Report: Fine particles in air cause 4M premature deaths a year

Smoke from fires in Northern California lowers visibility of the Bay Bridge and San Francisco as viewed from Yerba Buena Island in October 2020. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 2 (UPI) -- An institute based in Japan says that more than 4 million people worldwide die prematurely each year due to tiny particles known as PM 2.5 particulates that get into the lungs and cardiovascular system.

In recent years, scientists have become increasingly concerned about the impact that PM2.5 particulates have on air pollution and health.

A paper released Tuesday on the issue by a team from the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Japan, coincides with the United Nations Climate Change summit that's being held in Scotland.

The Institute team, led by researcher Keisuke Nansai, mapped the microscopic particles from data gathered in 2010 and then projected their health impacts in 199 countries.

Among its findings, the report said the consumption of consumer goods from 19 of the Group of 20 nations were responsible for 78 000 premature deaths of infants worldwide. The report also asserted that global trade plays a role in the spread of PM2.5, in that "consumption in one country can lead to PM2.5 pollution in another."

And while most countries acknowledge they contribute to PM2.5 levels, there is little agreement on how much and how to assess each nation's financial responsibility, the report said.

The Institute warned about the dangers if world leaders do not take action to combat the pollution.

RELATED Study links air pollution to 6M premature births in 2019


An aerial view shows buildings engulfed in smog, in New Delhi, India, in 2017. File Photo by Harish Tyagi/EPA-EFE

"No studies have quantified the consumer responsibility of G20 nations for the substantial health impacts caused by atmospheric PM2.5.," the report said. "This lack of scientific knowledge risks delaying international collaborative efforts to safeguard the victims of the PM2.5 pollution.''

More broadly, the World Health Organization, too, blames air pollution for "millions of deaths and the loss of healthy years of life."

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, these particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. Some are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires.

Most particles form in the atmosphere as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are pollutants emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles.

The New York State Department of Health says that fine particles also form from the reaction of gases or droplets in the atmosphere from sources such as power plants. These chemical reactions can occur miles from the original source of the emissions.


Heavy pollution, like this in Beijing in 2017, is the largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world, according to a study. File Photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI | License Photo

Because fine particles can be carried long distances from their source, events such as wildfires or volcanic eruptions can raise fine particle concentrations hundreds of miles from the event.

A report by The Lancet Journal released in September studied the connection between wildfires and PM2.5. The study included data from 749 cities in 43 countries and regions during 2000-16.

"Short-term exposure to wildfire-related PM2·5 was associated with increased risk of mortality," the report said. "Urgent action is needed to reduce health risks from the increasing wildfires."

OOP'S

Escalating Saudi dispute weakens Lebanon, may help Hezbollah

A Yemeni man looks at a billboard depicting Lebanese Information Minister George Kordahi amid a Houthi campaign supporting Kordahi against the policies of Gulf states at a street in Sana'a, Yemen, on Sunday.

Photo by Yahya Arhab/EPA-EFE

By Dalal Saoud

NOV. 2, 2021 

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- Lebanon, facing one of the worst economic crises in the world, received a painful blow when Saudi Arabia, angered by critical comments concerning its military intervention in Yemen, decided to expel its ambassador and ban its imports.

The Saudi move on Friday further strained tense relations with Lebanon, whose new government led by Prime Minister Najib Mikati has been counting on improving ties with the Gulf countries to secure crucial financial assistance to prevent the country's total collapse.

Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates quickly backed Saudi measures, recalling their own ambassadors from Beirut and asking Lebanon's envoys to leave.

The diplomatic row was sparked by Lebanese Information Minister George Kordahi, who described Yemen's seven-year war as "futile" and said Iran-backed Houthi rebels were defending themselves against "external aggression."

RELATED U.S. sanctions 2 Lebanese businessmen, a lawmaker for corruption

Kordahi's remarks, recorded in August -- one month before he was named minister in Mikati's government -- and broadcast last week, were the straw that broke the camel's back after a series of events over years that have soured relations between the two countries.

"The relations between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia were not good even before Kordahi's comments. Ties were already bad," Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, told UPI.

5 / 6Harsh criticism of Saudi Arabia and insulting remarks were repeatedly voiced by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah over the years. Screenshot via Manar TV/EPA-EFE

Hezbollah influence

Saudi Arabia, once Lebanon's main financial and political backer, has been increasingly concerned about the rising influence and dominance of Iran's proxy in Lebanon, the heavily armed Hezbollah.

Saudi Arabia started to distance itself from Lebanon after a "presidential settlement," backed by then-ally former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who supported the election of Michel Aoun, Hezbollah's main Christian ally, as Lebanon's president in 2016.

A year later, Hariri, then prime minister, was reportedly "forced" to submit his resignation during a trip to Riyadh. He resumed his function after French President Emmanuel Macron intervened to allow his return to Beirut a few days later.

Harsh criticism of Saudi Arabia and insulting remarks were repeatedly voiced by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah over the years. Moreover, former Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, a Hezbollah ally and son-in-law of Aoun, repeatedly adopted Hezbollah's positions, especially when he voted against a semi-Arab consensus on Syria at an Arab League meeting. Last May, former Foreign Minister Charbel Wehbe had to quit after provoking the anger of Gulf states whom he blamed for the rise of the Islamic State.

The peak was the continuous smuggling of drugs from Lebanon to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. Riyadh said it had confiscated millions of white amphetamine pills, known as Captagon, hidden in fruit and vegetable shipments from Lebanon. In response, it decided to ban all Lebanese fruit and vegetables.

"It is an accumulation, with Lebanon adapting Hezbollah's positions ... and this has basically escalated the situation to where we are now," Mohanad Hage Ali, an analyst and fellow at the Beirut-based Carnegie Middle East Center, told UPI. "The Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia are basically saying, 'Enough.'"

The new Saudi-Gulf escalation, Hage Ali said, will rather benefit Hezbollah.

"These measures are impacting the population, further weakening the state and ironically could be benefiting Hezbollah: bringing Lebanon closer to the Iranian and Syrian regimes/axis," he said.

Punitive to population

By imposing a ban on Lebanese imports, that reached $1.04 billion to Gulf Cooperation Council countries in 2020, many see the new Saudi measures as "punitive" and harmful to the Lebanese population rather than to Hezbollah.

However, Saudis could no longer sustain such an approach against them. They want to put a red line.

While the United States has been imposing sanctions on Hezbollah for the past two years, targeting its source of funding and punishing individuals and institutions behind it while trying not to harm Lebanon's economy, what the Saudis are doing "is very different," said Riad Tabbarah, Lebanon's former ambassador in Washington.

"They are punishing Lebanon, by expelling its ambassadors and stopping its exports," Tabbarah told UPI. He explained that Riyadh's new measures were not in line with the U.S. and French approach toward Lebanon.

"France is talking to Hezbollah day and night and the U.S. has an open channel to bring gas from Egypt via Syria" to help ease Lebanon's acute power crisis, Tabbarah said. "The new Saudi measures are a defensive reaction. Saudis could no longer sustain such an approach [from Lebanon] against them and they want to put a red line."

With Kordahi not willing to submit his resignation to help defuse the growing tension with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners, Mikati received a boost from the United States and France to maintain his government in order to secure some stability in the country.

"The Americans are not really taking the Saudi anger seriously. They are committed to the maintenance of the Mikati government for a reason," Khashan said.

In September, Mikati succeeded in forming a new government, ending more than a year of stalemate that accelerated the collapse of the crisis-ridden country and further plunged the population into poverty. If he resigns, forming a new cabinet will be difficult and could lead to the cancellation of general elections, scheduled for March 27.

"Hezbollah does not care and does not lose anything if Saudis impose draconian measures on Lebanon," Khashan said. "The Saudis are frustrated and venting their anger at the weakest link, which is Lebanon."

He, however, noted that Saudi-Gulf-Lebanon relations "will not get worse but will not get any better."

At the end, it all depends on the Vienna nuclear talks that are set to resume at the end of this month.

"The main issue in Vienna is not .. whether Iran is to produce a nuclear bomb. There are other issues: Iran's missiles and proxies, like Hezbollah," Kashan said.

He said the United States wants to neutralize Iran's proxies in the region. To Iran, its proxies in the region are more important than the nuclear program... and Hezbollah is more important than its nuclear bomb," he said.

Ruining countries like Lebanon and making them "an easy bite" is what Iran needs "to take over completely," Khashan said.

CRIMES AGAINST JOURNALISTS: "9 OUT OF 10 CASES REMAIN UNRESOLVED"

Issued on: 02/11/2021 -

"Mafias, criminal organizations use contract killers: they come, they shoot, they execute and they go. No trace, no witness", explains Jean-François Thony, President of the Siracusa International Institute at the occasion of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists.

Lebanon's oldest English-language daily goes under

Issued on: 02/11/2021 - 

Lebanese newspaper, The Daily Star, which has become the latest media casualty of the country's financial meltdown, had warned of the impending crisis in an August 8, 2019 protest edition published without news JOSEPH EID AFP/File

Beirut (AFP)

Lebanon's oldest English-language daily newspaper laid off its entire staff and became the latest casualty in the collapse of the country's once-flourishing press, employees said Tuesday.

The Daily Star's employees were notified a few days earlier that they were all being made redundant from October 31, according to an email which was sent to the staff and seen by AFP.

The newspaper, which is co-owned by the family of former prime minister Saad Hariri, had halted its print edition early last year and stopped updating its website two weeks ago.

There was no statement from the newspaper but the layoffs put an end to years of financial difficulties during which staff were routinely paid late.

Hariri's once prosperous media empire has unravelled in recent years, with his Future TV channel and Arabic-language Al Mustaqbal daily downsizing to bare bones.

Lebanon's prominent As-Safir daily shut down five years ago and An-Nahar, another of the country's historical newspapers, is clinging on for dear life.

The Daily Star was founded in 1952 by Kamel Mroue, then owner and editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper.

It closed for more than a decade during the 1975-1990 civil war, returning to news stands in 1996.

© 2021 AFP

USA FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE

Uninsured woman billed $700 for waiting in an Atlanta emergency room without care 

WHETHER YOU GET IT OR NOT
A Georgian woman was billed almost US$700 after waiting seven hours in an Atlanta emergency room, and leaving the hospital untreated

.

© Provided by National Post

Taylor Davis had initially gone to the Emory Decatur hospital earlier this year to get a head injury treated, but after receiving little to no care, she decided to return home.

“I didn’t get my vitals taken, nobody called my name. I wasn’t seen at all,” Davis told Fox 5 Atlanta. “I sat there for seven hours. There’s no way I should be sitting in an emergency room.. an emergency room for seven hours.”

Weeks later, she received a bill in the mail and thought it was a mistake.

“So I called them and she said it’s hospital protocol even if you’re just walking in and you’re not seen. When you type in your social (insurance number), that’s it. You’re going to get charged regardless,” she said.

She was informed by the hospital that she was sent a bill for what is called an emergency room visit fee, an invoice that is often overshadowed by other more costly hospital bills.

After her complaint, an email was sent to Davis by the hospital’s patient financial services department stating, “You get charged before you are seen. Not for being seen.”

Said Davis: “I’m very reluctant to go to the hospital now. That’s kind of like the last resort now. Seeing that they’re able to bill you for random things, it doesn’t make me want to go. So that’s not good.”

Elections Canada probed how many Canadians have a 'conspiracy mindset'


OTTAWA — Elections Canada was curious to know how many Canadians believed in conspiracy theories in the lead up to the recent federal vote.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had two years left in his minority mandate in August when he plunged the country into an election while a fourth wave of COVID-19 raged.

Protesters opposed to public health measures like masking and mandatory vaccinations staged demonstrations, some of them following Trudeau as he crisscrossed the country, hurling obscenities at him and, at one point, even gravel.

Months before triggering the vote, the federal agency in charge of running elections commissioned its first stand-alone survey into the level of trust Canadians had in the electoral process. That included finding out how many held a "conspiracy mindset."

"Questions about conspiracies allow for a better understanding of what can trigger distrust toward electoral administration," Elections Canada spokeswoman Natasha Gauthier said in a statement, adding the "COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant social and economic changes, including in the realm of election administration."

"Looking at mistrust in general also helps us better understand what sorts of information and communication approaches can be effective in instilling trust in elections."

Conducted by the firm Leger over 10 days in April, the poll surveyed 2,500 Canadians online and through computer assisted interviewing technology.

It found a majority of respondents trusted Elections Canada and believed the voting system was "safe and reliable."

When it came to conspiracy beliefs, the study, recently posted to a government website, reported 17 per cent believed the government was trying to cover up the link between vaccines and autism, and 30 per cent thought new drugs or technologies were being tested on people without their knowledge.

The research also found 40 per cent of respondents subscribed to thinking that certain big events have been the product of a "small group who secretly manipulate world events."

Aengus Bridgman, a lead researcher on a project which tracked the spread of false and misleading information during the campaign, said putting an exact number on how many Canadians believe in conspiracies is tough because it comes down to how that's measured.

The McGill University PhD student in political science says the project, co-organized with the University of Toronto, has done its own surveys that suggest between 10 to 20 per cent of people held strong conspiracy beliefs.

Bridgman says false information about the novel coronavirus played a big role during the election. Social media also saw a "relentless group of individuals" making untrue claims about how mail-in votes would be counted, reflective of what unfolded during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, where former president Donald Trump pushed unsubstantiated concerns about fraudulent mail-in ballots.

As the Sept. 20 election day neared, Elections Canada countered with messages explaining the process for counting these ballots but Bridgman says that needs to happen faster.

"As soon as it starts circulating on a Telegram channel, you can be pretty sure within 24 hours, 36 hours, it's going to be on some of the more mainstream platforms, and people are going to be being exposed to it."

One of pandemic's effects, he says, is that vaccinations have become a "flashpoint" where groups who hold different conspiracy-based beliefs, from the Earth being flat to the allegedly sinister agenda of large pharmaceutical companies, finding a home together.

Mainstream political parties are often referred to as "big tent parties," Bridgman notes. "Well, now we have this big tent conspiracy party."

He says one conspiracy theory that appeared during the campaign and also online was around so-called "climate lockdowns."

That was spread by, among others, long-time Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant from Ontario. Leading up to the election, she circulated mailers to constituents warning that the Liberals wanted to impose a "climate lockdown" and made similar comments in a video posted to social media.

The video was removed after Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole received questions about it.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 2, 2021

Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press

America 'on fire': Facebook watched as Trump ignited hate


By AMANDA SEITZ

October 28, 2021

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The reports of hateful and violent posts on Facebook started pouring in on the night of May 28 last year, soon after then-President Donald Trump sent a warning on social media that looters in Minneapolis would be shot.

It had been three days since Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on the neck of George Floyd for more than eight minutes until the 46-year-old Black man lost consciousness, showing no signs of life. A video taken by a bystander had been viewed millions of times online. Protests had taken over Minnesota’s largest city and would soon spread throughout cities across America.

But it wasn’t until after Trump posted about Floyd’s death that the reports of violence and hate speech increased “rapidly” on Facebook across the country, an internal company analysis of the ex-president’s social media post reveals.

“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd and I won’t let that happen,” Trump wrote at 9:53 a.m. on May 28 from his Twitter and Facebook accounts. “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts the shooting starts!”

The former president has since been suspended from both Twitter and Facebook.

Leaked Facebook documents provide a first-hand look at how Trump’s social media posts ignited more anger in an already deeply divided country that was eventually lit “on fire” with reports of hate speech and violence across the platform. Facebook’s own internal, automated controls, meant to catch posts that violate rules, predicted with almost 90% certainty that Trump’s message broke the tech company’s rules against inciting violence.

Yet, the tech giant didn’t take any action on Trump’s message.

Offline, the next day, protests — some of which turned violent — engulfed nearly every U.S. city, big and small.

“When people look back at the role Facebook played, they won’t say Facebook caused it, but Facebook was certainly the megaphone,” said Lanier Holt, a communications professor at Ohio State University. “I don’t think there’s any way they can get out of saying that they exacerbated the situation.”

Social media rival Twitter, meanwhile, responded quickly at the time by covering Trump’s tweet with a warning and prohibiting users from sharing it any further.

Facebook’s internal discussions were revealed in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by former Facebook employee-turned-whistleblower Frances Haugen’s legal counsel. The redacted versions received by Congress were obtained by a consortium of news organizations, including The Associated Press.

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Trump was one of many high-profile users, including politicians and celebrities, exempted from some or all of the company’s normal enforcement policies.

Hate speech and violence reports had been mostly limited to the Minneapolis region after Floyd’s death, the documents reveal.

In this June 3, 2020, file photo, a demonstrator stares at a National Guard soldier as protests continue over the death of George Floyd, near the White House in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

“However, after Trump’s post on May 28, situations really escalated across the country,” according to the memo, published on June 5 of last year.

The internal analysis shows a five-fold increase in violence reports on Facebook, while complaints of hate speech tripled in the days following Trump’s post. Reports of false news on the platform doubled. Reshares of Trump’s message generated a “substantial amount of hateful and violent comments,” many of which Facebook worked to remove. Some of those comments included calls to “start shooting these thugs” and “f—- the white.”

By June 2, “we can see clearly that the entire country was basically ‘on fire,’” a Facebook employee wrote of the increase in hate speech and violence reports in the June 5 memo.

Facebook says it’s impossible to separate how many of the hate speech reports were driven by Trump’s post itself or the controversy over Floyd’s death.

In this May 30, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks with members of the press on the South Lawn of the White House, in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

“This spike in user reports resulted from a critical moment in history for the racial justice movement — not from a single Donald Trump post about it,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. “Facebook often reflects what’s happening in society and the only way to prevent spikes in user reports during these moments is to not allow them to be discussed on our platform at all, which is something we would never do.”

But the internal findings also raise questions about public statements Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made last year as he defended his decision to leave Trump’s post untouched.

On May 29, for example, Zuckerberg said the company looked closely to see if Trump’s words broke any of its policies and concluded that they did not. Zuckerberg also said he left the post up because it warned people of Trump’s plan to deploy troops.

In this May 28, 2020, file photo, protesters and residents watch as police in riot gear walk down a residential street, in St. Paul, Minn. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

“I know many people are upset that we’ve left the President’s posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies,” Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook account the night of May 29, as protests erupted around the country.

Yet, Facebook’s own automated enforcement controls determined the post likely did break the rules.

“Our violence and incitement classifier was almost 90% certain that this (Trump) post violated Facebook’s ... policy,” the June 5 analysis reads.

That contradicts conversations Zuckerberg had with civil rights leaders last year to quell concerns that Trump’s post was a specific threat to Black people protesting Floyd’s death, said Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change, a civil rights advocacy group. The group also spearheaded a boycott of Facebook in the weeks following Trump’s post.

“To be clear, I had a direct argument with Zuckerberg days after that post where he gaslit me and he specifically pushed back on any notion that this violated their rules,” Robinson said in an interview with the AP last week.

In this April 11, 2018, file photo, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes a drink of water as he testifies before a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

A Facebook spokesperson said that its internal controls do not always correctly predict when a post has violated rules and that human review, which was done in the case of Trump’s post, is more accurate.

To curb the ex-president’s ability to stoke hateful reactions on its platform, Facebook employees suggested last year that the company limit reshares on similar posts that may violate Facebook’s rules in the future.

But Trump continued to use his Facebook account, which more than 32 million follow, to fire up his supporters throughout much of the remainder of his presidency. In the days leading up to a deadly siege in Washington on Jan. 6, Trump regularly promoted false claims that widespread voter fraud caused him to lose the White House, spurring hundreds of his fans to storm the U.S. Capitol and demand the results of a fair election be overturned.

It wasn’t until after the Capitol riot, and as Trump was on his way out of the White House, that Facebook pulled him off the platform in January, announcing his account would be suspended until at least 2023.

There’s a reason Facebook waited so long to take any action, said Jennifer Mercieca, a professor at Texas A&M University who closely studied the former president’s rhetoric.

“Facebook really benefited from Trump and Trump’s ability to draw attention and engagement through outrage,” Mercieca said. “They wanted Trump to keep going on.”

In this June 20, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump arrives on stage to speak at a campaign rally at the BOK Center, in Tulsa, Okla. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

___

See full coverage of the “The Facebook Papers” here: https://apnews.com/hub/the-facebook-papers

Report links most climate change denial on Facebook to 10 publications




Igor Bonifacic
·Contributing Writer
Tue, November 2, 2021

Most climate change misinformation comes from only a handful of sources. That’s according to a new report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The organization found that ten publishers are responsible for 69 percent of all interactions with climate change denial content on Facebook. Included in the group, which the CCDH titled “The Toxic Ten,” are Breitbart, Russia Today and Media Research Center, which has ties to the fossil fuel industry.

The findings broadly mirror that of another report the CCDH published earlier in the year, which found that as much as 73 percent of vaccine misinformation on Facebook can be linked to only 12 individuals dubbed the “disinformation dozen.” That study has been widely cited by US lawmakers who have called on social media platforms to do more to address the “urgent threat” misinformation represents to public health.

As it did with the earlier disinformation dozen report, Meta, Facebook’s parent company, disputed the methodology the CCDH used to compile its latest study. “The 700,000 interactions this report says were on climate denial represent 0.3 percent of the over 200 million interactions on English public climate change content from Pages and public groups over the same time period,” a spokesperson for the company said. It also pointed to the recently announced expansion of features like the Climate Change Information Center as evidence of its commitment to tackling misinformation on the topic.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the CCDH, said the organization looked at approximately 7,000 articles published between October 2020 and October 2021. He called the sample “robust” and said there was enough data “to derive representative finds of trends.”

Additionally, the report examined the financial incentives involved in publishing climate change denial content. The CCDH estimates eight of the companies included in the Toxic Ten made $5.3 million in Google ad revenue over the last six months, with $1.7 million going to the search giant. "We recently announced a new policy that explicitly prohibits publishers and YouTube Creators from monetizing content that promotes climate change denial. This policy will go into effect on November 8 and our enforcement will be as targeted as removing ads from individual pages with violating content," a spokesperson for Google told Engadget.

“When you put it all together, you’ve got these two industries, Big Oil and Big Tech, and they are the two industries that pose the greatest threat to the survival of our species,” Ahmed told The Post.

The timing of The Toxic Ten report comes as delegates from around the world meet at the UN’s COP26 climate summit in Scotland in what’s been described as “the world’s last best chance” to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Without dramatic reductions, the planet is currently on track for a “catastrophic” 2.7 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures. With every additional degree of warming beyond the 1.5-degree target put forward by the Paris Agreement, there’s a greater risk of the planet passing specific tipping points that could lead to even more dramatic changes to the climate.

USA
‘Code red for climate’: House Oversight Committee chair ramps up pressure on Big Oil executives for documents



Carolyn Maloney
Josh Marcus
Tue, November 2, 2021

Congress has subpoenaed many of the top fossil fuel companies in the world, as well as the trade groups that represent them, as part of its investigation into how the industry kept the public from learning about the climate crisis.

On Tuesday, representative Carolyn B Maloney, chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, requested reams of internal documents from ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP America, Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute and US Chamber of Commerce, saying the firms and trade groups hadn’t been cooperating with Congress’ investigation.

“For far too long, Big Oil has escaped accountability for its central role in bringing our planet to the brink of a climate catastrophe,” Ms Maloney, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. “That ends today.”

“We are at ‘code red’ for climate, and I am committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet for our children. We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign. And with these subpoenas, we will,” Ms Maloney added in a statement.

The Independent has reached out to each recipient of the request, asking for comment.

“bp is carefully reviewing the subpoena and will continue working with the committee,” a spokesperson for the company said in a statement.

It’s the latest step in the groundbreaking inquiry into climate disinformation, after last week’s high-profile hearings with fossil fuel executives at the Capitol, which some have compared to the famed 1994 hearings when tobacco executives were grilled about the health consequences of cigarettes.

At the more recent hearings, however, the executives did not commit to stop lobbying against climate policies, or apologise for sowing public doubt about climate science.

Documents have shown that firms like Exxon and Shell knew about global warming for decades before it became a top public priority, and funded trade groups or ran advertisements of their own that cast doubt on the nature of carbon emissions as a threat.

SCIENTISTS SAID GLOBAL WARMING WAS IN THE FUTURE WE WOULD KEEP PUMPING OIL TILL THEN
“That was consistent with what the scientific consensus was at the time,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said at the hearing, defending a set of ads in the early 2000s that were skeptical of global warming. “And as time has progressed, we’ve continued to maintain a position that has evolved with science and is today consistent with the science.”

Some Democratic members hammered the companies for the distance between their public attempts at going green and their behind-the-scenes work to stymie the types of radical changes to the energy sector needed to avoid the worst of the climate crisis.

“You will say your companies have contributed to academic research on climate science,” congressman Ro Khanna of California said. “That is true, but that is not the issue at hand. Despite your early knowledge of climate science, your companies and the trade associations you fund chose time and again to loudly raise doubts about the science and downplay the severity of the crisis.”

Others praised the firm, with Republican representative Jim Jordan of Ohio saying, “God bless Chevron for saying they’ll increase production.”

Elsewhere in Congress, Democrats are in the midst of negotiating on two major infrastructure and spending packages, and while they represent the biggest investments in climate action in history, environmentalists also note that Democratic US Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, large recipients of pharmaceutical and fossil fuel money, respectively, have opposed key measures that would’ve made the bills even more impactful on the rapidly deteriorating climate.

Mr Manchin, for example, is against the clean power plant plan that’s a key part of the Democrats’ climate push, incentivising utilities to rapidly move away from using fossil energy.

Read More

Prince William at Cop26: ‘Teenage inventor of solar-run cart puts us all to shame’

Biden says China has made ‘big mistake’ by not attending Cop26

Campaign groups shocked after being shut out of Cop26 negotiations

Democratic chair issues subpoenas to oil executives


DRep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, speaks at committee hearing on the role of fossil fuel companies in climate change, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods Thursday, Oct. 28, 2021, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)More

MATTHEW DALY

AP
Tue, November 2, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas Tuesday to top executives of ExxonMobil, Chevron and other oil giants, charging that the companies have not turned over documents needed by the committee to investigate allegations that the oil industry concealed evidence about the dangers of global warming.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said she tried hard to obtain the information voluntarily, but "the oil companies employed the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy — delay and obstruction.''

The subpoenas follow a high-profile hearing last week in which top oil executives denied spreading disinformation about climate change as they sparred with Maloney and other Democrats over allegations that they deliberately misled the public about the risks of global warming.

ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods testified that his company's public statements on climate “are and have always been truthful, fact-based ... and consistent” with mainstream climate science, a claim Democrats sharply disputed.

In addition to ExxonMobil, the committee issued subpoenas to executives at Chevron, Shell and BP America, as well as the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Leaders of all six groups appeared at the Oversight hearing last week.

Spokesman Casey Norton said Tuesday that ExxonMobil has been cooperating with the committee for months and has provided nearly 130,000 pages of documents, including internal emails.

J.P. Fielder, a spokesman for BP America, said the company is carefully reviewing the subpoena and will continue working with the committee. BP says it has provided more than 17,000 pages of documents, including internal materials.

Several lawmakers compared last week's remote hearing to a 1994 session with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn’t believe nicotine was addictive. Maloney and other Democrats sought to pin down oil executives on whether they believe in climate change and that burning fossil fuels such as oil contributes to global warming.

Democrats accused the oil industry of engaging in a decades-long, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming.

“They are obviously lying like the tobacco executives were,″ Maloney said of oil executives after hearing their testimony.

Republicans accused Democrats of grandstanding over an issue popular with their base as President Joe Biden’s climate agenda teeters in Congress. Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the panel's top Republican, dismissed the hearing as "partisan theater for primetime news.''

Democrats for months have been seeking documents and other information on the oil industry’s role in stopping climate action over multiple decades. The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977, yet spread denial and doubt about the harm its pro

ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woodsducts cause— undermining science and preventing meaningful action on climate change, Maloney and other Democrats said.

Woods and other oil executives said they agreed with Maloney on the existence and threat posed by climate change, but they refused her request to pledge that their companies would not spend money — either directly or indirectly — to oppose efforts to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

India powers renewable ambitions with solar push

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged that by 2030 India will produce more energy through solar and other renewables than its entire grid now.

PHOTO: AFP
PUBLISHED NOV 2, 2021

BHADLA, INDIA (AFP) - As camels munch on the fringes of Thar desert, an oasis of blue solar panels stretches further than the eye can see at Bhadla Park - a cornerstone of India's bid to become a clean energy powerhouse.

Currently, coal powers 70 per cent of the nation's electricity generation, but Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged that by 2030, India will produce more energy through solar and other renewables than its entire grid now.

"First, India will increase its non-fossil energy capacity to 500 gigawatts... Second, by 2030, 50 per cent of our energy requirements will come from renewable resources," Mr Modi told the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

The arid state of Rajasthan, where Bhadla Park takes up an area almost the size of San Marino, sees 325 sunny days each year, making it perfectly placed for the solar power revolution, officials say.

Once an expanse of desert, authorities have capitalised on the sparsely populated area, claiming minimal displacement of local communities. Today robots clean dust and sand off an estimated 10 million solar panels, while a few hundred humans monitor.

This pursuit of a greener future is fuelled by necessity.

India, home to 1.3 billion people and poised to overtake China as the most populous country, has a growing and voracious appetite for energy - but it is also on the frontline of climate change.

In the next two decades, it has to add a power system the size of Europe's to meet demand for its swelling population, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), but it also has to tackle toxic air quality in its big cities.

"India is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world for climate change and that is why it has this big push on renewables to decarbonise the power sector, but also reduce air pollution," Dr Arunabha Ghosh, climate policy expert from the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, told AFP.

But experts say the country - the world's third-biggest carbon emitter - is some way from reaching its green targets, with coal set to remain a key part of the energy mix in the coming years.

Although India's green energy has increased five-fold in just over a decade to 100GW this year, the sector now needs to grow by the same proportion again to meet its 2030 goals.

"I believe this is more of an aspirational target... to show to the world that we are moving in the right direction," Mr Vinay Rustagi from renewable energy consultancy Bridge to India, told AFP.

"But it would be a big stretch and seems highly unrealistic, in view of various demand and supply challenges," Mr Rustagi said.

Proponents point to Bhadla Solar Park, one of the largest in the world, as an example of how innovation, technology, and public and private finance can drive swift change.

An engineer walks next to solar panels made by Indian manufacturer Vikram Solar at the National Thermal Power Corporation site at Bhadla Solar Park on Oct 8, 2021. PHOTO: AFP

"We've huge chunks of land where there's not a blade of grass. Now you don't see the ground anymore. You just see solar panels. It's such a huge transformation," Mr Subodh Agarwal, Rajasthan's additional chief secretary for energy, told AFP.

Authorities are incentivising renewables firms to set up in the region, known as the "desert state". Mr Agarwal says demand has "accelerated" since 2019.

"It will be a different Rajasthan. It will be the solar state," he said of the next decade.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

India grapples with power crisis caused by erratic supply of coal

India to impose minimum level of green energy use by industries

If this surge is sustained then coal-fired power for electricity generation could peak by 2024, according to Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) projections.

Currently, solar power accounts for four per cent of electricity generation. Before Mr Modi's announcement the IEA estimated solar and coal will converge at around 30 per cent each by 2040 based on current policies.

India's billionaires, including Asia's two richest men, Mr Mukesh Ambani and Mr Gautam Adani, are pledging huge investments, while Modi is setting up a renewables park the size of Singapore in his home state of Gujarat.

But reshaping an entire power network takes time and money, analysts warn.

Around 80 per cent of India's solar panels are still imported from China, the world's biggest producer.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

India vows to take up climate justice combat at COP26

India's Kerala turns homes into 'mini-solar power stations'

Mr Gyanesh Chaudhary, chief executive of Indian panel manufacturer Vikram Solar, insisted there should be "more than 30" local firms like his already.

"That's the kind of demand (and) ecosystem that India would essentially need... It should have happened sooner."

Experts say domestic growth has been stymied by insufficient policies, funding shortages, cheaper panels from China, and infrastructure and energy storage issues.

"A lot of these plants are located at very long distances from power stations, so you have to think of linking them," explained Mr Apurba Mitra, World Resources Institute India's climate policy chief.

Employees connect solar cells at the Vikram Solar manufacturing plant in Oragadam, in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu on Oct 13, 2021. PHOTO: AFP

Mr Modi, who announced at COP26 that India would be carbon neutral by 2070, made it clear that such emissions-cutting pledges would require finance from rich, historic emitters.

"India expects developed countries to provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. Today it is necessary that as we track the progress made in climate mitigation, we should also track climate finance," he told more than 120 leaders at the critical talks.

Farmer and doctor Amit Singh's 1.2 hectare family farmland in Rajasthan's Bhaloji village was running out of water and hit by frequent power outages.

"I always saw the sun and its rays and wondered... why not harness it to generate electricity?," he said.

Dr Singh first installed rooftop panels at his small hospital which generated half of its energy needs.

He then invested family savings into a government-linked project on his land.

The mini-solar farm cost 35 million rupees (S$631,000) and Dr Singh sells electricity to the grid for 400,000 rupees a month.

Zero-emission vehicles, wind and solar energy seen taking off: Climate report

Climate Code Red: Live from COP26

"It's the ultimate source of energy, which is otherwise going to waste... I feel I'm contributing to the developmental needs of my village," he added.

Dr Ghosh said it was vital to bring down costs.

"When a farmer is able to generate power from their solar plant near their farm and pump out water - we are then able to bring the energy transition closer to the people," he added.

Ms Pratibha Pai, the founder-director of Chirag Rural Development Foundation which has brought solar to more than 100,000 villagers, believes in clean energy's transformative role.

She said: "We start with solar power... we end with safe drinking water, power for dark village roads, power for little rural schools which will hopefully script the story of a 'big' India."

The costs of climate change in 10 figures



The costs of climate change 10 figures © FMM Graphic Studio

Text by :Sébastian SEIBT

Issued on: 02/11/2021 - 11:57

World leaders' refrain ahead of the UN’s COP26 conference in Glasgow from October 31 to November 12 has been that it is our “last best chance” to stop catastrophic climate change. That might sound alarmist but scientists say it is warranted. In The Lancet's annual Countdown report, the medical journal tracks the effects of climate change across 40 different indicators. Its unequivocal conclusion? Things keep getting worse, for both the economy and human health. Here are some of the key findings.
ADVERTISING


The costs of climate change in 10 figures © FMM Graphic Studio