[✔️] January 20, 2023- Global Warming News Digest - Dis-information, clean energy grid, Greta, Exxon knew, birth in climate chaos
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Fri Jan 20 09:04:25 EST 2023
/*January 20, 2023*/
/[ attacks of disinformation ]/
*Fossil fuel sector spent millions on ads to influence public during Cop27*
By Ellen Ormesher | Reporter
JANUARY 19, 2023
The Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition has revealed
the scale of paid advertising climate disinformation detected around the
United Nations climate conference (Cop27) in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The ‘Deny, Deceive, Delay’ report, released January 19, reflects the
efforts of the coalition’s Cop27 Intelligence Unit, which includes
analysts from 18 organizations, having been led by the Institute for
Strategic Dialogue (ISD). The unit tracked the most prominent false and
misleading narratives posted to social media.
What did it find?
$3m-$4m was spent on Meta by the fossil fuel sector between September 1
and November 23, 2022.
Broader tactics have changed from climate denial to subtler forms of
‘delayism’ and ‘inactivism’.
A small number of groups drove the majority of false or greenwashed
advertising on Facebook. These included misleading claims on the climate
crisis, net-zero targets as well as pushing the necessity of fossil fuels.
The analysis identified 3,781 ads during this time. Many were from
Energy Citizens (a PR group of the American Petroleum Institute), while
America’s Plastic Makers alone spent over $1m and the Saudi Green
Initiative ran 13 ads.
Some organizations, including PragerU and The Heartland Institute,
posted ads with active climate denial – for example, claiming that a
‘New poll debunks the 97% consensus claim about #climatechange’ or
asking ‘Has environmentalism become a religion?’
Analysts also detected a surprising increase in content related to
outright climate denial, including a spike on Twitter for the hashtag
#ClimateScam since July 2022.
The term ‘Climate Scam’ was actively recommended by Twitter for organic
searches of ‘climate’, often as the top result, as well as when
‘#climate’ is included within a post. This was observed during Cop27 and
remains the case despite direct flagging by campaign group Climate
Action Against Disinformation’s (CAAD) partners to the platform.
“This research shows that climate disinformation isn’t going away and,
in fact, it’s getting worse. During Cop27, Twitter’s search engine
pushed #ClimateScam as a top result without any justification for the
data behind it,” said Erika Seiber, climate disinformation spokesperson
at Friends of the Earth US.
“Until governments hold social media and ad companies accountable, and
companies hold professional disinformers accountable, crucial
conversations around the climate crisis are going to be put in jeopardy.
To start, Twitter should offer an explanation of how this inexcusable
climate denial trend came to be.”
What happens now?
The report emerges not long after Sultan Ahmed Jaber was announced as
the new president for Cop28, making the next UN Climate Summit the first
to be led by an active oil executive.
CAAD highlights that Cop27 saw record-breaking attendance for fossil
lobbyists and that these developments set the stage for a greater spread
of disinformation at next year’s climate conference and around other
climate policy moments.
“Cop27 became the first conference where climate misinformation became
part of the conversation among country delegations and leaders,” says
Jake Dubbins, co-chair of Conscious Advertising Network. “Leaders we
spoke to from countries Germany to Saint Lucia were all deeply concerned
about the disinformation war. If the urgency of the climate crisis
continues to be undermined by mis- and disinformation, then the climate
action we all so desperately need will continue to be delayed to the
point of no return.”
CAAD is now calling on the US government, EU, UN, IPCC and Big Tech
companies to acknowledge the climate disinformation threat and take the
required steps to improve transparency and data access to quantify
disinformation trends, to stop misleading fossil fuel advocacy in paid
ad content, enforce policies against repeat offenders spreading
disinformation on platforms, and to adopt a standardized and
comprehensive definition of climate disinformation.
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/01/19/fossil-fuel-sector-spent-millions-ads-influence-public-during-cop27
- -
/[ an important organization ]/
*Climate Action Against Disinformation*
A global coalition of over 50 leading climate and anti-disinformation
organisations
*Universal Definition*
Climate disinformation and misinformation refers to deceptive or
misleading content that:
Undermines the existence or impacts of climate change, the unequivocal
human influence on climate change, and the need for corresponding urgent
action according to the IPCC scientific consensus and in line with the
goals of the Paris Climate Agreement;
Misrepresents scientific data, including by omission or cherry-picking,
in order to erode trust in climate science, climate-focused
institutions, experts, and solutions; or
Falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in fact
contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific consensus on
mitigation or adaptation.
*Problem*
Climate change misinformation and disinformation are major threats to
climate action. They create a distorted perception of climate science
and solutions; meanwhile they weaken the public mandate for effective
domestic and international policies aligned with the goals of the Paris
Agreement.
Outright climate denial no longer has as much traction in mainstream
media, but continues to flourish across social media, with algorithms
often amplifying the worst and most extreme content. Discourses of
climate delay also continue to pervade the mainstream media and social
media platforms around topics such as net zero policy, and pose a real
threat to implementing targets or agendas in line with the urgency of
the threat. In parallel, digital advertising and monetisation through
social media and the open web diversify opportunities to spread climate
mis/disinformation – including ‘greenwashing’ – and, in many cases,
create active financial incentives to do so.
More than 20 leading climate and anti-disinformation organisations
established a global coalition in the summer of 2021, to safeguard
public debate and mitigate information attacks against the COP26 summit.
These efforts led to the creation of a universal definition of climate
mis/disinformation; initiated a long-term process for decision makers to
acknowledge the threat; spotlighted climate disinformation threats;
provided insight for media outlets globally; and helped decision makers
to understand the scale of the problem. It also inspired Google to roll
out a global climate misinformation policy across all its monetised
products and services including YouTube and to ban disinformation
adverts that deny the existence of climate change or humanity’s impact
on the climate. While good progress, these efforts were only the initial
steps of what is needed to solve the problems detailed above.
*Solution*
We need more robust, coordinated and proactive strategies to deal with
the scale of the threat to platforms. (For the purposes of this
document, ‘platforms’ henceforth refers to both tech platforms and ad
networks serving the open web.)
To prevent climate mis/disinformation and its impacts on climate action,
civil society needs to pressure platforms, governments and regulators to
rein in the problem of climate denial and wider discourses of delay. As
a first step, we need acknowledgement and transparency about
mis/disinformation of all forms from the platforms, and to support
international and national government legislation that would enforce this.
The coming two years will provide opportunities to turbo-charge climate
disinformation in the mainstream, `including: the COP27 & COP28 summits;
elections in key geographies such as Australia, Brazil, France, India,
Nigeria, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States; the release of major
IPCC reports; updated announcements on nationally determined
contributions (NDCs); and other key milestones in climate financing and
governance. Fortunately, the stars are also aligning for opportunities
to create strong policies from both governments and tech platforms, if
we continue to build up what we achieved together in 2021 and organise
collective interventions for decision-makers and the tech platforms to
ramp up their action against climate mis/disinformation.
https://caad.info/what-is-climate-disinformation/
/[ //Davos 2023//Greta wades into international affairs ] /
*‘Ridiculous’: Greta Thunberg blasts decision to let UAE oil boss chair
climate talks*
Climate activist at Davos says lobbyists have been influencing
conferences ‘since forever’
Four years after taking the World Economic Forum by storm, Greta
Thunberg returned to Davos on Thursday to blast the United Arab Emirates
for appointing the head of its state-owned oil company to chair the
Cop28 climate talks later this year.
Thunberg said it was “completely ridiculous” that Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber,
chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), will
preside over the next round of global climate talks in Dubai in November.
She told an event on the sidelines of the WEF’s annual meeting in Davos
that lobbyists have been influencing these conferences “since,
basically, forever”.
“This just puts a very clear face to it,” she added. “It’s completely
ridiculous.”
- - video https://youtu.be/EU6vQXif5Xo
A “cease and desist” order, signed by Thunberg, and fellow activists
Gualinga, Neubauer and Vanessa Nakate from Uganda, said Big Oil has
known for decades that fossil fuels cause climate breakdown, and has
misled the public and deceived politicians.
“You must end these activities as they are in direct violation of our
human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, your duty
of care, as well as the rights of Indigenous people,” the notice says.
The people who are mostly fueling the destruction of the planet, who are
at the very core of the climate crisis, investing in fossil fuels, are
in Davos, Thunberg said.
“And yet somehow these are the people that we seem to rely on solving
our problems, where they have proven time and time again, that they are
not prioritising that,” she said. “They are prioritising self greed,
corporate greed and short term economic profits above people and above
planet.”...
Nakate said the climate crisis is evident in the areas that are most
affected, such as the horn of Africa, where children are suffering from
severe, acute malnutrition.
The quartet were joined by Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy
Agency.
In 2021, the IEA said that exploitation and development of new oil and
gas fields had to stop that year, if the world was to meet the goal of
net zero emissions by 2050.
On Thursday, Birol said he was “very happy” that the activists were
pushing the climate agenda forwards...
Birol warned it might not make sense for banks to fund new fossil fuel
projects.
Asked about the banks who fund new oil and gas generation, despite their
net zero pledges, Birol said it was “their money”, not the IEA’s. But
added there was a risk that demand might not be there when new oilfields
come online, perhaps six or seven years after the decision is taken to
drill.
In 2019, Thunberg warned Davos delegates that “our house is on fire”,
after travelling by train to the ski resort in a 32-hour journey, and
camping with climate scientists on the mountain slopes – where
temperatures fell to -18C..
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/19/greta-thunberg-uae-cop28-davos-climate
/[ Covering Climate Now ]/
*“Exxon Knew” Story Finally Goes Mainstream**
*“Exxon really did know.” So wrote Bloomberg columnist Mark Gonglof,
commenting on the latest revelations that the oil giant knew decades ago
that it would dangerously overheat the planet. A peer-reviewed study
released last week in Science cited internal ExxonMobil documents
showing that, as far back 1977, the company’s scientists were predicting
the future trajectory of global warming “correctly and skillfully.”
Geoffrey Supran, the study’s co-author, told the Guardian: “We now have
the smoking gun showing that [Exxon] accurately predicted warming years
before they started attacking the science [in public].”
The fact that “Exxon Knew” was first revealed in 2015 by investigative
reporters at the Los Angeles Times, Inside Climate News, and Columbia
University’s Graduate School of Journalism. But this latest episode in
the saga comes with an important twist: This time, some of the world’s
biggest news organizations also covered the story. So now, it’s not just
climate insiders who know that Big Oil lied — the general public is
hearing about it as well.
https://mailchi.mp/coveringclimatenow/us-supreme-court-v-climate-action-and-the-stories-that-will-follow-16748781?e=d61cfe5aa4
/[ study validates common sense - does this mean there is no free will?
Can psychology help? ]/
*‘Born into a time of chaos’: how being pregnant amid a climate disaster
can affect children*
Study suggests children who were in the womb during Superstorm Sandy are
more likely to have behavior disorders
Paige Perez
Wed 18 Jan 2023
Four days before Superstorm Sandy made landfall and about three weeks
before her due date, Sporer-Newman gave birth to a baby boy named Izzy.
He was 7lb 6oz and jaundiced, and otherwise appeared healthy. But as the
rain from Sandy began to come down, Sporer-Newman and her baby would
face challenges beyond their expectations...
- -
A study released this fall suggests there may be other more insidious,
long-term effects. Children who were exposed to Superstorm Sandy while
in the womb have “substantially” higher risks for developing depression,
anxiety and attention deficit and disruptive behavior disorders,
including ADHD.
The research, published in September in the Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, surveyed 163 preschool-age children and found that those
exposed to Sandy in utero were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed
with anxiety disorders and nearly four times as likely to be diagnosed
for attention deficit and disruptive behavior disorders. The study also
found a sex difference in diagnosis among girls and boys. Girls were
more at risk of anxiety and depression, and boys were more at risk of
ADHD. About 86% of the study’s participants were from racial and ethnic
minorities and low-income backgrounds.
Dr Yoko Nomura, the study’s lead author and a professor of psychology at
City University of New York’s Queens College, said she did not
anticipate the magnitude or consistency of these findings. “Superstorm
Sandy turned out to be really a bad, bad guy,” she said...
- -
All of a sudden, expecting parents were forced to change their birth
plans. One study participant reported having gotten stuck alone in an
elevator. “[She was afraid she would] have a baby in the elevator
without anybody’s help,” Nomura said.
Sporer-Newman participated in the study. “All I could think about was
how stressed I was,” she said, thinking back on Superstorm Sandy and
Izzy’s birth.
Though Izzy was born a few days before the storm made landfall,
researchers included him in the group with kids of mothers who watched
news reports of the storm. She went into labor ahead of her scheduled
C-section and gave birth without an epidural – there was no time for
one, she said. “I don’t know if the stress induced [labor] or … I had so
many other things to do that I just wasn’t paying attention to my own
body,” Sporer-Newman said.
Sporer-Newman wanted to get home before the storm struck and left the
hospital with her son against medical advice. She said hospitals can get
overwhelmed and didn’t want to risk an evacuation. She felt her chances
of staying safe were better at home and, as a medical professional, she
was able to monitor herself and her baby.
- -
At Izzy’s one-month visit, the doctor said that he was not gaining
weight. He was taken to the emergency room, where he remained
hospitalised for 10 days. He was diagnosed as “failure to thrive”,
meaning his weight was below average, and he was not receiving the
nutrition he needed to grow. But hospital staff couldn’t pinpoint
exactly what was wrong. The baby cried and fussed a lot and, in
retrospect, Sporer-Newman wonders if he was in pain. Eventually, doctors
and his mother learned ways to help Izzy gain and maintain enough weight
that allowed him to go home.
Sporer-Newman said if she had brought Izzy to his early doctor’s visits,
then his struggle to gain weight would have been noticed and treated
earlier. Now, she wonders if the unease around the storm affected the
medical attention Izzy received. “He was born into a time of chaos. I’m
not blaming anybody for missing things … but like, maybe he would’ve had
a little bit more attention,” she said..
- -
Today, Izzy Newman is ten years old and in the fifth grade. His mother
describes him as active, empathic and happy, but said that he struggles
with focusing and sometimes misplaces his belongings. Sporer-Newman
recalled that one question in Nomura’s study asked parents if their
child said please and thank you. “The answer is absolutely,” said
Sporer-Newman. “And meanwhile he’s bouncing, like literally on his
feet going, ‘thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.’”
She said his personality is different compared to her other three boys.
He will run a block ahead of the family on walks and they will stroll
behind, struggling to keep up with him.
Sporer-Newman said she plans to have Izzy tested for ADHD. Such a
diagnosis could be an opportunity for early intervention, said Nomura,
who led the study published in September. It would help him access
certain accommodations, like a quiet room without distractions to take
tests, which may help him in school.
“In all of his jittery movements, inability to sit still, brilliant
mind. We love him. All of our kids are different. We love them each for
what they are,” said Sporer-Newman
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/18/study-pregnant-climate-disaster-children-behavior
- -
/[ From the PubMed.gov ]/
*Prenatal exposure to a natural disaster and early development of
psychiatric disorders during the preschool years: stress in pregnancy study*
Yoko Nomura # 1 2 3, Jeffrey H Newcorn # 3, Christine Ginalis 1 2,
Catherine Heitz 1, Jeenia Zaki 1, Farzana Khan 1 4, Mardia Nasrin 1 5,
Kathryn Sie 1, Donato DeIngeniis 1, Yasmin L Hurd 3
Affiliations expand
PMID: 36129196 DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.13698
*Abstract*
Background: Growing evidence shows an association between in utero
exposure to natural disasters and child behavioral problems, but we
still know little about the development of specific psychopathology in
preschool-aged children.
*Methods:* Preschool children (n = 163, mean age = 3.19, 85.5% racial
and ethnic minorities) and their parents (n = 151) were evaluated
annually at ages 2-5 to assess the emergence of psychopathology using
the Preschool Age Psychopathological Assessment (PAPA), a parent-report
structured diagnostic interview developed for preschool-age children.
Sixty-six (40.5%) children were exposed to Sandy Storm (SS) in utero and
97 (59.5%) were not. Survival analysis evaluated patterns of onset and
estimated cumulative risks of psychopathology among exposed and
unexposed children, in total and by sex. Analyses were controlled for
the severity of objective and subjective SS-related stress, concurrent
family stress, and demographic and psychosocial confounders, such as
maternal age, race, SES, maternal substance use, and normative prenatal
stress.
*Results:* Exposure to SS in utero was associated with a substantial
increase in depressive disorders (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 16.9, p = .030),
anxiety disorders (HR = 5.1, p < .0001), and
attention-deficit/disruptive behavioral disorders (HR = 3.4, p = .02).
Diagnostic rates were elevated for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; HR
= 8.5, p = .004), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; HR =
5.5, p = .01), oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD; HR = 3.8, p = .05),
and separation-anxiety disorder (SAD; HR = 3.5, p = .001). Males had
distinctively elevated risks for attention-deficit/disruptive behavioral
disorders (HR = 7.8, p = .02), including ADHD, CD, and ODD, whereas
females had elevated risks for anxiety disorders (HR = 10.0, p < .0001),
phobia (HR = 2.8, p = .02) and depressive disorders (HR = 30.0, p =
.03), including SAD, GAD, and dysthymia.
*Conclusions:* The findings demonstrate that in utero exposure to a
major weather-related disaster (SS) was associated with increased risk
for psychopathology in children and provided evidence of distinct
psychopathological outcomes as a function of sex. More attention is
needed to understand specific parent, child, and environmental factors
which account for this increased risk, and to develop mitigation strategies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36129196/
- -
/[ opinion in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry ]/
*Editorial: ‘In our time’: Has the pandemic changed the way we write and
read mental health and neurodevelopmental disorder research reviews?*
Sara R. Jaffee
First published: 27 April 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13424
It has long been recognized that the prevalence of mental health
problems among young people and adults exceeds the number who receive
treatment. One potential benefit of the pandemic might be the widespread
transition to telehealth, which has made traditional treatments more
widely available to individuals who live in areas with few available
high-quality services or who find it challenging to access treatment for
other reasons. Creswell et al. (2021) explore the possibility that
nontraditional treatments, such as gaming and virtual reality
interventions, offer another opportunity to meet the need for mental
health services, particularly for young people who are sophisticated
users of technology. They review the evidence that gaming and virtual
reality interventions are effective in treating depression, anxiety, and
phobias in young people and the evidence that young people find these
interventions relevant and engaging.
https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13424
/[ Spotify --//start about 20 mins in //to hear about misinformation and
opinion manipulation ]/
*Hot to talk to a climate denier*
with Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd
Episode Description
Hello! This week we’re talking about climate misinformation and how we
tackle it. Mis- and disinformation about the climate crisis is not new:
since the 1970s industry players and fossil fuel giants have been
denying the reality of climate change in order to sow confusion and
polarise public support for taking action. Delay is the new denial,
according to Jennie King, who talks to us about some of the arguments
used to delay action on climate change. Professor Sander van der Linden
tells us about the psychology of misinformation spread and why social
media has only turbocharged it. Finally, Sean Buchan talks to us about
the grassroots campaign Stop Funding Heat which aims to make climate
misinformation unprofitable.Plus: Geoff goes on a gastronomic journey
with Ed's latest cooking attempt.GuestsJennie King, Head of Climate
Research and Policy, Institute for Strategic Dialogue (@jkingy,
@ISDglobal)Professor Sander van der Linden, Professor of Social
Psychology, University of Cambridge (@Sander_vdLinden)Sean Buchan,
Campaign Director, Stop Funding Heat (@seanforachange,
@stopfundingheat)More infoWhat is climate mis-/disinformation?Deny,
deceive, delay: documenting and responding to climate disinformation at
COP26 and beyond Report from the ISDTaxonomy of climate contrarian
claims Academic paper: Coan, Boussalis, Cook, NankoDiscourses of Climate
Delay Comic by Céline KellerClimate Action Against Disinformation
Pre-order a copy of Sander's book Foolproof: Why we fall for
misinformation and how to build immunityStop Funding Heat CampaignOther
resourcesDeSmog Journalism to clear the 'PR Pollution' clouding the
science and solutions to climate changeSkeptical science Website set up
by academic Jon Cook to examine the science and arguments of climate
scepticismEd and Geoff mentioned:Three policies making life in Paris
better for children
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5pgmKM09CQ3aSOs9EqXjDm
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5pgmKM09CQ3aSOs9EqXjDm?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=242163476&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Yph_SfU_XYHQyCbeczhVKmhWNPCzBJooirNZAqlBEBstTJUXVBpEKu29H-1qTSDRmxSnZ0fWAVAsP8Ebvue31L8A9dQ&utm_content=242163476&utm_source=hs_email
- -
/[ the book comes out March 21, 2023 ]/
*Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity*
Sander van der Linden
Informed by decades of research and on-the-ground experience advising
governments and tech companies, Foolproof is the definitive guide to
navigating the misinformation age.
From fake news to conspiracy theories, from inflammatory memes to
misleading headlines, misinformation has swiftly become the defining
problem of our era. The crisis threatens the integrity of our
democracies, our ability to cultivate trusting relationships, even our
physical and psychological well-being―yet most attempts to combat it
have proven insufficient. In Foolproof, one of the world’s leading
experts on misinformation lays out a crucial new paradigm for
understanding and defending ourselves against the worldwide infodemic.
With remarkable clarity, Sander van der Linden explains why our brains
are so vulnerable to misinformation, how it spreads across social
networks, and what we can do to protect ourselves and others. Like a
virus, misinformation infects our minds, exploiting shortcuts in how we
see and process information to alter our beliefs, modify our memories,
and replicate at astonishing rates. Once the virus takes hold, it’s very
hard to cure. Strategies like fact-checking and debunking can leave a
falsehood still festering or, at worst, even strengthen its hold.
But we aren’t helpless. As van der Linden shows based on award-winning
original research, we can cultivate immunity through the innovative
science of “prebunking”: inoculating people against false information by
preemptively exposing them to a weakened dose, thus empowering them to
identify and fend off its manipulative tactics. Deconstructing the
characteristic techniques of conspiracies and misinformation, van der
Linden gives readers practical tools to defend themselves and others
against nefarious persuasion―whether at scale or around their own dinner
table.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/039388144X?psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&ref_=chk_typ_imgToDp
/[ Carbon offsets allow the deceit of carbon neutrality ]/
*Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest
provider are worthless, analysis shows*
Investigation into Verra carbon standard finds most are ‘phantom
credits’ and may worsen global heating
Patrick Greenfield
@pgreenfielduk
Wed 18 Jan 2023
The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and
used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely
worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new
investigation.
The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the
rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that,
based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than
90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by
companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent
genuine carbon reductions...
- -
The investigation found that:
-- Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of
deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further
analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the
climate.
-- The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on
average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022
University of Cambridge study.
-- Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl
Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have
bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.
-- Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of the
offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project in
Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their homes
being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and police.
They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.
- -
How companies use carbon offsetting to hit emissions goals
*Step 1 Offsetting project set up*
A project is established to mitigate global heating. Many are
avoided-emission projects that prevent greenhouse gases from being
released from deforestation or fossil fuels, but do not remove
carbon from the atmosphere.
*Step 2 Credits are calculated*
Carbon credits are calculated using dozens of methods.
Avoided-deforestation projects estimate what would happen if the
project was not there. Projects claim the difference between what
happens and what could have as credits.
*Step 3 Company makes net zero strategy*
Firms work out the emissions they are producing every year from
their own activities. In order to meet their net zero strategy,
alongside efforts to cut emissions, some companies decide to buy
carbon offsets.
*Step 4 Company acquires carbon credits*
Firms get carbon credits through a specialist broker, others go
directly to a project. Most offsets are approved by Verra and Gold
Standard. These credits are used to offset emissions, allowing them
to claim large net reductions.
*Step 5 Company makes climate claim*
Once a firm has worked out the amount of carbon they want to offset,
they buy the equivalent amount of credits. Many then claim the
company or product they are selling has become carbon neutral.
Shell told the Guardian that using credits was “in line with our
philosophy of avoid, reduce and only then mitigate emissions”. Gucci,
Pearl Jam, BHP and Salesforce did not comment, while Lavazza said it
bought credits that were certified by Verra, “a world’s leading
certification organisation”, as part of the coffee products company’s
“serious, concrete and diligent commitment to reduce” its carbon
footprint. It plans to look more closely into the project.
The fast food chain Leon no longer buys carbon offsets from one of the
projects in the studies, as part of its mission to maximise its positive
impact. EasyJet has moved away from carbon offsetting to focus its net
zero work on projects such as “funding for the development of new
zero-carbon emission aircraft technology”.
Barbara Haya, the director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, has
been researching carbon credits for 20 years, hoping to find a way to
make the system function. She said: “The implications of this analysis
are huge. Companies are using credits to make claims of reducing
emissions when most of these credits don’t represent emissions
reductions at all.
“Rainforest protection credits are the most common type on the market at
the moment. And it’s exploding, so these findings really matter. But
these problems are not just limited to this credit type. These problems
exist with nearly every kind of credit.
“One strategy to improve the market is to show what the problems are and
really force the registries to tighten up their rules so that the market
could be trusted. But I’m starting to give up on that. I started
studying carbon offsets 20 years ago studying problems with protocols
and programs. Here I am, 20 years later having the same conversation. We
need an alternative process. The offset market is broken.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe
/[ I want to live in this grid -- audio interview ]/
*An energy provider attempts to achieve 24/7 clean energy*
A conversation with Jan Pepper of Peninsula Clean Energy.
Dave Roberts
JAN 18 2023
Back in November of 2021, I did a series of stories and podcasts on the
hottest new trend in clean energy: attempting to achieve not just 100
percent clean energy but 24/7 clean energy, ie, clean energy at every
hour of every day.
For reasons explained at length in those pieces, 24/7 is a much more
difficult goal. Offsetting 100 percent of your energy use with clean
energy mainly involves buying bulk wind and solar wherever and whenever
they are cheapest. But matching your energy use with clean energy on an
hourly basis means finding sources that can cover for wind and solar
when they are not available.
Some big corporate players like Google have taken the first steps down
this road, but the first energy provider to attempt it, as far as I
know, is Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Bay Area community choice
aggregator (CCA) that serves all 20 of the cities and towns in San Mateo
County, as well as the City of Los Banos.
In December 2021, PCE issued a white paper on the need for 24/7 clean
energy, its rationale for pursuing 24/7 by 2025, and the steps it
intended to take to get there. Earlier this month, it issued a follow-up
white paper reporting on the tool it built to map out 24/7 and the
lessons learned.
I am fascinated by the practical challenges of getting to 24/7, so I’m
excited to talk to Jan Pepper, CEO of Peninsula and lead author on the
latest white paper, about why PCE is setting out to achieve 24/7, the
main barriers, and the ways it may get easier in the future.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/an-energy-provider-attempts-to-achieve
https://www.volts.wtf/p/an-energy-provider-attempts-to-achieve?utm_source=podcast-email%2Csubstack&publication_id=193024&post_id=95976713&utm_medium=email#details
- -
/[ ( more about Peninsula Clean Energy’s 24/7 push — charts and Jeff
St. John’s latest article for Canary Media.) ]/
*24/7 carbon-free energy is about to become a reality in California*
Peninsula Clean Energy says it can deliver affordable clean energy to
its Bay Area territory nearly every hour of the year by 2025. Here’s the
data to prove it.
18 January 2023
Jeff St. John
Five years ago, California community energy provider Peninsula Clean
Energy decided that buying enough clean energy to match its average
annual electricity demand wasn’t enough. Instead, it wanted to deliver
clean energy to its customers during every hour of every day — what it
calls “24/7 carbon-free energy.” And last week, Peninsula explained how
it plans to get there.
The goal of 24/7 carbon-free electricity is also being pursued by
corporate giants Google and Microsoft, cities including Los Angeles and
Des Moines, Iowa, and a growing number of other companies and
communities across the world. But Peninsula Clean Energy appears to be
the first energy provider to set a target of getting there by 2025, well
ahead of other zero-carbon mandates at the utility or state level.
Achieving 24/7 carbon-free energy is a lot harder than achieving 100
percent carbon-free energy on an annual basis. As climate journalist and
Canary Media editor-at-large David Roberts explains in a new Volts
podcast on Peninsula Clean Energy, “Offsetting 100 percent of your
energy use with clean energy mainly involves buying bulk wind and solar
wherever and whenever they are cheapest. But matching your energy use
with clean energy on an hourly basis means finding sources that can
cover for wind and solar when they are not available.” (Here’s a basic
primer on 24/7 carbon-free energy.)
But there’s a debate over 24/7 carbon-free energy. Is trying to get
clean power to serve every single hour of the year a laudable way to
match an energy buyer’s decarbonization commitments with concrete
actions? Or is it an excessively expensive pipe dream that sucks
investment away from more effective alternatives, like building more
solar and wind power in places where the grid is the dirtiest?
Last week, Peninsula Clean Energy unveiled an analysis showing that, at
least for the residents of San Mateo County and the town of Los Banos,
California that it serves, round-the-clock clean energy by 2025 is not
only theoretically possible but well within its technical and financial
reach.
Peninsula Clean Energy CEO Jan Pepper said the new white paper, which
uses data from a modeling tool PCE developed with partners over the past
two years, validates the importance of the 24/7 carbon-free energy goal
PCE set back in 2017. PCE’s board of directors is planning to use the
findings of the analysis to formally set the 99 percent target into a
“final procurement strategy” for the coming years, Pepper told Canary
Media. “This is what we’re after.”
PCE’s modeling shows that procuring enough clean energy to supply its
customers 99 percent of the hours of the year by 2025 is expected to
cost only 2 percent more than its baseline energy-procurement plans,
which deliver carbon-free energy roughly 70 percent of the hours of the
year. That’s far less of a cost premium than one might expect for
achieving round-the-clock clean energy almost every hour of the year.
After making this finding, PCE adopted 99 percent 24/7 carbon-free
energy as its official goal starting in 2025.
Cost comparisons for different procurement strategies were calculated
using conservative assumptions about energy prices and the costs of
contracting a portfolio of solar, wind, geothermal power and lithium-ion
batteries, Pepper noted. With more optimistic assumptions, the costs are
significantly lower, as this chart indicates. .
- -
https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-17.jpg.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=2578217676b0f63b77f93a81fa798587
Keeping costs in check is vital for PCE, one of California’s many
community choice aggregators that have been created with the goal of
offering a greater proportion of clean energy at lower prices than the
state’s investor-owned utilities.
But the slight cost premium for delivering carbon-free energy nearly
every hour of the day will have outsize benefits in reducing the
carbon-intensity of the power PCE consumes, the analysis shows. As of
2021, PCE’s average hourly energy consumption contributed roughly 222
pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour — less than half
the California utility average of 456 pounds per megawatt-hour, but well
above the 26 pounds per megawatt-hour that a 99 percent 24/7 clean
energy portfolio is expected to enable...
The resulting impact on carbon emissions is made clear in the following
two “heat maps” that show the carbon-intensity of electricity purchased
across every hour of the year. The first heat map shows the emissions
from a portfolio that delivers 100 percent clean energy measured on an
annual basis.
And the second heat map shows the emissions impact of a portfolio
designed to deliver clean energy in 99 percent of the hours of the year.
- -
https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-12.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=20f8627d0cf0902781d415cad76c4bef
Heat map of carbon intensity of energy on an hourly basis under an 99
percent clean energy procurement strategy for PCE
- -
https://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/PCE-247-MATCH-Figure-13.jpg.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=3585ad85191d9b9f1da9e47622f4d59a
“For slightly more cost, we’re able to make these huge impacts on
reduced emissions,” Pepper said.
- -
PCE also didn’t factor in the potential for emerging technologies such
as offshore wind power or long-duration energy storage, both of which
are seen as vital to enabling California to reach its zero-carbon goals
in the coming decades.
The open-source modeling tool that PCE developed to do its analysis,
dubbed Matching Around-The-Clock Hourly Energy, is available for other
California community choice aggregators or energy buyers that are
interested in investigating their own 24/7 carbon-free energy
opportunities, Pepper said. “We would be happy to work with anyone who
wants to look at how they can use the model and put their data in,” she
added.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/24-7-carbon-free-energy-is-about-to-become-a-reality-in-california
/[The news archive - looking back a famous opinion in the Washington
Post - still applies today ]/
/*January 20, 2015*/
• Washington Post columnists Catherine Rampell and Eugene Robinson
denounce the GOP's continued refusal to do anything about human-caused
climate change.
Opinions
*Dangerously in denial on climate change*
By Catherine Rampell - January 19, 2015
Last year, government scientists tell us, was the hottest year on
record.
This news is terribly — what’s the word? — inconvenient.
No, not for polar bears or drought victims or coastal dwellers. It’s
inconvenient for politicians across the country who, despite
whatever data or overwhelming scientific consensus might be
proffered, insist on denying global warming.
In recent weeks, West Virginia has snatched national headlines for
its attempts to doctor school science standards to discredit climate
change. The sixth-grade science curriculum, for example, was amended
so that, rather than having students “clarify evidence of the
factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the
past century,” they would examine causes behind the rise “and fall”
in global temperatures.
After a national outcry from educators, West Virginia backed down.
But the science curriculum standards — which come from
recommendations developed and adopted by a partnership of states —
have already been rejected by Wyoming. South Carolina blocked the
standards before they were even finalized, and other states are
gearing up for similar battles. Climate change has slipped into the
same contentious curricular role that evolution once occupied, and
some sort of Scopes penguin trial or a debate over “intelligent
warming” seems inevitable.
The question is why. Passionate anti-evolution skepticism was
clearly borne of biblical teaching. But the motivations behind
climate denialism — which, to my knowledge, remains unaddressed in
Genesis — are a bit blurrier.
To some extent, of course, economic self-interest discourages a
belief in man-made climate change, particularly if you’re from a
state heavily dependent on fossil fuel production. West Virginia
happens to be one such state, and a school board member there who
backed the curricular changes even publicly alluded to the coal
industry’s stake in the matter. Wyoming legislators’ thinking might
be similarly influenced by their state’s status as both the nation’s
top producer of coal — it is responsible for 39 percent of domestic
production — and the top consumer of energy in per capita terms. In
these states, man-made global warming is simply too economically
inconvenient to be true.
But plenty of other states keep voting climate-change deniers into
office even though doing so is against their interests. South
Carolina is one obvious example, since its lucrative coastal tourism
industry is vulnerable to rising seas. Florida and Texas are likely
to be hit with more and increasingly devastating hurricanes, but
both have elected federal lawmakers who are outspoken skeptics of
human-caused climate change: Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Sen.
Ted Cruz and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, all Republicans.
I mention these lawmakers in particular because they have the power
to do a lot of damage on the science policy front, seeing as they,
among other Republican climate “truthers,” all lead important
committees or subcommittees that help set science policy. And in
fact, it’s hard to talk about their party’s views of climate change
without considering the broader context of its attitudes toward the
entire scientific community.
The Republican War on Science has become a bit of a cliche, and GOP
leaders have denied that they are indeed waging such a war. But who
could blame them if they were? Survey data show that conservatives —
who, back in 1974, were the political group that expressed the
highest amount of trust in science — are now the most distrusting of
the scientific community. Decades of anti-elite, anti-intellectual
rhetoric, combined with the Internet’s uncanny ability to connect
like-minded conspiracy theorists, have sowed a great distrust not
only of climate change research specifically but of scientific
researchers in general.
The ivory tower’s sole mission, in the minds of Republican leaders
such as Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.) and his constituents, is not to
push the boundaries of human knowledge but rather to perpetuate a
great liberal hoax upon the world while crippling businesses and
hoovering up Americans’ hard-won tax dollars for dubious research
projects. Thus Republicans’ near-obsessive condemnations not only of
strategies to combat climate change but also of the Environmental
Protection Agency and of the relatively small amounts of tax dollars
delivered through peer-reviewed grants. (A good way to delegitimize
the science community further, by the way, is to cut public funding
so that research agendas are more often dictated by the whims of
private donors and corporate sponsors.)
Conservative climate-change denialism is indeed dangerous, and not
just because it threatens coral reefs and polar bears tomorrow. It’s
also dangerous because it’s a symptom of a much greater
anti-intellectual, anti-science epidemic, one that prioritizes
populist punch lines over smart policy and threatens our ability to
compete in the global economy today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-dangerously-in-denial-on-climate-change/2015/01/19/20796658-a01c-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html?tid=HP_opinion?tid=HP_opinion
=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news
- a few are 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 personal 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20230120/51ab8556/attachment.htm>
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list