Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Opposition Wins Greenland Election After Running Against Rare Earths Mine

      by

      Greenland’s left-wing environmentalist party promised to halt a mining project that could have made Greenland a major source of rare earths but at a potentially steep environmental price.Greenland’s left-wing environmentalist party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, won a victory in general elections on Tuesday after campaigning against the development of a contentious rare earths mine partly backed by China.The party, which had been in the opposition, won 37 percent of the vote over the longtime incumbents, the center-left Siumut party. The environmentalists will need to negotiate a coalition to form a government, but observers said their election win in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark that sits on a rich vein of untapped uranium and rare earth minerals, signaled concerns from voters over the impact of mining.“The people have spoken,” Múte B. Egede, the leader of Inuit Ataqatigiit, told the Danish broadcaster DR, adding that voters had made their position clear and that the mining project in Kvanefjeld in the country’s south would be halted.Greenland Minerals, an Australian company behind the project, has said the mine has the “potential to become the most significant Western world producer of rare earths,” adding that it would create uranium as a byproduct. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the vote.The supply of rare earths, a crucial part of the high-tech global supply chain and used in the manufacture of everything from cellphones to rechargeable batteries, is currently dominated by China. Shenghe Resources, a Chinese rare earth company, owns 11 percent of Greenland Minerals.Opposition to the Greenland mine, which the incumbent Siumut party had supported, played a primary role in its defeat, its leader, Erik Jensen, conceded in an interview with the Danish station TV2.The mining project has been in development for years, with the government approving drilling for research, but not issuing final approval for the mine.Among Greenlanders, opposition to the mine had grown over potential exposure of a unique, fragile area to “radioactive pollution and toxic waste,” said Dwayne Menezes, director of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative, a London-based think tank. “What they’re opposed to is dirty mining.”The election result sent a clear message, Mr. Menezes added: Mining companies that want access to Greenland’s deposits will have to abide by stringent environmental standards and should look to give Greenlanders a “viable alternative.”In Greenland, whose economy is heavily dependent on payouts from Denmark, the tensions over the mine centered on the potential economic boon, including hundreds of jobs on an island with about 57,000 people, versus the environmental cost of doing business.But the vote also highlighted the Arctic region’s growing geopolitical significance on a warming planet, as its polar seas become more navigable and as the melting ice unveils newly accessible resources, including the rare earths that play an essential part in the production of many alternative energy sources.“On a global level, we are going to need to address head on this tension between Indigenous communities and the materials we are going to most need for a climate-stressed planet,” said Aimee Boulanger, executive director of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, a nonprofit.Given China’s dominance over the global rare earth production and supply, Mr. Menezes said that Western countries should be looking for ways to enhance their partnerships with resource-rich Greenland to keep it in “their sphere of influence.”Two years ago, Greenland’s lucrative resources and its increasing strategic importance led President Donald J. Trump to muse about purchasing the island. Greenland’s government, however, made clear that it was not for sale.“We’re open for business, not for sale,” the island’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on Twitter at the time. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      White House moves toward approving huge windfarm off east coast

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterThe Biden administration is moving to sharply increase offshore wind energy along the US east coast, saying on Monday it is taking steps toward approving a huge windfarm off New Jersey as part of an effort to generate electricity for more than 10m homes by 2030.Meeting the target could mean jobs for more than 44,000 workers and for 33,000 others in related employment, the White House said. The effort also would help avoid 78m metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, a key step in the fight to slow the climate crisis.Joe Biden “believes we have an enormous opportunity in front of us to not only address the threats of climate change, but use it as a chance to create millions of good-paying, union jobs that will fuel America’s economic recovery,” said the White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy.“Nowhere is the scale of that opportunity clearer than for offshore wind.”The commitment “will create pathways to the middle class for people from all backgrounds and communities”, she added.The administration said it intends to prepare a formal environmental analysis for the Ocean Wind project off New Jersey, moving it toward becoming the third commercial-scale offshore wind project in the US.The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (OEM), part of the interior department, said it was targeting offshore wind projects in shallow waters between Long Island, New York and New Jersey. A recent study shows the area can support up to 25,000 development and construction jobs by 2030, a statement said.OEM said it will push to sell commercial leases in late 2021 or early 2022.Ocean Wind, 15 miles off the coast of southern New Jersey, is projected to produce about 1,100 megawatts a year, enough to power 500,000 homes.The Department of the Interior has announced environmental reviews for Vineyard Wind in Massachusetts and South Fork windfarm about 35 miles east of Montauk Point in New York. Vineyard Wind is expected to produce about 800 megawatts and South Fork about 132.Biden has vowed to double offshore wind production by 2030 as part of his effort to slow the climate crisis. The likely approval of the Atlantic coast projects – the leading edge of at least 16 offshore wind projects along the east coast – marks a sharp turnaround from the Trump administration, which stymied wind power onshore and in the ocean.Donald Trump frequently derided wind power as an expensive, bird-killing way to make electricity, and his administration resisted or opposed projects including Vineyard Wind. The developer of the Massachusetts project temporarily withdrew its application in a bid to stave off possible rejection. Biden provided a fresh opening for the project soon after taking office in January.“For generations, we’ve put off the transition to clean energy and now we’re facing a climate crisis,” said the interior secretary, Deb Haaland.“As our country faces the interlocking challenges of a global pandemic, economic downturn, racial injustice and the climate crisis, we have to transition to a brighter future for everyone.”Vineyard Wind is slated to become operational in 2023, Ocean Wind a year later.Offshore wind development is in its infancy in the US, far behind Europe. A small windfarm operates in waters controlled by Rhode Island, and another small farm operates off Virginia.The three major projects are owned by European companies or subsidiaries. Vineyard Wind is a joint project of a Danish company and a US subsidiary of the Spanish energy company Iberdrola. Ocean Wind and South Fork are led by the Danish company, Orsted.Wind developers are poised to create tens of thousands of jobs and generate more than $100bn in new investment by 2030 “but the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management must first open the door to new leasing″, said Erik Milito, the president of the National Ocean Industries Association.Fishing groups from Maine to Florida have expressed fear that large offshore wind projects could render huge swaths of the ocean off-limits to their catch. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Ban on US water shutoffs could have prevented thousands of Covid deaths – study

      by

      A national moratorium on water shutoffs could have prevented almost half a million Covid infections and saved at least 9,000 lives, according to new research.Good hygiene is essential to preventing the spread of the highly contagious coronavirus. Amid pressure from public health experts and rights groups, hundreds of utilities and states suspended disconnections for overdue bills to ensure households kept running water for hand-washing and sanitation.But many refused, others let the bans expire after a few months, and Congress refused to step in with a national moratorium. By the end of 2020, 211 million Americans – including a disproportionate number of households of color – faced the threat of having their taps turned off during the worst public health and economic crisis in modern history.This patchwork protection cost thousands of American lives between April and December last year, according to research by Cornell University and the national advocacy group Food & Water Watch (FWW).Researchers found that states which suspended disconnections significantly reduced their growth rates of Covid infections and deaths, compared to states without similar orders. The biggest reduction was seen in states with comprehensive bans covering all private and public utilities.If similar policies had been adopted across the US, the study model shows that Covid cases might have been reduced by 4% and deaths by 5.5% in the 41 states without a full moratorium.“This research clearly shows us that the pain and suffering caused by the pandemic was exacerbated by political leaders who failed to take action to keep the water flowing for struggling families,” said Wenonah Hauter, FWW’s executive director.The findings come amid growing pressure on Michigan and New York state officials to extend their state moratoriums, both of which expire at the end of March. Failure to do so would leave a further 27 million people at risk of losing their water supplies for unpaid bills, as concerns grow about a potential third wave.Advocates are also urging Joe Biden to impose a national moratorium and make water a priority in the forthcoming infrastructure bill.An investigation by the Guardian last year found millions of Americans were facing unaffordable bills even before the pandemic as ageing infrastructure, environmental clean-ups, changing demographics and the climate emergency fuelled exponential price hikes in almost every corner of the US.Federal funding for water systems has plummeted since peaking in 1977.Mildred Warner, a professor of local government at Cornell University, said: “This study shows the importance of a national standard for access to water, especially for low-income households.“The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed so many structural inequities in our society, and access to drinking water is one that demands our attention.” More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      The Missing Pieces to Avoid a Climate Disaster

      by

      After stepping down as Microsoft CEO in 2000, Bill Gates gradually shifted his focus to the operations of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which set out to improve global health and development, as well as education in the US. Partially through his role with the foundation, Gates came to learn more about the causes and effects of climate change, which was contributing to and exacerbating many of the problems he and his wife were looking to remedy.

      Outside of the foundation, he has become more vocal about climate change and has founded and funded a number of ventures that address innovation challenges connected to climate change. His recently published book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” continues this path. It summarizes what the last decades have taught him about the drivers of climate change and plots a path of necessary actions and innovations.

      © Ash.B / Shutterstock

      Greenhouse Gas Emissions

      The book spends only a few initial pages making the argument for the anthropogenic nature of climate change, as it is clearly intended for readers who accept the scientific consensus for it. Early on, Gates asserts that the mere reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not sufficient to avoid a climate disaster. The only real goal, according to Gates, must be achieving net-zero emissions, taking as much GHG out of the atmosphere as we put in, year by year. 

      However, significant political, economic and infrastructural hurdles have to still be overcome to electrify personal transport. Decisions to exit or curtail carbon-free nuclear power production seem to largely be following public opinion rather than science. These examples demonstrate that scaling viable, existing carbon-neutral solutions is already hard. Finding and utilizing affordable green alternatives to problems where we currently have none is even harder.

      Gates points to the fact that without finding scalable carbon-neutral ways of producing steel, cement or meat, we will not be able to arrive at a net-zero economy in the 21st century. Even if humanity was able to produce all of its energy in carbon-neutral ways and cut carbon emissions from transport, agriculture and deforestation, as well as from heating and air conditioning by half, we would still be left with more than half of the GHG emissions we currently produce. This point is further exacerbated once we consider the growing global population and rising wealth and consumption in populous countries like China, India or Nigeria.

      © Roschetzky Photography / Shutterstock

      What’s More Important Than Innovation?

      Innovation, for Gates, does not stop with technology. It is of little help if a revolutionary technological solution is developed, but there is no way or incentive for an individual person, company or city to use it. Innovation, to use Gates’ words, “is also coming up with new approaches to business models, supply chains, markets, and policies that will help new innovations come to life and reach a global scale.” Ideas like carbon taxation and regulation, which are often cited as crucial incentives for climate innovation, may trouble some free market enthusiasts, but, as Gates argues, it is important to realize that getting to net-zero is also a “huge economic opportunity: The countries that build great zero-carbon companies and industries will be the ones that lead the global economy in the coming decades.”

      Gates heavily utilizes the concept of a “Green Premium,” which he understands as the extra cost of a carbon-neutral alternative compared to today’s carbon-producing equivalent. For example, today, the Green Premium of an advanced biofuel is 106%, making biofuel 206% as expensive as gasoline. He stresses that innovation cannot only aim to develop carbon-neutral alternatives. It must also make them competitive and accessible, lowering green premiums as far as possible and driving infrastructural and political incentives.

      It should not come as a surprise that Gates approaches the challenge of getting to net-zero as a capitalist and a technology optimist. He firmly believes that a dollar in the Global North is better spent on carbon innovation than on disincentivizing the utilization of carbon-intensive products and services — a doctrine that his own investments certainly follow. However, spending public climate funds on research and development in cement production or generation IV nuclear reactors, rather than on bike paths in Berlin, Paris or New York, will be a difficult sell. 

      : © PHOTOCREO Michal Bednarek / Shutterstock

      A Clear Roadmap

      Bill Gates has received criticism of varying degrees of legitimacy for many of the stances he has taken, going back to the United States v. Microsoft antitrust litigation and beyond. With “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” however, he has achieved what many of our political leaders have not: clearly defining and communicating a holistic and evidence-based roadmap that leads us to a net-zero carbon future and mitigates the most horrific scenarios of runaway, anthropogenic climate change.

      “Show me a problem, and I’ll look for a technology to fix it,” Gates proclaims. Being a believer not only in his own, but also humanity’s ability to innovate its way out of the gloomiest odds, he remains optimistic, whilst conceding the momentous nature of the challenge we face: “We have to accomplish something gigantic we have never done before, much faster than we have ever done anything similar.”

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      'Climate facts are back': EPA brings science back to website after Trump purge

      by

      Canceled four years ago by a president who considered global warming a hoax, climate crisis information has returned to the website of the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of Joe Biden’s promise to “bring science back”.
      The revival of a page dedicated to the climate emergency reverses Donald Trump’s order in 2017 to drop all references to it from government websites, and prioritises the Biden administration’s pledge to “organize and deploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis”.
      In a statement, Michael Regan, confirmed by the US Senate last week as the federal agency’s new head, said: “Climate facts are back on the EPA’s website where they should be. Considering the urgency of this crisis, it’s critical that Americans have access to information and resources so that we can all play a role in protecting our environment, our health and vulnerable communities.”
      Trump’s decision to drop the EPA’s climate informational page was just one of many controversial moves that angered environmentalists during his single term of office. He pulled the US out of the Paris climate agreement, rolled back countless environmental regulations and protections and appointed a scandal-ridden climate change denier, Scott Pruitt, to lead the EPA.

      Analysts, however, considered the Orwellian removal from the world wide web of scientifically accepted climate data and information to be especially heinous.
      In a Guardian article last October, Michael Mann, one of the world’s most eminent climate experts, likened the following month’s presidential election to “a Tolkienesque battle between good and evil” and said Trump’s re-election would have made it “essentially impossible” to avert a global climate catastrophe. More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Pollution takes centre stage for Louisiana congressional hopefuls

      by

      In Ascension parish at a jambalaya cookout, bathed in the afternoon sun, a politician made promises rarely heard in this heavily polluted region of south Louisiana, known colloquially as Cancer Alley.Karen Carter Peterson, a state senator and one of three frontrunners to become the next congressional representative for Louisiana’s second district, told the assembled crowd that she would fight the proliferation of polluting oil, gas and petrochemical plants.“We can’t afford to have plants continue to come in this community and you not have leadership when people are dying of asthma and cancer and all these other health implications from these industries that are just ignoring … Black communities,” she said.On Saturday the residents of Ascension, along with citizens in nine other parishes including the city of New Orleans and parts of the state capital, Baton Rouge, will vote in a special election to send a new representative to Congress.It marks the first time in over a decade that Cedric Richmond, who held this majority-Black, solidly Democratic seat for over a decade will not appear on the ballot. He had long been Louisiana’s sole Democrat in Congress. Richmond, who moved into the Biden administration as a senior adviser to the president, had faced criticism throughout his tenure for paying little attention to the chronic air pollution issues in his district, which includes the heavily industrialized parishes that line the lower Mississippi river, and taking $400,000 in campaign donations from oil, gas and chemical companies.But now the issue has become unavoidable for Democrats seeking to replace him. Joe Biden specifically name-checked Cancer Alley as he signed new environmental justice orders in January. This month a UN human rights expert panel raised serious concerns about environmental racism in the region and urged federal agencies to strengthen clean air and water enforcement in the region.All three Democratic frontrunners, including Troy Carter, another state senator who was publicly endorsed by Richmond, and Gary Chambers Jr, a charismatic young organizer with a large social media following, have publicly pledged to receive no fossil fuel donations. All three, in a field of 15 candidates, described pollution issues as one of their top three district priorities during local TV interviews. Both Chambers and Carter Peterson have endorsed the Green New Deal, the environmental reform platform endorsed by progressive members of the Democratic caucus.“The candidates are responding to a tidal wave of bad news about oil and gas expansion here,” said Dr Pearson Cross, head of political science at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “Right now I would say the message of climate change and pollution is outweighing the message of oil and gas, jobs and the economy.”Anne Rolfes, director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots organization working with communities in polluted areas of the state, argued the newfound political attention to the issue was a result of “the power of the movement and the fact there have been really strong community leaders in Cancer Alley for decades”.“This district always could and should have had a climate and environmental justice champion,” she said, adding that the organization had deliberately not endorsed during the race. “So of course it’s really welcome that people are finally being listened to, at least in election season.”Despite the outward rhetoric, however, there remain significant differences in the environmental platforms of the candidates, and evidence to suggest some of the pledges made in public are not being upheld in private.Chambers, 35, an activist from Baton Rouge has built a strong grassroots campaign holding in-person events in all 10 parishes as well as broadcasting to hundreds of thousands of followers online. He claims to have led the way in forcing the issue of environmental justice into the race.“I understand what it’s like to be from a forgotten community,” he said in an interview with the Guardian, pointing out he lives less than five miles away from a gargantuan ExxonMobil oil refinery in Baton Rouge and has family in many of the parishes along the Mississippi.He added: “I think the insult is you have these plants that pretend to be such good community partners, and then when I walk in and see the people who work there, they don’t look like me. They don’t look like the people who live in the zip codes they’re in.”Chambers’s platform contains the most detail of any of the three main candidates and argues for the need to increase financial penalties for emissions violations, engage affected communities in regulation, and calls for more federal funding to assist the state environment department.He said of the Green New Deal’s relevance to the region: “We need to transition to create the jobs of the future because this [continued oil and gas investment] is going to bottom out our economy and it is already killing our people.”Chambers also told the Guardian he supports community efforts to revoke a federal permit for a proposed new plastics factory in St James parish by the Taiwanese firm Formosa. If constructed, the plant could emit up to 13m tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, the equivalent of three coal-fired power plants, and would emit thousands of tonnes of other dangerous pollutants, including up to 15,400lb of the cancer-causing chemical ethylene oxide. A federal permit was suspended at the end of last year after the army corps of engineers said it warranted “additional evaluation” but a final decision on the plant’s future has yet to be made.Carter Peterson, who is vying to become Louisiana’s first Black female congressional representative, also believes the Formosa plant should be stopped. It was a position she came to only a few weeks ago, she said in an interview with the Guardian, after visiting the proposed site and meeting with local activists there.“I was there for about four hours,” she said. “And listen, it was not even a question about where I would stand after I heard about the implications for people there. It was a pretty easy decision to make.”Carter Peterson, a former corporate lawyer who has represented state senate district 5, which covers most of New Orleans, has been endorsed by Stacey Abrams and the progressive organization Our Revolution. She claimed the campaign had been a learning curve for her to understand the pollution issues communities outside New Orleans have faced for years.She said: “The word that resonates with me right now, just in the last few months in this campaign has been disrespect. I feel like not only Black women, but the Black community has been disrespected.”Both Chambers and Carter Peterson also backed calls for enforcement of the EPA’s recommended exposure limit to the likely cancer-causing pollutant chloroprene at a petrochemical plant in St John the Baptist parish run by the Japanese firm Denka. Census tracts next to the plant, in a majority-Black neighbourhood, have the highest risk of cancer due to airborne pollution anywhere in America, according to EPA data. But neither backed calls from environmental groups in the state for a blanket moratorium on new petrochemical plants.Troy Carter did not grant the Guardian an interview and did not answer questions on the Formosa or Denka plants via email.He has publicly backed independent third-party monitoring of petrochemical plants in the region, but has argued for the continuance of oil and gas exploration in the state. He also declined to commit to the Green New Deal during a public appearance this month, describing it instead as a “great framework”.Despite committing to receiving no fossil fuel money, campaign contributions listed on the FEC website indicate that Carter has taken a small number of donations from the industry, including $500 from the CEO of Entergy, Phillip May, and $2,800 from Infinity Fuels LLC. Carter did not respond to a request for comment on the donations.With turnout on Saturday expected to be low, Dr Cross argued that the race remained open for any of the leading candidates, adding there was significant likelihood of a runoff being triggered if no candidate takes a majority.“This race will be decided by the people who can turn out their voters,” he said. More