(USA) More Than 70 Science And Climate Journalists Challenge Supreme Court Nomination Of Amy Coney Barrett

Rolling Stone - Justin Nobel | Antonia Juhasz

“Judge Coney Barrett has displayed a profound inability to understand the ecological crisis of our times, and in so doing she enables it.”

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill. The full Senate vote on her nomination is expected to take place on Monday. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Pool/AP

NOTE This op-ed has been signed by dozens of leading climate and science journalists, listed below.

We are science and climate journalists. 

We are researchers and weavers of information, creating a fabric that explains the work of scientists who themselves are working to describe our natural world and universe. 

We are published in the nation’s leading outlets, both large and small, including Scientific American, Nature, National Geographic, MIT Technology Review, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and many more. 

Over decades of reporting on the threats and now deadly and devastating harms of worsening climate change, we have succeeded in at least one respect. The vast majority of the world’s people, including those in the United States, not only acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change, but also want action taken to address it.

We have succeeded because the science is clear, despite there being a massive well-orchestrated effort of propaganda, lies, and denial by the world’s largest fossil fuel corporations, including ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and fossil-fuel-backed institutes and think tanks. 

It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee — a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land — has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel.

And it is facts — a word under repeated assault by the Trump administration, which nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett — that are at issue here. “I’m certainly not a scientist…I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it,” Judge Coney Barrett told Sen. John Kennedy during the Senate confirmation hearings on October 13th.

The next day, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked Judge Coney Barrett if she believed “human beings cause global warming.” She replied: “I don’t think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not. I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge.”

When asked that same day by Sen. Kamala Harris if she accepts that “COVID-19 is infectious,” Coney Barrett said yes. 

When asked if “smoking causes cancer,” Coney Barrett said yes. 

But when asked if “climate change is happening, and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Judge Coney Barrett said that while the previous topics are “completely uncontroversial,” climate change is instead, “a very contentious matter of public debate.” 

She continued: “I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that’s inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained.”

Judge Coney Barrett repeatedly refused to acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change. This is an untenable position, particularly when the world’s leading climate scholars warned in 2018 that we have just 12 years to act to bring down global average temperature rise and avert the most dire predictions of the climate crisis.

At the moment when the facts of the case were presented to her, this arbiter of justice freely chose to side with mistruths. Judge Coney Barrett’s responses are factually inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and dangerous.

How can Judge Coney Barrett rule on pending issues of climate change liability, regulation, finance, mitigation, equity, justice, and accountability if she fails to accept even the underlying premise of global warming? The answer is that she cannot.

Judge Coney Barrett’s ties to the fossil fuel industry have already proved problematic, forcing recusal from cases involving Shell Oil entities related to her father’s work as a long-time attorney for the company. 

She may also need to recuse herself from future cases due to her father’s former position as chairman of the Subcommittee on Exploration and Production Law of the American Petroleum Institute — the nation’s leading fossil fuel lobby.

Climate change is already an increasingly dominant aspect of American life, and an issue of growing import in American law. 

On the Supreme Court docket is BP P.L.C v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore — a case that involves Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other major oil companies, and could impact about a dozen U.S. states and localities suing Big Oil over its contribution to climate change.

Judge Coney Barrett says, “I’m certainly not a scientist,” but she does not need to be a scientist, rather she needs to have faith in science. 

Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is an ardent supporter of action on climate change, releasing in 2015 the “Encyclical on Climate Change & Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home.” The Pope embraces hard science in order to keep close to his faith.

Judge Coney Barrett has displayed a profound inability to understand the ecological crisis of our times, and in so doing she enables it.

Signed

Bill McKibben, journalist and author, the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College Rebecca Solnit, author and journalist Sonia Shah, science journalist and author Jonathan Weiner, Pulitzer Prize winning author, science journalist, and professor at Columbia Journalism School Jeff Goodell, climate journalist and author of The Water Will Come Naomi Klein, journalist and author Michelle Nijhuis, science journalist and author Amy Westervelt, climate journalist Rachel Ramirez, environmental justice reporter Iris Crawford, climate justice journalist Anoa Changa, movement and environmental justice journalist Tiên Nguyễn, multimedia science journalist Eric Holthaus, meteorologist, climate journalist at The Phoenix Jenni Monet (Laguna Pueblo), climate affairs journalist and founder of Indigenously Nina Lakhani, environmental justice reporter Samir S. Patel, science journalist and editor Clinton Parks, freelance science writer Meehan Crist, writer in residence in biological sciences, Columbia University Elizabeth Rush, science writer, author of Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore Anne McClintock, climate journalist, photographer and author, professor of environmental humanities and writing at Princeton University Ruth Hopkins (Oceti Sakowin, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), tribal attorney, Indigenous journalist Wade Roush, science and technology journalist and author Kim Stanley Robinson, New York Times bestselling author of climate science fiction, Hugo, Nebula, and Locus Awards Jason Mark, editor in chief, Sierra Kate Aronoff, climate journalist Richard Louv, journalist and author Heather Smith, science journalist Judith Lewis Mernit, California climate editor, Capital & Main Madeline Ostrander, climate journalist Julie Dermansky, multimedia environmental and social justice journalist Kenneth Brower, environmental journalist and author Alexander Zaitchik, science and political journalist and author Hillary M. Rosner, science journalist and scholar in residence, University of Colorado Wudan Yan, science journalist Antonia Juhasz, climate and energy journalist and author

Debra Atlas, environmental journalist and author Rucha Chitnis, climate, environmental justice and human rights documentarian Drew Costley, environmental justice reporter Jonathan Thompson, environmental author and journalist Carol Clouse, environmental journalist Brian Kahn, climate journalist Geoff Dembicki, climate journalist and author Peter Fairley, energy and environment journalist Nicholas Cunningham, energy reporter Nina Berman, documentary photographer focusing on issues of climate and the environment, professor of journalism at Columbia University Michele C. Hollow, freelance journalist Ben Depp, documentary photographer, focusing on issues of climate and the environment Virginia Hanusik, climate photographer Philip Yam, science journalist and author Maura R. O’Connor, science journalist and author Chad J. Reich, audio and visual journalist covering energy and environment in rural communities Steve Ross, environmental writer/editor, former Columbia environmental reporting professor Starre Vartan, science journalist Michael Snyder, climate photographer Brandon Keim, science and nature journalist Tom Athanasiou, climate equity writer and researcher Hope Marcus, climate writer Jocelyn C. Zuckerman, freelance journalist Dana Drugmand, climate journalist Tom Molanphy, climate journalist Roxanne Szal, associate digital editor, Ms. Magazine Dashka Slater, author and climate reporter Jenn Emerling, documentary photographer, focusing on issues of climate and culture in the American West Christine Heinrichs, science writer and author Clayton Aldern, climate and environmental journalist Karen Savage, climate journalist Charlotte Dennett, author, investigative journalist, attorney Carly Berlin, environmental reporter Ben Ehrenreich, author and journalist Ibby Caputo, science journalist Lawrence Weschler, former New Yorker staff writer, environmental author, most recently with David Opdyke, of This Land: An Epic Postcard Mural on the Future of a Country in Ecological Peril. Justin Nobel, science journalist

Signatories include recipients of:

The Pulitzer Prize, AAAS/Kavli Science Journalism Award, the Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science Journalism, Rona Jaffe Foundation Writer’s Award, Award for Excellence in Health Journalism, the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus Awards for Cli-Fi, the National Association of Science Writers’ Science in Society Award, awards from the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Los Angeles Times Book Prize in Science/Technology, the New York Public Library’s Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism, numerous articles included in multiple The Best Science and Nature Writing anthologies, multiple National Book Award and National Book Critics Circle Award recipients, the Guggenheim, the Lannan Literary Award, Native American Journalists Association Awards, former Knight Science Journalism Fellows at MIT, a Rhodes Scholar, former Ted Scripps Fellows in Environmental Journalism, a National Science Foundation Research Grant Collaborator, Portrait of Humanity Award (2020) recipient, National Health Journalism Fellowship, and more.

Signatories work appears in outlets including:

The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, National Geographic, Scientific American, Audubon, onEarth, Science, PBS NOVA, Nature, Discover, Nautilus, Outside, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Bloomberg, Columbia Journalism Review, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, Politico, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Advocate, The Nation, Sierra, Teen Vogue, Vogue, VICE, NPR, The Intercept, The New York Times Magazine, Archeology Today, Atlas Obscura, Oxford American, Guernica, NACLA, Mother Jones, Earther, Elemental, Longreads, MIT Technology Review, The Economist, High Country News, Wired, Men’s Journal, bioGraphic, The Atavist, Slate, Foreign Policy, UnDark, Harper’s Magazine, Ms. Magazine, Newsweek, The New Republic, San Francisco Chronicle, Louisiana Cultural Vistas, DeSmog, Al Jazeera, and more.

Links

• Amy Coney Barrett faces recusal questions over links to Shell
• Greta Thunberg Chides Amy Coney Barrett For Her Weak Stance On Climate Change
• Amy Coney Barrett on Court Seen Handcuffing Agencies’ Climate-Change Fight
• How Amy Coney Barrett Could Alter the Future of the U.S.'s Climate Change Policy
• What Amy Coney Barrett Would Mean for the Youth Climate Case
• Amy Coney Barrett Says She Has No 'Firm Views' On Climate Change

(AU) Australia's First Offshore Wind Farm Promises Jobs Boom

The Age - Miki Perkins | Benjamin Preiss

Australia’s first offshore wind farm could provide about 8000 direct and indirect jobs in Victoria over its 30-year lifetime, including 5200 construction jobs and 740 ongoing roles a year.

The Star of the South wind farm, which would be built off the coast of South Gippsland, would invest about $8.7 billion into Victoria over its lifetime, according to new economic modelling commissioned by the project and undertaken by AlphaBeta, part of Accenture.

This modelling also shows the project would invest an estimated $4.9 billion directly into Gippsland’s economy, but the company is yet to win over some residents closest to the project, and a key union division.

The Star of the South wind farm would look similar to the Veja Mate offshore wind farm in Germany.

The wind farm would provide about 20 per cent of Victoria’s energy, and power about 1.8 million homes. The $8 billion to $10 billion project would be one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world.

Star of the South offshore windfarm

Star of the South chief executive Casper Frost Thorhauge said the project would offer regional job opportunities and be an asset to the state in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

“We believe we can come in and solve some of these problems and be part of a green recovery,” Mr Frost Thorhauge said.

The proposed location was chosen to capitalise on Bass Strait’s powerful winds, suitable soil and water conditions and its proximity to the Latrobe Valley, which is one of the strongest connection points to the National Electricity Market distribution grid.

“We are really excited to harvest a new resource, not only for Australia but also especially for Gippsland,” Mr Frost Thorhauge said. “The long tradition of power generation in the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland region will be maintained.”

Wind turbines produce no carbon emissions and wind is one of the least greenhouse gas-intensive energy sources, even taking into account life-cycle emissions from other energy sources used in development.

The project is backed by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, a fund management company in energy infrastructure, particularly renewables.

Underwater cameras being placed into the ocean for Star of the South exploratory fish surveys.

Geoff Dyke, the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining And Energy Union's mining and energy division secretary, said the union movement broadly supported the project but his division held grave concerns.

He said the wind farm would create jobs but would not replace those lost through the closure of coal mines. “It does nothing for the jobs that are in the Latrobe Valley,” Mr Dyke said.

The turbines are likely to range in height from 185 metres to 245 metres and will probably use foundations that are driven into the seabed.

Star of the South is working with the Commonwealth government on a national legal framework for offshore wind that would pave the way for the project.

Some community members are worried about the impact of wind turbines on migratory bird paths. Mr Frost Thorhauge said the company was collecting data on bird life and this would be included in any environmental assessment.

Star of the South wind- and wave-monitoring equipment, which is collecting data off the coast of Gippsland.

In March, the company started mapping the seabed, and has deployed boats and planes to establish which marine animals are present.

Daniel Ierodiaconou, an associate professor in marine science at Deakin University, has been doing fish diversity surveys through a partnership between the university and the environmental consultancy undertaking Star of the South's exploratory work.

A biodiversity survey conducted by Star of the South wind farm off the coast around Gippsland shows a huge range of fish and sea creatures.

A biodiversity survey conducted by Star of the South wind farm off the coast

around Gippsland shows a huge range of fish and sea creatures.

About 130 baited remote underwater video stations have been dropped from a boat and left underwater for an hour to document the species that come to feed, he said. From the video, scientists have been able to identify 6000 individual fish across about 70 species.

In effect, the project might actually create artificial reefs, Mr Ierodiaconou said. “They’d be putting structures out there that are likely to generate different fish communities, like some of the existing oil and gas sector infrastructure in the Bass Strait,” he said.

“When a project of this size is touted, people speculate"
Michael Hobson, Port Albert resident

The wind farm's closest point to the coast would be about 7 kilometres (the furthest about 25 kilometres), and it would be visible from the shore.

Port Albert fisherman and restaurateur Michael Hobson said he wanted to see the results of the company’s studies on marine and bird life before deciding whether he supported the project.

Opinion was divided in the town of about 300 people, he said. While the economic benefits would be welcome, there were some concerns about the impact on the environment and the fishing industry.

Some people whose livelihoods depended on the local fishing industry were worried that the project might disturb the migratory paths of fish species, he said.Mr Hobson, whose family has lived in Port Albert for six generations since 1846, noted plans for the project had resulted in higher demand for local properties.

“When a project of this size is touted, people speculate,” he said. “I think more property has changed hands here in the last six months than there has in the past six years.”

Offshore wind is a rapidly growing industry. In the past two years, Danish offshore wind developer Orsted has doubled its value on the Copenhagen stock exchange, and is now worth more than oil giant BP.

Links

• Star of the South: Australia’s first offshore wind project
• Offshore renewable energy
• Wind farm rejection leaves clean energy advocates baffled
• Climate Change Institute: How to have fun with wind energy
• Wind industry calls on Victoria to set “bold” science-based emissions targets
• 70 Australian organisations make the switch to renewable energy
• Gas-fuelled energy ambitions a 'risk to taxpayers and renewables', experts warn

(AU) Bob Brown Is Right – It’s Time Environmentalists Talked About The Population Problem

The Conversation - Colin D. Butler

Shutterstock

Author Colin D. Butler is Honorary Professor, Australian National University

In all the talk of tackling environmental problems such as climate change, the issue of population growth often escapes attention. Politicians don’t like talking about it. By and large, neither do environmentalists – but former Greens leader Bob Brown has bucked that trend.

Brown recently declared the world’s population must start to decline before 2100, telling The Australian newspaper:

We are already using more than what the planet can supply and we use more than the living fabric of the planet in supply. That’s why we wake up every day to fewer fisheries, less forests, more extinctions and so on. The human herd at eight billion is the greatest herd of mammals ever on this planet and it is unsustainable to have that growing.

Research suggests our species has far exceeded its fair share of the planetary bounty, and Brown is right to call for the global population to peak. It is high time others joined the chorus – not only other environmentalists, but those concerned with international development and human rights.

Bob Brown says the global population should peak before 2100. Shutterstock 

Population growth, by the numbers

COVID-19 has killed more than one million people. While undeniably tragic, the figure is minor compared to world’s annual growth in population, estimated by the United Nations at about 83 million.

In 1900, the world’s population was about 1.6 billion people. By 2023 it’s expected to hit 8 billion. According to the UN, it will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100.

(The US-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation recently forecast a lower peak of about 9.7 billion by 2064, falling to about 8.8 billion by 2100.)

Why is the population growing so fast? Much of it is due to advanced fertilisers and intensive farming practices, leading to higher crop yields that can sustain more people. Health care has improved, and people are living much longer. And many parts of the world have historically had high fertility rates.

There is no expert consensus on how many people the planet can support. The answer will largely depend on how much humans produce and consume, now and in the future. Some experts believe we’ve already hit the limit.

The “planetary boundaries framework” is one way to measure Earth’s carrying capacity. Introduced about a decade ago, it involves nine planetary boundaries such as biodiversity loss, climate change and ozone depletion. If the boundaries are crossed, Earth’s capacity to support civilisation is at risk. Research suggests in some parts of the world, multiple boundaries have already been breached.

In some places, Earth’s limits have already been exceeded. Shutterstock 

It’s time to talk

In recent decades, many conservationists, politicians and scientists have been reluctant to talk about population growth.

When The Australian approached Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society regarding Brown’s remarks, the groups said they did not comment on population growth. Brown told the newspaper environmentalists avoided the issue because they were “frightened” of being targeted by News Corp.

In an address to the National Press Club this month, Greens leader Adam Bandt reportedly wouldn’t say whether he is concerned about population growth, saying “my priority is getting energy at running on 100% renewable. That makes much more of a difference than […] population size.”

Bandt wouldn’t be the first environmental advocate to avoid the topic. But why? I believe there are three main reasons.

Most obvious is the fear of being accused of racism. Some past advocates of population “control” supported eugenics and coercion, including forced sterilisation and abortion. In fact, eugenics and forced sterilisation has been reported in both rich and poor countries.

Second, the Catholic Church has played a big role in suppressing the topic. In the 1960s a papal commission suggested the church’s decades-long ban on birth control be dropped. But in 1968, Pope Paul VI rejected the advice, and declared artificial birth control to be morally wrong.

A statue of Pope Paul VI, who believed birth control was morally evil. Shutterstock

Third is the ascendancy of free-market economics. High population growth in low-income countries is convenient for capitalism, because these populations depress wages worldwide.

In 1984, the Reagan administration became the first in a long line to deny the importance of population problems. Its views were influenced by economic theorist Julian Simon, who believed adding to the world’s population was good for human well-being.

Julian Simon argued adding to the world’s population was good for human well-being. Shutterstock

Starting the conversation

As Brown said, we should be “having a mature debate” about population growth. But where to start?

An obvious beginning is the unmet demand for contraception. For example, a UN report in 2015 reported fewer than half of African women who are married or in a union, and who need contraception, have their family planning needs satisfied.

Slowing global population growth will be helped by promoting the UN Sustainable Development Goals. One goal seeks to ensure “universal access to reproductive health and family planning” by 2030. Improving female literacy – especially when combined with internet access – is also an important way to empower women.

Apart from reproductive health care, general improvements to health, including well-funded health systems, would give couples greater confidence their children will thrive. This would reduce their perceived need for additional children in case one or more dies.

These measures all require increased investment and public attention. The environmental movement, in particular, must awaken to the link between population growth and environmental degradation. “Business as usual” will hinder human development, further oppress women and magnify many forms of environmental damage.

Links

• Human Population Growth and Climate Change
• Climate explained: how growth in population and consumption drives planetary change
• Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?
• World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice
• Growing at a slower pace, world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100
• Planetary boundaries research
• United Nations: Sustainable Development
• Is global fertility really plummeting? How population forecasts are made
• How breastfeeding sparked population growth in ancient cities
• Climate explained: why we need to focus on increased consumption as much as population growth