[✔️] September 3, 2022 - Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Sat Sep 3 05:33:47 EDT 2022
/*September 3, 2022*/
/[ burning gas is bad, but far less harmful than venting it into the
atmosphere ]/
*Climate change: Russia burns off gas as Europe's energy bills rocket*
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
26 August
As Europe's energy costs skyrocket, Russia is burning off large amounts
of natural gas, according to analysis shared with BBC News.
They say the plant, near the border with Finland, is burning an
estimated $10m (£8.4m) worth of gas every day.
Experts say the gas would previously have been exported to Germany.
Germany's ambassador to the UK told BBC News that Russia was burning the
gas because "they couldn't sell it elsewhere".
Scientists are concerned about the large volumes of carbon dioxide and
soot it is creating, which could exacerbate the melting of Arctic ice.
- -
Mark Davis is the CEO of Capterio, a company that is involved in finding
solutions to gas flaring.
He says the flaring is not accidental and is more likely a deliberate
decision made for operational reasons.
"Operators often are very hesitant to actually shut down facilities for
fear that they may be technically difficult or costly to start up again,
and it's probably the case here," he told BBC News.
Others believe that there could be technical challenges in dealing with
the large volumes of gas that were being supplied to the Nord Stream 1
pipeline.
Russian energy company Gazprom may have intended to use that gas to make
LNG at the new plant, but may have had problems handling it and the
safest option is to flare it off.
It could also be the result of Europe's trade embargo with Russia in
response to the invasion of Ukraine.
"This kind of long-term flaring may mean that they are missing some
equipment," said Esa Vakkilainen, an energy engineering professor from
Finland's LUT University.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133#comments
/[ not surprising - controversial re-calculation ]/
*Costs of climate change far surpass government estimates, study says*
The new comprehensive analysis pegs the social cost of carbon at $185 a
ton — more than triple the current federal standard
By Dino Grandoni and Brady Dennis
September 1, 2022...
- -
The research team’s key finding: Each additional ton of carbon dioxide
that cars, power plants and other sources add to the atmosphere costs
society $185 — more than triple the federal government’s current figure.
The new study calculating climate change’s economic toll — known as the
“social cost of carbon” — could renew pressure on President Biden to
hike the federal government’s own estimate, a crucial number used by
officials when assessing the potential costs and benefits of government
regulations...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/09/01/costs-climate-change-far-surpass-government-estimates-study-says/
- -
[from the Journal Nature ]
*Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2*
Nature
Article Published: 01 September 2022
Kevin Rennert, Frank Errickson, Brian C. Prest, Lisa Rennels, Richard G.
Newell, William Pizer, Cora Kingdon, Jordan Wingenroth, Roger Cooke,
Bryan Parthum, David Smith, Kevin Cromar, Delavane Diaz, Frances C.
Moore, Ulrich K. Müller, Richard J. Plevin, Adrian E. Raftery, Hana
Ševčíková, Hannah Sheets, James H. Stock, Tammy Tan, Mark Watson, Tony
E. Wong & David Anthoff
Nature (2022)
Abstract
The social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) measures the monetized
value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric
tonne of CO2 emissions and is a key metric informing climate policy.
Used by governments and other decision-makers in benefit-cost
analysis for over a decade, SC-CO2 estimates draw on climate
science, economics, demography, and other disciplines. However, a
2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no
longer reflect the latest research. The report provided a series of
recommendations for improving the scientific basis, transparency,
and uncertainty characterization of SC-CO2 estimates. Here we show
that improved probabilistic socioeconomic projections, climate
models, damage functions, and discounting methods that collectively
reflect theoretically consistent valuation of risk, substantially
increase estimates of the SC-CO2. Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate
is $185 per tonne of CO2 ($44-413/t-CO2: 5-95% range, 2020 US
dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2 percent, a
value 3.6-times higher than the US government’s current value of
$51/t-CO2. Our estimates incorporate updated scientific
understanding throughout all components of SC-CO2 estimation in the
new open-source GIVE model, in a manner fully responsive to the
near-term NASEM recommendations. Our higher SC-CO2 values, compared
to estimates currently used in policy evaluation, substantially
increase the estimated benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation and
thereby increase the expected net benefits of more stringent climate
policies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586%E2%80%90022%E2%80%9005224%E2%80%909
/[ 9 min video report from PBS - Africa ]/
*Historic drought followed by flooding threatens crops and farms in East
Africa*
14,781 views Aug 31, 2022 The toll from extreme weather has devastated
vast regions of sub-Saharan Africa which are suffering from the worst
drought conditions on record and a food crisis that ranges from severe
to catastrophic. Correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro looks at one effort to
help farmers impacted by the changing weather patterns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXHTMC26jD8
/[ California acting as a nation ] /
*California Approves a Wave of Aggressive New Climate Measures*
After lobbying by the governor, lawmakers adopted $54 billion in climate
spending and voted to keep open the state’s last nuclear plant.
By Brad Plumer
Sept. 1, 2022
California, with an economy that ranks as the world’s fifth-largest,
embarked this week on its most aggressive effort yet to confront climate
change, after lawmakers passed a flurry of bills designed to cut
emissions and speed away from fossil fuels.
Legislators approved a record $54 billion in climate spending and passed
sweeping new restrictions on oil and gas drilling as well as a mandate
that California stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2045.
And they voted to extend the life of Diablo Canyon, California’s last
nuclear power plant, by five years, a step once unthinkable to many
environmentalists. Proponents said that California, which is again
struggling to keep the lights on amid a scorching heat wave this week,
needed the emissions-free electricity from the nuclear plant while other
clean sources like wind and solar ramp up.
The bills, passed late Wednesday night , marked a victory for Gov. Gavin
Newsom, a Democrat who has sought to portray himself as a climate leader
as he has raised his national profile and begun drawing speculation
about a possible White House run.
Mr. Newsom surprised lawmakers in mid-August when he urged them to pass
ambitious climate bills, many of which had failed in previous years. In
the end, all of his proposals passed but one: a bill to strengthen the
state’s 2030 target for slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas
emissions, which fell short by four votes in the State Assembly.
“Together with the Legislature’s leadership, the progress we make on the
climate crisis this year will be felt for generations and the impact
will spread far beyond our borders,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement.
The new actions by California add momentum to efforts nationwide to rein
in pollution from the combustion of oil, gas and coal that is
overheating the planet.
In August, President Biden signed an expansive climate law that would
invest $370 billion over the next decade in wind, solar and nuclear
power. But that law alone won’t be enough to eliminate U.S. greenhouse
gases by 2050, a target that climate scientists say the world as a whole
must reach to avoid climate catastrophe. To help close the gap, White
House officials have said that states need to do more.
California already has some of the nation’s most stringent policies to
promote renewable energy and shift away from oil, gas and coal. Last
month, state regulators finalized plans to ban the sale of new
gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a policy that is widely expected to
accelerate the global transition toward cleaner electric vehicles.
But as record-breaking heat, drought and wildfires have battered the
state, Mr. Newsom has faced increasing pressure to do more. While
lawmakers voted in Sacramento, the National Weather Service warned that
a “very dangerous” heat wave would grip the state this week.
Under new legislation passed Wednesday, the state will have to cut
greenhouse gases at least 85 percent by 2045 while offsetting any
remaining emissions by planting more trees or using nascent technologies
like direct air capture, which collects carbon dioxide after it has
already been discharged into the atmosphere.
Still, setting an ambitious goal is only a first step. For now, the
state is not even on track to meet its 2030 targets, said Danny
Cullenward, policy director at CarbonPlan, a nonprofit group that
evaluates climate solutions. He argued that California regulators were l
putting too much faith in a cap-and-trade program that imposes a ceiling
on emissions from large polluters but that has been criticized as being
too lenient.
“In my view, they still don’t have a realistic plan for implementation,
and that’s the most important part,” Mr. Cullenward said.
[ what a great photograph
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/09/01/climate/01cli-calclimate1/merlin_212249133_071bd415-f89a-4fd6-9455-e498afd7524c-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp]
Other bills passed by the legislature would require more concrete steps.
Lawmakers approved a budget laid out by Mr. Newsom that would spend a
record $54 billion over five years on climate programs. That includes
$6.1 billion for electric vehicles, including money to buy new
battery-powered school buses, $14.8 billion for transit, rail and port
projects, more than $8 billion to clean up and stabilize the electric
grid, $2.7 billion to reduce wildfire risks and $2.8 billion in water
programs to deal with drought.
As part of that spending package, legislators endorsed a plan to keep
open the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, a pair of nuclear reactors on the
state’s central coast that provide 9 percent of California’s electricity.
Those reactors were originally scheduled to close in 2024 and 2025, but
the new plan extends those deadlines to 2029 and 2030 while providing a
$1.4 billion loan to Pacific Gas & Electric, the utility that operates
the plant. PG&E is also expected to apply for money from a new $6
billion federal program designed to keep open existing nuclear plants.
Mr. Newsom had once been a firm believer that Diablo Canyon should shut
down, siding with activists and environmentalists concerned about its
impact on marine life and the risk posed by nuclear reactors sitting on
several seismic fault lines. But as California has faced increasingly
severe heat waves that drive up demand for electricity, and regulators
warn of potential power shortages, Mr. Newsom reversed course and urged
lawmakers to keep the plant open.
Some environmental groups opposed the move, arguing that the money would
be better spent on solar and wind power and batteries. But supporters of
keeping the plant open warned that California badly needed the
electricity, and if the plant closed, it would be replaced with more
polluting sources like natural gas.
In a letter to the Assembly on Tuesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Democrat of California, urged state lawmakers to act. “The alternative
to the closure of the reactors at Diablo Canyon will most likely be
additional natural gas generation, which would reverse progress on
emissions reductions and worsen air quality,” she wrote.
One of the most contentious measures passed by the legislature is a
requirement that new oil and gas wells be set back at least 3,200 feet
from homes, schools and hospitals, while imposing strict pollution
controls on existing wells within that distance.
California is the nation’s seventh-largest producer of oil, but has
never before enforced buffer zones around wells the way states like
Colorado and Pennsylvania do. Backers of the new rules estimated that
2.7 million Californians live within 3,200 feet of oil and gas wells,
and a state health panel concluded last year that living near active
wells increases the risk of asthma, heart attacks and premature births.
For years, environmental justice groups had unsuccessfully lobbied for
setback requirements, but they faced fierce lobbying from oil and gas
companies, which argued that the requirements would cripple energy
production and drive up fuel costs.
This time, Mr. Newsom threw his weight behind the setback bill and it
passed, to the dismay of industry groups.
“The oil and gas industry is not opposed to setbacks and in fact,
supports local setbacks,” said Kevin Slagle, a spokesman for the Western
States Petroleum Association. “However, a one-size-fits-all, political
mandate for the entire state does little to protect health and safety,
will make us more dependent on foreign oil and will likely increase
costs for fuel and energy.”
Another bill directs regulators to establish guidelines for the use of
carbon capture and storage, which involves trapping carbon dioxide from
polluting industrial facilities and burying it underground. Mr. Newsom
has said the technology, which has struggled to gain traction because of
high costs, is needed for the state to meet its climate targets, though
some climate activists oppose it because it would allow industries to
keep burning fossil fuels. Notably, the legislation would ban the use of
captured carbon dioxide for extracting more crude oil.
Earlier in the week, lawmakers also approved several new bills to
encourage denser housing in cities and to lift requirements that new
homes built near bus or train stops include parking spots. While those
measures were primarily intended to alleviate the state’s housing
crisis, experts said they would very likely help curb emissions as well
by reducing Californians’ dependency on driving.
“Housing policy often gets lost in climate discussions, but this is
actually one of the best ways that we can reduce emissions,” said Ethan
Elkind, a law professor and climate expert at the University of
California, Berkeley. “If we can help more people live near transit and
in places where they don’t need a car, then who cares if they have an
electric vehicle?”
One of the more novel measures passed by the legislature is a $1,000
refundable tax credit to low-income Californians who don’t own cars. The
legislation, the first of its kind in the country, is designed as a
rewardand an incentive for living car free.
Some policy experts credited the governor with helping to break the
logjam around climate policy in California. Many of the legislature’s
climate bills appeared to be languishing until Mr. Newsom intervened in
early August, laying out a five-point plan and urging lawmakers to send
bills to his desk.
“For the last few years, the Senate has been the place where climate
policy goes to die,” said David Weiskopf, a senior policy adviser at
NextGen Policy, a climate advocacy organization. “But then Newsom showed
up and said let’s get climate done. He’d never done that before.”
Business groups had criticized the last-minute policymaking drive.
“Rushing policies that will impact every aspect of California’s
trillion-dollar economy through the legislature at the end of session
and without time for a thorough debate addressing reliability,
affordability and equity is the wrong approach,” said a statement from a
coalition of business groups, including the California Business
Roundtable and California Chamber of Commerce.
Others wondered if Gov. Newsom’s political ambitions were in play. The
governor is is heavily favored to win re-election in November after
beating back a recall attempt last year. In recent months, he has sought
to raise his profile on the national stage, drawing presidential
speculation after he purchased ads in Florida and Texas criticizing
Republican governors over laws related to guns and abortion.
“He’s been doing a lot to get the national press talking about him,”
said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of
California San Diego. “But now he’s focused on delivering some clear wins.”
Mr. Newsom has previously said he has “subzero interest” in running for
president in 2024. But if he does mount a bid in the future, political
analysts said, climate could be a potent issue.
“If you think about 2028, there’s going to be a dramatic demographic
shift, where young voters who are very climate-oriented today are going
to be middle-aged and dominate the election,” said Celinda Lake, a
Democratic strategist. “So it’s very good positioning.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/climate/california-lawmakers-climate-legislation.html
/[ Bill Nye the Science Guy - interviewed and talks saving the planet /]
*Bill Nye: ‘We Are Now in Charge Of The Planet’ | The Mehdi Hasan Show*
13,139 views Sep 1, 2022 A third of Pakistan is estimated to be
underwater after unprecedented monsoon rains ravaged the country. And
this level of climate devastation isn’t limited to Pakistan, It’s also
happening across the U.S. Longtime science educator Bill Nye joins Mehdi
to talk about the climate crisis and how we can possibly avoid future
disasters. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz6ji0IWh04
/[ Some discussions hosted by the Craigslist Guy ]/
*Al Franken With Jeff Greenfield On The Political Culture Of A Divided
America*
Aug 8, 2022 Your support helps us continue creating online content for
our community.
Al Franken With Jeff Greenfield On The Political Culture Of A
Divided America
After a career as an acclaimed writer and comedian, most notably on
Saturday Night Live, Al Franken spent more than a decade as a US Senator
during an era marked by increasingly bitter partisanship. Join him with
Jeff Greenfield as they discuss the political culture of a divided
America and its effects on our democracy. Is the electoral college
outdated? Can the Senate be reformed? Does the left have a messaging
problem? Hear his unique, candid perspective on the urgent issues facing
our country.
Recorded May 31, 2022 at 92nd Street Y, New York
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krHPCuhl-p8
/[ longshot lawsuit described in this long clip from article ]/
*A melting glacier, an imperiled city and one farmer’s fight for climate
justice*
A Peruvian farmer is suing one of Europe’s biggest emitters. The case
could set a precedent for holding polluters accountable for harm to the
planet.
Aug. 28, 2022
Story by Sarah Kaplan
THE CORDILLERA BLANCA, Peru — Once, this was where Saúl Luciano Lliuya
came to find peace. The mountain’s pristine beauty ensured his
livelihood as a guide; its steady stream of fresh water sustained his
family farm. The everlasting ice that gleamed from its rugged crest
spoke of a world in balance.
But on this May morning, Luciano Lliuya surveyed Nevado Palcaraju with
his eyes narrowed, his forehead creased. The glacier was almost gone,
transformed by rising temperatures from solid ice into a large, unstable
lagoon. At any moment, an avalanche or rockslide could cause the
turquoise meltwater to surge over its banks, hurtle down the
mountainside and deluge the city of Huaraz, where he and some 120,000
others lived.
“Muy pensativo,” Luciano Lliuya described his mood in Spanish.
Overthinking. Under pressure.
For seven years, Luciano Lliuya has waged a lawsuit against the German
energy company RWE — part of a growing cohort of activists who have
turned to the courts for climate justice as political solutions remain
out of reach.
Citing scientific studies that link pollution from power plants to the
retreat of Palcaraju’s glacier, Luciano Lliuya argues that the energy
giant should help pay for measures to prevent a catastrophic flood. The
company’s lawyers counter that all of its operations were legal, and
that the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts is
too complex for any single entity to be held responsible.
Now the court had come to Peru to collect on-the-ground evidence — a
global first for any climate case.
In the next few days, a cadre of German judges and technical experts
would walk the streets of Huaraz and view the homes that could be
inundated. They would ascend the rutted road to Palcaraju, examining the
glacier from the very spot where Luciano Lliuya stood.
If the judges saw this place the way he saw it, if they were convinced
by Luciano Lliuya’s claims, it would mark a breakthrough in the
burgeoning realm of climate litigation. Success in Huaraz would mean
that major polluters anywhere may be liable for the increasingly
disastrous consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, experts say. It
could pave the way for more lawsuits from developing nations that did
little to cause climate change, but are bearing the brunt of its
impacts. It might force rich countries and giant corporations to
reconsider the risks of relying on fossil fuels, and empower those on
the front lines of warming to seek restitution for what they have lost.
Luciano Lliuya looked again across the water, where the remains of
Palcaraju glacier still clung to the cliffs above the lagoon. So much
depended on that precarious balance: His livelihood. His home. Possibly
even the planet.
Then there was a low rumble, and a puff of white billowed from the top
of the glacier — an avalanche. It was minor, not powerful enough to even
ruffle the surface of the lake. But the worry in Luciano Lliuya’s eyes
deepened.
“Vámonos,” he said. “Let’s go.”
‘A flood that destroys everything’
In the cooler climate of a bygone era, the Palcaraju glacier resembled a
river of ice. It flowed inexorably from the mountain’s crest, gouging a
bowl-shaped basin out of the rock and pushing debris into a rubble pile
called a moraine.
But as the planet warms, the glacier is retreating. A vast lake, dubbed
Palcacocha, has formed in the empty basin. The moraine acts as a dam,
stopping the water from spilling into the valley below.
For now.
An avalanche could touch off a disaster, according to a 2016 study that
modeled how a glacial lake outburst flood at Laguna Palcacocha might unfold.
Rock and ice would tumble from the deteriorating glacier and weakened
mountain slope, falling hundreds of feet before plunging into the
deepest part of the lagoon.
The impact would send a massive wave rolling toward the opposite shore.
As it reached shallower waters, the wave would grow taller, much the way
a tsunami gets bigger as it approaches a beach.
By the time it crossed the lagoon, the wave from a large avalanche would
loom 70 feet above the top of the moraine. Nearly 2 million cubic meters
of water would go crashing down the mountainside. Soil, boulders and
even trees would get mixed up in the flood, adding to its tremendous
force. Within an hour, the torrent would arrive at the outskirts of Huaraz.
Some 50,000 people, including Luciano Lliuya, live in the high hazard
zone on the banks of the Quilcay River. Here, the inundation would be
intense enough to demolish the small brick and adobe homes.
“We are speaking about a flood that destroys everything” said Cesar
Portocarrero, 75, a civil engineer from Huaraz who contributed to the
2016 study. “Not only inundates. Not only covers with water. It destroys
everything in its path.”
A newly installed early warning system at the lagoon should set off
sirens around the city, giving people about 20 minutes to evacuate.
Anyone who doesn’t escape before the deluge hits would be unlikely to
survive.
Those who make their homes near the Cordillera Blanca, the ice-capped
“white range” that looms above Huaraz, have always recognized this risk.
To dwell in the shadow of Peru’s tallest mountains is to live with the
possibility of disaster. The region boasts Earth’s largest concentration
of tropical glaciers — high-altitude ice masses that are unpredictable
at the best of times, but have become increasingly fragile as the planet
warms.
In 1941, a glacial lake outburst flood from Palcacocha killed an
estimated 1,800 people — about one third of Huaraz’s residents at the
time. Survivors recall seeing trees slam into houses like battering
rams, blasting holes in walls of brick and stone. The path of
destruction extended all the way to the coast, 100 miles away.
A few years later, a flood above the nearby archaeological site of
Chavín de Huántar killed 500 people and demolished millennia-old
artifacts. Then another outburst wiped out a newly built hydroelectric
station. In 1970, an earthquake destabilized the glacier on Peru’s
tallest mountain, unleashing an avalanche that engulfed the entire city
of Yungay. Some 20,000 people were buried. Just 400 residents survived.
The Nueva Florida neighborhood in Huaraz runs a high risk of flooding
because of its proximity to the Quilcay River.
The crises helped push Peru’s government to establish a federal
glaciology unit that would shore up the country’s most dangerous glacial
lakes.
“We were the pioneers in the world,” said Portocarrero, a former
director of the unit who helped build the security system at Laguna
Palcacocha in 1973.
Portocarrero described how workers dug drainage channels to empty some
of the water from the lagoon and bolstered the moraine with two
20-foot-high stone-covered dams. By creating about 25 feet of
“freeboard” between the water surface and the top of the dam, the
measures reduced the chance of an overflow.
As decades passed without another deadly outburst, disasters like the
1941 flood faded into distant memory. In 1996, during a period of
“decentralization,” Peru disbanded its federal glaciology unit. Its
responsibilities were shifted to the regional governments, though they
rarely had the resources or expertise to address dangerous lakes.
At the time, few in Huaraz worried about the change. They believed that
Palcacocha was already under control. They thought they were safe.
*Loss and damage*
In 2009, scientists working on a new underwater map of Laguna Palcacocha
made a terrifying discovery: Since the security system was first
installed, the lake had swelled to 34 times its former volume. It was
now even bigger than it had been before the 1941 disaster.
Although the drainage system prevented the water level from rising too
high, the glacier’s retreat allowed the lagoon to become much longer,
creating potential runway for a massive wave. If a major avalanche
occurred, the dams would not be able to hold back the swollen lake.
Peru’s president declared a state of emergency at the lagoon. The
regional government built several large plastic pipes to siphon off
extra water, lowering the surface level by less than 15 feet. Official
“guardians” were paid to live on the mountain and monitor the lake
around the clock, and an early warning system was installed to enable
evacuations of the communities below. A new road — rugged but navigable
— allowed for more frequent checks on the growing hazard.
Luciano Lliuya was not assuaged.
His neighborhood, Nueva Florida, had been wrecked during the 1941 flood.
Afterward, officials wanted to prevent people from rebuilding there,
arguing it was unsafe. But they could not stop a surge of impoverished
settlers — including Luciano Lliuya’s parents — who came from the
countryside in search of the jobs a city could provide. Now there were
more people than ever living in harm’s way, many of them in informal
houses constructed without regard for building codes.
Living in Huaraz allowed Luciano Lliuya to attend school and enroll in a
rigorous training program to become a certified mountain guide. It meant
he could earn enough to send his son to college and renovate the house
his parents had constructed.
But at any moment, Luciano Lliuya knew, another flood could hit,
obliterating the life he’d built.
Luciano Lliuya was just as anxious about the slow-motion disasters of
heat and drought, which threatened his guiding business and the small
family farm where he still cultivated corn, potatoes and wheat. The
shimmering ice that gave the Cordillera Blanca its name grew more
unstable with each passing season. The land that had yielded an abundant
harvest for his parents was becoming parched and meager.
“I am really worried,” he said. “As a guide, as a farmer and as a citizen.”
Portocarrero shared Luciano Lliuya’s concerns. In 2016 the engineer came
out of retirement to help draft a proposal to partially drain the
Palcacocha lagoon. For about $4 million, he said, officials could
reinforce the dam, lower the lake level by an additional 65 feet and
redirect the water into a secure reservoir that would supply the area’s
people and farms. Studies showed that the project would curb the risk of
an outburst and almost halve the size of the high-hazard zone if a flood
did occur.
But officials in the Ancash regional government said they didn’t have
the funds for such an ambitious project. Melvin Grimaldo Rodriguez
Minchola, its director of natural resources and environmental
management, detailed the area’s many other problems: A struggling
economy, deteriorating roads, poor and ailing citizens. Not to mention
the climate-induced crises of drought, forest loss and at least 50 other
potentially dangerous glacial lakes in the Cordillera Blanca.
“We have just a few resources to deal with all these challenges,”
Rodriguez Minchola said in a recent interview at his office in Huaraz.
“We are handling [the flood risk] as best we can.”
Portocarrero questioned that claim. Ancash’s gold, copper and zinc mines
make it one of Peru’s wealthiest regions. The government could invest in
the project if it wanted, he said — but corruption, dysfunction and
decentralization have gotten in the way.
Yet he and Rodriguez Minchola agreed on one thing: It seemed
fundamentally unfair that those least responsible for the climate crisis
were forced to cope with its worst impacts on their own.
Peru contributed less than 0.4 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas
emissions in 2019, yet it consistently ranks among the nations at high
risk from climate damages. The country’s glaciers have lost about half
of their surface area in the last half century. Tens of thousands of
people have been displaced by extreme rainfall amplified by warming.
Rising temperatures have brought agricultural pests to ever higher
elevations, imperiling crops that rural communities need to survive.
And because countries like Peru didn’t become rich from burning fossil
fuels over the last 150 years, they have few resources to cope with the
dangers they now face. They struggle to implement measures, such as the
Palcacocha drainage project, that could save lives and livelihoods. If
tragedy does occur — a drought destroys an entire year’s harvest, a
flood devastates a city — they are less able to recover.
At international climate talks, low-income countries have sought help
for adaptation and “loss and damage” — the unavoidable, irreversible
harms caused by climate change — even as they push major emitters to
curb their pollution.
It’s been an uphill battle on all fronts. Money available through
U.N.-administered funds, which depend on donations, is dwarfed by the
scale of developing nations’ need. Wealthy countries including the
United States have resisted any kind of financial commitment to assist
with loss and damage, worried that it would imply legal liability for
climate change’s escalating toll.
Meanwhile, global emissions keep rising, and the impacts only grow worse.
Luciano Lliuya often wondered if those responsible for warming the
planet would ever be held accountable for the consequences. The big
emitters had all the wealth and power, while the people suffering the
most from climate disasters possessed only the moral high ground.
“Imagine the Peruvian government making demands of Germany,” he said.
“That would be so crazy.”
And a single Peruvian trying to demand change? That would be even more
crazy, he said. Practically impossible.
*‘Justice heard the mountains crying’*
A group of German strangers sat in Luciano Lliuya’s kitchen, eating a
meal of home-cooked guinea pig and homegrown potatoes, asking him to
contemplate the impossible.
It was December 2014. In the wake of a lackluster U.N. climate summit in
Lima, activists from the environmental nonprofit Germanwatch had
traveled to the Cordillera Blanca in hopes of witnessing the effects of
global warming firsthand.
A colleague introduced them to Luciano Lliuya, and it quickly became
clear he was the kind of man they were looking for.
For several years, Germanwatch policy director Christoph Bals had been
contemplating filing a nuisance claim on behalf of a climate change
victim — the same kind of lawsuit a homeowner might file if his
neighbor’s tree fell on his house. The tactic had been tried before,
without much success. But an emerging field of research known as
“attribution science” was helping pinpoint exactly how human greenhouse
gas emissions contributed to specific climate disasters, providing a
whole new kind of evidence. With the right plaintiff, Bals thought,
perhaps their case could set a precedent for using attribution studies
to hold polluters accountable.
Bals was deeply impressed by Luciano Lliuya — his humility and moral
clarity, his commitment to protecting his home. And the attribution
research linking the threat from Palcacocha to planet-warming pollution
was strong.
Luciano Lliuya wasn’t so certain. A lawsuit would require years of
effort and long stretches of time away from his family. It would invite
the scrutiny of politicians, journalists and lawyers. Was he ready for
all that travel and attention? And even if he was, would a German court
care about the concerns of a man from half a world away?
But then Luciano Lliuya thought about the mountains he loved. If those
peaks were people, he reflected, surely they would want to defend
themselves. If they could speak, they would ask the world act.
This was an opportunity to tell the mountains’ story, he told himself.
“To do nothing would be irresponsible.”
Finally, Luciano Lliuya spoke. “Claro,” he said. “Sure.”
Bals was thrilled. “We’re going to court!”..
- -
To represent Luciano Lliuya, Germanwatch tapped Roda Verheyen, a
prominent environmental lawyer. Then the group had to choose a target
for the lawsuit — an entity that had benefited from burning fossil
fuels, but was not paying for the consequences.
It consulted an analysis tracing the majority of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere back to 90 fossil fuel, energy and cement producers, dubbed
“the carbon majors.” RWE was among the top investor-owned companies on
the list, its mines and power stations responsible for 0.47 percent of
all emissions produced by people in the industrial era.
Suing RWE also meant the case would unfold in German courts. While
almost all legal systems allow a homeowner to sue his neighbors if their
behavior harms his property, German judges have interpreted this rule
especially broadly, defining a “neighborhood” to extend as far as
potential harm can reach.
In the context of greenhouse gas pollution, Verheyen planned to argue,
RWE’s “neighborhood” encompassed the whole world.
In November 2015, Luciano Lliuya filed his claim with the district court
of Essen, home to RWE headquarters. The demand was modest: The lawsuit
asked the firm to pay roughly $20,000, about 0.47 percent of the cost of
the Palcacocha drainage project — commensurate with the company’s
contribution to global emissions.
But its true ambitions were much more sweeping, Verheyen explained. If
major emitters begin to fear that they will be held liable for climate
damages anywhere in the world, she said, they may adopt more sustainable
practices rather than face an onslaught of lawsuits. Similarly, wealthy
countries may be more willing to pay for adaptation and loss and damage
if the alternative meant fighting in court.
“When you must actually take responsibility for your [past] actions,”
she said, “you will also change what you do right now.”
- -
The stakes for RWE and other “carbon majors” were made clear when a
judge suggested that the company might settle the case out of court. The
company’s lawyers rejected the proposal, saying it was a matter of
precedent.
Instead, RWE has sought to have Luciano Lliuya’s claim dismissed.
“It is still our position individual emitters cannot be held liable for
universally rooted and globally effective processes like climate
change,” RWE media relations manager Regina Wolter said in a statement.
She pointed out that RWE has already committed to become carbon neutral
by 2040 and has invested billions in renewable energy development.
Citing a report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
a 2016 filing from the company also alleges that “climate change is not
caused by humans alone.”
In fact, the IPCC report stated that “human influence on the climate
system is clear” and greenhouse gas emissions are “extremely likely to
have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th
century.” In a more recent report, the panel stated “unequivocally” that
humans are fueling climate change.
The district court in Essen at first sided with RWE, ruling that Luciano
Lliuya’s claim was invalid because he couldn’t prove that the company’s
emissions had directly contributed to the threat from Laguna Palcacocha.
Luciano Lliuya’s team appealed, and the case came before a three-judge
panel in the upper state court of Hamm.
Verheyen recalled sitting in the courtroom in November 2017, heart
racing as she awaited the judges’ ruling.
The case would move forward into the evidence-collecting phase, the
panel decided. The next step was to determine whether Luciano Lliuya’s
property was truly in danger, whether that threat could be traced to
greenhouse gas emissions and what fraction of planet-warming pollution
RWE was responsible for.
Verheyen looked over at Luciano Lliuya, who listened uncomprehending to
the slew of German words. “Todo va bien, todo va bien,” she reassured
him in Spanish. “It’s all going well.”
Only after they left the courtroom could Verheyen fully explain the
significance of what had happened: In accepting Luciano Lliuya’s case,
the court had embraced the argument that major greenhouse gas emitters
can be held liable for the consequences of global warming. Even if the
evidentiary phase didn’t go as hoped, a new precedent had been set, one
that could lead to other lawsuits from climate change victims across the
globe.
Luciano Lliuya smiled.
“The lakes are the tears of the mountains,” he said. “Today, justice
heard the mountains crying.”
Efrain Reyes keeps a close watch at Laguna Palcacocha.
“Working here, I never sleep. I need to make a report every two hours. I
control the siphons and monitor the water levels. If an emergency
happened I would run to the radio station and I would notify the city.”
*A new precedent*
The shores of Laguna Palcacocha were swarming with people — judges,
lawyers, scientists, politicians — the sounds of the wind and water
drowned out by the babble of multiple languages and the buzz of a drone.
Luciano Lliuya never imagined the case would come this far. First his
legal team and RWE’s couldn’t agree on experts to assess the evidence,
so the court had to appoint its own. Then the coronavirus pandemic
prevented anyone from traveling to Peru.
Now the court was finally here, and Luciano Lliuya was exhausted. Every
day he bounced between hearings and interviews. The near-constant
conversation left his mind weary and his throat parched. Camera crews
trailed him around Huaraz while children shouted at journalists from
their windows, “Periodista, periodista, interview me!”...
- -
Yet, Luciano Lliuya felt his case was strong and continues to get
stronger. An attribution study published in the journal Nature
Geoscience in 2021 found that the Palcaraju glacier’s retreat and Laguna
Palcacocha’s resulting expansion would be virtually impossible in a
world without climate change. The imminent threat to Huaraz is a “direct
consequence” of human-caused warming, the authors wrote.
The outlook for climate litigation was also shifting. Since Luciano
Lliuya first filed his claim, more than 2,000 other climate lawsuits
have been launched against companies and governments around the world,
according to an analysis by the Grantham Institute for Climate Change
and the Environment at Imperial College London. Of the cases that have
been decided, more than half led to positive outcomes for climate. Last
year alone, a Dutch court ruled that the oil giant Shell had to
dramatically boost its climate commitments, the French state was
convicted of failing to curb greenhouse gases and the German Supreme
Court decided that the country was constitutionally obligated to “do its
part” to avoid catastrophic warming.
“These precedents build on one another,” said Carol Muffett, president
of the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law.
“Each progressive decision brings us one step closer to accountability.”
If other climate change victims draw on this precedent to file their own
lawsuits, “that’s when Saúl Luciano Lliuya’s story becomes truly
important,” Muffett continued. “He is one man from one community in a
remote part of Peru. But his story is like a billion other stories on
this planet.”
Even in Huaraz, it seemed that change was underway. That spring, the
Ancash Regional Government issued a statement in support of Luciano
Lliuya’s lawsuit. His picture was splashed across the front page of the
local newspaper.
Luciana Olaza La Rosa, a nature-loving 16-year-old who had once taken an
English class with Luciano Lliuya, was astonished to see someone she
knew at the center of a globally important case.
“I didn’t know people like him could do these kinds of judgments,” she
said. “I only thought, like, big companies can fight with other
companies about these issues.”
If her soft-spoken former classmate could take a major corporation to
court, the teenager thought, what could she do? Could she convince her
school to reduce its emissions? Could she combat trash on the mountain
biking paths where she rode every weekend? Could she make a difference
in Huaraz, in Peru, in the world?
“It gives me, I think, power, or something like that,” Olaza La Rosa
said. “It gives me the power of saying, ‘You too, having only 16 years,
you can do big things if you want.’ ”...
- -
Witness
Luciano Lliuya trudged back to his house, poured a cup of coffee, and
readied himself for the next interview. He would keep telling his story
as long as someone would listen. He would keep fighting for the glacier
as long as it still clung to the cliffs of Palcaraju — threatening
disaster, asking to be saved.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2022/peru-climate-lawsuit-melting-glacier/
/[ adaptation discussion - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVxqr63aXI ]/
*Climate Collapse and Transformative Adaptation: What Your Members Need
to Know AND Do*
Nov 23, 2021 The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) laid out our current global situation in stark
relief and as United Nations General-Secretary António Guterres declared
it is "Code Red" for humanity.
We are now past midnight and if the most recent Conference of the
Parties (COP26) in Glasgow is any indicator, we are justified in saying
our governments have failed us and we have to assume that we are now on
our own. It is now too late for sustainability, and regeneration of our
economic, social and environmental systems to attempt to preserve as
much life as possible is our one and only priority.
Join us for an update on the current state of the climate, and a deep
exploration of the topic of Transformative Adaptation which is our last
and best hope to cope with what is breaking upon our world.
Associations are needed more than ever to use their capacity to step
into the void of leadership and we will have practical suggestions on
how you can motivate yourselves, your members and their workforces to
push the needle on the adaptation we need now.
Guests:
Rupert Read is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of
East Anglia in Norwich, UK, a campaigner for the Green Party of England
and Wales, former spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion and co-founder
of the Green Activists Network, GreensCAN. He is the author of various
books, including Parents for a Future - How loving our children can
prevent climate collapse.
Shelly Alcorn is a Principal in Alcorn Associates Management Consulting
and specializes in strategy and governance for the association
community. She is a frequent keynote speaker focusing on critical issues
faced by organizations and society at large. Her main interests have
been how to be more human in an increasingly machine-driven world and
what impacts the rise of artificial intelligence will have on the
workplace of the future. She is now laser focused on our global climate
emergency and the role associations need to play in the face of the
sixth mass extinction. Find her on Twitter @shellyalcorn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVxqr63aXI
/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*September 3, 2008*/
September 3, 2008: In his address to the Republican National
Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, former Maryland Lieutenant Governor
Michael Steele blows off concerns about climate change by proclaiming:
"Drill, baby, drill!"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/03/steele-gives-gop-delegates-new-cheer-drill-baby-drill/tab/article/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdSsOnVWhic
=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, here are a few daily summariesof global warming
news - email delivered*
=========================================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**Climate Nexus* https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*T*he Daily Climate *Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts,
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not carry
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers. A
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to
this mailing list.
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list