All eyes are on VDL as the political climate gets hotter than ever

As the European Commission president prepares to deliver her potentially final State of the European Union speech on Wednesday, we must look back at her legacy, Ursula Woodburn writes.

The EU has been fighting climate change for decades. But with this summer confirmed as the hottest yet globally — it’s time to work with our international allies and turn up the temperature dial on climate action.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last Friday, the United Nations released its first Global Stocktake, a process following the Paris Agreement in which countries pledged to monitor their collective progress in achieving the agreed goals.

In what the World Resources Institute has called a “truly damning report card” for global climate efforts, the key takeaway message is that we are not on track to meet the target of the Paris Agreement. 

To keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, we must scale up ambition and implement clean technology solutions now.

Yet another important climate moment happened over the weekend, at the G20 summit in Delhi. 

Though leaders did not conclude on a timeline for phasing out fossil fuels, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen put forward a successful agreement to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030, in the run-up to COP28.

So where does that leave us in Europe?

Changes to the roster in VDL’s final year

Ahead of the EU elections next year, the controversial Nature Restoration Law just made it through parliament in July. 

Frans Timmermans has led the EU’s Green Deal and climate policy since 2019, launching one of the broadest set of climate laws the world has seen. 

But now the climate champion has resigned, and the bloc’s competition torchbearer Margrethe Vestager has gone on leave to pursue the presidency of the European Investment Bank.

Von der Leyen acted decisively to deal with the changes in the European Commission college — although questions remain over how this could impact her final year. 

She swiftly assigned the new Vice-President position to Slovak socialist Maroš Šefčovič, who is an experienced operator on the wider energy issues — and from whom we will need robust support for the Green Deal. 

ADVERTISEMENT

She has also handed the climate portfolio to former Dutch Foreign Minister and conservative Woepke Hoesktra.

But as Ursula von der Leyen prepares to deliver her potentially final State of the European Union speech on Wednesday, we must look back at her legacy.

Not all is so rosy despite strong moves amid crises

Her flagship initiative, the European Green Deal, with the concept of Competitive Sustainability at its core, has proved resilient in the face of multiple crises. 

As a result, businesses around Europe are acting to reduce their own emissions, they are talking to their supply chains and considering what they need to invest in in the future. 

The majority have been unwavering in their support — even despite a series of crises which shook the EU to its very core.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU focused on greening our economic recovery. The plan, named NextGenerationEU, invested €806.9 billion to make Europe greener, more digital and more resilient. 

Following Russia’s war in Ukraine, the bloc then stepped up its deployment of renewable energy and efficiency measures to respond to the energy crisis.

This sent a strong signal to businesses that green growth was the best way to guarantee long-term resilience in future.

However, it’s not all so rosy.

International developments and decisions taken in the US and China continue to complicate investment decisions. The door to new investment in fossil fuels remains firmly open and nature restoration has not yet been sufficiently addressed.

ADVERTISEMENT

So how will businesses be impacted?

The 2040 target should be firmly addressed

In a period where some — like Belgian Prime Minister Alexander de Croo — are calling for a regulatory “pause”, policymakers and businesses need to keep their sleeves rolled up to overcome any obstacles in their way.

The climate crisis is not slowing down. Taking action to tackle it is not an option, we must instead ensure that the transition towards a European economy that prioritises people, nature and climate goes ahead.

At this unstable time, businesses can make a difference by calling for a clear, green policy direction (at the depth, breadth and scale needed) to help them plan and unlock necessary investments.

What’s more, we are looking for the EU — and von der Leyen this week — to firmly address the 2040 target. 

From a business perspective, this means setting a climate target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the bloc by at least 90% by 2040.

A few years ago this target might have seemed impossible.

But action taken already by policymakers and businesses has demonstrated that such ambition is within reach — providing carbon removals are limited to no more than 8-10%. 

Europe must act to stay in the running

Separate targets should be set for nature-based carbon removal and technological carbon removal — to improve transparency and accountability.

The long-term future of Europe is rooted in economic prosperity, with businesses that have successfully invested in sustainability staying competitive globally. 

Recent reports have shown that we are in a global race to the top on zero carbon technologies, and Europe must act to stay in the running. 

All of us will need to pull together to build on the transformation enabled by the Green Deal, including the next EU institutions.

Who the 14th President of the European Commission will be still hangs in the balance. In the meantime, the EU must heat up its resolve and act now.  

Ursula Woodburn is Director of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership at the Europe office, driving corporate support for a climate-neutral, nature-positive and sustainable economy.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#eyes #VDL #political #climate #hotter

Why should Kazakhstan’s nuclear energy plans matter to the West?

Currently, Kazakhstan is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, making its energy sector vulnerable to market fluctuations and geopolitical shifts, Emil Avdaliani writes.

Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev recently announced that the country will hold a referendum to decide whether to build its first nuclear power plant. 

ADVERTISEMENT

As discussions about sustainable energy solutions gain momentum globally, Kazakhstan’s deliberations on nuclear energy could not come at a more pivotal time. 

The proposed project is nestled at the intersection of a host of considerations that resonate far beyond this Central Asian nation’s borders. 

From energy security and economic growth to environmental stewardship and geopolitical sway, the implications are expansive.

Addressing domestic shortage and reshaping energy portfolio

Kazakhstan’s desire to move toward nuclear energy is primarily driven by its need for energy security. 

As the world’s top uranium producer, the country is sitting on an energy goldmine. The development of a nuclear power plant would not merely represent an economic venture but could serve as an insurance policy against future energy uncertainties. 

In particular, Kazakhstan faces a projected electricity shortage in the southern part of the country, and a nuclear facility could contribute 2,800 MW to its grid. 

This is not just about meeting domestic energy demands; it’s about reshaping the country’s entire energy portfolio.

Currently, Kazakhstan is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, making its energy sector vulnerable to market fluctuations and geopolitical shifts. 

By adding nuclear power to the mix, the country would not just be diversifying its energy sources, it would be fortifying its national sovereignty and position on the global stage.

Carbon-neutral ambitions

The economic advantages of a nuclear plant are another compelling part of the story.

Beyond the obvious benefits of job creation in a specialized sector — Kazakhstan already employs nearly 18,000 people in the peaceful use of nuclear energy — the plant would produce a high energy output with relatively low input.

ADVERTISEMENT

Furthermore, in a world increasingly worried about climate change, Kazakhstan has already signalled the importance of shifting towards a greener economy. 

Tokayev emphasised this need in his recent address. Nuclear energy, with its minimal greenhouse gas emissions, aligns perfectly with this vision. 

The project would not only be a significant leap toward meeting Kazakhstan’s ambitious goal to become a carbon-neutral country by 2060 but also be a concrete contribution to global sustainability goals.

But the reverberations do not stop at economic or environmental factors; they spill over into the arena of geopolitics as well. 

A successful nuclear program affects geopolitics, too

A successful nuclear program has the potential to help Kazakhstan evolve from a consumer to a Eurasian energy supplier, amplifying its geopolitical influence. 

ADVERTISEMENT

This is particularly relevant in view of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the European Union’s aim to reduce the bloc’s reliance on Russian energy sources. 

Therefore, the issue of Kazakhstan’s nuclear energy is more than a question of energy exports, but rather a matter of regional stability and strategic partnerships.

In that sense, Europe and the US could view Kazakhstan’s deliberations on nuclear energy as an alignment with broader goals of energy security, climate change mitigation, and regional stability. 

With the EU recognising nuclear energy as a pivotal industry to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, Kazakhstan’s endeavours could find supportive partners in the West. 

Partnerships could be particularly beneficial for companies specialising in nuclear technology, security protocols, and related services, tightening economic ties between Kazakhstan and Western countries.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, not all countries in the EU support nuclear energy. For instance, while France backs it completely, Germany remains opposed.

A history of being someone else’s nuclear test site

Naturally, questions arise about whether Kazakhstan can ensure safety and security if its population votes in favour of building a nuclear power plant. 

This concern holds particular significance for ordinary Kazakhs, given that the country’s land was used for nuclear weapons testing during the Soviet era. 

These tests caused health and environmental damage around the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, which closed in 1991 when the country gained independence. 

Understandably, some segments of Kazakhstan’s population remain worried about the idea of developing nuclear facilities. 

However, Kazakhstan has demonstrated it could provide safety. The country is already hosting the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Low-Enriched Uranium Bank, indicating an existing reservoir of international trust. 

The nation is pushing this even further by seeking a seat on the IAEA board, a move that will deepen its involvement in shaping and adhering to global nuclear safety protocols.

A referendum to let people decide?

Kazakhstan’s decision to hold a national referendum on the nuclear power plant issue adds an intriguing layer, especially since referendums are relatively rare in Central Asia — although Kazakhstan did hold one last year on constitutional amendments following mass unrest in January. 

Tokayev was re-elected last year and will be in power for seven years until 2029, which suggests that the country’s policy on nuclear energy is likely to remain consistent for the foreseeable future.

The government’s rationale is that the vote will enable citizens to express their views on nuclear energy, thereby bolstering transparency. 

The perspective is that projects that enjoy public backing are usually more successful in their implementation, lending social and political capital to the initiative.

In the long run, the act of holding a referendum could also set a regional precedent when it comes to major decisions of national significance.

Kazakhstan will be hoping that this not only elevates the country’s regional standing but also facilitates partnerships with countries that prioritize similar governance models.

Altering power dynamics could make Astana a more significant global player

In the end, the debate and the impending referendum on constructing a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan are not merely local or national issues. 

They are global talking points embedded in a complex tapestry of economic, environmental, technological, and geopolitical considerations. 

As Kazakhstan contemplates its energy future, the world would do well to pay attention. It is not just Kazakhstan’s energy landscape that is at stake — it is a piece of the global sustainability puzzle. 

A successful nuclear program would certainly enhance Kazakhstan’s geopolitical standing. By becoming a regional or potentially even global energy supplier, Kazakhstan could wield more influence across Central Asia and beyond. 

This could alter power dynamics, particularly with neighbouring Russia and China, and could make Kazakhstan a more significant player in energy geopolitics.

Emil Avdaliani is a Professor at the European University in Tbilisi and Director of the Geocase think tank.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Kazakhstans #nuclear #energy #plans #matter #West

Despite the EU deforestation law, companies are backing palm oil. Why?

There are several possible explanations for the apparent contradiction between regulatory pressure to narrow on the lowest compliance risks and companies’ willingness to invest in some higher-risk landscapes, Matthew Spencer writes.

Something strange is happening in the palm oil sector. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite the impending enforcement of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), numerous companies are intensifying their investment in landscape initiatives. 

This phenomenon is surprising as many of us feared that the EUDR would push companies away from sourcing from higher forest-risk jurisdictions.

Some companies are segregating mills and refineries for Europe and focussing on sourcing from plantations distant from remaining forest, and away from smallholder supply. 

But others are making new investments in landscape initiatives in Indonesia and Malaysia which include many thousands of small farmers. 

A report released recently by the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA), CDP and Proforest identified a total of 37 landscape and jurisdictional approaches supported by companies and focused on palm production, surpassing any other commodity sector. 

It reflects IDH’s experience in Aceh, where stalwart partners like Unilever, Pepsico and Musim Mas are now being joined by a growing roster of buyers and traders including Mars, Apical, GAR and Mondelēz.

What explains this apparent contradiction between regulatory pressure to narrow on the lowest compliance risks and companies’ willingness to invest in some higher-risk landscapes?

There are several possible explanations.

Deforestation risk can fall quickly in the best landscape initiatives

The evidence for how landscape approaches can reduce deforestation is growing. 

In Mato Grosso in Brazil, which has had a state-wide jurisdictional approach for eight years, Amazon deforestation barely increased under the Bolsonaro government, in contrast to many other states in the Legal Amazon which saw a big jump.

In Aceh Tamiang, Indonesia, deforestation fell to just 30 hectares in 2021 from over 400 hectares in previous years as a coordinated deforestation alert and action plan took effect.

ADVERTISEMENT

The success of the landscape coalition in Aceh Tamiang is now inspiring new partnerships in other forest-risk districts in the Aceh buffer zone around the Leuser Ecosystem.

Also, smallholders are the best hope for growing palm oil supply. Palm is currently described by traders as a “sellers’ market” with surging demand in Asia and many mills operating under capacity. 

There is limited room to grow supply from plantations in Malaysia or Indonesia, given their forest protection policies. 

This creates a business case for companies to invest in the growth of independent small farmer productivity, and landscape initiatives allow them to do this in coordination with other business and farmer groups.

Jurisdictional approaches to EUDR traceability are likely to be more cost-effective in smallholder-dominated sourcing areas

The costs of tracing forest risk commodity supply can be very high and can repeat every year as smallholders switch buyers. 

ADVERTISEMENT

One service provider estimates that costs are in the range of €6-14 per farm to compile and map geolocation and land title data. 

This data is often already held by the government, so with backing from local authorities who are part of landscape agreements, these costs can be shared.

There is also the tantalising prospect of jurisdictional traceability being recognised by the EU if a verified deforestation-free area can compile geolocation data at the district level rather than physically trace commodities from the farm level through many layers of the local supply chain. 

The Vietnamese government is backing an IDH pilot with ten coffee companies in the central highlands which will compare the costs of different approaches to traceability.

Social risks are impossible to manage without engaging in sourcing areas

Despite its name, the EUDR creates duties beyond deforestation. Imports must also “have been produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”. 

ADVERTISEMENT

 What is more, it is only the first act of a blockbuster package of new European regulation which means risks will begin to converge in corporate reporting and legal requirements on business. 

Forced labour is notoriously difficult to spot but is a real possibility in palm plantations reliant on migrant labour. 

Child labour is common and impossible to manage without community consent. 

Given that the burden of proof is on the importing business, there is increasing interest from big brands to see if landscape initiatives can address human rights and social risks.

Different responses to business risk?

It’s possible that we are seeing two distinct responses to corporate risk. The “let’s get this risk off the table” approach tries to remove deforestation risk in the quickest and cheapest way but doesn’t join the dots to other social or environmental risks that exist in “forest safe” sourcing areas. 

The second “let’s tackle risks at the source” response manages down interlinked risk by engaging key stakeholders in sourcing areas, often via landscape initiatives.

Landscape initiatives don’t pretend to get rid of all social and environmental risks, but they do reduce them at source. 

That’s why they form part of the risk management strategy of an increasing number of palm buyers and traders. It’s a good bet that existing landscape collaborations are where the best models of forest and farmer-positive palm sourcing and traceability will emerge.

Matthew Spencer is the Global Director of Landscapes at IDH — Sustainable Trade Initiative, established by the Dutch government in 2009 to help improve the sustainability of international supply chains.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#deforestation #law #companies #backing #palm #oil

Fossil fuel companies stand at a crossroads: Adapt or die

Less than three months before COP28, the message to the energy and transport companies is clear: decarbonisation will happen, and there is no way out, Prof Vicente López-Ibor Mayor writes.

The time has come to reach a Climate Deal that will only be accessible to companies that decarbonise. Those that fail to decarbonise will not meet the standards required by the Climate Deal and the energy sector of the future.

ADVERTISEMENT

That goal must be a central feature of the UN COP28 climate talks in Dubai. After all, the world needs rapid decarbonisation. 

From oil to hydrogen, gas to biofuels, coal to nuclear, solar to wind, and buildings to transport, only companies that make clear commitments to decarbonisation should benefit from regulatory incentives, financing, fiscal support for innovation, and beyond.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently reported that by 2025, renewables will fuel 35% of global electricity generation, dethroning coal as the world’s largest power source. In the US, solar power alone will account for over half of the new capacity in 2023. 

These aren’t just predictions – they’re realities in motion.

Adapting to decarbonisation demands will be key

Indeed, the IEA’s findings could be conservative. According to a major study published last year by the University of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute, the world may have already passed a “global solar tipping point”, where “solar energy gradually comes to dominate global electricity markets, even without additional climate policies”.

At current exponential growth rates, solar, wind and batteries will supply over 80% of global electricity by the 2060s. Though impressive, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says this is not fast enough.

In 2018, the IPCC found that to keep global warming within the 1.5 degrees Celsius safe limit agreed upon by world governments in Paris eight years ago, we need to not only eliminate carbon emissions but start removing 5 billion tonnes a year of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050. 

So, while we need to accelerate the build-out of renewables faster than the current rate, with fossil fuels supplying about 78% of the world’s energy needs, it is reasonable to foresee that we’ll continue relying on oil and gas production for decades to come.

Therefore, it’s imperative that fossil fuel industries adapt to the demands of decarbonisation — a view shared by US Climate Envoy John Kerry who just last week called on global oil and gas industry leaders to bring concrete plans to the upcoming COP28 UN climate summit for reducing emissions and investing in renewable energy by 2030.

Dominance of clean energy ecosystem is inevitable

But for COP28 to deliver a new Global Climate Deal that incentivises and compels the fossil fuel industry to decarbonise will require three things.

Firstly, we need to accelerate the build-out of global renewable energy infrastructure as fast as possible. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The dominance of the new clean electricity ecosystem based on solar, wind, storage and some other clean energy solutions — utility-scale and in local markets — is inevitable, but we have to bring it forward dramatically. 

This requires prioritising climate financing to help decarbonise emerging countries with the greatest need to industrialise.

Secondly, given that we will still rely on fossil fuels during the energy transition, we need to ramp up the economic and technological viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to decarbonise them as much as possible. 

By partnering with renewable energy to power CCS, fossil fuel companies can bring the economic and energy costs down dramatically, and scale it up faster.

COP 28 should consider launching an expert commission

Thirdly, we need to accelerate both carbon withdrawal technologies and nature-based solutions that can draw down billions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year. Any technology that contributes to the net-zero deserves to be studied and, where appropriate, welcomed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite some scepticism, Dr Al Jaber’s presidency at COP28 proposes several ambitious goals, something that should be particularly considered. 

Admittedly, these proposals may not be fast enough to avoid dangerous climate change. 

But if this upcoming COP fails to ratify even these proposals, we will have missed yet another unprecedented opportunity to create a firm foundation for even faster action which we can demand at later summits.

That is why I believe COP28 should launch an International Commission of High-Level Experts possessing knowledge in the scientific, economic, legal, technological and social fields to lead, supervise, and ensure the fulfilment of a new Global Climate Deal on these terms.

Make no mistake: decarbonisation will happen

The implications are profound. Energy companies need to accelerate their ‘just transition’ journey or face disruption. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria will soon be insufficient, and the companies incorporating them will not be pioneers, but merely compliant. Companies that ignore them will be left out of the market. Either industries move rapidly into net-zero, or they’ll face deterioration of assets and profits.

Finally, it is important to note that energy is now not only a market for goods but also for services. For this reason, the leading companies will be those with the greatest capacity for innovation.

Less than three months before COP28, the message to the energy and transport companies is clear: decarbonisation will happen, and there is no way out. And if you choose to be part of it, you’ll not only be saving your industry, but saving our planet too.  

Professor Vicente López-Ibor Mayor is an energy and climate expert. He was a founding Member of the European Council of Energy Regulators, a Special Advisor to the European Commissioner of Energy, Transports and Institutional Affairs, a Special Advisor to UNESCO’s Energy Programme, and a Commissioner of the National Energy Commission of Spain.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Fossil #fuel #companies #stand #crossroads #Adapt #die

View Q&A: Europe’s heatwaves show we might be spinning out of control

As Europe swelters in record temperatures this summer, Euronews View spoke to Global Chief Heat Officer at UN-Habitat Eleni Myrivili about the impact of the extreme heat and what can be done to save lives and make our cities more liveable.

Large parts of southern and eastern Europe have been sweltering in soaring temperatures once more due to the latest string of heatwaves caused by a massive anticyclone aptly named Charon.

The record-breaking temperatures reached the mid to high 40s in Italy and Greece and even approached the 50s in parts of Spain, causing a spike in heat-related deaths as authorities scrambled for measures that would ease their impact.

Wildfires, another consequence of extreme heat, have been raging in several European countries, including Greece and Italy, disrupting travel, endangering towns and cities in their path and forcing evacuations of tens of thousands of people.

The continent has experienced a similar pattern over the previous summers, yet scientists are now warning that the window to turn things around and revert the climate emergency is becoming exceptionally slim.

Euronews View spoke with Global Chief Heat Officer at UN-Habitat and Board Member at the EU Mission for Adaptation of the European Commission, Eleni Myrivili, about the consequences of extreme weather events have on the continent’s citizens and the immediate and long-term measures governments can implement to save lives and make our cities more liveable. 

Euronews View: You have done an immense amount of work on extreme heat both locally in the city of Athens and on a much larger scale. What can you tell us about where we are now in 2023 in terms of the heatwaves we are experiencing?

Eleni Myrivili: I’ve been working since 2021 in Athens as a chief heat officer, but I had started working on heat resilience before that in Athens, so I created the strategy and started doing different kinds of measures and policies in relation to heat resilience since 2017, and I didn’t really expect things to accelerate so fast.

I mean, it’s not really a surprise, but this year, with the heat domes sitting over the US, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and China, it kind of got really scary. It’s been weeks and weeks of heatwaves and then a couple of days of respite, and then again and again.

It feels like we might have started spinning out of control, which is something that the scientists have been talking about and which is what we’ve been trying to prevent by sticking with the 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, with the Paris Agreement.

But it seems like things have started maybe already to get a little bit out of control because it’s happening fast, right? 

In Europe, we seem to be heating up twice as fast as the global average. The global average today is 1.1C, 1.2C, and in Europe, we’ve already reached an average of 2.2C from the pre-industrial era. 

And that’s because the Arctic is heating up very fast and because of the Mediterranean. So the south and the north are bringing up the average. 

But hopefully, this will become a wake-up call because it’s in the Northern Hemisphere, so the big polluters are the ones now dealing with these extreme heat events, and I’m still hoping this will move the mitigation aspect much much faster.

Euronews View: The extreme temperatures felt in the south of the continent have still not reached Europe’s generally colder parts. Could you explain what kind of difficulties people experience in their daily lives in a city like Athens, where they have to deal with rolling heatwaves like we’ve seen this summer?

Eleni Myrivili: First of all, it’s the fact that we have a very high death threat. We don’t really know yet, but we’re very worried about what the impact of these rolling heatwaves will be on the mortality of the people that are most vulnerable in Athens.

We have a city that has a lot of people that are above 60 years old — in Europe, we do have a lot of people that are older in relation to other continents. We have a high average age, and this is a problem because people over 60 are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat.

But it’s not just them. It’s also women that are pregnant, babies, young children, and people with pre-existing conditions — any kind of pre-existing conditions, any kind of problems that the body might have from physical to mental illness, really deteriorates fast with heat.

And then we also have people that work that are also very vulnerable, and we’re really worried for their health. 

So last year, in 2022, we thought we had lost about 15,000 to 20,000 people in all of Europe linked to extreme heat. Two weeks ago, we had a report that actually raised the number to over 60,000 people. 

When we lose 60,000 people in one summer because of one extreme phenomenon, we have to make sure people realise how bad this is. So one aspect has to do with death morbidity and mortality, and we will find out months later what the exact numbers were.

The other very big issue is work productivity. So we have a city that starts kind of not really functioning because everything slows down, and all the kind of ways that people interact and all the ways that people work slow down.

So that’s why we have the people that are working in manual jobs because of fatigue because they don’t sleep. Due to this long period of heat, what starts happening is that we have higher levels of work-related injuries.

**Euronews View: What about lifestyle and basic services? 
**

Eleni Myrivili: Another issue that happens in Athens is that the city slowly empties out, the people withdraw inside or into airconditioned areas, or they come out only at night or after sunset. 

This is a real pity because our cities in the Mediterranean are lively and beautiful, and vibrant in the summer. People in them love to meet and hang out and eat and talk, and I’m hoping we’re not going to see our cities become more and more cities that are just outside-inside, where this continuum kind of stops.

And finally, tourism is also an issue. We have to realise that we have to protect the tourists who might not be so accustomed to these crazy temperatures. 

So in Athens, together with the Red Cross, we had ambulances outside of the Acropolis giving out water and information, we closed the Acropolis and other archaeological spaces, but it’s a weird kind of shutting down of vital parts of the city. 

And also, there’s the fear of energy blackouts. We have had a few blackouts in some of the suburbs, but I believe they were more linked to the fires that were closer to Athens about two weeks ago. 

But there is this lingering stress about our infrastructure, especially our basic resources: water, energy, and food that we will make sure we have enough — and thankfully, we didn’t have any serious problems yet as far as I can tell.

Euronews View: All of this points to a bigger trend where the quality of life suffers, which seems very juxtaposed to the general outside view of “Well, doesn’t that just mean that you have nicer weather for longer,” or “The tourists are going to love it, and more tourists are going to come because it’s sunnier and hotter and they’re going to enjoy the seaside even more.”

**Meanwhile, what kind of remedies are there that you can maybe envision or propose that can be done immediately? **

Eleni Myrivili: One thing that has made me happy is that since last year, the Greek Ministry of Labour and the city of Athens have created a decree that has put into effect a really detailed set of guidelines for workers and employers that they have to follow in order to protect the workers from heatwaves. 

And also, just last week, because we had the real peak of the third heatwave, there was a special addition to the decree that between 11 am and 5 pm, they prohibited all deliveries, including closing down all the platforms for deliveries. This is really at the forefront of all the different measures that we can take. 

Then there is a whole series of different measures that we can take to protect the most vulnerable. 

A lot of cities have done a lot of different things, but there are more short-term measures like making sure that during heatwaves, people have access to information, spaces that can protect them, and water and cooling mechanisms so that they can protect themselves.

Then the other big category is creating cities that are cooler, which involves how we deal with the public space, how we design the public space and what we do with the public space and how we deal with our construction sector and how we retrofit kind of our construction sector so that we can make a difference. 

Euronews View: Thinking ahead, what would be the actual cure for this? What would be the solution?

Eleni Myrivili: So the main thing, just the most basic thing that gives comfort to people, is shade. 

If we manage to give them shade from trees and water elements, this is the best possible option because trees don’t just create shade — they do this thing called vapour transpiration, which lowers the temperature, so actually, they are amazing for people, and they’re life-saving for cities.

We have to slowly make our public spaces, which are made out of cement and concrete, into more water-permeable, green-and-blue kind of infrastructure. 

And we also have to slowly take cars away from the city centres, which often is not very popular but will become more and more a matter of survival for our cities.

Cars heat up the atmosphere and the air of the cities even more, like air conditioning, and also they take up a lot of our public space. 

In many of our cities, the majority of our public spaces are dedicated to cars, which is ridiculous, so this has to stop.

And also, we have to stop making any kind of public places, such as big squares and big monumental interventions, that don’t take into account the idea of the idea of lowering temperatures by creating wind movement or shading into the design really seriously.

These are the basic principles that we have to start using for our public spaces and one of the most important things we can do for our cities. 

I call this third pillar redesign — a whole series of things we have to do to redesign our cities, and the second pillar is something I call preparedness — which are all these short-term measures we can take to protect the most vulnerable. 

The first pillar is what I call awareness raising, which is ensuring that we make it clear that this is a very, very dangerous factor for our health. 

There’s no other disaster out of all kinds of disasters linked to extreme weather events, or linked to other things like earthquakes, that has the amount of mortality linked to it as the heat has. 

In Europe, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands or 100,000 in a decade, while all the other things amount to 1,000, 3,000. The numbers tend to be really, really small in relation to the people we lose to the heat. 

And this is still something that people have to realise — and realise the seriousness of it.

Source link

#View #Europes #heatwaves #show #spinning #control

As the EU Single Market turns 30, we have to protect its just future

By Olivier Hoedeman, Researcher and campaigner, Corporate Europe Observatory

Corporations and their lobbyists have been using the Single Market rules to obstruct progressive social and environmental policies and regulations that might harm their profits. This needs to stop, Olivier Hoedeman writes.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the creation of the EU’s Single Market. 

It touches on almost every aspect of European’s daily lives, including important achievements such as borderless travel within the EU. 

However, few are aware of how corporations and their lobbyists, with their obsession with “completing” the Single Market, have been using its rules to obstruct progressive social and environmental policies and regulations that might harm their profits.

Their corporate complaints against legitimate policies — which involve pushing the European Commission to launch proceedings for “infringement” of Single Market rules — are a type of lobbying that goes almost entirely under the radar. 

And yet they offer a powerful tool to industry players to silently target member state legislation they dislike.

And now these lobbies are engaged in a successful push for these rules — which already tend to prioritise business interests above other public interest concerns — to go even further in their favour. 

Instead of protecting the democratic space of public authorities, the EU is going in the opposite direction.

Industry lobbies are hitting back at climate measures

All too often, rules labelled as “obstacles” to the Single Market are actually crucial steps for a transition to a sustainable and socially just future, such as measures to hit climate goals.

For example, as the climate crisis hits ever harder with droughts, floods, and record temperatures proliferating across Europe, the French government’s ban on short-distance domestic flights that could easily be done by train has provoked complaints by aviation lobby groups to the European Commission. 

In response, these urgently needed measures have been restricted in scope. Now, due to complaints by airport lobbies, the Dutch government’s intention to shrink Schiphol airport flights by 25% could also be undermined using Single Market rules.

Meanwhile, recent attempts in Germany and Poland to curb energy price rises as a result of dependence on ever-more-expensive fossil fuels also faced pushback using the Single Market as a justification. 

The same goes for plans for the financing of solar panels in a Danish municipality because they were seen as a potential “distortion” to competition.

Blocks on legitimate policies abound

How does any of this square with the EU’s own commitments to reduce CO2 emissions by 55% by 2030?

Corporate Europe Observatory shows exactly how corporations and their lobby groups are using these enforcement mechanisms to block or undermine urgently needed progressive legislation at the national and municipal level in a new report, “30 years of the Single Market: Time to remove the obstacles to social-ecological transformation”.

Other cases of legitimate policies being blocked include the obstruction of social housing measures, public healthcare initiatives and consumer protection legislation regarding harmful substances. 

They also involve bans on single-use plastics, sugar taxes, and restrictions on tourist accommodation and gambling. 

In almost all cases, the business sector has either been able to roll back, delay, or weaken progressive legislation.

We’re moving in the wrong direction

Now, under the slogan of “completing the Single Market”, new proposals by the European Commission and corporate lobby groups are pushing us even further in the wrong direction by seeking to strengthen existing rules and enforcement mechanisms. 

In June 2022, these lobby groups demanded that the EU remove “all barriers to cross-border business operations and intra-EU investments, forming a fully-fledged Single Market for all economic activities” and highlighted deregulation of the services sector as a main priority.

Sure enough, the Commission’s March 2023 communication on “The Single Market at 30” announced a whole range of new initiatives for “enforcing existing Single Market rules and removing member state-level barriers”, closely mirroring the demands of corporate lobby groups like the European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT) and BusinessEurope. 

What these corporate players want is essentially a pre-emption of national-level initiatives that don’t fit their agenda.

This could mean that even where there is no active complaint, new national-level regulations will face tougher scrutiny at an even earlier stage of decision-making. 

And the threat of rules being considered obstacles to the Single Market could have a freezing effect, stopping governments or municipalities from even attempting to introduce new social or ecological regulations.

The state is crucial in tackling catastrophes head-on

The European Trade Union Conference (ETUC) described the reforms as putting “the EU on course for a race to the bottom”. 

Meanwhile, Corporate Europe Observatory’s recommendations, as well as a new civil society sign-on letter to the European Commission, call for a recalibration of how Single Market rules apply to things like public services, social justice, and climate protection measures.

Because if the COVID-19 pandemic, cost of living, and climate crises have taught us anything, it is that the role of the state is crucial in tackling these catastrophes head-on. 

In order for Europe to protect and expand its public services and social protections and genuinely tackle the climate crisis, it will need to turn its back on neoliberalism and take steps to modernise Single Market governance so that the national and local measures needed for a just ecological transition are safeguarded.

We need to change the paradigm. Instead of removing industry-identified “obstacles” to the EU’s Single Market, we must focus on removing the real obstacles to a socially and ecologically just transition.

Olivier Hoedeman is a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit research and campaign group aiming to expose any effects of corporate lobbying on EU policymaking.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Single #Market #turns #protect #future

Why is reporting on the climate impact of meat off the menu?

By Nico Muzi, Managing director and co-founder, Madre Brava

Contrary to the popular saying, more bad news about meat production will be good news for people and the planet, Nico Muzi writes.

No news is good news for the meat industry, but it’s terrible news for people and the planet.

Despite the oversized role of livestock production in driving climate change, mainstream media ignores the issue. 

A new analysis by Faunalytics for Sentient Media revealed that 93% of climate-related news never mentions meat.

Researchers analysed 1,000 articles in 10 national US media outlets since September 2022 and found that within the very limited coverage that mentions animal agriculture, “much of the reporting covers climate impacts on livestock rather than how meat production is a source of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Earlier research by our sustainable food advocacy group also shows that the topic of climate emissions from animal agriculture gets comparatively less media coverage than other climate problems. 

Almost 450 out of 91,180 climate articles in top-tier English-language media outlets in the EU, UK and US between 2020 and mid-2022 mention meat or livestock as a source of emissions — 0.5% of overall climate reporting.

This is problematic: media narratives help to set the political agenda and are precursors to political action. 

In other words, media coverage of the role of livestock in driving climate change is more likely to create political urgency, policy prioritisation and resource allocation.

Why are climate and environment reporters ignoring meat’s part in climate change?

For some, it’s a question of priorities

At least three main factors contribute to the underreporting of meat’s oversized climate impact by English-language media.

First, a lack of campaigning. Very few civil society groups are campaigning on the link between meat and climate change — compared to the sheer amount of public advocacy around fossil fuels extraction and emissions from cars, trucks, planes and ships. 

In part, this corresponds with the minimal climate philanthropy funding going to the food and agriculture sector — 8% of the total known foundation funding dedicated to climate mitigation in 2020.

But it also has to do with a matter of prioritisation. So far, and rightly so, the environmental movement has focused on reducing emissions from the energy systems and transport: two sectors with massive emissions (34% and 15% of total emissions in 2019, respectively) and with technological solutions — solar, wind and electrification of transport — available at scale to decarbonise these industries.

Food is the next frontier in the climate fight: it’s responsible for 37% of global emissions, of which animal agriculture takes the lion’s share. 

The sector’s size can be a stumbling stone

When presenting the latest IPCC report, Chairperson Hoesung Lee reminded the world that humanity needs to reduce livestock farming to achieve the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

We should now expect the attention of civil society (and climate philanthropists) to turn to the transformation of how and what food we produce to feed a growing population without frying the planet. 

This is crucial for creating media attention: as Madre Brava’s media analysis shows, investigations by NGOs and studies by think tanks and universities are the leading generators of climate stories around meat and livestock.

The second factor is corporate capture: the continuous attempts by the meat industry to meddle with science and policymaking. 

The global meat industry is a huge sector worth $1.3 trillion (€1.16tn) — three times the economic value of the smartphone industry. 

People like meat — and telling them not to eat it can turn them hostile

Borrowing heavily from the playbook of the oil industry, media reporting and exposés have shown that big meat processors and dairy corporations use their abundant financial resources to manipulate the facts and sow doubts about climate science on animal products.

For instance, research led by academics at New York University and published in the journal Climate Change show that the 10 largest animal agriculture companies in the US “have contributed to research that minimizes the link between animal agriculture and climate change.” 

In terms of lobbying efforts, the same researchers uncovered that “taken as a share of each company’s total revenue over those time periods, Tyson has spent more than double what Exxon has on political campaigns and 21% more on lobbying.”

Recently, the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Role of Livestock, a pro-livestock manifesto by scholars with close ties to the meat industry, also appear to further efforts to create a supportive scientific community around livestock and to downplay the impact of meat on climate change.

Also, many people love meat for its taste and for deeply held cultural reasons, which makes the topic contentious for reporting.

As Washington Post columnist Tamar Haspel said when asked about the reasons why animal agriculture gets comparatively less coverage in climate stories than other sources of emissions: “The predominant one is that people like meat and … basically you end up telling people to eat less beef.”

“And that’s a message that people tend to be hostile to. When we’re talking about fossil fuels, we are giving people an alternative. But when we’re talking about meat, the alternative we give them is very unpalatable to a lot of people.”

Wrong framing can result in polarisation

How can we overcome the underreporting of meat’s role in climate change?

For one, to remove some of the key barriers to more climate coverage on meat production, the media needs a drumbeat of new content, which can be generated with more NGO campaigning and journalistic investigations. 

In this regard, it would be impactful if climate and environmental NGOs join forces with animal welfare groups and health experts to amplify messages around the climate, health and animal harms of industrial meat — supported by increased climate philanthropic funding. 

Likewise, audacious investigative journalists should dig deeper and unearth new episodes of corporate capture of science and policymaking in this realm.

Second, reworking how to frame narratives and where to place the burden of responsibility is critical in superseding the “contentiousness” of the topic for reporters. 

Campaigns — if not framed right — can also create polarisation and fuel culture wars.

The onus of changing how and what food is produced should be on food retailers and governments, not consumers. 

Instead of finger-pointing at people for not reducing their meat consumption, the call to action should be to improve the choice context so healthy and sustainable food is the easiest and most affordable option for consumers.

Bad news for some might be good news for people and the planet

Finally, like-for-like alternatives matter when trying to change deeply held cultural habits. 

Industry disruptors should deliver more palatable alternative proteins that are as tasty and as cheap as conventional industrial meat to meet consumers where they are in terms of taste and nutritional preferences.

More reporting on the oversized role of livestock in driving climate change will help create political urgency, policy prioritisation and resource allocation. 

Contrary to the popular saying, more bad news — about meat production — will be good news for people and the planet.

Nico Muzi is the managing director and co-founder of Madre Brava, a science-based advocacy organisation working to bring in line the food system with the 1.5C climate target.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#reporting #climate #impact #meat #menu

Ohio Higher Ed Bill Requires Equal Time For Climate Change Deniers, Racists

The Ohio state Legislature is taking its own shot at eliminating all the liberal indoctrination Republicans are certain is running amok in universities, with a bill that not only prohibits most diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and “implicit bias” training, but also requires that instructors not promote any particular view on any “controversial topic” like climate change, diversity, abortion, or foreign policy, among others. The bill has already passed in the state Senate, and is now being considered in the state House, which has a Republican supermajority. The official title of Senate Bill 83 is the “Higher Education Enhancement Act,” but I’m just going to call it the Flat Earth Equal Time Act if you don’t mind.

For all “controversial “topics, instructors would be required to “allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions” and “shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.” Should be fun when a student sues to have openly white supremacist materials included in a syllabus. Or an oil company sues over climate science being taught accurately.


When he introduced SB 83 in March, state Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Did We Have To Say?) explained that

it was his idea to include climate change as a “controversial” belief or policy, and that he “didn’t actually consult with climate people.”.

“My agenda was not to use this bill to impact energy policy,” Cirino said. However, he also said, “What I think is controversial is different views that exist out there about the extent of the climate change and the solutions to try to alter climate change.”

So yeah, that translates to “let’s not actually limit greenhouse emissions, because as the copyrighted 2009 cartoon by Joel Pett in USA Today asked, ‘What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?'”

Naturally enough, actual scientists are aghast at the bill, pointing out that there really is no “other side” to the fact that humans have caused global warming by burning fossil fuels, which add carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, causing dangerous heating of the planet. There also isn’t any actual controversy over what’s needed: We need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and eliminate them altogether — as quickly as possible.

There are plenty of discussions about the best way to achieve that goal, which we suppose may fit Cirino’s suggestion that there’s “controversy” over “the solutions to try to alter climate change,” but not a single one of the options includes “keep burning coal and oil.” Really!

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, warned that if the law is enacted, it’s “going to have a chilling effect” on science education, since many instructors might decide it’s safer to not say much about climate change at all if they think they have to include climate denial nonsense and “alternative” views. Jeez, you scientists, isn’t some chilling exactly what we need to counteract all this warming?

The bill’s language is particularly vague and circular when it comes to even defining what topics are “controversial” and in need of both-sidesing in classes. It specifies some, but the language is very open-ended:

“Controversial belief or policy” means any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.

Got it? A controversial topic is any topic that “is the subject of political controversy,” so tread carefully and include all sides. Including, we guess, advocacy of plural marriage and mandatory abortion? And of course, many evangelicals consider evolution controversial, so Ohio biology curricula could be in for a surprise.

Hilariously, though, another provision of the bill makes clear that some “foreign policy” matters should have only one side, since it limits a wide range of cooperative agreements with China, and specifies that Ohio universities “may endorse the congress of the United States when it establishes a state of armed hostility against a foreign power.”

Another section of the bill shoehorns in the now-familiar cookie-cutter prohibitions on “divisive concepts” that must not be taught, like the very ideas of inherent bias, white privilege, or systemic racism.

Previously In The Syllabus:

Georgia Schoolchildren Will Just Have To Learn All History From Confederate Statues

David Duke Thanks Tucker Carlson For Spreading ‘Great Replacement’ Lie

Federal Judge Stops DeSantis’s ‘Stop WOKE’ Law, Because ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING HIM

The bill’s multi-pronged attack on diversity, equity, equity, and inclusion also led to widespread condemnation, obviously, because most university faculty, students, and officials aren’t consumers of rightwing media who are worried about the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

That said, Dayton TV station WKRC did manage to scrape up one professor at the University of Cincinnati, criminologist John Paul Wright, who fretted about the school’s diversity and inclusion webpage, and who claimed he heard a colleague say they “will never hire another white male.” Dude is a proponent of some seriously racist “science,” and has called for more research on “the role biology plays in criminal behavior.” I’d say that this guy and his calipers account for all the “intellectual diversity” Ohio universities can stand, honestly.

Shortly before the Ohio Senate passed it, The Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University officially opposed SB 83, stating that it raised First Amendment issues and warning that it could harm the university’s ability to “attract the best students, faculty, and researchers.” It further said the bill could affect “the quality of higher education at all Ohio public universities,” even the ones that don’t insist on having a capitalized definite article in their names.

During debate on the bill, however, Cirino insisted Ohio wouldn’t experience any such brain drain, and would actually make Ohio schools more gooder by attracting … well, people with calipers, basically:

“When all is said and done here, our universities are going to be better,” he said. “We are going to attract more people who have been turned away because of the liberal bias that is incontrovertible in our institutions in Ohio.”

In addition to the gross limitations on academic freedom, which are lawsuit bait if we ever saw it, just like Ron DeSantis’s “Stop WOKE” law, SB 83 would ban strikes by academic workers, require all students to take a course in American history of government — presumably, only the GOOD parts — cut the terms of university and college boards of trustees so they can be replaced by patriots, and would weaken tenure protections.

And if it passes in the state House, will GOP Governor Mike DeWine sign it? How’s this for some impressive waffling? Earlier this month, before it passed in the Senate, DeWine simply said it was still “a work in progress” and that “I have not seen the latest version.” Sounds to us like he wants to follow the spirit of the bill and not take any particular position at all. We’d like to hope the near-universal condemnation of the bill, which will dumb down another great university system, might put his feet to the fire — as long as it’s burning green hydrogen, of course.

[Ohio Senate Bill 83 / Ohio Capitol Journal / USA Today / Ohio Capitol Journal]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can keep you up to date on the vast wave of stupid in this country. And remember, the Wonkette Book Club is reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2020 climate novel The Ministry for the Future,so join us Friday to chat about Chapters 2 through 30 (they’re short chapters!) More details and Part One of our book club discussion here!

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.

Source link

#Ohio #Higher #Bill #Requires #Equal #Time #Climate #Change #Deniers #Racists

Wonkette Book Club Part 1: A (Climate) Change Is Gonna Come

We’re starting off our summer 2023 edition of the Book Club with a book that’s about as timely as you could hope for: Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2020 novel The Ministry for the Future, which imagines a very near future of catastrophic climate change and a decades-long process of humanity’s attempts to bring the climate crisis … well, not under control, but to at least to remake politics and economics in a direction that’s better suited to survival of the Earth’s inhabitants.

For this week, I asked you to read the first chapter, which is fairly short, and and tends to stay with you after you read it. If you just got here and want to catch up, the publisher, Orbit Books, conveniently posted Chapter 1 in full right on the interwebs for free! The discussion from here will involve spoilers for the first chapter, so take a few minutes to go read it … or maybe the discussion here will make you want to go read it.

Last summer, novelist Monica Byrne tweeted for a lot of us who have read the book:

I feel like my circles have divided between those who’ve read the opening chapter of The Ministry for the Future and those who haven’t.

If you haven’t….you should. Because I basically can’t think about my future without it now.


Let’s jump in, shall we? In this brief chapter, we meet one of the novel’s many main characters, Frank May, an American everyliberal from Florida who’s working at the local office of an unnamed relief NGO in a small city in Uttar Pradesh state in India. A perfect storm of atmospheric conditions leads to a long heatwave, with heat and humidity at levels — a “wet bulb” temperature of 38 degrees C (103 degrees Fahrenheit) at dawn, with 35 percent humidity — that’s right on the edge of what human beings can survive.

Then the overstressed electrical grid goes down, all over the region. Things go from bad to worse. No one is coming to help. Frank does what little he can for several local families, inviting them into the clinic where he works, where there’s a single window air conditioner connected by an extension cord to a portable generator on the roof. He keeps for himself the last of the water in the clinic’s refrigerator, in a thermos jug he’s careful not to let anyone see.

The toilets back up, the temperature keeps rising, the oldest and the youngest start dying. On the second day with no power, a group of young men break in and point a gun at Frank, telling him they’ll be taking the AC and the generator.

“We need this more than you do,” one of them explained.

The man with the gun scowled as he heard this. He pointed the gun at Frank one last time. “You did this,” he said, and then they slammed the door on him and were gone.

And really, dear reader, Frank did. So did you. So did I. America and Europe filled the atmosphere with greenhouse gases for 150 years, and then other countries, like China, began adding their own greenhouse emissions. The countries already suffering from the worst effects of climate change — such as last year’s floods in Pakistan, which killed over 1,700 people and left millions homeless — are not the countries that caused the climate disaster.

By the end of the chapter, everyone in the city except Frank is dead. He’s the only person still alive in a shallow lake filled with corpses.

I’m reminded of the end of Flannery O’Connor’s story “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” (spoiler coming!), where the murderous serial killer the Misfit says of the grandmother he’s just killed — after her sudden realization that all humans are family to each other — “She would have been a good woman, if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.”

The first chapter of The Ministry for the Future may just be the gun we all need pointed at our own heads to make us pay attention.

So let’s discuss a few things!

1) How are you doing? This chapter hits hard, but I also want to shake every elected leader in the country and tell them they have to read it. At Slate, Rebecca Onion, in an interview with Robinson, told him that the first chapter “gave me insomnia, dominated my thoughts, and led me to put the book down for a few months. Then I picked it back up and found that the remainder of it is actually quite optimistic.”

Robinson replies:

I wanted pretty much the response you described. Fiction can put people through powerful imaginative experiences; it generates real feelings. So I knew the opening scene would be hard to read, and it was hard to write. It wasn’t a casual decision to try it. I felt that this kind of catastrophe is all too likely to happen in the near future. That prospect frightens me, and I wanted people to understand the danger.

2) Did it work? That is, did the chapter make climate change more real to you? Or did it squick you out so badly that you stopped reading? (If so, do you think you’ll pick it up again?)

3) As you’ll see as we go along, this isn’t whizbang laser gun science fiction. There’s almost no technology we don’t have today — Robinson doesn’t even cheat by bringing cheap infinitely abundant fusion power online a decade from now. If anything, I think the “science” being fictionalized is about equal parts sociology and economics. Gee, I guess that was more a comment than a question.

4) Colonialism is a running theme in the novel, not only as a historical backdrop but, as is the case right now, in terms of how the damage from climate change hits less wealthy nations who had virtually nothing to do with wrecking the planet’s atmosphere. And yet our focus character for Chapter 1 is Frank, an American in India. We don’t get the perspective of any of the Indian characters, just the white outsider who witnesses their deaths. He’s also close to death, but he is the lone survivor. As we keep reading, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how Robinson navigates questions about affluent nations and the parts of the world that have climate change landing on them like a million-pound shithammer.

Those are just starters, of course, it’d be terribly boring if y’all only address those like essay questions. Feel free to disregard them if you want to talk about other stuff, including just your visceral reactions to the story — one of the things I loved about Glen Reed, my American Lit professor at Northern Arizona University, was that on the day we discussed “A Good Man Is Hard to Find,” he didn’t start off with the standard stuff about O’Connor’s work, her Catholic faith, and the way her stories often rise to a crisis and a “moment of grace.” Instead, he said that every time he’d read the story, it just scared the hell out of him to think of his own family in such a situation: having a car wreck out in the middle of nowhere because of a bad turn, and then the person who finds you is a killer. I loved him for that.

So let’s also talk about this chapter, and climate change, as humans. Let’s talk about the whole book that way.

Your assignment for next Friday is a lot more than for today: Let’s read through Chapter 30 (they’re mostly short chapters, some only a page or less).

And if you haven’t read the book (THIS week you can go do the reading right now of course), always feel free to join the conversation. It’s not a class and there won’t be a quiz. Also, no worries about spoilers, since for the most part this is an idea-driven book, not a plot-driven one. (We’ll talk about that more next week, including the fairly common complaint from some readers that after that holy shit first chapter, the rest of the book reads like a collection of white papers, not a novel.)

The one rule I am going to enforce strictly for this post is that, to keep the conversation focused, I will remove any off topic comments and ask you to save ’em for the open thread in a couple hours, please. I’d honestly like to keep the conversation going all weekend, and if you wanna come back and say more, please do so!

So talk!

[The Ministry for the Future (Wonkette gets a bit of sales from this linky) / Slate / Chapter 1 at Orbit Books]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month to help us keep this little mommyblog going!

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.



Source link

#Wonkette #Book #Club #Part #Climate #Change #Gonna

Climate change is hurting the Earth. It will hurt your wallet, too

By Gary Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies Emeritus, Wesleyan University

Climate change will endanger financial security, our personal health, and the planet we love living on. Real solutions will only come from governments that require equal participation and collaboration between all, Prof Gary Yohe writes.

A recent study by a group of scientists and economists reveals that climate change is more than an environmental problem. It’s an economic crisis too. 

The Illinois professors claim that decreasing pollution by 90% and suppressing global warming to 1.5C by 2100 will avoid slow economic growth. 

The dropping cost of solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, and turbines supports the notion that adopting this bold transition wouldn’t overburden federal and private budgets either. 

If financial and environmental ministries were unified towards ending climate change, the planet’s health and wealth would drastically multiply with the guarantee that’s protected for centuries.

Failed commitments to effective climate change policies will greatly harm humanity and require enormous changes and social-economic systems. 

This is no surprise. Society is accustomed to the “we should be doing more” narrative of climate change, and although I believe doing so would significantly help the Earth, I can understand why some don’t connect with that idea.

Perspective matters

Most people live in cities and can’t envision how losing the world’s largest rainforest actually affects them.

One example of how climate change can severely impact our lives is through food. Rising CO2 levels cause increased fungal diseases in wheat, which can jeopardise our food sources and the production sectors that gain profit from it. 

This crisis might further cause the destruction of a domestic market because who will make money if no one has access to clean food?

Although climate change isn’t entirely responsible for decades of violent conflict within places like Syria, food insecurity can definitely influence these crises. 

The Foreign Policy Research Institute has mirrored this argument when speaking about Africa’s struggle to stay economically valuable. 

The continent’s fluctuating rainfall disrupts agricultural yields and keeps populations perpetually malnourished. 

These problems are concerning for the “tree huggers” that have always cared about the environment and human suffering, but why should Europeans, Americans, or any other person living in a developed country really care? And what would it look like if those in power did?

We should find the right incentives

Climate policy can be designed to promote a lower carbon economy by giving companies financial incentives for complying. 

In this scenario, utilising green practices would become important to shareholders, and businesses would seek those rewards. The benefits are being added frequently — PwC already has a tracker for green tax incentives in 88 countries.

Once common practice, the billions of dollars and euros spent annually because of climate change would plummet. 

Think of all the disasters that would no longer dent federal spending: rebuilding Puerto Rico’s power grid in 2017 after Hurricane Maria was one example that cost around $17 billion (€15.7bn).

Despite the clear toll on the environment and federal spending, people in power have perhaps the most significant role in what happens to our world. 

This is why the dialogue around this issue needs to change. The information presented at COP meetings and within government walls should highlight why transitioning will bring a net profit to everyone’s bottom line.

Who is liable for climate change?

Progress is being made in governmental bodies as well, but it will take a long time to come to fruition.

Last month, the International Court of Justice responded to the United Nations General Assembly’s advisory opinion request surrounding climate change liability. 

In simple terms, this means that the UNGA is asking the ICJ to determine whether current laws are sufficient and who should pay for damages. 

No new policies will be constructed at this stage because the ICJ can only advise how they can be improved.

Instead of relying on lengthy judicial processes to bring effective climate policies, we should expand current government protocols to include climate risks as they were to preserve financial stability for businesses and individuals. 

Financial and environmental bureaus often operate like fans of rivalling sports teams when really, they’re both on the same side. 

Those with the markets in mind want growth and healthy margins, while nature lovers want a world their kids can survive in. The priorities both hinge on well-being, whether that’s material or spiritual.

We must fight for the planet we love living on

The truth is, climate-driven conflict is simply not an African problem. Hotspots have erupted around the world, and peace-threatening risks will only increase in intensity and frequency as the environment worsens. 

Climate change will endanger financial security, our personal health, and the planet we love living on.

Real solutions will only come from governments that require equal participation and collaboration between all. 

This united effort would bring prosperity and safety and have a lasting impact on the world. 

Cross-boundary conflicts and the humanitarian crises that have resulted because of them would be properly addressed, and peace would become an international standard that’s actually met. 

Our strength is in numbers, and we must fight for a planet that will accommodate us for many decades to come while simultaneously uplifting the success of our financial ventures. 

In the long run, either we all win or we all lose. There is no compromise.

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus at Wesleyan University and convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014. He also served as the vice-chair of the Third US National Climate Assessment.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Climate #change #hurting #Earth #hurt #wallet