A new Florida law allows residents to challenge any school textbook that they find inappropriate.

The legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is known as the Instructional Materials Bill. It permits any resident, regardless of whether or not they have a child in school, to challenge what Florida students are learning via an independent hearing. If the hearing officer deems the complaint justified, they can order the school to ban the book. However, school districts will still have the final say.

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group, pushed for the law after examining more than 60 textbooks in 2015. The group’s founder, Keith Flaugh, found more than 80 instances in one government textbook that he believes gives false information.

“We found [the textbooks] to be full of political indoctrination, religious indoctrination, revisionist history and distorting our founding values and principles, even a significant quantity of pornography,” he told NPR.

He goes on to explain the pornography is in literature within the school library or on summer reading lists.

While the bill can apply to any piece of required reading, the FCA’s main concern is with science textbooks. The group does not believe the schools should teach evolution or climate change as facts. One unnamed member claimed that the “vast majority of Americans believe that the world and the beings living on it were created by God as revealed in the Bible,” so the textbooks should only present evolution as a theory.

Similarly, an affidavit from a teacher complains that her school is teaching climate change as “reality.”

Other issues the FCA has with the books include attitudes toward Islam and anti-American portrayals of history.

In response to the bill, the Florida Citizens for Science Group posted a statement on its blog:

We believe that should this bill become law with the governor’s signature, people who crusade against basic, established science concepts such as evolution and climate change will have the green light to bog down the textbook selection process on the local level and bully school boards into compromises that will negatively impact science education.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, is also concerned. “It’s just the candor with which the backers of the bill have been saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to go after evolution, we’re going to go after climate change,'” he said.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Law Fights Against “Political Indoctrination” in School Textbooks appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to another round of our RantCrush news quiz! Each Friday we put out this post quizzing our lovely readers on the big stories of the week. Every story can be found in our RantCrush Daily Newsletter. If you’re not getting our newsletter click here to sign up, and enjoy the quiz below!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Newsy Are You?: June 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. just became the third country, joining Syria and Nicaragua, that cannot be counted as part of the Paris Climate Accords. The 195-nation agreement set goals for reducing greenhouse gas pollution for developed and developing nations alike. President Donald Trump, in a speech at the White House Rose Garden, made the announcement, saying:

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

Trump said he will try to negotiate a deal that is “fair,” adding: “If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.” According to the Associated Press, however, a number of European nations will not be open to the U.S. renegotiating the deal:

BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 1, 2017

The White House deliberations leading up to Thursday’s announcement were reportedly split between two factions: those who wanted to remain part of the deal and those who wanted to withdraw from it. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson apparently pushed hard for the president to remain, while EPA Chief Scott Pruitt and Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon lobbied him to exit the pact.

Stating his rationale for removing the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China, from the accord, Trump said it hurt the U.S. economy and transferred coal jobs overseas. Vice President Mike Pence, introducing Trump at Thursday’s announcement, echoed that reasoning: “Our president is choosing to put American jobs and American consumers first,” he said. “Our president is choosing to put American energy and American industry first. And by his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first.”

But many of the leaders in the industries Trump said are harmed by the deal–like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP–supported the climate agreement, and lobbied Trump to stay in. Environmental groups, Democrats, and dozens of congressional Republicans backed the deal as well. In the end, however, Bannon, Pruitt, and others, won the president over. Soon after Trump’s announcement, Jim Immelt, the CEO of General Electric tweeted:

Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.

— Jeff Immelt (@JeffImmelt) June 1, 2017

The Paris deal, a non-binding agreement signed in December 2015, was an international framework to set the world on the path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The goal was to keep the average global temperature from rising more than two degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The private sector, as well as some states and cities, have already taken steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy. Despite Trump’s decision, the U.S. will technically remain part of the pact until November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

Former President Barack Obama, who was a central architect in the Paris agreement, issued a statement after Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the accord. He said:

The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Three Countries Not Invested in Paris Climate Deal: Syria, Nicaragua…and the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that could scrap former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. What does it mean for the future of U.S. environmental policy?

What is the Clean Power Plan?

In 2015, Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an effort to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. It gave each state a different quota for reducing its emissions, allowing states the independence to develop their own plans to meet these requirements. States would have had to submit their ideas by 2016, or 2018 if an extended deadline had been approved. If a state failed to do so, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would implement its own plan in that state. States would have had until the year 2022 to actually put their plans in action.

What will happen to the Paris climate agreement?

The Obama Administration’s goal was to bring emission levels to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. It was announced prior to the 2015 Paris climate talks to show the U.S. commitment to lowering emissions. Following the conference, the U.S. joined almost 200 other involved countries in a pledge to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Trump’s order gives the EPA the authority to rework the previous plan. But without the previous administration’s policy in place, the United States may not be able to carry out its end of the agreement reached in Paris. Though the White House hasn’t taken an official position on the Paris climate agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called it a “bad deal” and Trump has considered removing the U.S. from the agreement over doubts about the existence of climate change. If Trump follows through with exiting the agreement, the U.S. could end up setting a precedent for other countries to back out of their pledges.

According to the New York Times, Trump’s inner circle is divided over whether or not to remain in the agreement. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly concerned that withdrawing could damage the U.S.’s relationship with the other countries involved, but senior adviser Steve Bannon wants out.

Will the new policy bring back jobs?

The CPP was not popular with everyone. Two dozen states sued the Obama Administration over concerns that the policy would hurt their coal industries, because it urged states to transition from relying on fossil fuels to relying on natural gas and renewable energy. But Trump’s move won’t necessarily restore many of the jobs lost by coal miners; the mining industry has been on the decline for several years, and humans are being replaced by technology. While Trump’s executive order makes good on many of his campaign promises, it may not garner its intended results.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order to Get Rid of Obama’s Clean Power Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has become known for defying climate research and trying to prove that global warming is a hoax. In 2014 he brought a snowball to the Senate floor. Back then, 2014 was the hottest year on record and Inhofe asked the chair, “You know what this is?” before throwing the snowball. On Thursday, he appeared in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” and accused the Environmental Protection Agency of brainwashing American kids with propaganda.

It is not clear whether he really doesn’t believe in science, or if he doesn’t understand it, or if he’s just trying to make a political point. But he actually said, without providing any examples or proof: “we are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true, allegations.” Inhofe was referring to Donald Trump’s new budget proposal, which shows huge cuts in the funding for the EPA.

A lot of people were outraged by Inhofe’s comments.

The deniers have taken over. Future generations will despise these people for their recklessness and selfishness. https://t.co/TBR6kmuoBx

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 15, 2017

Lunatics like this are one of the main reasons your clean water is at risk https://t.co/esoPQErEpB

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) March 16, 2017

When interviewer Poppy Harlow asked Inhofe to explain his remarks about brainwashing, he avoided the question and instead started praising Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, who sued the agency when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma.

Inhofe has made this allegation before; in July he made similar comments to radio host Eric Metaxas. He told Metaxas he “was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that.” Then he told an anecdote in which his granddaughter asked him why he doesn’t understand global warming. Inhofe told the radio host, “I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.”

In 2010, Inhofe took his grandchildren to build an igloo on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” He has called global warming the “the greatest hoax” ever imposed on Americans. Now, given the GOP’s control of the government, he has a chance to do some real damage. “Now he and his cronies have far more reach and are far more dangerous than they’ve ever been… That’s good news for the polluters but horrible news for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids appeared first on Law Street.

Bucking scientific consensus in the U.S. and around the world, Scott Pruitt on Thursday questioned the belief that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will soon be rolling back many of President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations, perhaps as early as next week. And now, as Pruitt publicly undermines the widely accepted dangers of carbon dioxide, some worry that he will launch an attack against the EPA’s rule that the agency is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, also known as an “endangerment finding.” 

In 2009, the EPA issued this endangerment finding, which concluded that carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases, is a threat to “the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency reviewed thousands of published studies, poring over findings from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others.

Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, undermined his own agency’s previous conclusions. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he said, referring to the impact carbon dioxide has on global warming. 

Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA stipulated that it was a duty of the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The American Chemistry Council and other groups appealed the findings to a federal circuit court in D.C. In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA’s decision. Soon after, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the endangerment finding has stood its ground ever since.

That is, until President Donald Trump chose Pruitt–a longtime ally of the oil and gas industry and a determined opponent of environmental regulations–to lead the EPA. In his Senate hearing in January, Pruitt was asked if he would consider revisiting the endangerment finding. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said.

Despite Pruitt’s apparent promise to respect the EPA’s finding, its future standing is not guaranteed. For one, the energy industry has been lobbying the Trump Administration to construct a legal case against the endangerment finding. Pruitt, or anyone else in the administration, does not have the unilateral authority to unravel the endangerment finding, because it was upheld in court.

If Pruitt decides to heed the calls of energy lobbyists, and balk the international scientific consensus, he would need to build a science-based legal challenge to the D.C. court’s 2012 ruling. Given the body of evidence supporting the EPA’s initial finding, that carbon dioxide does indeed contribute to global warming, and is a public health threat, Pruitt would have a difficult time building a successful legal challenge. But that does not mean he won’t try.

“President Trump’s campaign commitment was to undo President Obama’s entire climate edifice,” Myron Ebell, who worked on Trump’s EPA transition team, told the New York Times. “They’re thinking through the whole thing,” he said, adding: “I do think they are looking at reopening the endangerment finding.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Scott Pruitt Unravel the EPA’s Endangerment Finding? appeared first on Law Street.

In the first part of Law Street’s look at the presidential candidates’ environmental policies, we evaluated Donald Trump’s plan to deregulate the energy industry and peel back many of the existing efforts to address climate change. His plans largely focus on undoing as many regulations as possible to allow greater operational freedom to American businesses and using his executive powers to undo previous president’s attempts to protect certain areas of land from fracking and mining.

In the second part, we will review Hillary Clinton’s environmental record and policy proposals. Since Donald Trump’s plans focus more toward energy production rather than protecting the environment and combating climate change, it is not surprising that Hillary Clinton’s positions do more from an environmental perspective. She has committed to some extremely ambitious goals with regards to renewable energy implementation. At the same time, she has chosen to forgo several of the traditionally recommended policy tools used to combat climate change, such as the carbon tax. Are her plans really attainable or are they just empty claims used to attract alienated far left voters to her side? Is she even likely to follow through on her promises based on her political track record? Read on to find out.

Read Part One: Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Environmental Policy?

Hillary Clinton the Environmentalist?

In stark contrast to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton believes in climate change, believes it’s man made, and believes it’s an urgent threat. She has publicly spoken on the importance of combating climate change since the early 2000s; however, her legislative track record on major issues doesn’t always indicate that she’s driven by environmental interests. When asked her position on current issues related to the environment, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, she has often avoided taking a stance. Clinton chose not to take a final position on the Keystone XL Pipeline for over a year, even stating that she wished to declare a position after the election ended. But in September 2015, she announced her formal opposition to the pipeline.

Whether you interpret this as anti-environment is up for debate; Clinton has maintained that her lack of a stance on the issue stemmed largely from the fact that the analysis of whether the pipeline was beneficial to national interest was incomplete. If you see her lack of a choice as her withholding a stance until all the facts were clear, then her decision is understandable. However, many environmental activists, including her primary challenger Bernie Sanders, saw the issue as much more simple: the pipeline endangers U.S. waterways and sets the United States on a track toward dependence on oil instead of investing and committing to renewables. Your interpretation of her stance largely depends on how hard-line of an environmentalist you are.

“Secretary Clinton Speaks at a Press Conference” courtesy of United States Mission Geneva; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

As Secretary of State, she openly supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics claim would prevent individual countries from being able to establish environmental trade regulations. Critics also argue that the TPP openly supports anti-environmental practices such as over-fishing and deforestation. As the Trans-Pacific Partnership evolved it has been modified to include wildlife protection mechanisms to promote the sustainable management of forested zones and fisheries. However, most of these efforts are considered to be small in scale, without any monitoring system in place and the long lasting negative impacts of the TPP are projected to outweigh any potential benefits.

Read More: Growing Holes in Our Ocean’s Fisheries

As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has reversed her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well–recently coming out against the final deal, while having supported the effort during her term as Secretary of State. It bears noting that Donald Trump has historically opposed the TPP on the grounds that it will damage American manufacturing. If Clinton hadn’t doubled back on her original stance, this would make the deal one of few issues where Trump is effectively taking a more  environmentally progressive position.

Voting Record

Clinton’s voting record also tells a confusing story. While serving as a Senator she voted for a variety of small-scale bills supported by environmental groups and co-sponsored a number of unsuccessful bills to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But she’s also given her support to several policies that have had seriously detrimental effects on the environment. Possibly the most notable example of this is Clinton supporting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the legendary bill that gave hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and allocated only a fraction of this money to renewables. The bill also contained Dick Cheney’s infamous Halliburton Loophole, which gave fracking companies special permission to inject toxic chemicals underground and essentially opened the doors for hydrofracking within the United States.

Hillary Clinton has also taken flack over the years for taking donations from fossil fuel interests. According to the most recent analysis by Open Secrets, Clinton has raised a total of $2,203,018 from energy employees, with $2,167,333 of this going to the campaign and the remaining $35,685 going to associated Super PACs. While there’s no way to connect the money she’s taken directly with particular policy decisions, some have claimed that this represents a conflict of interest in terms of her claims of being an environmentalist. Given her confusing voting record, recent shifts on controversial issues and her willingness to take fossil fuel funds, many accuse Clinton of green-washing her public persona for the election, especially in order to compete with Bernie Sanders’ pull with the environmentally-minded millennial generation. Objectively speaking, Hillary Clinton has supported environmentalism out loud but has generally done little to help the movement and on several occasions has directly supported policies that will hurt the environment.

Hillary Clinton’s Plan

Of the two front-runners, Hillary Clinton is the only one with an environmental policy at all, unless you call dismantling E.P.A. regulations an environmental policy. She has publicly committed to supporting and building upon President Obama’s Clean Power Plan as well as ensuring that the United States lives up to its COP 21 Paris Agreement commitments. Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta have both stated that while she would like to see a carbon tax imposed, given the current makeup of Congress such a law would be highly unlikely to pass. In its place, Clinton is committing to more achievable goals, which include increasing funding for renewables, research and development, and energy efficiency, all in the context of increasing American jobs. Even though she has voted for large subsidies for fossil fuel companies in the past, she currently advocates for cutting back funding for oil and gas interests and she has proposed getting rid of tax expenditures for the fossil fuel industry.

With regard to renewable energy, Hillary Clinton has an incredibly aggressive plan to increase proliferation of renewables throughout the country. The plan has two main parts, the first being the goal of installing half of a billion solar panels across the nation during Clinton’s first term. The second is to generate enough renewable energy to power every U.S. home within a decade. To do this she wants to expand upon the Clean Power Plan with a Clean Power Challenge, which would utilize competitive grants, tax incentives, and other market-based incentives to encourage and enable states to independently work toward renewable proliferation. The challenge also places a huge emphasis on updating the grid, improving its infrastructure, and thus also the reliability and efficiency with which it transmits energy. The challenge would include the creation of a fund or a prize that would help enable low-income families and communities to install rooftop solar panels. In addition to increasing renewable energy implementation in American communities, Clinton has championed utilizing public land in the West for solar arrays and wind farms as well as opening up offshore wind farming.

If these goals sound incredibly lofty and ambitious it’s because they are. In fact, they are more ambitious than really anything proposed by anyone before, with the possible exception of Clinton’s primary challenger Bernie Sanders. Many critics have projected that it would be literally impossible to make such a policy work without a carbon tax to make renewables competitive with America’s incredibly cheap natural gas supply. The fact that Clinton has chosen to not pursue a carbon tax and instead attempt to pass smaller scale measures through Congress have made many skeptical that she’s not going to be able to actually do enough to turn her plan into reality.

Realistically, she’s almost certainly right that a carbon tax wouldn’t make it through Congress, but it’s pretty unclear if her alternative plan would be any more welcome. The Clean Power Challenge would cost $60 billion, and its main selling point to Republicans would be that it is designed to create new job opportunities. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the challenge’s commitment to renewable energy flies against what the majority of Republicans are interested in supporting. To bypass Congressional gridlock, Clinton’s plan places a strong focus on using executive power to make these things happen. While it’s not Clinton’s fault, there’s only so much she’ll be able to accomplish solely through executive action; large chunks of her plan will certainly require Congressional approval.

So What Can Actually be Accomplished?

There have been numerous claims over the years that if X or Y region was properly utilized, it could provide enough energy to power the entire United States. While it is technically possible to power this country completely with renewable energy, these claims are often touted by people who don’t understand the engineering behind energy systems or by people with a zealous and innocent belief in what policymakers are capable of or willing to do. Currently, one of the most comprehensive plans for how the United States could run on 100 percent renewable energy has been created by renewable research heavyweight Mark Z. Jacobson and the Standford Precourt Center for Energy. Even this highly ambitious plan projects that if the necessary massive social and economic change were to happen in order to make such policies possible, and it was followed to the letter, the United States still wouldn’t be able to convert fully until 2050. One of the biggest impediments to such a nationwide conversion to renewable energy is that it would require every fuel source to be changed, including the liquid fuel we use to power our cars, trucks, boats, and planes. To completely transform the American transportation sector is a borderline impossible goal because while a solar panel or a wind turbine can feasibly connect to and power any home, most of our cars still run on gas. Electric cars just don’t have the mass circulation that would make such a change possible and to completely eliminate gas-powered cars would go against fair business laws.

What’s truly interesting about Clinton’s renewable plan is that she’s one of the first major politicians to call for opening up the use of offshore wind farming. There’s a good reason why the coastal regions of the United States have been called the “Saudi Arabia of Wind.” There is a massive amount of unused energy lying along our coasts that has been incredibly difficult to tap into thus far due to the extremely high cost of launching such projects, combined with the many public interests that bitterly oppose the industry. It is nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to live up to her goal of powering the United States on 100 percent renewable energy. However, if she aggressively pursues spreading renewable energy throughout American communities, on public lands and offshore, she could still have a gigantic impact on our renewable energy makeup. The real question is whether she’d actually be able to make any of that happen or if her efforts will be completely blocked off by Congress. Unfortunately, we will simply have to wait and see what happens if she’s elected.

One of the more original and intriguing elements of Clinton’s plan is her proposal to create a Western Water Partnership with the goal of coordinating water use between the West Coast states and the different agencies that control water use within the region. Furthermore, she has proposed creating a Water Innovation Lab dedicated to utilizing and recycling water more efficiently. This proposal is one of the first of its kind in terms of addressing water scarcity in the West on a large scale and could be part of a much-needed solution to help alleviate the burden of the California drought. Clinton has also called for significant revisions to water infrastructure in the United States, including dams, sewage, and waste water systems. This is actually one of few ideas that she and Trump might actually agree on; Trump has stated that he believes water to be a vital issue and that it’s crucial that we update our water infrastructure. However, unlike Clinton, he has given no details on how to do this and has stated that he wants to remove restrictions on drilling near waterways, which would ultimately worsen the American water crisis. Clinton has also promised to protect public lands and prioritize wildlife conservation, in stark contrast to Trump’s announcement that he would open up all federally protected land to oil and gas companies.

Conclusion

Neither candidate has a sterling history of environmentalism, but only one candidate has actually made a commitment to combat climate change. If Trump were to become president, it would be possible for him to hinder progressive environmental policy by replacing the EPA leadership with climate deniers while fighting to remove environmental regulations. If his preferred candidates to lead the EPA were to get approval from Congress, then it would be feasible for him to undo a lot of the progress that has been made thus far with American environmentalism.

Clinton has a spotty record when it comes to the environment and has made dubious choices about many important issues in the past, such as the Energy Policy Act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, her current environmental platform has made her commitment to the environment clear and she has doubled back on all of her previous controversial positions (at least with regard to the environment). Whether her current stance is due to green-washing for the 2016 election, or due to Obama’s legacy of the Clean Power Plan influencing her opinions, or due to Bernie Sanders forcing her to move further to the left in the primaries, the end result is that she’s pursuing an aggressively progressive environmental policy. Whether her methods to make that policy a reality will be effective remains to be seen, but when it comes to environmental policy, Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate.

Resources

The Atlantic: How Green is Hillary Clinton?

Business Insider: Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Climate Change

Democracy Now: How Much Money has Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Taken from Fossil Fuel Companies?

Environmental Protection Agency: Summary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Fact Check: Clinton’s Fossil Fuel Money Revisited

Grist: Who’s Really in Charge on E.P.A. Rules? A Chat With Legal Scholar Lisa Heinzerling

High Country News: Are Hillary Clinton’s Clean Energy Goals Achievable?

Hillary Clinton Fact Sheets: Renewable Energy Vision

National Geographic: 4 Ways Green Groups say Trans-Pacific Partnership will Hurt the Environment

New York Times: Clinton’s Ambitious Clean Power Plan Would Avoid Carbon Tax

NPR: Fact Check: More on Hillary Clinton and Fossil Fuel Industry Contributions

Open Secrets: Hillary Clinton

Politico: Clinton Says her Keystone XL Position Isn’t a Flip Flop

Politico: Hacked emails from John Podesta: Clinton Disses Environmentalists in Private Meetings with Unions

Politico: The Politico Wrong-o-Meter: Fact Checking the 2016 Presidential Debate

Think Progress: Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Disaster for Climate Change

Scientific American: Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Combat Climate Change

Sierra Club: Trans Pacific Partnership

The Washington Post: Campaign Finance 2016

The Washington Post: Bernie Sanders Thumps Hillary Clinton for Keeping Mum on the Keystone XL Pipeline

The Washington Post: Energy Bill Raises Fear about Pollution, Fraud

The Washington Post: Fact Checking the Campaigns for and against the TPP Trade Deal

The White House: What Environmental and Conservation Advocates are Saying about the TPP’s Environmental Chapter

Vote Smart: Hillary Clinton’s Voting Records

Vox: Here’s What it Would take for the U.S. to Run on 100% Renewable Energy

Time: Lobbyists Celebrate Democratic Party’s New Embrace at Convention

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand on Environmental Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

The Paris Climate Agreement, signed by 195 countries last December, was officially ratified into international law on Friday. “Today we make history in humankind’s efforts to combat climate change,” U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon said at the U.N.’s New York City headquarters. India, China, the U.S., the European Union and scores of other countries, totaling 96, have signed the agreement. Others, including Russia and Japan, signaled they will do so in the coming weeks and months.

“We are still in a race against time. We need to transition to a low-emissions and climate-resilient future,” said Ban, whose term ends in January. “Now is the time to strengthen global resolve, do what science demands and seize the opportunity to build a safer more sustainable world for all.”

For the agreement–which aims to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100–to go from abstract idea to concrete law, it had to be signed by at least 55 participating nations (making up 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions), a goalpost that was met on October 5. Though the accord is not legally binding–meaning there is no legal ramification for not complying–there are abstract mechanisms in place to ensure each signing party meets its individual carbon-cutting vision.

Those abstract enforcement measures will be hammered out at the COP22 meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco next week, where scientists, engineers, and researchers will gather to discuss emission-reduction techniques and strategies. Each country that signs the Paris agreement shapes a carbon-cutting plan suited to their needs and realities, with the international coalition acting as a sort of watchdog.

Rising seas, warming temperatures, melting ice caps, and all of the other consequences of fossil fuel abuse led nearly all of the world’s countries to bind together to secure a safer planet for future generations. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. will play a vital role in shaping that future. But Donald Trump has pledged to withdraw the U.S. from the accord should he be elected to the White House next Tuesday.

It is an impossible promise however, because the U.S. is bound to the accord for three years. And even if Trump decides to renege on the U.S. commitment during his third year, another year must pass before an official withdrawal. Hillary Clinton supports the agreement.

Ratification of the Paris Climate Accord went much faster than most expected: 2020 was the initial target date. By comparison, the Kyoto Protocol, a similar international carbon-reduction measure, was adopted in December 1997 and ratified over seven years later. Friday’s achievement is an important step toward weaning the world off fossil fuels, which still provide much of the world’s power, and the flip to renewable energy sources–wind, solar, hydro–will be a slow, arduous process.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Climate Agreement Officially Becomes International Law appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brazil Crowds Disappoint Olympics

The Rio Olympics have seen some of the greatest performances in history, yet their image in the public mind has been tainted. Allegations of corruption have mired the games since they were announced. Rio’s facilities have been found wanting and many have expressed very real concerns about the health and safety of the World’s greatest athletes.

Yet, aside from an incident in Judo and the potential embarrassment of Ryan Lochte, these Olympics have seen stellar sportsmanships and camaraderie.

Until Monday evening. In the high jump, Frenchmen and favorite, Renaud Lavillenie lost to the Brazilian native Thiago Braz Da Silva. While his defeat was certainly a disappointment, to be awarded a Silver medal at the Olympic games is a high honor indeed. It was at the medal ceremony, however, that the people of Rio disappointed the globe. Rather than applaud the skills of all, Lavillenie was booed to the point of breaking into tears.

Yesterday IOC President Thomas Bach came out publicly, stating simply that such behavior was unacceptable. We agree and hope that the rest of the games can proceed in the proper spirit of sportsmanship and love that they deserve.

At least Braz had some class.

Pole-vaulter Renaud Lavillenie consoled by Thiago Braz and Sergei Bubka after he was booed at medal ceremony pic.twitter.com/BrMoF3KGA0

— IOC MEDIA (@iocmedia) August 17, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On a nine acre cay between Queensland and Papua New Guinea, human-influenced climate change is thought to have claimed its first mammalian casualty. Melomys rubicola, or the Bramble Cay melomys–coined after the tiny speck of land it once inhabited–was a small rodent with long whiskers and a thin, scaly tail. Last week, in a survey conducted on behalf of the the Australian state of Queensland over six days in August and September 2014, researchers finally revealed their findings. The 59-page report concluded “human-induced climate change being the root cause of the loss of the Bramble Cay melomys.”

Meet the first mammal to go extinct due to human-induced climate change–the Bramble Cay Melomys. LIVE SUSTAINABLY pic.twitter.com/uS3qKx0amH

— Jake Marconi (@jake_marconi) June 15, 2016

Native to Bramble Cay, its only known habitat in the world, the creature had been in steady decline since the 1970s, when researchers found hundreds of them living on the heavily vegetated, pinprick-sized hamlet atop the Great Barrier Reef. Only ten were found in a 2002 study, 12 in 2004. And as of 2016, at least as far as researchers know (they will not rule out the possibility that the animals exist in other, not yet discovered habitats), the Bramble Cay melomys is extinct.

The team of three researchers–two University of Queensland scientists and a Queensland government official–used 150 total traps made from a mixture of rolled oats, peanut butter, peanut oil, and golden syrup, as well as camera traps and daytime searches. There was no sign of the nocturnal creature. The team concluded:

The key factor responsible for the extirpation of this population was almost certainly ocean inundation of the low-lying cay, very likely on multiple occasions, during the last decade, causing dramatic habitat loss and perhaps also direct mortality of individuals.

Between 1901 and 2010, global sea levels rose by 20 centimeters, a figure much higher than similar periods over the past 6,000 years. And in the waters of the Torres Strait, the ocean alleyway which Bramble Cay is situated in, sea levels rose at twice the average rate between 1993 and 2014. But shrinking living space and diminishing food stores were not the only forces at work behind the animal’s extinction. Stiff competition for a narrow, dwindling cache of grasses–a diet staple for the melomys, seabirds, and turtles–led to the rodent’s erasure as well.

The permanent loss might be an ominous portent of things to come for a vast chunk of the animal kingdom in the coming decades. A 2015 study published in Science warned that one in six of the planet’s species could face extinction if current trends continue. A meeting between most of the world’s governments, including its highest carbon emitters, in Paris last year sought to mitigate the effect of climate change on rising sea levels, glacial erosion and other potentially devastating environmental shifts that would upend the existence of human beings and other creatures alike. The Paris climate accord has yet to go into effect, and whether its tenets will help save any species from extinction remains to be seen.

John White, an ecologist from Deakin University in Australia who was not involved in the Bramble Cay survey, told the Guardian he has “no doubt” more species will be lost to climate change, especially those animals that live in niche, isolated environments like the melomys. “Certainly, extinction and climatic change has gone hand in hand throughout the history of the world,” he said. “So, if this is one of the first, it is more than likely not going to be the last.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Extinct: Tiny Rodent Is First Mammal Claimed By Human-Induced Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

In a May 17 vote, the Portland Public School board unanimously approved Resolution No. 5272 to develop a new plan for how information about climate change is taught in local public schools. The controversial catch? The resolution specifically included a section mandating the abandonment of any books that are “found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.” While proponents of the resolution argue that textbooks containing doubt about the existence of man-made climate change lead to fewer informed children, many people are outraged at the idea of textbook censorship being enacted in public schools.

From the view of the school board, removing texts that cast doubt on the severity of man-made climate change will help to enlighten students in Portland. Rather than seeing the initiative as a ban on certain viewpoints, the school board has identified it as a way to make climate change literacy a priority in the school system. Bill Bigelow, editor of the Rethinking Schools magazine, said: “a lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise.”

He even discussed the fact that it is not uncommon for fossil fuel producers and their PR departments to influence written sections in textbooks about climate change, which could lead to skewed information. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry,” Bigelow said.

On the other hand, the stir that has been created in response to the school board’s resolution has been overwhelming in the last few days after the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) released an official statement against the resolution. Its response detailed several features of the resolution that it considered concerning including the resolution’s overly broad nature, its undervaluing of students being able to consider all sides of an argument, and the fact that it was almost entirely created because of political pressure by environmental lobbyists. The coalition even tweeted last week that the resolution was  unnecessary:

Portland’s climate education resolution is over-broad, politically influenced, and unnecessary. https://t.co/QLf33nDleB

— ncacensorship (@ncacensorship) June 3, 2016

To NCAC, the censorship of books curtails individual students’ rights to read multiple opinions on global warming and then decide for themselves what impact they believe it is having. In addition, the ban could limit accurate exposure to the debate over man-made climate change from the last couple of decades for students. NCAC’s statement express concern over wresting independence from those who teach the material, teachers:

Deciding how to approach the existing political debate around the causes of climate change should be left to those who teach about it: science professors, social studies and civics professors may approach the issue differently in accordance with the requirements of their subject matter. Elected officials have an important role in ensuring the availability of an adequate education to all students; they should devote their energies to that worthy goal, and leave decisions about what and how to teach to the people who are trained to do it.

In other words, students should be exposed to all viewpoints and then it should be up to teachers and professors to determine what is and is not taught in schools–not politicians. Other opponents have criticized the public school system in Portland of promoting “political indoctrination” over the education of children.

While the new Portland plan may raise questions about student access to accurate summaries of the historical debate over man-made climate change, 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that it is reality. Maybe what Portland needs is an amendment to the plan rather than a complete overhaul: some way to teach kids that the cause and existence of climate change has been debated, but that science overwhelmingly supports its existence and human origin. It seems like the Portland Public School Board had its heart in the right place, and that the controversy stirred up by the NCAC may help the board tailor its policies to be slightly less all consuming and perhaps more effective.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Portland Censors Climate Change Material In Textbooks, Sparking Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Globally, we eat more meat now than ever before. Cultures that traditionally held vegetarian diets have become steadily more meat-oriented. In many areas, meat is seen not only as a delicacy but also as a luxury expense and a symbol of status. As the production of meat has gone up in recent decades and the cost has steadily dropped, meat is now much more affordable than ever before. This has led to what is referred to as a “global meatification of our diets.”

However, this new trend carries with it a series of environmental burdens. The livestock industry creates enormous amounts of waste, generates pollution, and also releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

Waste

Vegetarian farming methods generally require large-scale irrigation and sometimes pesticides and fertilizers as well. Livestock farming, alternatively, requires keeping animals alive, which requires land, food, and water for the animals. Because of this, animal farms are also dependent on grain farms to create a food source for their animals. This food could be eaten by humans directly, but instead is used over a long period of time (in combination with a variety of animal growth hormones) to get an animal to an edible size. In fact, more than two-thirds of all agricultural land worldwide is dedicating to feeding livestock. In contrast, only eight percent of agricultural land produces food exclusively for humans. The land used for animal grazing, as well as the land that goes to specialized crop production for livestock animal diets, often causes mass scale deforestation: in the last 40 years, an estimated 40 percent of the Amazon trees were taken down with the vast majority of this land going to livestock feed production. Freshwater is also a finite resource that’s being used in mass quantities for irrigating animal feed and nourishing the animals.

“Pink.”courtesy of Rosalba Tarazona via Flickr

Every bite of meat that is eaten represents all the various inputs that went into raising that animal to adulthood. NPR published a report showing that a single quarter-pound of beef requires 6.7 pounds of grain, 52.5 gallons of water (for the cow’s personal needs and also for watering the crops it ate), 74.5 square feet of land for grazing, and 1,036 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of fossil fuel energy for food production and transport. If you calculate the amount of water required to sustain an American citizen, the average meat eater requires no less than 4,800 gallons whereas a vegan only needs 300. But when the average consumer eats a burger, all they will see is the finished product while the hidden costs remain unnoticed. Herein lies part of the problem with the meat industry: all of its worst elements aren’t ever visible to consumers who decide what kinds of food they want to spend their money on.

Fossil Fuels

First, fossil fuels are used to make the pesticides and fertilizers that keep grain crops growing rapidly and protected from insects. These inputs are essential to many of the traditional commercial vegetable farms throughout the world, which is a serious problem for the environment on its own. However, specialized grain or corn crops are created specifically to sustain livestock, which adds an unnecessary burden that wouldn’t exist without the meat industry. Carbon dioxide emissions also necessarily come with the large-scale transport of meat to grocery stores and restaurants throughout the world. Some of the largest meat-producing nations–such as the United States, Brazil, and the Netherlands–also export meat products to other countries, sometimes halfway around the world.

However, transportation actually only accounts for about six percent of livestock emissions. Ten percent comes from manure storage and disposal, 39 percent comes from food processing and production, and 44 percent comes from enteric fermentation. Enteric fermentation is the process by which a cow’s stomach digests its food and releases greenhouse gasses as a result. Interestingly, while the typically unnatural corn-based diets (in concert with a constant stream of growth hormones and medications) dramatically worsen the health of cows, grass-fed cows actually release far more greenhouse gasses than corn-fed cows. This is because the roughage eaten by grass fed cows is high in cellulose, which is then broken down into methane during anaerobic digestion. In contrast, commercial farm cows generally subsist off of foods that are low in cellulose and high in simple sugars. Because of this, grass fed cows can release up to two to four times as much methane as commercial cows.

As a greenhouse gas, methane has as much as 86 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Methane only stays in the atmosphere for about 12 years while carbon dioxide can remain for hundreds; however, in terms of a greenhouse gas’s ability to rapidly impact global warming, methane is considered to be far more dangerous.

Methane emissions from a single dairy cow amount to the equivalent of up to 1.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. Globally this adds up to the equivalent of  2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) calculated that cows contribute 53 percent of the world’s human-related nitrous oxide and 44 percent of its methane. There has been some debate over exactly how much the livestock industry contributes to climate change. The FAO claims that the livestock industry releases 14.5 percent of global anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

However, the FAO’s analysis has been criticized for being conducted exclusively by livestock specialists, not environmental specialists, and for understating the extent of livestock’s impact on climate change by overlooking and undercounting related emissions sources. The FAO has also been criticized for having a partnership with the International Meat Secretariat and the International Dairy Federation. Current and former World Bank environmental specialists conducted their own study and argue that livestock actually accounts for 51 percent of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gasses–much more than the 14.5 percent estimated by the UN.

Livestock as a Public Health Issue

In some areas, the growth in meat consumption has had a positive impact on the diets of the local people. This is particularly true in food insecure regions such as some areas in Sub-Saharan Africa where meat is an important source of protein. However, the livestock industry has also posed a danger to public health in several facets of life. The first is simply through pollution. Fertilizers and pesticides used to grow feed crops are washed away in runoff and taken to streams and rivers. On farms, animal manure is swept away by that same runoff and taken to water sources where it can contaminate drinking water with fecal bacteria.

A red meat-based diet can also be unhealthy. Regular consumption of meat can raise cholesterol and lead to cardiovascular disease and cancer down the road. Furthermore, the unnatural diets and regimen of growth hormone that we administer to livestock essentially keeps them sick, which also requires constant medication. Almost 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in America are used for livestock and not for people.

“Vasikkakasvattamo” courtesy of Oikeutta eläimille via Flickr

The diets we force upon animals can also potentially impact our own health when we consume them. For instance, many of the pathogens and bacteria that develop in cows stomachs can be easily killed by our stomach acids. However, as we continue to modify their diets we’ve caused cow stomachs to become increasingly more acidic as well. In the worst case scenario, this could lead to dangerous pathogens, such as E.Coli, adapting to live in a more acidic environment and potentially being able to survive in our stomachs as well.

Conclusion

Despite many problems in the livestock industry, the popularity of meat is only projected to continue increasing. Some anticipate meat demand to double expected to double by 2020. Although some organizations dispute the validity of this projection, most agree that meat consumption will continue to increase in the coming years. If humans don’t manage to reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, then the globally accepted goal of limiting warming to 2°C will be extremely difficult to accomplish. Without dramatic changes to the livestock industry, these reductions will never be able to happen.

A traditional meat-based diet simply isn’t sustainable for the entire planet. However, the majority of the current problems with the industry are far out of consumers’ sights. As long as meat continues to get cheaper and people enjoy how it tastes, its popularity will continue to grow as well. Greater transparency on the issues might change public perception of the industry and shift consumer attitudes. Another possible solution could be an increased emphasis on alternative lifestyles, whether they be vegetarian based or just focused on eating from small, more sustainable livestock farms. The FAO actually suggests that we intensify the commercial livestock industry in order to reduce and eliminate the greater degree of emissions that comes from grass fed cows as opposed to commercial farm cows. Whatever the method may be, it’s clear the world can’t continue to consume meat at such alarming rates.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to clarify the debate over livestock’s effect on climate change and its share of human-related emissions. Additional information has also been added about the implications for grass-fed cows on methane emissions and the environmental effect of commercial farms has been clarified. Additionally, methane is now thought to have 86 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide, not 25 times as scientists previously believed. The post has been updated to reflect that change. Updates also add context the debate over the projected growth in meat demand by 2020.

References

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: The Role of Livestock in Climate Change

Food and Agricultural Organization of the Unite Nations: Key Facts and Findings

New York Times Opinion: FAO Yields to Meat Industry Pressure on Climate Change

Reuters: Grass-Fed Beef Packs a Punch to the Environment

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Health & Environmental Implications of U.S. Meat Consumption and Production

New Harvest: the World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change: Animal Agriculture

NPR: A Nation of Meat Eaters: See How it All Adds Up

Policy Mic: Farm Bill 2013: Small Farmers Can’t Make Money from Farming Anymore

Politifact: Rep. Louise Slaughter says 80 Percent of Antibiotics are Fed to Livestock

Salon: What Nobody Told Me About Small Farming: I Can’t Make a Living

Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment: Consequences of Increased Global Meat Consumption on the Environment – Trade in Virtual Water, Energy & Nutrients

United Nations News Centre: Rearing Cattle Produces more Greenhouse Gases than Driving Cars, New Report Warns

US Environmental Protection Agency: Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Methane

World Watch: Livestock and Climate Change

World Watch Institute: Is Meat Sustainable?

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Does the Livestock Industry Impact the Environment? appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change continues to wreak havoc on the world’s weather patterns, individuals around the globe are taking their respective countries to task for their roles in contributing to the problem. The New York Times reports that several attempts to take governments to court have taken place in countries such as Pakistan, New Zealand, Peru, and even the United States.

Whether or not these lawsuits could have any effect on actually holding these countries accountable is debatable, but it is giving clout to people who traditionally would have little power in such a fight. Children, farmers, and students  have brought cases in various countries, all citing a need for countries to take action to protect current and future generations from a host of devastating effects.

In the U.S., a group of kids in the state of Washington won a lawsuit last month to force the state to be held to a deadline for taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The kids were represented by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit that works to help young people fight for their right to a healthy atmosphere. While this particular case was fought at a state level, the organization has been fighting another case at the federal level–it has also filed a suit against the Obama administration on behalf of a group of kids from various states across the country. The suit claims that the Obama administration has “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” targeting in particular the approval of a CO2-emitting export terminal in Oregon.

Pakistan, a country particularly vulnerable to climate change, has recently seen two such cases come to its courts. Last month, a seven-year-old girl filed a lawsuit against the government, saying that the promotion of fossil fuels violates “the Public Trust Doctrine and the youngest generation’s fundamental constitutional rights.” Last year, farmer and law student Asghar Leghari took his case to the Lahore High Court after his crops were threatened by the unpredictable weather. Leghari’s case prompted a judge to order the formation of a “Climate Change Commission” to ensure that the government is implementing policies to combat the problem.

The Times piece highlights other cases that are popping up worldwide. Regardless of whether or not these suits will actually be successful in forcing governments to change their policies, they are bringing attention to the media and the public of the role that governments have played in the climate crisis.

In the end, these lawsuits might be the most effective way that individuals can truly make their voice heard to the entities that truly have the power to create change. While these methods will still be difficult for those without legal resources at their disposal, it may be the best way to force governments to take action.

Editors Note: A previous version of this story stated that the kids represented in the federal case against the Obama administration were from Oregon. This story has been corrected to clarify that many of the youth plaintiffs in this case live in other states apart from Oregon. 

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Are Suing Their Governments for Contributing to Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

The United States for the first time in history promised to cut its carbon dioxide emissions when it joined the Paris Agreement. In order to meet those targets, the Obama Administration created the Clean Power Plan to reduce emissions and move American states toward cleaner energy sources. However, the Clean Power Plan is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court and it’s unclear whether or not the U.S. government will be able to make its promises a reality. Read on to learn more about the past, present, and potential future of federal pollution regulation in the United States.

The Current Political Context

Currently, the United States has the second highest rate of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, surpassed only by China. The United States has also historically avoided participating in international climate negotiations and is one of  a small number of developed nations that chose not to ratify the Kyoto Convention. While both industrialized and developing countries around the world have joined onto the convention over the past two decades and made pledges to reduce their emissions, the United States has struggled to make national commitments to reduce its own emissions. This is, in part, because American fossil fuel companies have been able to exert a great deal of influence on political decisions through lobbying and because Congress is divided on whether or not climate change is even scientifically valid.

COP21, the 21st Conference of Parties for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, marked the first time that the United States made a national pledge to reduce its emissions. However, while the COP21 was hailed as an international victory, it remains unclear if America can actually follow through on its commitments. U.S. policymakers remain divided on the issue of climate change and many believe that the government’s attempts to regulate fossil fuel usage directly interfere with the economy. As of February, the Clean Power Plan, with which the EPA began strictly regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, has been stayed by the Supreme Court and risks being ruled unconstitutional. The United States may have made an international commitment to reduce emissions, but on a domestic level, is it ready for such a change to take place?

A Brief history of Climate Change Negotiations

The first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Kyoto Protocol, was held on December 11, 1997. The convention entered into force on February 16, 2005–90 days after it was ratified by 55 nations emitting at least 55 percent of the CO2 emissions in 1990. The protocol required industrialized countries to make pledges to reduce their emissions by 5 percent before 2012.

Developing nations weren’t required to make pledges in the first incarnation of the Kyoto Protocol, although many did pledge to use aid from the U.N. and World Bank to invest in renewable energy sources. This was decided by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” meaning that since industrialized countries did the most damage to the environment, they should bear the heaviest burden of fixing it. Likewise, since dramatically reducing emissions would handicap growth in developing nations, it’s viewed as unfair to expect them to make the same level of commitment.

The United States did sign onto the Kyoto Protocol but it did not ratify the convention, meaning essentially that it gave its public support but refused to individually reduce its emissions. Decisions not to make emissions pledges from some major nations such as the United States, Canada, and Russia–although Russia did eventually agree to ratify the convention in 2004–are often cited by smaller countries as justification to not participate as well.

“High-level ministerial roundtable under the Kyoto Protocol” courtesy of UNclimatechange via Flickr

In 2012, following the end of the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period, another conference was held to establish new international pledges. The second conference produced the Doha Amendment, which gathered binding emissions reduction commitments from much of the industrialized world, including the entirety of the European Union and 37 other developed countries. Many developing countries ratified the amendment and made their own commitments, but their participation was on a non-binding basis.

In December 2015, COP21 was held in Paris and attended by representatives from 188 different countries, making it one of the largest international conferences in history. Rather than set specific reduction targets, COP21 let each participating country decide its own emission reduction plan with the ultimate goal of keeping global warming from raising the earth’s temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius. COP21 was successful in bringing together almost every country on earth to participate in the conference, including a wide range of developing countries and many of the world’s top polluters, such as China, India, Indonesia, and the United States. The United States pledged to reduce its emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025, focusing primarily on carbon dioxide but also on methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Role in Emissions Regulations

While COP21 marks the first time that the United States made an international commitment to reduce its emissions, the U.S. government has exercised power internally to regulate emissions since Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1973. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA the power to create National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six hazardous air pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. Each state was required to design a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to upgrade and regulate industrial air polluters in order to meet these NAAQS. The act was amended in 1977 and in 1990, both of which were made to redesign the NAAQS and extend the deadlines for states that failed to reach their goals. The 1990 amendment also set new standards for technology upgrades for large-scale, stationary polluters.

The Clean Air Act addressed both stationary and mobile sources of pollution: power plants were forced to upgrade their technology and install filters on smokestacks and the auto industry was forced to redesign its engines and cars to reduce effects of harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere as well as meet average miles-per-gallon efficiency standards. The act has made a significant impact on air quality in the United States, reducing smog by more than 25 percent since 1990, lead pollution by 92 percent, sulfur dioxide by 71 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 46 percent, and ending the production and distribution of many chemicals that adversely affect the ozone layer.

However, while the Clean Air Act has existed for 43 years, its use to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a recent development. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled  in Massachusetts v. the EPA that if it could be scientifically proven that greenhouse gas emissions were dangerous to human health, then it would be the EPA’s responsibility to regulate them. Only two years later, in 2009, scientific evidence proved both that GHGs were harmful to the human respiratory system and that an increase in heat waves due to global warming could be dangerous, especially for the elderly and infirm.

“Smokestack” courtesy of Dean Hochman via Flickr

The Clean Power Plan Explained

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. the EPA gave the EPA the power to use the Clean Air Act as a viable policy tool to combat climate change and paved the way for the creation of the Clean Power Plan. The United States’ greenhouse gas emissions can be broken down into five major categories: 31 percent comes from electricity generation (also referred to as the power sector), 27 percent from transportation, 21 percent from industry, 12 percent from commercial and residential sources, and 9 percent from agriculture.

If the United States is to successfully reduce emissions by its target of 26 to 28 percent, a substantial amount of those reductions will have to come from the power sector, which contributes the largest share of greenhouse gasses and is also likely where the government can exert the most regulatory control. This has been the guiding logic behind the creation of the Obama Administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan mandates that power plants across the United States reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 32 percent by 2030. The plan works differently on a state-by-state basis according to the energy mix used in each state, how efficient and environmentally friendly the current power plants are, and how effective a variety of traditional emission reduction tools can be in the context of the first two factors. The different emissions reductions targets vary widely because of these variables. For example, Montana is required to reduce its emissions by 47 percent while a few states aren’t required to make any changes because they don’t have power plants that the plan applies to. The EPA’s job is only to set these reduction targets; each state is allowed to design its own plan to meet its target. The only condition is that the plans must be submitted by September 1, or the EPA will impose a federal plan on states that failed to create their own.

Each state may choose to pursue the emissions reductions either through rate-based methods, which focus on reducing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy; or through mass-based methods, which focus on reducing the overall number of tons of carbon emitted. Regardless of their method of choice, the EPA offers four basic building blocks to aid the construction of each state’s plans: making existing coal plants more efficient; using existing gas plants more efficiently; increasing renewables and nuclear and increasing end-use energy efficiency. These four principles are not binding constraints but rather general guidelines; each state is expected to create a unique plan.

Legal Challenges

Since the release of the Clean Power Plan, 29 states have attempted to sue the EPA but the majority of these cases were quickly dismissed. But in January, one case, West Virginia v. the EPA, may be on its way to the Supreme Court. While the D.C. circuit court initially plans to review the case in June, on February 9 the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to issue a stay to stop the Clean Power Plan’s implementation prior to undergoing judicial review. That stay stops the EPA’s regulations until after a court ruling has determined whether they are within the agency’s authority. A ruling against the EPA could effectively cripple the plan’s intended purpose of combating climate change.

Image courtesy of Phil Richards via Flickr

However, on February 24, less than two weeks after the Supreme Court issued the stay, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. Justice Scalia led the decision to overturn the Clean Power Plan and his death significantly complicates the plan’s legal future. The Supreme Court now seems to be divided 4 to 4 on the issue, but there has been no mention of changing the decision to stay the case. The issue is also further complicated by the GOP’s refusal to hold hearings on the President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

The looming question now is whether or not the Supreme Court will wait to hear the case until after the 2016 Presidential election and/or the confirmation of a ninth justice. The D.C. Circuit Court is currently scheduled to hear the states’ lawsuit this upcoming summer after which point the Supreme Court will decide whether or not it wants to take up the case. If the court refuses to take up the case or issues a 4-4 split ruling, then the circuit court’s decision will stand. However, legal experts note that the court could delay the case until a new justice joins the bench, which would likely lead to a 5-4 decision based on the ideological leaning of the ninth justice.

So What will Happen in the Meantime?

The Clean Power Plan is critical to the United States’ ability to fulfill its COP21 commitments. However, the fact that the plan is currently pending a court ruling does not mean that it failed. Last year, the Clean Power Plan already exerted considerable influence on the American energy systems as states have begun to redesign their energy systems for the future and many power plant operators have already begun retrofitting their plants and designing compliance plans. The primary focus of the Clean Power Plan is to dramatically reduce the use of coal in American energy and that may very well be happening. The implementation of the plan also coincides with a time when we have new access to domestic reserves of natural gas and energy investors have already started to move away from coal toward less expensive forms of energy.

Coal stocks plummeted in 2015 and many plants across America declared bankruptcy. However, this isn’t to say that the Supreme Court decision isn’t important. If the Clean Power Plan is overturned, then a new series of political barriers to regulating emissions may be created.  The decision also sets a dangerous legal precedent, marking the first time the Supreme Court has stayed federal regulations before hearing the case. The EPA’s legal authority to address airborne pollution is the major weapon that gives the United States a real chance to reduce its emissions. If that power is called into question then that may dramatically impede the EPA’s ability to make progress on climate change.

Conclusion

The Clean Power Plan’s emphasis on increasing renewable energy in America is a large part of what makes it an effective weapon against climate change. Coal may still die out on its own, but without the plan in place, it seems likely that energy investors will shift to the more cost efficient natural gas rather than renewable energy. Natural gas releases less CO2 than coal but is still very much a greenhouse gas and a national dependence on methane as an energy source would still result in high levels of GHG emissions.

As long as the Clean Power Plan is in legal limbo it’s difficult to predict what direction American energy will take. Currently, it seems likely that there won’t be a final hearing on the case until after the 2016 election is decided and a new justice is confirmed by the Senate. Whether that new justice ends up being liberal or conservative will most likely make or break the plan and will strongly influence the United States’ ability to meet its Cop21 goals. The next president will also have control over executive branch policy, meaning that he or she could peel back a significant portion of existing regulation or continue President Obama’s efforts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions further.

Resources

The Atlantic: A Legal Win for the E.P.A.

The Atlantic: Will a Reconfigured Supreme Court help Obama’s Clean Power Plan Survive?

The Atlantic: Did the Supreme Court Doom the Paris Climate Change Deal?

The Atlantic: The Supreme Court’s Devastating Decision on Climate Change

CNN: Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts

CNN: Obama: Climate Agreement ‘Best Chance we have to Save the Environment‘

Earth Institute, Columbia University: What is the U.S. Commitment in Paris? 

Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC: Clean Power Plan: A Summary

The EPA.: The Clean Air Act Requirements and History

The EPA: The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

The EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

The Guardian: The Kyoto Protocol is Not Quite Dead

The Hill: Supreme Court Overturns Landmark EPA Air Pollution Law

Inside Climate News: For U.S. and China, World’s Biggest Climate Polluters, It’s Still Business as Usual

Moyers & Company: Here are the 56% of Republicans who Deny Climate Change

NRDC: NRDC Summary of EPA’s Clean Power Plan

United Nations Conference on Climate Change: 188 Countries have Committed to Reducing their Carbon Emissions

United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention: Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Air Act

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the United States be Able to Keep its Paris Agreement Commitments? appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, landmarks around the world shut off their lights for an hour to draw attention to climate change. The event was started in 2007 by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and has been held every March since.

This year, 366 landmarks participated in over 175 nations, including Big Ben, the Colosseum, and the Empire State Building. Each landmark turned off its lights between 8:30 and 9:30 PM in its respective timezone. Here are some pictures of the world’s most famous landmarks gone dark:

Great photos of the @EmpireStateBldg participating in #EarthHour. pic.twitter.com/MYcniHgBUl

— World Wildlife Fund (@World_Wildlife) March 20, 2016

#ChangeClimateChange! UN Headquarters in NYC went dark for #Earthhour on Saturday! Message: https://t.co/L34HPKY8hY pic.twitter.com/2nbVESfQ9r

— United Nations (@UN) March 20, 2016

Time for lights out! We’re proud to take part in this year’s #EarthHour
Pic: Simon Hewson/@wwf_australia @earthhour pic.twitter.com/uFCvtl2JIy

— City of Sydney (@cityofsydney) March 19, 2016

We’ve switched off the lights at Emirates Stadium from 8.30-9.30pm for #EarthHour pic.twitter.com/aLGbPTJEuk

— TheArsenalFoundation (@AFC_Foundation) March 19, 2016

The Eiffel Tower is switching off its lights to celebrate #EarthHour in @Paris. @WWF@RoyalSegolene@Anne_Hidalgopic.twitter.com/iYB8Kyn0mH

— Pierre Cannet (@pierrecannet) March 19, 2016

The CEO of the WWF, David Miller, explained the uniqueness of this year’s event:

This year, because the nations came together in Paris in December for the first time and agreed on a plan of action, I think the goal is not only to draw attention but also to celebrate the fact we’ve seen really important action on this critical challenge.

However, while the world may have seen increased action against climate change, we have also seen mounting reason to be concerned about the state of the world climate. According to the Independent’s Geoffrey Lean:

Last month, it was revealed on 14 March, was not merely the warmest February ever, but witnessed the biggest month-on-month jump in temperatures ever recorded – and by a big margin. Normally cautious climate scientists called it ‘jawdropping’ ‘terrifying,’ and ‘a true shocker.’

Worse, the previous record rise occurred just the month before, in January. This has been the warmest winter ever worldwide, and February was the tenth successive record-breaking month.

The photos of the Earth Hour are always striking, but it’s important that the event be paired with action that is more than just symbolic. Miller is certainly correct that we’re making progress, and a blacked out Eiffel Tower (and other landmarks) are great reminders that it’s paramount that we continue moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Earth Hour 2016: A Coordinated Protest Against Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study discovered something rather upsetting about our nation’s science teachers: roughly two-thirds are misinformed when it comes to climate science and change.

This revelation came from a survey conducted by Eric Plutzer of Pennsylvania State University, as well as collaborators from Wright State University and the National Center for Science Education. According to Vox:

The researchers mailed questionnaires to 1,500 science teachers, who taught disciplines ranging from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences, since the study of climate change straddles fields and they weren’t sure which classes were paying the subject more attention.

The study participants included both middle school and high school teachers.

An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is being caused by humans–roughly 97 percent. It’s viewed as a consensus in the scientific community. However, about 30 percent of American science teachers teach their students that climate change is caused by natural causes, another roughly 30 percent instruct that it’s caused by a combination of human actions and natural causes. Both of these lessons are problematic, and inaccurate.

There’s some debate over why teachers are teaching climate change incorrectly–it’s no secret that in some parts of the country, teaching climate change accurately could be protested by parents and the community. While this recent study only found that only about 4 percent of teachers reported feeling pressured to teach climate science a certain way, earlier studies have put the number as high as 15 percent.

The researchers also found, quite alarmingly, that many teachers didn’t even know they were teaching anything incorrectly, as only 30 percent of the middle school teachers and 45 percent of high school teachers even knew that there is such a thing as a scientific consensus on climate change.

Many of the teachers also answered that they hadn’t received much formal education on climate change, although the good news is that two-thirds would like to learn. So, if it’s possible to provide that kind of education to our teachers, we may soon see a change to way that climate change is taught to young American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two-Thirds of American Science Teachers Misinformed on Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

The precipitous decline in the price of crude oil and its effect on the stock market have caught the interest of the energy community, Wall Street, and the American public. What may be lost in all this is that even while oil prices plummet, renewable energy sources are closing the gap and becoming increasingly affordable thanks to a combination of things such as improved infrastructure and beneficial policies, just to name a few. In fact, renewable energy’s recent success even got a mention in President Obama’s final State of the Union address. This article will look at how renewable energy turned the corner and has become a beacon of light for the future of American power.

Sources of Renewable Energy

The outlook for renewable energy has improved significantly in the United States. President Obama noted in his State of the Union Address, “in fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.” While the validity of this quote only applies to select places and not the entire nation, the fact that it has any truth behind it at all is a sign of major change.

Wind

Wind power, in particular, has seen massive growth in the past few years. Last December, wind energy production passed the 70 gigawatts threshold. To put this in perspective, this means that the power generated from wind can supply 19 million homes. The leap forward in production is the result of a combination of events, including the expansion of wind infrastructure. Wind power now has 50,000 working turbines in 40 different states and Puerto Rico. It is also thanks to tax credits, namely the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, which was extended after a brief lapse as part of the latest budget. This increase had led to a drastic decrease in the price of wind power, dropping 66 percent from 2009 levels. It has also meant a large jump in its share of the energy market going from less than 1 percent in 2007 to between 4.5 and 5 percent this year. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that wind’s production and share of the energy market will increase dramatically in future.

Solar

Like wind power, solar power has grown rapidly over the past few years. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, solar energy provided 40 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in 2015. This growth has translated into 22,700 megawatts of capacity, or enough to power 4.6 million American homes. As a result, the price of solar installations have dropped 73 percent since 2006 and 45 percent for residences since 2010. Much of that decrease in cost has been fueled by the Investment Tax Credit, which took effect in 2006 to help promote growth in the renewable energy industry.

Hydroelectric Power

Another major source of renewable energy is hydroelectric power. Currently, the total capacity for hydroelectric power is 79,000 megawatts. This production is spread across 2,400 facilities throughout the United States, although the majority are located along the West coast. From 2000 to 2010, hydroelectric power accounted for somewhere between 5.8 and 7.2 of the total energy produced in the U.S., and about 17 percent globally. Initially, hydroelectric power accounted for the vast majority of all renewable energy sources, though that number is falling as additional renewable sources produce more power. Hydroelectricity is incredibly cheap and flexible, especially in comparison to solar and wind units, though their prices have been decreasing in recent years.

Biomass

Wind, solar, and to a lesser extent hydroelectric, get most of the attention, but when it comes to production, biomass is the leader in terms of energy output. This may come as a surprise because exactly what biomass is can be somewhat confusing. The way that it has garnered such a share of the market is largely through ethanol fuel, which in 2013 made up 43 percent of all fuel used in the United States. In fact, that the same year, biomass made up nearly half of all non-renewable energy used–twice as much as the second highest, hydroelectric power. This notion that biomass is the leader in renewables should not be particularly surprising because for most of human history, biomass, namely wood, was used primarily for energy, with the conversion to coal only coming fairly recently. But it is important to note that while most renewable energy sources are touted as environmentally friendly, biomass energy sources are not completely carbon neutral.

Geothermal

Another growing renewable power source is geothermal energy. The United States has approximately 3,000 megawatts of geothermal generating capacity, but it accounts for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. energy output. Growth in geothermal has been relatively slow in recent years, although scientists argue it could be a major source of electricity in the future.

The video below explains how the different types of renewable energy work:

Regulations

On the Federal Level

Starting at the federal level, there are a number of programs and regulations in place to monitor and encourage the growth of renewable energy. One example is the Federal Energy Management Program, which aims to reduce emissions by government vehicles and in government buildings. The Environmental Protection Agency also has a number of programs in place to reduce emissions, conserve the environment, and encourage the use of renewable energy. One is the Green Power Partnership, which provides free advice, training, and support to companies who want to better utilize renewable energy. Another is the Landfill Methane Outreach Program, which seeks to protect the environment, helping landfills reduce emissions and capture methane for use as a renewable energy source. The EPA’s AgStar program also promotes the recovery of methane, this time from animal feeding areas. Lastly is RE-Powering America’s Land, which encourages developing renewable energy projects on the sites of previously contaminated areas.

State and Local

There are also a number of beneficial policies at the state level. Some of the most significant state-level policies are Renewable Portfolio Standards, which require utility providers to provide a certain percentage of renewable energy to their customers. These standards help encourage the growth of renewable energy and allow for a more localized approach to setting requirements.

Public Benefits Funds for Renewable Energy create a pool of money to invest in renewables. The funds are supported by a special charge on customers’ energy bills and can help encourage local renewable production. Output-Based Environmental Regulations define limits on how much energy can come from any one source. In doing so, states can encourage utilities to expand their energy portfolios to provide electricity from new sources. Many states also have Interconnection Standards to help ensure that new energy sources have easy access to the electrical grid. Another policy that is particularly rewarding is Net Metering, which allows customers who have a renewable system in place, like rooftop solar panels, to be paid for any energy they provide back to the power grid. The combination of interconnection standards and Net Metering helps make it cost-effective for homeowners to adopt sources of renewable energy. Along similar lines are Feed-in-Tariffs, which force electrical companies to pay a premium to individuals that provide renewable energy to the grid.

The Future of Renewables

With all the growth in renewables, it is not surprising that the future looks very green. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that renewable energy will be the fastest-growing energy source through 2040. Additionally, while the industry still relies on tax credits, it seems on the verge of weaning itself off of them, as growth in renewable energy has caused some renewables to be competitive, if not cheaper, than fossil fuel sources in some parts of the United States. Companies are also on the verge of improving storage solutions, which is one of the major problems with solar and wind energy currently. The accompanying video looks at the future of renewable energy:

It is no surprise then, that according to a Renewable Electricity Futures Study, renewable energy could provide as much as 80 percent of all U.S. electricity by 2050. In the process, this transformation will have significant benefits for the climate, economy, and public health. By switching to these forms of energy production, the United States will also see a drastic reduction in its water consumption because large quantities of water are currently needed to cool traditional power plants.

The efforts supporting renewable energy will likely benefit from last year’s Paris Climate Conference. During the conference, nations across the world vowed to reduce emissions and invest more in renewable technology in an effort to prevent the planet’s temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius. The following video looks at the specifics of the Paris Climate Conference and its impact on the future of renewables:

Criticisms/Setbacks

While renewable energy sources are growing and expanding, it is still not full steam ahead–even renewables come with caveats. The main issue currently is cost and investment. While wind and solar are thriving, they are doing so with the help of generous tax breaks. While many applaud the growth of solar power, supporters also warned that growth could start to decline if tax breaks do not continue. There are many examples of failed renewable energy companies. Perhaps the most notorious example is Solyndra, a solar panel installation company, which was given a $535 million loan by the Department of Energy, but ended up defaulting. There other examples too, including Abound, a solar company, and Fisker, an electric car company.

The many forms of renewable energy production have their own challenges. Hydroelectric power, for example, is very useful but few, if any, new projects have been planned for the future. Biomass also has accompanying issues, namely that production requires valuable land and resources to grow the corn used in ethanol, which could potentially be better used to grow crops for food. Plants burning biomass may also produce more pollution than traditional energy plants that burn coal or natural gas. Even solar and wind, while not nearly as hazardous to the local environment, are have trouble storing any energy produced in excess of existing demand.

Conclusion

Production from renewable energy sources has seen dramatic growth in recent years and estimates suggest that growth will only continue, if not speed up. But despite the recent success of the renewable energy industry, as oil prices remain low money could easily move back toward traditional sources power. Yet doing so would almost certainly be bad for business–the decline in oil’s price is not the sign of a prosperous future, but a perilous one. Renewable energy sources are growing quickly and are already becoming competitive with traditional, dirty sources of electricity. Even much-publicized failures are showing signs of improvement–the Department of Energy’s loan program, which gave the infamous Solyndra loan, is now turning a profit from interest.

Renewable energy certainly has many hurdles to jump through as far as environmental impact, scale of production, and effective storage. The industry will also need to become less dependent on tax breaks, though signs of that are already emerging. If state and federal programs continue to support the growth of new energy sources, the United States may be able to meet its goals for renewable energy production in the coming decades.

Resources

FactCheck.org: Obama’s Wind Energy Claim

NPR: Wind Power Continues Steady Growth Across The U.S

Solar Energy Industries Association: Solar Industry Data

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Hydropower

The Break Through: Growth of Biomass far outstrips Growth of Solar and Wind

Geothermal Energy Association: 2015 Annual U.S. & Global Power Production Report

Energy.gov: About the Federal Energy Management Program

EPA: State and Local Climate and Energy Program

Scientific America: Strong Future Forecast for Renewable Energy

Union of Concerned Scientists: Renewable Energy Can Provide 80 Percent of U.S. Electricity by 2050

The Huffington Post: The Paris Climate Conference is Over, but the Renewable Energy Transformation Has Kicked Into High Gear

NPR: After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning a Profit

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Going Green: The Future of Renewable Energy is Getting Brighter appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, 195 countries managed to reach an unprecedented climate change agreement that intends to unite the international community around the goal of reducing emissions and preventing the most severe consequences of global warming. But despite the agreement, much work remains to be done to meet previously established targets. So was this agreement a success and will it solve climate change?

The short answer to that questions is yes and no–the agreement was in some ways a success, but it won’t solve climate change by itself. Evaluating climate change progress is particularly difficult because there are multiple ways to measure success. Committing all countries to the goal of limiting climate change is a massive step forward that should not be understated, but if you ask climate scientists, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the world will be able to meet its intent to limit global temperatures to 2°C (3.6°F), above pre-industrial levels.

Let’s first look at what the agreement will require and where some gray areas remain. The legally-binding portion of the agreement mandates that all countries must submit plans to reduce their emissions, consistently monitor their progress, and then regularly report reductions to the international community. The agreement outlines a plan for regular international meetings at which additional measures will be discussed. While that step, by itself, is significant, the agreement has no binding mechanism to compel countries to meet their own standards. Moreover, based on the 185 plans that were submitted before the Paris conference, global warming will most likely continue past the agreed upon goal of 2°C.

If we proceed according to each country’s emissions plans, formally referred to as the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), temperatures will rise an estimated 3.5°C, but due to uncertainty in predictions, it could be as much as 4.6°C (Take a look at this graphic from the Climate Interactive for a visual representation). Because counties must track and update their emissions progress, countries could conceivably change their targets to become much more ambitious, making the 2°C goal attainable. But doing so would take a massive amount of political will and would need to happen sooner rather than later. The Climate Interactive refers to that as the “Ratchet Success” scenario. Check out this explanation to see what that would actually entail.

It is appropriate to question whether 2°C is a reasonable goal, as it was created somewhat arbitrarily. But the available evidence suggests that once the earth warms to that point significant changes will occur. Vox’s Brad Plumer has a pretty succinct breakdown:

Critics grumbled that the 2°C limit seemed arbitrary or overly simplistic. But scientists were soon compiling evidence that the risks of global warming became fairly daunting somewhere above the 2°C threshold: rapid sea-level rise, the risk of crop failure, the collapse of coral reefs. And policymakers loved the idea of a simple, easily digestible target. So it stuck.

While the 2°C threshold marks a certain point of no return for some climate-related consequences, scientists argue that significant effects will likely come before the earth warms that much. Generally, predicting the exact temperature at which changes will occur is difficult because rising temperatures could actually accelerate warming even further. Some manifestations of climate change, like permafrost melting, could actually speed up warming, which can be difficult for models to account for. Most models give a range for the potential consequences of warming, but even those may be revised upwards.

While it’s clear that in order to meet the U.N.’s target of 2°C much more needs to be done, that does not render the recent Paris agreement useless. The mere fact that nearly every major country has committed to reducing global warming is a significant achievement. This is particularly true when you look at the history of these talks and how they have failed in the past.

There have been several monumental steps that made the recent Paris deal possible in the first place. An agreement between the two largest CO2 emitters, the United States and China, bridged some of the disagreement between developed and developing countries. China recently announced a plan to let its emissions peak by 2030 and began working on a cap and trade system to do so. The Obama administration created a stringent Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce electricity sector emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030, as well as a 26 percent reduction in all emissions before 2025. Moreover, the fact that 185 countries managed to commit concrete plans to reduce their emissions is a remarkable a show of international commitment.

Despite recent progress, there are several key obstacles that remain in the way of a meaningful solution, arguably the most notable of which is the U.S. Congress. While negotiators were working in Paris to hash out a deal, the Republican-led Congress sought to dispel any optimism that might come from the deal. Earlier this month, the Republican party held a, notably symbolic, vote to block President Obama’s clean energy plan. Afer the Paris agreement was reached, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said,

Before his international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt, and that Congress has already voted to reject.

While the stark disagreement between Republicans and the rest of the world on climate change hasn’t stopped all U.S. attempts to reduce emissions, a comprehensive strategy will need support from Congress. President Obama has largely managed to pursue his clean energy agenda through executive action, but when he leaves office the next president could easily reverse his progress. Another key part of the Paris agreement is the goal to provide $100 billion in climate-related aid to developing countries, yet U.S. funding for that must be approved by Congress. It’s true that the most important parts of the Paris agreement are not legally binding–there is no way to punish a country that does not meet its emissions plan–but that is largely a result of political reality.

So yes, the Paris agreement was a success in the sense that it marks a historic commitment to fight global climate change. The United Nations received climate reductions plans from 185 countries, which will continue to be revised and monitored in an effort to mitigate the negative effects of global warming. But at the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that we will not meet our established goal to limit warming to 2°C. More to the point, there are several significant barriers to enacting the legislation needed to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy. Perhaps the Paris agreement is accurately a starting point, and if the international community is able to build momentum going forward, pressure could help force necessary change.

Read more: The Paris Climate Change Conference: What Should We Expect?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was the Paris Climate Agreement a Success? appeared first on Law Street.

Amid a recent push to make climate change a larger issue in American politics, President Obama is traveling to Alaska to help give a more visual appreciation of how the climate is changing. The Obama administration has ratcheted up its efforts to fight climate change, but the Alaska trip shows a slight change in its tactics. Until now, Obama has focused largely on taking action in the form of new regulations and subsidies that prevent pollution and encourage the use of renewable energy. But in Alaska, Obama seeks to put a face to an issue that is often seen as complicated, boring, and distant.

Before his departure to Alaska, President Obama announced that the name of Mt. McKinley will be changed back to Denali–the name originally given to it by Alaska Natives.

The mountain has spoken Mt McKinley officially renamed Denali: http://t.co/VSN2vl7yZo Congrats, Alaska! pic.twitter.com/ZdRTJ2PEHL

— US Dept of Interior (@Interior) August 30, 2015

While in Alaska, the President visited melting glaciers, met with Bear Grylls, spoke with Alaskan Natives, and gave multiples speeches about the importance of addressing climate change. The tone of his trip is focusing on the real life effects of climate change and the growing need for action, a topic that Obama will likely discuss frequently in the months leading up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris this December.

The President’s decision to visit Alaska is significant but also complicated. Of the 50 states, Alaska is arguably the most affected by climate change, yet the Obama Administration recently granted Royal Dutch Shell a permit to drill in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea. The decision to allow drilling caused backlash from environmentalists and the timing of the President’s Alaska trip has caused some groups, like the progressive social change organization Credo, to call Obama a hypocrite (although some of the group’s other claims are problematic).

Despite the drilling controversy, Alaska is experiencing significant climate change effects and Obama’s trip intends to highlight that. Temperatures in Alaska have risen more than in the rest of the United States, and climate change is beginning to affect the lives of the state’s residents. According to a recent National Climate Assessment:

Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as rapidly as the rest of the U.S., with average annual air temperature increasing by 3°F and average winter temperature by 6°F, with substantial year-to-year and regional variability.

A possible consequence for the increase in temperature is a rise in the number and severity of wildfires, which are a big problem for Alaska. According to recent research, the Alaskan wildfire season has increased by more than 40 percent since 1950, and was particularly bad this summer. Melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and reduced snow cover are quickly affecting the Alaskan landscape. A recent Atlantic article highlighted the effects of climate change on the people in Newtok, Alaska–who actually voted to relocate their town before it was destroyed by rising water levels.

For years, Obama has lamented the lack of action and pushback from Congress, but now he is taking a much more aggressive approach. In his speech on Tuesday, he attacked those who refuse to acknowledge the issue, saying, “The time to plead ignorance is surely past.  Those who want to ignore the science, they are increasingly alone.  They’re on their own shrinking island,” in a speech to the GLACIER conference. His remarks also emphasized that time to address climate change is running out, painting a grave picture of what could happen if emissions are not significantly reduced, saying:

If we were to abandon our course of action, if we stop trying to build a clean-energy economy and reduce carbon pollution, if we do nothing to keep the glaciers from melting faster, and oceans from rising faster, and forests from burning faster, and storms from growing stronger, we will condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair

It’s difficult to tell whether the President’s new approach to trumpeting climate change will shift public opinion, but climate change will likely get more attention moving forward. With the Paris climate conference in December, the Democratic presidential candidates continuing to raise the issue, and impending legal challenges to new EPA regulations, climate change will be the topic of much discussion. Although most Americans acknowledge the fact that the climate is changing, they still rate it low on their list of priorities. While the future remains difficult to predict, the conversation has certainly been started.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Doubles Down on Climate Change In Alaska appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the environmental activism combating global warming is based on the rhetoric of personal responsibility and consumerism: if we buy more “green” products, global warming can be stopped. But can we really buy our way out of rapidly rising temperatures and increasing devastation from human-created environmental disasters? Read on to learn about the emphasis on personal responsibility in environmentalism, and the arguments for and against such an approach.

Global Warming: “You” Can Fix It

It is nearly impossible to find articles addressing climate change without finding a list of things that “you” can do to help stop a massive planetary process.

These tips are meant to be empowering and are geared toward combating a frightening sense of apathy about issues of dire importance like global warming. Climate change in particular is something that many people perceive as being in the distant future, and therefore a sense of denial colors so many people’s thinking about climate change.

Lists of “Top 10 Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Dioxide Emissions Footprint” that abound on the internet are meant to help break down global warming into something digestible; something that is not so colossal that you might as well give up before you start trying to do anything about it. People and organizations concerned about climate change want to break it down into little things that “we can all do everyday” to combat it. Talk of “greening your commute,” “greening your home,” and “buying energy efficient products” dominate many discussions about addressing global warming.

However, critics of this approach point out that the desire to do “something” may be just as damaging–if not more so–than recognizing that this is a huge problem with no easy solution. Discussing global warming as though it can be adequately addressed by individuals using fluorescent light bulbs arguably risks minimizing the gravity of the situation.

Greenwashing

Gas, technology, and car companies that make so many daily commutes possible engage in practices that have been accused of creating enormous amounts of pollution and unnecessary toxic waste. Instead of encouraging actions that target these corporate practices at a systemic level, many efforts to “fight” global warming may actually encourage the greenwashing of these massive corporations.

Greenwashing is usefully defined on the Greenwashing Index–an online-based, awareness-driven attempt to “help keep advertising honest”–in the following way:

Everyone’s heard the expression ‘whitewashing’ — it’s defined as ‘a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts, especially in a political context.’ ‘Greenwashing’ is the same premise, but in an environmental context. It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be ‘green’ through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact. It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush. A classic example is an energy company that runs an advertising campaign touting a ‘green’ technology they’re working on — but that ‘green’ technology represents only a sliver of the company’s otherwise not-so-green business, or may be marketed on the heels of an oil spill or plant explosion.

People who criticize corporate greenwashing argue that articles and organizations encouraging people to buy “green” products are actually encouraging people to increase corporate profits by endorsing greenwashing practices. Thus, companies all the way from airlines to those that sell home appliances and personal beauty products engage heavily–and successfully–in greenwashing.

The meat industry often takes the lead in greenwashing. These companies actively distance themselves from the environmental devastation that accompanies factory farming and associated industries, as described by Scientific American here:

Current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of ‘CO2-equivalent’ greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone’s lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

Meat company Tyson, for example, has advertised itself as animal-friendly, claiming to slaughter its animals in a “humane” manner. But advocates point out that these claims are greenwashed, as the pigs Tyson sells live their lives in cages so small that they cannot move one step back or forward. Critics point out the greenwashed term that Tyson uses for this torturous practice is “individual housing.” This kind of advertising also erases the tremendous environmental destruction that can result from factory farming. When consumers are encouraged to buy “green” and “ethical” meat, they are encouraged not to think about the ways that any form of mass-meat production inherently contributes to  global warming.

Critics of greenwashing would argue that encouraging people concerned about global warming to “fight” it by changing their buying practices often only encourages companies to simply change the ways they advertise themselves: once they market themselves as “greener,” consumers can feel better about buying what are often more expensive “green” products, and help the corporation to turn a profit.

Unequal Burdens of Personal Responsibility

Critiques of the “you can stop global warming” movement are also concerned that harm can occur on an individual, not just corporate, level.

This individualist focus arguably takes attention away from the ways that the environmentally destructive practices that are driving global warming are not the result of individual failings, but rather of massive structures of capitalism. Sustained collective action, rather than individualized consumption choices, are required to combat these larger systems of oppression that fundamentally shape global warming.

When considering the potential impact of “what you can do to reduce global warming” lists, it is important, also, to ask: who is this “you” that these forms of media are talking to? Awareness website Time for Change refers to “a drought in Africa” because of “your increased yearly consumption of fuels,” which makes it clear that the intended “you” is not African, but probably North American. However, even within the presumed North American audience, the burden of personal responsibility arguably falls differently on people of color and people with dis/abilities.

“What you can do to stop global warming” lists that advocate for increased use of public transportation and biking instead of driving seem to work only for those who live in and near cities with accessible and affordable public transit systems. Public transportation systems–even relatively extensive ones like those found in New York City–are often of vastly unequal quality, cost, and distribution.

When cities are designed in ways that lead to modest-income workers of color being driven out of living in city centers where they are often employed and thus must have long commutes to work, these workers are disproportionately impacted by the very climate disasters that are becoming more frequent with global warming. “What you can do” lists encouraging the use of public transportation as a means to fight climate change take for granted the idea that the “you” the list is addressing are people who have cars and who have consistent, reliable access to public transportation–the structure of which is often biased against modest-income neighborhoods of color to begin with.

Bike riding is also often touted as something “you” can do to put a dent in rising carbon dioxide levels. But not everyone can simply hop on a bicycle: the “you” addressed here is clearly not a person with mobility-related dis/abilities who already has inadequate access to public transportation. Additionally, in neighborhoods like those in the South Bronx that the government and corporations target as dumping grounds, it can actually be unhealthy to ride your bicycle–when you exercise in highly polluted areas, you increase the amount of toxins you are inhaling. With asthma rates already devastatingly high in areas like this due to the practices of governments and corporations, encouraging people to ride their bikes as though everyone can is simply misguided. Individualist steps to address climate change can sometimes backfire, and raise other causes for concern.

So…can “you” stop global warming?

Alone? Perhaps not. Changing individual consumer practices shift some of the priorities of corporations, which puts at least the rhetoric of fighting climate change at the fore. However, these shifts don’t necessarily end environmentally destructive corporate practices. Collective action that targets systemic causes of global warming rather than displacing all the responsibility–and therefore, the blame–onto unconcerned individuals might be a common place to start.

 Resources

Huffington Post: 14 U.S. Cities That Could Disappear Over the Next Century, Thanks to Global Warming

About News: Top Ten Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming

Guardian: What’s the Carbon Footprint of… a New Car?

Greenwashing Index: About Greenwashing

Business Pundit: The Top 25 Greenwashed Products in America

Scientific American: How Meat Contributes to Global Warming

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Tyson Exposed by Former Suppliers’ Convictions

One Green Planet: Five Ways Factory Farming is Killing the Environment

CounterPunch: Global Warming is Economic Imperialism

Policy Link: For Millions of Low-Income Workers Left Behind by Public Transit Systems, Every Day’s a Snow Day

Daily News: Bronx, Brooklyn Residents Claim City Targeting Their Neighborhoods for Waste Transfer Stations

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Corporate Greenwashing and Global Warming appeared first on Law Street.

Regardless of the political debates about global warming, scientists have long been involved in trying to combat this environmental problem. But what exactly are activist-scientists doing–or not doing–to address global warming?

One facet of combatting global warming is dealing with raised carbon dioxide levels. A lot of talk about carbon dioxide levels focuses on so-called “carbon sinks”–forests that, due to plants’ ability to process carbon dioxide, remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere–and their potential to mitigate the effects of global warming. But can forests and artificial means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere actually “save us” from global warming?

Capturing Carbon Dioxide

Instead of working to prevent the rising carbon dioxide levels that have been fueling global warming, one of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent projects has been the capturing and storage of excess carbon dioxide. This process involves the harvesting of carbon dioxide from facilities such as electricity power plants that emit a great deal of carbon dioxide. Once the carbon dioxide is harvested directly from these sources, it is channeled–sometimes by pipeline and sometimes by truck–usually underground, where it is re-introduced into the earth in order to produce more oil.

Carbon dioxide capturing and sequestration is often upheld as an easy fix to global warming:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes, preventing the carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide capture can occur through three basic methods. Pre-combustion capture is used in industrial processes like natural gas burning; post-combustion capture is used in the food and beverage industries; and oxyfuel combustion capture is used with water instead of air as a combustion material in industries other than power generation.

Once harvested, the carbon is transported and injected into the earth in liquid form, where it is often channeled into increasing oil production. While sponsors of carbon capture argue that this process is completely safe, there are serious concerns that the injection of such large amounts of liquid into the earth actually increases the likelihood of devastating earthquakes.

Is fueling oil production to fight global warming wise?

Though many support carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, there are serious concerns that this process is used to directly increase, rather than reduce, dependence on non-renewable, highly toxic oil production and use. The carbon dioxide that is harvested from power plants is channeled back into oil production and therefore “helps the United States continue producing record amounts of oil.”

This capture and sequestration method is arguably so popular because it actually creates profits for the massive multinational corporations involved in oil production and related fields. But some scientists are concerned that this process actually further entrenches unsustainable energy practices. David Biello at Scientific American points out:

The process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way back to the atmosphere.

There’s certainly evidence that this corporate-motivated approach to reducing carbon emissions has its drawbacks, especially given the amount of energy that is inefficiently used by the capture and sequestration technology.

 Alternative to Oil: Artificial Photosynthesis

Some scientists are beginning to reevaluate their hesitations about carbon sequestration. Scientists at Berkeley have been working to refine a way that captured carbon can be broken down through artificial photosynthesis instead of being channeled back into oil production.

Dr. Peidong Yang, a chemist at the Berkeley Lab working on artificial photosynthesis–the process that plants use to create food by breaking down carbon dioxide and sunlight into glucose and water—has stated about the research that:

Our system has the potential to fundamentally change the chemical and oil industry in that we can produce chemicals and fuels in a totally renewable way, rather than extracting them from deep below the ground.

Through combining nanowire technology with specific bacterial populations to mimic the photosynthetic processes that leaves undergo naturally, the Berkeley team has created the potential for solar-powered chemistry that non-lethally utilizes sequestered carbon.

The question now is once this new technology is ready for market (it is not quite there yet) will the corporations that profit from the current methods of the re-use of sequestered carbon utilize it?

To the Forests: Natural Photosynthesis and Global Warming

It is important to note, however, that despite the hopefulness with which many are embracing the new developments in artificial photosynthetic capabilities, we seem to be forgetting one crucial thing: Photosynthesis, even on a massive scale such as that accomplished by rainforests, cannot reverse or halt global warming.

Because carbon dioxide is essentially “plant food,” it is easy to focus on an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being good for plant growth. In turn, the more plants there are, the more carbon dioxide will be taken out of the atmosphere. Since extremely excessive carbon dioxide emissions are a principle driver of global warming, plants (particularly strong concentrations of plants, such as rainforests) are often thought to be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and in slowing global warming. Indeed, some scientific studies show that, under certain laboratory greenhouse conditions, increased carbon dioxide levels can contribute to a greater amount of plant growth. This is extremely important because, as Carol Rasmussen, a member of NASA’s Earth Science News Team, reports:

Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. If the rate of absorption were to slow down, the rate of global warming would speed up in return.

Through a natural process referred to as carbon fertilization, plants “eat” the extra carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human processes, thus reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Recently, however, the purported impacts of carbon fertilization have been called into question: a recent study found that increased tree growth does not always result from increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Regardless of whether forest growth is stimulated by increased carbon dioxide, Climate Science Watch encourages us to think beyond the small picture of plants taking already overwhelming amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. There is a bigger picture of the relationship between global warming–which is already occurring–and plant life. A report by Climate Science Watch reminds us that:

Climate [change] impacts like drought, floods, extreme weather, shifting seasons, and increasing ranges of weeds, invasive species, and plant pests will all negatively impact crop yields [and other plant growth].

Additionally, other nutrient restrictions limit the amount of increased natural photosynthesis that can occur in forests. Differentials in rainfall levels and subsequent droughts that are already being caused by global warming negatively impact the amount of plants that can grow and photosynthesize.

Hammering home these cautionary pieces of evidence is the fact that massive forests like the Amazon have been suffering from increased tree mortality–both due to direct human destruction and the indirect impacts of altered conditions from climate change. Therefore, the Amazon rainforest is consuming a billion tons less each year than it has previously. For perspective, each yearly Amazon drop amounts to twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.K. per year.

So Should We Take Carbon Dioxide Back Out of the Atmosphere?

Investing hope and massive resources in carbon capture and sequestration, forest-driven photosynthesis, and artificial photosynthesis produces a sense of calm in many that the impacts of global warming can be combated without creating actual changes in the corporate practices that are increasing dangerous carbon dioxide levels. These debates about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are important, but they are fundamentally invested in addressing symptoms rather than causes. While these are great scientific achievements, the causes of global warming need to be addressed as well.

Resources

Primary

Environmental Protection Agency: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration

NASA: NASA Finds Food News about Forests and Carbon Dioxide

Additional

Environment 360: Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Alternet: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit From Global Warming

Guardian: Chevron Accused of Racism as it Fights Ecuador Pollution Ruling

Guardian: Tropical Rainforests Not Absorbing as Much Carbon as Expected

Guardian: Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Science Daily: Major Advance in Artificial Photosynthesis Poses Win/Win For the Environment

Climate Science Watch: The CO2 “Fertilization” Effect Won’t Deter Climate Change

Corp Watch: Climate Change and Environmental Racism

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Carbon Dioxide Capture: Can it Stop Global Warming? appeared first on Law Street.

Out of context, the words “climate change” don’t sound very scary at all. Here’s the context that makes it scary.

The earth’s climate has been in flux since it burst into existence some 4.5 billion years ago. It’s been hot and cold and everywhere in between. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere danced between 200-300 parts per million (ppm) during the earth’s long lifespan. But starting in the 1900s, carbon dioxide  pushed past the 300 ppm marker and kept climbing. Today, carbon dioxide levels “weigh in” at about 400 ppm. So what? Well, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat and send average temperatures climbing. Even worse, experts believe human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation increased carbon dioxide and caused climate change.

We’ve only been on the earth for a fraction of its lifetime. We’ve evolved based on certain conditions, and now those conditions are changing. In other words, we’re not well adapted for the world we’re creating. The changing climate is a crucible of possible human health complications.

Here’s what the future of health looks like if we don’t combat and adapt to climate change.

 Climate Change: What’s Happening?

Before I run away with how climate change will kill us all (just kidding!), let’s do a quick overview.

Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide hang out in our atmosphere and absorb heat from the sun. Since these gases don’t occur naturally, the extra heat they absorb causes temperatures to increase above normal levels. As of 1900, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities have billowed up by 40 percent and global temperatures keep creeping upward too.

In our interconnected world, increased temperatures have implications beyond needing more A/C. Increased heat warms our oceans, melts polar and alpine ice, and drives up the sea level, which in turn facilitates stronger and more devastating storms.

Why is climate change bad for our health?

Ripples from climate change impact things directly related to your health, like the water and food supply. The World Health Organization predicts that climate change will cause 250,000 additional deaths a year between 2030 and 2050 because of heat stress, malnutrition, malaria, and diarrhoeal disease. Areas with fewer resources to adapt will suffer the most.

Here are some startling health scenarios of the future, and how climate change might cause them.

Diseases Will Become More Virulent

Climate change will make it easier for existing diseases to infect more people by altering their geographic range and lengthening the infection season. For example, ticks carrying Lyme Disease will cover more ground as more regions warm to temperatures where they can survive. Mosquitoes, which carry many diseases like Malaria and Dengue, will also flourish in warmer temperatures. High temperatures increase their reproduction rate, grow their breeding season, and enable them to bite more people. In general, all bacteria multiply faster in warmer temperatures, so many pathogens will find our warming climate suitable for proliferation.

Climate change might also encourage emerging and shifting diseases. Experts at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln say climate change makes it easier for diseases to switch to new hosts. Many assume that the co-evolution of pathogens and specific hosts will make it harder for pathogens to shift and infect a new host with different biological makeup. Alarming evidence has shown that pathogens can shift to new hosts rather quickly when necessary. The researchers offer Costa Rica as an example, where humans decimated the population of capuchin and spider monkeys. A parasite once exclusive to these monkeys was unphased and latched on to howler monkeys, a different genus of monkey. If pathogens need to make rapid shifts, humans might find themselves facing several for which they have no immunity. Climate change threatens to uproot habitats and living patterns, bringing humans, animals, and insects into closer contact with each other–and their unfamiliar pathogens.

More Will Die From Extreme Heat

Heat stroke and heat-associated dehydration are the most common causes of weather-related deaths. People with existing cardiovascular issues are especially vulnerable to extreme heat. Furthermore, heat complications have a cumulative effect; your vulnerability to heat stroke increases after one episode. Cities have been heating up at a higher rate than rural areas in recent years. This leaves some of the world’s most populated areas in danger.

Basic Hygiene Won’t Be Guaranteed

As rainfall becomes less predictable, it will compromise our safe water supply. With less safe water, it won’t be nearly as easy to do simple things that prevent disease, like washing hands. People take hand-washing for granted, but it reduces risk of diarrhoeal disease by 20 percent, which actually kills 760,000 children five and under annually.

Too much water, brought from the climate change risks of severe flooding, also wreaks havoc on sanitation. Floods contaminate freshwater, spread waterborne disease, and create ideal living conditions for mosquitoes–one of the most prolific disease carriers.

Breathing Won’t Be as Easy

Warmer temperatures bring more ground-level ozone, a miasma of pollutants like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Ground-level ozone is also called smog, a term you’re probably more familiar with. It’s been known to damage lung tissue and aggravate respiratory systems. Increased smog will make breathing an excruciating task for people with existing lung diseases and Asthma. It might even encourage the development of Asthma in otherwise healthy people.

People with allergies should also be very afraid of climate change. The spring allergy season has already grown in the United States and it threatens to continue expansion. Ragweed allergies? Tests show that more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures increases the yield of ragweed pollen.

More People Will Go Hungry

Climbing temperatures, patchy rainfall, droughts, and floods will devastate staple crop yields in the world’s poorest regions. Malnutrition and undernutrition will burgeon as a result. By as early as 2020, crop yields in some African countries could be halved.

Increasingly severe weather already destroys crops. Pollinators disappear while pathogens and pests flourish to chomp through human crops. For example, soybean rust, a fungal infection caused by the pathogen P. pachyrhizi, spreads easily in warm, moist environments. Soybean rust has been a scourge in Asia and Africa for years and was introduced to the United States by a hurricane. Winds carry the spores for miles, leaving behind crop devastation. Similar diseases will most likely plague crops in new climates.

911 Might Not Be Working

Scientists believe climate change will lead to much stronger storms. The World Health Organization says that natural disasters reported globally have tripled since 1960, resulting in over 60,000 deaths.

Strong storms and natural disasters destroy medical facilities, cut the electricity that powers medical equipment, interferes with emergency communications tools like 911, and hinders transportation. Many injuries will happen in times when disaster strikes, even though our responsive capabilities will be restricted.

We Gotta Do Something

It’s pretty clear that we have to do something before things get out of hand. Do something…but what?

We’re flooded by climate change recommendations, but here are some key points from the 2014 National Climate Assessment. The assessment distills climate change responses into two main categories:

• Adaptation: Reducing negative impacts of climate change through infrastructure and preparedness planning. An adaptation example is the creation of the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that aims to prepare communities for the challenges of changing weather.
• Mitigation: Attempting to reduce the climate change itself through updated policies and practices. A mitigation example is the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, which pushes for energy efficiency.

While these two categories encompass different approaches, we need both to achieve the greatest effect. If you’re interested in reading about more climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives, check out this fact sheet on President Obama’s Climate Change Action Plan. In terms of public health, however, we’ll stick to a few health-related initiatives, most of which fall under the adaptation category.

The Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Healthcare Facilities Initiative

As the name suggests, this plan aims to prepare healthcare facilities for climate change and related complications. The Department of Health and Human Services released an intensive guide with a framework designed to help healthcare facilities revamp their infrastructure and technology. The initiative includes an online planning toolkit that serves as an interactive guide to walk professionals through these steps of resilience:

1. Identify the problem.
2. Determine vulnerabilities.
3. Investigate options.
4. Evaluate risks and costs.
5. Take action.

So far, healthcare industry leaders like Kaiser Permanente have committed to use the guides to help in their resilience planning.

The BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects) Framework

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a framework of preparedness geared more toward public health professionals working locally. Their framework involves projecting the impacts of climate change and assessing effectiveness of interventions. The evidence of effectiveness will be especially useful for people planning future interventions. Click here to see a chart made by the CDC to explain the BRACE framework.

NYC Cool Roofs

The NYC Cool Roofs initiative presents a perfect real-world example of an initiative already underway. Reflective surfaces are added to New York City roofs, which mitigate further climate change by reducing cooling energy needed, consequentially lowering greenhouse gas emissions. They’re also adaptive as they’ll help cool the city, and hopefully reduce heat-related deaths.

Controversy in Congress

Many look at the Keystone XL pipeline decision to judge the climate change temperature in Congress. To the dismay of environmentalists, the Senate rejected two amendments related to the Keystone XL pipeline bill that admitted the human role in climate change and called for more government interventions. The President just vetoed the bill and many believe Congress will not override it.

Still, many climate change advocates are alarmed that the bill went as far it did, saying it would contribute to climate change because of the sheer amount of extra energy it would require and carbon pollution it would make. According to this NRDC Issue Brief, building the pipeline would create the same carbon dioxide emissions as Americans driving 60 billion more miles this year.

Conclusion

If you’re frustrated with the accuracy of forecasts now, be prepared. While climate change poses a new challenge without guiding evidence or precedent, the health complications from climate change have already begun. We see more cases of Lyme disease. Allergies grow in severity. We’re not sure what will work, we’re not sure what the future will bring, but we’re sure we need to brace ourselves for coming changes and meet current changes head on. We all need to work together to make sure that we stay healthy in coming years.

Resources

Primary

World Health Organization: Climate Change and Health

Environmental Protection Agency: A Student’s Guide to Climate Change 

U.S. Global Change Research Program: National Climate Assessment 2014

White House: Strengthening the Climate Resilience of the Health Care Sector

City of New York: NYC Cool Roofs

World Health Organization: Diarrhoeal disease

Additional

Emergency Management: How a Warming Climate Impacts Public Health

Science Daily: More Infectious Diseases Emerging in Animals as Climate Changes

Nature: Climate Variation Explains a Third of Global Crop Yield Variability

Nature: Delays in Reducing Waterborne and Water-Related Infectious Diseases in China Under Climate Change

Science Daily: Heat Waves Becoming More Prominent in Urban Areas

Science Daily: Preparing for Hell and High Water: Research Advocate for Climate Adaption Science

New England Journal of Medicine: Climate Change and Human Health

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change Risk Management

American Phytopathological Society: Soybean Rust

The New York Times: Senate Rejects Human Role in Climate Change

Natural Resources Defense Council: Climate Impacts of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

BBC News: Obama Vetoes Keystone Oil Pipeline Bill

Politico: President Obama Vetoes Keystone Bill; GOP Plans Override Vote

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change: How Will it Impact Our Health? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently the United Nations made a series of declarations regarding the validity of climate change, its causes, and necessary measures to mitigate it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a very large “synthesis report,” a product of analyzing tens of thousands of scientific papers. The report covers all aspects, addressing atmosphere and emissions, oceans and sea level, air temperature, water cycle, and many other components of environmental systems. It goes over the changes to each over the last 150 years or so, and produces conclusions as to what induced those changes. Being that the report ultimately concludes that many of these concerns are products of human activity, it goes beyond being a summary of information and warnings, and provides many recommendations as to what needs to change and what measures ought to be taken to answer these warnings. These thoughts are more succinctly presented in the shorter summary for policymakers.

Among the conclusions therein, the most prevalent is probably the projections for changes in global temperature. If we continue on this course, by the end of the century the temperature could rise from 3.7-4.8 degrees Celsius from what it was before the Industrial Revolution. Since variation in global temperature of one or two degrees can result in radical and violent weather patterns, these numbers could presumably result in catastrophic changes to the climate and Earth. Deniers propose that these projections, and the evidence of rising temperatures in the past several centuries, might not necessarily be the result of human activity but rather an indication of general shifts in the Earth’s climatological patterns. For example, starting in the 1300s AD, many parts of the world–particularly in the Northern Hemisphere–experienced a Little Ice Age. Definite conclusions as to the causes of this phenomenon are still incomplete, but proposals range from general rises and falls within the Earth’s patterns to changes in solar or oceanic behavior.

During the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by about 1.5 degrees Celsius. The most notable consequence that resulted was major damage to agriculture and resulting famines. What kinds of consequences could there be for a temperature change of double that in the opposite direction as the IPCC proposes? The lesson that the Little Ice Age teaches us is that regardless of whether climate change is a result of human activity or not, it is clearly real and has dire consequences for human civilization if we are not prepared for it.

Supposing that it is in part due to human activity, the discussion on rising temperatures inevitably leads back to emissions and energy. The point of no return is a 2 degree Celsius increase, according to the report. After this point, damage to the climate and Earth could be irreversible. Governments and industries ought to set emissions standards so as to keep the rise in temperature from passing this marker; however, in order to do so we have less than forty years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent, and even further by the end of the century. These are very imposing numbers, and many fear that the existing financial structures cannot accommodate these objectives and the necessary changes to be made. On the other hand some feel that we should be more motivated to pursue these goals, not just because of the impending disasters but because energy-efficient systems are financially advisable.

There are many arguments that the economic infrastructure for renewable energy is already in place, and pursuing those courses is not only environmentally friendly but financially advisable because it would pay for itself in a short amount of time. This report should provide the impetus for making a more wholehearted attempt at transitioning to a substantial degree to these other options.

Carbon emissions go hand in hand with rising temperatures. Courtesy of Kim Seng via Flickr.

It is generally accepted that the Dust Bowl was largely a result of environmentally unfriendly agricultural practices. Did we require over half a century to reach this consensus? This framework can be applied elsewhere, as we consider unnatural elements of “natural disasters.” Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy have often been named in this debate. A heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 claimed 70,000 lives. As the report suggests, time to act is running out. These concerns are not ones to be dealt with solely by governments and world leaders; the threats of climate change pervade the globe and affect all people. We can all improve the decisions we make and the ways we live our lives, and advocate more vocally for positive change.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UN Validates Climate Change in New Report, Now It’s Up to Us appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Did you all survive the polar vortex? It’s on its way out now, thank goodness.

But! If you’re a Fox News watcher or a conservative talk radio show listener, you might think that the polar vortex was just a magical fantasy, invented by the Left to promote a global warming agenda.

Seriously. That’s what Rush Limbaugh is telling his gazillion listeners.

What a douche. I can personally attest to the reality of the polar vortex. Walking to and from work this week has been physically painful. My wife begged me to take a sick day on Tuesday, because the news was warning that the temperatures outside could actually burn exposed flesh.

On my street, there are potholes and flower boxes two-feet deep, filled with water from last week’s snow and rain — and that water is frozen solid. These are mini skating rinks, people. Yesterday, I saw a guy break a sheet of ice out on the sidewalk (where the fuck did he get that?! Beats me, you guys), and all of the individual chunks of ice DID NOT MELT.

So now, there are just blocks of ice, chilling on the sidewalk, not melting. Not even softening. They could be glass, for all anyone knows. You could put an ice sculpture on my fire escape and it would remain completely intact. The polar vortex is not a political myth. I promise you.

This guy promises, too.

Also this guy.

Seriously, the polar vortex is a real thing. This is not up for debate, Rush, you ass hat.

And Al Roker — my all-time favorite weather man, who is never allowed to retire — agrees with me! He shut Rush down in the most awesome way ever. So now he’s even MORE my favorite, if that’s possible.

First, he started with this awesome tweet.

For all the doubters who say the media "created" the Polar Vortex: From the 1959 AMS Glossary of Meteorology pic.twitter.com/x2Nyw0jx3j

— Al Roker (@alroker) January 7, 2014

Then, he followed up with this even more awesome tweet.

Rush Limbaugh claims the Polar Vortex is a creation of a left-wing, liberal media conspiracy. It's Meteorology 101. No political agenda

— Al Roker (@alroker) January 7, 2014

And then, he told Rush to “stuff it” on the Today Show.

I fucking love you, Al Roker.

But, Al Roker-loving aside, why do we care about this? Here’s why: global warming is a real thing, people. Climate change is happening. The way that humans are using the Earth right now is dangerous. We need to get that shit under control.

And when douche-nozzles like Rush Limbaugh convince millions of people that global warming is some kind of big, ridiculous joke, it’s dangerous. He’s asking listeners to use and abuse the planet with reckless abandon. He’s telling them to fuck recycling, fuck sustainable resources, fuck clean energy sources — because who gives a shit? They’re not harming anyone.

But that’s a lie. And it allows the cycle of harm to continue. Which, obviously, is not a good thing.

But it’s more than that. When Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners to forget about climate change and to just carry on as if it’s not a real thing, what he’s really saying is, “Your actions have no consequences.”

That’s a sentiment that’s rampant among conservatives, even the semi-moderate ones that aren’t total Right-wing loony tunes. For all their talk about personal responsibility, they often fail to see how their own actions affect other people.

Like, when Republicans vote to make food stamps harder to access, they’re causing more people to go hungry. When they advocate for decreased access to safe abortions, they’re causing more women to subject themselves to unsafe procedures and unwanted pregnancies. When they fight to eliminate Obamacare (which is a watered down, disappointing substitute for universal healthcare, to be sure), they’re sentencing more people to suffer through illness and injury without medical attention. And when they pretend global warming isn’t real, they’re dooming species — including our own, someday — to extinction.

But, Right-wingers don’t really see it that way. They tend to look at how their actions affect themselves, personally — I don’t want an abortion, so who cares if I can’t access one? — while ignoring how their actions affect the wider world.

It’s narcissistic. And at the end of the day, it’s really harmful. The polar vortex is real, people. And so are a whole mess of other things the Right would like to ignore.

So, let’s put an end to this, shall we? We can start by joining StopRush, which is successfully pressuring advertisers to pull funding from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. But that’s not enough. We’ve got to engage with one another, with our communities, and with the nation to encourage more empathy. More compassion. Less personal responsibility and more community responsibility.

So, whatdya think? Can we Flush Rush?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Elipongo via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post My Face is Frozen and Rush Limbaugh’s an Ass Hat appeared first on Law Street.

Growing concerns about climate change and recognition of environmental hazards has lead to the development of many new markets. Environmental consulting is becoming a lucrative, expanding business. Firms in the industry assist other companies to reduce the damage done to surrounding environments while operating.

These services include environmental assessments, audits, natural resource and waste management, environmental policy development and licensing and permitting assistance. Environmental consulting firms help their customers understand regulatory processes and help to ensure that these regulations are met at low cost to companies.

Rising environmental concerns and the large mining sector in Canada have helped the Environmental Consulting industry over the past five years.

[PR Web]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mohamed Malik via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Environmental Consulting Industry Booming appeared first on Law Street.