23/03/2020

If We’re Bailing Out Corporations, They Should Bail Out The Planet

New Yorker

Congress has an opportunity to make any coronavirus-related industry bailout depend on promises to meet the targets set in the Paris climate accord. Photograph by Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty
Bill McKibben is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and a contributing writer to The New Yorker.
One of the best chances to make some positive use of the coronavirus pandemic may be passing swiftly. As the economy craters, big corporations are in need of government assistance, and, on Capitol Hill, the sound of half a trillion dollars in relief money is bringing out the lobbyists. On Thursday afternoon, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, described the scene as a “trough” and mentioned a quote from a lobbyist in The Hill: “Everybody’s asking for something and those that aren’t asking for something only aren’t because they don’t know how.” Whitehouse added, “I fear that enviros don’t know how to ask, because, so far in this scrum, we haven’t heard much from them.”

The corporations will get assistance, but the Democrats have enough legislative power to insure that it comes with at least a few strings attached. If they attach those strings with even a modicum of care, they will have used this emergency to help solve the looming climate crisis in ways that were unimaginable just a few days ago. For busy legislators looking for a principle to enforce in handing out relief to corporations, here’s a shorthand: any bailout depends on your industry promising to meet the targets set in the Paris climate accords, and demonstrating in the next few months what that plan looks like.

Consider, say, the airline industry. It obviously is in need of relief, even if the biggest airlines spent ninety-six per cent of their proceeds over the past decade buying back stock, instead of, say, preparing for the future. On behalf of the flight attendants and pilots and mechanics the airlines employ, they should get it. But everyone who has to live on a rapidly heating planet should get something back in return. And since, at current rates of growth, by 2050, air travel threatens to eat up a quarter of the entire carbon the world can still emit and meet the climate targets set in Paris, that something should be a wholesale change in direction.

On Friday, some environmental groups proposed that “Congress must cap total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. airline fleets at 2020 levels, and overall emissions must fall at least 20% per decade thereafter.” (The Trump Administration has so far sidestepped Clean Air Act calls to regulate aircraft emissions.) And the airlines should act not by pledging to plant trees but by burning less jet fuel—by making flight routes more logical, and designing more efficient planes. Or take the banks: if they want a bailout, they should pledge an end to funding for expansionary fossil-fuel projects.

They don’t seem willing to rein themselves in—on Wednesday the Rainforest Action Network released an updated version of its “Banking on Climate Change” report, which shows that the four biggest U.S. banks continue to lead the way in funding global warming, with JPMorgan Chase reportedly having handed over more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to the fossil-fuel industry since the end of the Paris talks. Or take the fossil-fuel industry itself. It’s been dropping in value for a decade, as renewable energy takes most of the growth in demand, but the coronavirus crisis has hammered the price of oil. Trump promised to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “right up to the top,” but the drillers will doubtless want more.

Yet, as Michael Brune, the head of the Sierra Club, told me, on Thursday, “the fossil-fuel industry is already heavily subsidized by the federal government, and they should not get yet another giveaway in any form, whether it’s low-interest loans, royalty relief, new tax subsidies, or filling the reserve.” More assistance should come only if these companies pledge to stop exploring for new oil, since climate scientists have made it clear that we can’t burn what we already have in our reserves.None of this is ideal.

In an ideal world, we’d use this moment to quickly enact a Green New Deal, employing all the suddenly unemployed Americans in building out our renewable-energy system and laying the high-speed rail tracks that would help curtail the need for short-haul aviation. But, for now, here’s a list of “5 Principles for Just COVID-19 Relief and Stimulus” that dozens of environmental groups have signed on to (350.org, which I helped found, is a signatory), which offers a guide for thinking about the “choices being made right now will shape our society for years, if not decades to come.”

These sorts of conditions are not without precedent: after the 2008 financial crisis, President Barack Obama used the government bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler to force them, and by extension the rest of the automobile industry, to accept stringent new fuel-economy standards, which may have been the single biggest blow he struck against climate change during his tenure in office. (Needless to say, the Trump Administration has been hard at work wrecking this achievement.)

The principle is clear: taking money from society means that you owe society something. Trump and the Senate Republicans aren’t likely to enforce that principle, but, since the Democrats control the House, they will have a big say in the outcome. The question that climate-minded voters will ask for years to come is: Did you strike a useful bargain when you had the leverage?

Our goal can’t be simply a return to the status-quo ante, because that old normal was driving a climate crisis that will eventually prove every bit as destructive as a pandemic. With just a little courage from Democratic legislators, we could actually be building a world that is safer on every front.

Links

Here Are The Top Ways The World Could Take On Climate Change In 2020

Grist

Grist
The climate think tank Project Drawdown first took on the question “what’s really the best way to stop climate change” in 2017 — and came up with a hundred answers, from cutting food waste to implementing alternative refrigerants. Now, Project Drawdown has updated its original list to incorporate the latest findings.
The name references the day when humanity switches from emitting carbon dioxide to storing it and begins drawing down the carbon we’ve dumped into the atmosphere. The team compiled its recommendations, which were first published as a bestselling coffee table book, based on rigorous scientific analysis of the costs and carbon savings of every solution available at scale today.
Jonathan Foley, an environmental scientist and the executive director of Project Drawdown, chatted with us about the changes — and explained why we don’t need technological breakthroughs or political miracles to bring the world to net-zero carbon emissions. Our interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Q. To start off, can you tell me a little bit about what stayed the same? 
A. The top-line message remains the same essentially, which is that with solutions that exist now — not ones that are in the lab, not ones that are just science fiction or wishful thinking — but with solutions that actually exist today, we can stabilize our climate at 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees C. It wouldn’t be easy. It requires a lot of political will, a lot of leadership, and a lot of mobilization. But it’s all stuff that exists right now. That’s pretty amazing.
The other thing that stayed the same was the message that we have to do a lot of different things to get there. There are no silver bullets when it comes to climate change. We may have silver buckshot, but that’s about it.
Q. And what have been the most substantial changes to the recommendations from the original Project Drawdown?
A. The numbers are actually pretty different, especially on the cost. Things got cheaper and with better returns on investments compared to the original analysis. And a lot of that is because things have gotten cheaper in renewables in the last few years. So I think we’re seeing a stronger economic case for climate solutions every year.
A lot of people remember the rankings of solutions from the first book, and we did provide new rankings in this one. We presented two sets of rankings — one for a scenario that gets us 2 degrees C and one for a scenario that could get us to 1.5 degrees C.
I think the message is that we still have to do all of these solutions. It doesn’t matter to me much that a solution was ranked No. 3 and that it’s now No. 6. The same kinds of things still appear near the top: The food system, like food waste and diets, is up there are pretty high, and things like refrigerants, which people kind of forget about — these potent greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons. And of course, sprinkled throughout all the rankings are items that address the fossil fuel problem from many different angles. Whether it’s energy efficiency or renewable electricity or different ways of transportation, fossil fuels are found everywhere on that list from top to bottom.
Q. Even though the Project Drawdown guide is backed by a lot of rigorous science, it isn’t meant for scientists or policymakers — it’s for regular people. How do you accurately and succinctly explain issues that often have a lot of complex science behind them to the general public?
A. Usually when somebody does a study, the first thing they do is write it up for a scientific journal or a white paper, where it’s written basically in almost incomprehensible language, for maybe a hundred people in the world who could read it. Then later they’ll say, “OK, now we’re going to make the more public version of this.”
We’re flipping the model. People find it inspiring that there are solutions to climate change, and that when you do the math, they seem to work. So we systematically go through all the different solutions, and use the same technique to look at them — we’re comparing an apple to an apple to an apple when we compare our forestry solutions to a nuclear energy solution to a different type of car, and that’s what had never been done before. I think universities are very good at what they do, and we need the real in-depth experts on every single one of those solutions. But we’re not a university. None of us are working on getting tenure.
Q. It seems extremely likely that in November, we’re either going to have either a President Trump, a President Biden, or a President Sanders for the next four years. Which of the Drawdown solutions are you the most hopeful about regardless of the election outcome, and which ones do you think require more political willpower to make happen?
A. We have to remember that this is a 30-year effort we’re talking about. One four-year term can make a big difference, but it’s not game over, regardless of who wins in November. The world will not be fried if Trump gets reelected. It just won’t help much. And the world will not be saved if Bernie wins with the Green New Deal. So I don’t really think it’s wise to clip all our hopes on one election outcome — or all our fears.
There are so many levers of power to pull: at the local level, states, banks, Wall Street, businesses, our own behavior and communities. This is an international problem, from our neighborhoods to the international markets.
What we need now is time. Saying, “That’s who’s going to save us: the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. federal government, or the United Nations,” is how we managed to waste the last three decades. I think we need to start leading elsewhere and hope that Washington and the U.N. will follow.
Q. Coronavirus is something that’s changing a lot of personal behaviors right now. Do you think there’s a potential for a ripple effect after the pandemic crisis is resolved that might shift around things on the list for dealing with the climate crisis?
A. Recessions suck for everybody. No one in the environmental community should be celebrating this virus — this is a tragedy and there’s no other way to say it. But it does, at least in the short run, mean a drop in emissions. And hopefully, there’ll be some lasting lessons from this. Hey, there are other ways to do things besides flying all the time and driving all the time. Working from home and telecommuting might be really viable options now, so let’s learn how to do those really well. That might help reduce some of the emissions long term after this crisis if people stick to those habits a bit more.
People also learn how to be more resilient as a society to these kinds of shocks. Whether it’s a virus next time, or a big storm, or a hurricane, or fires, people are going to be a little bit better on the resiliency side of the equation. If there is any silver lining about this incredibly dark cloud, that might be it.
Links

For Mumbai's Slum-Dwellers, Climate Change Is Slicing Away The Haves From The Have-Nots

ABC NewsZoe Osborne

Usha is one of an estimated 42 per cent of India's population who lives in a slum. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
In the dry season, Usha's tin roof traps the heat inside her shack until she feels like she is baking.
There is no ventilation and until recently, she didn't even have a fan.
When it rains, her house fills with water that drags black mould down her walls and seeps under her door, bringing with it the festering sludge of outside Mumbai.
Before she had a bed, she would lie in the sludge until morning.
There are millions of people like Usha in cities all around the world living without proper infrastructure, housing or employment opportunities.
Usha has one door and no windows. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
As the world heats up and the weather becomes ever more extreme, the challenges they already face are intensifying.
Without the resources to empower themselves, most of them have little choice but to stay where they are and brace for what is to come.

Haves and have nots
Last year brought violent weather and environmental disasters across the world, and in India, at least 2,038 people died due to extreme weather events.
According to fiction novelist Suyash Shreekant, even his upper-class community experienced water shortages.
"People around me have fancy bungalows and you have Bollywood stars and celebrities… so it is always made sure that [we] have everything," he said.
Eventually, his building only received water a few hours a day, but because the neighbourhood had money, they never ran out.
"There is [the] option of buying water… Otherwise when the government water comes, if you have a tank, you fill it up, and of course all the major buildings have tanks," he said."A lot of our buildings even have direct boring going into the ground."
For Suyash's community, Mumbai's erratic weather is little more than an inconvenience.
India's class structure clearly delineates between rich and poor, and the attention paid to lower classes by government and upper-class society is minimal.
Usha doesn't remember the government ever offering her community support.
Before elections, politicians come to raise votes, but after they win, they never return.
Often, upper class society is not even aware of the poor's situations.
The streets around Usha's neighbourhood are teeming with people. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
"Of course we noticed the rising price of onions [last year, for example] when buying the onions," Suyash said.
"But it doesn't strike us that 'Oh, it might be bad for the farmers'."

Adversity is escalating
An estimated 42 per cent of Mumbai's population lives in slums.
Some slums consist of just a few houses, while others are vast — Mumbai's famous Dharavi, for example, spans almost 2.2 square kilometres with a population of about a million.
Living conditions in these communities are rough. Slums lack effective infrastructure and the houses are fragile, leaving people already highly exposed to the weather.
This tends to compound every other problem.
Imagine self-isolating in these conditions: How could you "stock up" when you don't have the money? Even if you did, how could you store your bulk-buy? Many people don't have fridges let alone a proper kitchen or a toilet with a toilet paper holder.
Very close to Usha's slum is this nicer neighbourhood. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
Now that the climate is becoming ever more extreme, the adversity people face is escalating.
Heatwaves last year directly killed roughly 350 people in India. In Rajasthan, temperatures reached 50.3 degrees Celsius.
For people like Usha, retreating inside offered little reprieve.
Shopkeeper Jagdish Jaiswal and his son Shobhit live just a few doors down.
Last year was far hotter than any previous year, they say. Nowadays, they can't sleep without a fan even in the winter.
The drought also left India in the grips of extreme water shortages.
Almost two-thirds of the country's reservoirs held below normal water levels, adding to the already steady depletion of groundwater, which supplies 40 per cent of India's water demands — but is predicted to run out in 21 cities this year due to overuse.
Slum dwellers always live with limited water, but as shortages worsen, what little they have is likely to dramatically dwindle.

Water shortages, monsoons and floods
Usha shares one tap with 11 other households. Water only runs from 5:00am to 8:00am every morning.
She relies on just two buckets to drink, cook, shower and clean with.
If the tap runs dry, people borrow water or rely on government tankers. But even then, slum houses have no tank to fill and buying water is very expensive.
Shobhit uses plastic sheets to protect his father's shop from monsoon rains. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
When the monsoon comes, water poses a different problem.
Many of Mumbai's urban poor don't have proper walls or roofs.
Jagdish's family lives under just a few strips of tin. During the rains, they use buckets to catch the drips.
"We take plastic sheets and put them on top of the roof," Shobhit said.
"Then when the monsoon is over, we remove them."
More dangerous are the floods. At an average of just 14 metres above sea level, Mumbai is highly vulnerable.
Last year, the city experienced its worst floods in a decade. Heavy rains led to the collapse of three walls, one of which killed 29 people.
Slums are particularly vulnerable during the monsoon.
Piles of rubbish are a common sight in the slums of Mumbai. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
They evolve as shanty towns for migrants who, unable to afford accommodation, squat on whatever open land is available.
This land is typically low-value and often dangerously low-lying.

'Even the fish, they've kind of changed their route'
In low-lying slums, The resulting waterlogging has many complications.
The water stagnates easily, creating the perfect breeding ground for mosquitoes and therefore mosquito-borne disease.
There were four times more dengue cases in Mumbai in November 2019 than in the same month of 2018.
Because the monsoon continued late last year, mosquitoes were able to thrive for longer.
A corner shop is a common employment opportunity but earning options are limited. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
Aside from spreading disease, flooding also affects the city's transport, housing and infrastructure.
During Mumbai's rains last year, millions of homes were inundated with dirty water, trains and buses were stopped, and flights were cancelled.
Rising sea levels complicate things further. Sea water backs up into Mumbai's drainage system, making it difficult for flood water to drain.
Kalpesh, the son of a shopkeeper in a Colaba fishing village, has noticed the sea edging closer to his home.
His father, Ashok Jain, said the ocean itself had also become more dangerous, with far more storms in 2019 than in the years before.
This is hardly surprising given how rapidly our oceans have been warming — in fact, in 2019 the ocean was hotter than ever before.
Tropical storms increase in severity over warmer water.
Usha shares one tap with 11 other households, which only has water from 5:00am to 8:00am every morning. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
Higher temperatures strengthen storms and generate heavier rainfall, making the sea incredibly dangerous for local fishermen.
Rising water temperatures lead to coral bleaching and loss of habitat for fish and marine mammals, and push fish to divert their normal migration routes.
"Even the fish [themselves], they've kind of changed their route," Kalpesh said.
"[People] have said that they have reduced considerably… [this might] be due to the storms or some other reasons, but they're not here anymore."

The biggest factor is education
When asked about the solution to their immediate situations, most of those interviewed for this story said they needed employment. That way, they could lift themselves out of poverty.
There used to be plenty of factory and labour work in Mumbai but now the city is becoming ever more white collar.
Mumbai's population is also booming, as migrants flock to the city for work.
Slum dwellers say education is the biggest factor to help them improve their lives. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
Because of these dynamics, there are fewer opportunities available for low-skilled workers and more job seekers to compete with.
The biggest factor is education.
"It's the money that's the biggest issue," said Rajan Yadav, a metal-worker with a shop right next to Usha.
"There are [private] schools, there are colleges, but we can't afford them."
Public schools are free in India but according to Usha's community, the standard of education they provide is low. Because of this, much of Mumbai's poorest are being left behind.
Even the most menial jobs require some level of education and there is always someone more qualified.
Driving for Uber, for example, requires the ability to read and to use a GPS. Many slum dwellers are illiterate.
There is other work — selling vegetables, cigarettes, papers — but the money you can earn in these jobs is minimal and there is no chance of promotion. Other jobs like construction work are hard to come by.

Enabling social mobility
Many slum dwellers feel that the state should be providing a solution.
"Either you create jobs for people who don't have education, or you give them education so that they can develop," Rajan said.
But currently, the only real state initiative that can be applied to Mumbai's urban poor is a resettlement program under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), a government entity that handles slum policy and redevelopment regulations in Mumbai.
The road dividing the wealthy apartments (on the right) from the slum apartments (on the left). (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
Because slums begin as squatter settlements, land owners have a right to evict them.
But if they don't do so within a certain amount of time, the squatters gain certain rights to that land that mean that if they are evicted, they have to be rehoused.
The SRA, and a few NGOs under it, work to create financially viable situations for developers and slum dwellers alike.
"Families have been able to educate their children in better schools… because they have safe housing," said Yorick Fonseca, the director of the Slum Rehabilitation Society, one of the NGOs.
"A lot of [people's] children have grown up to become doctors and engineers…. that is the kind of social mobility that we've been able to enable."
But only those who are the original inhabitants of slum properties are required by law to be rehoused.
If she were evicted, Usha, who rents her home from a slum landlord, would have nowhere to go.

'Employment is not more likely here'
There are other complications.
For example, the transition from slums to apartments can be challenging.
Previous slum-dweller Neeta was told her family would be able to move to an apartment after one year.
Neeta (left) and her daughter are living in a slum rehousing complex with poor water quality.
Fifteen years later, they were still living in a temporary shack with worse conditions than in their original slum.
To add insult to injury, even though Neeta's family has now made it to their new apartment it may not be viable for families like theirs to stay.
They are concerned they will have to move back to the slums after a few years because they can't afford to pay for their utilities.
"The expenses increase but employment is not more likely here," they explain.
"Maybe next month we will not have electricity because we aren't able to pay for it."
Expensive apartments lie immediately opposite Neeta and her daughter's slum rehousing. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
'We can't really do anything'
Neeta's family could retreat to their home in the countryside, but the situation in rural areas is often worse than urban poverty.
Climate-related extremes have destroyed farms all over India.
Neeta's home in Gujarat has been bone-dry for decades.
Rajeed's village's crops failed because of a plague of insects that came in droves with last year's rains.
In the monsoon season, rubbish near the slum rehousing complex mixes with the water, sometimes knee-deep or deeper. (Supplied: Zoe Osborne)
In the end, Mumbai's poorest are facing an inescapable situation.
The only resource they really have is one another.
Pradeep Mishra has lived in Mumbai's Dhobi Ghats all his life.
As the ocean rises, it is likely that the Ghats will be one of the first areas to be swallowed by the sea.
But when asked what he will do when his home inevitably sinks, Pradeep just shrugs and smiles.
"If nature has to do something, it will do it," he says. "We can't really do anything beyond [sticking together].

Links