America’s richest 10% are responsible for 40% of planet-heating pollution, new report finds

Laura Paddison, CNN
Thu, August 17, 2023 

America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

A new study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate found the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of planet-heating pollution in the US, and called on governments to shift away from “regressive” taxes on the carbon-intensity of what people buy and focus on taxing climate-polluting investments instead.

“Global warming can be this huge, overwhelming, nebulous thing happening in the world and you feel like you’ve got no agency over it. You kind of know that you’re contributing to it in some way, but it’s really not clear or quantifiable,” said Jared Starr, a sustainability scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a report author.

This study helps build a clearer picture of individual responsibility by going beyond what people consume, he told CNN.

A private jet at Santa Fe Municipal Airport in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Traditionally analyses of climate footprints of the very rich have focused on what they buy. - Robert Alexander/Getty Images

To do this, the researchers analyzed huge datasets spanning 30 years to connect financial transactions to carbon pollution.

They looked at the planet-heating pollution produced by companies’ direct operations, as well as those relating to companies’ climate impacts further down the supply chain – for example, the bulk of an oil company’s emissions comes when its customers burn the oil it extracts.

That gave a carbon footprint for each dollar of economic activity in the US, which the researchers linked to households using population survey data that showed the industries people work for and their income from wages and investments.

They found the wealthiest 10% in the US, households making more than about $178,000, were responsible for 40% of the nation’s human-caused, planet-heating pollution. The income of the top 1% alone – households making more than $550,000 – was linked to 15% to 17% of this pollution.



The report also identified “super-emitters.” They are almost exclusively among the wealthiest top 0.1% of Americans, concentrated in industries such as finance, insurance and mining, and produce around 3,000 tons of carbon pollution a year. To put that in perspective, it’s estimated people should limit their carbon footprint to around 2.3 tons a year to tackle climate change.

“Fifteen days of income for a top 0.1% household generates as much carbon pollution as a lifetime of income for a household in the bottom 10%,” Starr said.

Climate impact is not just about the size of the people’s income but the industries that generate it. A household making $980,000 from certain fossil fuel industries, for example, would be considered a super-emitter, according to the report. But a household making money from the hospital industry would need to bring in $11 million to produce the same amount of planet-heating pollution.

 

The report’s authors call on policymakers to rethink how they use taxes to tackle the climate crisis.

Carbon taxes that focus on what people buy – the food we eat, the cars we drive, the clothes we buy – “disproportionately punish the poor while having little impact on the extremely wealthy,” said Starr. They also miss the chunk of wealth rich people spend on investments rather than buying things.

Governments instead should focus on taxes that target shareholders and carbon-intensive investments, the report said. Although it will be “a hard political ask,” Starr acknowledged, especially as the wealthiest tend to have disproportionate political power.

Many ideas for taxing carbon have been floated around the world including windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies and wealth taxes, but few have been politically viable.

Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden, who was not involved in the report, said the study helps reveal how closely income, especially from investments, is tied to planet-heating pollution.

Sometimes when people talk about ways to tackle the climate crisis, they bring up population control, said Mark Paul, a political economist at Rutgers University who was also not involved in the study. But studies like this “shine light on the outsized responsibility that the rich have in generating and perpetuating the climate crisis,” he told CNN.

Identifying the main actors behind the climate crisis is vital for governments to develop policies that cut planet-heating pollution in a fair way, he added. Although he disagreed with the study’s assertion that carbon taxes on consumption disproportionately affect the poor, saying there were ways to implement them fairly.

The outsized climate impact of the rich is, of course, far from just a US problem.

Globally, the planet-heating pollution produced by billionaires is a million times higher than the average person outside the world’s wealthiest 10%, according to a report last year from the nonprofit Oxfam.

“At the moment, the way the economy works is that it takes money and turns it into climate pollution that is destabilizing life on Earth,” Nicholas said. “And that fundamentally has to change.”

The scale of emissions inequality in U.S. society

Emissions inequality across economic and racial lines, with the top 1% of households’ investment holdings accounting for 40% of their emissions

Peer-Reviewed Publication

PLOS

 

IMAGE: FIG 4. MEAN HOUSEHOLD T CO2E EMISSIONS (2019) PER INCOME GROUP UNDER THE PRE-TAX SUPPLIER FRAMEWORK. THE WIDTH OF EACH INCOME GROUP, ON THE X-AXIS, CORRESPONDS WITH EACH GROUP’S SHARE OF NATIONAL EMISSIONS. COLOR INDICATES INCOME CATEGORY. BLACK ERROR BARS ARE BOOTSTRAPPED 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR TOTAL T CO2E FROM ALL THREE SOURCES. SIMILARLY, GRAY ERROR BARS ARE BOOTSTRAPPED 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS ON THE TOTAL T CO2E GIVEN AN ASSUMED ±20% ERROR IN CARBON INTENSITY PER DOLLAR. (PRODUCER-BASED RESULTS ARE PRESENTED IN S8 FIG). view more 

CREDIT: STARR ET AL., 2023, PLOS CLIMATE, CC-BY 4.0 (HTTPS://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY/4.0/)

Researchers have linked US household income data to greenhouse gas emissions generated in creating that income, and found that 40% of total emissions are associated with income for the highest 10% of households. The paper, published in PLOS Climate suggests that an income or shareholder-based carbon tax focused on investments may have equity advantages over traditional consumer-facing cap-and-trade or carbon tax options.

Human created climate change is an existential threat, and there is a disconnect between those facing the worst impacts and those that drive the greatest greenhouse gas emissions.

Jared Starr of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and colleagues, took 30 years of US household-level income data, from 1990-2019, and linked it to the emissions generated in that income. They look at both income from direct emissions, such as industries like power plants, and income related to industries supplying services or commodities to those industries - such as finance or fossil fuel suppliers.

In general, white non-Hispanic households had the highest emissions linked to income, and Black households had the lowest, predominantly because of the racial inequity of income distribution. In terms of age, emissions tend to increase with age until peaking within the 45 – 54 age group before declining again.

Among the highest earning 1% of households, whose income is linked to 15 - 17% of national emissions, investment holdings account for 38 - 43% of their emissions. The team also identifies “super emitters” with extremely high overall emissions, and these are almost exclusively among the top 0.1% of households, which are overrepresented in finance, real estate, and insurance; manufacturing; mining and quarrying.

The research offers a new perspective on emissions responsibility and climate finance and could be a useful policy tool to encourage decarbonization while raising revenue for climate finance.

Starr adds: “The scale of emission disparity is quite striking. Just fifteen days of income-based emissions from an average top 0.1% household is equal to a lifetime of emissions from a bottom decile household. I find that morally troubling, especially since low-income households face disproportionate climate harms.

I think we need to make sure that our climate policies take these disparities into account. One way to do that is to make sure that those who are financially benefitting thanks to emissions are properly incentivized to both reduce their emissions and pay for the damage caused by those emissions. I believe that an income or asset-based carbon tax would focus the minds of corporate executives, board members, and large shareholders to decarbonize their industries in order to reduce their taxes. In essence it is decarbonization and divestment out of self-interest. At the same time it would generate much needed revenue for climate finance. While no tool is perfect, I think this could be a useful new approach to encourage the most economically and politically powerful in our society to focus their minds on decarbonization.”

#####

In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS Climate: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190

Citation: Starr J, Nicolson C, Ash M, Markowitz EM, Moran D (2023) Income-based U.S. household carbon footprints (1990–2019) offer new insights on emissions inequality and climate finance. PLOS Clim 2(8): e0000190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190

Author Countries: Norway, US

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

---

JOURNAL

PLOS Climate

DOI

10.1371/journal.pclm.0000190 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Computational simulation/modeling

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Income-based U.S. household carbon footprints (1990–2019) offer new insights on emissions inequality and climate finance

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Aug-2023

A carbon tax on investment income could be more fair and make it less profitable to pollute – a new analysis shows why

Jared Starr, Sustainability Scientist, UMass Amherst
Thu, August 17, 2023 

Investor pressure could drive down greenhouse gas emissions. Tippapatt/iStock/Getty Images Plus

About 10 years ago, a very thick book written by a French economist became a surprising bestseller. It was called “Capital in the 21st Century.” In it, Thomas Piketty traces the history of income and wealth inequality over the past couple of hundred years.

The book’s insights struck a chord with people who felt a growing sense of economic inequality but didn’t have the data to back it up. I was one of them. It made me wonder, how much carbon pollution is being generated to create wealth for a small group of extremely rich households? Two kids, 10 years and a Ph.D. later, I finally have some answers.

In a new study, colleagues and I investigated U.S. households’ personal responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2019. We previously studied emissions tied to consumption – the stuff people buy. This time, we looked at emissions used in generating people’s incomes, including investment income.

If you’ve ever thought about how oil company CEOs and shareholders get rich at the expense of the climate, then you’ve been thinking in an “income-responsibility” way.

While it may seem intuitive that those getting rich from fossil fuels bear responsibility for the emissions, very little research has been done to quantify this. Recent efforts have started to look at emissions related to household wages in France, global consumption and investments of different income groups and billionaires’ investments. But no one has analyzed households across a whole country based on the emissions used to generate their full range of income, including wages, investments and retirement income, until now.

We linked a global data set of financial transactions and emissions to microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly labor force survey, which includes respondents’ job, demographics and income from 35 categories, including wages and investments. People’s wages we connected to the emission intensity of the industries that employ them, and we based the emissions intensity of investment income on a portfolio that mirrors the overall economy.

The results of our analysis were eye-opening, and they could have profound implications for producing more effective and fair climate policies in the future.

A view from the top 1%

Both our consumption- and income-based approaches reveal that the highest-earning households are responsible for much more than an equitable share of carbon emissions. What’s more surprising is how different the level of responsibility is depending on whether you look at consumption or income.

In the income-based approach, the share of national emissions coming from the top 1% of households is 15% to 17% of national emissions. That’s about 2.5 times higher than their consumer-related emissions, which is about 6%.

In the bottom 50% of households, however, the trend is the exact opposite: Their share of consumption-based national emissions is 31%, about two times larger than their income-based emissions of 14%.

Why is that?

A couple things are going on here. First, the lowest earning 50% of U.S. households spend all that they earn, and often more via social assistance or debt. The top income groups, on the other hand, are able to save and reinvest more of their income.

Second, while high-income households have very high overall spending and emissions, the carbon intensity – tons of carbon dioxide emitted per dollar – of their purchases is actually lower than that of low-income households. This is because low-income households spend a large share of their income on carbon-intensive basic necessities, like home heating and transportation. High-income households spend more of their income on less-carbon-intensive services, like financial services or higher education.

Implications for a carbon tax

Our detailed comparison could help change how governments think about carbon taxes.

Typically, a carbon tax is applied to fossil fuels when they enter the economy. Coal, oil and gas producers then pass this tax on to consumers. More than two dozen countries have a carbon tax, and U.S. policymakers have proposed adding one in recent years. The idea is that raising the price of these products by taxing them will get consumers to shift to cheaper and presumably less carbon-intensive alternatives.

But our studies show that this kind of tax would disproportionately fall on poorer Americans. Even if a universal dividend check was adopted, consumer-facing carbon taxes have no impact on saved income. Generating that income likely contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, but as long as the money is used to buy stocks rather than consumables, it is excluded from carbon taxes. So, this kind of carbon tax disproportionately affects people whose income goes primarily toward consumption.

A profit-focused carbon tax

What if, instead of focusing on consumption, carbon taxes addressed greenhouse gases as an outcome of profit generation?

The vast majority of American corporations operate under the principle of “shareholder primacy,” where they see a fiduciary duty to maximize profit for their investors. Products – and the greenhouse gases used to make them – are not created for the benefit of the consumer, but because the sale of those products will benefit the shareholders.

If carbon taxes were focused on shareholder income linked to greenhouse gas emissions rather than consumption, they could target those receiving the most economic benefits resulting from these emissions.

The impact

A couple of interesting things might result, particularly if the tax was set based on the carbon intensity of the company.

Corporate executives and boards would have incentive to reduce emissions to lower taxes for shareholders. Shareholders would have incentive, out of self-interest, to pressure companies to do so.

Investors would also have incentive to shift their portfolios to less-polluting companies to avoid the tax. Pension and private wealth fund managers would have incentive to divest from carbon-polluting investments out of a fiduciary duty to their clients. To keep the tax focused on large shareholders, I could see retirement accounts being excluded from the tax, or a minimum asset threshold before the tax applies.

Revenue generated from the carbon tax could help fund adaptation and the transition to clean energy.

Instead of putting the responsibility for cutting emissions on consumers, maybe policies should more directly tie that responsibility to corporate executives, board members and investors who have the most knowledge and power over their industries. Based on our analysis of the consumption and income benefits produced by greenhouse gas emissions, I believe a shareholder-based carbon tax is worth exploring.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. 

It was written by: Jared Starr, UMass Amherst.

Read more:

Taxing carbon may sound like a good idea but does it work?

What if carbon border taxes applied to all carbon – fossil fuels, too?

A carbon tax can have economic, not just environmental benefits for Australia

Opinion: One thing we know about the Maui wildfires: Some of those most responsible won't pay a cent

Caroline Levine
Thu, August 17, 2023 

Destroyed homes and cars in Lahaina, Hawaii. (Rick Bowmer / Associated Press)


Maui faces devastating economic costs beyond its intolerable human loss and suffering from recent wildfires. Scorched homes and businesses reduced to rubble won’t be rebuilt quickly; cleaning up their remnants, some of them toxic, won’t be cheap. Rebuilding costs have been estimated at $5.5 billion.

Who will pay for this? Most of us will, to varying degrees, but some of those most responsible — the fossil fuel companies that play a key role in such climate-related disasters — won’t.

Extreme weather events always take their highest economic toll on the communities directly hit. Maui’s families, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, have suddenly lost both jobs and homes. They’ll now struggle to meet their most basic needs. Even those who have some savings will have to figure out how to make them last through long delays for inspections, insurance payments and federal aid.

Taxpayers will keep some emergency shelters and food supplies going and fund longer-term federal assistance. Over the past 10 years, the U.S. government has spent $350 billion on climate-related disasters.

Insurance companies will cover much of the property damage. They’ll probably hike rates across the state, too, passing on the costs to ordinary Hawaiians. Some may even stop selling homeowner coverage in Hawaii, as State Farm and others have done in wildfire-prone California, exposing residents to even greater costs.

Hawaiian Electric already faces legal action over the possibility that the utility's equipment started the fires. If California residents’ experience attempting to extract compensation from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is any guide, the results will be mixed.

The fossil fuel companies, however, won’t be paying a cent. That’s despite the fact that their products created the climate conditions that made such fires more likely and more catastrophic. Less rain, higher temperatures and other factors related to climate change have made Hawaii, like California, more vulnerable to wildfires.

Read more: Opinion: What Hawai’i needs now from California, our sister state

As Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway have shown, major oil, gas and coal companies foresaw the catastrophic climatic consequences of fossil fuel use. But instead of leading an energy transition, they opted to sow public doubt about the link between fossil fuels and global warming and continued to invest in new mines and oilfields.

Cannily, fossil fuel companies have also turned public attention away from themselves by encouraging ordinary people to feel guilty about our own “carbon footprints,” pointing the finger at you and me.

And it’s you and I and the struggling citizens of Maui who are left to pick up the ever-mounting bill for climate disasters.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

One solution is to put a price on carbon to account for “externalities,” the term economists use for costs that aren’t reflected in the prices consumers pay.

Let’s say I buy a fertilizer for my crops that assures me a great yield. But when that fertilizer leaches into a nearby lake, it spawns lethal algae blooms, contaminates drinking water and kills plants and fish. I may be delighted by my profits, but I’m costing my neighbors substantial sums in healthcare, tourism and fishing revenue. These are the fertilizer’s dispersed costs — its externalities.

According to 28 Nobel laureate economists and 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors, it makes good economic sense to charge fossil fuel companies for the real costs of their products through a carbon tax. That cost would include much of the billions of dollars of damage to Maui.

Of course, raising fuel prices could make life harder for Americans who already struggle to fill their gas tanks. But there’s an excellent economic solution to that too. The group Citizens Climate Lobby has proposed to return carbon pricing revenue through regular dividends to all U.S. households. This model would reduce emissions, create jobs and stimulate innovation without burdening low- and middle-income families.

Read more: We survived the Paradise fire. For Lahaina survivors, escape from hell will mark them forever

Another solution is divestment from fossil fuel companies. Investors can force these companies to bear more of the social costs of their products by declining to buy and own their stocks.

Your own savings may have played role in the cause of the devastation in Hawaii. Just 23 investors are responsible for 50% of worldwide investments in fossil fuels. The biggest culprits are asset management giants Vanguard and BlackRock, with Fidelity Investments, JPMorgan Chase, T. Rowe Price, Bank of America and Berkshire Hathaway also making the list. My own retirement fund, TIAA, a nonprofit founded for teachers, manages at least $78 billion in fossil fuel-related holdings, according to one analysis.

Once investors have sunk our money into fossil fuels, they join the chorus lobbying politicians to protect fossil fuel profits. Coal, oil and gas companies are wielding massive influence in the political arena to manipulate the economy to their benefit at our expense. After giving millions of dollars to Senate Republicans this year, fossil fuel companies lobbied for cuts to the Energy Department’s renewables office and reductions in energy efficiency standards.

What if these companies had acknowledged the need for an energy transition 10 or 20 years ago? For the sake of their own bottom lines, they would be championing renewable energy and climate regulation, and we would have a different political landscape.

As long as we keep investing in, subsidizing and cleaning up after the fossil fuel companies, they’ll keep happily passing on these exorbitant costs to us. Isn’t it time to send this bill to the right address?

Caroline Levine is a professor of the humanities at Cornell University, where she teaches in the Environment and Sustainability program, and the author of “The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis.”

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

US investor group clinches tax credit deal for $1.5 billion renewable power acquisition

Its fellow investors include Canada's Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec.

Isla Binnie
Wed, August 16, 2023 

FILE PHOTO: Power-generating Siemens 2.37 megawatt (MW) wind turbines are seen at the Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility as the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues in this aerial photo taken over Ocotillo, California

By Isla Binnie

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Invenergy Renewables, Blackstone and Canada's second-largest pension fund said on Wednesday they struck a deal with Bank of America to help buy wind and solar plants worth $1.5 billion, capitalising on a new tax structure included in President Joe Biden's landmark climate law.

Developers and investors are working on ways to take advantage of a provision in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act(IRA) which gives companies tax breaks for funding the clean energy projects which can help wean the world off fossil fuels.

Invenergy said in a statement it agreed to sell tax credits worth $580 million to Bank of America, and put those funds towards buying 14 projects from American Electric Power.

Policymakers hope the new system will bring more money from fresh sources into renewables projects which have long relied on a limited group of large banks which can handle the process of buying equity stakes and taking the associated tax breaks.

This is the first large-scale transaction of its kind to be publicly announced, Bank of America's global head of sustainable finance Karen Fang said in the statement.

It "creates a financeable transferability product that will be used to scale the growth of renewable energy," Fang said.

Around $4 trillion will need to be spent on clean energy development globally each year by 2030 to allow the world's economies to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero, meaning no more than can be captured by natural sinks like forests or using technology, the International Energy Agency said.

Analysts at investment bank Credit Suisse have estimated the IRA could lead to the generation of tax credits worth $576 billion by 2031.

Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service published rules on how to regulate tax credit transfers in June, and they are expected to launch an online registry by the end of 2023.

Private equity firm Blackstone has invested around $4 billion in Invenergy. Its fellow investors include Canada's Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec.

(Reporting by Isla Binnie; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Wood Mackenzie: govts' 'unrealistic' offshore wind expansion target would require $100 billion by 2026

Reuters
Thu, August 17, 2023

Turbines of the WindFloat Atlantic Project, a floating offshore wind-power generating platform, are seen 20 kilometers off the coast in Viana do Castelo

(Reuters) - Government targets to increase wind power installations would see annual capacity additions reach 80 gigawatts (GW) per year by 2030, requiring $100 billion in secured investment in the supply chain by 2026, Wood Mackenzie said in a report.

The research and consultancy firm forecast annual capacity is more likely to increase by 30 gigawatts (GW) a year by 2030, which would require $27 billion of secured investment by 2026.

"The supply chain is struggling to scale up and will be an impediment to achieving decarbonisation targets if change does not happen," said Chris Seiple, vice chair, power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie.

"Nearly 80 GW of annual installations to meet all government targets is not realistic, even achieving our forecasted 30 GW in additions will prove unrealistic if there isn't immediate investment in the supply chain," Seiple said.

Wood Mackenzie noted that the low profit margins on offshore wind production and uncertainty about project timings resulting in very different supply-chain needs are making it hard to drum up investment in the sector.

According to the Statistical Review of World Energy report in June, global wind and solar power grew to a record share of 12% of power generation last year, surpassing nuclear.

Target setting and plans for power market infrastructure to support offshore wind need to extend beyond 2030 to scale up the offshore wind supply chain, analysts at Wood Mackenzie said.

(This story has been corrected to say that an investment of $100 billion, not $27 billion, would be required by 2026 in the headline and paragraphs 1 and 2)

(Reporting by Anushree Mukherjee in Bengaluru; Editing by Susan Fenton)

INDIA

Himachal Pradesh floods: More rain, less snow are turning Himalayas dangerous

Navin Singh Khadka -

 Environment correspondent, 

BBC World Service
Thu, August 17, 2023 

Increased rain and melting of snow and ice has made the mountain regions more dangerous, a new study finds


Torrential rains and unabated construction are frequently triggering disasters in India's Himalayan region.

But an unusual increase in rainfall is making the terrain even more dangerous.

Landslides and flash floods have already killed dozens in the area this month, burying homes and buildings. Parts of Nepal and Pakistan have also suffered damage.

A new study has found that mountains across the globe, including the Himalayas, are now seeing more rainfall at elevations where it has mostly snowed in the past.

The change has made the mountains more dangerous, scientists say, as increased temperatures not only bring rain but also accelerate melting of snow and ice. The rainwater also loosens the soil resulting in landslides, rockfalls, floods and debris-flows.

"Our findings provide several lines of evidence demonstrating a warming-induced amplification of rainfall extremes at high altitudes, specifically in snow-dominated regions of the Northern Hemisphere," says the study, published in June in the Nature journal.

The finding is consistent with a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2019 which said that snowfall had decreased, at least in part because of higher temperatures, especially at lower elevations of mountain regions.

The Himalayan hazards nobody is monitoring

There are more instances of extreme precipitation events occurring now in the form of rainfall even at a high elevation and in all seasons, says Samuel Morin, executive director of the National Centre for Meteorological Research in France and one of the authors of the special IPCC report.

This is mainly because the zero-degree isotherm, the freezing level at which precipitation falls as snow, has moved to a higher elevation because of global warming

"As a result, these [mountain] regions are regarded as hotspots that are vulnerable to high risk of extreme rainfall events and related hazards of flooding, landslides and soil erosion," the study says.

Himalayan states in India have suffered from increased frequency and intensity of landslides and floods

This risk is higher for the Himalayan region compared with other mountainous regions like the Alps and the Rockies in the northern hemisphere, Mohamed Ombadi, the study's lead author, told the BBC.

"That's because there are additional warming-related processes [in the Himalayas] that change wind patterns and storm tracks, leading to an increase in the intensity of storms."

Mountains in the Himalayas, which span India, Bhutan Nepal and Pakistan, hardly have any weather stations, which often leads to a lack of accurate data on precipitation levels.

There are a few stations located in the lower elevations of the mountains but they do not show whether the precipitation recorded is rain or snowfall.

However, a weather station installed at the base camp of Mount Everest showed that 75% of the 245.5mm precipitation on the mountain between 1 June and 10 August this year had fallen as rain. The remaining was snow or a combination of rain and snow.

This is a huge jump from the 32% of rain recorded between June and September in 2022, 43% in 2021 and 41% in 2020.

"We believe the dominance of rain vs snow is a relatively recent phenomenon but do not have longer term data to fully quantify that," said National Geographic explorers Baker Perry and Tom Matthews who were part of the National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Expeditions that installed the station.

The trauma of living in India's sinking Himalayan town

The changes in precipitation are evident on the mountains of the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand, says Bikram Singh, head of the regional weather office.

"We can definitely say snowfall frequency has decreased and this is usually at elevations below 6,000m. During monsoon, the lower elevations receive heavy rainfall."

The dwindling snowfall and increased rainfall mean that the nature of rivers in the region has changed, says Professor JS Rawat, former head of Kumaun University's geography department.

"There are now lots of flash floods after extreme rainfall and rivers that were once glacier-fed in the region have now turned into rain-fed [water bodies]."

Dozens have been killed in landslides and flash floods in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh this month

Rising temperatures have added to the problem as they have accelerated the melting of Himalayan glaciers. This leads to rapid filling up of glacial lakes that then become prone to overflowing and causing floods. The thinning of glaciers also destabilises mountain slopes.

The Himalayas are estimated to be warming at three times the rate of the global average - and several studies have projected this will lead to substantive increase in rainfall there.

Locals in the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh say they have noticed that the frequency and intensity of landslides and floods during the monsoon season have increased.

"Our village Ganai was already threatened by landslides because of increased rainfall on the mountains, so we had to abandon it and move," says Prabhakar Bhatta, 25, a resident of Mayapur village in Uttarakhand's Chamoli district. "But even here we have become homeless."

'Hanging' glacier broke off to trigger India flood

On 14 August, a little before midnight, a huge flash flood hit Mr Bhatta's two-storey house, burying it under debris of rock, silt and mud.

"We managed to survive because we were warned by people in villages at higher elevations that it was raining very heavily and there could be a flash flood coming our way," he says.

Mr Bhatta says his family stayed up that night and fled when they heard "odd sounds".

"My father built the house with his lifetime savings, and now that too is gone," he says. "This region is becoming unliveable."

Locals say the region has become uninhabitable

Experts say that rampant development of infrastructure like road, tunnels and hydropower projects in the ecologically sensitive region also leads to these disasters. Located in a seismic zone as the Himalayas are, they are subject to earthquakes which make matters worse.

The impact of increased rainfall is also visible across the Indian border.

In northern Pakistan, where the Himalayas meet Karakoram and Hindukush mountains, debris flows and flash floods have become increasingly common, officials say.

There were 120 flash floods in the region's Gilgit Baltistan area during the last monsoon - a huge jump from 10-20 years ago, says Kamal Qamar, director general of the regional disaster management authority.

"It's raining in high altitudes at around 4,000m both in summer and winter, when it should have snowed," he says.

Is India-China race to build damaging the Himalayas?

In the eastern Himalayas in Nepal, flash floods and debris flows are destroying vital infrastructure like hydropower and drinking water plants, apart from local settlements, roads and bridges.

According to the country's Independent Power Producers Association, 30 hydropower plants have been damaged in eastern Nepal this monsoon.

Experts say cascading events on Himalayan regions' mountains are also becoming frequent and intense.

That's when an event triggers something else further downstream, says Jakob Steiner, a researcher with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, based in Kathmandu.

"And higher rainfall intensity is often the start or a sub-trigger in these chains."

As glaciers melt, a new study seeks protection of ecosystems that emerge in their place

JAMEY KEATEN
Updated Thu, August 17, 2023

FILE - A team member of Swiss Federal Institute of Technology glaciologist and head of the Swiss measurement network 'Glamos', Matthias Huss, passes the Rhone Glacier covered by sheets near Goms, Switzerland, on June 16, 2023. A new scientific study suggests the world should start preparing to protect the ecosystems that emerge from under the disappearing ice as warming planet is inevitably causing glaciers to melt. (AP Photo/Matthias Schrader) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)More


GENEVA (AP) — A new scientific study published Thursday suggests the world should start preparing to protect the ecosystems that emerge from under the disappearing ice, as a warming planet is inevitably causing glaciers to melt.

If nothing is done to stop global warming, the world could lose glaciers totaling the size of Finland by 2100. Even a best-case scenario — if the targets of the Paris Agreement to stop climate change are met — foresees glacier shrinkage the size of Nepal, according to the study published in the scientific journal Nature.

The analysis from Swiss and French scientists adds to worries about glacier melt and a growing call to step up efforts to protect the planet from climate change.

In their research, the scientists say humans have grown to live with glaciers for millennia, and the worrying retreat of the ice cover — currently amounting to 10 percent of the Earth’s land surface — will require both action to stop it and adaptation for its impact.

Glaciers play a key role on the planet, by reflecting sunlight or providing fresh water for irrigation, power generation and consumption, says study co-author Jean-Baptiste Bosson, a French-Swiss glacier expert with the National Council for the Protection of Nature in Annecy, France.

He said work is being done to slow down the retreat of glaciers, though it won't be “decisive” in saving them.

“But after the glaciers (melt) not everything is lost,” Bosson said in an interview. “We especially need to protect the nature that will follow the glaciers: we need to protect the forests of tomorrow, the great lakes of tomorrow, the great fjords of tomorrow."

The areas where glaciers once were will be “degraded” when the ice melts, Bosson said, adding that nature should be left to do its work: “There is a chance for ecosystems to rebound if we leave them space and time ... nature itself will find solutions: It will capture carbon, purify fresh water, create habitats for biodiversity."

Glacier retreat hit unprecedented high levels in Europe last year, especially in Switzerland.

The team behind the Nature study analyzed some 210,000 glaciers on Earth, not including the gigantic Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and found that glaciers covered some 665,000 square kilometers (257,000 square miles), about the size of Afghanistan, in 2020.

Depending on the different scenarios, which the experts slice up from worst-case to best-case, the world could lose between roughly 149,000 square kilometers (58,000 square miles) to some 339,000 square kilometers (131,000 square miles), by 2100. The team accounts for possible statistical variance. The loss could be much larger.

“Melting glaciers have become icons of climate change. People are mostly worried about the impact glacier melt will have on sea-level rise, seasonal water availability, and geohazards,” said Prof. Ben Marzeion, of the Institute of Geography at Germany’s University of Bremen.

“This study shows that there is more we need to be prepared for. It also shows that we are still in the process of uncovering the multitude of impacts climate change will have,” said Marzeion, who was not involved in the research.

Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Center, laid out the challenges that policymakers will face as landscapes change with glacier retreat.

“There is no question that ice loss around the world is a serious issue, from influencing water availability to raising our sea levels,” Moon, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an email. “This research highlights another impact — the uncovering of new land as glaciers shrink.”

“Glacier retreat can cause increasing hazards, like the outburst flood that destroyed homes in Juneau earlier this summer, or change water availability for drinking and crops,” Moon wrote. “We must plan ahead while also work hard to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions and limit future damage.”

Bosson says that record high temperatures reached this year in the northern hemisphere are producing worrisome outcomes that could have an even greater impact in the future – though not all data is in yet.

“We try to tell the story of the future of the surfaces today occupied by glaciers on Earth,” he said in a video call from the French Alpine town of Annecy. “Then we ask: Will tomorrow still see big glaciers, or smaller glaciers depending on the climate scenarios?”

More Snow Can Actually Cause Tundra to Thaw Faster, Unleashing Buried Carbon

Yale Environment 360
Thu, August 17, 2023 

The International Tundra Experiment at Toolik Lake in Alaska.

 Amanda Young / Toolik Field Station

With climate change, parts of the Arctic are seeing greater snowpack. Paradoxically, a thick blanket of snow can speed the melting of permafrost underneath, releasing buried stores of carbon, new research shows.

The insight comes from a decades-long experiment near Toolik Lake in northern Alaska. Starting in 1994, scientists there began covering a swath of tundra in three to four times the usual amount of snowpack, finding that, as the region warmed, this patch actually thawed faster than other areas. Scientists said the added snow acted like a blanket during the cold months, holding in summer heat while keeping out frigid air.

As permafrost melted, microbes began to consume long-frozen plant matter in the ground, producing carbon dioxide as a byproduct. The patch of tundra with extra insulation became a year-round source of emissions. Even as shrubs began to grow on the once-frozen ground and soak up some carbon dioxide, the emissions from microbes remained greater still, according to the new study, published in AGU Advances.

The new findings, authors write, show that greater snowfall “will cause earlier-than-expected losses of ancient carbon from permafrost and further accelerate climate change.”

ALSO ON YALE E360

How Thawing Permafrost Is Beginning to Transform the Arctic

US escalates trade dispute with Mexico over limits on genetically modified corn
Associated Press
Updated Thu, August 17, 2023

Central Illinois farmers deposit harvested corn on the ground outside a full grain elevator in Virginia, Ill. The U.S. government said Thursday, Aug. 17, 2023, it is formally requesting a dispute settlement panel in its ongoing row with Mexico over its limits on genetically modified corn.

 (AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)


MEXICO CITY (AP) — The U.S. government said Thursday it is formally requesting a dispute settlement panel in its ongoing row with Mexico over its limits on genetically modified corn.

Mexico's Economy Department said it had received the notification and would defend its position. It claimed in a statement that “the measures under debate had no effect on trade,” and thus do not violate the United States-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, known as the USMCA.

The U.S. Trade Representatives Office, or USTR, objected to Mexico’s ban on GM corn for human consumption and plans to eventually ban it as animal feed.

The USTR said in a statement that “Mexico’s measures are not based on science and undermine the market access it agreed to provide in the USMCA."

The panel of experts will now be selected and will have about half a year to study the complaint and release its findings. Trade sanctions could follow if Mexico is found to have violated the U.S.-Mexico Canada free trade agreement.

The U.S. government said in June that talks with the Mexican government on the issue had failed to yield results.

Mexico wants to ban biotech corn for human consumption and perhaps eventually ban it for animal feed as well, something that both its northern partners say would damage trade and violate USMCA requirements that any health or safety standards be based on scientific evidence.

Mexico is the leading importer of U.S. yellow corn, most of which is genetically modified. Almost all is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens in Mexico, because Mexico doesn’t grow enough feed corn. Corn for human consumption in Mexico is almost entirely domestically-grown white corn, though corn-meal chips or other processed products could potentially contain GM corn.

Mexico argues biotech corn may have health effects, even when used as fodder, but hasn’t yet presented proof.

Mexico had previously appeared eager to avoid a major showdown with the United States on the corn issue — but not eager enough to completely drop talk of any ban.

In February, Mexico’s Economy Department issued new rules that dropped the date for substituting imports of GM feed corn. The new rules say Mexican authorities will carry out “the gradual substitution” of GM feed and milled corn, but sets no date for doing so and says potential health issues will be the subject of study by Mexican experts “with health authorities from other countries.”

Under a previous version of the rules, some U.S. growers worried a GM feed corn ban could happen as soon as 2024 or 2025.

While the date was dropped, the language remained in the rules about eventually substituting GM corn, something that could cause prices for meat to skyrocket in Mexico, where inflation is already high.

U.S. farmers have worried about the potential loss of the single biggest export market for U.S. corn. Mexico has been importing GM feed corn from the U.S. for years, buying about $3 billion worth annually.

PROTECTIONI$M

US to impose tariffs on tin mill steel from Canada, China, Germany

DISGUISED AS PENALTY

David Lawder
Updated Thu, August 17, 2023

FILE PHOTO: Red-hot steel plates pass through a press at the Tata steel plant in Ijmuiden

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Commerce Department on Thursday said it will impose preliminary anti-dumping duties on tin-plated steel imports from Canada, Germany and China, sparing five other countries in a decision that drew some relief from food can manufacturers that had feared higher tariffs.

The department said the highest preliminary anti-dumping duties of 122.5% will be imposed on tin mill steel imported from China, including the country's largest producer, Baoshan Iron and Steel.

The department will impose preliminary duties of 7.02% on tin mill imports from German producers, including Thyssenkrupp and 5.29% on imports from Canadian producers, including ArcelorMittal DOFASCO.

No duties will be imposed on the shiny silver metal - widely used in cans for food, paint, aerosol products and other containers - imported from Britain, the Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey, the Commerce Department added.

A Commerce Department official told reporters that producers in Canada, Germany and China were found to be selling tin mill steel at prices below those in their home markets. China's rates were higher because a lack of cooperation from a major producer in the investigation led to an "adverse inference" determination, while other respondents could not prove that they were independent of the Chinese government, the official added.

The closely watched case was initiated in February after a petition from a single U.S. steelmaker, Cleveland-Cliffs, alleged foreign dumping in the tin-plate sector, which has seen several U.S. production facilities close in recent years.

The Commerce Department in June announced preliminary anti-subsidy duties of 543% on tin mill imports from Baoshan Iron and Steel and 89% on those from all other Chinese producers as part of a separate, parallel investigation.

The other countries cited in Thursday's decision were not subject to anti-subsidy investigations.

HIGHER COSTS?

The Can Manufacturers Institute, a trade group, argued prior to the decision that because U.S. steelmakers currently produce less than half of the tinplate needed for domestic can manufacturing, any new import duties will lead to higher material costs and food prices at a time when inflation remains elevated.

A bipartisan letter from members of Congress in June also argued that high anti-dumping duties would raise costs for canned packaging for food and aerosol products and could help Chinese producers of canned goods, leading to increased canned food imports from China.

But the duties were significantly less than initially feared. In its initial petition, Cleveland-Cliffs asked the Commerce Department to imposed anti-dumping duties of 79.6% on imports from Canada, 70.2% on Germany, 111.92% on Britain, up to 110.5% on South Korea, up to 296% on the Netherlands, up to 60% on Taiwan and up to 97.2% on Turkey.

In a statement, the Can Manufacturers Institute said it was "thankful" that most of the high duties requested by Cleveland-Cliffs were not imposed.

"We are hopeful the final Commerce determination will eliminate the proposed duties on Canadian and German tin mill steel," said Robert Budway, the group's president.

"U.S. tin plate prices already remain the highest in the world due to the 232 tariffs, placing domestic can makers at a competitive disadvantage to foreign imports of unfilled steel cans and foreign filled food products," Budway said, referring to the "Section 232" tariffs on global steel and aluminum imports first imposed by the Trump administration.

The five countries that escaped duties account for about half of U.S. tin mill steel imports, while China accounts for about 14% and Canada and Germany account for about 30%, the Commerce Department official said.

The tariffs decision was announced less than a week after Cleveland-Cliffs announced a buyout offer of its major competitor in the tin-plate sector, U.S. Steel, an acquisition that would accelerate consolidation among American steel producers. Cleveland-Cliffs Chairman Lourenco Goncalves has repeatedly argued in favor of the need to maintain the 25% "Section 232" national security tariffs on imported steel imposed by the Trump administration.

Cleveland-Cliffs in 2020 acquired AK Steel and ArcelorMittal's U.S. assets, making it the largest U.S. producer of blast-furnace steel made from iron ore.

(Reporting by David Lawder and Susan Heavey; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Paul Simao)

United Auto Workers Union Slams Biden’s Climate Law
Steven Symes
Thu, August 17, 2023 


It hasn’t endorsed the sitting president for next year’s election.

The United Auto Workers Union has been on a tear lately, with the president throwing Stellantis’ contract proposal in a garbage can on camera, showing it’s willing to play hardball. While the union is pressuring automakers for demands like a 40% increase in pay, it’s also taking a swing at President Joe Biden and what’s perceived as a slight with the Inflation Reduction Act.

Ford’s CEO admits EVs will cost many their jobs.

Of course, the Inflation Reduction Act wasn’t really about combatting inflation but instead was a repackaged Green New Deal. The naming trick threw off a fair number of people, but UAW isn’t amused about how it pushes electric vehicles using taxpayer dollars.


The big gripe the union has about the act that was signed into law about a year ago is, according to The Guardian, how it doesn’t hold automakers’ feet to the fire about the treatment of factory workers. That makes sense since UAW’s job is to advocate for the people who assemble your vehicle.


More specifically, the union seems to think the Biden Administration should’ve used the rather sizable, taxpayer-funded incentives being dangled in front of automakers not only as carrots but also as sticks. UAW wanted the president to twist arms so automakers were forced to provide certain guarantees as far as pay and worker conditions.


Exactly what those guarantees would be isn’t too hard to guess considering what UAW is demanding in “negotiations” with Stellantis at the moment. The problem is the international automaker, which owns a smattering of American, Italian, and French car brands at this point, claims the union’s demands could land it in the poor house and in turn do the same for assembly line workers. Is that accurate or is UAW completely justified in its actions? That’s the big question.

Depending on how you feel about the UAW demands, you might think using the executive branch of the federal government to force those conditions on automakers would’ve been justified. For now, UAW sounds like it won’t be endorsing Biden or anyone else for the 2024 presidential race.

Biden’s climate bill leaves workers behind in shift to electric cars, union says

Oliver Milman

TH4E GUARDIAN
Tue, August 15, 2023 



Joe Biden’s landmark climate legislation has been “disappointing” and failed to deliver protections to car industry workers confronted by the transition to electric vehicles, according to the head of the US’s leading autoworkers union, which has pointedly withheld is endorsement of the president for next year’s election.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed by Biden a year ago this week, has bestowed huge incentives to car companies to manufacture electric vehicles without any accompanying guarantees over worker pay and conditions, Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), told the Guardian.

“So far it’s been disappointing. If the IRA continues to bring sweatshops and a continued race to the bottom it will be a tragedy,” Fain said.

“This is our generation’s defining moment with electric vehicles. The government should invest in US manufacturing but money can’t go to companies with no strings attached. Labor needs a seat at the table. There should be labor standards built in, this is the future of the car industry at stake.”

The UAW, which is based in the car-making heartland of Detroit and has about 400,000 members, has so far refused to endorse Biden for next year’s presidential election, a major political headache for a president who has called himself a “union guy” and counts upon organized labor as a key part of his base, particularly in crucial midwest states such as Michigan.

“We aren’t against a green economy – global warming isn’t a hoax, it’s a real thing that you just have to step outside to notice,” said Fain. “But in the transition to EVs the workers can’t be left behind, it needs to be a just transition.

“I do believe the president’s heart is in the right place but we have to make sure endorsements are earned and not freely given. Politicians have to prove they are in the fight with us, which is the only way to win back the working class in the midwest. We don’t have to endorse anyone at all.”

The ire of unions has been a thorny problem in the Biden administration’s attempts to speed the proliferation of electric vehicles and cut planet-heating emissions from transportation, the largest source of US carbon pollution.

The White House has set a target for half of all new car sales to be electric by 2030, a scenario it maintains will provide well-paid union jobs. “A lot of my friends in organized labor know when I think climate, I think jobs,” Biden said at an event last month.

The IRA is loaded with tax breaks and loans to bolster EV manufacturing in the US, as well as hefty rebates for people who choose to buy an electric car. This has helped spur a surge in new EV plants and battery-making facilities, while sales of electric vehicles in the US are set to hit 1 million for the first time this year.

But the UAW is unhappy that public money – such as a $9.2bn loan given to Ford last month that it called “corporate greed” – has been handed out without accompanying agreements over worker conditions, with many of the new plants springing up in states such as Kentucky and Tennessee that have comparatively few worker protections.

Unions are also wary about what a future dominated by electric cars means for the workforce given that they require fewer parts, and therefore workers, to assemble than gasoline or diesel cars. “It’s power train work rather than engine work but the standards should be the same,” Fain said. “You have workers at Ultium [the General Motors battery technology] on $16.50 an hour, which is less than what you’d get working for Waffle House. It’s criminal.”

Biden held a meeting with Fain last month to try to smooth over the difficulties with what is normally a bulwark of Democratic support. The UAW is separately in the midst of negotiations with the “big three” automakers – Ford, General Motors and Stellantis – over a new agreement for pay and conditions.

On Monday, Biden called on union auto workers and the “big three” automakers to come together on a new agreement, saying: “As we move forward in this transition to new technologies, the UAW deserves a contract that sustains the middle class.”

Last week, John Podesta, Biden’s chief clean energy adviser, told the Guardian: “I think the union has legitimate concerns about the way that those plants will be organized. What they want to see is that that be done in a way that respects the right to organize, and that respects the fact that they’re going to bargain for good jobs, and we respect that and support that.

“I don’t know a president in modern history that’s been more friendly to unions than President Biden. We’re all in on making sure that these jobs are good jobs.”

Related: Green investment boom and electric car sales: six key things about Biden’s climate bill

Donald Trump has attempted to seize upon Biden’s ructions with the union by promising to scrap the president’s electric vehicle policies. Trump, the former president and frontrunner to be Republican nominee despite his many and varied criminal charges, has explicitly called for the UAW’s endorsement.

“This ridiculous Green New Deal crusade is causing car prices to skyrocket while setting the stage for the destruction of American auto production,” Trump said in a video aired last month.

“If Biden’s assault is not stopped, American auto production will be totally dead. I hope United Auto Workers is listening to this, because I think you’d better endorse Trump, because I am going to grow your business and they are destroying your business.”

Such an endorsement appears unlikely, however, given that Fain has said that Trump is a “disaster” and not a firm favorite of the union’s membership.

UK

Workers walked out of ExxonMobil refinery due to safety fears, says union

Sarah Ward, PA Scotland
Thu, 17 August 2023


Workers at a Fife refinery withdrew their labour over safety concerns prompting calls for an investigation, a union has said.

ExxonMobil’s Mossmorran refinery in Cowdenbeath will be subject to inquiries from the Health and Safety Executive after industrial action on Tuesday August 15.

Unite claimed about 200 workers withdrew their labour at the petrochemical plant – a legal right under the Employment Rights Act – due to safety concerns.

However, ExxonMobil said less than 100 workers walked out of the refinery and that many Unite members did not get involved.

And the company said that the Fife Ethylene Plant “operates in full compliance with approved site safety standards and procedures”.

Unite claimed the workers objected to “health and safety warning signals and procedures not being in full working operation across the plant” and a lack of procedures put in place to protect them.

The union claimed ExxonMobil and contractors Altrad, Bilfinger and Kaefer, failed in a “legal duty” to protect and pay workers.

Unite said it received reports from workers citing repeated examples over a year that alarm systems were not working in areas at the petrochemical plant and workers not being notified – which is legally required in the event of any leakages, blasts or exposure to hazardous materials and chemicals.

It also alleged that workers were having pay withheld, contrary to employment laws which say workers have the “right” to withdraw from, and to refuse to return to a workplace that is unsafe, without being subject to loss of wages.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “Unite will robustly defend the legal right of our members to withdraw their labour over health and safety concerns at ExxonMobil’s Mossmorran plant.

“It is completely unacceptable that the company and the various contractors on site are refusing to pay our members their wages.

“This is a legal duty and not open to interpretation.

“Our members will be receiving their union’s unflinching support.”

Unite members at ExxonMobil’s plant are employed on construction engineering maintenance contracts and they are split between different contractors at the plant: Altrad, Bilfinger, and Kaefer.

Unite is further calling on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to investigate immediately due to the seriousness of the claims.

The union claimed there have been various recorded incidents at the plant over safety, the risk of pollution and environmental damage.

Bob Macgregor, Unite industrial officer, added: “Unite’s members working for Altrad, Bilfinger, and Kaefer at the Mossmorran plant are rightly furious at potentially being exposed to dangerous chemicals due to failings in the plant’s safety procedures.

“To add insult to injury, ExxonMobil and the contractors are refusing to pay the wages of the workers following the withdrawal of labour on health and safety grounds.

“This is not an isolated incident, these safety breaches and failings have been ongoing for around a year and nothing to date has been resolved.

“That’s why Unite is calling for the Health and Safety Executive to urgently intervene due to the seriousness of the claims, and the chequered history of the plant.”

An ExxonMobil spokesperson said: “We are aware of unofficial action instigated by a small number of individuals employed by contracting companies on our site.

“There is no impact on our operations, which continue as normal.

“Fife Ethylene Plant operates in full compliance with approved site safety standards and procedures.”

A HSE spokesperson said: “We are aware of safety-related concerns being raised by union and employee representatives onsite.

“We are now making enquiries with the site operator.”

Altrad, Bilfinger, and Kaefer have been approached for comment.

WINNIPEG

Landfill search more likely if victims were white women, says union president

Thu, August 17, 2023

Support grew this week for a search of a Manitoba landfill for the remains of two Indigenous women, as both the national Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) announced they are in full support of a search for the remains of Morgan Harris and Marcedes Myran.

“We have come here today to strongly condemn the inaction of the city of Winnipeg, the Winnipeg police, the premier and the province of Manitoba, and the federal government,” UTE national president Marc Brière said while speaking on the steps of CMHR in downtown Winnipeg on Thursday.

Brière and other members of UTE, who are in Winnipeg this week for their 2023 annual convention, joined advocates and family members at a rally at CMHR asking for the Prairie Green Landfill to be searched for the remains of Harris and Myran, two women who are believed to have been murdered by an alleged serial killer and dumped in the landfill north of Winnipeg.


Brière told the crowd of several hundred that if it were white women that were believed to be in the landfill, he believes that a search would probably have been given the go-ahead by now.

“Their refusal to search the Prairie Green Landfill is totally unacceptable,” he said. “And I am asking you, if it would be white women or white men, do you think there would be a greater chance they would be searching?

“That is what I believe, and it seems to me that some believe that the lives of Indigenous people and especially Indigenous women are not valued, and this is a shame.

“This is absolutely shameful.”

Brière added he believed it was important for UTE members to come out and show support in Winnipeg on Thursday, because it shows that the support for a search is coming from beyond the Indigenous community and Indigenous advocates.

“We all need to be allies,” Brière said.

Melissa Robinson, a cousin of Morgan Harris, one of the women whose remains are believed to be in the Prairie Green Landfill, said it was “amazing” to see the support of union members in Winnipeg on Thursday, because she believes that it sends a message that it is not just Indigenous people pushing for a landfill search.

“It’s amazing and it’s about damn time,” Robinson said. “It sends a message, because it shows that people are realizing that we matter too.

“It’s not just Indigenous people, it’s all of society standing up and saying Indigenous people matter, and it’s amazing.”

And while supporters spoke on the steps of CMHR on Thursday, the museum also said this week they are in full support of a search of the Prairie Green Landfill.

In a letter addressed to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) CMHR Chief Executive Officer Isha Khan said the museum supports calls for a search and said not doing a search would be a betrayal of basic human rights.

“Our role at the museum is to encourage people to understand our world through the lens of human rights,” Khan wrote in the letter sent out this week. “In this situation, the human rights implications are clear.

“Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples have a right to access the remains of their family and community members.

“It is a universal human value that the remains of the dead should be treated with dignity and their families accorded respect.”

Jeremy Skibicki was charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of four women in December, including Harris and Myran, whose remains are both believed to be at the privately-run Prairie Green Landfill north of Winnipeg.

He has also been charged in the death of Rebecca Contois, whose remains were found last year at the Brady Road Landfill, and an unidentified woman that Indigenous leaders are calling Buffalo Woman, whose remains have not been found.

Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson announced on July 6 the province would not offer assistance to search the Prairie Green Landfill, saying she came to the decision because of the results of a feasibility study that said there would be safety risks involved in that type of search, and no guarantee the search would be successful.

— Dave Baxter is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter who works out of the Winnipeg Sun. The Local Journalism Initiative is funded by the Government of Canada.

Dave Baxter, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Winnipeg Sun

AP, other news organizations develop standards for use of artificial intelligence in newsrooms

Thu, August 17, 2023 



NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press has issued guidelines on artificial intelligence, saying the tool cannot be used to create publishable content and images for the news service while encouraging staff members to become familiar with the technology.

AP is one of a handful of news organizations that have begun to set rules on how to integrate fast-developing tech tools like ChatGPT into their work. The service will couple this on Thursday with a chapter in its influential Stylebook that advises journalists how to cover the story, complete with a glossary of terminology.

“Our goal is to give people a good way to understand how we can do a little experimentation but also be safe,” said Amanda Barrett, vice president of news standards and inclusion at AP.

The journalism think tank Poynter Institute, saying it was a “transformational moment,” urged news organizations this spring to create standards for AI's use, and share the policies with readers and viewers.

Generative AI has the ability to create text, images, audio and video on command, but isn’t yet fully capable of distinguishing between fact and fiction.

As a result, AP said material produced by artificial intelligence should be vetted carefully, just like material from any other news source. Similarly, AP said a photo, video or audio segment generated by AI should not be used, unless the altered material is itself the subject of a story.

That's in line with the tech magazine Wired, which said it does not publish stories generated by AI, “except when the fact that it's AI-generated is the point of the whole story.”

“Your stories must be completely written by you,” Nicholas Carlson, Insider editor-in-chief, wrote in a note to employees that was shared with readers. “You are responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality and quality of every word in your stories.”

Highly-publicized cases of AI-generated “hallucinations,” or made-up facts, make it important that consumers know that standards are in place to “make sure the content they're reading, watching and listening to is verified, credible and as fair as possible,” Poynter said in an editorial.

News organizations have outlined ways that generative AI can be useful short of publishing. It can help editors at AP, for example, put together digests of stories in the works that are sent to its subscribers. It could help editors create headlines or generate story ideas, Wired said. Carlson said AI could be asked to suggest possible edits to make a story concise and more readable, or to come up with possible questions for an interview.

AP has experimented with simpler forms of artificial intelligence for a decade, using it to create short news stories out of sports box scores or corporate earnings reports. That's important experience, Barrett said, but “we still want to enter this new phase cautiously, making sure we protect our journalism and protect our credibility.”

ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and The Associated Press last month announced a deal for the artificial intelligence company to license AP’s archive of news stories that it uses for training purposes.

News organizations are concerned about their material being used by AI companies without permission or payment. The News Media Alliance, representing hundreds of publishers, issued a statement of principles designed to protect its members' intellectual property rights.

Some journalists have expressed worry that artificial intelligence could eventually replace jobs done by humans and is a matter of keen interest, for example, in contract talks between AP and its union, the News Media Guild. The guild hasn't had the chance to fully analyze what they mean, said Vin Cherwoo, the union's president.

“We were encouraged by some provisions and have questions on others,” Cherwoo said.

With safeguards in place, AP wants its journalists to become familiar with the technology, since they will need to report stories about it in coming years, Barrett said.

AP's Stylebook — a roadmap of journalistic practices and rules for use of terminology in stories — will explain in the chapter due to be released Thursday many of the factors that journalists should consider when writing about the technology.

“The artificial intelligence story goes far beyond business and technology,” the AP says. “It is also about politics, entertainment, education, sports, human rights, the economy, equality and inequality, international law, and many other issues. Successful AI stories show how these tools are affecting many areas of our lives.”

The chapter includes a glossary of terminology, including machine learning, training data, face recognition and algorithmic bias.

Little of it should be considered the final word on the topic. A committee exploring guidance on the topic meets monthly, Barrett said.

“I fully expect we'll have to update the guidance every three months because the landscape is shifting,” she said.

David Bauder, The Associated Press