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.

California wants to harness more than half its land to combat climate change by 2045. Here's how

News Feed
Monday, April 22, 2024

California has unveiled an ambitious plan to help combat the worsening climate crisis with one of its invaluable assets: its land. Over the next 20 years, the state will work to transform more than half of its 100 million acres into multi-benefit landscapes that can absorb more carbon than they release, officials announced Monday. The so-called nature-based solutions will span natural and working lands such as forests, farms, grasslands, chaparral, deserts and other types of ecosystems and urban environments. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. The first-of-its-kind plan — part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California Climate Commitment geared toward helping the state reach carbon neutrality by 2045 — includes 81 targets that will help harness the power of millions of acres across the Golden State. “We’re setting aggressive and ambitious new targets to use California’s lands to fight the climate crisis,” Newsom said in a statement. “This scale of action is unprecedented, and yet another example of California punching above its weight. From restoring and conserving lands to greening our urban spaces and treating more acres to prevent wildfires, we’re protecting nature and allowing it to work for our communities.”Among the 2045 targets announced Monday are 33.5 million acres that will be managed to reduce wildfire risk, mostly through fuel reduction activities and beneficial fire practices. Those practices include cultural and prescribed burns, which are intentional fires designed to sear through overgrown vegetation and other material that can act as fuel for flames. U.S. Forest Service firefighters in the Angeles National Forest burn piles of forest debris below Mt. Baldy in November 2023. Controlled burns are part of the service’s forest management practices. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) To get there, the state seeks to conduct 1.5 million acres of wildfire risk reduction activity per year by 2030; 2 million acres per year by 2038, and 2.5 million acres per year by 2045, most of which will be applied to forests, shrublands, chaparral and grasslands, which together comprise about 67% of the state.(By comparison, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection completed about 105,000 acres of fuel treatment, including 36,000 acres of prescribed burns during the 2023 fiscal year, according to agency data. The U.S. Forest Service completed about 312,000 acres of combined treatment and burns).The plan also calls for 11.9 million acres of forestland to be managed for biodiversity protection, carbon storage and water supply protection by 2045, and 2.7 million acres of shrublands and chaparral to be managed for carbon storage, resilience and habitat connectivity, among other efforts.“We’ve had a really strong environmental conservation movement in California, and we’re clearly strong on climate action, but we haven’t integrated nature into our climate agenda,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary. “And so this is really the next tangible step to do that.”Crowfoot noted that nature-based solutions are gaining attention not only in the state, but also on the international stage, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change validating their critical importance in ongoing efforts to stabilize the climate. “This is all about improving the health and the resilience of our lands, whether that’s forests and deserts and farms and coastal areas,” Crowfoot said. “Healthy, resilient lands ... do a better job absorbing and storing carbon, and avoid emissions.” But the move was also prompted by the results of California’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, which analyzed for the first time the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced and absorbed by the state’s lands. The analysis found that California’s lands currently emit more than they absorb — principally in the form of wildfires, which spew carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. In fact, a recent study found that California wildfires in 2020 — the state’s worst fire season on record — released about 127 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or almost twice the tonnage of greenhouse gases as the total amount of CO2 reductions made since 2003. “This shift from carbon sink to carbon emitter is largely due to historic land use decisions, including disconnection from beneficial land management practices utilized by California Native American tribes, and the accelerating impacts of climate change,” the governor’s office said. “Modeling suggests that aggressive near-term efforts to increase climate action on California’s lands will put this sector on the path to course correction.” Beaches are included in the state’s plan to use nature to mitigate climate change. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) The plan also comes on the heels of Earth’s hottest year on record, which has seen scientists and public officials alike sounding alarms about rapid global changes made worse by fossil fuel emissions. What’s more, the planet is teetering on the brink of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming over pre-industrial levels — an international benchmark for avoiding the worst effects of climate change — and is already beginning to see worsening wildfires, stronger storms, more severe droughts and accelerating species loss, among other effects. Smog hangs in the air as the sun sets after a hot day in Los Angeles last fall. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) Reducing carbon emissions is key to preventing such outcomes from getting worse, experts say. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hovering around 425 parts per million — well beyond safe limits. “The science is very clear: Shifting our lands from a source to a sink requires aggressive near-term action, and the longer we wait, the harder it will become,” said Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s climate advisor. Other items outlined in the plan include managing 3.4 million acres of croplands for healthy soils, drought resilience and below-ground biodiversity, as well as conservation. This includes about 152,000 acres per year by 2030; 206,000 acres per year by 2038, and 209,500 acres per year by 2045. Much of this work will include practices that sequester carbon and provide multiple benefits on working lands, such as increased water holding capacity and improved nutrient cycling, said Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. A tractor plows a field in the Cuyama Valley in Central California. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times) Indeed, agricultural emissions in the United States account for about 10% of the country’s emissions, according to the latest greenhouse gas emission inventory from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The California Air Resources Board estimates that in California, agriculture is the source of 8% of total inventoried greenhouse gas emissions. “I know that with the continued investment, cooperation and partnerships that we’re building, we can continue to be a leader in the nation of putting these practices on the soil, and being [a] carbon sink,” Ross said. The governor plans to plant thousands of trees in urban areas. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) But it’s not just agricultural land that will play a part in the state’s land-use transformation. The program also calls for 4.2 million trees to be planted across California, which will help remove carbon, combat heat and increase access to nature. Studies have shown that areas without trees can simmer several degrees hotter than their leafier counterparts, with poor neighborhoods often bearing the brunt of extreme temperatures. Trees and vegetation also contribute to more permeable soil that creates more opportunities for water to seep into the ground and replenish groundwater aquifers that have been sapped by agriculture, drought and overuse. In fact, many of the projects — which will span more than 40 state agencies, tribal partners and stakeholder groups — will have multiple benefits, said Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board. For example, healthier forests can mean healthier soils and water tables, as well as reduced wildfire risks and improved air quality.The solutions were developed “not just to support carbon storage and help achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, but also for the much larger public health and environmental benefits that come with restored and sustained ecosystem health,” Randolph said. She added that the phased rollout of the targets means that many Californians will begin to see benefits long before the 2045 deadline. The governor’s plan also includes 1.6 million acres of grasslands managed to restore native grasslands and protect biodiversity; and 1.5 million acres of sparsely vegetated lands — such as deserts and beaches — managed to protect fragile ecosystems. More than 230,000 acres of wetlands and seagrasses will be managed to protect water supply, deliver carbon benefits and buffer communities from flooding.The cumulative targets amount to nearly 60 million acres across California by 2045, although it’s possible some projects will overlap, officials said. There is currently no specific price tag attached to the work. The state only recently saw several of its key climate programs placed on the chopping block as Newsom seeks to close a massive budget deficit. The work will “require significant investment and levels of action collectively,” acknowledged Amanda Hansen, deputy secretary for climate change with the Natural Resources Agency. However, she noted that according to the Scoping Plan, the cost for delivering on the targets is significantly less than the estimated costs for addressing emissions in fossil fuel sectors.The targets are intended to help guide state policy and investment, Hansen said, and will work in conjunction with the Scoping Plan and with Assembly Bill 1757, a 2022 bill that required the state agencies to collaborate on setting targets for carbon sequestration and nature-based solutions. The Newsom administration has invested $9.6 billion in nature-based solutions since 2020.Officials described the plan as “among the most comprehensive in the world” and said they believe it can act as a model for other states and regions.“These climate targets are a big deal for California, for the nation, and for the world,” Sanchez said.

State officials unveiled 81 targets to transform millions of acres in the Golden State into landscapes that can absorb more carbon than they release by 2045.

California has unveiled an ambitious plan to help combat the worsening climate crisis with one of its invaluable assets: its land.

Over the next 20 years, the state will work to transform more than half of its 100 million acres into multi-benefit landscapes that can absorb more carbon than they release, officials announced Monday. The so-called nature-based solutions will span natural and working lands such as forests, farms, grasslands, chaparral, deserts and other types of ecosystems and urban environments.

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

The first-of-its-kind plan — part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s California Climate Commitment geared toward helping the state reach carbon neutrality by 2045 — includes 81 targets that will help harness the power of millions of acres across the Golden State.

“We’re setting aggressive and ambitious new targets to use California’s lands to fight the climate crisis,” Newsom said in a statement. “This scale of action is unprecedented, and yet another example of California punching above its weight. From restoring and conserving lands to greening our urban spaces and treating more acres to prevent wildfires, we’re protecting nature and allowing it to work for our communities.”

Among the 2045 targets announced Monday are 33.5 million acres that will be managed to reduce wildfire risk, mostly through fuel reduction activities and beneficial fire practices. Those practices include cultural and prescribed burns, which are intentional fires designed to sear through overgrown vegetation and other material that can act as fuel for flames.

U.S. Forest Service firefighters in the Angeles National Forest burn piles of forest debris below Mt. Baldy.

U.S. Forest Service firefighters in the Angeles National Forest burn piles of forest debris below Mt. Baldy in November 2023. Controlled burns are part of the service’s forest management practices.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

To get there, the state seeks to conduct 1.5 million acres of wildfire risk reduction activity per year by 2030; 2 million acres per year by 2038, and 2.5 million acres per year by 2045, most of which will be applied to forests, shrublands, chaparral and grasslands, which together comprise about 67% of the state.

(By comparison, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection completed about 105,000 acres of fuel treatment, including 36,000 acres of prescribed burns during the 2023 fiscal year, according to agency data. The U.S. Forest Service completed about 312,000 acres of combined treatment and burns).

The plan also calls for 11.9 million acres of forestland to be managed for biodiversity protection, carbon storage and water supply protection by 2045, and 2.7 million acres of shrublands and chaparral to be managed for carbon storage, resilience and habitat connectivity, among other efforts.

“We’ve had a really strong environmental conservation movement in California, and we’re clearly strong on climate action, but we haven’t integrated nature into our climate agenda,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary. “And so this is really the next tangible step to do that.”

Crowfoot noted that nature-based solutions are gaining attention not only in the state, but also on the international stage, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change validating their critical importance in ongoing efforts to stabilize the climate.

“This is all about improving the health and the resilience of our lands, whether that’s forests and deserts and farms and coastal areas,” Crowfoot said. “Healthy, resilient lands ... do a better job absorbing and storing carbon, and avoid emissions.”

But the move was also prompted by the results of California’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, which analyzed for the first time the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced and absorbed by the state’s lands. The analysis found that California’s lands currently emit more than they absorb — principally in the form of wildfires, which spew carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions.

In fact, a recent study found that California wildfires in 2020 — the state’s worst fire season on record — released about 127 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or almost twice the tonnage of greenhouse gases as the total amount of CO2 reductions made since 2003.

“This shift from carbon sink to carbon emitter is largely due to historic land use decisions, including disconnection from beneficial land management practices utilized by California Native American tribes, and the accelerating impacts of climate change,” the governor’s office said. “Modeling suggests that aggressive near-term efforts to increase climate action on California’s lands will put this sector on the path to course correction.”

Beachgoers take in the cooling mist of the ocean as the sun sets on Huntington Beach.

Beaches are included in the state’s plan to use nature to mitigate climate change.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

The plan also comes on the heels of Earth’s hottest year on record, which has seen scientists and public officials alike sounding alarms about rapid global changes made worse by fossil fuel emissions.

What’s more, the planet is teetering on the brink of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming over pre-industrial levels — an international benchmark for avoiding the worst effects of climate change — and is already beginning to see worsening wildfires, stronger storms, more severe droughts and accelerating species loss, among other effects.

A smoggy sky, with the downtown Los Angeles skyline and a freeway packed with cars

Smog hangs in the air as the sun sets after a hot day in Los Angeles last fall.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Reducing carbon emissions is key to preventing such outcomes from getting worse, experts say. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hovering around 425 parts per million — well beyond safe limits.

“The science is very clear: Shifting our lands from a source to a sink requires aggressive near-term action, and the longer we wait, the harder it will become,” said Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s climate advisor.

Other items outlined in the plan include managing 3.4 million acres of croplands for healthy soils, drought resilience and below-ground biodiversity, as well as conservation. This includes about 152,000 acres per year by 2030; 206,000 acres per year by 2038, and 209,500 acres per year by 2045.

Much of this work will include practices that sequester carbon and provide multiple benefits on working lands, such as increased water holding capacity and improved nutrient cycling, said Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

A tractor plows a field in the Cuyama Valley in October.

A tractor plows a field in the Cuyama Valley in Central California.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Indeed, agricultural emissions in the United States account for about 10% of the country’s emissions, according to the latest greenhouse gas emission inventory from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The California Air Resources Board estimates that in California, agriculture is the source of 8% of total inventoried greenhouse gas emissions.

“I know that with the continued investment, cooperation and partnerships that we’re building, we can continue to be a leader in the nation of putting these practices on the soil, and being [a] carbon sink,” Ross said.

A man loads up a truck with trees to be planted

The governor plans to plant thousands of trees in urban areas.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

But it’s not just agricultural land that will play a part in the state’s land-use transformation. The program also calls for 4.2 million trees to be planted across California, which will help remove carbon, combat heat and increase access to nature. Studies have shown that areas without trees can simmer several degrees hotter than their leafier counterparts, with poor neighborhoods often bearing the brunt of extreme temperatures.

Trees and vegetation also contribute to more permeable soil that creates more opportunities for water to seep into the ground and replenish groundwater aquifers that have been sapped by agriculture, drought and overuse.

In fact, many of the projects — which will span more than 40 state agencies, tribal partners and stakeholder groups — will have multiple benefits, said Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board. For example, healthier forests can mean healthier soils and water tables, as well as reduced wildfire risks and improved air quality.

The solutions were developed “not just to support carbon storage and help achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, but also for the much larger public health and environmental benefits that come with restored and sustained ecosystem health,” Randolph said. She added that the phased rollout of the targets means that many Californians will begin to see benefits long before the 2045 deadline.

The governor’s plan also includes 1.6 million acres of grasslands managed to restore native grasslands and protect biodiversity; and 1.5 million acres of sparsely vegetated lands — such as deserts and beaches — managed to protect fragile ecosystems. More than 230,000 acres of wetlands and seagrasses will be managed to protect water supply, deliver carbon benefits and buffer communities from flooding.

The cumulative targets amount to nearly 60 million acres across California by 2045, although it’s possible some projects will overlap, officials said.

There is currently no specific price tag attached to the work. The state only recently saw several of its key climate programs placed on the chopping block as Newsom seeks to close a massive budget deficit.

The work will “require significant investment and levels of action collectively,” acknowledged Amanda Hansen, deputy secretary for climate change with the Natural Resources Agency. However, she noted that according to the Scoping Plan, the cost for delivering on the targets is significantly less than the estimated costs for addressing emissions in fossil fuel sectors.

The targets are intended to help guide state policy and investment, Hansen said, and will work in conjunction with the Scoping Plan and with Assembly Bill 1757, a 2022 bill that required the state agencies to collaborate on setting targets for carbon sequestration and nature-based solutions. The Newsom administration has invested $9.6 billion in nature-based solutions since 2020.

Officials described the plan as “among the most comprehensive in the world” and said they believe it can act as a model for other states and regions.

“These climate targets are a big deal for California, for the nation, and for the world,” Sanchez said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Klamath River Reservoirs Drained for World’s Largest Dam Removal Project

The Klamath River dam removal, spanning from 2023 to 2024, marks the largest project of its kind aimed at restoring riparian habitats by dismantling four...

Satellite image of Klamath River reservoirs captured on December 23, 2023, by the Operational Land Imager-2 on Landsat 9.Satellite image of Klamath River reservoirs captured on February 25, 2024, by the Operational Land Imager-2 on Landsat 9.The Klamath River dam removal, spanning from 2023 to 2024, marks the largest project of its kind aimed at restoring riparian habitats by dismantling four major dams.The Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California is now running freer. In late 2023 and early 2024, four of the six dams along the river were breached and reservoirs drained. These actions were part of an effort to restore hundreds of miles of riparian habitat. It is thought to be the largest dam removal project in history.Historical Background and Project RationaleThe four dams—Iron Gate, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and J.C. Boyle—were built between 1918 and 1962 to generate electricity. Facing steep costs to modernize them in the early 2000s, the utility that owned the dams opted for deconstruction instead. In addition to removing aging infrastructure, the project is expected to eliminate the ecosystem and human health risks posed by toxic algae, which has regularly reached harmful levels in the reservoirs since 2005. Restoration efforts will focus on revegetating hundreds of acres and reinvigorating fish populations in what was once the third most productive river for salmon on the West Coast. Early Stages of Dam RemovalThe first dam to be removed, Copco No. 2, was also the smallest; that project wrapped up in September 2023. Copco No. 2 did not impound a reservoir but rather diverted the river’s flow through a tunnel system to a powerhouse downstream.More-visible changes would come later, after the upper image was acquired with the OLI-2 (Operational Land Imager-2) on Landsat 9 on December 23, 2023. At that time, the Iron Gate, Copco No. 1, and J.C. Boyle (upstream and not in view) dams were still holding back water. Drawdown of the Iron Gate Reservoir began on January 11, 2024, followed by the controlled release of water from Copco Lake and J.C. Boyle Reservoir.Visible Changes and Environmental ImpactBy February 15, the initial phase of drawdown was complete, according to a news release from the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), the organization managing the project. The result is evident in the second image (lower), acquired with the OLI-2 on Landsat 9 on February 25. A river channel meanders through the beds of the drained reservoirs.The KRRC estimated that 5 million cubic yards of sediment previously held behind dams would travel downstream during this drawdown phase. Scientists expect the release of sediment early in the project to degrade water quality in the near term, increasing turbidity and lowering dissolved oxygen content. “The river is undoing a century of being impacted by these dams, and that may look messy right now,” said NOAA fisheries biologist Shari Witmore in a statement.Long-Term Ecological BenefitsA steady supply of river sediment will help build up habitat for organisms downstream, transport nutrients, and replenish coastlines over the long term. The Klamath is one of many river systems, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, to have gone without many of these benefits for decades. A recent analysis of Landsat and hydrological data found that 20th-century dam building in North America, Europe, and Asia has halved the global delivery of suspended sediment from rivers to the oceans relative to pre-dam conditions.Researchers have documented rapid and long-lasting ecological gains following other dam removal and river restoration projects, such as the one on the Elwha River in Washington state in the 2010s. To jumpstart restoration on the Klamath, NOAA Fisheries, the Bureau of Reclamation, tribes, and other partners are conducting controlled water releases from dams farther upstream to maximize the movement of sediment and minimize impacts to fish.Ongoing Restoration and Future PlansIn the coming months, the three remaining dam structures will be completely disassembled. The removal of Copco No. 1, a concrete arch dam, began in March; Iron Gate and J.C. Boyle, both earthen dams, will be deconstructed after the spring runoff period. The removal of all three is slated to be complete before the fall Chinook salmon run. Restoration of the approximately 1,300 acres that were previously underwater has already begun with the dispersal of climate-adapted seeds collected throughout the watershed.NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Smothered by Seaweed: Sargassum Wreaks Havoc on Caribbean Ecosystems

Its growth driven to epic levels by climate change and fertilizer runoff, sargassum puts dozens of species — and people — at risk. The post Smothered by Seaweed: Sargassum Wreaks Havoc on Caribbean Ecosystems appeared first on The Revelator.

Originally published by Centro de Periodismo Investigativo with The BVI Beacon, The Virgin Islands Daily News, America Futura – El País América, Jamaica and the RCI Guadeloupe. For more than 20 years, Mexican biologist María del Carmen García Rivas has led a crusade to protect the coral lining the Yucatan Peninsula in the Caribbean Sea. As director of the Puerto Morelos Reefs National Park in México, she has advocated for reforms to reduce runoff and other pollution from coastal development. She has spearheaded efforts to control lionfish, an introduced species that has put at risk the nearly 670 species of marine fauna that inhabit the park. And since 2018, she has organized brigades to restore reefs damaged by tissue-destroying coral diseases known as white syndromes. But now, yet another threat has been keeping her awake at night: massive blooms of sargassum seaweed reaching the coast of the park. “When the sargassum, a macroalgae that usually floats, reaches the coasts, it begins to decompose, generating an environment without oxygen that kills different organisms,” she said. “It mainly affects species that cannot move or move very little, such as some starfish, sea urchins, the sea grasses themselves, and of course corals.” Along the coast of Quintana Roo, the Mexican state where the Puerto Morelos Reefs National Park is based, the local government collected 70 tons of sargassum during 2023 alone, said Huguette Hernández Gómez, the state’s Secretary of Ecology and Environment. Added to what they collected during the last four years, the figure reaches 200 tons. Regional Problem This story is familiar across the Caribbean. Though modest amounts of sargassum benefit marine life in the region, massive influxes arriving since 2011 have upset the ecological balance in some areas in ways that could be irreversible. Scientists blame the explosive growth of the seaweed on global pollution, climate change, and other international problems that Caribbean islands did little to cause and lack the political power to resolve. The seaweed has exacerbated existing stress on the region’s reefs, which last year faced a massive bleaching event linked also to warming waters associated with climate change. Exposure to extreme temperatures for extended periods breaks down the relationship between the corals and the algae living inside of them. Corals are left pale or white, and the lack of food from algae can lead them to die, according to the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sargassum mats have also blocked sea turtle nesting sites and inundated mangroves, which serve as crucial nurseries for countless aquatic species. Birds feed on small fish caught in seaweed mat along the South-Eastern coast of the Portmore Causeway in St. Catherine, Jamaica on May 2, 2023.Photo by Kirk Wright | Television Jamaica In some areas, beaches have been eroded by the seaweed and by the heavy machinery used to remove it. Many fishers complain that their catch has dwindled sharply. But because of the magnitude of the relatively recent problem — which is affecting coastlines from West Africa to the Americas — the true extent of the environmental damage is poorly understood, according to Dr. Brian LaPointe, a biologist and sargassum expert at Florida Atlantic University. “We haven’t gotten very far in the research to understand the causes or how to deal with it and manage and mitigate the impacts on the environment,” LaPointe said. Second Largest Barrier Reef The effects that García Rivas has seen in Mexico illustrate the implications for the entire region. The park she oversees is part of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, which stretches along more than 600 miles of coastline in Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. As the second longest barrier reef in the world — only the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is longer, at about 1,400 miles — the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef is home to some 500 species of fish and 60 species of stony corals, according to the World Wildlife Fund. It also supports the livelihoods of one to two million people in the region, the WWF states. Floating sargassum can provide a healthy habitat, but when it washes against the shore in mass quantities it often suffocates certain organisms, said James Foley, director of oceans for The Nature Conservancy. “In coastal areas like Belize, the problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the sargassum also attracts a lot of marine rubbish: local garbage that runs off from the rivers that come into the Caribbean from Central America. So it ends up being a pretty toxic environment,” he said. The sargassum also creates a barrier that blocks light and prevents organisms below it from photosynthesizing, according to Foley. A 2021 study published in the scientific journal Climate Change Ecology, which analyzed the situation in three bays in Quintana Roo, Mexico, found that under the sargassum mats the light seepage decreased up to 73% and the water temperature could be as much as 5 degrees Celsius warmer. Bacterial Diseases In addition, García Rivas said, bacteria carried by the sargassum may be affecting the corals as well. “Some of the diseases suffered by the corals could be related to all the bacteria brought in by the sargassum or that arise during its decomposition,” she said. “Although it becomes an environment without oxygen, there are bacteria that may be able to survive, affecting not only the corals but also generating fish mortality.” Such effects exacerbate existing threats to the reef, she said, noting that the worst historical damage has come from coastal development and inadequate management of sewage and other waste. “In general, contaminated seawater does not allow corals to live properly,” she said. “It weakens them. And when they present diseases or are stressed by heat, it is easier for them to die.” A similar scenario has played out in Jamaica, according to Dr. Camilo Trench, a marine biologist at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. “The problem is that the seaweed grows fast and the corals grow slowly,” Trench said. “So if the sargassum is in the area with other macroalgae, it can overgrow the coral reef area quite quickly. So now it will not only reduce the space that the corals will have to grow: It will also reduce the settlement area of the coral nursery.” Sargassum Smothers Other Species Coral might be one of the most visible animals affected by sargassum, but is not the only one. A study published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin analyzed a massive sargassum influx that swamped the shores of the Mexican Caribbean in 2018, decomposing and turning the water cloudy. As a result, the researchers found, organisms from 78 wildlife species died. The worst affected were demersal neritic fish, which live at the bottom of shallow areas of the sea, and crustaceans. Other scientists have raised concerns about sargassum’s effects on turtle nests. In 2017, Briggite Gavio, a professor of marine biology at the National University of Colombia, visited Cayo Serranilla, a tiny 600-by-400-meter island at the northernmost tip of the Colombian Caribbean. The island is only inhabited by military personnel and it’s a perfect place for sea turtles to nest.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Sargassum Monitoring® (@sargassum_monitoring) But when Gavio was there as part of a scientific expedition, sargassum had formed a mat up to 40 centimeters (16 inches) high on the beaches. “We were able to observe that some turtle hatchlings had trouble getting past the barrier posed by the sargassum mat, and were vulnerable to predation by ghost crabs, rats and other predators,” she wrote in a 2018 paper about her observations. Similar observations about the effects of sargassum in sea turtles have been made by scientists on other islands such as Antigua and Barbuda. Killing Mangroves, Too Sargassum also appears to have a potentially lethal impact on Caribbean mangroves, an important natural barrier for extreme hurricanes. “These are plants that live on the seashore and are tidal plants, but they depend on their aerial roots and their respiratory roots, which are underground, for oxygen,” said Trench, the biologist in Jamaica. “Now imagine a mat covering those roots and preventing oxygen from flowing through them. It can definitely cause death if it is long-term and similar to the impact of something like oil slicks on the mangrove or litter, such as solid waste.” As with corals, mangroves sometimes end up smothered, sustaining damage themselves and putting at risk other species that depend on them. No ‘Virtuous Circle’ For García Rivas, the biologist in Mexico, one fact is particularly alarming: Unlike many other problems facing the reefs she oversees, the sargassum influx has no clear solution. “We haven’t come up with a virtuous circle as we have, for example, with lionfish,” she said. “Despite being an invasive species, [lionfish] can be fished and eaten, which mitigates the problem.” Local Government Looks for Solutions Faced with this problem, last year the state of Quintana Roo created a committee of 60 experts from different areas that worked for seven months to help create what is now known as the Integral Strategy for the Management and Use of Sargassum in Quintana Roo. The strategy covers eight areas: health; research and monitoring; knowledge management, processes and logistics; utilization; legal framework; economic instruments and cross-cutting axes. Its key advances include designating the state of Quintana Roo as the authority in charge of granting permits to researchers and companies working to turn sargassum into a product. “The state government is the one that gives all the permits for issues ranging from transportation, collection to final destination. With that we avoid that companies are going around in circles between whether to ask the federal or municipal government where to acquire the permits,” said Hernández Gómez, the ecology and environment secretary.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Ronald Lusk (@ronaldlusk) The response is costly. Last year, she said, the Secretariat of the Navy was assigned about $3 million to collect sargassum at sea using its ships and anchorage barriers, while the Federal Maritime Terrestrial Zone was assigned about $7 million more to collect it from beaches. In Quintana Roo, through the Secretariat headed by Hernandez Gómez, another $1.7 million is coming in to address the problem. “And this year that investment will be maintained,” she said. This investigation is the result of a fellowship awarded by the Center for Investigative Journalism’s Training Institute and was made possible in part with the support of Open Society Foundations. Read the rest of the stories in this series. Previously in The Revelator: New Hope for Horseshoe Crabs — and the Shorebirds That Depend on Them The post Smothered by Seaweed: Sargassum Wreaks Havoc on Caribbean Ecosystems appeared first on The Revelator.

Why climate change action requires "degrowth" to make our planet sustainable

Salon spoke with Japanese philosophy professor Kohei Saito about his new book, "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto"

Climate change truly is a major existential threat, one we're clearly not addressing fast enough. But as individuals, there's little we can do to stop it on a grand scale — it will require global cooperation to overcome. Nonetheless, the accompanying feelings of helplessness when faced with such a daunting crisis can make many feel paralyzed with despair. So what can be done? "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto," a new book from University of Tokyo philosophy professor Kohei Saito, offers more than a diagnosis of the systemic problems that brought us to this moment; it lays out, in clear and well-researched language, how those problems can be thoroughly addressed. In 2020, when "Slow Down" was originally published in Japan, it went by the far more fitting title "Capital in the Anthropocene" — with "Anthropocene" being the proposed geological era that began when human activity started radically altering natural conditions on the planet. "My idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production." Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous. As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us. Saito doesn't take credit for these observations. Philosopher Karl Marx developed a philosophy in the 1860s that Saito describes as "eco-Marxist" (particularly in Saito's previous work, "Karl Marx's Eco-Socialism"). While the German philosopher's early works like "The Communist Manifesto" urged the working class to insist on receiving its fair share of the benefits of industrialism, Marx's later writings praised Indigenous peoples in the Americas, India and Algeria for living in communes that stressed sustainable environmental practices. As such, "Slow Down" is that rare hybrid among ideological manifestos: It opens new insights into an existing ideology while uplifting something distinct of its own. Salon spoke with Saito about "Slow Down" and the relationship climate change has to economics. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. For those who are totally unfamiliar with the works of Karl Marx, can you please explain how one must distinguish between his early works and the later works that you describe as "eco-Marxism"?  Marxism is known for socialism, and socialism is often described as the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism has a tendency to increase technologies and promote innovations because of market competition. But Marx thought that once the workers take over power and kick out the capitalists, they can utilize the development of productive forces for the sake of themselves — more wealth, more well-being. But there is one problem: Sustainability. Because as Marx started to study natural sciences later in the 1850s and 1860s, he came to realize the development of technologies in capitalism actually don't create a condition for emancipation of the working class. Because not only do those technologies control the workers more efficiently, they destabilize the old system of jobs and make more precarious, low skilled jobs. At the same time those technologies exploit from nature more efficiently and create various problems such as exhaustion of the soil, massive deforestation, and the exhaustion of the fuels, and so on. Marx came to realize that this kind of technology undermines material conditions for sustainable development of human beings. And the central concept for Mark at that time in the sixties is metabolism. He thinks that this metabolic interaction between humans and nature is quite essential for any kind of society, but the problem of capitalism is it really transforms and organizes this entire metabolism between humans and nature for the sake of profit-making. Technologies are also used for this purpose. So technologies are not for the purpose of creating better life, free time and sustainable production, but rather it exploits workers and nature at the same time for the sake of more growth, more profit, and so on. My point is basically Marx was quite optimistic when he was young in terms of the development of technologies, but later he came to realize actually technologies have more damaging impact on both humans and nature. So he became more critical of that possibility of solving those problems of poverty and ecological problems using technology. That's how the issue of degrowth and eco-socialist ideas came to be central for his ideas. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, 'You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important.' But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this." There's another distortion in Marxist thought, what you described as "the monster known as Stalinism." What ideological corrections do you offer to the Marxist model to avoid a repetition of history?  So I advocate for a kind of eco-socialism, that kind of socialism that is more sustainable, that is not based on exploitation of nature. Because in the 20th century, Stalinism and other kinds of socialist experiments was a disaster. It was un-democratic. It was a dictatorship of the Communist Party, but at the same time it was also destruction of the environment. I think their ideas were rather based on the development of progress through technology, and productive force is the condition for the working class emancipation. And the most efficient way of developing these technologies and productive forces is the monopoly of the means of production by the bureaucrats and the party. It just created a kind of the central planning, which is very top-down and authoritarian and anti-democracy. At the same time, they didn't care about the environment, so it basically destroyed nature. In Marx's later works, he quite intensively studied natural sciences. He also studied at the same time other societies, non-Western societies, that were more sustainable. He came to realize that these societies were not driven toward endless growth. They were communally managing land. They were also democratically redistributing wealth. So he came to realize that more of a kind of bottom-up management of the commonwealth is good for people and creates a more equal society. It's also good for the environment. It was more sustainable because that's why those [Indigenous] societies lasted for many, many years. In America, they lasted many, many years before those people coming to conquer the land. Marx came to recognize that not necessarily Western societies are more progressive in creating a better society for the workers, but rather Western society also need to learn from non-Western societies. This is another very radical transformation for Marx in his late years. But then he came to realize not a top-down Soviet style dictatorship is necessary for the sake of establishing socialism, but rather more democratic, horizontal management of commonwealth lands, water, forests and other resources. That is quite essential for creating a better society. And he actually uses the term association — not socialism or communism. He often describes the future society with "association." And so my idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production. This is why I still use the term "communism," because the society based on capital is capitalism and a society based on the commonwealth, the democratic management of commonwealth is actually to be called "communism." Could you elaborate on how the degrowth philosophy that you say has been implemented in locations like Quito, Ecuador or Barcelona, Spain, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. My book, originally in Japanese, was published like three years ago, so it was published in the middle of pandemic. Japan is also a captive society and it's a very conservative society. I didn't expect that this call for going back to Marx and reviving the tradition of communism combined with new idea of degrowth would attract so much attention and interest from people. But it was, I think, because of the pandemic, that we came to recognize how destructive our economic activities were. It was obviously deforestation and that kind of thing. Ugly business was a main cause of the pandemic. Now at the same time, the climate crisis was deepening. So it was a moment we saw how our daily life was quite clearly destructive, but at the same time, we had to stop the economy for the sake of protecting our lives. Shutting down departments, shopping malls and restaurants and so on. We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, "You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important." But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this. We came to realize that these things are actually possible. And once we started working from home, once we stopped taking trains and going to hang out with people, buying new clothes all the time and so on, we came to realize, 'Why did we consume so much? Why did we work so hard?' The pandemic created some kind of space for reflection upon our previous life, the massive consumption, massive production, and massive waste. This is really the moment when the degrowth idea appeared more attractive, because people could spend more time with family, friends — not necessarily friends because of the pandemic, but maybe with friends — they could read more books and newspapers, and they enjoyed different ways of life that are not necessarily consumptionist.  "The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south." At the same time, a new crisis is coming — the climate crisis — and it will accelerate inflation. It will create a bigger economic inequality. And various natural disasters will also create a food shortage, which might lead to various kinds of conflicts. Geopolitical tension will increase, and so on. My claim in my book is basically this crisis cannot be simply overcome by investing in new green technologies. It is like early Marx: We overcome the crisis of capitalism by technologies, the state should intervene, the Green New Deal must be new investments, blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that works. My idea is basically we need to learn from the experience of the pandemic — that capitalist society is driven for the sake of creating more profit, not necessarily able to provide what is necessary. Because what is necessary, like medicine and education and hospital masks and so on — are not necessarily profitable. Capitalism doesn't produce what is necessary unless it is profitable. This gap creates disparities for us to tackle. My idea is basically degrowth is focusing on what is necessary rather than what is profitable. We should share more with the commonwealth like public transportation, the education system, the medical care system. These necessary things, essential goods, must be shared more equally instead of some rich people monopolizing all the wealth of the planet.  Can you explain the "Netherlands Fallacy" — namely, the idea that the Netherlands proves that socialism can be ecologically sustainable and prosperous. Can you elaborate on why that is indeed a fallacy?  I don't know why it's really the Netherlands. It can be the U.S. Fallacy or whatever, but it's traditionally called the Netherlands Fallacy. The Netherlands had some environmental pollution and basically they overcame this issue with new technologies. Everything seems fine, but the problem is this fallacy. The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south. One contemporary example is electronic vehicles, EVs, which are today very important; Tesla making massive profits, and so on. For the sake of a decarbonized society, I totally agree that we need more electronic vehicles and we need to produce them more, and that gasoline should be abandoned as fast as possible. I totally agree. But the problem is, are electric vehicles totally sustainable?  "This is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd." The answer is obviously no. It is not just that usage of electric vehicles still consumes electricity, which might be produced by using fossil fuels, but the problem is — instead of fossil fuels — we also need a lot of rare metals: Lithium, copper, cobalt. And those rare metals are often located in the global south: Latin America, China, Russia, Africa and so on. And in these places now, the extraction of metals are creating very poor working conditions for even children. Child labor is obviously a problem in Congo, where a lot is massively extracted, but also the problem of environmental pollution, massive deforestation and the lithium use uses a lot of water. Chile is now suffering by wildfires, but they are also suffering from drought. And then mining lithium consumes a lot of water when people actually need water for their lives, and also for producing food, and so on.  People like us and affluent people in the global north can continue a very comfortable life by buying new electric vehicles like Tesla instead of Toyota. And they think that, "Okay, we did something good for the environment. I feel my responsibility for the next generations and so on." They are actually falling into this fallacy of believing their sustainability. No, they're not. Their behavior is not sustainable because the real problem is only hidden: massive extraction of the lithium in the global south. It's still causing quite a damaging impact upon people and the environment. So the metabolism between humans and nature, it's still distorted and disrupted in a quite serious manner. And my idea of degrowth is not a negation of technology. We need electric vehicles. I repeat again because this is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd, but at the same time, I clearly want to say that there are too many cars. We need to shift to a society where we share electric vehicles with neighbors. So sharing cars. And we also need to invest in more green technologies like public transportation and also bicycles. And the bicycles of today are kind of dangerous because all the roads are created for the sake of cars. So the city urban planning is centering around all industries, and that needs to be challenged, that needs to change. And these are idea that degrowth will create a more eco-friendly, pedestrian friendly kind of society. The new kind of fair mobility is a central idea of degrowth. But this is just one example we need. My basic point is that often technologies simply hide the true environmental impacts, and we needed technological development, but at the same time, we need to reduce our excessive consumption. Otherwise we will fall into the Netherlands Fallacy.  I'm reading a book by billionaire philanthropist, Tom Steyer, who argues for more traditional approaches to addressing climate change: Funding green technologies, pushing voter registration drives, supporting a Green New Deal platform. Do you think there is anything fundamentally flawed about approaches for dealing with climate change when they come from billionaires or from others in the elite classes?  Yes. I don't actually deny some kind of Green New Deal, but not a Green New Deal for people like the American people. Because my idea of sustainability is more comprehensive. It includes the people in the global south. So greening or decarbonization in the U.S. can be achieved at the cost of people in the global south, and that doesn't make sense, right? And the same thing can be said within the U.S. The green transformation for the sake of billionaires could be achieved at the cost of many people in the global south. Minority indigenous people could be sacrificed for the sake of sustaining today's capitalism. What do I mean by this? Growth is always good for billionaires. They say, "Okay, we'll invest more in something good — green technologies — and it will grow the economy. And then all the poor people working class people will also benefit from growth." Growth actually hides the necessity of redistribution. When we talk about redistribution and compensation or reparation, billionaires needs to give up some of what they have gained. Not just wealth, but also private jets, massive houses and cruise ships and those luxury items, too. But when we invest in green technologies, flying jets can be sustainable, blah, blah, blah. And they also don't have to redistribute their own wealth because the entire pie of the economy will be bigger, so that the working class can also gain higher salaries and so on. My idea of degrowth is much more challenging because the degrowth doesn't seek after continuous growth of the economic pie.  When the pie doesn't grow, we need to share more. So it really clearly demands the massively distribution of the wealth from the rich people to the poor people. But also we should give up what is actually unnecessary. I claim that, but the most obvious example is private jets. Private jets are unnecessary because people can still fly with business class or whatsoever. So my point is, rich people should give up their wealth, rich people should give up private jets and so on, other unnecessary things. And when people now talk about the Green New Deal, they hide the necessity of such a radical transformation of our lifestyle for the sake of everyone. Read more about climate change

Quantifying the “Carbon Gap” – Unmasking the Shortfalls in Global Climate Efforts

Insufficient carbon dioxide removal efforts jeopardize meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced technologies and strategies. New research suggests that...

Research indicates that existing plans for carbon dioxide removal are inadequate for meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 ºC warming limit. Enhanced awareness and action are required to close the significant gap between projected increases and the needs identified in IPCC focus scenarios.Insufficient carbon dioxide removal efforts jeopardize meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced technologies and strategies.New research suggests that countries’ current plans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere will not be enough to comply with the 1.5 ºC warming limit set out under the Paris Agreement.Since 2010, the United Nations environmental organization UNEP has taken an annual measurement of the emissions gap — the difference between countries’ climate protection pledges and what is necessary to limit global heating to 1.5 ºC, or at least below 2 ºC. The UNEP Emissions Gap Reports are clear: climate policy needs more ambition. This new study now explicitly applies this analytical concept to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) — the removal of the most important greenhouse gas, CO2, from the atmosphere.The study, published today (May 3) in the journal Nature Climate Change, was led by the Berlin-based Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) and involved an international team of scientists.“In the Emissions Gap Reports, carbon removals are only accounted for indirectly,” said lead author Dr. William Lamb, of the MCC Applied Sustainability Science working group.“After all, the usual benchmark for climate protection pledges is net emissions, ie emissions minus removals. We are now making transparent the specific ambition gap in scaling up removals.“This planetary waste management will soon place completely new requirements on policymakers and may even become a central pillar of climate protection in the second half of the century.”Co-author Dr. Naomi Vaughan, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, added: “Carbon dioxide removal methods have a small but vital role to play in achieving net zero and limiting the impacts of climate change.“Our analysis shows that countries need more awareness, ambition, and action on scaling up CDR methods together with deep emissions reductions to achieve the aspirations of the Paris Agreement.”According to the study, if national targets are fully implemented, annual human-induced carbon removals could increase by a maximum of 0.5 gigatonnes of CO2 (500 million tonnes) by 2030, and by a maximum of 1.9 gigatonnes by 2050.This contrasts with the 5.1 gigatonne increase required in a ‘focus scenario’, which the research team depicts as typical from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report.There, global heating, calculated over the entire course of this century, is limited to 1.5 ºC, and a particularly rapid expansion of renewable energies and reduction of fossil emissions is depicted as the core climate protection strategy.But, the focus scenario still relies on scaling up carbon removals. The gap for the year 2050 is therefore at least 3.2 gigatonnes of CO2 (5.1 minus a maximum of 1.9).An alternative focus scenario, also derived from the IPCC, assumes a significant reduction in global energy demand, due to politically initiated behaviour changes as the core element of climate protection strategy.Here, carbon removals would increase by a more modest amount: 2.5 gigatonnes in 2050. Fully implemented national targets would be close to sufficient when compared to this scenario, with a gap in 2050 of 0.4 gigatonnes.The research team points out the problem of sustainability limits in scaling up carbon removals; for example, the associated land area demand will come to jeopardise biodiversity and food security. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for designing fair and sustainable land management policies.In addition, novel carbon removal options, such as air filter systems, or ‘enhanced rock weathering’, have hardly been promoted by politicians to date.They currently only remove 0.002 gigatonnes of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, compared to 3 gigatonnes through conventional options such as afforestation, and they are unlikely to significantly increase by 2030. According to the scenarios, they must become more prevalent than conventional options by 2010.Since only 40 countries have so far quantified their removal plans in their long-term low emissions development strategies, the study also draws on other national documents and best-guess assumptions.“The calculation should certainly be refined,” said Dr. Lamb. “But our proposal using the focus scenarios further opens the discourse on how much carbon removal is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement.“This much is clear: without a rapid reduction in emissions towards zero, across all sectors, the 1.5 ºC limit will not be met under any circumstances.”Reference: “The carbon dioxide removal gap” by Lamb, W, Gasser, T, Roman-Cuesta, R, Grassi, G, Gidden, M, Powis, C, Geden, O, Nemet, G, Pramata, Y, Riahi, K, Smith, S, Steinhauser, J, Vaughan, N, Smith, H, Minx, J, 3 May 2024, Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-024-01984-6

A year in, New York’s pioneering public power law makes uneven progress

One year ago, New York state passed one of the country’s most ambitious clean energy and climate justice laws. The Build Public Renewables Act authorized the New York Power Authority, a state-owned public power utility, to build and own clean energy projects for the first time. If the state falls short of its…

One year ago, New York state passed one of the country’s most ambitious clean energy and climate justice laws. The Build Public Renewables Act authorized the New York Power Authority, a state-owned public power utility, to build and own clean energy projects for the first time. If the state falls short of its ambitious climate goals, the law mandates that NYPA step up to build renewables that will keep the state on track.  Heralded as a major win for environmental justice and climate advocacy groups, the law also introduced a program for low- and moderate-income residents to receive credits for clean energy produced by the public utility and allocated $25 million each year to renewable energy job training, among other measures. But in the year since, progress on implementing the law has been spotty. Though NYPA says it has made carrying out the law a priority by laying the groundwork for future renewable power projects, activists and some policymakers say the utility has not been transparent in its planning thus far, making it hard to tell whether NYPA is on track to transform the state’s energy sector at the pace required by its 2019 climate law. “The real problem is there is not sufficient transparency into what they are planning, so it’s hard for us to say how effective it is,” Michael Paulson, co-chair of the coalition Public Power NY, told Canary Media.  Paulson’s group, along with the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, labor unions, and climate justice organizations across the state, campaigned for four years to pass the Build Public Renewables Act. An amended form of the law eventually made it into the state’s annual budget early last May. Activists hoped that strengthening the role of publicly owned power would enable a swifter expansion of cleaner, cheaper electricity — and create a structure that’s more accountable to consumers than the dominant investor-owned utility model. Over the past 12 months, the authority has taken some initial steps toward working with private renewable energy developers. In January 2024, NYPA issued a request for information from developers and contractors to learn about opportunities for wind, solar, and battery energy storage projects. In March, the authority followed up with a request for qualifications to evaluate and prequalify renewable developers to work with on future projects, to which it received more than 85 responses. 

Suggested Viewing

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.