
We break down what the average homeowner pays for solar in Arizona.
Anyone who has spent time in the southwestern U.S., particularly in the deserts of Arizona, would find it no surprise that the region has some of the best natural solar resources in the country. But all the sunshine in the world won't mean anything if the cost of solar panels in Arizona keeps renewable energy out of reach for homeowners across the Grand Canyon State.
From reduced energy bills to shrunken carbon footprints, there are many benefits of going solar. Regardless, for most homeowners, making the switch comes down to one key question: How much do solar panels cost in Arizona?
In this article, we'll discuss the average cost of solar panels in Arizona as well as key information about financing solar, public policies that may incentivize solar installations and more. If you want to see how much solar would cost for your home, specifically, you'll need to get a free quote from a solar installer near you. You can do so using this tool or by filling out the form below.
How Much Do Solar Panels Cost in Arizona?
Solar panel costs in Arizona are about on par with the U.S average. Local factors and supply limitations don't hamper Arizona installations or pull prices in either direction. Based on market-based research and data from top solar companies, we've found that the average cost of solar panels in Arizona is $2.61 per watt (the national average is $2.66 per watt).
Of course, solar systems aren't purchased one watt at a time, so what does that price look like in terms of actual installations? Using the state average, for a modestly sized 5-kilowatt (kW) system, the total system cost would be $13,050, but after the federal tax credit is applied, out-of-pocket costs would be lowered to about $9,657.
For larger systems to be installed on homes, businesses, schools or other facilities, average solar power costs break down as follows:
| Size of Solar Panel System | Arizona Solar Panel Cost |
Cost After Federal Tax Credit |
|---|---|---|
| 5kW | $13,050 | $9,657 |
| 6kW | $15,660 | $11,588 |
| 7kW | $18,270 | $13,520 |
| 8kW | $20,880 | $15,451 |
| 9kW | $23,490 | $17,383 |
| 10kW | $26,100 | $19,314 |
The above table provides statewide average prices, but each home solar panel installation will have its own unique characteristics, so costs will vary in actuality.
Some installations will be more straightforward (such as those on a roof that readily faces the sun) while others will be more complicated (such as an irregular-shaped roof or a ground-mounted system), so the actual price for a specific project is best estimated with an installer who can account for your individual needs.
What Determines the Cost of Solar Panels in Arizona?
There are a number of factors that can influence the cost of solar panels in Arizona, including the extent of your home's energy needs and the local incentives you're eligible for. Here are a few other key things that will play into pricing:
Solar Equipment
Not all solar energy systems are alike, and the specific equipment chosen for your project will influence the final cost. Solar panels themselves are seeing lots of research and development, meaning the most efficient solar panels can generate greater amounts of electricity — but they come at a higher cost.
Similarly, things like inverters, solar batteries and the mounting equipment needed to secure the panels to your roof will vary in cost based on the quality of materials and complexity of the install. If you opt for added features like rotating panels or smart technology, your investment will be even more significant. These factors can all be discussed during a free consultation with a solar expert.
Solar Financing
Regardless of the size and quality of the solar system being installed, the total will usually be relatively high upfront. Because of these capital requirements, it's extremely common for customers to finance their solar systems. The type of financing used will not only impact what a customer pays upfront, but it will also affect the length of the customer's solar payback period, or how long it takes to "break even" on the investment.
Here's how the three most common payment options can affect the cost of solar panels in Arizona:
- Cash: For homeowners with the capital available to cover the full price of their solar system, it's smart to pay in full upfront. This is less common because of the aforementioned high price point, but if workable, it results in the lowest overall cost and thus shortens your payback period.
- Loans: If you're unable or unwilling to pay in full, there's the option to take out a simple loan to pay for the solar system. A solar loan can allow you to purchase a more expensive, premium system, but of course, loans come with interest, and that extra cost will eat into your payback period.
- Leases or power purchase agreements (PPAs): Lastly, potential solar customers may opt to work with a solar company that leases panels to homeowners. With this payment method, you don't have to pay upfront costs, but you also don't own the system (and, thus, are ineligible to cash in on tax credits). In the long run, the amount you will save on energy bills will be much lower, but you are also relieved of the burden of paying for the system yourself.
Installation Company
A third factor that really impacts the cost of solar systems for Arizonans is the choice of installation company. The solar industry is booming, and as such, there is no shortage of contractors and installers who will be eager to help you install your residential solar system.
As with any major home improvement project, different installers have their own rates, oftentimes correlated with the quality or even speed of their work, and it's up to the customer to do their homework to evaluate potential installation companies. Simply going with the lowest-cost installation company may not be wise if it isn't reputable, but at the same time, certified local installers may charge lower prices to compete with big-name national installers.
Our best advice is to look at the best solar companies in Arizona, research what deals or specials are available, and talk to neighbors or look at online reviews to find a company that offers you a good price and will deliver the quality of work you need.
Arizona Solar Incentives
Public policy leaders have done a fair job of offering financial incentives that lower the cost of solar in Arizona. Although the state's net metering program was phased out in 2016, there are still a number of tax credits and incentives available to homeowners. These include:
| Arizona Solar Incentive | How it Affects the Cost of Solar Panels in Arizona |
|---|---|
| Arizona solar tax credit | This statewide program allows people who install solar on their homes to be credited 25% of total installation costs (up to $1,000) in the form of a personal income tax reduction. |
| Solar tax exemptions |
The 5.6% of sales tax that's typically charged in Arizona is not applied to the purchase of solar equipment.
Similarly, most upgrades to homes will increase the value of the home, and that value is what is taxed via property taxes. Arizona, however, excludes the value increase from solar panels when evaluating how much property tax you must pay. |
| Local solar incentives | On top of state incentives, numerous towns, cities and counties may have their own incentives to encourage citizens to engage with solar. Because these can vary greatly from one jurisdiction to the next, you should research your area (or call your local representatives) to find out more. |
| Federal solar tax credit | Anyone in the U.S., including Arizona, is able to take advantage of the federal solar investment tax credit, or ITC. For any solar systems installed before the end of 2022, 26% of the cost of the system is available as an income tax credit. |
FAQ: Cost of Solar Panels in Arizona
Is it worth going solar in Arizona?
Yes, it is generally worth going solar in Arizona. Solar panels are a great way to reduce electric bills and carbon emissions for your home or business. Depending on the size and cost of the system, customers who install solar can expect to see a full return on their investment decades before the end of life of the system, turning additional savings into pure profit.
How long does it take for solar panels to pay for themselves in Arizona?
The average payback period for solar panels is about eight years, and the average lifespan of a system is about 25 years. The payback period can be greater or shorter depending on the size of installation, tax incentives utilized and total cost paid by the customer.
How many solar panels are needed to power a house in Arizona?
The average home needs about 20 to 25 solar panels to offset 100% of energy needs. However, that figure will vary widely based on the energy used by the home, the size and efficiency of the panels, how much shade falls onto the panels from nearby buildings or trees, and other factors.
Campaigners Rip New COP26 Draft as a 'Polite Request' for Climate Action Amid Existential Crisis
By Jake Johnson
A new COP26 draft decision text unveiled Wednesday was roundly panned by climate campaigners as badly inadequate to the task of slashing global greenhouse gas emissions, which are pushing the planet toward a catastrophic 2.4°C of warming by the end of the century.
"This draft deal is not a plan to solve the climate crisis, it's an agreement that we'll all cross our fingers and hope for the best," Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, said in response to the fresh document, the details of which world leaders are set to hash out in the final days of the pivotal summit in Glasgow, Scotland.
Far from a concrete and ambitious plan to transition away from fossil fuel use in line with increasingly dire scientific projections, Morgan argued that the new draft text amounts to a "polite request that countries maybe, possibly, do more next year."
"Well that's not good enough, and the negotiators shouldn't even think about leaving this city until they've agreed to a deal that meets the moment. Because most assuredly, this one does not," said Morgan. "The text needs to be much stronger on finance and adaptation and needs to include real numbers in the hundreds of billions, with a delivery plan for richer countries to support less-developed nations."
"And we need to see a deal that commits countries to coming back every year with new and better plans until together they get us over the bar and we can stay below 1.5°C of warming," she continued. "And while the text calls for an accelerated phase-out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies, wreckers like the Saudi and Australian governments will be working to gut that part before this conference closes. Ministers now have three days to turn this around and get the job done."
The draft text calls on countries to toughen their pledges to cut carbon pollution, urging them to "revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their nationally determined contributions, as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022."
But as it stands, the seven-page document is light on specifics and binding commitments, pressing countries to "accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels" without offering a timeline and vaguely nodding toward "the urgency of making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions."
Cansim Leylim of 350.org pointed out that "this the first time fossil fuels are named in 25 years of UN climate negotiations, and that is a huge testament to the people power and grassroots actions that have pushed continuously for the end of fossil fuels."
"But ending just coal is not enough," Leylim said. "All fossil fuels need to be phased out. By focusing only on coal, we risk creating a dynamic in which poor countries with coal infrastructure are punished while rich countries with more fossil gas in their energy mix are rewarded. Fossil fuels need to go all together."
As Reuters reported, the draft "asks countries to submit improved pledges next year, but does not confirm if this will become an annual requirement — potentially leaving a decision on future reviews to Egypt, which will host the next U.N. climate conference."
"The draft's call to halt subsidies for fossil fuels is also likely to face pushback from big producers," Reuters added. Fossil fuel lobbyists have a larger presence at COP26 than any single country, according to an analysis released earlier this week by the humanitarian group Global Witness.
The COP26 draft was released just hours after new research from climate policy experts warned that even if countries meet their current pledges — including those made thus far in Glasgow — "global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will still be around twice as high as necessary for the 1.5°C limit."
"With 2030 pledges alone — without longer-term targets — global temperature increase will be at 2.4°C in 2100," the experts behind the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) found. "The projected warming from current policies (not proposals) — what countries are actually doing — is even higher, at 2.7°C with only a 0.2°C improvement over the last year and nearly one degree above the net-zero announcements governments have made."
Pointing to the new CAT study, Morgan of Greenpeace International noted that the central task of COP26 was to craft climate policies to limit warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century, the more ambitious goal of the Paris agreement.
If the new COP26 draft text "is the best [world leaders] can come up with," said Morgan, "then it's no wonder kids today are furious at them."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Fossil Fuel Industry Has Largest Representation at COP26 With ... ›
- 'We're Here To Call For Climate Justice,' Say Glasgow Protesters ... ›
- 'Shame on You!': Climate Activists Confront World Leaders at Lavish ... ›
- Indigenous Groups Officially Excluded From COP26, Continue ... ›
- COP26 Ends With Climate Action Falling 'Short on the Promises Made in Paris' - EcoWatch ›
'Shame on You!': Climate Activists Confront World Leaders at Lavish COP26 Dinner
By Brett Wilkins
Chanting "shame on you," activists rallied amid a heavy police presence Monday evening outside a swanky reception for world leaders and others attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland to protest their inadequate response to the planetary emergency.
Members of Britain's royal family and corporate executives joined heads of state and other leaders at the exclusive dinner event, which was hosted by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum.
"How dare these world leaders have a fancy dinner on the first night of COP26, as if they have something to be proud of," said Cat Scothorne of the group Glasgow Calls Out Polluters, according to STV News.
Climate protesters heckle world leaders tonight in Glasgow for their failure to take urgent action on the crisis. D… https://t.co/gsFz1ehaEZ— Skotia (@Skotia) 1635799277.0
"The continued support of the fossil fuel industry by the heads of state, particularly in the Global North, is killing millions of people," Scothorne added. "The consequences of climate change are faced by people not in power, but those mainly in the Global South and people on sites where extraction occurs, yet the perpetrators sit in luxury, insulated from it all."
“We’re going down an utterly absurd route as a species” These activists told us why they’re protesting outside the… https://t.co/IdAMb6LBMv— CapitalScotland News (@CapitalScotland News) 1635789459.0
One protester told Capital Scotland News he was there "to raise awareness of the need for urgent action on the climate and ecological emergency, mostly because with our political processes, we're left with almost no other routes to make a difference."
"We're going down an utterly absurd route of deciding as a species to kill ourselves," he added. "We have to step up and say, 'No, that's completely absurd; let's choose a route that saves ourselves.'"
Another demonstrator told the outlet she was protesting to hold decision-makers accountable.
#ExtinctionRebellion protesters heckle world leaders in Glasgow on the way to a plush dinner at Kelvingrove museum… https://t.co/ARYmnqkPQ7— David Fogarty (@David Fogarty) 1635793973.0
"We're working towards global justice, climate justice," she said, "not just making decisions that only benefit a few people, but rather to make decisions that benefit everyone."
The demonstration came at the end of the second day of the global summit and amid demands from Indigenous leaders, youth climate campaigners, and others for a little less conversation and a lot more action to address the growing climate crisis.
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Indigenous Groups Officially Excluded From COP26, Continue ... ›
- Campaigners Rip New COP26 Draft as a 'Polite Request' for Climate Action Amid Existential Crisis - EcoWatch ›
In World First, New Zealand Law Will Force Banks to Disclose Climate Impacts of Investments
By Andrea Germanos
New Zealand officials on Thursday heralded passage of a groundbreaking law requiring financial institutions to disclose climate-related risks.
"This is a landmark day," Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark said in a speech to Parliament.
At issue is the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which had its third reading Thursday.
A summary of the measure from the Business Ministry touts the bill as a step toward making the country's "financial system more resilient" and reaching New Zealand's goal of net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. According to the ministry, the goals of the bill are to:
- Ensure that the effects of climate change are routinely considered in business, investment, lending, and insurance underwriting decisions;
- Help climate reporting entities better demonstrate responsibility and foresight in their consideration of climate issues; and
- Lead to more efficient allocation of capital, and help smooth the transition to a more sustainable, low emissions economy.
A joint statement Thursday from Clark and Climate Change Minister James Shaw frames the bill, which will require the annual disclosures starting in 2023, as the first of its kind across the globe.
"This bill will require around 200 of the largest financial market participants in New Zealand to disclose clear, comparable, and consistent information about the risks, and opportunities, climate change presents to their business," Clark said in the statement. "In doing so, it will promote business certainty, raise expectations, accelerate progress and create a level playing field."
Shaw, for his part, said the measure would "encourage entities to become more sustainable by factoring the short, medium, and long-term effects of climate change into their business decisions."
"New Zealand is a world-leader in this area and the first country in the world to introduce mandatory climate-related reporting for the financial sector," added Shaw. "We have an opportunity to pave the way for other countries to make climate-related disclosures mandatory."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
Kunming Declaration: Nature Defenders Warn Global Biodiversity Pledge Lacks Urgency
While welcoming a pledge by more than 100 countries to make "transformative change," conservationists say governments must turn "words into reality."
By Jessica Corbett
More than 100 countries on Wednesday concluded a round of negotiations on global efforts to restore and protect the variety of life on Earth by pledging "urgent and integrated action" to achieve "transformative change, across all sectors of the economy and all parts of society."
While conservation advocacy groups worldwide welcomed the "Kunming Declaration" on biodiversity, they also made clear that its 17 specific commitments must be met with immediate, bold, and concrete steps to fully address the existential crisis the natural world now faces from human activity.
The pledge came out of a United Nations conference in Kunming, China that was attended in person and remotely—due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, which has underscored the need to reform humanity's relationship with nature—by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international treaty ratified by nearly all U.N. member nations, but not the United States.
The new declaration recognizes that "putting biodiversity on a path to recovery is a defining challenge of this decade" and the "strong political momentum" required to develop, adopt, and implement an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework, which governments are set to negotiate further in January 2022 then approve at a May meeting in China.
An Lambrechts, a senior campaign strategist at Greenpeace International, was critical of the pledge, noting the unprecedented nature of the current crisis and warning that "vague commitments that lack accountability are hardly a step forward" from 2010 biodiversity targets that the international community failed to meet.
"The Kunming Declaration could have provided a major boost to the slow-moving U.N. biodiversity negotiations. It offers a preview of what's to come in 2022 and makes modest attempts in some areas, but doesn't show enough progress on most of the contentious issues," Lambrechts said. "Ambition urgently needs to ramp up from here before the spring 2022 session."
The campaigner highlighted the "critical" importance of implementation strategies for goals such as 30x30 — or protecting at least 30% of land and marine areas by 2030—and emphasized that "targets must recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and their key role in the preservation of nature and biodiversity."
Adoption of Kunming Declaration at at the High-Level Segment of the 1st part of @UNBiodiversity #COP15 builds hope… https://t.co/kbmyqlyN6V— UN News (@UN News) 1634145000.0
Lin Li, director of global policy and advocacy at World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said the declaration "is a show of political will and adds much-needed momentum by clearly signaling the direction of travel to address biodiversity loss," but "its impacts will lie in how it is put into action" and "it is still critical for governments to turn these words into reality.
"In Kunming next May, this declaration must be turned into an action plan for nature which not only protects land, freshwater and seas, but also fundamentally addresses our unsustainable agricultural system, embraces nature-based solutions, ensures adequate funding and is robustly implemented," the WWF leader said.
"The world is waking up to the fact that the nature crisis is as serious as the climate crisis, but unfortunately this is not happening fast enough," she added. "Biodiversity loss is threatening human health and livelihoods, and increasing the risk of the next pandemic, yet leaders' pledges are yet to be translated into ambition in the negotiation room. Now is the time to step up."
Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, executive secretary of the CBD, struck an optimistic tone in a statement Wednesday, saying that "the adoption of the Kunming Declaration is a clear indication of the worldwide support for the level of ambition that needs to be reflected in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be finalized next spring in Kunming."
Mrema also recognized Chinese President Xi Jinping's announcement Tuesday that his nation is committing about $230 million U.S. dollars to establish the Kunming Biodiversity Fund, and said she looks forward to more financial and technical commitments in support of the framework.
Li Shuo, global policy adviser at Greenpeace East Asia, said the Kunming Declaration "gives us a hint on China's leadership style" and that the country's new "commitment to fund biodiversity protection at a larger scale could be the impetus others need to direct finance towards protecting biodiversity."
"But much remains to be seen on whether Beijing can spearhead a delicate multilateral process," Li added. "The contrast between China's ambitious domestic agenda and its modest diplomatic approach is striking. It's time to bridge that gap."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
'Massive Floating Time Bomb': Decaying Tanker in Red Sea Holds 4x the Oil Spilled by Exxon Valdez
By Kenny Stancil
An abandoned supertanker holding more than one million barrels of crude oil has been slowly corroding off Yemen's coast, and a new study out Monday warns that the consequences of an "imminent" spill in the Red Sea could be graver than initially thought — cutting off access to clean water and food aid for millions of people in a matter of days and completely decimating the region's fishing stocks within three weeks.
"The possibility of a massive oil spill in the Red Sea is increasingly likely," write the authors of the peer-reviewed paper, published in the journal Nature Sustainability. "The Safer, a deteriorating oil tanker containing 1.1 million barrels of oil, has been deserted near the coast of Yemen since 2015 and threatens environmental catastrophe to a country presently in a humanitarian crisis."
In their analysis of "the immediate public health impacts of a simulated spill," the scholars estimate that "all of Yemen's imported fuel through its key Red Sea ports would be disrupted and that the anticipated spill could disrupt clean-water supply equivalent to the daily use of 9.0–9.9 million people, food supply for 5.7–8.4 million people, and 93–100% of Yemen's Red Sea fisheries."
The new study models the anticipated health effects of a spill — under various seasonal conditions and cleanup scenarios — over the course of three weeks.
The researchers write that "ports and desalination plants, crucial for providing fuel, food, and water, stand to be disrupted by the spill. We estimate that two weeks after a spill, Yemen's key ports of Hudaydah and Salif will likely be directly impacted."
"The spill and subsequent port closures will disrupt maritime transport across the Red Sea, rerouting many shipments around Africa," the paper says. "We expect fuel prices in Yemen to spike as a consequence."
"The public health impacts of a spill from the oil tanker Safer are expected to be catastrophic, particularly for… https://t.co/j8uvvtHQdp— Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) (@Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS)) 1633969017.0
The daily clean water supply for an estimated 1.0-1.9 million people would be threatened if desalination plants are contaminated, while another eight million people could lose access to running water if the spill closes ports, causing fuel shortages that shut down fuel-powered pumps or water trucks.
Moreover, hunger would be exacerbated by food aid disruptions and fishery closures.
"In the event of Yemen's Red Sea ports closing within two weeks of the spill, food aid will be disrupted for an estimated 5.7 (3.7–8.1) million people who currently require food assistance," according to researchers, who estimate that "if Aden's port also closes, a total of 8.4 (5.4–11.9) million people will not receive food aid."
Within one week, two-thirds to 85% of Yemen's Red Sea fisheries would be jeopardized, and within three weeks, that figure would surge to 93% to 100%, "depending on the season," the paper states.
The researchers "also estimate an increased risk of cardiovascular hospitalization from pollution ranging from 5.8 to 42.0% over the duration of the spill."
"The public health impacts of a spill from the oil tanker Safer are expected to be catastrophic, particularly for Yemen," the scholars write, adding:
Disruption of fuel imports is anticipated to shut down hospitals and essential services, at a time when Yemen already faces fuel shortages and only 50% of its health services are functional. Both fuel shortages and contamination of desalination plants are expected to worsen an existing water crisis, potentially leading to a resurgence of water-borne infectious diseases. Disruption to food aid would probably increase food prices and exacerbate an ongoing famine. The spill threatens to disrupt nearly all of Yemen's Red Sea fisheries, which would worsen food security and exacerbate Yemen's displacement crisis as workers seek new employment. Imports of medical supplies from aid groups would probably also be disrupted, further destabilizing health services.
Although "the long-term and global impacts of the spill" lie outside the scope of the analysis, the researchers acknowledge that they "are also potentially severe."
"Ecological and environmental impacts through wildlife endangerment and coastline contamination from large oil spills can persist for years or decades," the study points out. "In particular, the spill threatens the Red Sea coral reefs, studied for their unique resilience to seawater warming."
In addition, "the spill could hinder global trade through the vital Bab el-Mandeb Strait, 29 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, through which 10% of the global shipping trade passes," the paper states. "Exclusion zones created for cleanup could reroute traffic, and shipments will be delayed as ships potentially exposed to oil will require cleaning."
"Our results stress the need for urgent action to avert this looming disaster," the authors note.
As the paper details: "The visibly dilapidated Safer is single-hulled, meaning a breach will cause the onboard oil to spill directly into the sea. Water entered the engine room in May 2020 through a seawater-pipe leak, and the vessel's fire extinguishing system is nonoperational. A spill could occur due to a leak or combustion. A leak could arise through continued deterioration of the vessel's hull or by breach of the hull due to inclement weather; combustion could occur through build-up of volatile gases aboard the vessel or direct attack on the vessel."
However, researchers emphasize, "the spill and its potentially disastrous impacts remain entirely preventable through offloading the oil."
According to The Guardian, "Negotiations are underway" to unload the vessel, which is carrying four times the amount of oil released during the Exxon Valdez disaster in the Gulf of Alaska in 1989.
Despite numerous warnings about the life-threatening dangers posed by the decaying tanker — including one made last June by the head of the United Nations Environment Program to the UN Security Council — efforts to offload oil from the "massive floating time bomb" have stalled.
"Three-way talks between the Houthi rebels, the UN-recognized government of Yemen, and the UN have foundered," The Guardian reported. "UN officials have been unable to secure guarantees to maintain the vessel, including its rotting hull, which is now overseen by a crew of just seven."
"The UN has been seeking Houthi permission to inspect the ship," noted the British newspaper, "but the Houthis want undertakings that the vessel will also be repaired, an exercise that requires money the UN does not have available."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
Indigenous Coalition to Biden: Communities Need Clean Water and Climate Action, Not 'Empty Words'
By Jake Johnson
On the heels of President Joe Biden's proclamation formally marking Indigenous Peoples' Day, a coalition of Indigenous and environmental leaders on Sunday delivered a blunt message to the White House: "We don't need performative proclamations, our communities are dying."
The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) — a broad alliance of tribes, Indigenous rights groups, labor organizations, and others — said in a statement that since taking office earlier this year, "Biden has consistently fallen short of protecting the water that sustains all life on Mother Earth and continuously failed to honor our treaties."
Specifically, IEN pointed to the president's refusal to block Enbridge's Line 3 replacement project, which Indigenous groups have worked tirelessly to stop for years in the face of brutal police repression and arrests. Oil started flowing through the sprawling pipeline — which could have the equivalent climate impact of 50 new coal-fired power plants — earlier this month, and its opponents have vowed to keep up their legal and on-the-ground fights as the Biden administration continues to defend the tar sands project.
A group of indigenous people and activists raise their fists as they pass sections of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline construction during the Treaty People Walk for Water event near the La Salle Lake State Park in Solway, Minnesota on Aug. 7, 2021. KEREM YUCEL / AFP via Getty Images
"If Presidet Biden was committed to honoring the treaties and strengthening sovereignty, he would implement a policy of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent by executive authority and act swiftly to mitigate the climate chaos that has engulfed our communities by ending the anti-Indigenous U.S. legacy of fossil fuel extractivism," IEN said. "We have had enough of your empty words. Our communities need clean water, land returned, divestment from the fossil fuel industry, and healing from residential school traumas."
"Proclamations don't erase the police surveillance of Indigenous peoples standing for our land and water, beatings, and imprisonment for those trying to stop pipelines, fracking, [liquefied natural gas], uranium, and other extractive industries from devastating our ecosystems and our bodies and violating our rights," the coalition added. "No proclamations needed until there is justice for the original stewards of these lands."
IEN's statement came just ahead of a five-day "People vs. Fossil Fuels" mobilization targeting the Biden White House over its inadequate climate policies.
While Biden has promised to listen to the science and treat the climate crisis like an "existential threat," he has continued to pursue drilling initiatives that could ramp up U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and intensify planetary warming.
This week, according to organizers, thousands of Indigenous people and their allies in the climate movement are expected to descend on the White House and engage in "mass civil disobedience" to demand that Biden "declare a climate emergency and stop all new fossil fuel projects."
On Monday morning, IEN organizers wrote "Expect Us" on the statue of Andrew Jackson in front of the White House.
"Our people are older than the idea of the United States of America. We are the original stewards of this land and will continue to fight for the natural and spiritual knowledge of our Mother who sustains our life-ways," IEN said in a statement Monday. "We are the grandchildren of the strong spirits who have survived your residential schools, your pipelines and mines, your reservations and relocation and your forced assimilation and genocide."
"We carry the prayers and intentions of our ancestors and are unafraid," the group added. "Another world is possible, may all colonizers fall."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Biden Urged to 'Honor Indigenous Sovereignty and Immediately Halt ... ›
- Haaland's Confirmation as Interior Secretary Hailed as 'Historic and ... ›
- Why Defending Indigenous Rights Is Integral to Fighting Climate ... ›
- Biden to Restore Protections for Tongass National Forest in 'Critical ... ›
Google, YouTube Ban Monetization of Climate Misinformation
"Deniers can find someplace else to spread their lies," said one digital rights activist.
By Brett Wilkins
Digital rights advocates on Thursday welcomed a report that Google and its YouTube video platform are prohibiting the monetization of climate misinformation.
Google advertisers and publishers and YouTube creators will be banned from receiving advertising revenue that contradicts "well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change," company officials said in a statement reported by Axios.
"This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change," the statement explained.
"Advertisers simply don't want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don't want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos," the statement added.
Good move. And how about banning advertising of fossil fuels too? https://t.co/zRr451noWJ— Nick Young (@Nick Young) 1633638826.0
Last year, a study by the advocacy group Avaaz concluded that YouTube's recommendation algorithm was "driving millions of people to watch climate misinformation videos" and that the company was incentivizing such content through its monetization program.
"Some of the largest household brands in the world, including Samsung, L'Oréal, Warner Bros, Carrefour, and Danone, as well as two of the largest environmental groups in the world, Greenpeace International and World Wildlife Fund, have advertisements running on these climate misinformation videos," Avaaz said.
Other social media platforms are also rife with climate lies. Last month, Common Dreams reported that the environmental group Friends of the Earth found that Facebook allows 99% of all climate disinformation to go unchecked. A 2020 InfluenceMap study found that in the first six months of last year, at least eight million people in the U.S. saw 51 Facebook ads containing false climate claims.
Google's move to quash climate misinformation profiteers comes one week after YouTube announced it was banning the accounts of several prominent anti-vaccine personalities.
"There is no place for science denial — whether it's climate, Covid, or anything else — on such influential platforms," Vahid Razavi, founder of the digital rights group Ethics in Tech, told Common Dreams. "Deniers can find someplace else to spread their lies."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
'Another Day, Another Catastrophic Oil Spill': Leak in Texas Fuels Calls to 'Keep It in the Ground'
By Jessica Corbett
A crude oil spill at a Marathon Petroleum refinery in Texas City outside of Houston on Wednesday — just the latest in a series of recent leaks — sparked fresh calls for rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to 100% renewable energy.
"The crazy thing is to expect that this won't keep on happening every damn day until we just keep the oil in the ground. #KeepItInTheGround," tweeted Nathaniel Stinnett, executive director of Environmental Voter Project, with footage of the scene at the Marathon Galveston Bay Refinery.
ABC 13 reports that Bruce Clawson, interim director of Homeland Security for Texas City, said the failure of a pump seal at the facility caused oil to pour out of the side of a tank. No one was injured but the incident led to road closures, according to Chron.
Both Clawson and Marathon Petroleum spokesperson Jamal T. Kheiry said the spill is contained to the facility, which has a refining capacity of 593,000 barrels of oil per day.
"The refinery has deployed air monitoring in the community as a precaution, and there is no indication of risk to the community," Kheiry said in a statement. "Cleanup is underway, and regulatory notifications have been made."
Fossil fuel infrastructure is safe, they said. Fossil fuel infrastructure won't leak, they said. https://t.co/G73I5aXtmH— Katie Thomas (@Katie Thomas) 1633544045.0
The incident in Texas City comes just days after one of the worst oil spills in Southern California's history—which also drew attention to national fossil fuel policies and practices.
"Fossil fuels pollute. First the California spill, now this," Northwest Progressive Institute tweeted Wednesday, linking to a report on the situation in Texas. "We must transition to a renewable energy future as fast as we can. That's why we need climate investments in the #BuildBackBetter bill."
Democratic lawmakers and the White House are still negotiating the details of the Build Back Better bill. The climate and social safety net package, which is set to include several parts of President Joe Biden's agenda, has been held up by opposition from two right-wing Democrats.
While welcoming the president and congressional Democrats' efforts to enact climate legislation via the budget reconciliation process, progressive campaigners have also called out the Biden administration for moving forward with fossil fuel leases for public lands and waters.
Friends of the Earth Action echoed that criticism in a tweet about Texas, declaring, "Another day, another catastrophic oil spill that will massively harm local wildlife and environment."
The Biden administration "claims to care about the climate crisis — yet it continues to open up public lands and waters to Big Oil," the group said. "This is why that cannot continue."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Oil Spill off California Coast Devastates Wetlands, Kills Wildlife ... ›
- Huntington Beach Oil Spill Shows Why We Need to Be Free From ... ›
By Jake Johnson
The most comprehensive study of the health of the world's coral reefs to date shows that warming temperatures driven by the human-caused climate crisis wiped out a staggering 14% of the diverse underwater ecosystems between 2009 and 2018 — a trend that's likely to continue without urgent action.
Conducted by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) and released Tuesday, the detailed report stresses that "the greatest threat" to coral reefs is "warming waters brought about by human activities." From 2009 to 2018, the report notes, "the increasing frequency and geographic extent of mass coral bleaching events" — many which are driven by rising ocean temperatures — "have prevented coral cover from recovering."
The study, which draws on data collected by more than 300 scientists at 12,000 sites around the world, also pointed to "other local pressures such as overfishing, unsustainable coastal development, and declining water quality" as factors contributing to the loss of coral reefs in recent years.
While coral reefs cover just 1% of the ocean floor, they support an estimated 25% of all marine life. "An irrevocable loss of coral reefs," the report warns, "would be catastrophic."
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program — which provided financial and technical for the new study — said in a statement that the findings show "we are running out of time: we can reverse losses, but we have to act now."
"At the upcoming climate conference in Glasgow and biodiversity conference in Kunming, decisionmakers have an opportunity to show leadership and save our reefs, but only if they are willing to take bold steps," said Andersen. "We must not leave future generations to inherit a world without coral."
Published just over two months after the 21-nation World Heritage Committee voted down an effort to formally categorize the Great Barrier Reef as endangered, the report observes that sharp declines in coral cover over the past decade have "almost invariably" corresponded with "rapid increases in sea surface temperatures, indicating their vulnerability to spikes, which is a phenomenon that is likely to happen more frequently as the planet continues to warm."
"Since 2009, the overwhelming trend in global average hard coral cover has been downward," the study finds. "Between 2009 and 2018, global average hard coral cover declined from 33.3% to 28.8%... To put this into context, this equates to about 11,700 km² of coral, which is approximately the equivalent of losing all the hard coral currently living on Australia's coral reefs."
David Obura, chair of the coral specialist group at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and one of the editors of the new report, told The New York Times that "coral reefs are the canary in the coal mine telling us how quickly it can go wrong."
Pointing to the 14% loss of coral reefs globally, Obura noted that "in finance, we worry about half-percent declines and half-percent changes in employment and interest rates."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Marine life is fleeing the equator to cooler waters. History tells us this ... ›
- Ocean Heat Waves Kill Coral Instantly, Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
- The Climate Crisis Has Already Cost the Great Barrier Reef More ... ›
- Coral Reefs Could Be Completely Lost to the Climate Crisis by 2100 ... ›
- Report Details Climate Crisis Impacts on Coral Reefs, Warns of ... ›
By Jenna McGuire
A prominent climate group accused the McDonald's corporation of another greenwashing stunt on Monday after the burger giant announced it would cut global greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.
"This is another stunt in a long line of greenwashing trends from McDonalds," said Jennifer Molidor, senior food campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Net zero is not a climate solution, it's an accounting trick. The company's beef footprint alone produces more than 22 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually. If McDonald's changed its menu immediately it would make a big difference but waiting until 2050 is insufficient to avoid climate catastrophe. We don't have 30 more years to get this right."
The company's 2050 net-zero target includes everything from its beef production to the light bulbs in its restaurants. The fast-food chain also revealed it is working with the nonprofit Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to improve its existing climate targets and aims to lower total emissions by about a third for both its suppliers and its nearly 40,000 company-run and franchised restaurants around the world by 2030.
"We're trying to send a signal to our partners, to our investors, to our suppliers, to other brands in the global community, to policymakers, that we share that vision for 2050," McDonald's chief sustainability officer Jenny McColloch told Reuters in an interview. McDonald's is one of the largest beef purchasers in the world ― and the vast majority of its total emissions are produced by its supply chain, which includes beef, chicken, dairy, and other proteins.
The company's announcement comes as environmentalists continue to warn about the dire impacts of animal agriculture, including a September report published in Nature Food that detailed how global food production accounts for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with meat and dairy responsible for twice as much planet-heating carbon pollution as plant-based foods.
As reported in Common Dreams, according to the study, beef production contributes 25% of all food-based greenhouse gas emissions — by far the biggest culprit, followed by cow's milk, pork, and chicken. A 2019 special report on climate change and land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended plant-based diets as a major opportunity for mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis ― and included a policy recommendation to reduce meat consumption.
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Beef Industry Takes the Biggest Bite Out of Earth's Natural ... ›
- Climate Finance Hits Hurdle in Greening Meat and Dairy - EcoWatch ›
- A Guide to Greenwashing and How to Spot It - EcoWatch ›