1473897518000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjamie-henn%2Fits-exxonmobil-and-the-go_b_12016986.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
It's ExxonMobil And The GOP Who Are 'Chilling' Scientific Inquiry

Jesse Bragg, Media Director for Corporate Accountability International, at an ExxonKnew campaign press conference at the Capitol today

As the campaign to hold ExxonMobil accountable for hiding what they knew about climate change gains momentum, Exxon's defenders have fallen back on a bizarre strategy to try and protect the company: claiming that environmental groups and attorneys general are colluding to "silence" scientists and "chill" scientific inquiry.

"These investigations have had a chilling effect," said Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith, the Chair of the House Science Committee, who hosted a hearing on the Exxon issue this afternoon in Washington. Other Republicans on the committee echoed him. "If government was put in charge of science, we'd still think the Earth was flat," said one member. "Scientists are being bullied," thundered another.

This Republican committee's eagerness to defend science was rather ironic considering the committee's own track record. The committee is perhaps best known not for its support for science (Republicans consistently vote to defund federal science agencies), but for subpoenaing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for, wait for it, conducting climate science. "The hypocrisy from the majority members defending scientific freedom given their previous actions towards NOAA+Tom Karl is breathtaking," tweeted Gavin Schmidt, himself a scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Space Institute at Columbia Institute.

The hypocrisy from the majority members defending scientific freedom given their previous actions towards NOAA+Tom Karl is breathtaking
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) September 14, 2016

The only science that took place at the committee hearing this afternoon came courtesy of Democratic Representative Bill Foster, the only Member of Congress with a PhD in science, who lamented Chairman Smith's abuse of his position to subpoena various officials and organizations. "At some point I'd like to return to science on this committee," said Foster. He then proceeded to grill one of the Republican's "expert" witnesses, Professor Ronald Rotunda, about some outlandish statements Rotunda had made about how the melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet wouldn't cause sea levels to rise. "This hearing is an example of just another rearguard action by a group of people who deny climate change," concluded Foster, shaking his head.

The claim that the groups behind the #ExxonKnew campaign are silencing or chilling scientific inquiry is especially strange because of our shared focus on, well, science. 350.org is named after the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million -- that's about as scientifically wonky as it gets. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), another group supposedly having a chilling effect, is, as the name suggests, largely made of scientists. UCS released a letter earlier this week with over 2,000 scientists weighing in on their behalf to say it was the committee, not environmental groups, that was chilling scientific inquiry. Greenpeace, another subpoenaed group, is best known for its bold campaigns and actions, but it too has a deep track record of supporting scientific inquiry, often transporting scientists up to the Arctic or other remote areas to conduct research.

350.org Executive Director May Boeve

Our complaint with Exxon has never had anything to do with the science they did or are doing. In fact, we'd like to see them do more climate science. Environmentalists have long urged the fossil fuel industry to do a more thorough study of the impact of their business on the planet. We fully support any scientific research into climate change, renewable energy, or zero carbon fuels. Many have made this case to Exxon directly. At the company's annual shareholder meeting this year, advocates continued to lobby for the company to do a full climate assessment of its business and appoint a climate expert to its board. Exxon shot down both proposals. We also applaud the scientists at ExxonMobil, who as early as the 1970s discovered that their product causes global warming.

Our problem isn't with the science, our problem is with the coverup. When Exxon executives heard from their scientists about climate change, instead of warning the public, or urging Congress to fund more research into solutions to the crisis, Exxon spent millions on a vast misinformation campaign. They donated millions more to climate denying politicians, including many of the Republicans at the commitee hearing today (Rep. Smith, the Chairman, has received over $24,000 from Exxon over his career, for example). Instead of supporting science, Exxon funded front groups who published false studies about global warming, lambasted scientists on television, and went after the reputations and careers of individual scientists. Watch the documentary Merchants of Doubt and you'll see PR hacks like Marc Morano, a former Republican politico aid, laugh gleefully about his own personal track record of intimidating scientists. As he says in the preview below, "I'm not a scientist...but I play one on TV occasionally. Ok, hell, more than occasionally."

If Representative Smith is so worried about the chilling of scientific inquiry in this country, he should be subpoenaing the executives over at ExxonMobil to see what role they had in their company's own scientific coverup. He could even go a step further and subpoena the records of his own committee--we'd like to know, for example, what conversations his staff have had with Exxon or any industry front groups. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said at a press conference before the hearing this afternoon, the public deserves to know "how far the hand of the fossil fuel industry is into the glove of this committee."

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Today's hearing was designed to distract the public from the real issue at hand: whether Exxon lied about their knowledge that their product caused climate change. Instead, it just reaffirmed why this case is so important. As 350.org's Executive Director May Boeve said at this morning's press conference, "This hearing is Exhibit A in the case study of Big Oil's stranglehold on Congress."

Our hope is that the ExxonKnew campaign can play some role in breaking that stranglehold, because if we don't, Congress and its committees will continue to be run by politicians who deny the basic facts of climate change, let alone are supporting scientific research to help solve it. Now that is a chilling thought.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473893334000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fchris-wood%2Fthis-land-is-your-land_b_12015894.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
This Land Is Your Land

In September, TU will be feeding you a heavy dose of stories about public lands. From the Golden Trout wilderness in California to the Green Mountains of Vermont, public lands are hugely important to wild and native fish. In most Western states, public lands comprise more than 70 percent of the available habitat for trout, and virtually all of the strongholds for native trout.

My father is the sixth generation of our family to grow up in Newark, NJ. Growing up, the closest public land we had was a local county park called Tuers, where I shot countless hours of hoop. Except for visiting family in Ireland, I didn't leave the Garden State until college in Vermont, and there discovered the Green Mountain National Forest. I spent many hours in that forest catching native brook trout.

After graduation I took a long, slow trip across the country with my dog, Gus, and a big box filled with Dinty Moore beef stew. Gus and I walked the Natchez Trace in Mississippi. We hiked the Smokies in Tennessee. We took pictures of fields of Black-eyed Susans in the Shenandoah. Swam in hot springs in Idaho and clamored over red rocks in Utah. Camped among the aspen in Colorado. Hiked old growth forests in Oregon, marveled at the coastal redwoods of California.

All those places share one thing. They are public lands that belong to us all. For now. In recent years, more than 50 short-sighted bills have been introduced in state legislatures to transfer, sell, or otherwise take away your birthright—the public lands that are managed for us by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Not to be outdone, Congress has entertained similar proposals. Presidential candidates have campaigned on the issue. As much as we'd all like to think “that can't happen,” the fact is that there are well-heeled special interests dedicated to seeing that it does.

Those who seek this so called “transfer”—county supremacists, sagebrush rebels and their contemporary cicadian progeny—neglect an important fact. At no time did the Western federally managed public lands belong to the states. They were either ceded to the Union by Eastern states or acquired through treaty, conquest or purchase by the federal government acting on behalf of the citizens of the United States.

Public lands are the best idea America ever had. For those of us who want to fish and hunt, camp and hike without having to beg or buy permission, they are a godsend. The ham-handed dialogue about transferring or divesting public lands that drives the debate today is unhelpful and unproductive. To suggest that our land legacy—a legacy that a kid from New Jersey shares with a rancher in New Mexico—should be transferred or sold for a pittance is extreme and offensive.

For the next 30 days, tune into TU for a steady diet of stores about why public lands matter. Share the stories, video, and photos with your friends. Raise your voice and let your member of Congress and elected leaders in your state know that the public lands are a birthright that belongs to all of us, and we are not willing sellers.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473888530000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjake-schmidt%2Fvulnerable-countries-urge_b_12015334.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Vulnerable countries urge strong action on Montreal Protocol

Some of the most vulnerable countries in the world just sent a clear message that they want leaders to agree to a strong agreement to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) this year under the Montreal Protocol. World leaders have a chance to minimize the damages to those countries if they act decisively next month and agree to significant cuts in the use of these super-potent, heat-trapping chemicals.

At the recent meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum, many island nations put their support behind an ambitious deal at the Montreal Protocol negotiations in October. Capable of avoiding warming of up to 0.5°C by 2100, an agreement on HFCs is critical to upholding the Paris Agreement's ambition of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. As the Pacific Islands Forum communique states:

"Leaders stressed that the amendment should include an early freeze date for HFC production and consumption followed by a rapid phase down of HFCs."

Proposals vary widely for the timing of the HFC phase down schedule. Countries are already converging on a phasedown schedule for developed countries, likely to start in 2019. The timing for the phasedown schedule of developing countries is under serious debate, with widely diverging proposals. The Africa Group, Pacific Island countries, leading Latin American and Caribbean countries, the U.S., European Union, Japan, and other developed countries have the most ambitious proposal, with a freeze on HFC use for developing countries to begin in 2021. Other Latin American and Asian countries have indicated their willingness to freeze in 2025, while China and Pakistan are proposing 2025--2026 as their preferred freeze years. The Chinese recently committed to help achieve an "an early freeze date and ambitious phase down schedule," so there might be flexibility in this initial proposal. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States suggested 2028, and Iran 2029. India, seeking to continue HFC growth for another 15 years, is proposing a freeze in 2031. The 10-year gap between leading and lagging proposals makes a major environmental difference: waiting for the developing countries to freeze in 2031, would allow at least 15 billion extra CO₂-eq tons of HFC use - close to half the entire world's CO₂output for an entire year.

A strong HFC phase down schedule matters a lot to the most vulnerable. The Pacific Island leaders welcomed the Dubai Pathway for reaching an amendment on HFCs this year, and pushed for an agreement to be reached at the Kigali meeting this October. Without a strong global commitment to reaching a deal in Kigali, the very existences of these island nations is threatened. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Marshall Islands John Silk emphasized:

"Today's communique is a clarion call to action that even with the Paris Agreement, there remains a lot of work to do to guarantee there will still be 16 seats at the Pacific Islands Forum in a hundred years from now."

Members of the Pacific Islands Forum account for less than 2 percent of global emissions, with many island stands accounting for less than 0.01 percent of global emissions. But these states have already suffered devastating storms and cyclones of increasing severity and flooding. When leaders debate the exact freeze date, we should keep in mind the consequences for these most vulnerable nations that had such a small role in creating the problems we face.

Over 100 countries currently support an early freeze on the use and production of HFCs. Next month, when parties gather in Kigali, the key task will be for other world leaders to seize the moment and agree to a strong freeze date and phasedown schedule. The most vulnerable need an agreement, but as the Pacific Island leaders pointed out, they don't just need any agreement - they need an ambitious one.

The stage has been set - now can we get a deal that the climate, and the Pacific Islands, deserve?

---------------------------

(The Forty-Seventh Pacific Islands Forum was attended by Heads of State and Government and Deputies from Australia, the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Republic of Fiji, Niue, the Republic of Palau, and Kiribati. Additional attendees included French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Tokelau as Associate Members, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, Timor-Leste, and Wallis and Futuna.)

This post was co-written with Han Chen and Alex Hillbrand.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473888527000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjustin-guay%2Fwhy-are-you-wearing-dirty_b_12014484.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Why Are You Wearing Dirty Oil?

"2016-09-14-1473883005-6816144-Lozena4.jpg"

Image: "Clothing Spill" by Savers. Credit: Ecouterre

Co-Authored by Kathrine Nasteva CEO Lozena

The reason I care about sustainable fashion isn't that my wife is the founder of the eco and ethical fashion brand Lozena (although that helps). No, the real reason I care is that fashion is one of the most polluting and energy-intensive industries in the world. From raw material acquisition, to textile production, to apparel manufacturing, to product disposal, fashion's environmental footprint is atrocious and it's time that changed.

"2016-09-14-1473882211-5016389-lozenapic1.jpg"

Image: Fashion Products Lifecycle. Credit: The Sustainable Angle

We Wear Oil

One of the first and most disturbing things you learn about fashion is just how toxic the materials we wear are. That's because nearly one quarter of all chemicals produced worldwide are used in textiles. Worse, much of this comes in the form of polyester and other synthetic fibers which requires large amounts of crude oil. That's right, we literally wear oil.

Production of these fibers emits particulate matter and gases such as CO2, nitrous oxide (with a per kilogram global warming potential of 310 times more than that of carbon dioxide), hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and other by-products into the atmosphere. These processes also release volatile organic compounds and solvents in waterways from manufacturing plants. In short, wearing dirty oil may be the least of our worries.

Why is polyester so widely used in apparel production?

Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate), or PET has textile and industrial applications - it's a plastic, used as film for food packaging, electrical insulation, and water and soft drink bottles, among other things. Developed in 1941 in the UK most production now takes place in China - 33 million tons, or 65% of global production in 2015. The popularity of this fiber grew as a result of its stretch and shrink-resistant, low moisture absorption, and thermally stable properties. But it spread because it's really cheap. In 2014 one ton of conventional cotton cost $2,200 compared to $1,400 for one ton of polyester.

Although competition between conventional cotton, the most prevalent natural fiber, and polyester continues to fluctuate according to commodities prices, the production capacity of cotton plateaued and demand for polyester has surged since 1980. Production is forecast to grow to nearly 100 million tons by 2025, while at the same time its price is expected to fall in line with oil prices.

"2016-09-14-1473882840-8235297-Lozena2.png"

End of day commodity futures price for crude oil 9/13/16 closed at $44.90 USD per barrel. Image credit: McKinsey

It's not hard to see why apparel brands prefer polyester - it's inexpensive, blends well with other fibers, and new technological advances have dramatically improved qualities such as draping and denier, and enhanced performance features like breathability and sweat-wicking.

Why should you care?

The emergence and dominance of a fast fashion culture has resulted in skyrocketing demand for cheap, trendy clothing where frequent purchases are alluring and the disposal of heaps of barely-worn clothing is usually painless. While issues of environmental health and safety do not only apply to items made from synthetics (conventional cotton is a discussion for another time), the pervasiveness of these materials in our wardrobes has broader consequences. As of 2007, polyester became the most prevalent fiber used in apparel. This is a problem - not only because synthetic fibers aren't biodegradable and stockpile in landfills, but because the rise of synthetics is allowing consumer culture around fast fashion to proceed as "business as usual."

"2016-09-14-1473882981-2872938-Lozena3.png"

Image: Global fiber consumption, 2015. Credit: Lenzing

Inditex, the parent company of Zara, produces garments to the tune of 948 million per year - and that's just one company in an extremely fragmented and competitive industry. Low barriers allow for new entrants to the market at an incredible pace; and fast fashion brands introduce new trends every two weeks at ever-lower price points. The growth rate for women's apparel is expected to approach 5% per year by 2025, driven primarily by emerging market cities that will contribute an additional $100 billion to the market.

With 80% of the polyester manufactured used for textiles, MIT's Materials Systems Laboratory estimates that roughly 700 million tons of greenhouse gas can be attributed to fashion in 2015. That's because compared to a cotton t-shirt, a polyester t-shirt emits between 20-40% more greenhouse gases. All told polyester emits the equivalent of about 185 dirty coal plants - filthy stuff.

"2016-09-14-1473883208-6813662-lozena5.png"

Image: Total impact of polyester used in the textile industry per year. Credit: MIT Materials Systems Laboratory

So what can be done when everyone in the world wants the newest styles - and they want them now?

Slow Fashion Gaining Speed

Now, more than ever before consumers are more conscience about the items that fill their closets. They're checking garment labels and purchasing high-value, lasting pieces. They're buying clothes that matter. Trends are disappearing as designers are attempting to be original and remain true to their aesthetic. And, more and more emerging brands, large corporations, and retailers are taking environmental and social issues seriously. While sustainable fashion still remains a niche market, the energy and environmental crisis doesn't have to start in your closet. For fashion, the future looks green.

Kathrine is the Co-Founder of LOZENA, a family-owned fashion house with a mission to produce designer womenswear in an ecological and socially responsible manner. Since launching, LOZENA fashion has been seen on the runways of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Berlin; is featured in British Vogue and ELLE UK, and has been blogged about by numerous style writers. LOZENA is distributed exclusively via Kickstarter until October 8th, 2016.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia