Tensions emerge between green groups and Biden over Dakota Access Pipeline

THE HILL

4/14/2021


The Biden administration is drawing public criticism from environmental groups after the Justice Department last week declined to temporarily shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline as the project undergoes regulatory reviews.

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images environment protect dakota access pipeline DAPL sioux tribe standing rock president joe biden democrat plan sustainable oil transport missouri river us army courts lawyer department of justice water supply

The statements mark the first signs of significant tension between President Biden and environmentalists since he took office.

Groups that backed Biden on the campaign trail, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and League of Conservation Voters, criticized the administration after the Justice Department announced its position in court on Friday.

"President Biden campaigned and was elected on the boldest climate platform ever. Minutes after being sworn in, Biden began taking real, meaningful climate action," Sierra Club Director Michael Brune said in a statement Friday.

"Yet, President Biden's actions today fail to live up to the climate and Tribal commitments he made, nor is it in line with the bold action he has taken since taking office."

Asked about the criticism, a White House spokesperson characterized it as an issue of Justice Department independence. The spokesperson said the court asked if the Justice Department planned to carry out an enforcement action and that the department makes independent decisions about enforcing laws.

Such explanations did not mollify green groups.

"There was no question that there was disappointment that the Biden administration did not act on Friday and we are looking to the Biden administration to take action," Anthony Swift, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Canada Project, said in an interview.

But Swift also described the action as a "blip."

"The environmental community is aligned with the Biden administration's vision," he said. "We are looking to the Biden administration to take action on Dakota Access as well as other pipelines."

In January, an appeals court ruled that an easement that allowed for the Dakota Access Pipeline's construction did not undergo a sufficient environmental review.

It reversed a lower court's decision which said the pipeline's operations should be stopped during a subsequent review, and said that whether to stop its operations "may well be" up to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Attorney Ben Schifman said Friday while representing the federal government that the Dakota Access vessel will be required to abide by the conditions that were set in the now-vacated easement, but said the Biden administration "has not taken any additional action."

Not shutting down the pipeline has also created tensions with progressives.

Joye Braun, a frontline community organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, said the issue pipeline issue is so important because "it embodies so many different things, it embodies the climate, it embodies tribal sovereignty."

"The rule of law already says that it is operating illegally, so why are we continuing to allow these corporations to roll over the law, that makes no sense," Braun said.

John Paul Mejia, a spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement, argued that Biden should be fighting harder.

"Biden is not fighting for the promises that he campaigned on right now," Mejia said. "If he was really swinging for the fence with the ambition that he touted on the campaign trail, then he would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to rescind this pipeline."

On the campaign trail, Biden sought to balance support from both progressives and moderates. Since taking office, his environmental actions have mostly been cheered by progressives.

But other tests like the Dakota Access Pipeline are on the horizon. The administration is slated next week to announce its emission targets under the Paris Agreement.

Groups including the NRDC have called on the administration to set the goal of slashing carbon emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030, when compared to 2005 levels.

"In order to achieve a 50 percent reduction, we're going to have to take a hard look at our fossil fuel development," Swift said.

He said that "will require a hard look at projects like Dakota Access."

CANADA

Is a healthy environment a right? New CEPA bill says so


A new law could soon see toxic chemicals, including harmful plastics, undergo more rigorous assessments aimed at better protecting vulnerable Canadians, the Trudeau government has announced.

Under the proposed law, agencies responsible for regulating toxic chemicals, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, would need to evaluate the cumulative impacts of exposure to multiple chemicals over long periods of time.

The proposed bill tabled by Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson on Tuesday, would bring in sweeping changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). It would fast-track the regulatory process for particularly harmful chemicals, making it easier to restrict their use; encourage companies to avoid toxic chemicals entirely; and force manufacturers to be more transparent about the chemicals used in their products.

The move comes nearly four years after the federal environment committee recommended updates to the decades-old law, which was last revised in 1999.

The proposed update would help address long-standing environmental injustices in Canada. It would also give the federal government better tools to deal with environmental threats and health impacts posed by the dizzying array of chemicals used in Canada.

“The Canadian Environmental Protection Act really is the cornerstone of federal environmental laws,” said Lisa Gue, senior policy analyst at the David Suzuki Foundation.

“It’s our pollution and toxics legislation, and the law under which many important regulations and programs — from climate regulations to the proposed ban on single-use plastic … These are all children of CEPA.”

While the legislation remains in development, it could offer a promising path to help redress the disproportionate impact of toxic chemicals. Indigenous people, people living in poverty, and other marginalized Canadians bear the brunt of exposure to toxic chemicals.

A 2020 report by Baskut Tuncak, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and toxics, found that “marginalized groups, and Indigenous people in particular, (regularly) find themselves on the wrong side of a toxic divide, subject to conditions that would not be acceptable elsewhere in Canada.”

For many Canadians, a healthy environment remains “an elusive privilege,” he wrote. Not a right.

That could soon change, Wilkinson said in a statement.

Under the proposed bill, the federal government would “recognize” that every Canadian has a right to a healthy environment and have a duty to protect it.

“For the first time, there’s this broad recognition of environmental rights, but also a framework for implementing (them) within CEPA — and that’s where the rubber hits the road,” said Gue.

Critics doubt the proposed bill, as it’s currently written, can be effective.

“This bill does not create a right to a healthy environment,” said Joe Castrilli, legal counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association. “There’s a preamble provision which says the government recognizes that … it has the duty to protect the right to a healthy environment. But it doesn’t actually create a remedy for any individual seeking to protect the environment.”

For a right to be effective, however, Canadians must be able to force the government to prevent pollution and penalize companies, governments, or people who pollute. That’s nearly impossible under the new act, Castrilli said.

Furthermore, he noted that the proposed law will let the government infringe on Canadians’ right to a healthy environment to prevent other negative social or economic impacts. For instance, the government could let a company pollute and justify the decision by referencing that business’ economic contributions.

“(A right) doesn’t mean the government has a right to decide how it’s going to protect you,” he explained. “It (is the) instruments you have been given by Parliament to protect yourself if the government won’t act.”

Laurel Collins, MP for Victoria and NDP environment critic, shared similar concerns.

“I think a lot of the measures announced today are steps forward … but there are some loopholes and weaknesses in this bill, (including) some serious limitations on the right to a healthy environment,” she said.

Those concerns include the lack of enforcement against polluters, a long-standing issue carried over from earlier versions of CEPA. Provisions that would allow the environment minister to easily override regulatory decisions in favour of social and economic factors are also worrisome.

“We’ve seen time and time again that this government caves to the interest of corporations, (so) we need to make sure that we have strong laws that ensure we are following the advice of scientists and environmental experts,” she said.

Still, the proposed update — and the possibility it could get stronger as it winds through Parliament over the coming months — is promising she said. Gue, from the David Suzuki Foundation, agreed.

“At the outset, this does appear to be a strong starting point (and) these are really long overdue updates to a very important act,” she said. “Parliament needs to prioritize this legislation, move it along, improve it, strengthen it, and pass it because strong environmental laws are going to be the backbone of the green and just (post COVID-19) recovery.”

Marc Fawcett-Atkinson / Local Journalism Initiative/Canada's National Observer

Noise pollution poses long-term risk to trees: study
AFP 

4/14/2021

Noise pollution poses a long-term risk to tree populations and plant diversity that may persist even after the sources of excess noise are removed, according to research published Wednesday.

© David GANNON Sources of manmade noise have exploded since the middle of last century and biologists are increasingly concerned of their impact on plants and animals

Manmade noise from construction, industry and the building of infrastructure such as roads and pipelines has increased dramatically since the middle of last century, and biologists are increasingly concerned about their impact on plants and animals.

While previous research has documented the short-term impact noise has on tree populations as it scares off pollinators such as insects and animals, few studies have investigated the long-term effects.

Researchers in the United States looked at tree populations in New Mexico that had been exposed to a high level of artificial noise for 15 years.

They found 75 percent fewer pinyon pine seedlings in noisy sites than quiet ones.

They then looked at plots where sources of noise had recently been added or removed and examined how populations recovered.

The team hypothesised that populations of the trees -- in this case juniper and pinyon seedlings -- would recover as the jay birds that help disperse them would return to the plots once the noise had disappeared.

Instead, they detected a long-term decline in seedling numbers as the jays refused to revisit the sites.

"The effects of human noise pollution are growing into the structure of these woodland communities," said Clinton Francis, biology professor at California Polytechnic State University and study co-author.

"What we're seeing is that removal of the noise doesn't necessarily immediately result in a recovery of ecological function."

Jennifer Phillips, co-author of the research published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, said the findings showed how the impact of noise pollution could put pollinating animals off even after the noise is removed.

"Animals like the scrub-jay that are sensitive to noise learn to avoid particular areas," said Phillips.

"It may take time for animals to rediscover these previously noisy areas, and we don't know how long that might take."

As governments continue to be confronted by growing evidence of the damage to nature caused by urbanisation, Phillips told AFP that the impact of noise pollution should also be factored in to planning decisions.

"I definitely think noise pollution, and other sensory pollutants like light, are under-accounted for in mitigation measures," she said.

Phillips said the study could help inform governments about noise pollution can indirectly impact biodiversity due to "mutualisms" or inter-linked effects between species.

pg/mh/dl

The U.S. Is Closer to a Zero-Carbon Grid Than It Seems

Dharna Noor, GIZMONDO

4/14/2021

The U.S. has a lot of work to do to draw down carbon emissions. But a new report shows that when it comes to the energy grid, things are actually in better shape than researchers thought it’d be by this point.

© Photo: Getty (Getty Images) Wind turbines in Block Island Sound on July 8, 2018 just east of Montauk, New York.

The analysis from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory takes a look back at federal projections from the Energy Information Administration from 2005. The agency forecast that carbon pollution tied to electricity generation would increase 600 million metric tons between 2005 and 2020, a 25% increase from 2,400 million tons.

That’s not what happened, though. Instead, carbon emissions from the grid actually fell to 1,450 million metric tons in 2020. That’s a 40% reduction compared to 2005 and 52% below where the EIA thought grid-related emissions would be by now.

“We are now ‘halfway to zero,’” Berkeley Lab scientist Ryan Wiser, lead author of the study, said in a statement in reference to the report name and glass half full mentality about emissions.

This is good for the climate, though emissions need to fall to zero in order to stave off the worst impacts of the climate crisis. But this reduction in carbon over the past 15 years also came with a host of other benefits, especially when compared the EIA outlook. Total energy bills for consumers were 18% lower in 2020 than the EIA projected in 2005, equalling $86 billion in savings for Americans. Reduced fossil fuel power generation also dramatically lowered sulfur and nitrogen emissions, which led to less illness. While the EIA forecast called for 38,000 premature deaths from respiratory disease in 2020, the actual number ended up being 3,100.

Of course, 2020 wasn’t an ordinary year for the power sector. Due to a dramatic drop in demand for fuel amid covid-19 lockdowns, U.S. electricity use in 2020 was a full 4% lower than in 2019. As a result, the nation saw much less carbon pollution from the grid than it would have expected to. The EIA estimated it fell by a historic 11% from the previous year.

But the report’s authors show that even though 2020 was an outlier, it wasn’t a complete aberration; the grid’s carbon emissions had been on a steady decline even before the pandemic began. U.S. energy emissions in 2019 were 46% lower 2005 government projections showed they would be and 33% lower than actual emissions were in 2005.

The authors also analyzed the ways the U.S. electric grid has changed in the past 15 years to determine what the biggest drivers of this reduction have been. They found that one reason was the overall amount of energy used. In 2005, EIA analysts expected that there would be a 24% uptick in use by 2020, but in fact, total demand for electricity was almost exactly the same in 2020 as it was in 2005 (and that’s despite an increase in both population and GDP). And again, that wasn’t just because of the pandemic—if you use pre-pandemic figures from 2019, Americans still used 21% less electricity than the agency predicted.

That reduction, the authors say, reflects that equipment and appliances became more efficient due to technological innovation and stricter efficiency standards. Everything from lighting to construction equipment began running on less power to do the same tasks.

The researchers also found that renewable power far outperformed the EIA’s expectations. Wind and solar generated 13 times more energy in 2020 than the agency projected in 2005. That was a result of technological innovation driven by state and federal policies, which also made clean energy sources far more affordable over that 15-year period. This also means future progress could move quicker still and save even more money.

“Given advancements in wind, solar, and battery technologies, decarbonizing the power sector now appears to be more cost-effective than expected just a few years ago,” the report says.

The report also found that the shuttering of coal plants delivered a reduction in carbon emissions, since coal is among the dirtiest fuels. But thanks to the fracking boom and low gas prices, the U.S. replaced most of that coal with natural gas, which emits less carbon per unit of energy than coal but is still by no means clean.

Getting off natural gas will be one of the key challenges when it comes to continuing to decarbonize our energy grid. In 2019, the fuel was the top contributor to the growth in the nation’s carbon emissions, and it’s continued to be the fastest-growing energy source. But to kick fossil fuels completely, the U.S. have to stop that growth and instead quickly ramp up deployment of renewable power sources.

The authors say that a large portion of the clean energy capacity needed to reach a carbon-free power sector is already in the pipeline. Right now, developers have requested permission to bring about 660 more gigawatts of wind and solar online, which is more than half of what the authors think will be required to reach the goal of complete decarbonization. Even better, “approximately 570 gigawatts of this proposed capacity has requested to interconnect and come online before the end of 2025,” the report says.

But none of that means we should just sit back and watch decarbonization happen. The science has made it clear that we need to transition as fast as possible. Left up to its own devices, the fossil fuel industry won’t go away quietly or justly—it will continue to attempt to greenwash its dirty products while also laying off workers and creating pollution. We can deal with all of that with policy that prioritizes rapid fossil fuel phase-out, workers’ rights, and environmental safety.

Climate change makes Indian monsoon stronger, more erratic: study

Climate change is making India's monsoon stronger and more chaotic, scientists said Wednesday, warning of potential severe consequences for food, farming and the economy affecting nearly a fifth of the world's population.

© Punit PARANJPE India's monsoon rains were unusually heavy in 2020

A new analysis comparing more than 30 climate models from around the world predicts more extremely wet rainy seasons, which sweep in from the sea from roughly June to September each year.

Researchers at the Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) found strong evidence that every degree Celsius of warming would likely increase monsoon rainfall by about five percent.

The study not only confirmed trends seen in previous research, but found "global warming is increasing monsoon rainfall in India even more than previously thought," said lead author Anja Katzenberger, also of Ludwig Maximilian University. © XAVIER GALIANA Excess monsoon rains can have an impact on agriculture and the economy

"It is dominating monsoon dynamics in the 21st century."

This raises the possibility that key crops -- including rice -- could be swamped during crucial growing stages.

Moreover, the monsoon is likely to become more erratic as warming increases, according to the study, published in the journal Earth System Dynamics.

"Since Indian society is overall affected by the monsoon in a very strong way, stronger variability produces problems for agriculture, but also for the organisation of public life," said Anders Levermann from PIK and Columbia University.

"If your roads are flooded, if your train tracks are flooded, that inhibits economic productivity."

He said the year-to-year variability would also complicate strategies to cope with the increasing strength of the rainy season.

"More chaos in the Indian monsoon rainfall will make it harder to adapt," he told AFP.

- Climate impacts -

The research tracked dramatic shifts in the monsoon from the mid-20th century, when human-driven alterations began to overtake the slower natural changes that occur over millennia.

Initially, air pollution from aerosols -- which largely reflect sunlight and act to subdue warming -- caused monsoon rainfall to decrease.

But then, from the 1980s, the warming effects of greenhouse gases began to dominate, driving stronger and more volatile rainy seasons, the researchers said.

The planet's average surface temperature has gone up 1.1 degrees Celsius on average compared to the late 19th-century, with much of that warming occurring in the last half-century.

The 2015 Paris Agreement enjoins the world's nations to collectively cap global warming at "well below" 2C, and even 1.5C if feasible -- although experts say that target is fast slipping out of reach.

Last year, five of the most costly extreme weather events in the world were related to Asia's unusually rainy monsoon, according to a tally by the charity Christian Aid.

Intense flooding in China and India, where the monsoon season brought abnormal amounts of rainfall for the second year running, are consistent with projections on how climate will impact precipitation.

In 2013, some 6,000 people died when flash floods and landslides swept away entire villages in the Indian state of Uttarakhand as rivers swollen by monsoon rains overflowed.

Canadian emissions to make up outsized portion of what climate can bear: study

 Greenhouse gas emissions from Canada's oil and gas industry will make up an outsized share of the remaining carbon the world's atmosphere can take, a new analysis suggests.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

"Canada is no small player here," said Angela Carter of the University of Waterloo, who released the research in advance of U.S. President Joe Biden's meeting on climate change next week.

"Let's tell the truth about what we're actually doing and what that global impact is," said Carter, a political scientist who specializes in environmental policy.

Scientists have concluded that if global warming is to stay within the 1.5 degrees prescribed in the Paris agreement, there's only so much more carbon that can go into the atmosphere. That so-called "carbon budget" is about 230 billion tonnes.

Carter and co-author Truzaar Dordi, a doctoral candidate, decided to look at what Canada's contribution to that budget would be.

In a paper released by the Cascade Institute, a sustainable growth think tank, they used government projections of Canadian oil and gas production, accounting for increasingly stringent carbon regulation. That production is to rise until 2039 and remain above current levels to 2050, when Canada has promised its emissions will be net zero.

The team combined those numbers with official estimates of how much carbon is released in the production and consumption of Canadian oil and projected how much would be released between now and 2050. They compared that to the global carbon budget.

"When I ran the numbers, I quadruple-checked them," said Carter.

Canada, with 0.5 per cent of the world's population, would account for 16 per cent of all the carbon that could be emitted while keeping climate change manageable.

"It's frightening to see that and infuriating to see the federal government depict itself as a global environmental leader," Carter said. "The evidence doesn't support that."

She's skeptical of federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's promise Tuesday that 2019 will prove to be the last year Canada sees a rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

"It is not a statement based in reality."

Environment Canada was not immediately able to respond to Carter's research.

Carter said increases in fossil fuel production will require other parts of the economy to take up the slack if Canada is to meet its reduction targets.

"To get to a position where we see declining emissions from Canada would mean heroic emissions reductions across all other sectors."

Capturing carbon dioxide from large emitters and piping it permanently underground, one of the solutions often pointed to, has limitations, Carter said.

"It's still extremely expensive and requires a lot of government support."

Her paper points out the industry already enjoys considerable public support — from Ottawa's $12.6-billion purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline to the $1.7 billion committed to clean up abandoned energy infrastructure.

Using federal records, Carter found that between March 2020 and 2021, fossil fuel industries and associations met with government officials a total of 1,224 times, an average of 4.5 times a day. Environmental groups met with government 303 times.

"In the last year, we can really see that advocacy coming out in full force," she said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 14, 2021

— Follow @row1960 on Twitter.

Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

'Let's make it count': World leaders, royalty and environmentalists gear up for major climate summit COP26

© Provided by CNBC 

World leaders are set to meet for the COP26 climate summit later this year.

A range of stakeholders are preparing to meet for the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, or COP26, in November.

It was originally due to take place in 2020 but was rescheduled because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Six years ago, after days of painstaking negotiations, world leaders managed to thrash out a deal on climate change. The result was the Paris Agreement, decided at the COP21 summit in Paris.

Described by the United Nations as a legally-binding international treaty on climate change, the landmark accord aims to "limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels." 2 degrees Celsius is around 35 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, years later, politicians are — pandemic permitting — preparing to meet once again for the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, or COP26.

Below, CNBC's Sustainable Future gives the lowdown on the talks.

The basics

As things stand, COP26 will be hosted by the U.K. and held in the Scottish city of Glasgow between Nov. 1 and 12, 2021. It was originally due to take place in Nov. 2020, but was rescheduled because of the coronavirus pandemic.

COP stands for Conference of the Parties — in other words, countries — while the number 26 refers to the fact it will be the 26th summit. The European Union is considered a "party" to the Paris Agreement in its own right, as are its 27 member states.

The U.K. government says talks at COP26, "will bring together heads of state, climate experts and campaigners to agree coordinated action to tackle climate change."

If all goes to plan, thousands of people are expected to attend the event in Glasgow.

Italy has been designated as a "co-host" of COP26 and in late September a three day "Pre-COP" session will take place in Milan, which between 35 and 40 countries are expected to attend.
All present and correct?

Participants at COP25, which was held in Spain at the end of 2019, included the U.S., China, India and the European Union. It's hoped all will be active, vocal participants at the talks in Glasgow.

A great deal of attention will focus on China in the run up to this year's event, not least because it is an industrial and economic powerhouse and the planet's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide.

In an illustration of the challenges involved when it comes to coordinating major international summits, China did not take part in a recent climate meeting held by the U.K. ahead of COP26.

The BBC reported that China was not involved in the meeting, which was attended by the EU, U.S., India and others, despite being invited.

China did, however, take part in the IEA-COP26 Net Zero Summit, which was held on the same day.
Ambition the watchword

Digging a bit deeper into the main summit's aims, the U.K.'s official website for COP26 states it will, "bring parties together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

A lot is riding on COP26. "We know that in order to limit the warming of the Earth to 1.5C at a maximum, the international community, and major and historical emitters need to bring highly ambitious plans," Jake Woodier, COP26 Campaign Manager at The Climate Coalition, a group focused on tackling climate change, told CNBC via email.

"The U.K. as … host needs to play an active role in ensuring this takes place through climate diplomacy, while also providing an example to the world by implementing ambitious and visionary green measures at home."

Helen Clarkson, who is CEO of the Climate Group, an international non-profit, told CNBC that COP26 was "a crucial moment in the fight against climate change."

"As host of the talks, the U.K. has a responsibility to lead from the front and urge governments to set net zero goals that align with the Paris agreement, limiting global temperature rises to no more than 1.5 degrees C," she added.

"To overshoot this would be a catastrophe for people and planet that must be avoided at all costs."
A huge challenge

Much of the discussions at Glasgow will be centered around nationally determined contributions, or NDCs. In simple terms, NDCs refer to individual countries' targets for cutting emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change.

All countries that are part of the Paris Agreement are supposed to update their NDCs every five years. This is important because the targets need to be ramped up regularly in order meet the agreement's overall target of limiting global warming.

In theory, these updates should have been submitted by the end of 2020. In practice, this didn't happen due to a multitude of reasons, including Covid-19 related disruption.

Published in February, a UN report showed that as of Dec. 31 last year, only 75 parties involved in the Paris Agreement had updated their NDCs. This represents just 40% of the total number involved, and together they account for only 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The interim report was described as a "red alert for our planet" by UN Secretary General António Guterres.

"It shows governments are nowhere close to the level of ambition needed to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement," he added.

Elsewhere, Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of UN Climate Change, said the report showed that current targets were "very far from putting us on a pathway that will meet our Paris Agreement goals." An updated version of this report will be published in the run up to COP26.
Greta Thunberg and other stumbling blocks

The anxiety surrounding new NDCs — or the lack of them — is one of several stumbling blocks already experienced by the summit.

Despite already being rescheduled once, Sky News reported at the end of March that the summit could be postponed for a second time because of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, teenage activist Greta Thunberg – a hugely influential figure in the climate change movement – recently cast doubt on her attendance.

Given all of the above, what would need to be achieved and agreed at COP26 for it to be considered a success?

"Success would look like rigorous targets that embody a high level of ambition that ensures warming is kept to below 1.5C," The Climate Coalition's Woodier said.

"Beyond that, it's imperative that richer nations commit to equitable financing contributions to ensure poorer nations are supported in full to transform their economies."
Prince William weighs in

COP26 represents an opportunity for high-level discussions on a broad range of topics connected to the environment.

The U.K. says its COP26 Presidency will focus on five things: finance, clean road transport, adaptation and resilience, the energy transition and nature. The latter has some high-profile advocates, including Prince William.

Addressing the virtual spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group last week, the Duke of Cambridge said protecting and restoring nature was "critical to the success of COP26 in Glasgow later this year and for the brighter, greener, more prosperous future that we all want to see."

"We cannot recover sustainably from coronavirus, eradicate global poverty, achieve net zero emissions or adapt to climate change without investing in nature," he added.

COP26, William went on to state, was a "vital step on the path to putting nature center stage in our fight against climate change."

"The decisions that leaders take in Glasgow will echo down the generations for years to come. So let's make it count."

Psychedelic drug worked for depression as well as common antidepressant, small trial finds

Kaitlin Sullivan NBC 4/14/2021

A couple doses of a psychedelic drug may be as effective in treating depression as one of the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, a small and short study published Wednesday shows.

© Provided by NBC News

A phase 2 clinical trial, conducted by researchers in London, was the first randomized one to compare therapeutic doses of psilocybin — the psychedelic compound found in so-called magic mushrooms — with a daily medication. The results were released in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is huge because it’s showing that psilocybin is at least as good — and probably better — than the gold standard treatment for depression,” said Roland Griffiths, director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in the study.

Research on how psychedelics can be used to treat mental health conditions is still in its early stages, and much more will be needed to determine whether or not psychedelics including psilocybin are an effective long-term treatment. It’s also still unclear how treatment involving psychedelics would be used in the real world, as patients must be monitored for hours when given the drug.

This small, six-week trial included 59 adults, nearly 40 percent of whom were taking medication to treat their depression prior to the study, but were weaned off. Thirty participants received two 25 mg doses of psilocybin three weeks apart, plus six weeks of a daily placebo pill. The remaining 29 were also given psilocybin during two visits, but such a small amount that it did not have an effect and was only meant to be a placebo. The second group also took a daily dose of escitalopram — the generic version of the antidepressant Lexapro — a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or SSRI.

Participants in both groups were given the psilocybin dose in a clinician’s office where they were monitored until the clinician determined any effects had worn off and the individual could safely go home.

At the end of the six weeks, the researchers used four different measures of depression to determine whether or not the participants’ symptoms had improved: Two questionnaires filled out by the participants, and two evaluations from the clinicians.

All but one, a self-reported questionnaire called QIDS-SR-16, showed that people who took psilocybin reported a greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who took Lexapro. The QIDS-SR-16 results, which was the depression measurement method the researchers reported they would focus on before starting the trial, showed that psilocybin was as effective as escitalopram. (Before beginning a study, researchers must outline what measures they plan to evaluate, and stick to this methodology regardless of the results.)

“We were honestly surprised that psilocybin performed as well as it did,” said lead researcher Robin Carhart-Harris, head of the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London.

Carhart-Harris and his team noted they were not able to measure the long-term effects of psilocybin compared to escitalopram, which takes longer to start working and may not have reached its full therapeutic potential during the six-week trial.

The researchers kept the trial relatively short because some volunteers had to come off their current depression treatments to participate, which can be risky, Carhart-Harris noted. To look at longer-term effects, his team plans on collecting data from the participants at the six-month mark.

Some outside experts also pointed out limitations of the study: It did not include a control group of people who received no treatment, and the cohort was 66 percent men, though women in the real world are more likely to experience depression. It’s also difficult to make a study involving psychedelics truly blinded, since patients may be able to guess which group they are in based on if they experience noticeable effects of the higher dose of psilocybin.

But the findings do add to a growing body of research suggesting that psychedelic drugs could be used in a clinical setting to treat depression, and likely have lasting effects.

According to Alan Davis, an assistant professor of social work at Ohio State University and adjunct assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, the new trial shows that there may be untapped depression treatments that could help people reach remission without daily medication –– and the cost and side effects that come with it. “To me, that represents a breakthrough,” he said.

More than 13 percent of American adults are prescribed antidepressants, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show, and SSRIs are the most commonly prescribed class of the medication. However, scientists still don’t understand exactly how those medications — or psychedelics — work on symptoms of depression.

“The receptors SSRIs work on seem to inhibit responses in the brain, particularly stress responses, and we think that takes the edge off so you can tolerate stress better,” Carhart-Harris said. “With psychedelics, it’s almost the opposite. It’s almost like a brutal confrontation with the root of your suffering, which can allow people to better understand where their depression stems from.”

Griffiths, who has also conducted research on psilocybin and depression, said he was initially skeptical about what effect, if any, the drug would have on symptoms of depression. He expected to see a lot more variability in the outcomes of psilocybin research than there has been so far — most research has shown that psilocybin appears to have a positive effect on depressive symptoms in many of the trials in which it has been studied. Another small clinical trial published in November in JAMA Psychology, for example, found that more than 70 percent of participants reported their depression eased within the first week after taking two comparable doses of psilocybin and more than half were in remission within four weeks.

“People ask me what I believe and my answer is I believe in the data,” Griffiths said. “Psilocybin therapy is not going to be effective for everyone and we are still at a very early stage of understanding what populations will be the most sensitive to the treatment. But there is no question that there is something v

UAE Moon rover taps Japanese startup aiming to be the SpaceX of lunar landings

Chris Davies - Apr 14, 2021,

A new Moon rover project is in the works, with the UAE partnering with Japanese robotics company ispace on the Emirates Lunar Mission. Unlike NASA’s Perseverance and Curiosity rovers, which are currently on Mars, the Rashid rover that the Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre (MBRSC) has in mind for 2022 will be a lot more compact. It’ll also tap SpaceX for transportation.

The plan is to put the rover on a SpaceX Falcon 9, which will launch next year from Florida. Compared to the length of the trip to Mars, the journey itself will be a relatively short one – though ispace does point out that the launch may be delayed as it works on the rover technology – though that doesn’t mean Rashid will be retreading old ground.

Instead, the goal is to land the rover in an area of the lunar surface that hasn’t been explored fully before. It’ll have four wheels – rather than the six of NASA’s Mars rovers – and be significantly smaller than the SUV-scale Perseverance. All the same, ispace says, it should still be able to navigate across difficult terrain.

There’ll be 360-degree cameras for photos and video, and a set of different experiments to look at dust and soil on the Moon. In addition, ispace will also provide wired communication and power services via the Hakuto-R lunar lander during the cruise phase, and then wireless communication when on the lunar surface.



It’ll be part of what ispace has been calling Mission 1, or M1, set to be the first privately-led Japanese mission to land on the Moon. The company aims to reduce the cost of lunar exploration, including eventually using landers like the Hakuto-R to release fleets of robotic rovers. These will use swarm intelligence to interconnect, improving things like mapping and pooling the results of experiments and surveys. As a result, it’s aiming to dramatically lower the barrier to lunar exploration for governments and private companies.

Hakuto-R can also carry experiments and other equipment itself. The original M1 plan had been to perform a soft-landing on the Moon, and only release a rover in the second, M2 phase. That was scheduled to be launched in 2023.


If successful, it’ll follow only three nations to successfully land spacecraft on the Moon, with the US, Russia, and China all having run lunar programs of their own. NASA is currently readying its own return to the Moon as part of the Artemis project, aiming to deliver human astronauts to the lunar surface. Technology developed for Artemis is expected to go on to be used for future crewed missions to Mars, and potentially beyond.

UK

Lawyer’s video documenting Johnson repeatedly lying in parliament racks up 10 million views

Peter Stefanovic fact-checked the PM's claims about C02 emissions, economic growth and poverty among other things.
 

by Jack Peat
April 14, 2021
in Politics




A lawyer’s viral video documenting spurious claims made by Boris Johnson in parliament has surpassed 10 million views, he has revealed.

In August last year Peter Stefanovic compiled and uploaded a two-minute video in which he fact-checked several claims made by Johnson since he became prime minister.

These include the government’s record on emissions reductions, economic growth, nurses’ bursaries, hospital car parking, NHS spending, the Covid-19 track and trace app, and poverty in the UK.


Just over six months later, the video has been widely shared and Mr Stefanovic said it surpassed 10 million views on Tuesday.

5 Johnson claims debunked by Stefanovic

Stefanovic said the public had “sent a message to UK media that if they won’t hold this prime minister to account for all his lies we will damn well do it ourselves” after the video reached the landmark.

Here’s some of the spurious claims he fact-checked:

CO2 emissions

In the first example, the prime minister can be seen speaking back in late 2019 or early 2020 when Sajid Javid was still Chancellor.

Mr Johnson says: “We have cut CO2 emissions in this country since 2010 on 1990 levels by 42 per cent – that is an astonishing achievement.”


Mr Stefanovic then responds: “Well it would be if it were true, but it’s just another lie. CO2 emissions fell by 39 per cent between 1990 and 2018. Not from 2010 onwards.”
Economy has grown by 73 per cent

Johnson then goes onto claim that the economy, under this Conservative government, “has grown by 73 per cent,” which is also wrong.

As Mr Stefanovic points out, the official records do not back up Mr Johnson’s quite astonishing claim.

The economy has grown by roughly this level since 1990 according to the ONS, during which there have been Conservative and Labour governments and the Lib-Dem-Tory coalition government.

Under Conservative-led governments since 2010, the UK’s GDP has grown by around 20 per cent.

Nurses bursary

The next bare-faced lie was made in relation to nurses bursaries, which were apparently “restored” by the Conservatives, according to Johnson.

But this is not the case. The government introduced a small grant, which still leaves nurses saddled with huge amounts of debt. Their training was completely free up until 2017.

Hospital car parking

Johnson also said “there’ll be free hospital car parking for everyone who attends a hospital”, in parliament.

This plan was abandoned by Mr Johnson, reportedly at the health secretary, Matt Hancock’s, request.

Poverty

“Absolute poverty and relative poverty have both declined under this government, and there are 400,000 fewer families living in poverty now than there were in 2010,” Johnson claimed.

This claim from June 2020 caused outrage at the time.

According to official records the number of people living in relative poverty in the UK increased from 13.6 million in 2009-10 to 14.5 million in 2018-19.

But absolute poverty did decline over the same period by 100,000 to reach 12.9 million.