Category Build Back Better

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!

“The Caveman Diet: We Used To Eat Meat, But Should We Now?” (PBN)

There has been a lot of talk, in recent years/decades, about the idea of eating keto/low carb/like someone who lived in a cave. However, I think we can do better than that.

(Disclaimer: I am not a nutritionist. What I am offering is what I believe is common sense advice, and the opportunity to do some further reading and research for yourself and/or with your health care provider).

With that, comes this idea that eating bacon and eggs, steak and burgers is being true to our ancestors in some way.

So, for a person who likes eating bacon and eggs, the idea that continuing to do so is not only healthy, but being supportive of one’s history and ancestors, might have a certain appeal, even if it’s not actually supported by the evidence.

And, it turn out, the link is likely not that clear, and there are a number of gaps in the logic. For example, among others:

• our bodies have changed over time
• the diet that was eaten way back then clearly did not consist of freezers full of plastic-wrapped, factory farmed steaks and other similar items, bought in bulk at the grocery store
• our lifestyle now is widely different than it was in the past
• we understand far more now than we did, even 50-100 years ago, about the climate and emissions impacts of an animal-based diet and the need to switch to a plant-based diet
• the global population now is very different than it was long ago.

Actually, yes. Cavemen used to eat meat whenever they could get it, but this wasn’t often. In fact, almost never. You try hunting animals that are bigger and/or faster than you with the most rudimentary of tools, and you’ll quickly see how hard it is to snare your supper.

So, we actually ate very little meat and, thanks to recent improvements in DNA analysis of ancient teeth fragments, we know that we survived mainly on foraging for plants, nuts, and berries. Foraging is great because it keeps you in tune with nature: in season, eating locally and physically nimble and fit.

PBN

So, where does that leave us now? To reduce emissions, help ensure that everyone has enough to eat and be healthy, and to live in balance with people and the planet, the best evidence suggests a (heavily or fully) plant-based diet as the best path forward. Looking for more ideas, or resources? My website, along with countless others, have info and resources to help make the switch to plant-based eating easier to do.

Eating consciously, along with minimalism (rethinking consumption) mindfulness (rethinking our urges) environmentalism (rethinking our relationship with nature), is vital as we look to come back from Covid better and more harmonious than before. 

Everything is up for grabs when you consider how unhelpful much of our perceived wisdom is.

So eat like a caveman and cut the meat. You’d never have kept up with that bison anyway. (Italics mine).

PBN

2020 was not the year that any of us were expecting, when the year began. A global pandemic forced a radical reset of how the world operates, in countless ways. Some of those changes were relatively easy – such as office workers switching to more remote meetings, with less travel for in person work. Other changes were much more difficult – in addition to the catastrophic death toll that results from any pandemic or other major crisis. Some of these changes, however, have resulted in a significant – if temporary – reduction in our emissions. Contrary to the frequently asked question – “When will things go back to the way they were?” – we were, globally, on a trajectory that was not sustainable. Therefore, we should, instead, be asking “How can we come out of this pandemic to something better than what we had before?” (as many people are already doing).

• Covid Took a Bite From U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2020: NYT
• BBC News – Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII
• Amid 2020’s gloom, there are reasons to be hopeful about the climate in 2021 Guardian
• InsideClimate News: Many Scientists Now Say Global Warming Could Stop Relatively Quickly After Emissions Go to Zero.
• InsideClimate News: Many Scientists Now Say Global Warming Could Stop Relatively Quickly After Emissions Go to Zero.
• Lloyd’s market to quit fossil fuel insurance by 2030: Guardian

What does coming out of this to a new, better normal look like? What changes do we need to keep? What new changes will we still need to make? There is not the space here to allow for a comprehensive answer, but there are a few key pieces to highlight:

• We must continue with the significant, rapid reduction in emissions that we saw during this pandemic. The rapid pace of change that happened showed that change is possible, where there is a will. Now, we need to maintain the momentum of these changes, without the catastrophic pressure that comes from a global pandemic. Globally, we all need to act fast, without waiting for others who might be further behind in this process.
• A Universal Basic Income is essential, for many reasons, and should be implemented as soon as possible.
• Multi-party systems, with proportional representation, seemed to fair better (based on research that others have done), and also are key to reducing polarization and misinformation campaigns. Countries that still have First-Past-The-Post or other non-proportional systems should put serious effort into switching as soon as possible.
• Food and travel/transportation are big areas of emissions, both of which we have significant control over in our daily lives. Changes are critical – and will need to go beyond what is easy or comfortable at times.

Moving into a better 2021 – and beyond – means living within our planetary boundaries, not taking more than our fair share and living simply, in balance with our global neighbours and with the earth. (Photo Credit)

Here’s to a new year, filled with lots of good things, including (but not limited to…) progress towards the end of this pandemic, strong climate action, electoral reform, peace and justice locally and globally, and civility towards each other.

Stay tuned for more website updates in the coming months. 💻😊

Link

Guardian

Further data here from the Guardian on the massive environmental impact of air travel, particularly among those who take the most flights in an average year. In addition, the failure to demand that the airline industry pay for the pollution it contributes results in a massive subsidy for airlines, while also contributing significantly to environmental degradation.

Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study.

Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated. The analysis draws together data to give the clearest global picture of the impact of frequent fliers.

Only 11% of the world’s population took a flight in 2018 and 4% flew abroad. US air passengers have by far the biggest carbon footprint among rich countries. Its aviation emissions are bigger than the next 10 countries combined, including the UK, Japan, Germany and Australia, the study reports. (Bold mine).

Guardian

With the significant pause in air travel as a result in the pandemic, what will governments and other players do to ensure that, instead of getting back to “normal” (as it was pre-pandemic), that we build back differently, with a true aim to create a sustainable future?

As a start (and this should have been done decades ago), every industry (airlines and others), must be expected to pay for the damages they create. Furthermore, there can absolutely not be any more subsidies (direct or indirect) that contribute to environmental degradation.

The researchers estimated the cost of the climate damage caused by aviation’s emissions at $100bn in 2018. The absence of payments to cover this damage “represents a major subsidy to the most affluent”, the researchers said. “This highlights the need to scrutinize the sector, and in particular the super emitters.”

Guardian

Building back better is possible, if we, collectively, choose to do it, and put the full power of government, non-profits, civil society, industry and others all together. Individually, tackling this issue means looking at giving up non-essential flights and voting in governments that will take strong action on holding polluters accountable. If we don’t do it now, when will we act?