For the first time since 2013, a group of activists in Youngstown, Ohio, has been told it cannot place an anti-fracking initiative on local ballots, due in part to a misinformation campaign from...
Hurricane Ophelia hit Ireland earlier this week, leaving three people dead, some 170,000 people without electricity, and water supplies for over one third of a million people in jeopardy as a result of loss of power to pumping stations.
But while the satellite imagery of hurricane Ophelia bearing down on the edge of western Europe may have been alarming, it could hardly be described as unexpected.
Across the world, secretive courts are lowering environmental standards and awarding polluting companies billions of dollars of compensation taken out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Matt Grady from fairtrade campaigners Traidcraft explains how Brexit could be an opportunity to break the cycle.
Two years since ‘Dieselgate’, where Volkswagen was found to have been tampering with emissions readings to make their cars seem greener than they are, electric vehicles (EVs) are now fast becoming a real possibility for car owners.
However, the UK’s target to end the sale of new diesel cars and vans by 2040 has been seen by many as not ambitious enough, and puts the UK behind other countries such as Norway and India who have planned to ban new diesel vehicles from 2025 and 2030 respectively.
It is widely accepted that the transport sector will play a big part in reducing emissions if both air pollution and climate change targets are going to be met. The Committee on Climate Change said in their report for ‘Meeting Carbon Budgets: Closing the policy gap’ that to meet the fifth carbon budget, transport emissions need to reduce by an average of 4 percent per year to 2030.
As the Green Party conferences draws to a close, the party revealed two climate change campaigns aimed at increasing the UK’s ambitions to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
Referring to the international climate negotiations in Bonn next month, party co-leader Caroline Lucas slammed as “imperialistic” the way in which poorer countries were urged to meet emission reduction targets while not being given the necessary funds to “leap frog the dirty years that we went through”.
“These poor countries have contributed least to the climate problem and they are going to be hit the hardest by it,” she said. “Now we need to put our money where our mouth is.”
Australian climate scientists have hit back at their former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, describing his speech to a London think tank as being laced with distortions, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and misdirection.
Abbott told the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that rising carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning could be “beneficial” and compared acceptance of human-caused climate change to religion.
Brexit could be an opportunity for the UK to create new ambitious laws to restore the environment, the Green Party Conference has been told.
At an event titled ‘What Brexit means for our environment’, Ruth Davis, Deputy Director of the Global Environment Programme for RSPB told the party’s annual conference in Harrogate: “We should not see Brexit as a vote for deregulation and reducing standards.”
Despite widespread acceptance of a consensus around the science of climate change, supposedly factual debates about the presence and causes of warming continue. Could climate science really be guilty of publication bias? A team of scientists led by Johan Hollander from Lund University concluded the answer was: no. This article was first published on The Conversation and ScienceNordic.
It is rare to encounter a scientific fact that stirs widespread debate and distrust quite like the matter of climate change.
Despite consensus among climate specialists about a theory that is supported by a mountain of facts from the physical, natural, and cultural sciences, the debate continues to be perpetrated by politicians, industrialists, academics, and armchair scientists.
When governments reject science, the rest of us are put at risk. By refusing to accept the facts and potential ramifications of climate change, as a society, we stand to delay or overlook actions that are urgently needed to reduce our impact on the environment and adapt our cities and farmlands to a different future.