View previous stories
	US Supreme Court right-wing majority ruling undermines EPA regulatory authority by Washington Post, agencies   June 2022   US Supreme Court right-wing majority ruling undermines EPA regulatory authority and guts protections for the environment. (Washington Post, agencies)   The U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority has handed down a decision that will severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, undermining the federal government's ability to combat the climate emergency.   In its 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court's conservative justices—led by Chief Justice John Roberts—sided with the coal industry and Republican attorneys general who sought to curb the EPA's rulemaking powers under the Clean Air Act.   Amy Coney Barrett, one of the right-wing justices who voted to limit the EPA's authority, has family ties to the fossil fuel industry.   Liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissent that "today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'"   Environmentalists echoed that assessment in response to the majority's decision. According to EPA data, the power sector represents the United States' second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.   "A Supreme Court that sides with the fossil fuel industry over the health and safety of its people is anti-life and beyond broken," said John Paul Mejia, national spokesperson for the youth-led Sunrise Movement. "We cannot and will not let our Democratic leaders standby while an illegitimate court and the GOP goes on the offense."   Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said in a statement that the court's ruling is "part of a broad-based assault on the ability of regulators to protect our air, water, and climate."   "Long-sought by corporate polluters, industry-backed think tanks, and politicians who serve monied fossil fuel interests, this decision strikes at the heart of federal experts' ability to do their jobs," added Hauter, who stressed that "while this ruling intends to hamstring the federal government's ability to regulate dangerous emissions, it does not signal the end of climate action."   "The climate movement must and will continue to pressure agencies and elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels to enact policies that ensure a swift reduction in climate pollution and an end to the fossil fuel era," Hauter said. "The Supreme Court will not stand in the way of the fight for a livable planet."   The court's ruling spells serious issues for President Joe Biden's vow to put the U.S. on a path to 100% clean electricity by 2035. Meanwhile, the administration is moving ahead with oil and gas leasing on public lands, drawing backlash and legal action from climate groups.   The People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition, made up of more than 1,000 U.S.-based environmental groups, called on Biden to use his still-existing authority to "declare a climate emergency and stop new fossil fuel leases, exports, pipelines, and other infrastructure today."   "Using authorities under the National Emergencies Act and the Defense Production Act," the coalition noted, "the president could also halt crude oil exports, stop offshore oil and gas drilling, restrict international fossil fuel investment, and rapidly manufacture and distribute clean and renewable energy systems."   Earlier:   Climate advocates are apprehensively watching the U.S. Supreme Court this morning as it's expected to deliver a ruling that could imperil the federal government's regulatory authority to rein in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, striking a potentially serious blow to global efforts to fight the climate crisis.   The case, formally known as West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, is the culmination of a years long legal campaign by Republican attorneys general and right-wing activists financed by the oil and gas industry, which is hoping the high court's right-wing supermajority will hand down a decision that guts the EPA's rulemaking authority.   If the court does just that, it will undermine President Joe Biden's stated goal of transitioning the U.S. to a 100% clean electricity sector by 2035. As the Washington Post notes, West Virginia v. EPA "comes before a Supreme Court that's even more conservative than the one that stopped the Obama administration's plan to drastically reduce power plants' carbon output in 2016."   "This will undoubtedly be the most important environmental law case on the court’s docket this term, and could well become one of the most significant environmental law cases of all time," said Jonathan Adler, an environmental law expert at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.   Given the United States' status as the world's largest historical emitter and second-largest current emitter of planet-warming carbon dioxide, the Supreme Court's decision will have serious ramifications for global efforts to avert climate catastrophe.   "The Supreme Court could hand down an extreme decision in the case of West Virginia v. EPA, which would devastate the federal government's ability to curb climate chaos," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said late Wednesday. "The Supreme Court must not give corporations license to recklessly destroy our planet."   Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) similarly warned earlier this week that the Supreme Court's ruling "could unleash a new era of reckless deregulation that will gut protections for all Americans and the environment."   http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/25/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia/ http://www.nrdc.org/stories/supreme-court-about-hamstring-epa-its-fight-against-climate-change http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/us-supreme-court-ruling-restricts-federal-power-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/science-shows-us-supreme-court-abortion-guns-environment-rulings-will-have-devastating-consequences/ http://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/originalism-run-amok-supreme-court http://standupamerica.com/action/ctt-scotus/   http://coveringclimatenow.org/climate-beat-story/us-supreme-court-v-climate-action-and-the-stories-that-will-follow/ http://tomdispatch.com/extreme-life/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/supreme-court-decisions-term-abortion-guns-climate-documentaries-conservative-majority/ http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/radical-supreme-court-undermining-democracy-in-america-by-george-soros-2022-07   * United Nations News: US Supreme Court ruling on environmental protection ‘a setback in our fight against climate change’: http://news.un.org/en/story/2022/06/1121782   Feb. 2022   At U.S. Congressional Hearing, Climate Experts expose inadequacies of Big Oil’s Climate Pledges   Washington, D.C. (February 8, 2022)— Today, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Rep. Ro Khanna, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, held a hearing to examine whether climate pledges made by fossil fuel companies Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP are adequate to address global warming.   “The message is clear: Big Oil intends to continue its playbook from the past four decades, fighting meaningful action to prevent climate change while engaging in a PR campaign to deceive the public,” said Chairwoman Maloney in her opening statement.   “This Committee will not stand for it. We launched this investigation to get to the bottom of Big Oil’s role in contributing to climate change, and we will get to the truth about these pledges.”   The Committee heard testimony from Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor of Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University; Mark van Baal, Founder, Follow This; Tracey Lewis, Policy Counsel, Public Citizen; and Katie Tubb, Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation.   Climate experts emphasized how fossil fuel climate pledges are part of the industry’s “greenwashing” campaign of publicly supporting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals while investing only a tiny fraction in renewable energy solutions.   When asked by Chairman Khanna about the sufficiency of ExxonMobil’s pledge that excludes downstream emissions from its products in its net-zero pledges, Dr. Mann emphasized that “it’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s not addressing the gorilla in the room.”   Rep. Tlaib asked Mr. van Baal about BP’s efforts to brand itself as an “integrated energy company.” Mr. van Baal commented: “If you claim to be in an energy transition, you claim to pivot to other sources of energy ... then you would at least spend 50% of your investments in this new business model. These companies with their small amounts—which by the way are most of the time smaller than their marketing amounts—risk being the Kodaks of the 21st Century.”   When questioned by Rep. Connolly on Big Oil’s disinformation campaign, Ms. Lewis agreed that the fossil fuel companies are “the same as big tobacco; the goal here is to cause people to believe one thing while the companies are doing the exact opposite.”   Witnesses laid out specific steps companies must take immediately to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions and reach net zero emissions by 2050 to avoid a climate catastrophe.   Mr. Van Baal stated: “Shareholders sent an unequivocal message: we need oil majors to cut emissions. However, Shell, BP, Chevron, and Exxon still intend to grow their emissions this decade, and they have no intentions to stop doing so.”   He also compared fossil fuel companies’ tactics to the tobacco industry, adding: “With such goals, ExxonMobil is really like a tobacco company, which pledges to prohibit smoking in their factories, while continuing to produce and sell cigarettes.”   In response to Rep. Connolly’s question about what fossil fuel companies are currently doing to curb emissions, Dr. Mann stated: “My understanding is that they actually plan to continue to expand fossil fuel exploration in the years ahead. And that is actually fundamentally inconsistent with what the International Energy Agency, a pretty conservative body, has said that if we are to stabilize warming below catastrophic levels, there can be no new fossil fuel infrastructure.”   Climate experts and Members made clear that, as a result of fossil fuel companies’ actions, climate change is already happening, and its effects disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color.   Under questioning by Rep. Brown, Ms. Lewis stated that Big Oil’s misleading pledges mean “increased death, poor health outcomes, cancer, and all types of diseases [that would] primarily affect low-income, minority, and marginalized communities.”   In an exchange with Rep. Bush on Big Oil’s prioritization of profits over Black lives, Ms. Lewis noted that fossil fuel plants “will never be built in the center of town, never be built in wealthy neighborhoods like on University in St. Louis. That won’t happen. They are going to be in the underserved communities where Black and brown people live in urban areas, where indigenous people live, and will impact their health.”   Climate experts made clear that dangerous climate change is already happening now, and fossil fuel companies must act urgently.   In response to Chairwoman Maloney’s question on how much time we have in order to prevent a climate catastrophe, Dr. Mann answered: “We have zero time.”   In an exchange with Rep. Raskin, Dr. Mann emphasized: “Dangerous climate change is here. If you’re Puerto Rico, if you’re California, if you’re Australia, if you’re my home state of Pennsylvania, with all that record flooding with Hurricane Ida. We are already seeing devastating consequences of climate change, and it will simply get worse and worse. The real danger is that we start to cross certain tipping points, where the damage that we do is irreversible on human time scales.”   In response to a question from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Van Baal reiterated the need for Big Oil to act now, noting: “In the next ten years we will win or lose the fight against climate change.”   Democrats on the panel asked Mann to address carbon capture and storage (CCS) as well as nature-based solutions such as planting trees—both of which critics warn polluters only promote so they can keep extracting and burning fossil fuels.   "The climate crisis is not a theoretical problem for the future, it's an imminent problem and crisis right now," Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said near the end of the hearing. "It is real and it is here. In order to confront it, we need real solutions that are proven to work and to keep our planet safe."   The congresswoman noted that fossil fuel giants often point to CCS "as a way to offset their greenhouse gas emissions while allowing them to continue producing their toxic product at the same level," despite a lack of evidence that such technology actually works.   "Dr. Mann, have there been advancements in CCS technology that make you believe it will perform as advertised by fossil fuel companies?" Pressley asked.   "No, I don't see any evidence at this point," Mann said. "There hasn't been a proof of concept that shows that you can use CCS and produce energy without producing carbon pollution, and as long as there's no proof of concept for that, then obviously it's not a meaningful climate solution and it displaces meaningful climate solutions like clean energy, renewable energy."   Pressley said she "wholeheartedly" agrees that CCS is unproven and highlighted that its risks are "catastrophically dangerous," referencing February 2020, when a pressurized pipe containing carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide ruptured and left residents of Mississippi's Yazoo County "convulsing, foaming at the mouth, and even unconscious."   Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) pointed out that some companies—such as Shell—push for nature-based solutions, and asked for Mann's perspective.   "This is a common sort of pledge that you hear from fossil fuel producers," Mann said. "It's a bit of a shell game because the idea is that we can offset these fossil fuels that are carbon that's been buried beneath the surface of the planet for millions of years, that we can somehow offset that by planting trees whose lifetime may be decades or at most centuries. And if you actually look at the residence time of that carbon, it's not equivalent. You can't make up for the carbon pollution we're extracting from the Earth by just simply expanding forests."   "And in fact, in recent years, we've seen that it can work in just the opposite direction, because we're seeing worse drought and worse wildfires, and so we're seeing much of that carbon that is stored in forests increasingly burning and putting that carbon back into the atmosphere," the expert explained. "So it is not a viable strategy for really reducing carbon emissions, but it does give fossil fuel interests a convenient talking point."   While reiterating "there is no evidence that these sorts of projects can be viable at the scale that is necessary to reduce net carbon into the atmosphere," Mann also emphasized that "what does work is moving away from fossil fuels, toward renewable energy."   Lawmakers also relied on Mann to debunk other industry greenwashing. Noting that fossil fuel companies are still "touting natural gas as the clean solution to climate change," Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked him to explain why gas is also "not a viable alternative for the future."   "Natural gas is a fossil fuel," Mann responded. "When you burn it, it generates carbon pollution—maybe somewhat less than when you burn coal, but at the same time, the process of extracting natural gas from the ground …hydraulic fracturing or fracking, releases what we call fugitive methane."   "Natural gas is mostly methane," he added. "It releases that into the atmosphere, and methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on the relevant timescales of one or two decades, and so there is no reason to believe that natural gas is any more climate-friendly than other fossil fuels—and investing in natural gas is crowding out investment in true clean, renewable energy that can help us decarbonize our economy and address the climate crisis."   Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Tuesday that "we're grateful to Chairs Maloney and Khanna for their continued work to advance the committee's investigation and hold the fossil fuel industry accountable."   "It's now a matter of congressional record that the fossil fuel industry's 'business-as-usual' plans are exacerbating the climate crisis, not reducing emissions," Wiles said. "Today's hearing made it clear that Big Oil’s misleading pledges are simply more deception from an industry that has lied about climate change for decades."   "We now know why the Big Oil board members were not eager to participate in this hearing—even the industry's staunchest defenders could not contest the fundamental fact that these companies are fueling climate change and are not serious partners in solutions," he added.   Michael Mann, warned lawmakers about the dangers of inaction.   "Dangerous climate change is here. We are already seeing devastating consequences of climate change, and it will simply get worse and worse."   http://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/at-hearing-climate-experts-expose-inadequacies-of-big-oil-s-climate-pledges   Feb. 2022   Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change   The United Nations and the world’s scientists are calling for an end to fossil fuels in the third instalment of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, saying there must be “rapid, deep and immediate cuts” to greenhouse gas emissions.   The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has released its landmark Working Group III report, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, compiled by thousands of scientists over the past eight years.   The central message of the IPCC report is clear: despite affordable renewable energy solutions being available now, governments and businesses are failing to act. Global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2025 and halve by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.   The IPCC said the dramatic reductions in the cost of wind, solar and battery storage technologies over the last decade meant they were already commercially viable and would be the key to decarbonising most of the world’s energy systems.   UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres lambasted high emitting countries saying: “Some government and business leaders are saying one thing but doing another. Simply put, they are lying and the results will be catastrophic… but high emitting governments and corporations are not just turning a blind eye, they are adding fuel to the flames. They are choking our planet, based on their vested interests and historic investments in fossil fuels, when cheaper renewable solutions provide green jobs, energy security and greater price stability.”   “Current climate pledges would mean a 14% increase in emissions and most major emitters are not taking the steps needed to fulfil even these inadequate promises.”   http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/one-billion-children-extremely-high-risk-impacts-climate-crisis-unicef http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/born-climate-crisis-why-we-must-act-now-secure-childrens-rights http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/10/un-child-rights-committee-rules-countries-bear-cross-border-responsibility?LangID=E&NewsID=27644 http://www.ciel.org/news/legal-principles-shed-new-light-on-human-rights-of-future-generations/ http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles http://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1102582 http://www.ipcc.ch/2022/02/28/pr-wgii-ar6/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/ Visit the related web page
	51 million people are internally displaced by conflict and violence by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency   Nov. 2021   The trend in rising forced displacement continued into 2021 – with global numbers now exceeding 84 million – as more people fled violence, insecurity and the effects of climate change, according to the Mid-Year Trends report released today by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.   The report, for January-June 2021, showed an increase from 82.4 million at end 2020. This resulted largely from internal displacement, with more people fleeing multiple active conflicts around the world, especially in Africa. The report also noted that COVID-19 border restrictions continued to limit access to asylum in many locations.   “The international community is failing to prevent violence, persecution and human rights violations, which continue to drive people from their homes,” said Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. “In addition, the effects of climate change are exacerbating existing vulnerabilities in many areas hosting the forcibly displaced”.   Nearly 51 million people are now internally displaced, as conflict and violence flared around the world during the first half of 2021. Much of the new internal displacement was in Africa, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1.3 million) and in Ethiopia (1.2 million). Violence in Myanmar and Afghanistan also forced people from their homes between January-June 2021.   The number of refugees also continued to increase during the first half of 2021, reaching nearly 21 million. Most new refugees came from five countries: Central African Republic (71,800), South Sudan (61,700) Syria (38,800), Afghanistan (25,200) and Nigeria (20,300).   The lethal mix of conflict, COVID-19, poverty, food insecurity and the climate emergency has compounded the humanitarian plight of the displaced, most of whom are hosted in developing regions.   Solutions for forcibly displaced populations remain in short supply. Under 1 million internally displaced people and 126,700 refugees were able to return home in the first half of 2021.   “The international community must redouble its efforts to make peace, and at the same time must ensure resources are available to displaced communities and their hosts. It is the communities and countries with the fewest resources that continue to shoulder the greatest burden in protecting and caring for the forcibly displaced, and they must be better supported by the rest of the international community,” Grandi added.   http://www.unhcr.org/emergencies.html http://story.internal-displacement.org/2021-midyear-review/index.html Visit the related web page
	View more stories