2 September 2015, The Guardian, The easiest way to respond to a natural disaster? Blame God or global warming. For politicians, it’s convenient to have an incorporeal bogey man for a scapegoat. And the bonus is that global warming doesn’t vote. Katrina was the big bad storm for which we were totally unprepared. It’s like adulthood. You know it’s coming. You think you’re ready but you’re not. You’ve completely underestimated its force and power. Of course we can blame our buddy Brownie and company for how the emergency response was mishandled, but what actually caused the storm, again? It’s uber fashionable to blame global warming in some circles and god in another – but what do scientists have to say? Savvy politicians blame natural disasters like Katrina on global warming, but then deny global warming exists when it becomes too expensive to do anything about it or when they need campaign donations. It’s convenient to have an incorporeal bogey man to blame. And bonus: global warming doesn’t vote. When pressed by concerned constituents to say what they’re actually doing about this growing environmental menace to society, politicians spring into action by assembling task forces (because people work so well in groups). At the speed of evolution, politicians will superficially review the task force’s findings, dispute the findings, shelve the findings and start the process again – but only if pressed. This data dance might take about 10 years to do, which is just in time for the next natural disaster. Read More here
Category Archives: PLEA Network
1 September 2015, Urgenda, The Hague – The Dutch government today announced its intention to appeal against the verdict of the district court in The Hague in the Dutch Climate Case last June. “We have full confidence in the outcome of the appeal” Marjan Minnesma, director of Urgenda reacted. In its letter to parliament the government also announced it will start taking measures to reach the target that was ordered by to court, pending the appeal. In its verdict the District court of The Hague ordered the Dutch government to reduce its emissions by a minimum of 25% by 2020 compared to 1990. The Netherlands are currently on a path towards 17% in 2020. Marjan Minnesma :“The government knows 25% is not nearly enough if you consider the enormity of the dangers that climate change poses to us. Much more is needed, so we hope that politicians in the Netherlands will take their responsibility and make a true effort to speed up the transition towards a 100% sustainable economy. We have been waiting for political leadership on this topic for a very long time.” In its letter announcing the appeal the government mentions a number of legal questions as the reason for appealing the judgement. Read More here
28 August 2015, The Conversation, The ‘green-tech’ future is a flawed vision of sustainability. What does your vision of a sustainable future look like? Some people imagine a scenario whereby technology solves the world’s most pressing environmental problems. In this world we all drive electric cars and have solar panels on our roofs that power our air conditioners and flat-screen televisions. We purchase “eco” products that provide all the convenience and comfort but without degrading the planet. We continue consuming and growing our economies, yet Mother Nature wins too. But I and my colleague Josh (who co-wrote this article) would argue that this vision of sustainability is flawed, and will in fact drive greater damage to the world, its ecosystems, and us. So how has this vision come to dominate? Why is ‘green-tech’ so popular? There seem to be three main reasons why the “green-tech” conception of sustainability is dominant. First, it is good for business. Sustainability is presented as something we can either purchase as consumers or sell as green entrepreneurs. There is no conflict here between consumer capitalism and sustainability, so the powers that be need not feel threatened. As the sustainable design website Inhabitat declares: “Design will save the world”. Read More here
26 August 2015, NASA The fingerprints of sea level rise. When you fill a sink, the water rises at the same rate to the same height in every corner. That’s not the way it works with our rising seas. According to the 23-year record of satellite data from NASA and its partners, the sea level is rising a few millimeters a year — a fraction of an inch. If you live on the U.S. East Coast, though, your sea level is rising two or three times faster than average. If you live in Scandinavia, it’s falling. Residents of China’s Yellow River delta are swamped by sea level rise of more than nine inches (25 centimeters) a year. These regional differences in sea level change will become even more apparent in the future, as ice sheets melt. For instance, when the Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is totally gone, the average global sea level will rise four feet. But the East Coast of the United States will see an additional 14 to 15 inches above that average. Read More here