Climate crisis

Subterms

    More stories

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘He said it was my opinion that humans caused climate change. No, it’s science’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘He said it was my opinion that humans caused climate change. No, it’s science’He’s a Republican, she is a Democrat – can they find any common ground on the climate crisis, taxes or the truth about the Capitol attack?April, 48, Boulder, ColoradoOccupation Massage therapistVoting record Democrat. April says: “I have always had liberal views”Amuse bouche April has a dog “the size of a squirrel”. She’s an artist and does graphite illustrationsTed, 59, Boulder, ColoradoOccupation Sales managerVoting record Republican. Voted for Trump twice, but doesn’t defend him – “I think he was kind of a jackass, the way he carried himself in public”Amuse bouche Ted, who is one of April’s clients, almost died after jumping into a supposedly dry stream to retrieve a golf ball. He got stuck waist-deep in mud and his friends had to fish him out with a poleFor startersApril I don’t usually hang out with my clients, but it wasn’t awkward. I’ve known Ted for a few years and we’ve developed a comfortable relationship. Still, there’s a different power differential when the person’s naked on the bed and you’re not.Ted At the beginning, we were joking about whether this was going to be a cat fight. But it didn’t turn out to be; it was a lively debate. Before I left for the dinner, my wife told me: “Remember, it’s OK to have different opinions!” I went there with an open mind.April I had oysters on the half shell, half a steamed lobster, a cup of gumbo, key lime pie and a pinot grigio. I didn’t know you could get such good oysters in the middle of the country.Ted I had mussels and a bowl of gumbo.The big beefApril We got swept up in talking about the climate. He believes climate change is real but doesn’t believe humans are responsible.Ted She kept using the word “exponentially”. And I just don’t know for sure if humans are powerful enough to change the course of events on Earth to the extent she thinks we can.April I was emphasizing that if you look at history, the speed of climate change is unprecedented. It took thousands of years for the magnitude of change we’ve caused in one century. And he didn’t agree. He kept saying it was my opinion. I’m like, no, it’s science. There’s research.Ted Another point of contention was transitioning to green energy. I think we should continue to use fossil fuels until we get the clean energy ready to go and then transition, like the market would have you do. She’s ready to make the change now. She thinks the oil companies are profiteers. I think we’re in a capitalist society and they’re just making money. It’s very expensive to go out and find oil and gas. I don’t think they’re taking advantage of us.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateApril We agreed that politicians on both sides are insanely greedy. They all seem to think they should be allowed to invest in stocks while in office. We both think Washington is a swamp.Ted Neither of us have trust in politicians. They’re going to pander to whomever they’re trying to talk to, but it’s like professional wrestling: you’re arch enemies on TV, and then you go out and share drinks.For aftersApril We had a hard time understanding each other’s perspectives around inequality and taxation. He has more experience in economics, but I have more experience living at the lower end of those economics. I think corporations and top executives need to be taxed more and have their bonuses revamped.Ted There’s plenty of money to go around. Instead of just throwing money at an issue, we need to manage it better. Take education: I think there’s local corruption. The teachers’ unions are a problem. We should get the local people out of there and have it run by outsiders.April January 6 came up. We had very different views of what happened. We ended up steering away from the subject because we knew nothing productive was going to happen there. We would end up in a situation where he wouldn’t be coming back to see me ever again as a client if we continued on that subject.Ted Supposedly there’s a video they’re going to release that shows the FBI had a number of agents dressed as Trump supporters at the rally. I don’t think the whole thing was a setup, but my opinion is they’re trying to do anything they can to keep Donald Trump from being in office or running again.TakeawaysTed We had some common ground, but she was pretty adamant on her views and I wasn’t going to back down on mine. I think people pull themselves up, they work hard, and get successful. She has more of a victim mentality. That shapes how she sees things.April Ted’s a great guy and he’d give you the shirt off his back. But nothing will change his mind on the climate. There’s a lack of trust in anything that comes out of our side. That’s what he was calling it. He was like: “Your side, my side.” It became an argument rather than a debate at that point.Additional reporting: Kitty Drake April and Ted ate at Jax Fish House & Oyster Bar in Boulder, Colorado.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsClimate crisisDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The American climate migration has already begun | Jake Bittle

      by

      The American climate migration has already begunJake BittleLast year, 3 million were displaced in the US. Millions more will follow – and neither they, the government or the housing market are readyOver the past decade, the US has experienced a succession of monumental climate disasters. Hurricanes have obliterated parts of the Gulf Coast, dumping more than 50in of rain in some places. Wildfires have denuded the California wilderness and destroyed thousands of homes. A once-in-a-millennium drought has dried up rivers and forced farmers to stop planting crops. Many of these disasters have no precedent in living memory, and they have dominated the headlines as Americans process the power of a changing climate.But the disasters themselves are only half the story. The real story of climate change begins only once the skies clear and the fire burns out, and it has received far less attention in the mainstream media.Today, California is hammered by extreme weather. Tomorrow, it could be your area | Julia ScheeresRead moreIn the aftermath of climate disasters, as victims try to cope with the destruction of their homes and communities, they start to move around in search of safe and affordable shelter. Many of them have no choice but to move in with family members or friends, while others find themselves forced to seek out cheaper apartments in other cities. Some rebuild their homes only to sell them and move to places they deem less vulnerable, while others move away only to return and lose their homes again in another storm or fire.We as Americans don’t often hear about this chaotic process of displacement and relocation, but the scale of movement is already overwhelming: more than 3 million Americans lost their homes to climate disasters last year, and a substantial number of those will never make it back to their original properties. Over the coming decades, the total number of displaced will swell by millions and tens of millions, forcing Americans from the most vulnerable parts of the country into an unpredictable, quasi-permanent exile from the places they know and love.This migration won’t be a linear movement from point A to point B, and neither will it be a slow march away from the coastlines and the hottest places. Rather, the most vulnerable parts of the United States will enter a chaotic churn of instability as some people leave, others move around within the same town or city, and still others arrive only to leave again. In parts of California that are ravaged by wildfire, disaster victims will vie against millions of other state residents for apartments in the state’s turbulent housing market. In cities like Miami and Norfolk, where sea levels are rising, homeowners may watch their homes lose value as the market shies away from flood-prone areas. The effects will be different in every place, but almost everywhere the result will be the same: safe shelter will get scarcer and more expensive, loosening people’s grip on the stability that comes with a permanent home.The warming of the planet is only part of the reason for this displacement. It’s true that as the Gulf of Mexico warms up and heat dries out western ecosystems, ordinary disasters become more severe. But again, that’s only part of the story. The other reason for all this climate chaos is that the US has spent much of the past century building millions of homes in the most vulnerable places, pushing into fire-prone mountain ranges and right up to the banks of rivers that were destined to flood. The developers and local officials who were responsible for all this construction were sometimes ignorant of the dangers, but other times they steamrolled ahead even while knowing the potential for ruin.All that construction has put millions of people in harm’s way, and the public and private entities who aid in disaster recovery can’t keep up. The US Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) lacks the resources to help the communities hit by disasters achieve a long-term recovery, and the agency spends most of its money on building things back exactly the same as they once were, which locks in the potential for future disasters to ruin the same homes and displace the same people. The Biden administration has funneled billions of dollars into new programs that could help communities armor against future disasters, but progress has been slow.Fossil fuel companies won’t save us from climate change. We need governments to step up | Adam MortonRead moreThe private insurance industry and the private housing market also push people out of their homes. In California, for instance, the large insurers have stopped offering fire insurance to people who live in the riskiest areas, or have raised costs to unaffordable levels, forcing homeowners to reconsider whether they can afford to stay where they are. Many of the places that are most vulnerable to disasters are also experiencing a severe housing shortage, which makes recovery almost impossible.The federal government has the resources to help address this chaos. Lawmakers could ramp up programs that protect against floods and fires. They could give people money to relocate from vulnerable homes or to find new jobs if climate change makes their old jobs impossible or dangerous. Meanwhile, the White House could take a leading role in planning for future migration, incentivizing growth in places that are less vulnerable and easing the transition away from the riskiest places.But doing any of these things would first require government officials to acknowledge the scale of climate displacement that has happened already, and shed light on a crisis that has for too long gone ignored.
      Jake Bittle is a contributing writer for Grist. His climate and energy reporting has also appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian, Harper’s and other publications. He is the author of The Great Displacement: Climate Change and the Next American Migration (Simon & Schuster, 21 February)
      TopicsEnvironmentOpinionClimate crisisEnergyClimate crisis in the American westClimate science scepticism and denialUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Help us fight’: California farmers ask for more aid after deadly storms

      by

      ‘Help us fight’: California farmers ask for more aid after deadly stormsDespite a new relief fund in Sonoma county, farm workers face economic catastrophe when storms and fires strikeAs a series of deadly storms whipped through California’s wine country, liquefying fields and turning vineyards into wading pools, thousands of farm workers in the region were forced to stay home. Though the power has been long since restored and roads reopened – many of them are still confronting an economic catastrophe.For Isidro Rodriguez, the storms caused him to lose half his monthly income – about $1,100.TopicsCaliforniaClimate crisisWorkers’ rightsFarmingMigrationUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans in the US ‘battery belt’ embrace Biden’s climate spending

      by

      Republicans in the US ‘battery belt’ embrace Biden’s climate spending Southern states led by Republicans did not vote for climate spending, but now embrace clean energy dollars like never beforeGeorgia, a state once known for its peaches and peanuts, is rapidly becoming a crucible of clean energy technology in the US, leading a pack of Republican-led states enjoying a boom in renewables investment that has been accelerated by Joe Biden’s climate agenda.Since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August, billions of dollars of new clean energy investment has been announced for solar, electric vehicle and battery manufacturing in Georgia, pushing it to the forefront of a swathe of southern states that are becoming a so-called “battery belt” in the economic transition away from fossil fuels.Biden’s climate bill victory was hard won. Now, the real battle startsRead more“It seems like all roads are currently leading to Georgia, it’s really benefiting disproportionately from the Inflation Reduction Act right now,” said Aaron Brickman, senior principal at energy research nonprofit RMI. Brickman said the $370bn in clean energy incentives and tax credits in the bill are a “complete game changer. We’ve just frankly never had that before in this country. The IRA has transformed the landscape in a staggering way”.Georgia is part of a pattern where Republican-headed states have claimed the lion’s share of new renewable energy and electric vehicle activity since the legislation, with Republican-held Congressional districts hosting more than 80% of all utility-scale wind or solar farms and battery projects currently in advanced development, according to an analysis by American Clean Power.States blessed with plentiful wind and sunshine, along with significant rural and industrial communities, such as those across the Great Plains and the south, appear best positioned to capitalize on the climate bill. Texas, already a bastion of wind power, could see $131bn in IRA-linked investment this decade, Florida may see $62bn and Georgia $16bn, according to an RMI analysis.The irony of this bonanza, which is coming despite no Republican voting for the climate spending, was alluded to by Biden in his recent state of the union address. “My Republican friends who voted against it – I still get asked to fund the projects in those districts as well,” the US president said, to jeers from some members of Congress. “But don’t worry, I promised I’d be a president for all Americans. We’ll fund these projects and I’ll see you at the groundbreaking.”Beeswarm bubble chart of states’ IRA climate investmentsA mixed political groundbreaking did take place in Georgia in October, when Brian Kemp, the Republican governor, was served champagne by a robotic dog before ceremonially shoveling dirt alongside Democratic senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to kick off Hyundai’s first dedicated electric vehicle plant in the US.The $5.5bn facility in Bryan county, which will create around 8,000 jobs when it opens in 2025, came about because “we heard the clarion call of this administration to hasten the adoption of new electric vehicles and reduce carbon emissions”, according to José Muñoz, Hyundai’s global president.Ossoff told the Guardian he has long held a vision that Georgia “should be the advanced energy innovation and manufacturing hub for the US” and credits a bill he wrote, the Solar Energy Manufacturing for America Act, which was then folded into the IRA, for helping convince Hanwha Qcells, another South Korean-owned company, to commit $2.5bn for two new solar panel factories in the state in January.“This targeted legislation was by no means a foregone conclusion but passing it has opened the floodgates in Georgia,” Ossoff said. Democrats have touted the bill for not only helping tackle the climate crisis but also as a way to wrest the initiative from China, which has dominated the manufacturing of parts for clean energy systems and electric cars until now.Georgia’s embrace of clean energy technology was underway before the IRA, with Atlanta, bolstered by leading renewables research at Georgia Tech, increasingly viewed as an innovative fulcrum. In 2021, Freyr, a Norwegian company, announced a $1.7bn battery plant for Coweta county, south of Atlanta, while SK Battery, yet another South Korean-owned firm, said last spring it will hire another 3,000 workers at its battery factory in Commerce, north-east of Georgia’s capital.Rivian, the electric car company, meanwhile is keen to build a sprawling $5bn facility east of Atlanta although it has faced opposition from some residents in the small town of Rutledge, who have sued to stop the development.But last year’s IRA, with its sweeping tax incentives for emissions-reducing technologies, has made the environment even more enticing. Scott Moskowitz, head of market strategy for Qcells said that Georgia has been a “great home” since 2019 but that the IRA is “some of the most ambitious clean energy policy passed anywhere in the world” and gave the Hanwha-owned company certainty to triple capacity at its site in Dalton, which already cranks out around 12,000 solar panels a day, as well as create a new complex in Cartersville that will manufacture ingots and wafers, the basic building blocks of solar panel components, made from poly silicon.“There’s a ton of opportunity and excitement in [the] clean energy sector right now,” Moskowitz said. “We’ve always had strong support from both sides of the aisle, even if there hasn’t always been agreement.”Map of recently announced clean energy projects in GeorgiaBarry Loudermilk, a Republican congressman whose House of Representatives district includes Cartersville, denied that the rush of investment is politically awkward for the GOP, accusing Biden of an “elementary school-level response” to the issue in his state of the union speech.“I’m not against this industry and I’m all about bringing in new technology, but it has to be market-driven,” Loudermilk told the Guardian. “When the government heavily subsidizes something it will crest and then fall down because the market hasn’t matured.“We aren’t ready for this (full EV and clean energy adoption). This is just subsidizing one industry over another and just throwing taxpayer dollars at something usually just leads to failure, and sets you back a decade.”Georgia is a draw for businesses due to its relatively low tax rate, transport links -including Atlanta’s busy airport and Savannah’s deep port – and a diverse and adept pool of workers, according to Loudermilk. “The days of the backwoods country bumpkin are in the past, we have educated, skilled workforce,” he said.It’s uncertain whether Loudermilk will be at the Cartersville groundbreaking, nor Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right extremist who represents the neighboring congressional district that includes Dalton. Greene has previously said the IRA is an “energy disaster” and erroneously said that global heating is “actually healthy for us”, although she has said she welcomes any new jobs to Georgia.Warned of ‘massive’ climate-led extinction, a US energy firm funded crisis denial adsRead moreKemp, meanwhile, has offered state-level incentives for firms to set up in Georgia, while denouncing Democrats for “picking winners and losers” with the national climate bill. The governor recently pitched his state as a destination for clean tech investment at Davos and has denied any hypocrisy in his stance.“Georgia is a destination state for all manner of new jobs and opportunity despite the bad policies coming out of DC – not because of them,” said a spokesman for Kemp. “Companies are choosing Georgia over places like New York and California because they know they’ll find success here, not because of the IRA.”Even if the causes for the renewables investment are in dispute, the trajectory of the transition is becoming more undeniable. As the cost of renewables continues to plummet and more Americans turn to electric cars, thanks in part to the “unprecedented scale” of the IRA, partisan divides on the issue may soften, according to Ashna Aggarwal, an associate at RMI, the energy research nonprofit.“This is a bill that benefits everyone and it actually benefits the people who weren’t necessarily in favor of the bill the most,” Aggarwal said.“I think what’s really exciting about the clean energy economy is that party lines don’t really matter here. There’s more opportunity for Republican states and I hope that Republican policymakers see that and really think this is good for the people who are living in our states.”TopicsRenewable energyEnergyClimate crisisGeorgiaUS politicsBiden administrationEnergy industryfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A national scandal’: how US climate funding could make water pollution worse

      by

      ‘A national scandal’: how US climate funding could make water pollution worse The Inflation Reduction Act was hailed for its climate funding – but some are concerned several provisions will worsen a growing environmental disasterThe $369bn Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was applauded by a chorus of US organizations and activists enthusiastic about the generous funding earmarked for projects designed to mitigate climate change and improve environmental health.But some researchers and activists are raising concerns that several provisions of the new law will actually worsen a growing environmental disaster in the nation’s heartland by increasing the tide of farm-related pollution washing into waterways and groundwater.US dairy policies drive small farms to ‘get big or get out’ as monopolies get rich Read moreThe sweeping new statute, which includes more than $140bn in incentives designed to promote renewable fuels and cleaner electricity generation, could slash greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. But in its efforts to promote climate-friendly agriculture, it also promotes corn-fed ethanol refineries and manure-based energy production that could unintentionally supercharge fertilizer and fecal contamination.“It’s going to end up in the water,” Rebecca Ohrtman, a water quality specialist from Iowa, said of the contaminants from crop production and what are commonly called “confined animal feeding operations” (CAFOs). Ohrtman spent much of her career as a water protection coordinator with the state of Iowa. “I can’t believe they’re going to provide all this funding with no strings attached.”The Great Lakes and midwest regions face nothing short of a water quality emergency, say those on the frontlines. Farming-related contaminants have already fouled thousands of drinking water wells from Minnesota to Missouri, and virtually every waterway in Iowa is degraded with little regulation to rein in the pollutants.“It’s already a national emergency and a national scandal,” said Emma Schmit, a senior organizer in the Midwest for Food and Water Watch, an environmental advocacy group. “When we test our waterways, the main pollutants are E coli and nitrates and phosphorus from agriculture. These are pathogens and contaminants that can cause serious issues for people. We’re about to give large corporate farms carte blanche to make it worse.”A threat to clean waterHow can legislation billed as an environmental protection statute risk being a primary threat to clean water? The answer is that there could be seemingly unintended consequences of investments to reduce greenhouse gases and replace fossil fuels with cleaner options.There are two particular farm-related provisions in the IRA that won’t put more food on the table, but will nevertheless impact water quality in the midwest. One will incentivize producing more ethanol, a renewable fuel, from corn. Another will move to limit emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, by processing manure generated by massive livestock and poultry farms. Wastes from these could end up polluting waterways.The incentive for more corn production is particularly worrisome as farmers typically make heavy use of nitrogen fertilizers when growing corn, said Chris Jones, a research engineer and water quality specialist at the University of Iowa.“Anytime we incentivize production of a nutrient-hungry crop, you’re going to get nutrient pollution,” Jones said. “Corn loses a lot of nutrients to the environment. We know that for a certainty. We’re incentivizing further production. We’re going to get more pollution. You don’t need to be a genius to know that.”Corn is the most heavily fertilized row crop in America, accounting for 11bn lb of commercial nitrogen fertilizer applied to farmland annually, with nine of the 11bn lb applied in the midwest, according to the USDA. State and federal research shows that up to 70% of applied nitrogen runs off the land and into streams, rivers and groundwater.Agricultural nutrient pollution is the primary reason that the Clean Water Act has not come close to meeting its “fishable and swimmable” goal for US surface waters. Because of waivers written into the Clean Water Act, which last year marked its 50th anniversary, nutrient runoff from arable farms and smaller livestock operations are completely unregulated. (Large livestock operators, meanwhile, are given broad discretion by states for managing and spreading manure.)Boosting corn acreage, to create more ethanol, is one of the Biden administration’s goals. It wants to increase ethanol production from 15bn gallons in 2022 to 21bn gallons this year, and 23bn gallons by 2025, principally to meet the administration’s national energy strategy for ethanol to be a primary feedstock for producing “sustainable” fuel for airlines.Though the $1.01 a gallon tax credit provided in the new law is a win for corn and ethanol producers, the administration’s plan for ethanol is a big problem for water. Corn farmers already apply more than 4bn lb of nitrogen fertilizer to produce the current national supply of ethanol. Based on this usage rate, refining five billion more gallons of ethanol could lead to 1.5bn more pounds of fertilizer being applied to fields in corn-growing states. That would exacerbate the water quality issues plaguing the region.“We’re putting more and more pressure on the productivity of agriculture to produce more corn, more livestock for our fuel,” said John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri. “It’s also producing more pollution. Any other industry that creates this amount of pollution and represented this level of risk to public health would be heavily regulated.”Congress didn’t add any additional safeguards for water in the Inflation Reduction Act.LivestockThe law’s effect on large cattle and other livestock feeding operations also is worrisome.The country’s large livestock operations, primarily centered in the midwest, produce hundreds of billions of gallons of untreated liquid manure and tens of millions of tons of solid manure that are spread over farmland with scant oversight. Manure contains nitrogen, phosphorus, and dangerous pathogens that can also run off and contaminate waters across the region.In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified phosphorus and nitrogen discharges from US farmland as “the single greatest challenge to our nation’s water quality”.For millions of Americans in the heartland already contending with dirty water, the new law risks making the country’s most severe surface and groundwater pollution worse, according to water quality experts.This is because another feature of the IRA is a flurry of tax incentives to generate renewable energy from biodigesters – large tanks where bacteria and heat help convert organic waste to methane.The American Biogas Council, an industry trade group, counts 2,300 biodigesters in operation in the US. With tax credits in the new climate law, the council estimates 15,000 more could be installed, including nearly 8,600 on large dairy, hog, and poultry farms. The methane produced could be used by electricity producers in rural regions.But biodigesters don’t reduce the volume of waste. The same amount of liquid and solid manure that goes into biodigesters is returned as “digestate” The liquid waste contains more concentrated forms of phosphorus and nitrogen and is used as fertilizer on farmland close to where it was produced and where it will drain into waters in the Midwest.The incentives are sure to lead to more biodigesters. The American Biogas Council, an industry trade group, counts 2,300 biodigesters in operation in the US. With tax credits in the new climate law, the council envisions that 15,000 more will be installed, including nearly 8,600 on large dairy, hog and poultry farms.Even though digesters provide livestock farmers with a new source of revenue, the Biogas Council asserts that the extra cash will not lead to an expansion of intensive animal farming operations and more manure.“That would mean that farms are buying cows to produce manure to put into the biogas system,” said Patrick Serfass, the council’s executive director. “I guarantee you that no one is doing that.”But limited real world evidence suggests that biodigesters are a powerful incentive to increase the number of animals – and the amount of manure – at industrialized livestock operations.Last year, after Iowa enacted a new law that encouraged livestock operations to install biodigesters, five of the nine dairies awarded construction permits said they would also increase the size of their herds. The USDA did not respond to questions raised about the effects of the new statute on water pollution. Corn and livestock industry executives did not respond to interview requests.‘Conservation’ programsIn approving the Inflation Reduction Act, neither the Biden administration nor Congress wholly ignored the risk to water. The law enables the USDA to fund its $19.5bn climate smart program, a portion of which is devoted to “managing nutrients”.The law also provides $18bn for decades-old “conservation” programs. “The Inflation Reduction Act provides major incentives for a broad range of different practices and strategies for managing nutrients, guarding water quality and keeping carbon in the soil,” US senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate agriculture committee, said. “There are a lot of strategies that work but there are not enough farmers participating because there hasn’t been enough money to fund all the requests.”Indeed, the climate smart program includes $300 million for organic and sustainable farm practices, the largest investment ever made by the federal government for environmentally sensitive crop and livestock production. But while that $300 million has been allotted to dozens of growers, as well as other research and planning projects, these farms ultimately account for just a few thousand acres of the more than 100 million acres of cropland in the Corn Belt and Great Lakes states.Most of the USDA “climate smart” and conservation programs support existing voluntary “best management practices” that include not plowing before planting, raising cover crops, and planting buffer strips to soak up excess nutrients. But best management practices, initially designed to control soil erosion, have been largely ineffective at reducing phosphorus in streams in the Great Lakes states.In fact, installing best management practices to impede discharges from fields can make conditions worse. Two years ago, during the annual meeting of researchers studying Lake Erie’s harmful algal blooms, Deanna Osmond, a crop and soil scientist at North Carolina State University, reported that the most popular best management practices thought to curb runoff actually increased nutrient concentrations that cause harmful blooms.For instance, buffer strips planted on field edges increased the amount of phosphorus draining into ditches and streams. The same thing occurred with planting cover crops. “Conservation practices have potential tradeoffs,” Osmond said. “We have to acknowledge these tradeoffs.”These best management practices, moreover, have never been especially popular with corn growers and livestock producers in the nine-state corn belt from the Dakotas to Missouri. Just 2.2m of Iowa’s 30m acres of farmland, for example, were planted with cover crops, according to the most recent analysis by the state agriculture department.“We’ve got an industrial agriculture system that’s regulated as if it were still scattered, independent, diversified small family farms,” said Ikerd, the agricultural economist. “It’s not. Industrial agriculture focuses on production and profitability. Not public health. Not conservation. Not the environment.”
      This report, co-published with the New Lede and Circle of Blue, was made possible by an investigative reporting fellowship awarded by the Alicia Patterson Foundation
      TopicsUS politicsOur unequal earthClimate crisisfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      John Kerry: rich countries must respond to developing world anger over climate

      by

      John Kerry: rich countries must respond to developing world anger over climateUS climate envoy says there needs to be work on details of ‘loss and damage’ fund in 2023 People in developing countries are feeling increasingly angry and “victimised” by the climate crisis, the US climate envoy John Kerry has warned, and rich countries must respond urgently.“I’ve been chronicling the increased frustration and anger of island states and vulnerable countries and small African nations and others around the world that feel victimised by the fact that they are a minuscule component of emissions,” he said. “And yet [they are] paying a very high price. Seventeen of the 20 most affected countries in the world, by the climate crisis, are in Africa, and yet 48 sub-Saharan countries total 0.55% of all emissions.”The Cop27 UN climate summit in Egypt in November was nearly derailed by a bitter row between rich and poor nations over “loss and damage”, the term for the most severe impacts of climate disaster, and the means of rescuing and rebuilding poor nations afflicted by them.The US, the EU, the UK and other rich nations eventually agreed to a new fund for loss and damage, without saying how much money would be in the fund or where the finance would come from.Kerry said the US was committed to helping the developing world with loss and damage, but that the details of the fund would need more work in 2023.“How can you look somebody in the eye, with a straight face, and not accept the notion that there are damages, there are losses?” he asked. “We see them all around the world. You see them in heightened sea levels, we see them in fires, we see them in floods, in Pakistan and elsewhere. We see them in the higher intensity of storms.”But he added: “How you manage [loss and damage] is still at issue: how do you approach this challenge of the financial arrangements. But it was important to acknowledge that they’re there and we have to work at this in good faith.”Kerry was speaking to the Guardian in London in December. The White House faces severe problems in raising climate finance through Congress, with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives likely to prove unwilling to disburse funds. The likely difficulties were presaged in a finance bill passed just before Christmas, which contained less than $1bn in climate funds.At Cop27, Kerry suggested international markets for carbon offsets and the private sector might provide additional sources of funding. However, those discussions are at an early stage, and likely to be fraught.Next year’s Cop28 talks will be held in the United Arab Emirates, a major oil producer. Some have raised concerns that this could open up opportunities for oil lobbyists to slow progress. There were more than 630 fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, and pushback from oil-producing countries prevented stronger resolutions from being passed on the phase-down of fossil fuels and on reaffirming the global target of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.Kerry rebuffed such concerns. “I think it’s ideal that UAE, which is an oil- and gas-producing nation, has had the courage to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to lead a Cop that’s going to address this challenge,’” he said. “They’re on the cutting edge of a lot of [low-carbon technology], they’ve invested vast sums in renewable energy, they’re on the cutting edge of research into nuclear, green hydrogen, batteries,” he said. “I think it’s a really great statement that a country that has had great wealth produced as a result of the old energy economy is now looking to the new energy economy. And is going to be the site of an honest discussion about it.”While discussions on climate finance are urgently needed, cutting emissions must also be a key focus, Kerry insisted. “We can’t walk away from [that],” he said. “You can’t take a holiday [from cutting emissions] because if you do, you’re simply contributing much greater levels of loss and damage and making it harder for the planet as a whole to meet this crisis.”Kerry said he “regretted” that there “was not an adequate collective focus” on cutting emissions at Cop27. But he said that if countries met their commitments on emissions, the target of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C could still be met.‘Extreme event’: warm January weather breaks records across EuropeRead moreSome scientists and observers of the climate talks warned after Cop27 that the 1.5C target was being lost. Kerry rejected that view, but agreed that it would require far greater efforts.“[The 1.5C target] is on life support – it’s still feasible, but only if we make better choices,” he said. Not all of the G20 group of the world’s biggest economies, which are also responsible for about 80% of global emissions, were coming up with the necessary targets and measures to meet them, he said. Limiting heating to 1.5C was, he said, “within the realm of possibility, but only if we get countries to step up across the board”.US cooperation with China, the world’s biggest emitter, would be key to that, he added. “China presents a real challenge because of the levels of their overall emissions and their use of coal. We’ve got to find a way to work with China cooperatively.”TopicsClimate crisisJohn KerryCop27US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US fails to give money promised for developing countries to ease climate impacts

      by

      US fails to give money promised for developing countries to ease climate impactsSpending bill passed by Senate includes less than $1bn in climate assistance for poorer nations even though Biden promised $11.4bn The US has risked alienating developing countries hit hardest by the climate crisis, after Congress delivered just a fraction of the money promised by Joe Biden to help poorer nations adapt to worsening storms, floods and droughts.Biden has promised $11.4bn each year for developing countries to ease climate impacts and help them shift to renewable energy but the vast $1.7tn spending bill to keep the US government running, passed by the Senate on Thursday, includes less than $1bn in climate assistance for these countries.The bill, which is expected to pass the House and be signed by the president, includes $270m for adaptation programs, largely for countries in Asia and the Pacific islands, along with $260m in clean energy investment, aimed at Africa. Another $185m will go on “sustainable landscapes programs”.The failure to so far meet Biden’s pledge risks undermining the White House’s insistence that the US is committed to helping deal with the fallout of a climate crisis that it is a leading instigator of, through its huge historical and ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries will need anything from $340bn to $2tn a year by 2030, according to various studies, to cope with the cascading impacts of global heating.Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, based in Bangladesh, said that the US’ fair share of climate aid is far beyond even what Biden promised. “So one billion is really an insult to the developing countries,” he said. “The paltry allocation of only $1bn to support the developing countries is extremely disappointing.”US environmental groups have welcomed elements of the spending bill, including a large increase in the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency and department of interior, as well as $600m for water infrastructure in Jackson, Mississippi, but criticized the glaring lack of climate aid.“Funding levels for international climate aid are woefully inadequate to meet our global commitments or do our fair share to support under-resourced countries bearing the brunt of climate impacts,” said Sara Chieffo, vice-president of government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters.Biden’s administration had made the climate spending a priority, with John Kerry, the US’s climate envoy, dispatched to lobby lawmakers. Both Biden and Kerry attended the UN Cop27 climate talks in Egypt last month and vowed the US would step up its assistance. “The climate crisis is hitting hardest those countries and communities that have the fewest resources to respond and to recover,” Biden noted in his speech to delegates at the summit, repeating his promise to extract the required money from Congress.Administration officials say the goal is to deliver the assistance by 2024 and that money could come from other sources than direct appropriations from Congress. But the likelihood of doing this becomes far more remote once Republicans, who have largely rejected the idea of providing further aid for climate damages, gain control of the House of Representatives in January.A White House spokeswoman said that the $11bn target is “a top priority for us and critical to the success of president Biden’s climate agenda. And the president has made clear that he is going to fight to see this fully funded.“Over the past several weeks and throughout the past weekend, members of the administration worked to secure funding in (financial year) 2023 that puts us on a path to achieving this goal. We will continue to work with Congress to make achieving this goal in (financial year) 2024 a reality.”TopicsClimate crisisUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Here are some crucial issues we’re covering in 2023 – with your help | Betsy Reed

      by

      Here are some crucial issues we’re covering in 2023 – with your helpBetsy ReedThe new Guardian US editor sets out some of our key priorities for 2023, including abortion rights, the climate crisis and investigations into the powers shaping American life

      This Giving Tuesday, please consider a year-end gift to the Guardian to support our journalism in the coming year
      On election night this November, the Guardian’s reporters fanned out across the country, keeping close watch on key races targeted by the election-denial movement instigated by Donald Trump. Candidates who embraced Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election sought control over pivotal offices that would allow them to tip the balance toward Trump when he tries to reclaim the presidency in 2024.To the relief of our readers, as well as millions of Americans, their efforts failed spectacularly.Across the country, many Americans rejected campaigns based on lies and racist demagoguery. Voters flocked to the polls to protest the supreme court’s attack on abortion rights in its reversal of Roe v Wade earlier this year. Reproductive freedom and democracy proved more resilient than many dour pundits had predicted.But if we pause to celebrate this outcome, we should also reflect on how we arrived at such a dangerous moment – and how much danger remains. Authoritarian forces, emboldened by Trump but long predating him, still possess cultural influence and institutional power. As the legendary activist and scholar Frances Fox Piven recently told the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, the fight over elemental democracy is far from over. “The fascist mob doesn’t have to be the majority to set in motion the kinds of policies that crush democracy,” she said.As the new editor of Guardian US, I’m determined to dedicate our journalistic resources to the scrutiny of those dangerous forces in 2023 – with your help. This Giving Tuesday, please consider a year-end gift to the Guardian to support our journalism in the coming year.Here are three of my priorities for the Guardian US newsroom in 2023:
      Abortion rights. There are few areas where Trump’s damaging legacy is more evident than reproductive rights. His appointments to the supreme court, made with the intention of ending the constitutional right to abortion, will profoundly affect the health and freedom of people in this country for years to come. We’ll be reporting on the human impact of abortion bans – and the inspiring movement that is fighting back.
      The climate crisis. Despite the Biden administration’s landmark law to decarbonize the US economy, fossil fuel emissions continue to rise, and Republican control of the House of Representatives will bring with it aggressive attempts to roll back progress. We’ll be closely tracking the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, including efforts by the fossil fuel industry and the right wing to stymie change. We will also double down on our groundbreaking environmental justice coverage, exposing how communities that lack racial and economic privilege bear the brunt of government and corporate negligence.
      Investigations. In 2023, we’ll be digging deeper into the powers secretly shaping the contours of American life. We know a lot, for example, about the toxins tainting our food and water – but it takes a different kind of reporting to pin down the corporate actors responsible for spreading them, and the government regulators who have failed to protect the public. From police unions to gun manufacturers to crypto titans to rightwing pressure groups, we will reveal the influential networks whose machinations lie at the root of the crises we report on every day, whether it’s racism in the criminal justice system or soaring economic inequality.
      I’m thrilled to work at the Guardian because I know it’s a special place with a unique role in the global media ecosystem. At this moment of jeopardy for democratic values, we don’t settle for milquetoast, down-the-middle journalism that engages in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We know there is a right and a wrong side in the fight against racism and climate destruction and for democracy and reproductive justice. Our newsroom is passionately dedicated to delivering timely, fair, accurate reporting to readers who care about the issues we cover as much as we do.Our business model reflects our values, too. Rather than relying on billionaire owners or pursuing profits to appease shareholders, we depend on support from readers. Your donations are the reason we are able to carry on with our work. If you can, please consider a gift to fund our reporting in 2023. We are very grateful.TopicsUS newsAbortionClimate crisisInvestigative journalismUS politicsThe GuardiancommentReuse this content More