Colonialism is targeted, as indigenous youth build a climate justice movement
Indigenous Youth Are Building a Climate Justice Movement by Targeting Colonialism, 20 June 2016 By Jaskiran Dhillon, Truthout | Report “Climate change is the defining issue of our time.” These urgent words came from 16-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, a young Indigenous man raised in the Aztec tradition, at a United Nations General Assembly event on climate change held on June 29, 2015. Roske-Martinez is the youth director for Earth Guardians, a nonprofit organization centered on galvanizing global youth leadership to defend the planet for current and future generations. He is mobilizing youth through school-based presentations, legal challenges, eco hip-hop and public talks — elevating the voices of young people near and far and empowering them to become forces of change in their own right.
Upon learning the federal courts upheld the rights of youth on April 8, 2016, in a landmark constitutional climate change case brought forward by Our Children’s Trust (representing 21 youth plaintiffs) against the US federal government and fossil fuel industry, Roske-Martinez made the following public statement:
When those in power stand alongside the very industries that threaten the future of my generation instead of standing with the people, it is a reminder that they are not our leaders. The real leaders are the twenty youth standing with me in court to demand justice for my generation and justice for all youth. We will not be silent, we will not go unnoticed, and we are ready to stand to protect everything our “leaders” have failed to fight for. They are afraid of the power we have to create change. And this change we are creating will go down in history.
And change things they will.
Roske-Martinez is not alone in his pursuit of environmental justice through the harnessing of young people’s power, experiential knowledge and visioning of a future world where balance has been restored on Earth. He is part of a growing battalion ofIndigenous youth warriors railing against the failure of governments, fossil fuel companies, domestic and international monitoring agencies, and human rights organizations to acknowledge the grave environmental destruction surfacing in the wake of Western-born models of industrialization and to be accountable around climate recovery. They are calling out the relentless rise of a global, capitalist social order promoting an extreme form of economic growth that results in the skyrocketing of wealth for few at the great expense of many.
Demanding the environmental movement contend first and foremost with the fundamental linkages between colonialism and climate change, Indigenous youth across Native North America are mounting resistance efforts to protect their ancestral homelands from further exploitation.
This is a timely endeavor, as natural gas and oil extraction continue unabated throughout Turtle Island, with lethal aftereffects, as recently witnessed with the Fort McMurray wildfire that burned the city to the ground. Simultaneously, Indigenous youth are developing locally based solutions to address the toxic impact of extractive processes on their communities. Indigenous Nations are often situated on the frontlines and forced to deal with the immediate fallout of environmental degradation such as contaminated soil, open-air wastewater pits and poisoned water sources. For Indigenous peoples, youth have always been at the heart of society, and future generations are a key motivation for the practice of maintaining balance with the world of relations…….
Close attention must be paid to the wisdom and knowledge of Indigenous youth and their communities as they attempt to heal and protect our planet from the harm that comes in the wake of a never-ending demand for more energy, regardless of the cost……http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36482-indigenous-youth-are-building-a-climate-justice-movement-by-targeting-colonialism
Record high carbon dioxide in Southern Hemisphere
Science Daily June 21, 2016 Source: CNRS
- Summary:
- Last month, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) as measured at Amsterdam Island, in the southern Indian Ocean, for the first time exceeded the symbolic value of 400 ppm, or 0.04%. The CO2 concentrations recorded at the Amsterdam Island research station are the lowest in the world (excluding seasonal cycles), due to the island’s remoteness from anthropogenic sources. The 400 ppm threshold was already crossed in the Northern hemisphere during the 2012/2013 winter. In addition, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is speeding up, growing by more than 2 ppm annually over the past four years……..https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160621094250.htm
Dozens of USA climate denial groups funded by biggest US coal company
Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change
Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and thinktanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial’, Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson, 13 June 16, Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.
The funding spanned trade associations, corporate lobby groups, and industry front groups as well as conservative thinktanks and was exposed in court filings last month.
The coal company also gave to political organisations, funding twice as many Republican groups as Democratic ones.
Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, was long known as an outlier even among fossil fuel companies for its public rejection of climate science and action. But its funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas.
Environmental campaigners said they had not known for certain that the company was funding an array of climate denial groups – and that the breadth of that funding took them by surprise.
The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change.
“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”
Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list…….
the full extent of Peabody’s financial support for climate denial is unlikely to be revealed until the completion of bankruptcy proceedings.
“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.
“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”
Peabody’s filings revealed funding for the American Legislative Exchange Council, the corporate lobby group which opposes clean energy standards and tried to impose financial penalties on homeowners with solar panels, as well as a constellation of conservative thinktanks and organisations.
These included the State Policy Network and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which worked to defeat climate bills in Congress and are seeking to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, as well as the Congress for Racial Equality, which was a major civil rights organisation in the 1960s.
The filings also revealed funding for the George C Marshall Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which are seen as industry front groups.
The names of a number of well-known contrarian academics also feature in the Peabody filings, including Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon has been funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel industry, receiving more than $1.2m from oil companies and utilities, but this was the first indication of Peabody funding.
Soon and the Smithsonian did not respond to requests for comment.
Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, two contrarian scientists who appeared for Peabody at hearings in Minnesota last month on the social cost of carbon, were also included in the bankruptcy filings.
Peabody refused to comment on its funding for climate denial groups, as revealed by the bankruptcy filings……..https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding
USA Congress Republicans denounce a carbon tax
13 June 2016 by dana1981On Friday, the US House of Representatives voted on a Resolution condemning a carbon tax. As The Hill reported:
The oil industry is scared of a carbon taxExxonMobil officially supports a carbon tax, but the company did not comment on the House Resolution prior to the vote. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, which is a key lobbying group of the oil industry, including ExxonMobil, publicly supported the anti-carbon tax resolution, as did Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) suspects that the Resolution itself originated from the oil industry:
Since 2009, ExxonMobil has contributed at least $1.7 million to members of Congress who voted in favor of the resolution, according to an analysis by ClimateTruth.org. There are some indications that GOP leadership pressured House Republicans to vote for the Resolution. They certainly succeeded: of the 8 Republicans who are members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, whose purpose is to craft optimal climate changepolicies, 7 voted for the Resolution. Only Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) withstood the pressure, voting “Present.” Ultimately, 231 of the 246 Republican members of the House (94%) expressed their unwillingness to consider a carbon tax by voting for the Resolution. Why the House Republicans are wrongIt’s odd that not a single House Republican voted against the Resolution, because as long as the revenue is returned to taxpayers (also known as “revenue neutrality”), many conservatives support a carbon tax. This concept is supported by free market, libertarian, and conservative think tanks like the R Street Institute, the Niskanen Center, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI resident scholar Aparna Mathur said of the vote:
Polls show that about half of Republican voters support a carbon tax if revenues are rebated to taxpayers. It’s also supported by the non-partisan grassroots organization Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), whose advisory board includes Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of State, George Shultz. CCL issued a point-by-point response to the carbon tax “pitfalls” listed in the House resolution……..http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-oil-party-republicans-denounce-carbon-tax.html |
Parts of Philippines May Submerge Due to Global Warming
More than 167,000 hectares of coastland – about 0.6% of the country’s total area – are projected to go underwater in the Philippines, especially in low-lying island communities. …
The Philippines government has been forced to take this into consideration. The Department of Environment and National Resources has its own climate change office, which has set up various programs to educate communities in high-risk areas. …
But soon, adaptation on a local level won’t be enough. Policy makers need to convince governments to curb their emissions on a global level. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160606101406.htm
Despite “cooler” La Nina, 2016 likely to be hottest year on record
Scientists: 2016 likely to be hottest year on record despite looming La Niña Skeptical Science 7 June 2016 This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Roz Pidcock The phenomenon known as El Niño, which combined with human-caused warming to supercharge global temperature in 2015/16 and brought chaotic weather worldwide, is officially on its way out. But stepping quickly into El Niño’s shoes is its cooler counterpart,La Niña.
Carbon Brief has been speaking to climate scientists about what it all means. Despite La Niña’s propensity to drag down global temperature, so exceptional is the warming we’ve seen so far this year that 2016 is still likely to top the charts as the hottest year on record.
But we should expect 2017 to be cooler than 2016, as the world begins to feel the full force of La Niña, scientists say.
El Niño is over
The El Niño that left such a mark on weather, crop yields and water supplies in 2015/16 is firmly on its way out. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology this week became the first of the world’s major weather organisations to officially declare it dead.
The high sea surface temperatures that have characterised the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean are waning and relative calm is on its way to being restored, say scientists……
While the record-topping El Niño may be fading fast, hot on its heels is its cooler counterpart, known as La Niña.
During La Niña, a change in the trade winds mean more heat is absorbed from theatmosphere into the ocean than usual. In El Niño years, the reverse happens and moreheat enters the atmosphere from the ocean instead. This major reshuffling of heat means both El Niño and La Niña tend to have big – but opposite – effects on global surface temperature……..
A record hot start to 2016
So far in 2016, global temperatures have been exceptionally high.
With February, March and April all breaking monthly temperature records by the biggest margins ever recorded, 2016 is looking like a sensible bet for the warmest year on record.
Earlier this month, Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, put the chance of 2016 topping the temperature rankings at more than 99%.
Will the coming La Niña alter that picture?……..
‘A done deal’
Such is the warming seen so far this year that 2016 is likely to retain the top spot, whether or not a La Niña develops, says Cobb. She tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s likely a done deal, for two reasons.”
One, is that La Niña tends to have a smaller influence on global temperature than her warmer brother. A large event still wouldn’t be enough to redress the balance, Cobb says:
“Even a strong La Niña event later this year will likely not compensate for the warm months we’ve had early in 2016 associated with an exceptionally strong El Niño event.”
Two, is that La Niña typically doesn’t reach a peak until winter, or early the following year. This means the biggest impact on global temperature is likely to come in 2017, not in 2016.
That means that, while La Niña will reduce some of the warmth in the latter part of 2016, it is likely that 2016 will stay in top spot. Scaife predicts:
“There continues to be a high chance that 2016 will be a nominal third record year in a row.”……….http://www.skepticalscience.com/2016-likely-record-hot-despite-la-nina.html
1.5C or 2C global warming> Scientists compare the climate effects
Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C , Skeptical Science, 2 June 2016 Half a degree makes a very big difference when judging how different parts of the world will feel the effects of climate change.This is the conclusion from the first study to compare and contrast the consequences of 1.5C world compared to a 2C world, published today in Earth System Dynamics.
Both 2C and 1.5C are explicitly mentioned in the Paris agreement as potential upper limits for global warming since the preindustrial era, but details from scientists on how the temperature thresholds compare have been sparse.
For example, an extra 0.5C could see global sea levels rise 10cm more by 2100, water shortages in the Mediterranean double and tropical heatwaves last up to a month longer. The difference between 2C and 1.5C is also “likely to be decisive for the future of coral reefs”, with virtually all coral reefs at high risk of bleaching with 2C warming.
The authors presented their research today at the European Geosciences Union, an annual major gathering of geoscientists taking place this week in Vienna.
“Two-headed goal”
The Paris agreement – adopted in December 2015 and due to be officially signed by more than 150 countries on Friday – codified what the authors of today’s study call a “two-headed” temperature goal.
It pledged to keep the average global surface temperature “well below 2C” and “pursue efforts” to limit the increase since preindustrial times to 1.5C.
The nod to 1.5C recognised that many low lying island nations are already feeling the impacts of climate change and that coral reef and Arctic ecosystems face high risks well below 2C.
But the specific reference to 1.5C as well as 2C caught the scientific community somewhat off-guard. Today’s paper says:
“Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing.”
A recent commentary in Nature by Prof Simon Lewis, professor of global change at University College London, is a little stronger on this point. As he puts it:
“The emergence of 1.5 C as a serious policy position comes with important lessons for scientists. The global research community has shockingly little to say on the probable impacts of a 1.5 C rise.”
The scientific community now, at least, seems to be rising to the challenge. Last week, the IPCC confirmed it will dedicate one of its special reports to the 1.5C goal. This is due to be published in 2018.
Work on today’s paper began in 2014, long before the Paris conference. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change called on scientists to explore the difference between a 1.5C and 2C long term goal, as part of its 2013-2015 review.
Prof Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, scientific advisor at Climate Analytics in Germany andlead author of today’s study, tells Carbon Brief:
“[The review] concluded last year that, while 2C cannot be considered safe and 1.5C would clearly be a safer limit, the science on 1.5C is less robust than on 2C. So clearly, there’s a research gap here.”A 1.5C vs 2C worldThe study compared how extreme weather, water availability, crop yields, sea level rise and risks to coral reefs differ in a world where global temperature rises 1.5C, compared to if it rises 2C.
Using 11 climate models, the authors looked at how each of the impacts plays out globally, as well as in 26 different regions. This is important since the world won’t warm at the same pace everywhere, the paper notes.
Some of the most dramatic differences occur with heat extremes, with heatwaves in the tropics lasting up to three months with 2C warming, compared to two months with 1.5C. The paper says:
“[T]he additional 0.5C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions.”High northern latitudes are expected to see some of the biggest increases in heavy rainfall, with the maximum over a five-day period rising by 7% for 2C warming, compared to 5% for 1.5C.
At the same time, water scarcity in the Mediterranean is likely to be twice as severe at 2C than at 1.5C, with climate-induced shortfalls of 17% compared to 9% (relative to 1986-2005 levels).
The study shows global sea level rising 50cm by 2100 with 2C of warming, compared to 40cm for 1.5C (both relative to 2000). Warming of 2C would also put 98% of the world’s reefs at risk of coral bleaching from 2050 onwards, compared to 90% for 1.5C…………http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientists-compare-climate-impacts-1-5C-2C.html
Climate change: Australia covered up the truth on its damaged World Heritage sites
Australia covered up UN climate change fears for Tasmania forests and Kakadu
Fears about damage to the Great Barrier Reef were removed from UN report along with concern about a threat to the environment in two other heritage sites, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 29 May 16, A draft UN report on climate change, which was scrubbed of all reference to Australia over fears it could deter visitors to the Great Barrier Reef, also outlined possible threats to the Tasmania wilderness and Kakadu.
The draft report contained a chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, which described climate change as “the biggest long-term threat to the [reef] today, and to its ecosystems services, biodiversity, heritage values and tourism economy”.
It concluded that “without a comprehensive response more in keeping with the scale of the threat, the [reef]’s extraordinary biodiversity and natural beauty may lose its world heritage values”.
But before it was scrubbed, the report had two other key sections on Australian world heritage sites, and the threats they face from climate change.
One of those sections was on the Tasmanian wilderness…….the censored section of the Unesco report on Tasmania is clear about the “dire” nature of the threat.
It said: “A 2013 assessment of climate threats identified the same habitats as at high risk from greater fire frequency and drier conditions, with likely catastrophic implications for fauna. These dire predictions appeared to be playing out in January 2016, when tens of thousands of hectares of forest burned, sparked by lightning strikes that came in a month when temperatures were 2C above average and in the wake of the driest two-year period ever recorded for the region.”
The deleted section on Kakadu national park contained similarly dire warnings.
It described the important natural and cultural values of Kakadu, which has been inhabited by Aboriginal people for 50,000 years.
“The thousands of rock art sites in the park are at risk from damage by more extreme rainfall events, while sea level rise is happening at twice the global average along the northern Australian coast,” the draft report said.
It warned that fresh-water wetlands were at risk from sea level rise, as they are likely to be inundated with salt water. “Climate change threatens Aboriginal traditional use by altering the ecosystems of the vast wetlands of Kakadu and raising temperatures to a level likely to lead to more intense fire regimes,” the report said.
The final version of the report entitled “World heritage and tourism in a changing climate” was published last week by Unesco, United Nationsenvironment programme and the Union of Concerned Scientists, with all references to Australia removed.
The lead author of the report, Adam Markham, told Guardian Australia: “I was shocked when I read in the Guardian the reasons the Australian government gave for why they had pressured Unesco to drop the Australian sites.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/29/australia-covered-up-un-climate-change-fears-for-tasmania-forests-and-kakadu
Fossil fuel subsidies to end by 2025- G7 nations pledge
G7 nations pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/g7-nations-pledge-to-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-by-2025
Leaders of the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the EU urge all countries to join them in eliminating support for coal, oil and gas in a decade, Guardian, Karl Mathiesen 29 May 16, The G7 nations have for the first time set a deadline for the ending most fossil fuel subsidies, saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.
The leaders of the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union encouraged all countries to join them in eliminating “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” within a decade.
“Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, we recognise the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combatting climate change,” said the leaders’ declaration,issued at the end their summit in Japan. The pledge first entered into G7 (then known as G8) declarations in 2009 but has until now lacked a firm timeline.
Shelagh Whitley, a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, called it an “historic day” but said 2020 was a more appropriate date if governments were serious about their commitments to the global climate deal agreed in Paris in December.
Across the G7, subsidies are already falling, assisted by falling commodity prices. A notableexception is the UK, which increased subsidies by opening up new tax breaks for North Sea oil producers. Japan has been criticised for funding new coal projects, both at home and abroad.
“We already see [some in] the G7 going in the wrong direction since Paris. Just because they are saying this [about fossil fuel subsidies], it’s not afait accompli,” said Whitley. Canada also recently extended some subsidies for natural gas.
The G7 joins the leaders of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)and the World Bank, who have previously called for an end to assistance for fossil fuel projects.
The statement did not define precisely what the G7 consider to be a subsidy. The word “inefficient” in the G7 text indicates subsidies that distort energy markets. The OECD estimates that this type of support for fossil fuels within its member states is $160-200bn (£109-136bn) each year.
But when the cost of damage from pollution and climate change is factored in, the International Monetary Fund has estimated that support increases to a staggering $5.3tn a year, or $10m per minute. This is more than the total global spend on human health.
The OECD approach to measuring subsidies is likely to be the yardstick applied by the G7. The US and China recently asked the OECD to oversee a peer review of each other’s subsidy programme.
Whitley said another significant change from the G7 was the excision of a past phrase that focused on subsidies for the “consumption” of fuels. She said this meant the G7 could target subsidies for exploration as well, not just the end use.
ExxonMobil must be made accountable for their climate change deception
Greenwashing or Progress? Exxon Shareholders Issue Calls for Climate Accountability , 27 May 2016 By Candice Bernd, Truthout | At ExxonMobil’s annual shareholder meeting in Dallas this week, activist shareholders and investors demanded the company own up to its deceptive practices regarding climate disruption and begin to implement adaptations and regulations to mitigate climate disruption’s impacts.
Shareholders nixed nearly all of the 11 measures directly or indirectly related to climate disruption during the meeting Wednesday, but 62 percent of them passed a “proxy-access” measure that would allow investors holding at least 3 percent of shares to nominate outsiders for seats on the company’s board.
To see more stories like this, visit “Planet or Profit?”
New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer sponsored the measure, empowering investors holding at least 3 percent of company shares for more than three years to nominate up to a quarter of the board’s directors annually. While shareholder resolutions are non-binding, the measure could potentially allow a climate activist to become a director on the company’s board. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said the boardwould consider enacting the proposal this July.
The proposal is the first to be passed by shareholders since 2006 and breaks a 25-year pattern in which Exxon investors have systematically rejected more than 60 climate- and good-governance-related proposals. Oil giant Chevron also held its annual meeting Wednesday in San Ramon, California, with investors rejecting every climate-related measure.
While Exxon investors still rejected the vast majority of the demands, it seems they can’t entirely tamp down this year’s calls for accountability. The heated public campaign against Exxon comes at a time when the industry is taking a hit from aplunge in oil prices. Last year, Exxon earned its smallest profit since 2002 and lost its top-ranked credit score after its debt more than tripled. Still, Exxon remains one of the most profitable companies in the world.
Perhaps the company’s most contentious meeting in decades, executives contended with one of the largest coalitions between activist shareholders and large-scale investors ever, with more than $8 trillion under their management. Groups including foundations, unions and several religious organizations brought forward resolutions this year.
Still, investors rejected nearly all of the measures, including proposals that would have forced Exxon to report to shareholders how the company would plan for the future under the Paris climate agreement, support a limit on global planetary warming to 2 degrees Celsius, insert a climate expert on its board, and provide reports on its lobbying activities and hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
This week’s meeting was Exxon’s first annual meeting since the Paris agreement was brokered, and since at least three state attorneys general launched investigations into allegations claiming the company intentionally misled the public about the risks and impacts associated with climate disruption.
A series of investigative reports published last year by InsideClimate News and theLos Angeles Times revealed that Exxon began its own internal research on climate disruption as early as the 1970s and understood early on that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were driving planetary warming. It then took active steps to cover up its findings.
Since the reports were published, Democratic members of Congress and presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have pressed the Department of Justice to consider bringing a civil racketeering case against Exxon. The department has since referred the requests to the FBI’s criminal division, but it could still file a civil complaint against the company.
Grandchild of Former Exxon Scientist, Flood Victim Speak Out in Dallas
Joining a group of about 80 climate justice activists outside the Exxon meeting in Dallas was Anna Kalinsky, the granddaughter of James Black, a senior Exxon scientist who warned the company about the risks and impacts associated with burning fossil fuels on the global climate system — in 1977.
“Instead of working to address climate change, [Exxon] invested in lobbyists and front groups that contradicted the very science my grandfather had warned them about,” Kalinsky told activists. “When we ignore science, and let companies and government agencies deceive us with spin about the damage that their products cause, we all lose.”
Kalinsky also addressed Exxon executives inside the shareholder meeting, going into more detail about her grandfather’s scientific findings and rebuking Exxon’s funding of groups “that spread misinformation about the science.” The company has spent tens of millions of dollars funding the climate denial networks since 1998…….http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36204-some-exxon-shareholders-issue-calls-for-climate-accountability
Climate change leading to mass migration crises if world does not act
French minister warns of mass climate change migration if world doesn’t act
Hundreds of millions of people could be displaced by the end of the century due to conflict caused by global warming, says Ségolène Royal, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, Global warming will create hundreds of millions of climate change migrants by the end of the century if governments do not act, France’s environment minister has warned.
Ségolène Royal told ministers from 170 countries at the UN environment assembly in Nairobi that climate change was linked to conflicts, which in turned caused migration.
“Climate change issues lead to conflict, and when we analyse wars and conflicts that have taken place over the last few years we see some are linked to an extent to climate change, drought is linked to food security crises,” she said.
“The difficulty of having access to food resources leads to massive migration, south-south migration [migration within developing countries]. The African continent is particularly hit by this south-south migration.
“If nothing is done to combat the negative impact of climate change, we will have hundreds of millions of climate change migrants by the end of the century.”……..http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/26/french-minister-warns-of-mass-climate-change-migration-if-world-doesnt-act
Australia got UN to remove climate topics from climate change report!
Australia scrubbed from UN climate change report after government intervention http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention#comment-75076075
Exclusive: All mentions of Australia were removed from the final version of a Unesco report on climate change and world heritage sites after the Australian government objected on the grounds it could impact on tourism
Revealed: Guardian Australia has obtained the Unesco report Australia didn’t want the world to see. Read it now Guardian, Michael Slezak, 27 May 16
Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.
No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.
Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for the environment department told Guardian Australia: “Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.”
As a result of climate change combined with weather phenomena, the Great Barrier Reef is in the midst of the worst crisis in recorded history. Unusually warm water has caused 93% of the reefs along the 2,300km site to experience bleaching. In the northern most pristine part, scientists think half the coral might have died.
The omission was “frankly astounding,” Steffen said. Steffen is an emeritus professor at the Australian National University and head of Australia’s Climate Council. He was previously executive director of the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme, where he worked with 50 countries on global change science.
“I’ve spent a lot of my career working internationally,” Steffen said. “And it’s very rare that I would see something like this happening. Perhaps in the old Soviet Union you would see this sort of thing happening, where governments would quash information because they didn’t like it. But not in western democracies. I haven’t seen it happen before.”
The news comes less than a year after the Australian governmentsuccessfully lobbied Unesco to not list the Great Barrier Reef in its list of “World Heritage Sites in Danger”.
The removals occurred in early 2016, during a period when there was significant pressure on the Australian government in relation to both climate change and world heritage sites.
At the time, news of the government’s science research agency CSIRO sacking 100 climate scientists due to government budget cuts had just emerged; parts of the Tasmanian world heritage forests were on fire for the first time in recorded history; and a global coral bleaching event was beginning to hit the Great Barrier Reef – another event driven by global warming.
The environment department spokesperson told Guardian Australia: “The department was concerned that the framing of the report confused two issues – the world heritage status of the sites and risks arising from climate change and tourism.” Continue reading
Canada’s wildfires – surrounding a radioactive trash site
The nuclear waste site at the heart of Canada’s wildfires http://www.euronews.com/2016/05/18/the-nuclear-waste-site-at-the-heart-of-canadas-wildfires/#.V0M0ugThEm0.twitterJust south of the Canadian city of Fort McMurray, in an area partly ravaged by flames, sits a nuclear waste site.
Situated at the extreme north of the Beacon Hill landfill tip, it contains some 42,500 m3 of radioactive minerals, including uranium and cesium.
But does it pose a threat to society today? According to information gained by euronews reporter Renaud Gardette, the site lies in the middle of the huge wildfires, blazing uncontrollably since May 1.
Why was the landfill created?
To understand the origins of the landfill site, we must first go back to 1982 when Canada launched an extensive exploration and containment of low-level radioactive land programme all over the territory. It was piloted by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO).
In Fort McMurray, radioactive minerals were regularly discharged and used along the Northern Transportation Road. Built in the 1930s, the thoroughfare was initially used to transport uranium from the Port Radium mine (Northwest Territories) to Fort McMurray. From there, uranium was also transported by train to Port Hope, Ontario.
The Port Radium mine closed in 1960. Thefts and pillages occurred along the road and that is where the contamination is most visible.
The LLRWMO detected more radioactive sites around Fort McMurray. Work began in 1992 and, up to 2003, 42,500m3 of waste were sent to a specially-engineered landfill with a double layer of clay, several management systems, protection and monitoring, as well as a layer of earth and grass.
The site is monitored annually by the LLRWMO.
Does the site really exist?
The site’s existence is confirmed in several reports, including the Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada, published in 2012 by the LLRWMO.
What if?
Several questions have arisen. Was the site burnt in the wildfires? Have radioactive particles been emitted into the atmosphere? What is the risk to the environment?
For the moment, no specific warning has been triggered.
The response from the Canadian authorities
(Translated from French)
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and our Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office are responsible for managing historic low-intensity radioactive waste located in the Beacon Hill dump at Fort McMurray. The site is at the north end of the Beacon Hill landfill site, which itself is south of the city of Fort McMurray and west of Highway 63. The approximate coordinates are: 56 degrees 39 ’10 “ N, 111 degrees 20 ’56 “W.
- CNL manages these sites on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, the federal corporation that is ultimately responsible for the safe management of historic low-intensity radioactive waste.
- The low-intensity waste at Beacon Hill consists of uranium ore residue, mixed with soil and placed in isolation (in a separate cell), which is covered with a thick layer of low-permeability soil, then another, dense layer of clean earth. In total, there are at least 45 centimetres of clean soil over the contaminated soil.
- According to the information available, it appears that the site was affected by the fires. That said, this does not pose any immediate risk to the health and safety of people and the environment. There are also no concerns about the physical integrity of the cell.
- Given the composition of the contaminated soil, that is to say, ore residue mixed with earth, there is no risk that it will catch fire. In a similar way to a field or garden, fire can ignite the grass, but the earth itself does not catch fire.
- We continue to monitor the situation closely.
Exxon Mobil documents should be thoroughly investigated
Exxon Mobil documents call for a thorough investigation We expect prosecutors to investigate when evidence suggests a corporation may have committed a crime, especially when the company may have harmed the public or deceived investors. Houston Chronicle, By Chris Tomlinson May 21, 2016 That’s why the legal community was surprised that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton would try to stop an investigation by another attorney general into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. misled the public and investors about climate change.
Seventeen attorneys general, who unlike Paxton have criminal law experience, want to know when Exxon Mobil knew climate change was real, when it realized global warming would hurt its business, and whether it misled shareholders about the potential risk…….
Scientists working for Exxon Mobil in the 1970s and 1980s were among the first to recognize global warming, and that carbon dioxide was a major contributor, according to company papers published online by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times in September 2015.
“There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Exxon Mobil senior scientist James Black told the company’s management committee in 1977. Black told senior managers and scientists the following year that a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit and cause significant climactic changes, according to the documents…….
Exxon Mobil managers recognized the threat to the planet and their business model. Exxon Mobil scientists studied atmospheric CO2 and built climate models in the early 1980s. Company scientists worked alongside the world’s top climate experts and published academic papers, many of which are the basis for our understanding of climate change today.
A memo from 1980 called on Exxon Mobil managers to promote the company’s research into finding a solution to “the Greenhouse Effect.”……..http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Exxon-Mobil-documents-call-for-a-thorough-7887890.php?t=a90e275765&cmpid=twitter-premium
Canadian wildfires – huge release of carbon to the atmosphere
The Fort McMurray fire’s stunning pulse of carbon to the atmosphere, WP By Chris Mooney May 20 The Fort McMurray wildfire, which seems likely to be the costliest disaster in Canada’s history, continues to grow. According to the government of Alberta, as of Friday morning it had burned over 500,000 hectares of land, or more than 1.2 million acres…..
Steve Taylor, a research scientist with the Canadian Forest Service said the fire already ranks in the top six or seven largest fires seen in Canada in the satellite era, starting in 1970, when observations became most reliable. Especially since this is occurring in May, early in the wildfire season, that’s pretty incredible.
And so is another detail about this fire — the amount of carbon that it is apparently pouring into the atmosphere.
Taylor’s colleague, Werner Kurz, is a senior research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service and heads its carbon accounting team. He said he generally estimates that for every hectare of forest land consumed in a fire like this one, about 170 tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions — so dubbed because they actually include not only carbon dioxide but also methane and nitrous oxide, two other greenhouse gases — head into the atmosphere.
That would mean that this single fire has contributed — for a rough estimate — some 85 million tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions.
The fire has also, at least temporarily, worsened the entire nation of Canada’s emissions of carbon dioxide…….
the burning of northern forests can also leave behind a dark upper surface layer that absorbs sunlight, heats up and then thaws permafrost, or frozen soil, beneath the surface. Fort McMurray is located in a zone of Canada that’s still far enough south to see only “isolated patches” of permafrost beneath the ground — but if any of that thaws in the wake of this fire, it will emit carbon into the atmosphere. And that might not get put back in the ground again, at least not on any time frame relevant to the immediate future.
The threat of megafires to permafrost becomes more and more of an issue as you travel farther north in Canada, Alaska and Siberia, which is why northern wildfires can be such a major problem — especially if they are worsening, as appears to be the case…….https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/20/the-fort-mcmurray-fires-stunning-pulse-of-carbon-to-the-atmosphere/
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (10)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
