Determined to suck all joy out of the cosmos, Jeff Bezos announces his space business park

Orbital Reef wants to turn our journey to the stars into a rush hour commute

By
Andrew Paul
Thursday 1:30PM


Jeff Bezos’ private spacefaring company, Blue Origin, announced its Orbital Reef space station earlier this week via a 4-minute promotional video with all the CGI “wow” factor of a Blockbuster direct-to-DVD sci-fi knockoff rental circa 2003.

Presumably, this offers a means for the burgeoning space tourism industry to siphon even more excess wealth from the pockets of the world’s richest people—which is depressing enough in its own right. What we see and read of the plan somehow makes the whole thing even more soul-suckingly bland. Check out the Avenue 5 outtake below:

Yawn...Yawn! About a new chapter set against the backdrop of the miracles of space, for God’s sake!

“Orbital Reef will be operated as a ‘mixed use business park’ in space,” the actual, very real press release reads, as if that sells the project to anyone other than Boeing—who are, incidentally, also a partner in Bezos’ new venture that’s due to float inanely above humanity’s heads by the end of the decade. “The Orbital Reef business model makes it easy for customers and is strategically designed to support a diverse portfolio of uses,” that same, real (we swear) PR statement sells us a few paragraphs later.

“Now, anyone can establish an address in space,” Blue Origin claims at one point in its sales pitch video. But we’re gonna go ahead and remind everyone reading this that, no, you cannot “establish an address in space.” Wealthy tycoons and the occasional token civilian can.

Orbital Reef changes nothing about humanity’s access to the cosmos, it just makes it easier for the people who ruined Earth in the first place to get a head-start on ruining what’s next for our species.

Oh, and by the way—Orbital Reef? Really? Jeff Bezos already named one company after an ecosystem his businesses helped to destroy. Does he truly need to do that all over again?

WHAT HAPPENED TO TENURE
Court docs: University of Florida attempting to block professors from testifying in voting rights lawsuit


Broward County voters drive up to drop off their mail-in ballots for the 2020 Presidential election at the Broward County Supervisor of Elections office in Lauderhill, Fla. A lawsuit challenging a new Florida voting law passed since then has raised concerns about academic freedom. File photo by Gary I Rothstein/UPI | License Photo


Oct. 30 (UPI) -- The University of Florida instructed three political science professors to not assist civil rights groups challenging the state's restrictive new voting law, court filings show.

According to court documents filed in federal Friday, university officials advised professor Dan Smith against serving as an expert witness in the case, saying that "outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida.

Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin, two other election experts in the university's political science department, were given similar warnings, according to the filing.

The revelation has sparked concerns over academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

The Foundation for Individuals Rights in Education issued a statement calling on the University of Florida to "reverse course immediately."

"The profound civic importance of fair trials requires the ability of fact and expert witnesses to come forward to testify truthfully without fear that their government employer might retaliate against them," the foundation said. "Public university faculty are no exception."

The foundation pointed out that it brought a lawsuit against New Hampshire's Plymouth State University in 2018 for punishing faculty who testified in a trial. The university lost the lawsuit and cost the state $350,000.

RELATEDTexas governor signs voting restrictions into law

Paul Donnelly, a lawyer for the professors, told the Miami Herald that the university's decision had a chilling effect that "strikes at the very heart of academic freedom." He said he hopes that the federal judge in the case would address the concern and the university would allow the professors to testify. If not, he said a lawsuit could be coming.

Steve Orlando, the University of Florida's vice president for communications, issued a statement to the paper that the school was committed to academic freedom and denied infringing on the professors' free speech rights.

"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin," Orlando said. "Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution."
RELATEDGov. Ron DeSantis signs restrictive new voting law in Florida



Over the spring, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation adding new requirements for voters to receive a mail ballot and limiting the ballot drop boxes.

A coalition of civil rights groups challenged the new law in federal court, arguing that it was an attempt to suppress votes of Black and Latino voters.

WV
Paid leave's demise tough on backers in Manchin's home state
 

1 / 7

West Virginia Sarah Clemente snuggles with daughter Penelope Clemente, 6, at their home in Charleston, W.Va., on Saturday, Oct. 30, 2021. Clemente supported a paid family medical leave proposal that was removed from President Joe Biden's social spending plan because of opposition from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves)

Brittanie Hairston, right, hands out candy at a Halloween festival in Charleston, W.Va., on Friday, Oct. 29, 2021. Hairston supported a paid family medical leave proposal that was removed from President Joe Biden's social spending plan because of opposition from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. Hairston said paid leave would ease worries about what would happen in one of her sons got sick. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves)

JAY REEVES
Sun, October 31, 2021

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Jessi Garman, the mother of 3-year-old twin girls, has been searching for a job while also trying to have a third child with her husband, who's in the military. Optimistic that Congress finally would approve paid family medical leave, she thought the time seemed right.

But that was before opposition by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia torpedoed the proposal. Both having another baby and getting full-time work doesn't seem feasible now, and Garman's hopefulness has turned into anger.

“It almost feels personal because Joe Manchin is my senator,” said Garman, of Milton.

Supporters of a decades-old proposal to let workers take time off for medical needs including childbirth, surgeries and end-of-life care are dealing with another disappointment in Manchin's home of West Virginia, a poor state with one of the nation's oldest populations.

State activists are still working on Manchin — a pro-leave group planned to rent an airplane and fly a banner over one of his political fundraisers at a resort this weekend, said Kayla Young, a member of the state House of Delegates who also is helping with an advocacy group, Paid Leave Works for West Virginia. They hope some version of paid leave may still be included in President Joe Biden's social spending package.

“It’s disheartening, but I don’t think it’s over yet,” said Young.

Sarah Clemente hopes Young is right, since paid leave would have made things easier with all three of her children. Instead, she said, she had to take off a total of two years and return to work just a week after the birth of her youngest — Penelope, now 6 — whom she and husband Ryan adopted from a relative who couldn't care for her.

“We followed the textbook on what you’re supposed to do to be responsible, successful adults. And while we are there now, there was a lot of suffering and heartbreak,” said Clemente, a 40-year-old health care manager. “And it's still hard.”

Biden initially proposed 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents, people caring for loved ones or people recovering from an illness, but it wasn’t included in a $1.7 trillion framework released by the White House on Thursday after Manchin’s opposition became clear. Manchin, whose support is crucial because of the slim Democratic edge in the Senate, said he wanted to avoid turning the United States into “an entitlement society.”

Democrats continue lobbying the senator, but he hasn't shown signs of budging despite proposals to trim leave from 12 weeks to four or to restrict it to just new parents. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said she has spoken extensively with Manchin and he asked good questions, but he wasn’t focused on specifics of the proposal and had concerns about its cost.

In Manchin’s home county in northern West Virginia, Amber Gabor allowed that some time off would have come in handy when one of her kids — ages 2, 7 and 9, with another one expected in a couple of weeks — had to stay home for two weeks after a coronavirus case at his school. But 12 weeks of paid leave sounded excessive to her.

“I don’t see why you would need all that at one time, unless it was a maternity type of leave. But most (work) places offer that anyway,” said Gabor, who works from home doing customer service for a power company.

In the rural town of Spencer, dental receptionist Samantha Camp is one of those who say they will continue to get by without a paid leave option just as they always have — with difficulty.

Camp will keep paying about $50 monthly for the disability insurance she buys as a hedge against having to miss work because of a bone problem that resulted in hip replacement surgery last year. After the operation, she felt she had no choice but to return earlier than doctors recommended to her job at a small law firm where she worked at the time.

“It was very worrisome being with no income,” said Camp, 34. “The doctors wanted to put me off for about six weeks. I just knew I couldn’t do that financially. I was actually off only two and a half weeks.”

Chris Hedges, a partner in the law firm, said it gave Camp all the vacation time it could scrape together and having government-funded leave would have made things so much better.

“For small businesses to be able to afford paid leave is just about impossible," Hedges said. “The paid leave that would have come about through Biden’s bill would have helped. It would have helped us retain employees.”

On Charleston's west side, which is home to many working class and poor people, Brittanie Hairston said paid leave would have eased her worries about what would happen if one of her sons, ages 6 and 10, were to get sick with COVID-19 or something else.

“I can't go back to work until they're clear,” she said.

And Mildred Tompkins, who works with a health and education nonprofit in the state capital, said her own two daughters, who are in their 20s and working in relatively low-paid health care jobs, would have benefited from paid leave.

“For people that are just regular, right at the poverty line and working," she said, “it would make a difference.”

___

Associated Press writers John Raby in Fairmont, W.Va., and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

Manchin said paid-leave programs could entice fraud, inquired about work requirements: report

John L. Dorman
Sun, October 31, 2021

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Drew Angerer/Getty Images


Manchin pointed to potential fraud as one of his concerns about paid leave, per The Washington Post.


Manchin's opposition to federal paid leave has caused consternation among many of his colleagues.


Sen. Patty Murray said last week that she objected to "one man" denying US women paid leave.

For months, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has served as a moderate Democratic bulwark against the most ambitious elements of the "Build Back Better agenda" championed by President Joe Biden, which ranged from two years of tuition-free community college to a broad expansion of Medicare to cover dental and vision benefits, among other proposals.

However, one of the most sought-after proposals among Democrats was the implementation of paid family and medical leave for the millions of Americans who currently aren't able to access such benefits.

The White House earlier this year sought to subsidize 12 weeks of paid sick and parental leave, costing $500 billion over a decade, in what would have been a larger $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill - which had already come down from the $6 trillion figure that Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders of Vermont had envisioned.

With the reconciliation bill being pared down from $3.5 trillion to roughly $1.75 trillion, the proposal for paid leave, which had been at 12 weeks, was reduced to 4 weeks - but by week's end, the entire paid-leave plan was seemingly cut from the framework being crafted by Biden and congressional Democratic leaders.

Manchin has stood firm against paid leave, citing its cost and potential strain on the federal budget.

However, according to a Washington Post report that detailed the push by Democratic women to save the family leave last week, Manchin has a series of "evolving concerns" about the benefit program, based on the statements of five individuals who spoke anonymously.

Manchin was reportedly concerned that a paid-leave program could generate fraud, comparing such malfeasance to people who were able to illegally obtain unemployment benefits, per The Post.

The Mountain State senator also reportedly brought up work requirements, despite employment already being a key tenet of eligibility for paid-leave, according to several of the sources who spoke with The Post.

In stating his opposition, Manchin has also emphasized the logistical burden that small businesses might face due to federal paid-leave legislation and expressed concerns about the "solvency" of a new social spending program.

"To expand social programs when you have trust funds that aren't solvent, that are going insolvent - I can't explain that, it doesn't make sense to me," the senator said earlier this month. "I want to work with everyone as long as we can start paying for things. That's all. I can't put this burden on my grandchildren."

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has lobbied Manchin to support paid leave. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

According to Pew Research, the US is a notable outlier when it comes to paid parental leave. Across 41 countries, America is the only that does not mandate paid leave. The US similarly lags behind peers in paid sick leave, with no federal sick leave mandates.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, a fellow moderate who has also stymied Democratic leadership over the size of the reconciliation bill, introduced bipartisan family leave legislation in 2019 that would have given the families the option of advancing up to $5,000 of child tax credits to parents in the first year of a child's life or the first year of adopting a child. However, the bill stalled in Congress.

The senator was reportedly one of several female Democratic senators who called Manchin to lobby his support for paid leave, according to a source who spoke to The Post.

Numerous studies have found that paid leave has a positive effect on the economy and workers. Paid leave may lead to higher earnings for women, healthier children, and stronger economic growth, according to a study by the think tank, New America. An analysis from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that paid leave would increase Americans' incomes by $28.5 billion every year.

Among the Democratic caucus, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Patty Murray of Washington have been extremely vocal about the need for paid leave.

Gillibrand, who has championed the issue for years, worked the phones on Friday in an attempt to move Manchin on the issue, telling him she'd "meet him in DC or anywhere in the country" to discuss the issue, as she described to The Post in an interview.

However, the senior senator from West Virginia was not phased by her personal appeal to him.

Murray, who has served in the Senate since 1993 and has also long sought a paid-leave program, was unrelenting in continuing her fight.

"We're not going to let one man tell all the women in this country that they can't have paid leave," she said on Capitol Hill last week.

Revolving Door Provides Window Into Big Oil’s Dirty Secret



Originally published on Transport & Environment

Fossil fuel companies are using their privileged access to EU lawmakers to lobby against the decarbonisation of transport.

Six oil companies and their lobby groups stand accused of dirty tactics designed to slow down, or even block, climate action and the move to a zero-emission transport fleet in the EU. Shell, BP, Repsol and Eni are among the companies caught red handed in 72 revolving door cases.

No one should be surprised that oil and gas majors are hiring former lawmakers and public servants with the express intention of influencing the political process in favour of their own, fossil fuel interests. These are businesses that have used every dirty trick in the book to prop up their profits. But we should be alarmed that the systemic capture of our political system by vested interests is a major obstacle to tackling the climate crisis.

Over the coming months, Transport & Environment will be taking a deeper look at Big Oil’s “dirty” tactics to continue business as usual, publicly declaring their green credentials while working to pump out more polluting oil to fuel our cars. We will also expose how they greenwash and promote false solutions, in order to carve out a space for themselves in a decarbonised future. This first article, which is based on research compiled by Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Action Europe, takes a closer look at the revolving door phenomenon.

Revolving doors are when public servants and elected representatives start working for fossil fuel companies, or when fossil fuel company operatives move to the public sphere. The problem here is that if a former oil company director starts working for a political party or as a public servant at an EU-level, how can we trust that Big Oil is not influencing the outcomes of their political decisions? Revolving door rules are inadequate and regulators turn a blind eye to possible conflicts of interest whereby Big Oil benefits from the know-how and contacts book of insiders.

Lobbying is an important part of the democratic process. It allows lawmakers to hear the views of a broad range of constituencies, but when one industry uses its power and resources to gain undue influence, it can corrupt democratic processes and result in bad laws. Revolving door is one way of gaining undue influence for a specific set of interests that care more for their profits than for people and the planet.

The number of cases is shocking. Since 2015, the year of COP21, TotalEnergies had 15 revolving door cases, 31 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives and spent close to €13 million lobbying the EU. ENI had 10 revolving door cases, 48 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives and spent close to €7 million lobbying the EU. Shell had 10 revolving door cases, 85 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives, and a budget of close to €28 million for lobbying the EU; and BP was linked to 5 revolving door cases, had 47 meetings with the EU Commission’s representatives, and allocated close to €18 million for lobbying the EU.

In one revolving-door case, a long-serving diplomat was seconded from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Shell in 2012, as its Government Relations Advisor. After this secondment, he was hired as a senior project advisor on government relations and is now leading advocacy for Shell’s hydrogen business and is a prominent member of Hydrogen Europe, Eurogas, IOGP and others. This makes you wonder how much this has influenced the Dutch Government’s approach to blue hydrogen and natural gas as alternative fuels for the transport sector.

In another case, a former Dutch minister who is now a Total board member, seemed sure of his company’s influence when he claimed at a webinar co-organised by oil and gas company Petronas: “There is no doubt the world is heading towards net zero 2050, and fossils will be part of that.”

For decades Big Oil has lobbied against effective climate action at national, EU, and international levels, blocking or derailing policies aimed at reducing emissions and moving towards a decarbonised transport sector. Through their dirty lobbying tactics, which includes privileged access, huge lobby spending, and revolving doors, Big Oil has maintained its power and can influence key political decisions at an EU and national levels, especially linked to the transport sector and action on climate change.

Big Oil has merely pledged “net zero” climate plans, to conveniently continue business-as-usual, and promote false solutions which involve a variety of risky technologies and deeply flawed schemes, from biofuels and natural gas, to hydrogen with carbon capture and storage (CCS), so-called blue hydrogen. This smokescreen allows for continued emissions, and, deployed at scale, will have significant negative social and environmental impacts. As late as last week, a report showed that Total knew – for 50 years – that their core business would cause catastrophic climate change. They covered up the truth, funded misinformation, and lied to their shareholders and the public.

It derails climate action where it’s most needed, to replace dirty fuels for our cars, trucks, planes, and ships, and to move to a zero emissions transport fleet. The sad truth is that the majority of political institutions embrace the false solutions promoted by Big Oil. This needs to change. We need a functioning firewall between public officials and those companies responsible for driving climate change.

LITTLE TO NOTHING

Climate change: What are the big polluters doing to cut carbon emissions?

By Reality Check team
BBC News

Published

Related T

Just four countries plus the European Union are responsible for most of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most common greenhouse gas responsible for global warming.

All five signed up to the Paris agreement in 2015 to cut emissions to limit global temperature rises.

What steps have they taken since?

China: The world's biggest emitter

• Says carbon emissions will peak in 2030
• Aiming for 25% of energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030
• Promises to be carbon neutral by 2060

Carbon neutrality refers to the balancing of overall carbon emissions with measures to absorb it from the atmosphere such as the planting of trees.

China is the largest producer of CO2, responsible for quarter of all global emissions. And its carbon emissions are still rising, largely because of a reliance on coal.

Last month, President Xi Jinping announced it would stop funding new coal-fired projects overseas.

But at home, coal mines have been ordered to ramp up production to meet surging energy demand, although Beijing has promised to cut back on coal use from 2026.

China has made progress on renewable energy - it now accounts for more than a third of all global solar power and is the world's biggest producer of wind energy.

But the country needs to cut demand for coal by more than 80% by 2060 to meet its climate goals, according to the International Energy Agency.

Climate Action Tracker, meanwhile, says China's policies and actions are "insufficient" - and if every country followed the same path it would lead to a global temperature rise of 3C.

US: The most emissions per person

• Will cut CO2 by at least 50% of 2005 level by 2030
• Wants half of new vehicles to be electric by 2030
• Promises to be carbon neutral by 2050

More than 80% of US energy comes from fossil fuels, although renewable energy sources are on the increase.

President Joe Biden's environmental plan looks to expand green energy further, with a $150bn (£100bn) clean-electricity programme to reward utility companies switching from fossil fuels.

But it has faced opposition from some US lawmakers concerned about the impact on the coal and fracking industry.

CO2 emissions have been dropping over the past decade.

But Climate Action Tracker says US actions and policies are "insufficient", needing "substantial improvement" to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping to a 1.5C increase in global warming.

The European Union: Emissions falling

• Promises a 55% emissions cut from the 1990 level by 2030
• Aiming for 40% of energy from renewables by 2030
• Will be carbon neutral by 2050

The top CO2 emitters in the EU are Germany, Italy and Poland.

And while it has overall emissions targets, EU states have differing financial and technical capabilities.

But all member countries need to agree how they reach the bloc's targets, as the EU negotiates as a single entity when it comes to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop26).

Climate Action Tracker says its policies and actions are "almost sufficient" to keep the global temperature rise to less than 2C, noting emissions have been falling since 2018.

India: Reliant on coal

• Aiming for a 33-35% reduction in 'emissions intensity' by 2030
• Promises 40% of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030
• Has not set a date for carbon neutrality

India's annual CO2 emissions have risen steadily in the past two decades - but it produces the lowest emissions per person among the top five.

India has argued the wealthier, more industrialised nations should bear more of the burden, as they have contributed far more to global warming over time.

And it has a target for "emissions intensity" - CO2 per unit of economic growth - saying this is a fairer way to compare with other countries.

India has also promised a significant increase in energy production from non-fossil fuel sources such as wind, solar and hydro power - and in 2019, this had reached 23%.

But about 70% of India's electricity grid is powered by coal.

And Climate Action Tracker says the country needs to phase out coal power generation before 2040 and boost its target for energy derived from non-fossil fuels.

Russia: Economy driven by oil and gas

• Will cut emissions by 30% from 1990 levels by 2030
• Promises to be carbon neutral by 2060

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Russia's economy - and its carbon emissions - shrank anyway.

But Russia is still relying on its extensive forests and swamps to absorb carbon.

Wind, solar and hydro power and other non-fossil fuels make up a small proportion of its total energy mix.

And fossil fuels contribute more than 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in Russia.

Climate Action Tracker says the country's policies and actions are "highly insufficient" to limit global warming to 1.5C.

Reporting and research by Jake Horton, Shruti Menon, Daniele Palumbo and Kai Wang

World will face climate change even after reaching carbon neutrality goals — Rosneft CEO

Igor Sechin stressed that the Earth's climate had never been static

Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin

© Mikhail Metzel/TASS

VERONA, October 28. /TASS/. The world will face climate change even if it reaches carbon neutrality goals by 2050, Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin during the Eurasian Economic Forum.

"The Earth's climate has never been static, and even after reaching the carbon-neutral goals by 2050, humanity will still face climate changes," he said.

At the same time, he noted that energy transition is possible only if the stability of energy supplies and the development of new technologies are maintained. "The development of new materials is no longer an energy issue, but a much more serious issue of changing the structure of the economy. Despite the variety of plans to reach carbon neutrality, the energy transition will remain a pipe dream without developing new technologies and materials. Even in the long term renewable energy will not be able to completely replace traditional energy resources," he said.

Supporters of complete refusal to invest in the oil and gas sector ignore the risks of market imbalance, Sechin added. "This year has clearly shown that wrong decisions in the field of climate policy can lead to serious negative consequences for the entire global economy and society," he said.

Sechin believes that the climate agenda puts pressure on oil and gas prices, and not the OPEC+ policy. "Pressure from climate activists stops the implementation of joint projects with international companies, which forces majors to cut investments in oil and gas production, redirecting funds to renewable energy. It is the climate agenda that is now putting pressure on the global oil and gas market," he said.

Meanwhile, the gas crisis may cause additional demand for oil in the amount of 1 mln barrels per day, which could further increase oil prices, he noted. "According to Citi and Goldman Sachs, ultra-high prices for natural gas could create additional demand for oil in the amount of up to 1 mln barrels per day, which will increase imbalance similar to gas, and will further increase oil prices," Sechin explained.

According to Rosneft CEO, a variety of factors caused the gas crisis in Europe, but Russia is only helping resolve it. "The gas crisis did not occur for any one reason, but because of a variety of factors that had a simultaneous impact. Russia, for its part, helps resolve the crisis as much as possible, ensuring the stability of gas supplies to Europe. At the same time, our country always fully complies with all its contractual obligations," he said.

TRANSFORMING SOCIETY
Gen Z activists fuel Climate Express to Glasgow

Vum AFP|Update: 01.11.2021

Passengers chat in a special Climate Summit train bound for the COP26 UN climate meet in Glasgow / © ANP/AFP/File

One car was themed 'climate reality,' another 'transforming society' and a third 'stop talking and start doing' -- welcome to the Glasgow-bound Rail to the COP.

With more than 400 young climate warriors on board, many in their mid-to-late teens, the 10-hour trip from Amsterdam with changeovers in Brussels and London was shot through with camaraderie, determination and anger.

One thing these young activists did not bring on board was the illusion that the 13-day UN summit starting Sunday would by itself beat back what they called the existential threat of global warming.


"Politicians won't achieve the Paris Agreement goals, they won't keep the temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius," said Johnny Dabrowski, an 18-year old high school senior from Warsaw, referring to the cornerstone target in the 2015 treaty signed by nearly every country on the planet.

But rather than simply joining the Fridays for Future student strikes launched by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, Dabrowski has put climate action at the centre of plans for his own future.

He has enrolled to become an environmental engineer to compensate for the failure of the world's major economies to slash greenhouse gases.

"We have to take carbon out of the atmosphere, it's simply a fact," he said with a poise beyond his years.

Elin Wilhelmsson has already dedicated her career to the environment.

Describing herself a Nature buff from the time she could walk, the 24-year-old is today a waste management engineer in the Swedish city of Aneby.

"I want what I do professionally to matter," she said, peering over the edge of a snug-fitting face mask.

- 'Panicky' -

Wilhelmsson was leading a small delegation of Swedish scouts, some with jackets adorned with merit badges and all wearing the signature striped scarf.

She has a coveted "observer" status at the UN negotiations and she said she would play a watchdog role as best she can.

The Rail to the COP journey, spearheaded by the non-profit Youth for Sustainable Travel, was also meant to send a message -- highlighting the low-carbon virtues of train travel.

At the station in Brussels, Eurostar Director General Jacques Dumas said that, on average, taking the train emits ten times less CO2 than flying.

Vinne Luyt, a 22-year old volunteer with Oxfam and a student in international relations from Ghent, Belgium, wanted to go to the COP26 talks in Glasgow in support of people from the Global South who could not attend for lack of a vaccine.

"A lot of young people would have come," said Luyt, who had become friends online with three activists in Indonesia, India and Colombia.

"They are getting panicky about the impact of climate change on their daily lives," he said.

 NOT THIS YEARS CLASS FOR HOGWARTS

Rail passengers leave the special Climate Summit train in London to take a second train to Glasgow for the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference / © ANP/AFP/File

Just over one degree of warming compared to preindustrial levels has been enough to unleash a deadly cascade of storms, wildfires and flooding, with far worse on the horizon, scientists say.

The more than 20 cars on the climate express were also crawling with journalists, including those from a new generation of news media run by young people for young people.

-It's all about networking -

Lucas Wicky and Florian Thomas, both in their early 20s, recorded testimonials of activists for Brut, a video-only platform that lives on, and through, social media.

"We do storytelling for young people," explained Thomas.

Some videos posted by Brut, which has editions in half-a-dozen countries, have scored more than 10 million views.

About half-way on the leg from London to Glasgow, the voice of a crew member from Avanti West Coast Trains pierced the bustle of animated conversation.

"My name is Fatin Abdalla, and I am so excited to be on this train," she said over the speakers.

Abdalla, originally from Sudan, it turned out, had gone to landmark Paris climate talks in 2018 as a youth delegate for an NGO, and the experience left a huge impression.

While working in Avanti's sustainability department, she is completing a PhD in mechanical engineering to develop ways to store heat generated by solar panels that can be used in developing countries -- like her own -- where most people don't have electricity.

For many on board, the trip to Paris was more to meet other young activists than diving into the details of the highly technical UN talk.

"It's all about networking," said one young woman to a new-found friend.

"Yes I've had so many good conversations," the other agreed

Sea level is already guaranteed to rise by 5 feet, climate scientist says

David Knowles

·Senior Editor

Sun, October 31, 2021, 

Based on the amount of greenhouse gases humans have already added to the Earth’s atmosphere, the world is guaranteed to experience approximately 5 feet of sea level rise in the coming decades, climate scientist Benjamin Strauss told “The Climate Crisis Podcast.” 

“It’s in that range, you know, 5 feet plus or minus. And that’s because we’ve already warmed the planet by around 2 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.1 Celsius,” Strauss, the president and CEO of Climate Central, a nonprofit that tries to educate policymakers and the public about the threats posed by climate change, told Yahoo News. “Think of it this way: If I dumped a truckload of ice in the middle of Phoenix, we’d all know it’s going to melt. But it takes time to melt. And the same thing is true for the big ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and glaciers around the world. We turned up the thermostat. We’ve already heated the planet by a couple degrees, but they’ve only begun to respond by melting. And that’s why we have all this extra sea level in the pipeline and it’s, it’s enough, I’m afraid to say, it’s hard to imagine the long-term future of South Florida, let’s say, right, with the sea level that’s already in the pipeline.”

A woman stands off Bikeman islet in the Pacific island nation of Kiribati in 2013. (David Gray/Reuters)

Strauss, who has testified before Congress on the number of American houses that will be threatened due to sea level rise caused by climate change, noted that current estimates are that seas will rise by 2 to 3 feet by the end of the century and will continue rising in the decades that follow. Yet the fact that roughly 5 feet of sea level rise has already been baked in to the planet’s future is, for Strauss, even more incentive for the world to come together to prevent that figure from creeping even higher. 

“I think we can help ourselves a lot by slowing down these changes,” he said.