More stories

  • in

    Climate crisis breaks open generational rifts in US families

    The climate crisis lingers in the back of Gemma Gutierrez’s mind, a gnawing anxiety that blossoms fully when she reads about wildfires, flooding or other climate-related disasters. It’s a nagging concern that clouds how the 16-year-old sees her future.“I have a sense of dread,” says Gutierrez, who lives with her parents in Milwaukee. “I dread that in my lifetime the clean water I have now or the parks I’m lucky enough to be able to go to won’t be there any more. It weighs on my mind.”Like a growing number of young people in the US, Gutierrez sees climate change casting a long shadow over her adult years. She has been inspired by Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate activist, and has contacted her local elected representatives to raise her concerns.The looming US presidential election has only sharpened her fears, as well as underlining a generational rift in her family. In a scenario playing out in many American families, a sense of despair and outrage among young people over global heating is being met with indifference and even dismissal among some of their older relatives. More

  • in

    'Crossroads of the climate crisis': swing state Arizona grapples with deadly heat

    [embedded content]
    Even now, Ivan Moore can’t think why his father didn’t didn’t tell anyone that the air conditioning in their house was busted. “I honestly don’t know what was going through his mind,” he said.
    That week three years ago, temperatures in Phoenix, Arizona were forecasted to top 115F (46C). Moore, his wife and two children went to the mountains for a camping trip, and his dad Gene, stayed behind. A few days later, Gene died.
    The air conditioning had been blowing hot air. “He’d opened a window but it was too hot,” Moore said. “My dad’s heart basically gave out on him.”
    Phoenix – America’s hottest city – is getting hotter and hotter, and Moore’s father is one of the hundreds of Arizonans who have succumbed to the desert heat in recent years. More

  • in

    Why Biden calls Trump a ‘climate arsonist’ – video explainer

    Humanity is said to have just 10 years left to start seriously tackling the climate crisis before passing the ‘point of no return’ with multiple-degree temperature increases, rising sea levels and increasingly disastrous wildfires, hurricanes, floods and droughts predicted.Scientists say the US is far off the path of what is necessary for the nation and the world to avoid catastrophic global heating, particularly as in the past four years Donald Trump has shredded environmental protections for American lands, animals and people.As part of our climate countdown series, the Guardian’s Emily Holden looks at the issue and examines why the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, calls his rival a ‘climate arsonist’ Revealed: the full extent of Trump’s ‘meat cleaver’ assault on US wildernessSign up for Fight to Vote – our weekly US election newsletterContinue reading… More

  • in

    Republicans want to open pristine Alaska wilderness to logging. This is a tragedy | Kim Heacox

    Forests are the lungs of the Earth.Around the world, every minute of every day, trees perform magic. They inhale vast amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and exhale oxygen, the stuff of life. They keep things in balance. And no single forest does this better – contains more living plant life per area, or stores more carbon – than the 17m-acre Tongass national forest in coastal Alaska.Take a deep breath. The oxygen you just pulled into your lungs that entered your bloodstream and nourished your mind was once in a tree.The Amazon of North America, the Tongass is mostly a roadless, wilderness kingdom of mosses, lichens, salmon, deer, bald eagles and bears – all beneath ice-capped mountains, ribboned with blue glaciers, blanketed with green, shaggy stands of Sitka spruce, western red cedar and western hemlock. Trees up to 10 feet in diameter, 200 feet tall, and 800 years old. But while the Amazon is a tropical rainforest, the Tongass, found at the mid-latitudes, is a temperate rainforest, one of the rarest biomes on Earth (found only in coastal Alaska and British Columbia, the Pacific north-west, the southern coast of Chile, and the South Island of New Zealand).A true old-growth forest, the Tongass represents a council of ancients. Indigenous Tlingit elders say it is rich with answers – even wisdom – if we ask the right questions and show proper restraint.And what does the Trump administration intend to do with it?Open it up for business.Their plan, more than two years in the making and spearheaded by the Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, secretary of agriculture, Sonny Perdue, and Alaska governor, Mike Dunleavy – all Republicans bereft of a science education and an ecological conscience – is simple and wrongheaded: put the Tongass back to work as a so-called “healthy” forest, according to Mr Perdue. How? By re-introducing large-scale clearcut logging and extensive road building on 9.3m acres. To do this, they must exempt Alaska from the 2001 US Forest Service “Roadless Rule”, an enlightened conservation initiative that applies to 39 states. In short, the Tongass would no longer be protected.A final decision is likely to be released later this month.Never mind that 96% of thousands of recent public comments say the Tongass should remain roadless to protect clean water, salmon streams, wildlife habitat and old-growth trees. Never mind as well that logging the Tongass would create few jobs while adding to an already bloated federal deficit.Logging in Alaska is heavily subsidized.Back in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, taxpaying Americans anted up an average of $30m a year. One deficit sale offered every 1,000 board feet of timber for less money than the cost of a cheeseburger. All while many of the trees were shipped “in the round” (as whole logs) to Asia to become rayon, cellophane and other throwaway consumer goods. Another sale generated only 2.5 cents on every dollar the Forest Service spent building roads and preparing paperwork.And today? To build roads in the Tongass would cost taxpayers up to $500,000 a mile.The wholesale destruction of our imperiled planet’s most life-sustaining forests has to stopAnthropologist and former Alaska writer laureate Richard Nelson, who lived in Sitka, on the edge of the Tongass, once said he wasn’t bothered when he found a stump in the forest. What broke his heart was when he came upon a “forest of stumps”. Entire mountainsides, valleys and islands shorn of trees.Yes, parts of the Tongass can be responsibly cut, and are. Many local Alaska economies use second-growth stands to harvest good building materials.And yes, a ravaged forest will return, but not for a long time. The Alaska department of fish and game estimates that large, industrial-scale Tongass clearcuts need more than 200 years to “acquire the uneven-aged tree structure and understory characteristic of old growth”. That is, to be truly healthy and robust again. This according to scientists, not politicians.The wholesale destruction of our imperiled planet’s most life-sustaining forests has to stop. How? A good first step: vote for politicians who make decisions based on solid science.Between 2001 and 2017, 800m acres of tree cover (an area nearly 50 times larger than the Tongass) disappeared worldwide, all while global temperatures climbed, wild birds and mammals perished by the billions, and fires, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts intensified. And since 2017? Witness Australia and California.What few large, primal forests remain intact today, such the Tongass, become increasingly valuable for their ability to mitigate climate change. Scientists call this “pro-forestation”: the practice of leaving mature forests intact to reach their full ecological potential. The Tongass alone sequesters 3m tons of C02 annually, the equivalent of removing 650,000 gas-burning cars off the roads of the US every year.The better we understand science and indigenous wisdom, the better we’ll recognize the living Earth as a great teacher that’s fast becoming our ailing dependent. We each get three minutes without oxygen, and we’re not the only ones. It’s a matter of having a deep and abiding regard for all life.Call it respect.“What makes a place special is the way it buries itself inside the heart,” Nelson wrote in his memoir, The Island Within. “[N]ot whether it’s flat or rugged, rich or austere, wet or arid, gentle or harsh, warm or cold, wild or tame. Every place, like every person, is elevated by the love and respect shown toward it, and by the way in which its bounty is received.”Kim Heacox is the author of books including The Only Kayak, a memoir, and Jimmy Bluefeather, the only novel to ever win the National Outdoor Book Award. He lives in Alaska, on the edge of the Tongass More

  • in

    'Kills all the birds': Trump and Biden spar over climate in TV debate – video

    The closing moments of the final presidential debate focused on climate change. Joe Biden stressed the need to expand sources of renewable energy while again disputing Donald Trump’s claim that he intended to ban fracking, which he does not. ‘I know more about wind than you do,’ Trump retorted, drawing an exasperated laugh from Biden. ‘It’s extremely expensive. Kills all the birds’
    Humanity has eight years to get climate crisis under control – and Trump’s plan won’t fix it
    Sign up for Fight to Vote – our weekly US election newsletter More

  • in

    Humanity has eight years to get climate crisis under control – and Trump's plan won't fix it

    In Donald Trump’s world – laid bare during Thursday night’s final presidential debate with his Democratic rival Joe Biden in Nashville – fossil fuels are “very clean”, the US has the best air and water despite his administration’s extensive regulatory rollbacks, and the country can fix climate change by planting trees.
    But according to the harsh realities being laid out by climate scientists, Trump’s world does not exist.
    Humanity has just eight years to figure out how to get climate change under control before the future starts to look drastically worse – multiple-degree temperature increases, global sea-level rise, and increasingly disastrous wildfires, hurricanes, floods and droughts. Doing so will mean that unless there is a technological miracle, humans will at some point have to stop burning oil, gas and coal.
    “We’re told by all the leading scientists in the world we don’t have much time,” Biden said. “We’re going to pass the point of no return within the next eight to 10 years. Four more years of this man … will put us in a position where we’ll be in real trouble,” the former vice-president said.
    Much of the media coverage of the exchange – which as usual didn’t come until the end of the debate as time was running out – will probably focus on Trump’s attacks on Biden. He called his plan job-killing, argued it would cost $100tn and not $6tn, and accused Biden of flip-flopping on fracking. The drilling method has fueled a natural gas boom in swing states such as Pennsylvania, which both candidates see as critically important to winning the election. At one point, Biden dared Trump to publish evidence of him ever saying he would end fracking, and Trump promised he would.
    Stories might quote Trump, who has denied the human-made climate crisis in a variety of strange ways, telling Biden “I know more about wind than you,” despite previously wrongly claiming wind power causes cancer. “They want to take buildings down because they want to make bigger windows into smaller windows. As far as they’re concerned if you had no window it would be a lovely thing,” Trump accused in another tangent. “This is the craziest plan that anyone has ever seen. It wasn’t done by smart people. Frankly, I don’t know how it could be good politically.”
    But perhaps the most interesting point was when the candidates were asked what they would do for people – often people of color – who are living next to polluting gasoline refineries and petrochemical plants.
    Trump pressed Biden: “Would you close down the oil industry?”
    And Biden, who might typically steer clear of such a politically controversial question, said he would.
    “I would transition from the oil industry, yes,” Biden said.
    “The oil industry pollutes significantly,” he added. “It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time.”
    Trump shot back that Biden “is saying is he would destroy the oil industry”.
    “Would you remember that Texas? Would you remember that Pennsylvania? Oklahoma? Ohio?”

    The moment was notable, including because it was the opposite of what he said about natural gas. He would not commit to any kind of end to the second half of the industry which has a fast-growing role in causing climate change.
    “We need other industries to transition to get to ultimately a complete zero-emissions,” Biden said. “What I will do with fracking over time is to make sure we will capture the emissions from the fracking, capture the emissions from gas. We can do that by investing money.”
    Speaking to reporters after the debate, Biden insisted the fossil fuel industry wouldn’t “be gone” until 2050.
    “We’re not getting rid of fossil fuels. We’re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels, but we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time,” Biden said.
    Those kinds of statements illuminate why American environmental advocates have quietly worried whether Biden will do enough on climate, even as they have endorsed him and backed his plan.
    While Biden is pitching large-scale spending to both help the economy recover and put people to work in green jobs, some fear climate could get lost among his priorities or that the political roadblocks to working with Congress and getting climate efforts past a conservative supreme court would prove too difficult.
    A Trump win could be devastating to both US and global climate action, but a Biden win is not assured to significantly address the challenge either. More

  • in

    For Australia's sake, I hope Trump's climate science denialism loses | Michael Mann

    Anyone in Australia who witnessed the Black Summer bushfires (as I did), and anyone in the US who experienced the thick smoke from our western wildfires (as I have), knows how much damage climate change is already doing. The stark reality is that worldwide efforts to avert ever-more catastrophic climate change impacts lie in the balance in the 2020 US election.Donald Trump will go down in history bearing substantial responsibility for the deaths of over 200,000 Americans due to his rejection of the advice of public health experts and his refusal to endorse policies such as social distancing and mask-wearing that could have saved many thousands of lives. But his rejection of the science of climate change sets the stage for a far greater toll. Far more human lives will be lost from the impacts of climate change if we fail to act.Whether or not Trump gets re-elected – and how other countries like Australia respond to the outcome of the US election – could determine the fate of our planet. Indeed, I’ve stated that a second Trump term might well be “game over for the climate” if it leads to the collapse of international efforts to act.The damage caused by Trump’s climate denial is painfully visible within the US as we endure climate change-fuelled extreme weather events, including unprecedented wildfires in the west and unprecedented hurricanes in the east. But the damage can be felt around the world. Trump has proudly, and shamelessly, trumpeted his climate denialism on the global stage, joining with petrostates such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil in opposing international climate efforts.Indeed, Trump’s actions have emboldened Australia to be less ambitious on climate too, prime minister Scott Morrison following Trump’s lead in promoting climate denial, coddling fossil fuel interests and blocking efforts to support a clean, renewable energy transition.By pulling the US out of the Paris agreement (one of the first and only campaign promises he kept) Trump ceded America’s leadership on the defining challenge of our time. Thus far, other countries have fortunately filled the leadership void, at least temporarily. The EU and China, with its new net-zero pledge, have stepped up to the plate, recognising that they will benefit from the opportunities of a clean energy economy and better protect their citizens from dangerous climate change impacts.But nobody stands to benefit more from climate action, or lose more if we fail to act, than Australia. Having spent a sabbatical leave down under earlier this year, aimed at collaborating with scientists in Australia to study the impact of climate change on extreme weather events, I instead witnessed those impacts first-hand. I saw the muted beauty of the Blue Mountains when shrouded in wildfire smoke. If Trump is re-elected, and we collectively continue down a path of insufficient climate action, it may not be long before those fires rage year-round, and the Blue Mountains are lost in a perpetual grey and dismal haze.It’s the same with the vibrant sea life of the Great Barrier Reef, which I was fortunate enough to witness with my family during my time in Australia. The delicate ecosystems of the GBR are already on the ropes, with fossil fuels pushing up temperatures in the ocean to the point where bleachings occur with such frequency and ferocity that corals simply cannot recover. Research released this week found that the reef has lost half its coral, largely due to warming oceans caused by climate change. Add the impact of ocean acidification from increasing carbon emissions, and we could sadly, within a decade or two, be reading the GBR’s obituary for real.It doesn’t have to be like that. For one thing, renewable energy costs are plummeting while the technology just keeps getting more efficient and better, so dirty energy no longer makes economic sense. For example, on one recent Sunday, all the electricity demand for the entire state of South Australia was met by solar power alone, and every state and territory in Australia has committed to go carbon neutral by 2050. Here in the US, we’ve seen a record number of cities and states stepping up on climate goals too, knowing clean energy is good for their communities’ health, resilience and prosperity.Policymakers must accelerate the shift to clean energy that is already under way. As we’ve learned in the Trump-era, some fossil fuels are too far gone for even the most determined polluter-in-chief to save. Though another term would give Trump time to defend his environmental rollbacks in court and solidify his dirty energy policies, he has already failed to save coal from market forces, and another four years isn’t going to reverse the long-term decline of the industry.This is a cautionary tale for Australia. In both the US and Australia, conservative politicians seem more eager to bail out dirty polluters than protect the public, denying politically inconvenient science in order to offer lavish payouts to help unprofitable fossil fuel companies.If we are to avert catastrophic warming, we must do just the opposite, providing financial incentives for renewables and disincentives for fossil fuels. That will level the playing field, and accelerate the clean energy transition.We must take the earliest exit possible off the fossil fuel highway. By trying to squeeze out the last drop of fossil fuel industry profits, the Morrison government could well be on its way to bleaching the life from Australia’s coral reefs and blighting the blue of its mountains.There is some good news, however. Regardless of whom Americans vote for – and for the sake of the planet, I hope it’s Joe Biden and the Democrats – Australians can still work together for structural change at home. You can’t solve it alone, but we also can’t solve it without you. Australia has seen that the sun can power an entire state’s electricity for a day. Now it’s time to make that happen every day.Australia must distance itself from the handful of bad petrostate actors who have sabotaged global climate action and rejoin the coalition of the willing, when it comes to the battle to save our planet.• Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. He is author of the upcoming book The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet, due out in January (Public Affairs Books) More