Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Sparrow Spared, Cactus Extinct, and More Links From the Brink

This month’s best and worst environmental stories also include a rebounding lynx, a climate lawsuit boom, and a spa for frogs. The post Sparrow Spared, Cactus Extinct, and More Links From the Brink appeared first on The Revelator.

Earlier this month I visited some friends at their home on the banks of the Columbia River — a house that could soon be under the Columbia River due to climate change and sea-level rise. That same week we got news about Hurricane Beryl causing destructive floods around the United States, along with devastating floods in Brazil, India, China, and Kenya. Other floods this month caused destruction and fatalities in Liberia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and several other U.S. states. Is it any wonder that the sound of dripping water plunges me into a panic attack? Welcome to Links From the Brink. Best News of the Month: When I last wrote about the Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) in 2018, the critically endangered bird species had experienced a devastating population crash, leaving fewer than 100 individuals in the wild. As one conservationist told me at the time, “This is going to be North America’s next extinct bird if we do nothing.” Well, we did do something. Some of the last birds were brought into captivity before they could die out, and even since then they’ve been breeding like there’s no tomorrow. As a result, they have a tomorrow. This month the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and partner organizations released their 1,000th captive-bred grasshopper sparrow into the wild. This seems to indicate that these rare birds have been saved from what just a few years ago seemed like an extinction in the making. There’s a lesson in this amazing milestone: “These little birds represent a big beacon of hope that our commitment, partnership and holistic approach can save vulnerable wildlife from the brink of extinction,” as Fish and Wildlife Foundation of Florida president Andrew Walker told The Guardian. Of course, all the captive breeding in the world can’t save a species if it has nowhere to live. Florida remains one of the most development-hungry places in the United States, and grasshopper sparrows’ habitat still needs protection and restoration. But 1,000 birds in six years is an amazing achievement, and it’s one worthy of celebration and emulation. More Good News That May Have Fallen Through the Cracks: Lynx from the brink: The Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), once critically endangered, has recovered thanks to decades of intense conservation effort. The IUCN last month reassessed the species as merely “vulnerable to extinction.” In 2005 the lynx population had fallen to an estimated 84 mature cats; the most recent count put them at a healthy (but still risky) 648. The small predators benefitted from efforts to increase previously overhunted rabbit populations, which, once restored, finally gave the lynx plenty to eat and thrive. The IUCN warns, though, that another rabbit crash, a disease, or high mortality from roads could quickly undo this conservation victory. Wolves: When wolves returned to Washington state in 2008, many hunters bemoaned that white-tail deer populations would suffer. Well, guess what — it didn’t happen. New research shows that wolves have had a minimal effect on deer in the Evergreen State — far below that of cougars (which also get a bad rap in WA) and habitat loss (i.e., development — the bane of communities throughout the West as people flock to this part of the country). Meanwhile Washington rejected a push to remove state endangered-species status for wolves and lowered its previously lax cougar-hunting quotas to more sustainable levels. Conservationists praised both decisions. We imagine wolves and mountain lions were pretty happy, too. Europe: After two years of debate, the European Union passed its Nature Restoration Law last month — which, according to news site Euractiv, “will set legally binding targets to restore 20% of the EU’s degraded land and sea ecosystems by 2030 and all ecosystems by 2050.” The bill got watered down a bit (farmers get a bit of a pass), but this seems like a good model for other 30×30 goals. (Speaking of which, six years is still a pretty tight deadline … ) Sued: A new report finds that the number of companies facing climate-related lawsuits keeps rising dramatically — and that most of these corporations are losing in court. Most of the recent lawsuits target so-called “climate-washing” — a willful misrepresentation of their progress toward promised climate goals. (The lessons: Lies cost you $$$.) Fined: More losing: Marathon Oil just got socked with a $64.5 million fine for Clean Air Act violations at the Fort Berhold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, in the heart of the Bakken shale oil fields. The company must also pay another $177 million toward reducing its future emissions. General Motors, meanwhile, must pony up $146 million in fines because its vehicles emitted at least 10% more carbon dioxide than their compliance reports claimed. (Either of these items could actually go in the “bad news” category, since the spewing of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants went on so long before either company got caught and punished, but we’ll leave them in with the other wins for now as a warning to other gasbag corporations.) Fined, part 2: French regulators this month fined conservative broadcaster CNews €20,000 (about $22,000) for allowing a pundit to spread climate skepticism (aka disinformation) without editorial follow-up or rebuttal. I’ll admit, as an advocate of free speech and the free press, I have doubts about this approach to forcing balance from news outlets. For one thing, it seems the right wing could have weaponized this approach to water down good climate reporting if they’d come to power in France in this month’s narrowly won elections. Still, I’m intrigued and wonder if this could help stem the tide of further disinformation or if it will just cause pundits to double down on their lies. (Probably the latter, alas.) Spa day: “Frog saunas” could help an endangered Australian species, the green and golden bell frog (Ranoidea aurea), recover from the deadly chytrid fungus, which has caused dozens of amphibian extinctions over the past few years. (This technique hasn’t proven helpful for other species, unfortunately.) Frogs enjoy their day in the sun. Photo courtesy Macquarie University Vroom vroom: Another new report finds that rural families are saving thousands of dollars a year with electric vehicles. (Yes, these are the same rural families who many people assumed would resist transitioning away from gas-powered cars, trucks, and farm equipment. Shows what the “experts” know.) Renewables: China is building twice as much renewable energy (specifically wind and solar) as every other country combined. (How do you say “This should light a fire under everyone else’s ass” in a carbon-neutral manner?) (Seriously though, I don’t want to blindly praise China for this; its environmental record is terrible. But so is ours, so c’mon folks, catch up.) And finally, a peak: Even fossil-fuel companies predict the world will hit peak oil demand next year. They see the writing on the wall (and the lawsuits in the wings?). Worst News of the Month: Getting back to that theme of flooding, the United States just lost its first species due to sea-level rise: the Key Largo tree cactus (Pilosocereus millspaughii). Despite its geographically based monicker, this rare cactus grows on a handful of scattered islands in the Caribbean. But it’s no longer found in its namesake Key Largo — storm surges inundated the limestone outcrop where it once grew, increasing salt levels beyond what the plants could tolerate. The storms also washed away a lot of soil, which is kind of a basic need for plants. It wasn’t just the salt water that caused problems. These cacti stored fresh water in their bodies, which then became a source of hydration for thirsty animals when the coasts became inundated with undrinkable sea water. The cactus declined quickly amidst this one-two-three punch. In 2021 the Key Largo population — previously described as “thriving” — had deteriorated to just six stands. This month scientists announced that even those last individuals had disappeared. But the species still exists on other islands, and scientists harvested the last Key Largo plants’ flowers and fruits in 2021 to cultivate them in a greenhouse setting. So far they’re doing fine, but the chance of replanting them in their native habitat appears slim. This isn’t a full-on species extinction, but it is a local extinction caused by sea-level rise, the first of its kind identified to date in the United States. And it could be a portent of things to come, as botanist Jennifer Possley said in a press release: “Unfortunately, the Key Largo tree cactus may be a bellwether for how other low-lying coastal plants will respond to climate change.” That said, I’m going to nudge this back into the “kinda-good” category, because at least scientists recognized the problem in time, saved what they could, and took the opportunity to warn us about future threats. That’s the type of proactive conservation that we should all aspire to and celebrate, even if it’s a part of the ongoing extinction crisis. Bad News Quick Hits: (Sorry. Let’s not dwell, but let’s not look away, either.) Chevron The Supreme Court in general Fiberglass in oysters and mussels 10.3 billion people by 2084? Protestors jailed Bitcoin = crashed power grids? The last ‘akikiki? (This breaks my heart.) Coal consumption could go up next year? Quote of the Month: “Inside your trash can is the possibility to change the world if you apply some creativity and some love. All trash is treasure.” — Troll artist Thomas Dambo, in The Washington Post   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Thomas Dambo (@thomasdambo) That’s it for this edition of Links From the Brink. We’ll be back in a month or two with another roundup of under-the-radar news stories. Until then, keep an eye on the 2024 election, watch out for heat waves and wildfire smoke (not to mention floods), and check in on your neighbors in need (both human and wild). Meanwhile, mark your calendars for International Owl Awareness Day on Aug. 4, World Krill Day on Aug. 11, Panamanian Golden Frog Day on Aug. 14, and (my favorite) International Orangutan Day on Aug. 19. What will you be watching in the months ahead? Scroll down to find our “Republish” button The post Sparrow Spared, Cactus Extinct, and More Links From the Brink appeared first on The Revelator.

Unusual New Life Forms Discovered in Yellowstone Offer Clues to Alien Life

Montana State University scientists have discovered two new methane-producing microbial groups in Yellowstone National Park, revealing potential new approaches to climate change mitigation and insights...

Montana State University scientists discovered novel methane-producing microbes in Yellowstone. This breakthrough broadens our grasp of life in extreme conditions and offers new avenues for climate change mitigation. Credit: Roland HatzenpichlerMontana State University scientists have discovered two new methane-producing microbial groups in Yellowstone National Park, revealing potential new approaches to climate change mitigation and insights into extraterrestrial life.Scientists from Montana State University have provided the first experimental evidence that two newly discovered groups of microbes in Yellowstone National Park’s thermal features produce methane. This groundbreaking discovery could one day help develop methods to mitigate climate change and offer insights into potential life elsewhere in our solar system.The journal Nature published the findings from the laboratory of Roland Hatzenpichler, associate professor in MSU’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry in the College of Letters and Science and associate director of the university’s Thermal Biology Institute. The two scientific papers describe the MSU researchers’ verification of the first known examples of single-celled organisms that produce methane to exist outside the lineage Euryarchaeota, which is part of the larger branch of the tree of life called Archaea. Alison Harmon, MSU’s vice president for research and economic development, said she is excited that the findings with such far-reaching potential impact are receiving the attention they deserve.“It’s a significant achievement for Montana State University to have not one but two papers published in one of the world’s leading scientific journals,” Harmon said.The methane-producing single-celled organisms are called methanogens. While humans and other animals eat food, breathe oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide to survive, methanogens eat small molecules like carbon dioxide or methanol and exhale methane. Most methanogens are strict anaerobes, meaning they cannot survive in the presence of oxygen.Scientists have known since the 1930s that many anaerobic organisms within the archaea are methanogens, and for decades they believed that all methanogens were in a single phylum: the Euryarchaeota.But about 10 years ago, microbes with genes for methanogenesis began to be discovered in other phyla, including one called Thermoproteota. That phylum contains two microbial groups called Methanomethylicia and Methanodesulfokora.“All we knew about these organisms was their DNA,” Hatzenpichler said. “No one had ever seen a cell of these supposed methanogens; no one knew if they actually used their methanogenesis genes or if they were growing by some other means.Experimental Confirmation and Methane ProductionHatzenpichler and his researchers set out to test whether the organisms were living by methanogenesis, basing their work on the results of a study published last year by one of his former graduate students at MSU, Mackenzie Lynes.Samples were harvested from sediments in Yellowstone National Park hot springs ranging in temperature from 141 to 161 degrees Fahrenheit (61–72 degrees Celsius).Through what Hatzenpichler described as “painstaking work,” MSU doctoral student Anthony Kohtz and postdoctoral researcher Viola Krukenberg grew the Yellowstone microbes in the lab. The microbes not only survived but thrived – and they produced methane. The team then worked to characterize the biology of the new microbes, involving staff scientist Zackary Jay and others at ETH Zurich.At the same time, a research group led by Lei Cheng from China’s Biogas Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Diana Sousa from Wageningen University in the Netherlands successfully grew another one of these novel methanogens, a project they had worked on for six years.“Until our studies, no experimental work had been done on these microbes, aside from DNA sequencing,” said Hatzenpichler.He said Cheng and Sousa offered to submit the studies together for publication, and Cheng’s paper reporting the isolation of another member of Methanomethylicia was published jointly with the two Hatzenpichler lab studies.While one of the newly identified groups of methanogens, Methanodesulfokora, seems to be confined to hot springs and deep-sea hydrothermal vents, Methanomethylicia, are widespread, Hatzenpichler said. They are sometimes found in wastewater treatment plants and the digestive tracts of ruminant animals and in marine sediments, soils, and wetlands. Hatzenpichler said that’s significant because methanogens produce 70% of the world’s methane, a gas 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.“Methane levels are increasing at a much higher rate than carbon dioxide, and humans are pumping methane at a higher rate into the atmosphere than ever before,” he said.Hatzenpichler said that while the experiments answered an important question, they generated many more that will fuel future work. For example, scientists don’t yet know whether Methanomethylicia that live in non-extreme environments rely on methanogenesis to grow or if they grow by other means.“My best bet is that they sometimes grow by making methane, and sometimes they do something else entirely, but we don’t know when they grow, or how, or why,” Hatzenpichler said. “We now need to find out when they contribute to methane cycling and when not.”Whereas most methanogens within the Euryarchaeota use CO2 or acetate to make methane, Methanomethylicia and Methanodesulfokora use compounds such as methanol. This property could help scientists learn how to alter conditions in the different environments where they are found so that less methane is emitted into the atmosphere, Hatzenpichler said.Future Research Directions and Methanogens’ Unique TraitsHis lab will begin collaborating this fall with MSU’s Bozeman Agricultural Research and Teaching Farm, which will provide samples for further research into the methanogens found in cattle. In addition, new graduate students joining Hatzenpichler’s lab in the fall will determine whether the newly found archaea produce methane in wastewater, soils, and wetlands.Methanomethylicia also have a fascinating cell architecture, Hatzenpichler said. He collaborated with two scientists at ETH Zurich, Martin Pilhofer and graduate student Nickolai Petrosian, to show that the microbe forms previously unknown cell-to-cell tubes that connect two or three cells with each other.“We have no idea why they are forming them. Structures like these have rarely been seen in microbes. Maybe they exchange DNA; maybe they exchange chemicals. We don’t know yet,” said Hatzenpichler.The newly published research was funded by NASA’s exobiology program. NASA is interested in methanogens because they may give insights into life on Earth more than 3 billion years ago and the potential for life on other planets and moons where methane has been detected, he said.Reference: “Cultivation and visualization of a methanogen of the phylum Thermoproteota” by Anthony J. Kohtz, Nikolai Petrosian, Viola Krukenberg, Zackary J. Jay, Martin Pilhofer and Roland Hatzenpichler, 24 July 2024, Nature.DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07631-6Hatzenpichler has discussed the results of the two studies in an online lecture and on a recent Matters Microbial podcast, and produced this infographic on methane cycling. To learn more about his lab visit www.environmental-microbiology.com or send an email to [email protected].

Honeybees Defend Their Hive by Slapping Invading Ants

Japanese honeybees use their wings to slap back ants trying to invade their hive

Honeybees Wing-Slap Ants That Try to Invade Their HiveJapanese honeybees use their wings to slap back ants trying to invade their hiveBy Gennaro TommaA Japanese honeybee uses its wing to slap a way an ant attempting to invade its hive. “Wing-Slapping: A Defensive Behavior by Honey Bees against Ants,” by Yugo Seko et al., in Ecology, Article No. e4372. Published online July 8, 2024 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)When a hungry ant approaches a honeybee hive, the residents are ready. They sting, bite or even buzz their wings to create air currents that repel the intruder. But a new study shows that honeybees from a species native to Japan have developed a unique defensive strategy: slapping. These bees actually smack invading ants with their wings, like tiny buzzing brawlers.A bee’s neat, precise wing-slap “reminds you of someone that really delivers a perfect hit on the golf ball,” says Gro Amdam, a biologist at Arizona State University, who was not involved in the study. “That’s really beautiful.”Beekeepers had anecdotally observed this behavior among Japanese honeybees (Apis cerana japonica), but no one had done a scientific analysis. So the researchers who conducted the new study used a high-speed camera to film Japanese pavement ants (Tetramorium tsushimae) invading a hive. When the ants approached, the honeybees elegantly wing-slapped them by “tilting their bodies toward the ants, then flapping their wings while simultaneously turning their bodies,” the researchers wrote in the study, published this month in Ecology.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“When I observed wing-slapping with the naked eye, I couldn’t understand the details of the behavior because it was so quick,” says study co-author Kiyohito Morii, a researcher at the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan. “By watching the high-speed camera footage, I finally understood that ... the bees were precisely aiming and spectacularly slapping the ants.”To understand how effective this defense is against different kinds of ants, the researchers released ants from three common local species near two honeybee colonies. “We observed many interesting and amusing scenes, including some where wing-slapping failed,” Morii says. Sometimes, just like a baseball player’s bat misses the ball, a wing-slap simply doesn’t connect.The team found that wing-slapping was the honeybees’ most common strategy against ants. The petite blows were successful in one of every two or three attempts against two of the studied ant species (including the pavement ants) but less effective when a bigger, faster species was involved.Amdam says that the study raises many questions, such as how widespread this behavior is and whether it is innate or learned and spread through culture. “I think that depending on which field you’re in, you can see many interesting questions in this article,” she says.Morii says that wing-slapping might be widespread among other honeybee species, such as those that nest in cavities with limited entrances. But “this is just speculation, and we’ll need more surveys to verify it,” he says. “At this point, little is known.”

Ed Miliband: people must be persuaded of need for pylons near homes

Communities affected by construction of renewable energy infrastructure ‘have the right to see the benefits’UK politics live – latest updatesLabour will seek to persuade people living near proposed pylon routes and other renewable energy infrastructure that the developments are critical to bring down bills and tackle carbon emissions, the energy secretary said.Ed Miliband promised to consider new benefits for communities affected by the construction of renewable energy infrastructure, and community ownership of the assets, which could include onshore windfarms and solar farms. Continue reading...

Labour will seek to persuade people living near proposed pylon routes and other renewable energy infrastructure that the developments are critical to bring down bills and tackle carbon emissions, the energy secretary said.Ed Miliband promised to consider new benefits for communities affected by the construction of renewable energy infrastructure, and community ownership of the assets, which could include onshore windfarms and solar farms.“Communities have the right to see the benefits,” he said, though he stopped short of specifying what measures Labour could take. Allowing local people a share in the projects could be one way, he added. “This is not just about community benefits but community shares, community ownership.”He said the government would seek to minimise the impacts of new infrastructure on nature and the landscape. “We can integrate concerns about nature right at the beginning of the planning process,” he said. “There is a way of doing this that is positive for nature.”Labour launched Great British Energy earlier this week, a nationally owned organisation that will invest billions in energy projects around the UK, including offshore wind. The prime minister, Keir Starmer, is aiming for 20m homes to be powered by offshore wind by the end of the decade, but that will require large amounts of new infrastructure, in the form not just of windfarms but grid connections and pylons to transport the power to where it is consumed.Local groups have raised concerns about pylons and other infrastructure, and in some areas called for a pause while plans are scrutinised. Miliband indicated he was aware of the concerns but said that in his view the infrastructure was sorely needed to revive the UK economy and move to a clean energy future.“I’m in the persuasion business, not the telling business,” he told a conference on Friday morning of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum, a group for Labour MPs with green leanings that intends to push the government towards more environmental policies. “Persuasion is very important.”But he was uncompromising on the need for such new development. “If we do not have this infrastructure, we will have to carry on with fossil fuels, which is bad for nature and the climate crisis,” he said. “That is fundamentally the choice.”Solving the cost of living crisis, with high energy prices a leading cause, would also be impossible without building new renewable energy generation, which would result in cheaper energy, he added. “My constituency, Doncaster, is seeing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation – are we saying to them we can’t build this infrastructure [that will reduce bills] and we can’t do anything about it?”Miliband said his mission was to engineer a “just transition” for people in fossil fuel-dependent jobs, such as in the oil and gas industry. Many are concerned at losing well-paid jobs in these established sectors.The energy secretary contrasted Labour with the previous Conservative government, which he said had shown little interest in equipping people with the skills and training needed for jobs in sectors such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The truth is that the North Sea was declining under them, as it is declining under us,” he said. “But if you do not show any interest, you can’t expect the private sector to show any interest either.”He said his department was becoming more of an “industrial policy department” than solely an energy department.Green jobs could rejuvenate the UK economy, he added. “All the data I have suggests that the possibilities are enormous.”

Drax Group to give shareholders £300m windfall as profits rise

Owner of North Yorkshire power station earned £393m in government subsidies to biomassThe owner of the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire will give shareholders a £300m windfall after a surge in taxpayer subsidies boosted its profits for the first half of the year to more than £500m.The power station, which earns hefty subsidies from burning biomass wood chips, mainly shipped from North America, generated almost a third more electricity over the first half of this year compared with the same months last year. Continue reading...

The owner of the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire will give shareholders a £300m windfall after a surge in taxpayer subsidies boosted its profits for the first half of the year to more than £500m.The power station, which earns hefty subsidies from burning biomass wood chips, mainly shipped from North America, generated almost a third more electricity over the first half of this year compared with the same months last year.This earned Drax Group £393m in biomass subsidies, which are opposed by many climate campaigners who claim that burning biomass is not sustainable and may increase carbon emissions.The company has received more than £6bn in subsidies for its biomass plant, which is the UK’s biggest single emitter of carbon dioxide. Drax, which supplies about 5% of the UK’s electricity, has called on the government to continue supporting its power plant by extending the subsidy scheme, which is due to end in 2027, until the end of the decade.From 2030, Drax expects to earn subsidies through a new scheme designed to support its plan to fit carbon capture technology to the power plant, in a project that could cost bill payers more than £40bn. The plans have been backed by National Grid’s electricity system operator and the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee as an important element in the UK’s efforts to meet its 2050 climate targets.In total, the company’s adjusted earnings climbed to £515m for the six months to the end of June, up from £417m in the first half of last year. The company said rising profits would continue in the second half of the year to reach “the top end” of the City’s expectations for its full-year results.In addition to buying back £300m of its shares, the company also promised to increase dividends by 12.6%, more than expected by City analysts, which ignited a share price leap of 11% on Friday morning.Matt Williams, a campaigner for Cut Carbon Not Forests and the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “It is unacceptable that this company is burning the world’s forests and making money hand over fist from environmental harm.“A large part of those profits come from public subsidies Drax is given by claiming that burning forests is good for the planet. Worse than that, Drax has told the government it needs more subsidies after 2027 – at the same time as handing hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders. Every time you pay your energy bill, you help pay Drax’s subsidies.”Will Gardiner, the chief executive of Drax Group, said the power plant was playing an important role in the UK’s electricity system by “keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses, while supporting thousands of jobs throughout our supply chain”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionDrax claims that burning wood pellets is carbon neutral because trees absorb as much carbon dioxide when they grow as they emit when they are burned. Capturing the carbon emissions from biomass power plants would then effectively create “negative carbon emissions”, according to Drax. These claims are disputed by environmentalists.Simon Francis, a campaigner at the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said Drax was profiting from a “broken energy system” and called on companies that have benefited financially from the energy crisis to “contribute more to ensure the most vulnerable households are supported” and “pay a fair tax on their ever-mounting profits”.Meanwhile, the French energy company EDF posted a 15.7% rise in its first-half profit to €18.7bn (£15.8bn) after higher electricity production from its nuclear fleet and hydropower plants. It expects its profits over the second half of the year to be lower than in 2023 because of the decline in energy market prices since the energy crisis.

Extreme heat is threatening humanity’s best ally in fight against climate change

Read more

Earth’s land lost much of their ability to absorb the carbon dioxide humans pumped into the air last year, according to a new study that is causing concern among climate scientists that a crucial damper on climate change underwent an unprecedented deterioration.Temperatures in 2023 were so high — and the droughts and wildfires that came with them were so severe — that forests in various parts of the world wilted and burned enough to have degraded the ability of the land to lock away carbon dioxide and act as a check on global warming, the study said.The scientists behind the research, which focuses on 2023, caution that their findings are preliminary. But the work represents a disturbing data point — one that, if it turns into a trend, spells trouble for the planet and the people on it.“We have to be, of course, careful because it’s just one year,” said Philippe Ciais, a scientist at France’s Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences who co-authored the new research.But the results, he added, are still “worrying.” If extreme warming continues, society risks losing “the best friend of humanity” in Earth’s land.Earth’s continents act as what is known as a carbon sink. The carbon dioxide that humans emit through activities such as burning fossil fuels and making cement encourages the growth of plants, which in turn absorb a portion of those greenhouse gases and lock them in wood and soil. Without this help from forests, climate change would be worse than what is already occurring.“This is a significant issue, because we are benefiting from the uptake of carbon,” said Robert Rohde, chief scientist for Berkeley Earth, who was not involved in the research. “Otherwise, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would rise even faster and drive up temperatures even faster.”Ciais and his colleagues saw that the concentration of CO2 measured at an observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii and elsewhere spiked in 2023, even though global fossil fuel emissions increased only modestly last year in comparison. That mismatch suggests that there was an “unprecedented weakening” in the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon, the researchers wrote.The scientists then used satellite data and models for vegetative growth to try to pinpoint where the carbon sink was weakening. The team spotted abnormal losses of carbon in the drought-stricken Amazon and Southeast Asia as well as in the boreal forests of Canada, where record-breaking wildfires burned through tens of millions of acres.The paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, was posted last week on the science preprint site arXiv. The researchers plan to present their findings next week at a scientific conference in Brazil.One big question overhanging this research is whether the results represent a one-year blip — or the start of troubling long-term trend.“If it’s the new normal, then climate mitigation will be even harder than it is now,” said Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford and author of the book “Into the Clear Blue Sky,” who also was not involved in the research. “We expect the land sink to slow eventually, but I hoped it wouldn’t happen so soon. If it slows this early, we’re in trouble.”Another key question, Jackson said, is whether the drop is due to the start last year of El Niño, a naturally occurring climate pattern that has been associated with carbon losses on land.Ciais, the researcher behind the study, said the tropical rainforests of South America and Asia have a better chance to bounce back than the snowy woodlands in North America, given how slowly those northern forests grow.“We have a strong buildup of evidence to predict that this northern sink is not going to become very strong again anytime in the future as this extreme warming continues,” Ciais said.The lost ability of some northern land to lock away carbon may also be a sign that a significant amount of organic material frozen in permafrost is thawing, according to Woodwell Climate Research Center ecologist Richard Houghton. Scientists have long worried about potentially catastrophic releases of greenhouse gases from thawing in and around the Arctic Circle.“It has always amazed me that the fraction of global carbon emissions taken up by land systems has remained so stable,” he said.Computer models disagree on when land will cease acting as a carbon sink, Rohde added — whether it will be soon, or well past the end of this century.“The worry is that we are approaching a level at which the ecosystem is getting harmed by our temperature changes to such a degree that it’s no longer helping us out by absorbing carbon,” Rohde said. “Because we don’t know when that is, something like this where we see it declining in real time is worrisome.”

"It's not just about abortion": How the Chevron ruling could unravel reproductive rights

Experts weigh in on our destabilized Supreme Court and how more than environmental regulation is being threatened

In April the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized its Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations, after being criticized by conservative lawmakers and religious organizations. Part of the update included a clarification that accommodations, like a leave of absence, applied to abortion care. But now since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, which made it possible for Congress to rely on federal expertise when implementing a wide range of policy measures, conservative judges in lower courts can seek to reverse expert policies for ideological reasons — and that applies to policies regarding reproductive care.  "They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement." As reported by Bloomberg Law this week, a coalition of 17 Republican attorneys general told a federal appeals court that the recent decision to overturn the Chevron deference should bring back their challenge to the EEOC’s pregnancy regulation. In other words, they’re trying to leverage the Chevron ruling to remove the EEOC’s approved leave of absence for abortion care. The move appears to be part of a more comprehensive anti-abortion plan to lean on the Chevron ruling to dismantle reproductive rights further.  “A Chevron ruling says that government regulations, or when the agency passes a rule, if it is not strictly required by the statute that Congress passed, then a court may invalidate the rule,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline's School of Law, explained to Salon. Previously, it was up to the agency to determine clarity in cases where there was “vague language from Congress.” But the ruling in the Chevron case says now it's up to the judges to answer that question. Depending on the judge, the decision could be made through an ideological lens.  That's not the only possible threat to reproductive health care. Cohen provided Salon with another example: under Obamacare, preventative medicine must be covered, which includes birth control. “Now, the conservative federal judiciary might say birth control, under our reading of the statute is not preventive medicine, so the agency went too far in requiring birth control,” Cohen said. “It used to be that the agency got a lot of deference. Preventive medicine is broad, it’s vague, so it's up to the agency to determine what the rule is when you've got vague language from Congress.” But now it’s up to the judges.  In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court voted along party lines in a historic decision against the government in a pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The ruling set a precedent of gutting the power of regulatory agencies to protect the environment and consumers. Gautham Rao, a professor of legal history at American University, told Salon at the time that the case had "historic implications" as an attack "on what we call the administrative state." Reproductive rights advocates worry that the implications will extend beyond environmental protections.  Leila Abolfazli, director of National Abortion Strategy at the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, told Salon she fully expects conservative justices to now start making claims that due to the decision in the Loper Bright case, some regulations related to reproductive rights can be revisited by the lower courts instead of federal agencies.  “But I will say that, with or without Loper Bright, the parties were making these claims, and some courts were open to them,” Abolfazli said. “But Loper Bright certainly gives them sights and saying, ‘No we get to decide what the law is, and it's XYZ, not what the administration said.’”  The Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that argued against the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and lost, filed an amicus brief for the Loper Bright case that outlined how a ruling to overturn the Chevron deference could unravel access to abortion care. In the amicus brief, ADF argues that “agencies are weaponizing federal healthcare laws to violate the right to life.” It specifically called out Title X, EMTALA covering life-saving abortion care, and the mail delivery of mifepristone.  It also called out a range of agencies like the EEOC, for “forcing employers to pay for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and amputating healthy organs.” “ADF definitely has a full, comprehensive plan on how it wants to take down abortion and other reproductive health care,” Abolfazli said.  In regards to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, that litigation will likely continue, Abolfazli said.   “But I think there's an overarching comment here on how destabilizing the Supreme Court is right now. They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement,” Abolfazli said.  Cohen said that leveraging the Chevron case to unravel reproductive rights is yet another example that the “anti-abortion movement is not stopping at abortion.”  “They are looking to do anything to restrict family planning, sexual health, reproductive health. It's not just about abortion,” Cohen said. “This is about anything related to sexual reproductive health and women's health too.” Read more about reproductive rights

Despite breakthrough, Manchin and Barrasso's permitting reform effort faces hurdles

Although Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) finally reached an agreement on energy permitting reform this week, their effort still faces an uphill climb.  They’ll need to convince leadership and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to support their deal — and to give them floor space at the end...

Although Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) finally reached an agreement on energy permitting reform this week, their effort still faces an uphill climb.  They’ll need to convince leadership and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to support their deal — and to give them floor space at the end of the year. For Manchin, who is not seeking reelection and will leave the Senate when his term ends in January, it marks the last chance to accomplish a long-time priority and one that is expected to be a legacy issue for him. So far, several key lawmakers have said they are open to the effort, which seeks to bolster the buildout of both renewable and fossil fuel energy sources — but they have stopped short of endorsing it. “I’d like to get permitting reform done,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters when asked about the bill this week.  Schumer said he had not yet seen the text of the agreement, and didn’t say whether he supported it. House Natural Resources Committee Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), who has been negotiating with Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) to reach a House-side deal, said the Manchin-Barrasso language will “mesh really well” with their own efforts.  It’s not clear what any effort to mesh the two could look like, however, as Peters and Westerman have not yet detailed any sort of agreement.  The Barrasso-Manchin bill, unveiled Monday after a two-year effort to get permitting reform across the finish line, comes shortly before lawmakers prepare to depart Washington for the August recess. The Senate is also slated to be out in October and early November, as many lawmakers focus on their reelection campaigns and the presidential race — leaving limited time on the legislative calendar. The legislation includes provisions that are aimed at strengthening and improving interregional connectivity for the nation’s electric grid, bolstering the buildout of renewable and fossil energy and shortening the window to sue to block energy projects.  “This legislation has something in it for everybody because it’ll make it easier to have affordable, reliable energy. It’ll also reduce emissions a lot,“ said Xan Fishman, senior director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center.  Fishman said the emissions reductions are expected to come from the provisions that bolster the grid, as well as those that seek to make it easier to build renewable energy projects.  The bill faces opposition from progressives and environmental advocates who object to its pro-fossil fuel measures and those that could make it harder for community or environmental opponents of an energy project to block it.  “For Joe Manchin, I’m sure he wants to go out swinging for the fossil fuel industry and we’re going to be swinging back in a big way,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). “We need to find a way to kill the zombie one more time.” Schumer said in 2022 that he would back Manchin’s efforts to speed up the process for approving energy projects in exchange for Manchin’s vote on the Democrats’ climate, tax and health care bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, stung by Manchin’s support of the IRA and saying his efforts did not go far enough, many Republicans ultimately opposed the West Virginia senator’s 2022 permitting proposal. And earlier this year, Schumer himself threw cold water on permitting reform’s prospects, saying it would be “virtually impossible” to get done in the near term.  “I think it’s going to be very hard to get anything done legislatively on transmission at this point given the composition of the House with a Republican majority and so few Republicans eager to do any kind of regional transmission,” he told reporters.  But Barrasso spokesperson Brian Faughnan told The Hill in an email Thursday that the senator and his staff “have been communicating with relevant members and offices in the House and Senate.”  He added that Barrasso “will look for opportunities to advance the bill during the lame duck session of Congress.” Manchin and Barrasso, the chair and ranking member of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, are pressing forward with their legislation using the little time they have before the recess.  Their committee is slated to mark up the bill next week. And it’s receiving praise from key lawmakers including Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.), who called it a “pretty good effort.” Yet some potential supporters, including Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who supports permitting reform broadly but said Tuesday he had not yet read the latest agreement, expressed doubt about whether the bill could actually get done.  “I’m not optimistic about this year,” he said, saying the election could “get in the way.” Zack Budryk contributed. 

Op-ed: Ripe for disaster declarations — heat, wildfire smoke and death data

Extreme heat and wildfire smoke should of course be defined as major disasters by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to the National Weather Service, heat kills more people in this nation than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined. The Washington Post reported that extreme heat recently killed at least 28 people across the nation.Yet, despite several requests from states over the years, most recently California during a 2022 “heat dome” and wildfires, no White House has ever approved a disaster declaration for heat or smoke.Some states outright ignore the dangers in the name of greed. Over the last 13 months, Texas and Florida have enacted laws that block localities from issuing heat protection rules for workers. Nationally, the Biden administration proposed on July 2 new rules to protect workers from heat. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of construction and agricultural lobbying groups have opposed the prospect of rules for months and are sure to oppose them in the courts.It is clear that the opposition is willing to risk sacrificing lower-wage construction and farm workers to the sun’s brutality as executives count the cash in air conditioned offices. Farm workers make an average $13.59 an hour. Hispanic construction laborers make $15.34 an hour, well below the $25-an-hour living wage for a family of four in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator. Farm workers respectively have 35 times and 12 times higher risk of heat-related injuries than in all other industries. Making the latest case for disaster declarations is a consortium of 31 environmental, public health, labor, and justice groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a June 17 petition to FEMA, the groups warned that the record-breaking heat and fire disasters we are already experiencing are likely only the beginning. The world’s nations, particularly the top burners of fossil fuels such as the United States, have yet to unify to prevent uncontrolled global warming.“These may be the coolest days and the cleanest air of the 21st century,” the petition said, “and it is already unbearably hot and unsafe for too many Americans.”The petitioners hope that disaster declarations can unlock federal funds for short-term relief such as cooling centers, water supplies, emergency air conditioning and air filtration systems, and financial assistance for evacuations. Declarations could also lead to money for long-term, proactive mitigation, such as renewable energy storage and microgrids to withstand utility blackouts, and retrofitting of homes and buildings to be more energy efficient and weatherized.That is vitally important for disadvantaged families who are more likely to live on shadeless, asphalt and concrete “heat islands.” Such communities are often already overburdened with pollution associated with fossil fuel burning and proximity to polluting industries. The petition called extreme heat a “harm multiplier” for these communities because of poor housing stock, difficulty in paying utility bills, and pre-existing poorer health. In making their case, the 31 environmental groups cite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projecting that financial cost of extreme heat in the United States will explode fivefold to half a trillion dollars a year by 2050.There is something else that would make their case even stronger: Data on people. The federal government is woefully behind university researchers in calculating the current and future mortality of heat and smoke. It should be just as much an emergency for the government to tell us the toll of heat and wildfire smoke. Especially since the government itself says “most heat-related deaths are preventable.” Death behind closed doorsProperty damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is easy to visualize and leaves the costs of emergency assistance and repair without much question. Because of the nation’s overall wealth, which gives us relatively sturdier dwellings and stronger rebuilds, deaths from those weather disasters are a fraction of the fatalities suffered in lesser resourced parts of the world. For instance, while Hurricane Katrina took 1,400 lives in the US in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in the Bay of Bengal made landfall in Myanmar in 2008 and killed 140,000 people—100 times more people than Katrina.People perishing by heat or smoke one by one in the privacy of their homes or in the sterility of hospitals is relatively invisible. An analysis of heat deaths by the Cincinnati Enquirer found that about half of heat deaths happen at home, often to people who lack air conditioning, are elderly with pre-existing medical conditions, or who are socially isolated.The petition by environmental groups points to the current invisibility of heat deaths. It cites federal data saying there were 2,300 deaths last year where heat was listed as a factor on death certificates. That by itself was a record in nearly a half-century of such record keeping. But left as is, that toll would seem to pale next to last year’s nearly 43,000 car fatalities, nearly 43,000 gun-related deaths, or 107,000 drug overdose deaths.The number of heat deaths is assuredly far more. Heat is often not listed on death certificates as a contributing factor to the final cause of death, such as kidney failure, organ failure, and heart attack. There is no uniform protocol tying together how the federal government, the 50 states, or the nation’s 3,000 counties calculate heat-related deaths.University scientists and health and safety groups are filling in the gaps as best they can.In 2020, a study in the journal Environmental Epidemiology determined that 5,600 deaths a year were attributable to heat from 1997 to 2006, eight times higher than federal figures. In 2022, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center calculated that the number of people who died from heat-related causes between 2008 and 2017 was two to three times higher than federal figures. The Penn and Philadelphia VA researchers also found that extreme heat days were associated with “significantly higher” cardiovascular mortality among adults.This spring, Texas A&M climate scientists Andrew Dessler and Jangho Lee told the Associated Press that last year’s real national annual heat death toll may be 11,000, nearly five times higher than the 2,300 cited by the government.In the work world, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says 43 workers died in 2022 from heat. But reports by Public Citizen, the most recent being in May of this year, estimate that as many as 2,000 workers a year (46 times more) die from heat and another 170,000 are injuries triggered by heat, such as becoming dizzy and falling off a roof.But the injury might simply be listed as a fall without mention of heat. Public Citizen says government figures are “decidedly unreliable” and “notoriously problematic” because they are based on self-reporting surveys of employers and “less than half of employers even maintain the required records.”No matter what number you’re looking at, all of them are likely to soar much higher without concerted global action on climate change. Without a drastic and immediate cut in fossil fuel emissions, the planet is currently staring at a 5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures this century, with the U.S. being the world’s biggest historical contributor to global warming gases.According to a study published last year by Lee and Dessler in the journal GeoHealth, the US suffered an average of 36,444 deaths a year from extreme temperatures a quarter century ago, with most of those deaths being cold-related. With a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit, that number could explode to 200,000 a year this century, driven significantly by shifts of heat mortality to Northern cities. Among the cities with the highest projected temperature increases are Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Muskegon, Minnesota.Smoking out dataParallel to that, and arguably worse, there is virtually no federal data on the fatal impacts of wildfire smoke. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lists a mere 535 deaths directly from wildfires over the last 45 years in its list of “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.” But there are likely thousands more from the smoke, which is associated with cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, digestive, endocrine, diabetes, mental, and chronic kidney disease mortality.Such smoke is not covered by the Clean Air Act, and there is growing evidence that it is eroding decades of gains in the nation’s air quality under the act. A new study by researchers at UCLA found that the fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) in wildfire smoke that easily passes into the lungs and spreads throughout the body, contributed to the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people in California from 2008 to 2018, with an economic impact of between $432 billion and $456 billion.Another study this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 16,000 people a year died from smoke PM2.5 across the US from 2011 to 2020. That study found that elevated long-term smoke concentrations “increase mortality rates at both low and high concentrations.” Wildfire smoke, as the nation found out last year with its orange-brown skies that dulled the sun into a moon-like disk, spreads for so many thousands of miles from its source that the study projects a “large mortality burden not only in regions where large fires occur but also in populous regions with low smoke concentrations (e.g., the eastern US).”Juan Aguilera, a physician researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health in El Paso, found that wildfire smoke stresses immune systems and triggers inflammation. He told National Public Radio that living in a wildfire-prone area is “something equivalent to smoking like one pack a day, or 10 packs a week.”Today’s 16,000 deaths a year from wildfire smoke could grow to nearly 28,000 by mid-century under a high warming scenario and take a cumulative 700,000 lives by 2055, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.“Our research suggests that the health cost of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US,” NBER scientists said. That concern is bolstered by a new study by Australian researchers who found that the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003, with the last seven years including six of the most extreme. Lead author Calum Cunningham told the New York Times last month, “That we’ve detected such a big increase over such a short period of time makes the findings even more shocking. We’re seeing the manifestations of a warming and drying climate before our very eyes in these extreme fires.”Adaptation could cut into the mortality risk, but it alone is likely not enough, given how Lee and Dessler noted in their study: “Many adaptive responses (e.g., installing air conditioning, improved health care, better urban planning) are too expensive for poorer individuals or communities, so adaptation will necessarily require society to pay for much of the adaptation. This would represent a huge transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members of our society, a dicey proposition in today’s political environment.”Even better, of course, would be a serious drive toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency says no new gas, oil or coal investment is necessary as renewables, energy efficiency and electrification already can deliver the vast majority of emissions reductions.New mentality needed at FEMAThough all heat-related disaster declaration requests to FEMA thus far have been denied, agency spokesperson Daniel Llargues told National Public Radio that “there’s nothing specific” in federal law that precludes such a declaration. “If a circumstance did occur where an extreme heat incident exceeded state and local capacity, an emergency or major disaster declaration request submission could be considered,” Llargues said in an email.And the White House can make a disaster declaration regardless of FEMA’s recommendation. In May, President Biden overruled a FEMA denial of a major disaster declaration so parts of Massachusetts could get federal aid to recover from severe storms and flooding last September.The process of FEMA better understanding a “circumstance” where extreme heat and wildfire smoke constitutes a disaster starts with a better understanding of the danger. Some parts of the government are trying to mine the data, such as the National Institute of Health’s Heat Information System.Extreme heat and wildfire smoke also offers FEMA a fresh chance to create new paradigms of aid, to avoid inequities seen in other disasters. Current FEMA storm funding often maintains systemic racism, putting communities with more white residents and higher property values back on their feet, while low-income people and communities of color, historically hemmed into lower property values by redlining, are left on their knees. As Politico wrote in 2022, FEMA grants to help richer families raise homes above flood levels “have helped turn dozens of wealthy or overwhelmingly white areas into enclaves of climate resilience. The communities are seeing rising property values and economic stability, while much of the nation faces devastating effects of rising seas and intensifying floods.”One can only imagine the results if the same mentality is ultimately applied to communities marooned on “heat islands.” Seniors and Black adults are at disproportionate risk of cardiovascular deaths from extreme heat according to a Penn study last year. A 2022 Penn study warned, “As extreme heat events increase, the burden of cardiovascular mortality may continue to increase and the disparities between demographic subgroups may widen.”The same can be said for those lower-wage farmworkers, construction workers and other industries where heat is a major risk. Often, the workers in those industries are disproportionately of color and immigrants. Other trades where heat is a high risk include landscaping, and indoor jobs in warehouses, restaurant kitchens, mills, and doing maintenance.And let’s not forget public school teachers and staff, as huge percentages of the nation’s public school buildings are not equipped for the rising heat.Better data neededThere are scientists, including UCS’s Juan Declet-Barreto, who have long called for standard methodology to more accurately determine whether excess deaths originated with heat or smoke exposure. Last year, Ashley Ward, the director of Duke University’s Heat Policy Innovation Lab, wrote in STAT that we need much better and uniformed coding for external causes of injuries and incentives for health systems to apply the codes for cases involving extreme heat. Without uniform coding, the public is left to weigh the emerging body of studies that have different estimations and may “add to the incorrect assumption that there is a lack of scientific consensus.”Seconding the call for data collection is the Federation of American Scientists. Among its major list of recommendations is a “whole-of-government strategy to address extreme heat.” The federation said that true mortality counts are “essential to enhancing the benefit-cost analysis for heat mitigation and resilience.”But having heat- and smoke-related mortality data is more than that. Knowing the true toll might help jolt the nation into action on climate change sooner and lessen the mitigation and resilience we will need. One only need think back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and how critical data was to devise public health policy. Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster. This post originally ran on The Union of Concerned Scientists blog and is republished here with permission.

Extreme heat and wildfire smoke should of course be defined as major disasters by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to the National Weather Service, heat kills more people in this nation than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined. The Washington Post reported that extreme heat recently killed at least 28 people across the nation.Yet, despite several requests from states over the years, most recently California during a 2022 “heat dome” and wildfires, no White House has ever approved a disaster declaration for heat or smoke.Some states outright ignore the dangers in the name of greed. Over the last 13 months, Texas and Florida have enacted laws that block localities from issuing heat protection rules for workers. Nationally, the Biden administration proposed on July 2 new rules to protect workers from heat. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of construction and agricultural lobbying groups have opposed the prospect of rules for months and are sure to oppose them in the courts.It is clear that the opposition is willing to risk sacrificing lower-wage construction and farm workers to the sun’s brutality as executives count the cash in air conditioned offices. Farm workers make an average $13.59 an hour. Hispanic construction laborers make $15.34 an hour, well below the $25-an-hour living wage for a family of four in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator. Farm workers respectively have 35 times and 12 times higher risk of heat-related injuries than in all other industries. Making the latest case for disaster declarations is a consortium of 31 environmental, public health, labor, and justice groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a June 17 petition to FEMA, the groups warned that the record-breaking heat and fire disasters we are already experiencing are likely only the beginning. The world’s nations, particularly the top burners of fossil fuels such as the United States, have yet to unify to prevent uncontrolled global warming.“These may be the coolest days and the cleanest air of the 21st century,” the petition said, “and it is already unbearably hot and unsafe for too many Americans.”The petitioners hope that disaster declarations can unlock federal funds for short-term relief such as cooling centers, water supplies, emergency air conditioning and air filtration systems, and financial assistance for evacuations. Declarations could also lead to money for long-term, proactive mitigation, such as renewable energy storage and microgrids to withstand utility blackouts, and retrofitting of homes and buildings to be more energy efficient and weatherized.That is vitally important for disadvantaged families who are more likely to live on shadeless, asphalt and concrete “heat islands.” Such communities are often already overburdened with pollution associated with fossil fuel burning and proximity to polluting industries. The petition called extreme heat a “harm multiplier” for these communities because of poor housing stock, difficulty in paying utility bills, and pre-existing poorer health. In making their case, the 31 environmental groups cite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projecting that financial cost of extreme heat in the United States will explode fivefold to half a trillion dollars a year by 2050.There is something else that would make their case even stronger: Data on people. The federal government is woefully behind university researchers in calculating the current and future mortality of heat and smoke. It should be just as much an emergency for the government to tell us the toll of heat and wildfire smoke. Especially since the government itself says “most heat-related deaths are preventable.” Death behind closed doorsProperty damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is easy to visualize and leaves the costs of emergency assistance and repair without much question. Because of the nation’s overall wealth, which gives us relatively sturdier dwellings and stronger rebuilds, deaths from those weather disasters are a fraction of the fatalities suffered in lesser resourced parts of the world. For instance, while Hurricane Katrina took 1,400 lives in the US in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in the Bay of Bengal made landfall in Myanmar in 2008 and killed 140,000 people—100 times more people than Katrina.People perishing by heat or smoke one by one in the privacy of their homes or in the sterility of hospitals is relatively invisible. An analysis of heat deaths by the Cincinnati Enquirer found that about half of heat deaths happen at home, often to people who lack air conditioning, are elderly with pre-existing medical conditions, or who are socially isolated.The petition by environmental groups points to the current invisibility of heat deaths. It cites federal data saying there were 2,300 deaths last year where heat was listed as a factor on death certificates. That by itself was a record in nearly a half-century of such record keeping. But left as is, that toll would seem to pale next to last year’s nearly 43,000 car fatalities, nearly 43,000 gun-related deaths, or 107,000 drug overdose deaths.The number of heat deaths is assuredly far more. Heat is often not listed on death certificates as a contributing factor to the final cause of death, such as kidney failure, organ failure, and heart attack. There is no uniform protocol tying together how the federal government, the 50 states, or the nation’s 3,000 counties calculate heat-related deaths.University scientists and health and safety groups are filling in the gaps as best they can.In 2020, a study in the journal Environmental Epidemiology determined that 5,600 deaths a year were attributable to heat from 1997 to 2006, eight times higher than federal figures. In 2022, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center calculated that the number of people who died from heat-related causes between 2008 and 2017 was two to three times higher than federal figures. The Penn and Philadelphia VA researchers also found that extreme heat days were associated with “significantly higher” cardiovascular mortality among adults.This spring, Texas A&M climate scientists Andrew Dessler and Jangho Lee told the Associated Press that last year’s real national annual heat death toll may be 11,000, nearly five times higher than the 2,300 cited by the government.In the work world, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says 43 workers died in 2022 from heat. But reports by Public Citizen, the most recent being in May of this year, estimate that as many as 2,000 workers a year (46 times more) die from heat and another 170,000 are injuries triggered by heat, such as becoming dizzy and falling off a roof.But the injury might simply be listed as a fall without mention of heat. Public Citizen says government figures are “decidedly unreliable” and “notoriously problematic” because they are based on self-reporting surveys of employers and “less than half of employers even maintain the required records.”No matter what number you’re looking at, all of them are likely to soar much higher without concerted global action on climate change. Without a drastic and immediate cut in fossil fuel emissions, the planet is currently staring at a 5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures this century, with the U.S. being the world’s biggest historical contributor to global warming gases.According to a study published last year by Lee and Dessler in the journal GeoHealth, the US suffered an average of 36,444 deaths a year from extreme temperatures a quarter century ago, with most of those deaths being cold-related. With a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit, that number could explode to 200,000 a year this century, driven significantly by shifts of heat mortality to Northern cities. Among the cities with the highest projected temperature increases are Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Muskegon, Minnesota.Smoking out dataParallel to that, and arguably worse, there is virtually no federal data on the fatal impacts of wildfire smoke. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lists a mere 535 deaths directly from wildfires over the last 45 years in its list of “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.” But there are likely thousands more from the smoke, which is associated with cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, digestive, endocrine, diabetes, mental, and chronic kidney disease mortality.Such smoke is not covered by the Clean Air Act, and there is growing evidence that it is eroding decades of gains in the nation’s air quality under the act. A new study by researchers at UCLA found that the fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) in wildfire smoke that easily passes into the lungs and spreads throughout the body, contributed to the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people in California from 2008 to 2018, with an economic impact of between $432 billion and $456 billion.Another study this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 16,000 people a year died from smoke PM2.5 across the US from 2011 to 2020. That study found that elevated long-term smoke concentrations “increase mortality rates at both low and high concentrations.” Wildfire smoke, as the nation found out last year with its orange-brown skies that dulled the sun into a moon-like disk, spreads for so many thousands of miles from its source that the study projects a “large mortality burden not only in regions where large fires occur but also in populous regions with low smoke concentrations (e.g., the eastern US).”Juan Aguilera, a physician researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health in El Paso, found that wildfire smoke stresses immune systems and triggers inflammation. He told National Public Radio that living in a wildfire-prone area is “something equivalent to smoking like one pack a day, or 10 packs a week.”Today’s 16,000 deaths a year from wildfire smoke could grow to nearly 28,000 by mid-century under a high warming scenario and take a cumulative 700,000 lives by 2055, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.“Our research suggests that the health cost of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US,” NBER scientists said. That concern is bolstered by a new study by Australian researchers who found that the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003, with the last seven years including six of the most extreme. Lead author Calum Cunningham told the New York Times last month, “That we’ve detected such a big increase over such a short period of time makes the findings even more shocking. We’re seeing the manifestations of a warming and drying climate before our very eyes in these extreme fires.”Adaptation could cut into the mortality risk, but it alone is likely not enough, given how Lee and Dessler noted in their study: “Many adaptive responses (e.g., installing air conditioning, improved health care, better urban planning) are too expensive for poorer individuals or communities, so adaptation will necessarily require society to pay for much of the adaptation. This would represent a huge transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members of our society, a dicey proposition in today’s political environment.”Even better, of course, would be a serious drive toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency says no new gas, oil or coal investment is necessary as renewables, energy efficiency and electrification already can deliver the vast majority of emissions reductions.New mentality needed at FEMAThough all heat-related disaster declaration requests to FEMA thus far have been denied, agency spokesperson Daniel Llargues told National Public Radio that “there’s nothing specific” in federal law that precludes such a declaration. “If a circumstance did occur where an extreme heat incident exceeded state and local capacity, an emergency or major disaster declaration request submission could be considered,” Llargues said in an email.And the White House can make a disaster declaration regardless of FEMA’s recommendation. In May, President Biden overruled a FEMA denial of a major disaster declaration so parts of Massachusetts could get federal aid to recover from severe storms and flooding last September.The process of FEMA better understanding a “circumstance” where extreme heat and wildfire smoke constitutes a disaster starts with a better understanding of the danger. Some parts of the government are trying to mine the data, such as the National Institute of Health’s Heat Information System.Extreme heat and wildfire smoke also offers FEMA a fresh chance to create new paradigms of aid, to avoid inequities seen in other disasters. Current FEMA storm funding often maintains systemic racism, putting communities with more white residents and higher property values back on their feet, while low-income people and communities of color, historically hemmed into lower property values by redlining, are left on their knees. As Politico wrote in 2022, FEMA grants to help richer families raise homes above flood levels “have helped turn dozens of wealthy or overwhelmingly white areas into enclaves of climate resilience. The communities are seeing rising property values and economic stability, while much of the nation faces devastating effects of rising seas and intensifying floods.”One can only imagine the results if the same mentality is ultimately applied to communities marooned on “heat islands.” Seniors and Black adults are at disproportionate risk of cardiovascular deaths from extreme heat according to a Penn study last year. A 2022 Penn study warned, “As extreme heat events increase, the burden of cardiovascular mortality may continue to increase and the disparities between demographic subgroups may widen.”The same can be said for those lower-wage farmworkers, construction workers and other industries where heat is a major risk. Often, the workers in those industries are disproportionately of color and immigrants. Other trades where heat is a high risk include landscaping, and indoor jobs in warehouses, restaurant kitchens, mills, and doing maintenance.And let’s not forget public school teachers and staff, as huge percentages of the nation’s public school buildings are not equipped for the rising heat.Better data neededThere are scientists, including UCS’s Juan Declet-Barreto, who have long called for standard methodology to more accurately determine whether excess deaths originated with heat or smoke exposure. Last year, Ashley Ward, the director of Duke University’s Heat Policy Innovation Lab, wrote in STAT that we need much better and uniformed coding for external causes of injuries and incentives for health systems to apply the codes for cases involving extreme heat. Without uniform coding, the public is left to weigh the emerging body of studies that have different estimations and may “add to the incorrect assumption that there is a lack of scientific consensus.”Seconding the call for data collection is the Federation of American Scientists. Among its major list of recommendations is a “whole-of-government strategy to address extreme heat.” The federation said that true mortality counts are “essential to enhancing the benefit-cost analysis for heat mitigation and resilience.”But having heat- and smoke-related mortality data is more than that. Knowing the true toll might help jolt the nation into action on climate change sooner and lessen the mitigation and resilience we will need. One only need think back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and how critical data was to devise public health policy. Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster. This post originally ran on The Union of Concerned Scientists blog and is republished here with permission.

The green transition will make things worse for the Indigenous world

A new study warns that the push for renewable energy could exacerbate socioeconomic disparities among Indigenous communities.

The green transition will deepen entrenched socioeconomic barriers for Indigenous peoples — unless Western forms of science and ongoing settler colonialism are addressed by researchers. That’s according to a new study out this month focused on the use, and abuse, of Indigenous knowledge to solve climate change. Despite disenfranchisement, researchers added, Indigenous nations remain the best stewards of the land. Focused on environmental oral histories of the Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware, the study examined how the nation strengthened tribal sovereignty by revitalizing connections to land. This has included re-introducing freshwater mussels into the ecosystem as a way to clean local waterways, and growing ancestral plants for food, medicine, and textiles in urban areas.  “We as a people, and all the Native people on the East Coast, have been dealing with environmental changes for thousands of years,” said Dennis White Otter Coker, the principal chief of the Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware, in the report. Researchers argue that it is impossible to separate the effects of climate change from the history of land dispossession and violence endured by Indigenous peoples, and contend that that legacy continues in Western science practices aimed at finding climate solutions. For example, previous studies have found that organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are biased towards Western sciences over Indigenous knowledge, and their reports “problematically unquestioned,” regardless of the international organization’s own reports finding colonialism to be a key factor in climate change. “Western Science is really what dominates the way we talk about climate adaptation,” said Lyndsey Naylor, an author on the paper from the University of Delaware. She added that Western science has a hard time meaningfully integrating tribal projects into research, sometimes dismissing their insights completely. Western researchers often have an extractive relationship with tribes where institutions will come into communities, take what they need, and leave.  “Indigenous knowledge is either subsumed [or] appropriated,” Naylor said. “Or like, ‘Hey that’s cute, but we know what we are doing.’” But despite biases by governments toward Western sciences, Indigenous nations are integrating traditional knowledge to fight climate change across the world. From the plains in North America, where tribes are reintroducing buffalo as a way to support healthy habitats and ecosystems, to the Brazilian Amazon, where Indigenous-protected territories show 83 percent lower deforestation rates than settler-controlled areas. Indigenous science, and control, hold keys to fighting climate change. However, those Indigenous innovations still face challenges, notably from the green transition. In Arizona, for example, the San Carlos Apache have been fighting for years to protect Oak Flat — an area of the highest religious importance to the tribe and a critical wildlife habitat — from copper mining. The proposed mine would be integral to the production of batteries for electric vehicles while entrenching long-term climate impacts and destroying an integral piece of the Apache’s culture and wiping out important ecology in the area.  Faisal Bin Islam, a co-author on the study who specializes in the effects of climate change in colonial contexts, said that Western science has a “savior complex,” and continuing to ignore historical and contemporary colonial violence in Indigenous communities only deepens those ways of thinking.  “In a settler colonial future, we might end up inventing a technology or process that reduces emissions significantly to avert the consequences of climate change,” he said. “However, it will not end colonial dispossession and violence.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The green transition will make things worse for the Indigenous world on Jul 26, 2024.

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.