How Women And Girls Are Ending The Fossil Fuel Era

Ms. Magazine - Antonia Juhasz

“Right now, women and girls the world over are leading the way to the end of the fossil fuel era. Our challenge is to be brave enough to follow their leadership and to have their backs and support their hard work on all of our behalf.”

18-year-old Rossmery Zayas of Southeast Los Angeles protesting in Paris during COP15, December 2015. From “The Women Taking on Climate Change,” by Antonia Juhasz. (Antonia Juhasz)

Author Antonia Juhasz is an award-winning investigative journalist. She is the author of three books, most recently, Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill. How Women And Girls Are Ending The Fossil Fuel Era is an edited and shortened version of a TEDx Talk Antonia delivered this month (see video).

We face a global climate crisis; its cause is as well-known as its cure.

We are destroying our home by the way that we produce and use fossil fuels. 

The solution? Produce and use less fossil fuels—better still, use none.

Right now, women and girls the world over are leading the way to the end of the fossil fuel era. 

Our challenge is to be brave enough to follow their leadership and to have their backs and support their hard work on all of our behalf.

VIDEO How women and girls are leading the way to the end of the fossil fuel era | Antonia Juhasz | TEDxCU

I’m an investigative journalist specializing in oil. I’ve reported from the front lines of conflicts over fossil fuels and the climate crisis from Afghanistan to Alabama and from Alaska to the Amazon. I have been astounded by the continuity of the stories of the women and girls I have reported on who are today’s climate justice leaders.

Their stories often begin with a debilitating fear—of the climate crisis, the oil company where they live, the politician controlling their fate, for the health of their children, or for what the future may bring. They describe overcoming their fear through action.

Joining together in broad social movements, they’ve achieved tangible solutions. This gives them hope and a new vision for the future, one that is free of fossil fuels.

They also face a common hurdle: invisibility. In fact, women are quoted as experts in less than 20 percent of all global news stories.

I share a few of their stories with you below.

Women and Girls Take on Fossil Fuels

In January, I reported from the near Northernmost tip of Norway in the Arctic Circle on a meeting of Arctic nation military and political leaders (mostly all male) debating whether the Arctic is set to become “the new Middle East”—an area defined by conflict, even war, over the pursuit of oil.

As one speaker put it: “I’m just not seeing how we can survive without fossil fuels.”

Mayor Lucy S. Nelson. (NWABOR)

Politely raising her hand from the audience, Inupiat Native Alaskan Lucy Nelson, expressed no such fear. 

The mayor of Alaska’s Northwest Arctic Borough, Nelson described innovative ways that she’s leading her community away from fossil fuels, implementing small-scale solar and wind solutions replacing diesel generators for homes and saving on both air quality and energy bills. She asked for help to expand her local program.

Outside of the conference, 11-year-old girls Lina and Runa stood boldly beside a banner protesting against new Arctic oil drilling.

They reminded me of 12-year-old Angelika Soriano, a self-described “Warrior for Justice” who I interviewed in Oakland, Calif., for Ms. as she protested against a proposed coal terminal. Soriano argues her asthma—that of her sister and far too many of their friends—is caused by fossil fuel pollution.

It is this same air pollution from cars and trucks, refineries and the like, that is today increasing the likelihood of death from COVID-19, and disproportionately so in low income communities of color like Sorianos.

At first, Soriano was terrified to speak out. But she described looking out at the faces of those who had come to protest with her she and a feeling coming over her that “they were all one.” “I became very brave and courageous,” she told me.

She then said to the crowd: “I know I might be little, but I can make a huge impact on this earth.”

Keep It In The Ground

Angelika, Lina and Runa are advocating for “keep it in the ground” policy, an approach supported by the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its 2014 report revealed that to avert the worst of the climate crisis, some 80 percent of fossil fuels must stay in the ground.

New York City Youth Climate Striker, September 20 2019. (Antonia Juhasz)

In 2013, I reported from Ecuador for CNN. In Quito, I interviewed Esperanza Martinez, president of Acción Ecológica and the recognized grandmother of “keep it in the ground” policy.

Nearly 25 years ago, Martinez joined partners in Nigeria to release a first-of-its kind declaration demanding the end of oil extraction and to “leave the oil in the soil” worldwide. Doing so is fundamental to confronting environmental racism, they argue, as communities and nations of color disproportionately bare the harms of oil extraction while others enjoy the benefits.

Martinez told me,

“What you lose with oil is life and nature. What you reclaim without it is imagination… The challenge is to unsoil your brain; wring the oil out and make room for the ability to embrace alternatives. … It is absolutely possible to live without oil. More than that, it is absolutely necessary.”

I left Quito traveling deep into the heart of the Amazon rainforest with Native Waorani tribal leader, Alicia Cahuilla. Cahuilla was born in Yasuni, one of the most biologically diverse places left on earth. It also sits atop Ecuador’s largest largely untapped oil reserves. Alicia is often told that exploiting this oil will end poverty, bring jobs and wealth. She replies, “We have the richness of the forest and the river. We need for nothing, except what the oil companies destroy.”

Cahuilla has unlikely allies in her fight against the oil companies—the Kichwa tribal community. There is a long history of conflict between the Waorani and Kichwa, yet the women are joined today in this struggle. Many seek a new internationally recognized category of conservation, “the Living Forest,” which would allow for the permanent protection of native forest lands as sacred sites free from extraction.

The past fall, I reported from St. James Parish, Louisiana, for Rolling Stone Magazine. I interviewed 67-year-old Sharon Lavigne who lives in “Cancer Alley,” where some 150 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities operate. Most of these operations—which are increasingly dedicated to plastics production—are concentrated in areas with the highest percentage of black and poor residents.

Sharon Lavigne leads protest through Cancer Alley in St. James Parish, Louisiana, October 2019. (Antonia Juhasz)

A retired special education teacher, at first, Lavigne was terrified to speak out. But she says, she had little choice. The industry promised jobs but instead brought pollution, treating residents as if “we’re not human beings.” It is racism that allows the industry to target her black community founded by former slaves.

Lavigne said, “They’re killing us. And ­­­that is why I am fighting.”

Over gumbo, Lavigne and a small group of friends formed RISE St. James to take on the industry. They’ve already forced out two petrochemical companies and are demanding a full moratorium on any new facilities. They want a Green Economy built on local green jobs.

Why Women and Girls Lead

One reason why women and girls lead these efforts is the disproportionate harms they face from climate change and fossil fuels. Women and children are, for example, 14 times more likely to die in a climate disaster then are men. While living near oil and gas operations increases the likelihood that women will suffer preterm births—the leading cause of infant death in the U.S.

San Francisco Youth Climate Striker, March 15, 2019. (Antonia Juhasz)

Women and girls are also responsible for up to 80 percent of the world’s food production.

Emem Okon, founder and executive director of Kebetkache Women Development and Resource Centre in Nigeria, helped me understand these interwoven threads. I interviewed Okon for Ms. as she protested against Chevron. Its persistent oil spills and gas flaring, she explained, pollute the streams and the soil, leaving them unfit for the fishing and farming on which women disproportionately rely.

Half a century of oil spills by Chevron and other companies has left southeastern Nigeria one of the most polluted places on earth. Worsening drought and floods brought on by climate change further erode the women’s ability to harvest these resources.

Last December, Okon organized a national Niger Delta Women’s Day of Action mobilizing over 3000 women and young girls from across the Delta to achieve environmental and climate justice.

The women I’ve interviewed abound in solutions, but they are virtually nonexistent among the leadership of the global energy industry. Many oppose having those same companies shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy corporations. Fossil fuels are not renewable, but they are natural, humans have cohabitated with these resources for millennia.

Sunrise Movement blocks the San Francisco Federal Building entrance, December 2018, demanding action by Rep Nancy Pelosi on a Green New Deal. (Antonia Juhasz)

The damage these companies have done in just the last 150 years through their control over oil, natural gas and coal leads many to question whether we should entrust these same companies today with the sun, wind and waves. Women I’ve interviewed from Afghanistan to North Dakota to Ethiopia are instead far more focused on building localized, small-scale, renewable, sustainable and equitably owned and distributed energy and transportation solutions.

Yet, just a miniscule amount of the money that has gone to climate change finance globally targets the local level where women are more likely to exert influence. Money instead flows to multibillion-dollar investments, most often led by men and even oil companies, seeking the “next big technology fix” to the climate change problem.

What Should Come Next?

Arundhati Roy, writes:

“Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.”

She then joined with Naomi Klein to launch an initiative for a Global Green New Deal.

Upon my return from Norway in January, I was in Denver covering a protest led by a young woman of color, Michelle Weindling, calling for a Green New Deal for Colorado and a Just Transition embracing the state’s rich wind and solar power and an end to oil and gas drilling. The election of Donald Trump had initially left Weindling with a debilitating fear.

Then, in 2018, the United Nations released its most dire warning on the climate crisis to date, giving humans just twelve years to bring down global average temperature rise. Yet, Weindling found hope in the report’s assertion that action today could avert the worst of climate catastrophe tomorrow. When she learned of the youth and female-led Sunrise Movement, she was ready to act.

Michele Weindling (left). (Antonia Juhasz)

Sunrise had joined with other groups to demand that candidates take a no fossil fuel money pledge to end “the corrupting influence” of the industry on politics and to release detailed plans for fossil fuels, environmental and climate justice. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris agreed. They even embraced Keep It In the Ground policy, committing to end new leasing for oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waterways.

Sen. Harris went further—as an original co-sponsor of The Green New Deal and pledging to pursue the managed decline of fossil fuel production around the world.

Weindling was arrested for the first time that day. As she was being placed into handcuffs, I was reminded of something she had said to me: “When all of us are pushed to our breaking point and we feel like we cannot breathe, something has to emerge. For us, it is a voice and a path to take action, together. We are acting and we will solve the climate crisis.”

Women and girls are leading the way to the end of the fossil fuel era. Will the rest of us follow?

Links

• How Young Feminists are Re-Imagining the Climate Conversation
• “All We Can Save” is the Environmental Feminist Text We Need Right Now
• (AU) 5 Australian Women Who Are Solving The Biggest Problems Of Climate Change.
• Welcome To The Feminist Climate Renaissance
• Q&A: Why Women Leading The Climate Movement Are Underappreciated And Sometimes Invisible
• India's Women Seaweed Divers Swim Against The Tide Of Climate Change
• Women Shouldering The Burden Of Climate Crisis Need Action, Not Speeches 
• Cooperate on Climate Now or We’re Doomed, UN Secretary-General Warns
• When Facts Fail To Turn Skeptics, Try Storytelling

(AU) Government Wants Military Response To Climate Change Breakdown

Michael West Media - Kellie Tranter

A bill being rushed through federal parliament is raising concerns that the Government is preparing for a militarised response to climate breakdown. Lawyer, researcher and human rights advocate Kellie Tranter reports.

Image: Courtesy ABC

The hypocrisy is extraordinary. On the one hand the Coalition Government reluctantly concedes that climate change exists at all and does little of substance to try to counteract it .

Yet on the other hand it is dedicating substantial resources to establish a wide-ranging and powerful authority to tackle what it sees as the perceived threats of disaster from climate change.

A bill being rushed through parliament – the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020 – is raising concerns that the Government is preparing for a militarised response to climate breakdown.

Freedom of Information requests show that Defence is already planning towards extreme climate change impacts.

References are made in the document of the need to “prepare for significantly more disaster support operations and potentially operations involving support to the civil power such as policing the population under exaggerated stresses such as food and water security”.

Concerns about a militarised response were heightened when it was reported in September that a new civil defence agency will be housed under the Department of Home Affairs to lead a national response to emergencies such as bushfires, pandemics and large-scale cyber attacks.

Shortly afterwards Home Affairs secretary Michael Pezzullo said that climate change risks and pandemics warrant a security rethink.

And now it has emerged that national security risks sparked by climate change have prompted the Bureau of Meteorology to forge ties with the Five Eyes intelligence alliance and that the Bureau is now part of an international group sharing weather information with an impact on national security.

Last year General Angus Campbell gave a speech in which he warned what the world could expect to see from climate change:

“In about 10 years from now global warming above pre-industrial levels is set to rise by 50%. At 1.5 degrees of warming we can expect more significant impacts. Particularly in regards to oceans, low-lying areas and human health. The poor and most vulnerable will be hardest hit. Livelihoods lost. Food scarce. Populations displaced. Diseases spreading. And this now looks like our best-case scenario.”

It’s time the Government came clean. Is it preparing for an increase of 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030? If so, that has huge ramifications for all of us in terms of food and water security.

The global trend is that countries are preparing for a military response rather than a humanitarian response to climate change and Australia seems to be adopting that same approach.

The bill’s official mantra

The official mantra is that this bill amends ‘the: Defence Act 1903 to: streamline the process for calling out members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Reserves, including for the purposes of responding to natural disasters or emergencies; and provide ADF members, other Defence personnel and members of foreign forces with immunity from criminal or civil liability in certain cases while performing duties to support civil emergency and disaster preparedness, recovery and response.’

But the rushed time frame of getting this bill through parliament is hugely concerning because it is not an innocuous bill.

It was only introduced to parliament seven weeks ago (3 September), progressed to the Senate on 6 October, was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Legislation Committee two days later, and has allowed just seven days for public written submissions to be received by 15 October, with the final report to be handed down on 4 November.

In its current form the ramifications of the bill are alarmingly wide-reaching. Its constitutional validity is questionable, it creates the potential for the politicisation of the Australian Defence Force, and it does not enshrine in legislation the non-use of force.

Proponents of the bill have tried to assure members of parliament that this bill does not permit the use of force.

Yet it was reported on 14 August, before the draft legislation was introduced to parliament, that:

“While states and territories would still need to make a request for ADF support, government sources with knowledge of the potential legislation say the changes will make it easier to deploy the military and clearly set out its roles and responsibilities. This would likely include giving defence personnel greater legal protections in the event they have to help police search a property or detain someone”. [underline emphasis added]

The Bill also fails to properly define ‘other emergencies’. It delegates too much responsibility for the call out to a single minister. It foresees foreign armies and police forces being called in, and extends to them and to local defence forces an unreasonable level of immunity from criminal and civil penalties.

Karen Elphick, from the Laws & Bills Digest Section of the Parliamentary Library, rightly points out in the Bills Digest that: ‘The removal of criminal liability for actions taken in good faith performance of duty while providing certain assistance is likely to have the practical effect of expanding the circumstances in which the ADF can use force when deployed within Australia.’ In other words, if there are no consequences, force will inevitably be used and used more widely.

We saw after the 2019-20 bushfires all along the east coast and into South Australia the desperation and anger of highly stressed communities. What might happen if you throw into such communities ADF soldiers who have been given immunity? The potential for things to go wrong is high.

Instead of taking action to prevent the worst of climate change impacts from happening, the Government is pumping money into agencies to prepare them militarily.

And if the Government possesses information or credible predictions about what’s coming does it not have a responsibility to genuinely reduce emissions and prepare its citizens for all potential eventualities?

Links

• Defence Freedom of Information (pdf)
• 'Lack of clarity': Laws to be changed to deploy the ADF domestically
• (AU) 'Dystopian Future': Climate Change To Force Review Of Military's Role
• Climate Change Poses A ‘Direct Threat’ To Australia’s National Security. It Must Be A Political Priority
• Climate Change Could Stretch Our Capabilities, Defence Force Chief Speech Warns
• Australia’s Strategic Thinkers Can’t Continue To Ignore Climate Change
• Defence Chief Sounds Warning On Surge Of Climate Change Refugees
• Defence Lacks 'Overarching Strategy' To Deal With Climate Change Conflict, Internal Notes Warn
• Defence Chief Sounds Climate Warning
• The Pentagon Is Defying Donald Trump To Protect Its Bases From Climate Change
• Statement: Chief of the Defence Force (pdf)
• BOM pivots to security over climate risks

(AU) It's Your Regular Arctic Death-Spiral Update With Brenda The Civil Disobedience Penguin

The Guardian - First Dog On The Moon

This just in blah blah blah disaster disaster who is even listening any more? Hello?!

Cartoon by First Dog on the Moon
LARGE IMAGE

Links

• (AU) Holiday Scomo or melting ice cap? Try these fun and spooky costume ideas for Halloween
• (AU) Which weird Australian fuzzy mammal you are possibly unfamiliar with is your favourite? Let’s find out!
• (AU) Senator Ian the Climate Denialist Potato on the government's plans for gas
• (AU) If the people of NSW keep electing koala hating monsters they will all be gone by 2050
• (AU) The Pain And Terror Of These Bushfires Cannot Be Held In A Single Human Heart
• (AU) Ecoterrorism? Maybe We Should Start With Ringing The Doorbell Of A Mining Magnate’s House 
• (AU) We Mustn’t Bring Politics Into The Disastrous Situation That Was Created By ... Wait For It ... POLITICS
• (AU) All That Perfectly Good Water Dumped Into The Ocean Like Some Sort Of Enormous NATURE TOILET!
• (AU) THE GRETA THUNBERG PROBLEM, So Many Men Freaking Out About The Tiny Swedish Climate Demon
• (AU) Global Climate Strikes: Don’t Say You’re Sorry. We Need People Who Can Take Action To TAKE ACTUAL ACTION
• (AU) How Actually Dare People Politicise The Bushfires By Claiming 'Scientifically' It's Linked To The Climate Crisis
• (AU) Brenda The Civil Disobedience Penguin Asks: What Will You Give Up To Save The Planet?
• (AU) Some ‘Sinister Tactics’ Those Brave Protesters In Queensland Could Have Used But Also Didn’t
• (AU) It's A Global Death Sentence To Keep Eating Like This: Dinnertime At The Foreclaws
• (AU) In Not At All Intimidating News: Adani Wants The Names Of Scientists Investigating It
• (AU) What Did You Do In The Climate Wars Daddy?
• (AU) How Do You Hug A Climate Scientist? Follow These Simple Rules And Don't Make It Weird
• (AU) Adani: It All Looks Dodgy As Hell And None Of It Has Been Explained Properly
• (AU) 'Cartoons For Future': Artists React To The Climate Crisis

(AU) One Year Since The Catastrophic Gospers Mountain Bushfire Started, Victims Say Australia's Climate Change Inaction Is 'Unforgivable'

SBS - Gavin Fernando

Over a million hectares of land were destroyed when the mega-blaze ripped across NSW on 26 October last year, leaving dozens of communities traumatised.

Firefighters watch on as the Gospers Mountain fire approaches a property at Colo Heights, north west of Sydney. AAP

It's been exactly one year since a single bolt of lightning at Gospers Mountain started one of the most devastating bushfires in Australian history.

In total, the Gospers Mountain fire on 26 October burnt 512,626 hectares across the Lithgow, Hawkesbury, Hunter Valley, Lower Hunter, Cudgegong, Blue Mountains and Central Coast districts – an area more than twice the size of the ACT.

It also joined the Kerry Ridge, Little L Complex, Grose Valley and Three Mile fires.

By the time torrential rain extinguished the megablaze in early February, it had burned through over a million hectares, killed millions of animals, destroyed a hundred homes, and left dozens of communities fearful and traumatised.

One year on, residents and community leaders are calling for more action to be done to reduce climate change, to ensure such a catastrophe never takes place again. 

NSW Rural Fire Service crews fight the Gospers Mountain Fire as it impacts a property at Bilpin, Saturday, 21 December, 2019. AAP

'I still get triggered when I smell smoke'

Luca Saunders, a Year 9 student at Blue Mountains Grammar School, said she gets triggering flashbacks to this day when she smells smoke or sees a fire truck.

Her house in Blackheath was in the middle of four different bushfires raging at the time, including the destructive Gospers Mountain fire.

“We were heavily affected by the Grose Valley fire and the Gospels Mountain fire, both of which came incredibly, incredibly close to my house on both sides.”

Luca Saunders says she still gets triggering flashbacks to the bushfires. Climate Media Centre

Luca evacuated to Victoria with her sister, and the pair were separated from their parents for three days, who stayed back to defend their house against apocalyptic conditions.

“I remember ash falling from the sky, everything being white and then at night-time there was always a red glow on the horizon,” Luca said. “It was an absolutely terrifying time, and we were never sure whether we’d see our house again tomorrow. We were never sure whether our livelihoods would be sustained into the coming year.”

“I personally get triggering flashbacks, if I see a fire truck or hear a siren,” she added. “Or if I smell smoke in the air.

Luca said it was “incredibly frustrating” for bushfire survivors to see how the federal government responded to the crisis.

“With the COVID-19 pandemic their response was incredibly quick, and it was very frustrating for survivors to see that that didn't happen when our lives are being affected by the climate crisis, and these bushfires,” she said.

“It's also incredibly difficult to see that a year on from this crisis that we face in this country. The government still has not advanced in its climate regulation, because it's widely publicly understood that the climate crisis was the root cause of the bush fires.”

An image taken from a plane window, captures smoke from the Gospers Mountain bushfires in December, 2019. AAP

'Lack of action on climate change is unforgivable'

Jim Casey, who has been a Sydney firefighter for more than 20 years, attended the Gospers Mountain blaze multiple times.

“The scale of the fire is what really sticks with me,” he said. “This fire had its own ecosystem in terms of the amount of heat it was generating. But it wasn’t alone - we had fires burning, really from the Queensland border to the Victorian border, and thousands and thousands of men and women trying to deal with it as best they could.”

Jim Casey has urged the federal government to do more to tackle climate change. Climate Media Centre

Mr Casey said climate change was “beyond doubt” what kicked the fires into overdrive, and the extreme weather associated with climate change.

“We had a short and warm winter which narrowed the window in which we could do hazard reduction burning, and then summer was unseasonably hot, with dry lightning strikes at the tail end of the drought,” he said. “And so you end up with the climate catastrophic firestorm that characterised the last fire season.”

He said managing fire risks to a substantial degree requires “political action” on fossil fuel burning, and on climate change itself.

“What is unforgivable in my opinion is the failure of the government to act upon the root causes of these fires,” he said. “Every inquiry, all of the bushfire scientists, the ex-fire chiefs all agree that it was climate change that pushed these fires into overdrive.

“And for that to be addressed we must start talking about the burning of fossil fuels, exports of fossil fuels and moving towards some kind of carbon-neutral future.

“Instead our government warns to start mining gas and selling that. It simply isn’t good enough. It’s fiddling while Australia burns,” Mr Casey said.

Links

• (AU) Early Warning: Human Detectors, Drones And The Race To Control Australia’s Extreme Bushfires
• (AU) NT Bushfire Scientists Research Controlled Burns And Their Impacts On Darwin's Biodiversity
• (AU) Act Now On Wildfires, Global Climate Change, Human Health, Study Says
• (AU) New ANU Centre To Target Bushfires Through Satellites, GPS-Guided Water Gliders
• (AU) Fire Lessons From Australia’s South Coast
• (AU) More Bushfires, Less Volcanoes: Young Australians Need To Learn About More Relevant Disasters
• (AU) National Fire Monitoring Agency Needed To Track Rising Threats: Paper
• (AU) Under Climate Change, Winter Will Be The Best Time For Bush Burn-Offs – And That Could Be Bad News For Public Health
• (AU) Fossil Fuel Industry Levy Should Pay For Bushfire Impact, Climate Action Group Report Says
• (AU) ‘Unequivocal Link’ Between Extreme Bushfires And Climate Crisis
• (AU) Almost 3 Billion Animals Affected By Australian Bushfires, Report Shows
• (AU) 'Climate Change War' Demands National, Military-Style Response: Ex-Fire Chiefs
• (AU) Australia’s Shifting Mood On Climate Change

(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