13/07/2017

How Environmentalists Can Regroup For The Trump Era

The Conversation*

Environmentalists are not fans of EPA chief Scott Pruitt. Reuters/Mike Theiler
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has launched an all-out assault on regulations that protect the environment. In addition to retreating from the Paris climate accord, he wants to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by more than 30 percent and he has issued executive orders instructing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to roll back or bypass clean air and clean water rules.
Pruitt has enthusiastically championed these initiatives by seeking to suspend and eventually repeal many Obama-era regulations. Six states and several nonprofits are suing the EPA over its choice to backtrack on a decision to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide.
EPA chief Scott Pruitt is following in the footsteps of Anne Gorsuch, one of the people who held that job during the Reagan administration. AP Photo/John Duricka
As an environmental law professor who has worked for the federal government and a leading green nonprofit group, I believe there are lessons to draw on from similar anti-environmental initiatives during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Enforce speed limits
First, environmentalists must ensure that Trump’s agencies follow proper legal procedures before suspending or revoking these regulations. Although federal agencies have considerable discretion to make regulatory changes, rules that were the product of years of careful study and deliberation cannot legally be suspended overnight.
When Reagan’s EPA announced indefinite suspensions of environmental regulations, the courts ruled in the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch case that it was illegal to do so without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. (The Gorsuch in question was then-EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, the newest Supreme Court justice’s late mother.)
Citing this decision, a federal court has ruled that Scott Pruitt acted illegally when, apparently at the behest of the industries with the most at stake, he suspended a regulation requiring new oil and gas operations to monitor for leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that Pruitt’s action was “unauthorized” by the Clean Air Act, “unreasonable,” “arbitrary, capricious” and “in excess of statutory authority.”
Although Pruitt claims to champion states’ rights, his concerns seem to extend only to giving states the right to weaken environmental standards. He has threatened to block California’s program to adopt stronger environmental protections than required by federal law (but apparently has backed down).

Ensure that agencies follow the law
Second, whenever the government changes regulations, the courts must ensure that the new or revised rules still comply with all underlying environmental laws. And the nation’s environmental laws, enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress, mandate the protection of public health and the environment – by the EPA.
When George W. Bush’s administration claimed that the Clean Air Act couldn’t be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court disagreed. In its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the court found that EPA not only had that authority but that it had a duty to regulate emissions that contribute to climate change.
The Obama administration tried to curb natural gas flaring because scientists say the practice stokes climate change. AP Photo/Matthew Brown
The Massachusetts ruling later served as the legal basis for the Obama administration’s efforts to combat climate change. If Trump’s team tries to repeal climate-related regulations, the Clean Air Act mandates that it replace them with new ways to fight climate change.

Reject alternative facts
Third, regulatory decisions must be supported by facts – no matter what the White House wants to believe. Consider what happened when the EPA proposed repealing the limits on lead additives in gasoline during the Reagan administration. Upon taking stock of the damage lead can do to human health, the agency chose to instead phase out leaded gasoline entirely. Ending the use of lead in gasoline has proven to be a huge environmental success story in the United States and virtually every country in the world.
The Trump administration could run into similar trouble with its efforts to downplay climate change. For example, it has deleted climate change information from the EPA website, and Pruitt wants to debate the overwhelming scientific consensus concerning human contributions to climate change, such as burning fossil fuels.
Any EPA effort to deny the established facts about climate change is unlikely to survive judicial review. Trump and members of his administration are entitled to their own opinions. But they may not write regulations rooted in make-believe “alternative facts.”

Fill the leadership vacuum
Environmentalists and environmentally minded state governments are pushing back. Donations to green nonprofits have surged since he won the presidency. These groups – along with numerous state attorneys general – are joining forces to fight efforts to rescind environmental protections.
As the Trump administration abdicates federal leadership on environmental protection, others are filling that void. For example, in response to the White House’s decision to reject the Paris climate accord, many states, local governments, corporations and universities have pledged to redouble their efforts to shrink their carbon footprints.
California Gov. Jerry Brown is planning a climate summit that he’ll host in 2018. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire philanthropist who serves as the U.N. secretary-general’s special envoy for cities and climate change, is coordinating a nonfederal effort to meet the Paris targets.

Heed the Australian experience
U.S.-based green groups should also should reach out to lay the groundwork for long-range, bipartisan efforts to improve environmental policies. They can find an apt model in Australia.
Three years ago, when former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott was making similar attacks on environmental law, Australian environmental law specialists banded together to lay the groundwork for strengthening their future environmental laws. This effort by the Australian Panel on Experts on Environmental Law, for which I serve as an adviser, has generated a set of intriguing recommendations, supported by technical papers.
President Trump often promises to roll back coal regulations but there may be limits to how many he can rescind. Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock.com
The panel recommends measures to strengthen the government’s role in environmental policy and to place a price on carbon as a means of reining in climate change. In the United States, this is an approach with bipartisan potential. The Climate Leadership Council, a group of prominent Republicans, has proposed a “Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” – a blueprint for carbon-pricing that deserves consideration across the political spectrum.
What’s more, I have seen that U.S. environmental law remains the envy of the world through my extensive contact with environmental law professors from scores of countries. Our independent and unbiased judiciary ensures that regulatory decisions are supported by law and facts – blunting the impact of the Trump administration’s efforts to undercut the environmental protections its predecessors established.
Ultimately, I believe that the nation’s environmental laws will survive Trump’s assault – and may even become stronger in response to it.

*Robert Percival is the co-executive director of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, a consortium of environmental law professors from 200 academic institutions in 60 countries. He also was an adviser for the Australian Panel on Experts on Environmental Law.

Links

Kiribati Confronts Climate Upheaval By Preparing For ‘Migration With Dignity’

Mongabay - 

The Republic of Kiribati pushes for 'Migration with Dignity' as a way of adapting to climate change and overpopulation.
Kiribati is made up of 33 atolls, formed from a volcano that sunk into the sea and left behind a ring of coral. South Tarawa, pictured above, is the most populated island, home to about half the population, with more people per square foot than Tokyo, Japan. Photo: Wikimedia commons.
Summary
  • Climate change impacts and overpopulation are pushing Kiribati citizens to plan for a potential future migration en-masse.
  • Still, many I-Kiribati fear losing cultural identity in the projected exodus of their people to higher land.
  • To make the transition easier, some Kiribati citizens are receiving vocational training to qualify them for employment abroad.
High tide keeps getting higher on the islands of the Republic of Kiribati – 33 coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean that rest only a few feet above sea level. In Kiribati culture, Nareau the Creator scattered stones to the north and south to create this mosaic of coral and rock. But, today, the effects of climate change are closing in and there's no higher land to move to. Even as the atolls shrink, Kiribati's population grows. The country is experiencing baki-aba: "land hunger." In 2014, Kiribati president, Anote Tong purchased 20 square kilometers on Vanua Levu, a Fiji island making this the first international land purchase intended for climate refugees.
For Kiribati, adapting to climate change might mean relocating entirely.
Pacific islanders' identities are very much tied to their ancestral land, the physical islands on which they live. Migration may mean a national and cultural loss, especially when most traditions are preserved orally.
"They worry about the new country and if the people of that country will accept them," Anterea Claire Anterea, co-founder of Kiri-CAN (Kiribati Climate Action Network International) and well-known climate activist in the country, said.
Pacific island nations are some of the most vulnerable spots on Earth from climate change. According to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, small islands emit less than one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but they disproportionately suffer the effects of rising tides, drought, and extreme storms.
Today, small island states are often allocating their scarce resources away from economic development towards more immediate climate adaptation measures.
For example, sandbags line the shores of Kiribati and causeways are raised to the stop waves from breaking over the Kiribati's only road. Kiribati also faces more frequent droughts that ruin crops and destroy farmer's livelihoods. As sea levels rise, citizens worry about saltwater contamination of their freshwater lens – a rain-filled bubble of freshwater that rests below Kiribati's soil, but still above the ocean water. Exacerbating climate issues, overcrowding in Kirbati's largest cities has led to poor sanitation and public health problems.
Anote Tong, former president of Kiribati, advocates for "migrating with dignity." This policy was designed to give citizens the tools to relocate legally, finding work in other nations like Australia and New Zealand. Tong prefers this slow and methodical transition to the alternative – moving tens of thousands of citizens at once in response to a catastrophic flood or drought.
A planned migration means that I-Kiribati (Kiribati citizens) can move on their own accord, instead of becoming climate refugees – victims of climate change left stateless with questionable legal rights and potentially perceived as burdens on any host country. Colloquially, the term "climate refugee" is used to describe any person leaving their home due to the effects of climate change, i.e. drought, flooding, or extreme weather.
Trans-nationally, the term "climate refugee" has no legal clout. That means climate refugees might not have human rights when they migrate to a new nation. In order to be a refugee – by current, global legal standards – a person must be facing political persecution.
In 2012, Ioane Teitiota, a Kiribati native, applied for asylum in New Zealand on the grounds that he was unable to grow food or find potable water in Kiribati. The courts eventually rejected the case and Teitiota and his family were deported. Teitiota could not prove persecution.
The court conceded that Teitiota met a "sociological" definition of a refugee, but not a legal one. Teitiota has appealed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
"First and foremost – let it be known we do not want to [migrate] and become refugees!" Linda Uan said. Uan is a household name in Kiribati, known for co-founding the broadcasting and media production company Nei Tabera Ni Kai Video Unit (NTNK) which shares over 400 stories on climate change and social justice.
"To an I-Kiribati mind – it is important to be self-reliant and we've been raised that way," added Uan.
"Migration to a new country will not be possible without the means to support oneself."
World Water Day outreach with communities of South Tarawa, who are rapidly losing their freshwater reserves due to salt water intrusion in their freshwater lens. Photo: Claire Anterea.
Gaining employable skills will make I-Kiribati (Kiribati citizens) useful contributors to any host country.
"If we train our people and they become skilled, then they would migrate with dignity and on merit, they would not be people running away from something," Tong told Vice News. "They would be migrating, relocating as people with skills as members of communities they go into, even leaders, I hope."
A 2014 Poverty Assessment says that about 2,000 young persons enter the labor force each year in Kiribati. Many seek jobs in other countries. The total unemployment rate in 2010 was 31 percent. In 2011, the government began a program at the Kiribati Institute of Technology for Technical and Vocational Education and Training to "upskill" young persons through carpentry, plumbing, nursing, accounting, and other marketable trades. Over half of young employees are out of work and many are migrating to South Tarawa, Kiribati's capital, where life is perceived as 'easier' than on the outer islands. Others are seafarers or seek seasonal employment as fruit-pickers in Australia or New Zealand.
South Tarawa is now home to over half the Kiribati's 113,000 people and exemplifies how climate change exacerbates poverty in a negative feedback loop. Water security for this overcrowded city is a major concern. I-Kiribati worry that the next drought and salinization will exhaust their supply in the freshwater lens.
With limited space and resources, the latest survey, a Household Income and Expenditure Survey in 2006, estimates that almost 22 percent of I-Kiribati live in poverty.
And yet, I-Kiribati have no word for "poverty."
"We live simply and happily by what we have," said Anterea.
Kiribati is only one example of how Pacific Island Countries (PICs) disproportionately suffer the consequences of climate change. According to a 2015 World Bank analysis, climate events like rising sea levels and severe weather events cost Pacific Island nations an average of US $284 million every year, making it nearly impossible for them to rise out of poverty.
At the International Climate Talks in Paris in December, 2015, Tong brought Kiribati's climate conundrum to center stage when he stressed that just a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature increase would be catastrophic for Kiribati and other small island developing states (SIDS) – the current Paris Climate Accord has set a goal to keep warming under 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. Tong and other leaders also called for compensation from developed nations to help fund climate adaptation measures, but in the end, the Paris Climate Agreement did not contain any basis for liability or compensation.
Claire Anterea, climate activist with Kiri-CAN with current president of Kiribati, Taneti Mamau, planting mangrove trees to improve shoreline health and climate resiliency. Photo: Claire Anterea.
"Our culture is very strong in helping each other through our family [and] community. If the Developed States have that value in life…then you know that they are real people," said Anterea. "We need them to start saving our country [by] cutting their emissions."
Kiribati is one of the least developed nations in the world with one of the lowest GDPs and per capita income. Foreign aid – mostly from Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand – makes up about a quarter of the country's GDP and goes towards infrastructure development and public health initiatives.
Part of Australia's aid program is dedicated to giving young I-Kiribati the skills they need to succeed in national or international labor markets. Australia's Pacific seasonal workers program connects Pacific Islanders with jobs in Australia, typically in rural and remote areas.
"Australia understands the potential challenge climate change presents to habitation in the Pacific. We are committed to working on these issues," a spokesperson for Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson wrote.
To that end, AusAID funded the Kiribati-Australia Nurses Initiative (KANI), which began in 2004 and was canceled in 2014. This $20.8 million dollar investment gave sixty full scholarships for I-Kiribati students to attend school in Brisbane Australia to gain vocational training and employable skills to Australian qualifications. After completion of the program, students were able to stay and work. But most chose to go home afterwards.
"Weekly, we're sending off more people to work on fruit picking, the hospitality industry, seafarers, fishermen etc. Interestingly enough, they're all very happy to return home after they completed their contracts," Uan said, speaking of all Kiribati's labor migrants. "They talked about greener pastures abroad – very good soil, fertile, lots of room for more houses, quality goods, but that was there – not home. Home is good where our loved ones are, where we belong!"
Anterea has visited many outer islands to ask them if they would ever migrate because of climate change. Most don't want to leave their country. She says that both young and old generations worry about losing their traditions.
"Our culture is that oral culture that [is] shared from generation to generation. And therefore our local knowledge is passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth. The challenge for preserving [it] will be not easy," she says.
Overcoming cultural and social differences have made it difficult for KANI students to adapt to life in Australia. Many reported homesickness. Students spent three months or more with Australian host families in order to adapt to Australian culture and practice speaking English. However, this assimilation strategy mostly made students feel isolated from one another. I-Kiribati live in bustling households with extended family. To move to an Australian home where they received their own quiet bedroom often exacerbated loneliness.
To counter culture shock, a group called the Queensland Kiribati Community Youth took shape In Brisbane. KANI students and a small community of I-Kiribati who married Australians organize cultural events. This community celebrates Kiribati holidays together, performs traditional songs and dances at special events, campaigns for climate justice for I-Kiribati, and alleviates one another's homesickness by maintaining a comfortable cultural backdrop.
Maintaining these cultural practices helps KANI students cling to their identities. Three different waves of students have swept through the program, 87 overall. Some students are still finishing up their schooling. However, the pilot program was discontinued in 2014 due to low completion rates.
Sixty-eight students are expected to graduate in total – 64 as registered nurses, 3 as social workers and 1 with a Bachelor's in Human Services. Sixteen students did not complete schooling to become registered nurses and five students quit before receiving any qualification at all.
Researcher Lara K. O'Brien interviewed KANI students for her published review of the initiative. All participants said climate change motivated their decision to join KANI.
"Everyone back on the islands is aware of the fact that sea level is rising and that climate is changing, but I don't know why they don't have that sort of urge, you know, to panic or to start looking for something to do before the future," one student told O'Brien. "They just, they're relaxing and they tell you, 'Oh, we'd rather die here.'"
AusAid is expected to spend $30.9 million to Kiribati in Official Development Assistance in 2017-2018 and they are a major contributor to Kiribati's Official Developmental Aid. Providing holding tanks for fresh water alleviates concerns over freshwater availability and protects public health. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Critics say that KANI was not a cost-effective program since it cost on average $237,318 for one student to receive their Bachelor of Nursing. Others tout its successes as a way to send remittances to families on the homeland and prepare I-Kiribati youth for what's seen as an inevitable migration.
Despite the criticisms and its cancellation, KANI is still cited as a model for planned labor migration – the kind that may make for a smoother transition for I-Kiribati.
"I believe that the KANI program is effective…because we witness that we have young people from our country that [are] working in Australia and allow them to stay as permanent resident[s]. We also see that they send good money back to help their family and that them young family settle and send their children to good schools in Australia," said Anterea.
The KANI initiative arises from a recent history of Australia-Kiribati cooperation. In 2009, the two countries signed the Kiribati-Australia Partnership for Development, agreeing to work in tandem to raise the standard of living for I-Kiribati by improving basic education and work skills.
Australia plans to give $30.9 million to Kiribati in Official Development Assistance in 2017-2018 to increase quality of education, build a healthier population, and implement economic reforms. Other priorities include infrastructure improvements such as road, water, and sanitation projects.
KANI was not the first instance of labor migration in Kiribati. In the 1820s, several residents of Gilbert Island (a Kiribati island) were forced into slavery for plantations and agricultural labor in Australia, Fiji, Tahiti, and even as far away as Peru. Some 1,400 Gilbertese were sent to the Solomon Islands. This time, though, I-Kirbatis are determined that the decision to leave Kiribati will be just that – a decision.

Links

When It Comes To Climate Change, Honesty Is Going Up In Smoke

Huffington PostSophie Trevitt

We live in a time where it is not considered essential to have a climate scientist on the Climate Change Authority.
Steam billows from the cooling towers of the Loy Yang coal-fired power station operated by AGL Energy Ltd. in the Latrobe Valley, Australia, on Wednesday, April 29, 2015. Bloomberg via Getty Images
Late last week news broke that the Turnbull Government has been sitting on a year's worth of data on Australia's polluting emissions.
Documents obtained by the Australian Conservation Foundation through a Freedom of Information inquiry revealed that emissions are up by 1.4 percent with big leaps in emissions from electricity use and gas consumption. This is hardly surprising given the Turnbull Government's relentless undermining of clean energy, obsession with coal and public backing of gas.
This information should have been released early this year. Instead, it was buried by the Turnbull Government in a move that is sadly -- and frighteningly -- becoming the new norm of government double talk.
The most stark example of secrecy in recent times has been the Abbott-Turnbull Government's attempt to 'stop the boats' by refusing to discuss them. 'On-water matters' has become the catch cry of a government determined not to talk about intercepting boats at sea, and to evade public scrutiny for its conduct and casualties.
And the Labor Party has been more than complicit. It built the detention centres offshore -- out of sight of the Australian people and away from the lawyers, the advocates, the community members and the families who could provide support to the people the government was determined to lock up, and who could raise public opposition by exposing the cruelty of these policies.
The Labor Party supported the Government's decision to silence teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers reporting on the conditions on Manus Island and Nauru, and the Labor Party stood with the Government and threatened journalists with jail time for reporting on matters of national security.
As clean energy policy analyst Michael Mazengarb tweeted on Friday:
IMAGE
 While the secrecy shrouding 'on-water matters' has received the most public attention, this same secrecy has subtly but pervasively infiltrated into other areas of government policy -- the highly secretive negotiations surrounding the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, for example.
But perhaps the second biggest area of government secrecy, and deliberate attempt to silence dissent and critique, is climate change.
Under Tony Abbott's prime ministership the Climate Commission was disbanded -- a direct and unequivocal attack on the public's right to information about climate change and its impacts.
Then came the attacks on the Climate Change Authority. Unlike the Climate Commission, the CCA is a statutory body and cannot just be disbanded. Instead, Prime Minister Turnbull stacked the CCA Board with former government advisers and MPs.
Last week, the CCA lost its last climate scientist, as Professor David Karoly stepped down at the end of his five-year term. He is the only climate scientist to last the full term, and if government comments are anything to go by -- he may very well be the last climate scientist on the CCA.
It's extraordinary to think that we live in a time where it is not considered essential to have a climate scientist on the Climate Change Authority.

Links