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.

In Deep Red Utah, Climate Concerns Are Now Motivating Candidates

News Feed
Tuesday, March 19, 2024

The 2024 election is occurring as the planet’s future is more endangered than ever. Last year was the hottest in recorded history, and the winners of this election will face the responsibility of leading humanity to address our rapidly escalating climate catastrophe. This biweekly column examines races and ballot measures shaped by the climate emergency as well as the powerful interests that seek to sway votes on the issue. Driving on Interstate 215 south of Salt Lake City in late January, I couldn’t help but notice the bumper stickers on the pickup truck in front of me. One featured a rattlesnake and the classic motto “Don’t tread on me,” which dates to the Revolutionary War but has been co-opted by many right-wing ideologues. And the other featured a map of a shrinking lake and the words “Keep the Salt Lake Great,” the motto of a local environmental group focused on protecting Utah’s rivers and ecosystems.  Those dual views perfectly capture the ethos of Utah, a deep red state whose natural beauty is being threatened by more intense heat waves and extreme drought. A proud coal- and oil-producing state, it’s led by conservative lawmakers, and recent national surveys show it’s one of the most Republican states in the country. Back in 2010, the Utah Legislature even passed a resolution that essentially wrote climate change denial into state policy by urging the EPA to “cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated.” But since then, Utah has been impacted by climate change more than most states – over the last 50 years, temperatures in the state have risen at about twice the global average, and it has faced worsening drought, wildfires, flash floods and extreme heat waves. The impact has been devastating on the health and well-being of residents, with decreasing productivity of farms and higher rates of respiratory disease and asthma, along with other heat-related diseases.   And climate change has seriously damaged one of the state’s natural wonders — that map on the truck driver’s bumper sticker reveals how climate change has shrunk the Great Salt Lake’s footprint by half in the last decades due to the reduced flow of mountain streams that feed the lake and higher demand for freshwater for new development and agriculture. The crisis has also increased climate awareness in the state, with half of residents in a recent survey saying that climate change is an extremely or very serious problem and 64% saying they’ve noticed significant effects from climate change over the past 10 years.  “For voters, climate has become a bigger issue than it has been in the past,” said Josh Kraft, government and corporate relations manager for Utah Clean Energy, a public interest group that launched a historic compact in 2020 that brought together more than 100 of the state’s political and business leaders to stimulate support for clean energy and energize conversations on climate action and clean air solutions. That bipartisan concern with climate change is now impacting politics in the state — where two self-professed climate candidates are running to replace Mitt Romney in the U.S. Senate. In total, there are five GOP candidates polling higher than 3% and three Democratic candidates running in the June 25 primary. In the Republican primary, the frontrunner, U.S. Rep. John Curtis, is highlighting the need to address the climate crisis, pushing for more support for clean energy. He founded and leads the Conservative Climate Caucus in Congress and blames his party for not taking climate change seriously.  “We want to work together as Republicans and Democrats, because at the end of the day, we all care about leaving the Earth better than we found it,” Curtis recently told the Sierra Club. “That’s how I talk about it — who doesn’t want to leave the Earth better than we found it?” But climate activists are doubtful, claiming that Curtis is too reliant on industry-friendly solutions such as carbon capture and opposes some of President Biden’s signature climate accomplishments, including the Inflation Reduction Act.  In the Democratic primary, mountaineer and environmental activist Caroline Gleich has made climate action and air quality a key focus of her campaign. She rallied lawmakers in the state to take action to increase water flow to the Great Salt Lake as part of a larger climate agenda that includes cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, taking advantage of Inflation Reduction Act funds aimed at increasing the use of renewable energy in the state, and protecting public lands. “Our mountains, our air, our rivers and lakes, our lives deserve respect,” Gleich has repeatedly said.  Yet she sees a disconnect between public support for climate action and the policies pursued by the state’s political leadership, noting that the Legislature recently voted to increase the tax on EV charging and to reduce the tax on gasoline. “And when you look at who’s funding these candidates, you see there’s a huge amount of oil and gas and fossil fuel companies giving money to them,” Gleich said. Indeed, Curtis is a major recipient — his district includes an area known as Carbon County due to its abundance of coal and natural gas, and he has accepted $265,000 from oil and gas industry-linked political action committees since 2017. Curtis did not return calls from Capital & Main for comment. Gleich’s view is echoed by Zach Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council, an environmental group that distributes the Great Salt Lake bumper stickers. “We’re in a state of climate change denial — politicians might say that it’s real in an election year, but if we start asking them if we should embrace climate adaptive policies, they say no. They assume that any crisis is decades away.” Frankel is encouraged by the growing public concern over climate issues, such as the shrinking Great Salt Lake — the largest remaining wetland ecosystem in the American West — and the growing frustration with the lack of action.  “The state of Utah has refused to embrace any kind of meaningful policy plan to raise lake levels,” he said, predicting that “it will have to get worse before it gets better.” As elsewhere in the country, younger voters in the state seem to be more galvanized than older voters about the issue and demanding action. At a climate strike on the steps of the Utah state house last year, activists condemned the Legislature for not making serious efforts to reduce emissions. A legislator’s move to slash emissions at U.S. Magnesium, which harvests lithium and magnesium from the Great Salt Lake, was scaled back to a mere study of the effects of pollutants created in the process.  “Young people are disproportionately affected by eco-anxiety because it’s their future,” said Gleich, who at 38 is the youngest candidate in the Senate race. “That is what is on the line in this election.” Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Would-be voters in this coal and oil state signal they’re increasingly alarmed by climate change. The post In Deep Red Utah, Climate Concerns Are Now Motivating Candidates appeared first on .

The 2024 election is occurring as the planet’s future is more endangered than ever. Last year was the hottest in recorded history, and the winners of this election will face the responsibility of leading humanity to address our rapidly escalating climate catastrophe. This biweekly column examines races and ballot measures shaped by the climate emergency as well as the powerful interests that seek to sway votes on the issue.


Driving on Interstate 215 south of Salt Lake City in late January, I couldn’t help but notice the bumper stickers on the pickup truck in front of me. One featured a rattlesnake and the classic motto “Don’t tread on me,” which dates to the Revolutionary War but has been co-opted by many right-wing ideologues. And the other featured a map of a shrinking lake and the words “Keep the Salt Lake Great,” the motto of a local environmental group focused on protecting Utah’s rivers and ecosystems. 

Those dual views perfectly capture the ethos of Utah, a deep red state whose natural beauty is being threatened by more intense heat waves and extreme drought. A proud coal- and oil-producing state, it’s led by conservative lawmakers, and recent national surveys show it’s one of the most Republican states in the country. Back in 2010, the Utah Legislature even passed a resolution that essentially wrote climate change denial into state policy by urging the EPA to “cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated.”

But since then, Utah has been impacted by climate change more than most states – over the last 50 years, temperatures in the state have risen at about twice the global average, and it has faced worsening drought, wildfires, flash floods and extreme heat waves. The impact has been devastating on the health and well-being of residents, with decreasing productivity of farms and higher rates of respiratory disease and asthma, along with other heat-related diseases.
 



 
And climate change has seriously damaged one of the state’s natural wonders — that map on the truck driver’s bumper sticker reveals how climate change has shrunk the Great Salt Lake’s footprint by half in the last decades due to the reduced flow of mountain streams that feed the lake and higher demand for freshwater for new development and agriculture.

The crisis has also increased climate awareness in the state, with half of residents in a recent survey saying that climate change is an extremely or very serious problem and 64% saying they’ve noticed significant effects from climate change over the past 10 years. 

“For voters, climate has become a bigger issue than it has been in the past,” said Josh Kraft, government and corporate relations manager for Utah Clean Energy, a public interest group that launched a historic compact in 2020 that brought together more than 100 of the state’s political and business leaders to stimulate support for clean energy and energize conversations on climate action and clean air solutions.

That bipartisan concern with climate change is now impacting politics in the state — where two self-professed climate candidates are running to replace Mitt Romney in the U.S. Senate. In total, there are five GOP candidates polling higher than 3% and three Democratic candidates running in the June 25 primary.

In the Republican primary, the frontrunner, U.S. Rep. John Curtis, is highlighting the need to address the climate crisis, pushing for more support for clean energy. He founded and leads the Conservative Climate Caucus in Congress and blames his party for not taking climate change seriously. 

“We want to work together as Republicans and Democrats, because at the end of the day, we all care about leaving the Earth better than we found it,” Curtis recently told the Sierra Club. “That’s how I talk about it — who doesn’t want to leave the Earth better than we found it?”

But climate activists are doubtful, claiming that Curtis is too reliant on industry-friendly solutions such as carbon capture and opposes some of President Biden’s signature climate accomplishments, including the Inflation Reduction Act. 

In the Democratic primary, mountaineer and environmental activist Caroline Gleich has made climate action and air quality a key focus of her campaign. She rallied lawmakers in the state to take action to increase water flow to the Great Salt Lake as part of a larger climate agenda that includes cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, taking advantage of Inflation Reduction Act funds aimed at increasing the use of renewable energy in the state, and protecting public lands. “Our mountains, our air, our rivers and lakes, our lives deserve respect,” Gleich has repeatedly said. 

Yet she sees a disconnect between public support for climate action and the policies pursued by the state’s political leadership, noting that the Legislature recently voted to increase the tax on EV charging and to reduce the tax on gasoline. “And when you look at who’s funding these candidates, you see there’s a huge amount of oil and gas and fossil fuel companies giving money to them,” Gleich said.

Indeed, Curtis is a major recipient — his district includes an area known as Carbon County due to its abundance of coal and natural gas, and he has accepted $265,000 from oil and gas industry-linked political action committees since 2017. Curtis did not return calls from Capital & Main for comment.

Gleich’s view is echoed by Zach Frankel of the Utah Rivers Council, an environmental group that distributes the Great Salt Lake bumper stickers. “We’re in a state of climate change denial — politicians might say that it’s real in an election year, but if we start asking them if we should embrace climate adaptive policies, they say no. They assume that any crisis is decades away.”

Frankel is encouraged by the growing public concern over climate issues, such as the shrinking Great Salt Lake — the largest remaining wetland ecosystem in the American West — and the growing frustration with the lack of action. 

“The state of Utah has refused to embrace any kind of meaningful policy plan to raise lake levels,” he said, predicting that “it will have to get worse before it gets better.”

As elsewhere in the country, younger voters in the state seem to be more galvanized than older voters about the issue and demanding action. At a climate strike on the steps of the Utah state house last year, activists condemned the Legislature for not making serious efforts to reduce emissions. A legislator’s move to slash emissions at U.S. Magnesium, which harvests lithium and magnesium from the Great Salt Lake, was scaled back to a mere study of the effects of pollutants created in the process. 

“Young people are disproportionately affected by eco-anxiety because it’s their future,” said Gleich, who at 38 is the youngest candidate in the Senate race. “That is what is on the line in this election.”


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

More than 1,000 Amazon workers warn rapid AI rollout threatens jobs and climate

Workers say the firm’s ‘warp-speed’ approach fuels pressure, layoffs and rising emissionsMore than 1,000 Amazon employees have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns” about AI development, saying that the company’s “all-costs justified, warp speed” approach to the powerful technology will cause damage to “democracy, to our jobs, and to the earth.”The letter, published on Wednesday, was signed by the Amazon workers anonymously, and comes a month after Amazon announced mass layoff plans as it increases adoption of AI in its operations. Continue reading...

More than 1,000 Amazon employees have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns” about AI development, saying that the company’s “all-costs justified, warp speed” approach to the powerful technology will cause damage to “democracy, to our jobs, and to the earth.”The letter, published on Wednesday, was signed by the Amazon workers anonymously, and comes a month after Amazon announced mass layoff plans as it increases adoption of AI in its operations.Among the signatories are staffers in a range of positions, including engineers, product managers and warehouse associates.Reflecting broader AI concerns across the industry, the letter was also supported by more than 2,400 workers from companies including Meta, Google, Apple and Microsoft.The letter contains a range of demands for Amazon, concerning its impact on the workplace and the environment. Staffers are calling on the company to power all its data centers with clean energy, make sure its AI-powered products and services do not enable “violence, surveillance and mass deportation”, and form a working group comprised of non-managers “that will have significant ownership over org-level goals and how or if AI should be used in their orgs, how or if AI-related layoffs or headcount freezes are implemented, and how to mitigate or minimize the collateral effects of AI use, such as environmental impact”.The letter was organized by employees affiliated with the advocacy group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. One worker who was involved in drafting the letter explained that workers were compelled to speak out because of negative experiences with using AI tools in the workplace, as well as broader environmental concerns about the AI boom. The staffers, the employee said, wanted to advocate for a better way to develop, deploy and use the technology.“I signed the letter because of leadership’s increasing emphasis on arbitrary productivity metrics and quotas, using AI as justification to push myself and my colleagues to work longer hours and push out more projects on tighter deadlines,” said a senior software engineer, who has been with the company for over a decade, and requested anonymity due to fear of reprisal.Climate goalsThe letter accuses Amazon of “casting aside its climate goals to build AI”.Like other companies in the generative AI race, Amazon has invested heavily in building new data centers to power new tools – which are more resource intensive and demand high amounts of electricity to operate. The company plans to spend $150bn on data centers in the next 15 years, and just recently said it will invest $15bn to build data centers in northern Indiana and at least $3bn for data centers in Mississippi.The letter claims that Amazon’s annual emissions have “grown roughly 35% since 2019”, despite the company’s promise in 2019 to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040. It warns many of Amazon’s investments in AI infrastructure will be in “locations where their energy demands will force utility companies to keep coal plans online or build new gas plants”.“‘AI’ is being used as a magic word that is code for less worker power, hoarding of more resources, and making an uninformed gamble on high energy demand computer chips magically saving us from climate change,” said an Amazon customer researcher, who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation for speaking out. “If we can build a climate saving AI – that’s awesome! But that’s not what Amazon is spending billions of dollars to develop. They are investing fossil fuel energy draining data centers for AI that is intended to surveil, exploit, and squeeze every extra cent out of customers, communities, and government agencies.”In a statement to the Guardian, Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser pushed back on employees’ claims and pointed toward the company’s climate goals. “Not only are we the leading data center operator in efficiency, we’re the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy for five consecutive years with over 600 projects globally,” said Glasser. “We’ve also invested significantly in nuclear energy through existing plants and new SMR technology–these aren’t distractions, they’re concrete actions demonstrating real progress toward our Climate Pledge commitment to reach net-zero carbon across our global operations by 2040.”AI for productivityThe letter also includes strict demands around the role of AI in the Amazon workplace, demands that, staffers say, arose out of challenges employees are experiencing.Three Amazon employees who spoke to the Guardian claimed that the company is pressuring them to use AI tools for productivity, in an effort to increase output. “I’m getting messaging from my direct manager and [from] of all the way up the chain, about how I should be using AI for coding, for writing, for basically all of my day-to-day tasks, and that those will make me more efficient, and also that if I don’t get on board and use them, that I’m going to fall behind, that it’s sort of sink or swim,” said a software engineer who has been with Amazon for over two years, requesting anonymity due to fear of reprisal.The worker added that just weeks ago she was told by her manager that they were “expected to do twice as much work because of AI tools”, and expressed concern that the output expected demanded with fewer people is unsustainable, and “the tools are just not making up that gap.”The customer researcher echoed similar concerns. “I have both personally felt the pressure to use AI in my role, and hear from so many of my colleagues they are under the same pressure …”.“All the while, there’s no discussion about the immediate effects on us as workers – from unprecedented layoffs to unrealistic expectations for output.”The senior software engineer said that the adoption of AI has had imperfect outcomes. He said that most commonly, workers are pressured to adopt agentic code generation tools: “Recently I worked on a project that was just cleaning up after a high-level engineer tried to use AI to generate code to complete a complex project,” said this worker. “But none of it worked and he didn’t understand why – starting from scratch would have actually been easier.”Amazon did not respond to questions about the staffers’ workplace critiques about AI use.Workers emphasized they are not against AI outright, rather they want it to be developed sustainably and with input from the people building and using it. “I see Amazon using AI to justify a power grab over community resources like water and energy, but also over its own workers, who are increasingly subject to surveillance, work speedups, and implicit threats of layoffs,” said the senior software engineer. “There is a culture of fear around openly discussing the drawbacks of AI at work, and one thing the letter is setting out to accomplish is to show our colleagues that many of us feel this way and that another path is possible.”

Australia finally acknowledges environment underpins all else. That’s no small thing | Ken Henry

In what are dangerous times for democracies around the world, parliament’s overhaul of nature laws in the EPBC Act shows ambitious reform remains possibleSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe passage of long overdue reforms to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act demonstrates powerfully that democratic governance is alive and well in Australia.The Australian parliament has done its job and passed 21st-century reforms that support a modern economy, enable the creation of new and sustainable jobs while promising not to destroy, but in fact improve, the health of the natural world. Continue reading...

The passage of long overdue reforms to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act demonstrates powerfully that democratic governance is alive and well in Australia.The Australian parliament has done its job and passed 21st-century reforms that support a modern economy, enable the creation of new and sustainable jobs while promising not to destroy, but in fact improve, the health of the natural world. This is no small thing. In what are clearly dangerous times for democracies around the world, the Australian parliament has demonstrated emphatically that ambitious economic reform remains possible. And yes, I do mean “economic” reform.As in the past, courageous leadership has been rewarded with agreement. As in the past, the parliament has engaged constructively, in the national interest, rising above the debilitating personality politics and culture wars of recent years.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThe winners stand to be future generations of Australians. In this instance, our elected representatives have demonstrated they understand that this is where their most weighty obligation is owed. But meeting that obligation is hard. Democracies often appear carefully designed to reward short-termism. Yet the success of a parliament can only be assessed according to what it does for the future. In the final sitting week of 2025, the Australian parliament appears to have delivered.The package of reforms to the EPBC Act fixes an ugly policy mess. The mess had been called out in several reviews, including Graeme Samuel’s review delivered more than five years ago.As I observed in an address to the National Press Club mid-year, report after report tells the same story of failure. The environment is simply not being protected. Biodiversity is not being conserved. Nature is in systemic decline. The environmental impact assessment systems embedded in the laws are simply not fit for purpose. Of particular concern, they are incapable of supporting an economy in transition to net zero.The mess of poorly constructed environmental laws has been undermining productivity. I noted that we simply cannot afford slow, opaque, duplicative and contested environmental planning decisions based on poor information, mired in administrative complexity.This week’s reforms promise to fix the mess.The reformed act will deliver a set of standards that aim to protect matters of national environmental significance. It will provide certainty for all stakeholders about impacts that must be regarded as “unacceptable” and therefore avoided.It builds integrity into the administration of the laws through the establishment of an independent, national EPA. It promises to end the absurd carveout for native forests, the landscapes that remain most richly endowed with biodiversity and healthy ecosystem functioning. And it lays the foundations for the development of regional plans that provide an opportunity for the three levels of government to work with local communities, including First Nations custodians, to design sustainable futures.Significantly, long-overdue protection will be provided for our forests. The lungs of the Earth, a lifeboat against climate change, a filter against sentiment destroying the Great Barrier Reef and a haven for wildlife will be provided real protection, while incentives will be provided to support a modern forestry industry based on plantations.And there is another thing that should be called out at this time. This may be the most important thing.For centuries, humans have believed that economic and social progress necessarily comes at the expense of the environment. We have believed that the destruction of the natural world is a price that must be paid for everything else that matters to us; as we accumulate physical and financial capital, we must run down the stock of natural capital.We have acted as if we can choose, indefinitely, to trade-off environmental integrity for material gains. Our choices have created deserts, waterways incapable of supporting life, soils leached of fertility, climate change driving weather events of such severity and frequency that whole towns, suburbs and agricultural landscapes are fast becoming uninsurable.This week’s amendments acknowledge that the state of the natural world is foundational. That without its rebuilding, future economic and social progress cannot be secured.We should think of economic and social progress as exercises in constrained optimisation. This framing is familiar to those immersed in economic policy. And yet, as I noted in the National Press Club address, economics has for the most part ignored the most important constraints on human choices. These are embedded in the immutable laws of nature. Our failure to recognise that is now undermining productivity growth and having a discernible impact on economic performance. It threatens livelihoods, even lives.Writing into law an acknowledgment that environmental protection and biodiversity conservation necessarily underpin everything else, and that they must therefore have primacy, is a profound achievement. An unprecedented bequest to future generations.

EPA cements delay of Biden-era methane rule for oil and gas

The Trump administration on Wednesday cemented its delay of Biden-era regulations on planet-warming methane coming from the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “interim final rule” that pushed back compliance deadlines for the Biden-era climate rule by 18 months. On Wednesday, it announced a final rule that locks in the delay. The delays apply...

The Trump administration on Wednesday cemented its delay of Biden-era regulations on planet-warming methane coming from the oil and gas industry. Earlier this year, the administration issued an “interim final rule” that pushed back compliance deadlines for the Biden-era climate rule by 18 months. On Wednesday, it announced a final rule that locks in the delay. The delays apply to requirements to install certain technologies meant to reduce emissions. It also applies to timelines for states to create plans for cutting methane emissions from existing oil and gas.  Methane is a gas that is about 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at heating the planet over a 100-year period. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the administration was acting in order to protect U.S. energy production.  “The previous administration used oil and gas standards as a weapon to shut down development and manufacturing in the United States,” Zeldin said in a written statement.  “By finalizing compliance extensions, EPA is ensuring unrealistic regulations do not prevent America from unleashing energy dominance,” he added. However, environmental advocates say that the delay will result in more pollution. “The methane standards are already working to reduce pollution, protect people’s health, and prevent the needless waste of American energy. The rule released today means millions of Americans will be exposed to dangerous pollution for another year and a half, for no good reason,” Grace Smith, senior attorney at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a written statement.  Meanwhile, the delay comes as the Trump administration reconsiders the rule altogether, having put it on a hit list of regulations earlier this year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Analysis-Brazil Environment Minister, Climate Summit Star, Faces Political Struggle at Home

By Manuela AndreoniBELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva fought back tears as global diplomats applauded her for...

BELEM, Brazil (Reuters) -Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva fought back tears as global diplomats applauded her for several minutes on Saturday in the closing plenary of the COP30 global climate summit."We've made progress, albeit modestly," she told delegates gathered in the Amazon rainforest city of Belem, before raising a fist over her head defiantly. "The courage to confront the climate crisis comes from persistence and collective effort."It was a moment of catharsis for the Brazilian hosts in a tense hall where several nations vented frustration with a deal that failed to mention fossil fuels - even as they cheered more funds for developing nations adapting to climate change.Despite the bittersweet outcome, COP30 capped years of work by the environment minister and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to restore Brazil's leadership on global climate policy, dented by a far-right predecessor who denied climate science.Back in Brasilia, a harsher political reality looms. Congress has been pushing to dismantle much of the country's environmental permitting system. Organized crime in the Amazon is also a problem, and people seeking to clear forest acres have found new ways to infiltrate and thwart groups touting sustainable development.All this poses new threats to Brazil's vast ecosystems, forcing Lula and his minister to wage a rearguard battle to defend the world's largest rainforest. Scientists and policy experts warn that action is needed to discourage deforestation before a changing climate turns the Amazon into a tinderbox. Tensions have been mounting between a conservative Congress and the leftist Lula ahead of next year's general election. Forest land is often at heightened risk during election years.Still, Silva insists Brazil can deliver on its promise to reduce deforestation to zero by 2030.  "If I'm in the eye of the storm," she told Reuters, "I have to survive."Silva, born in 1958 in the Amazonian state of Acre to an impoverished family of rubber tappers, was more rock star than policymaker for many at COP30. Like Lula, she overcame hunger and scant early schooling to achieve global recognition. As his environment minister from 2003 to 2008, she sharply slowed the destruction of her native rainforest.After more than a decade of estrangement from Lula's Workers Party, Silva reunited with him in 2022. Many environmentalists consider her return the most important move on climate policy in Lula's current mandate, which he has cast his agenda as an "ecological transformation" of Brazil's economy.It is a stark contrast from surging deforestation under Lula's right-wing predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, who cheered on mining and ranching in the rainforest.Still, Lula's actual environmental record has been ambiguous, said Juliano Assuncao, executive director of the Climate Policy Institute think tank in Brazil. "What we have at times is an Environment Ministry deeply committed to these issues, but at critical moments it hasn't been able to count on the support of the federal government in the way it should," he said.Lula's government has halved deforestation in the Amazon, making it easier to fine deforesters and choke their access to public credit. New policies have encouraged reforestation and sustainable farming practices, such as cattle tracing.Still, critics say Lula's government has not done enough to stop Congress as it undercut environmental protections and blocked recognition of Indigenous lands. Lawmakers have also attacked a private-sector agreement protecting the Amazon from the advance of soy farming.Lula's environmental critics concede he has limited leverage.When a government agency was slow to license oil exploration off the Amazon coast, the Senate pushed legislation to overhaul environmental permitting. Lula vetoed much of the bill, but lawmakers vowed to restore at least part of it this week. Similar tensions in Lula's last mandate prompted Silva to quit over differences with other cabinet ministers. This time around, Lula has been quick to defend her and vice-versa. During a recent interview in her Brasilia office, Silva suggested that Lula had not changed, but rather that a warming planet has ratcheted up the urgency of climate policy."Reality has changed," she said. "People who are guided by scientific criteria, by common sense, by ethics, have followed that gradual change." HIGHER TEMPERATURES, MORE GUNSEarth's hottest year on record was 2024, fueling massive fires in the Amazon rainforest that for the first time erased more tree cover than chainsaws and bulldozers.Brazilians hoping to preserve the Amazon must struggle against more than just a warmer climate and a skeptical Congress. Organized crime has grown in the region after years of tight funding left fewer federal personnel to fight back, said Jair Schmitt, who oversees enforcement at Brazil's environmental protection agency Ibama. Ibama agents have been caught more often in shootouts with gangs, he added, suggesting more guns than ever in the region. "Rifles weren't this easy to find before," he said.Another challenge: Illegal deforesters have also infiltrated Amazon supply chains touting their sustainability, from biofuels to carbon credits, Reuters has reported. To overcome them, Brazil will need to steel its political will, said Marcio Astrini, the head of Climate Observatory, an advocacy group. Other than that, he added, "we have everything it takes to succeed."(Reporting by Manuela AndreoniEditing by Brad Haynes and David Gregorio)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

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.