The Leave it in the Ground Initiative (LINGO), in collaboration with Oil Change International, today launched the findings of a global analysis which maps fossil fuels underneath the world’s protected areas. For the first time, it quantifies the threat from fossil fuel extraction to legally protected areas worldwide. This new analysis shows that over 47 Gigatonnes of CO2 could be released by extracting and burning fossil fuels from within protected areas: more than the yearly emissions of the entire world combined. The dataset shows over 600 companies profiting from fossil fuel extraction inside protected areas.
In the Netherlands, cycling is a way of life and is so common that there are more bikes than people, according to BBC News. As many as 70 percent of journeys are by bike in cities like The Hague and Amsterdam. Cycling can be a significant way to reduce a person’s carbon footprint, as using a bike instead of a car as little as once per day reduces an average person’s transportation emissions by 67 percent, according to University of Oxford researchers, reported Bloomberg. An international research team has recently shown that almost 700 million metric tons of carbon pollution would be saved each year if everyone rode their bikes every day like the Dutch, Phys.org reported. That’s more than the annual emissions of Canada.
Humanity has pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels almost 50% higher than they were before industrialization. That dramatic number would be even higher without tropical forests, which have been absorbing as much as 17% of CO₂ emissions along the way. Unfortunately, rainforests can’t capture carbon like they used to.
Almost a decade later, Project Censored’s observations are still applicable, with two major studies published in June remaining buried by most major media outlets. The first study, “Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War,” by Neta Crawford for Brown University’s Costs of War Project, confirmed previous findings that the US military is “the single-largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world,” and that the Pentagon is responsible for between “77% and 80% of all US government energy consumption” since 2001, and that from the beginning of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to 2017...
The Emerson results are not directly comparable to the YouGov results because Emerson asks people only if they “support” it, “oppose” it, or are unsure, while YouGov gives people the additional options of “somewhat support” it and “somewhat oppose” it. Allowing the “somewhats” in gets you fewer unsure responses and so the overall numbers are higher. Nonetheless, the Emerson figures show us that a “carbon fine” does better than a “carbon tax,” meaning that even DFP’s astonishingly good findings understate just how high those numbers could be driven if the program was described in a more positive (but still accurate) way.
Incoming Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made waves in late November when she called for a Green New Deal (GND)—a plan to “transition” the U.S. economy to “become carbon neutral” over the course of 10 years. In a draft resolution, she proposes the formation of a Select Committee to develop a plan for massive public works programs, powered by a jobs guarantee and public banks, with the goal of “meeting 100 percent of national power demand through renewable sources.” According to Ocasio-Cortez, the plan aims to eliminate poverty, bring down greenhouse gas emissions...
Global carbon emissions are expected to reach a record high this year, dashing hopes that such pollution could finally be coming to a standstill, according to an annual report released Wednesday. The report by the Global Carbon Project, which comes as world leaders gather in Poland for the 24th annual United Nations climate conference, projects there will be a 2.7 percent rise in global carbon emissions this year compared with a 1.6 percent increase last year. In the three years prior to that, emissions had remained steady, giving researchers hope that the pattern might continue. Now, they aren’t so sure.
Sacramento – Indigenous Environmental Network’s International Sky Protectors Delegation and a broad coalition of local California tribal members, environmental justice groups, fenceline communities, people of color, academics and NGOs celebrated a significant win Friday, November 16th against California’s cap and trade carbon market program. In a marathon hearing of the California Air Resources Board, Sky Protectors’ eloquent testimonies played a significant role towards blocking the vote on the so-called Tropical Forest Standard until April 2019. Blocking the adoption of the Tropical Forest Standard, temporarily protects world’s tropical forests and their guardians from a false solution to climate change called forest carbon offsets.
That’s the message from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which has come out from under the shadows of Paris 2015 swinging like a heavyweight champion boxer, and in fact they’ve taken the gloves off in preparation for bare-knuckled fisticuffs. The world’s leading scientists met at the Forty-Eighth Session of the IPCC and First Joint Session of Working Groups I, II, and III, 1-5 October 2018 in Incheon, Republic of Korea and openly declared that civilization is on track for collapse because of reckless use of fossil fuels, unless the beast is corralled, meaning start reacting now, no more waiting around! Peak emissions must be achieved by 2020, a slap in the face wakeup call issued by the gathering of scientists in South Korea...
California must build housing closer to transit and jobs, and wring carbon from new and existing buildings, if the state is to meet its ambitious climate targets. That was the message delivered by a high-level panel at a Global Climate Action Summit side event convened in San Francisco on Wednesday by Climate Resolve, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. Top of mind for the panel was California Governor Jerry Brown’s signatures earlier in the week on SB 100, requiring the state to achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity, and an executive order establishing a carbon neutrality target, both by 2045. The message for California policymakers is clear: Carbon reduction is the end goal. “We’re focused on carbon,” said Andrew McAllister, commissioner with the California Energy Commission.
By Kate Harveston for Mintpress News. Countries with lower rates of wealth disparity tend to have happier citizens and offer a better quality of life. A more nearly equal distribution of wealth also has substantial environmental benefits, as less meat is consumed, less waste is produced, and citizens consume what they need rather than excess products As the rich get ever richer — courtesy, in countries like the United States, of corporate-friendly deregulation and tax “reform” — does the planet get ever warmer and dirtier? New research suggests economic balance is linked to environmentally-friendly practices. Countries with lower rates of economic disparity have citizens who enjoy a better quality of life and leave a significantly smaller carbon footprint. By resisting plutocracy and pushing towards an equal wealth distribution throughout the world, the global population can collectively reduce its carbon footprint and combat global climate change head-on.
By Lela Nargi for Civil Eats - When it comes to mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, keeping excess carbon out of the atmosphere is the prime target for improving the health of our planet. One of the best ways to do that is thought to be locking more of that carbon into the soil that grows our food. The scientific community has been actively debating whether organic farming methods can provide a promising solution. A 2010 paper published in the journal Ambio found that research about increased carbon sequestration due to organic farming methods was inconclusive, while a 2012 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found increased carbon sequestration in organic farm soils—though a 2013 letter in the PNAS disputed those findings, arguing that there were no carbon sequestration benefits related to organic farming. A new study from Northeastern University and nonprofit research organization The Organic Center(TOC), though, has reached a different conclusion: Soils from organic farms had 26 percent more potential for long-term carbon storage than soils from conventional farms, along with 13 percent more soil organic matter (SOM). For the study, which Civil Eats got early access to review, chemists Elham Ghabbour and Geoffrey Davies began by analyzing soil samples from over 700 conventional farms in 48 states.
By Adam Simpson, Carla Santos-Skandier, Jeremiah Lowery and Camila Thorndike for The Next System Project - Adam Simpson: Welcome to the Next System Podcast. I'm Adam Simpson. My co-host today is Ms. Carla Santos-Skandier, a colleague of mine at the next system project and one of the 2017 Oil Lab fellows for the Climate Strategies Accelerator. Carla, thank you for joining me today. Carla Santos-Skandier: Hi, Adam. looking forward to this conversation. Thanks for having me. Adam Simpson: Absolutely. And today we'll be talking about "Put A Price On It DC," an initiative that's advocating for a carbon fee and rebate program for the District of Columbia. We're joined today by two of the architects of the initiative. Ms. Camilla Thorndike and Mr. Jeremiah Lowery the carbon pricing coordinator and climate justice organizer respectively of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. Camilla and Jeremiah, welcome to the program. Camila Thorndike: Thanks so much. Great to be here. Adam Simpson: So, before we dive into our questions, I wanted to give you both the opportunity to tell us a little bit more about your organization the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the kind of work that the organization does.
By Nicholas Kusnetz for Inside Climate News - As nations grapple with how they can slash their emissions as part of the Paris climate agreement, some may use international credit schemes that were approved in the treaty process. A new report from the European Commission casts serious doubts about such credits, however, concluding that the vast majority of them likely fail to actually reduce emissions. The report, which was written last year but not published until this April, concludes that buying and selling emissions credits for overseas projects should be limited to a select list that meet rigorous standards, and used only as part of a transition to more effective policies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. "Given the inherent shortcomings of crediting mechanisms, we recommend focusing climate mitigation efforts on forms of carbon pricing that do not rely extensively on credits," the report said, adding that credits should play only a limited role after 2020. "It's a confirmation that offsetting is fundamentally problematic," said Aki Kachi, international policy director for Carbon Market Watch, an advocacy group in Brussels.
By Marissa Knodel for Friends Of The Earth - The Keep It in the Ground campaign has built a powerful movement demanding climate action. By standing strong against the sale of public lands and waters to fossil fuel empires, activists have shined a spotlight on fossil fuel leasing and helped delay and shutter new projects. The question that has been asked about the campaign is whether keeping fossil fuels in the ground in the United States can actually reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.