Pentagon Warns of Dire Risk to Bases, Troops From Climate Change: Bloomberg

Wild Fire Risks from Climate Change

"The U.S. Defense Department has issued a dire report on how climate change could affect the nation’s armed forces and security, warning that rising seas could inundate coastal bases and drought-fueled wildfires could endanger those that are inland.

The 22-page assessment delivered to Congress on Thursday says about two-thirds of 79 mission-essential military installations in the U.S. that were reviewed are vulnerable now or in the future to flooding and more than half are at risk from drought. About half also are at risk from wildfires, including the threat of mudslides and erosion from rains after the blazes."


Read the full Bloomberg story
January 19, 2019 

Corporate America Is Getting Ready to Monetize Climate Change: Bloomberg

Not OK to profit from wrecking the climate

"Bank of America Corp. worries flooded homeowners will default on their mortgages. The Walt Disney Co. is concerned its theme parks will get too hot for vacationers, while AT&T Inc. fears hurricanes and wildfires may knock out its cell towers.

The Coca-Cola Co. wonders if there will still be enough water to make Coke.

As the Trump administration rolls back rules meant to curb global warming, new disclosures show that the country’s largest companies are already bracing for its effects. The documents reveal how widely climate change is expected to cascade through the economy -- disrupting supply chains, disabling operations and driving away customers, but also offering new ways to make money."

Read the Bloomberg story 

See also: Latest: Pentagon Warns of Risk to Bases, Troops From Climate Change

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

"EU demand for wood pellets has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South, write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth. [McBeth / Flickr]

There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than burning fossil fuels. Yet the EU’s renewable energy directive continues to uphold that burning forest wood is “carbon neutral,” write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is a climate scientist and professor at Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL).  He is former vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008-2015). Mary S. Booth is the director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PPI), an organisation promoting science-based policies to protect air, water, ecosystems, and the climate.

As the UN’s International Day of Forests approaches (March 21), it’s a good time to focus on the role of forests in fighting climate change.

But given the obvious climate and ecosystem benefits of protecting and expanding forests, people might well ask, why does the EU’s flagship policy on climate, the new Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) promote logging and burning forests for energy?

This question lies at the heart of a suit filed this month in the Court of Justice of the European Union on behalf of six plaintiffs from the EU and the US.

The suit is necessary because the policy process, which should have protected people, ecosystems, and the climate, has failed. There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit energy than burning fossil fuels.

And there is no debate that EU demand for wood pellet fuel has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South."

 ............................................

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’

A group of plaintiffs from Estonia, France, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and the US are filing a lawsuit against the European Union on Monday (4 March) to challenge the inclusion of forest biomass in the bloc’s renewable energy directive.

Read Euractive article 

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV.COM Ltd.

By Jean Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth

 Mar 20, 2019


See also:

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

Burning trees as climate mitigation: A resort to the Court: Euractive

"EU demand for wood pellets has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South, write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth. [McBeth / Flickr]

There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than burning fossil fuels. Yet the EU’s renewable energy directive continues to uphold that burning forest wood is “carbon neutral,” write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is a climate scientist and professor at Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL).  He is former vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008-2015). Mary S. Booth is the director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PPI), an organisation promoting science-based policies to protect air, water, ecosystems, and the climate.

As the UN’s International Day of Forests approaches (March 21), it’s a good time to focus on the role of forests in fighting climate change.

But given the obvious climate and ecosystem benefits of protecting and expanding forests, people might well ask, why does the EU’s flagship policy on climate, the new Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) promote logging and burning forests for energy?

This question lies at the heart of a suit filed this month in the Court of Justice of the European Union on behalf of six plaintiffs from the EU and the US.

The suit is necessary because the policy process, which should have protected people, ecosystems, and the climate, has failed. There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit energy than burning fossil fuels.

And there is no debate that EU demand for wood pellet fuel has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South."

 ............................................

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’

A group of plaintiffs from Estonia, France, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and the US are filing a lawsuit against the European Union on Monday (4 March) to challenge the inclusion of forest biomass in the bloc’s renewable energy directive.

Read Euractive article 

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV.COM Ltd.

By Jean Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth

 Mar 20, 2019


See also:

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

Want to Build a Stronger Climate Movement? Integrate. :NexusMedia

"Dr. Robert Bullard, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University in Houston, believes that big green groups need to do more to support environmental justice groups, which treat pollution not as an isolated problem, but as part of a larger constellation of issues that includes poverty, discrimination and political marginalization."

"We saw that in Hurricane Katrina when we didn’t take care of the levees in the lowest-income communities. That’s obvious to many communities on the ground who are facing the ravages of climate right now. For them, it’s not a debate. It’s not theory. It’s real. For workers who work outside, they know it’s getting hotter. They know it’s more difficult to work outside, and they know that if it’s too hot to work, or if it’s raining every day, they can’t do their job, and they’re losing money. It’s not a matter of whether or not climate change is real. They know it’s real."

Read the original Nexus story 

Related: 

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies

 

#environmentaljustice   #environment   #workers   #climateactivism   #climatejustice   

Public Money Propping Up Fossil Fuels: Market Forces

Your Australian taxes funding fossil fuels

"Each year, the Australian government spends billions of dollars of your money on programs that encourage more coal, gas and oil to be extracted and burned. Market Forces estimates that tax-based fossil fuel subsidies cost almost $12 billion a year federally. This includes subsidies that support both the production and use of fossil fuels.

But tax-based subsidies aren’t the only government financial backing for fossil fuels. Direct handouts and contributions to the industry are doled out at both federal and state levels. 

On top of this, public money is used to finance fossil fuels through our national export credit agency EFIC, as well as our involvement with international financial institutions.
Australia has built a bad reputation as one of the world’s biggest backers of the dirty fossil fuel industry, a stance made clear at the 2015 Paris climate talks when it refused to sign an agreement that would phase out fossil fuel subsidies. 

This came despite Australia having committed on multiple occasions to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”

Your Australian taxes are funding fossil fuels.

Read the Market Forces article

 Related:

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies

#fossil fuel industry  #fossil fuel subsidies  #fossil fuel subsidies, poverty  #climate action   #Australia,  

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies : GMO

Vote for my climate

"Governments argue that fossil fuel subsidies are designed to help the poorest members of society, however, this is not borne out by the research.  The true beneficiaries of these subsidies are wealthier people and wealthier nations not the poor.
According to an IEA report, more than 85 percent of these subsidies go to middle and higher end income earners while only 8 percent of the aid is reaching the poorest 20 percent. These subsidies encourage energy consumption as people with the lowest incomes tend to be lower energy users and rarely drive.
"Fossil-fuel subsidies as presently constituted tend to be regressive, disproportionately benefiting higher income groups that can afford higher levels of fuel consumption," the report said. 'Social welfare programs are a more effective and less distortionary way of helping the poor than energy subsidies.' "

Read the Green Market Oracle story

#fossil fuel subsidies   #climate catastrophe  #poverty   #renewable energy  #100% renewable energy  #electricity #Australia