Archives March 2021

Exclusive: documents seen by Guardian show companies fought clean-air rules despite being aware of harm caused by air pollution Guardian

As with the climate crisis, further documentation has emerged that demonstrates that the fossil fuel industry knew – at least 50 years ago (before I was even born) – that their products cause significant negative health impacts. Despite that, they have spent decades not only continuing to produce something that is known to be harmful, but actively fighting against regulations.

The documents, which include internal memos and reports, show the industry was long aware that it created large amounts of air pollution, that pollutants could lodge deep in the lungs and be “real villains in health effects”, and even that its own workers may be experiencing birth defects among their children.

But these concerns did little to stop oil and gas companies, and their proxies, spreading doubt about the growing body of science linking the burning of fossil fuels to an array of health problems that kill millions of people around the world each year. Echoing the fossil-fuel industry’s history of undermining of climate science, oil and gas interests released a torrent of material aimed at raising uncertainty over the harm caused by air pollution and used this to deter US lawmakers from placing further limits on pollutants.

Guardian

And yet, despite the overwhelmingly negative impacts of fossil fuel use -for people and the planet – not only are we not doing everything in our power to end the fossil fuel industry’s damage, nationally and globally, we are still actively subsidizing the very industry that is causing so much damage. So, things need to change – and this is not a “tweak around the edges” kind of change, but rather a complete, top to bottom systems change. Fossil fuel producers know that they are causing harm, and are actively taking massive public subsidies (direct and indirect) to continue to do things that cause harm. Essentially, we, as taxpayers, are paying them to cause harm, and then paying again to clean up the mess that they made. A radical systems change is needed (and should have started 50+ years ago, when the harm was first known.)

Among other changes, one of the most basic is to stop paying others to harm us, and require that companies (and others) pay the full price for their pollution, while actively supporting more positive options.

Clearly, pricing the negative consequences of fossil fuels, especially carbon dioxide, is critical. “If fuel prices had been set at fully efficient levels in 2015, estimated global CO2 emissions would have been 28 percent lower, fossil fuel air pollution deaths 46 percent lower, tax revenues higher by 3.8 percent of global GDP, and net economic benefits (environmental benefits less economic costs) would have amounted to 1.7 percent of global GDP,” according to the IMF report.

VOX

I firmly believe that we can’t fix what we don’t acknowledge. Denying the scale and scope of a problem does not help us get to a solution. In this case, fully understanding the scale to which some governments and major corporations are actively working against humanity is the first step towards positive change. With this info, we are now better equipped to:

• take individual action to reduce our own carbon footprint
• work in our communities and groups to collectively reduce our carbon footprint
• actively work to elect governments that are serious about tackling the climate crisis at a national and global level.

All problems are solvable, and we can do this, too, if we work together to create the positive future that we all want for future generations.

Further reading:

• Fossil fuels are underpriced by a whopping $5.2 trillion: We can’t take on climate change without properly pricing coal, oil, and natural gas. But it’s a huge political challenge. VOX
• The Guardian: UN secretary general urges all countries to declare climate emergencies.
• BBC News: Climate change: ‘Default effect’ sees massive green energy switch.

…………………………………..

There are always lots of amazing deals on sustainable, zero-waste items in my online store! Check the website for details!

Out of the many tragedies that have emerged from this pandemic, one of the few silver linings is the possibility that, once we have demonstrated the ability to completely shut down and restart our societies, we will, collectively, use that towards restarting in a manner that is safe and sustainable, for people and the planet. The power to do so is in our hands – all we have to do is make the choice, individually and collectively. The data could not be more clear – we know what we need to do, and we know how to do it.

• US urged to cut 50% of emissions by 2030 to spur other countries to action Guardian
• Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris CO2 goals – study Guardian
• NYTimes: Volvo Plans to Sell Only Electric Cars by 2030 NYT

Carbon dioxide emissions must fall by the equivalent of a global lockdown roughly every two years for the next decade for the world to keep within safe limits of global heating, research has shown. (Bold mine).

Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions of about 7% in 2020, or about 2.6bn tonnes of CO2, but reductions of between 1bn and 2bn tonnes are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement.

Guardian

Changes of this scale, as with the pandemic, are multi-faceted, including individual actions (eg wearing masks, staying home when needed to protect ourselves and others), governmental (eg clear public health orders, income support as needed), business (eg switching to curbside pickup or work from home, where applicable). Likewise, for the climate crisis, we need all levels and sectors involved, doing everything possible to get us to where we need to be.

So, in the most immediate term, reducing our emissions by 50%+ over the next few years (and then further after that) is not a small task. How are we going to get there, and what actions can we take, starting today, to get us there, in each sector?

• Reducing the size of our home by 50% will reduce our heating/cooling emissions in half (as a rough estimate, simply because we have less space to heat/cool). If, by extension, we also own less stuff, there are emissions reductions (and other gains) to be found there, as well.
• Switching from an animal-based diet to a whole-foods, plant-based diet has a significant impact (exact % depends on what you were eating before, and whether you switch fully or partly to plant-based etc)
• Living in a higher density area helps reduce driving-related emissions, as more day-today trips are within walking distance (as does using public transit or an EV when you aren’t walking or biking)
• Significantly reducing or eliminating flights will take out a significant emissions source, depending on how much you were flying before and how much you reduce. Before flying, consider whether the flight is essential or not.
• Electing governments that are serious about tackling the climate crisis
• Supporting businesses that are working to tackle the climate crisis (zero waste and others) instead of business-as-usual
• Countless others – far too many to list here. 🙂

Naturally, different people will tackle things in their own order – and for someone who already lives in a small home in a high density area, downsizing is obviously not the place to start. However, most of us have room to improve, and places to start. What changes have you already made? Which are you interested in trying next? Which are you most curious about? Which do you think will be easier or more challenging?

We’re all in this together, so let’s help each other out, and build a better future for everyone!

…………………………………….

There are always lots of amazing deals on sustainable, zero-waste items in my online store! Check the website for details!

It is shocking (and quite disturbing) to me, that some faith groups still believe that they are called to a mandate of exclusion, instead of inclusion, on any of a wide number of otherwise protected identifiers, including gender and sexuality. Over and over, to the best of my knowledge, faith group and their major texts call for love of neighbour, welcome of the stranger, living simply and service to others. Nothing in that suggests, or allows, discrimination based on who we are at our core, or an acceptance of destruction of creation. And yet, some faith groups still fight for the right to discriminate, and avoid talking serious action on the climate crisis – and it must end.

Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

NYT

At a time when we are facing multiple global crises (including a pandemic and a climate crisis), faith groups should be leaders, setting an example of how to care for all of creation – including all people, animals, and the environment. Instead, some groups still put their energy into excluding others, and denying women the right to a full range of reproductive health services, as though that is the way to a better world for everyone.

A justification that I sometimes hear from others is that something can be found somewhere in one’s ancient texts to justify discrimination. In response, I would suggest that many people only take texts literally on things that are life-limiting for others, without requiring us to change ourselves. I’m suggesting a different approach (along with countless others).

Want to take the Bible or other ancient texts literally? How about focusing on the countless times that we are told not to accumulate wealth? Living simply requires a lot more from us than telling someone else how we think they should live their lives.

Think swapping out “My faith says that you should be straight” and replacing it with “My faith says that I should be less wealthy, live in a smaller home, eat more lentils, help others more, create less garbage and drive less often.”

Likewise, the admonition to not kill or steal features in many faith texts: how about putting our energy into banning militaries and the theft of natural resources (and extreme wealth discrepancies, locally and globally) that is contributing to climate change? The list could go on and on…

For faith groups to be relevant into the future, we need to, collectively, move beyond this idea that we can live our own lives as we wish, while excluding others, and destroying the planet. We can, and must do better, together. We can do it. 🙂

……………………….

There are lots of amazing, sustainable and zero waste items in the online store! Check out the website for details!