LAVAL IS THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY HUB OF CANADA
Montreal suburb becomes first Quebec municipality to ban Roundup weed killer

LAVAL, Que. — A suburb north of Montreal has become the first city in Quebec to ban the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in weed killer Roundup.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Officials in Laval, Que., adopted the new bylaw on Tuesday.

The city is also banning the use in urban areas of pesticides known as neonicotinoids as well as the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns. Agricultural and horticultural businesses are exempt from the bylaw.

"Once again, the city is acting as a regional leader in environmental matters," executive committee member Virginie Dufour said in a statement, calling the ban "a significant action to protect health and the environment."

Laval says biological insect-management agents known as biopesticides will still be permitted, as will low-impact pesticides.

The city says in the statement that the measure is aimed at protecting human health, pollinating insects, wildlife and natural spaces. It plans to deploy patrols to raise public awareness of the new rules.

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

The Canadian Press

Climate policy is important, but the bigger challenge is cultural change

Jennifer Marlon, opinion contributor 

THE HILL

4/14/2021

The Biden administration's bold new moves on climate change are setting the U.S. on a new path toward reducing its effects in the coming years. Changing the institutional rules that guide the actions of agencies, corporations, organizations and individuals is vital to reducing carbon pollution. But cultural change is arguably the bigger challenge. Much like the efforts and laws that now make cigarette smoking so abhorrent to many, changing the way individuals perceive and respond to global warming can lead us toward a healthier future. Acting now to reduce pollution is also similar to the principle behind quitting smoking - stopping earlier allows more time for recovery and will limit the worst outcomes down the road.

© Getty Images climate change crisis greenhouse gas emissions biden joe president 310 companies open letter paris agreement goals 2030 2 degrees

Audience research, long employed in public health campaigns and by the private sector, can also be used to improve communication about climate change. Understanding what people already think about it, more so than just knowing how different demographic groups respond, can yield insights into key knowledge gaps and misperceptions. Knowing your audience can help you meet them where they are, which can lead to better communication outcomes.

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason Center for Climate Communication developed an audience analysis for climate change communication called "Global Warming's Six Americas'' framework. Drawing on 12 years of nationally representative surveys including more than 25,000 participants, they identified distinct groups among the public who interpret the issue in different ways. Each has unique climate change beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that fall into six broad categories:

1) "The Alarmed" (26 percent) are convinced global warming is happening, human-caused, an urgent threat and strongly support climate policies.

2) "The Concerned" (29 percent) also think human-caused global warming is happening, a serious threat, and support climate policies, but they tend to think climate change will harm future generations or people and places far away rather than their own communities or families.

3) "The Cautious" (19 percent) are unsure whether global warming is happening or not, what is causing it and how serious it is.

4) "The Disengaged" (6 percent) know little about global warming as they rarely or never hear about it.

5) "The Doubtful" (12 percent) doubt that global warming is happening. They believe if temperatures are rising, it is due to natural rather than human causes, and thus they do not support policies to address carbon pollution.

6) "The Dismissive" (8 percent) are certain that global warming is not happening, most endorse conspiracy theories and see the issue as a hoax.

The surveys also asked, "If you could ask an expert on global warming one question, which question would you ask?" They found three types of responses. The Alarmed and Concerned primarily want to know about solutions. Their main question is: "What can I do about climate change?"

The middle segments (the Cautious and Disengaged) want to know "What harm will climate change cause, and why should I care?"

The Doubtful and Dismissive want to know "How do you know global warming is happening and human-caused?"

These results point to different information needs among the American public about climate change. The Alarmed and Concerned want information about solutions and especially solutions that empower them to act. Shifting toward a plant-based diet, purchasing carbon offsets and buying energy efficient appliances or vehicles are all actions that can help stabilize our climate. Joining others already engaged in action is perhaps the most powerful because of the rapid information sharing that can occur through organized networks.

The Cautious and Disengaged need information about why climate change should matter to them and their local communities. They probably don't realize, for example, that air pollution from burning fossil fuels is already responsible for one in every five deaths globally, and that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately affected. In fact, there are many ways that we are already paying the costs of burning fossil fuels for energy - we just haven't been keeping our receipts. Switching to renewable energy can bring benefits to our health and wallets. For example, when an Arkansas school district switched to solar, over $300,000 a year was saved, which helped fund a raise in teacher's salaries as a result.

The Doubtful and Dismissive may be surprised to learn that the physics behind global warming have been known for over a century, but they will be most open to hearing from people they already trust. Making the link between small-scale and larger-scale actions starts there.

Regardless of which group any individual belongs to, almost all of us underestimate how much Americans worry about this issue. In fact, the number of folks most worried, the Alarmed category, is growing faster than any other group - doubling in size in the past five years. This misperception is damaging because it acts as a barrier to dialogue as people anticipate disagreement or conflict where there is none, leading to what has been called a "spiral of silence." In reality, the vast majority of Americans want more news and information about climate change.

Sharing resources and information in a way that addresses each group's fundamental questions is what needs to happen now. One resource that seeks to answer this call to action is Yale Climate Connections - a set of audio stories, articles and videos that provide reliable and accurate information about the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change. When educators, community groups and individuals can find resources that best match the needs of their unique audiences, people across the Six Americas can better connect - and better understand the realities of climate change.

It's up to us, those who know what's coming, to better inform ourselves and focus on solutions. We have to learn how to help others in our networks understand key questions and answers about climate change while also communicating with people who need help engaging with the facts. It's a heavy lift. A whole planet is heavy. But now is the time to act.

Jennifer Marlon is a public voices fellow of the OpEd Project at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and a lecturer in Yale's School of the Environment.

China ‘must shut 600 coal-fired plants’ to hit climate target

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent

THE GUARDIAN, 4/14/2021

China must shut down nearly 600 of its coal-fired power plants in the next 10 years, replacing them with renewable electricity generation, to meet its goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2060, a report has said.

© Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock 

Wind turbines in Gansu, Wuwei, China, pictured in November 2020.

But replacing the 364GW of coal generation with renewable power would achieve a net saving of $1.6tn (£1.2tn) over the period, since wind and solar power are now much cheaper than coal, according to the analysis company TransitionZero.

The coal consumption of China, the world’s biggest emitter, is of global concern. The country has ramped up plans for new coal-fired power stations in an effort to spur economic growth after the recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Last September the country’s president, Xi Jinping, surprised the world by pledging that China would achieve net zero emissions by 2060, and that its emissions would peak before 2030.

Related: Urgent policies needed to steer countries to net zero, says IEA chief

However, while climate experts have applauded the long-term goal they are concerned that allowing emissions to rise for the next 10 years will bust the global carbon budget.

Video: Making space for solar (France 24)

Matthew Gray, the co-chief executive of TransitionZero, said: “If China fails on coal, the rest of the world will fail on containing dangerous climate change. But the stars are now somewhat aligning on breaking China’s addiction to coal.”

The finding that China could save money in both the short and longer term by replacing coal with renewable energy brightens the prospect of it moving decisively away from coal in the next few years.

Al Gore, who wrote a foreword to the TransitionZero analysis, said: “This shows that not only can China meet their climate goals, the country and its leaders can accelerate them rapidly. The economic opportunity presented by a transition from coal to clean energy shows that climate action and economic growth go hand in hand.”

China is preparing to submit a new climate plan, called a nationally determined contribution, or NDC. Such plans are a requirement for all countries under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and will form the key part of Cop26, the vital UK climate talks taking place in Glasgow this November.

António Guterres, the UN secretary general, has urged China to move swiftly away from coal, but the International Energy Agency has warned that China’s coal consumption is rebounding strongly after the shock of Covid-19.

Gray said the transition away from coal would still be difficult politically since the fuel was “deeply embedded” in China’s economy and society. Vast amounts of infrastructure, from railways carrying coal from mines across the country, to steel and cement plants, are reliant on coal today.

The new report, said Gray, did not examine jobs in detail, but he said a transition from coal to clean energy in China was likely to create as many, if not more, jobs as had been lost in traditional coal industries. “Moving to net zero will be jobs intensive,” he said.

Reducing the country’s reliance on coal would also bring many health benefits, for instance by cutting air pollution, and go some way to easing looming water shortages in central Chinese regions, Gray added. Coal-fired power stations require vast quantities of water, in increasingly water-stressed regions.

ANTI-CLIMATIC
House Republican leadership details three-day climate event to counter Biden's Earth Day summit

Josh Siegel 

WASHINGTON EXAMINER

4/13/2021

House Republicans plan to hold a three-day forum next week to present their ideas on addressing climate change and counter a climate summit event President Joe Biden is hosting on Earth Day with top greenhouse gas-emitting countries

.

© Provided by Washington Examiner

The Washington Examiner reported on the House Republican plan as it was emerging last week, but it was provided additional exclusive details by a GOP leadership aide.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, conceived the plan to demonstrate that the GOP has its own agenda to address climate change but that the party disagrees with the aggressive path being charted by Biden and Democrats in Congress.

“It’s designed to give members a chance to present our ideas,” a GOP leadership aide familiar with the plan told the Washington Examiner. “We don't have one giant bill to address climate like the Biden administration’s top-down infrastructure plan because climate is a really diverse regional topic, and the way you will approach it will differ depending on your district.”

The GOP forum will be held virtually from April 19-21, just ahead of the April 22-23 Leaders’ Summit on Climate hosted by Biden, in which the administration is expected to unveil a new target under the Paris climate agreement to cut U.S. emissions by 2030, a move meant to build momentum for other countries to make similarly aggressive commitments.

House Republicans will roll out a counteragenda to promote clean energy innovation but won’t include a specific mandate or target to cut emissions. As many or more than 30 members from across the Republican ideological spectrum will participate in the House forum, including members from the conservative Freedom Caucus and centrist Tuesday Group, the GOP leadership aide said.

It will also include the top Republicans on various committees: Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of the Energy and Commerce Committee; Bruce Westerman of the Natural Resources Committee; Frank Lucas of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; Sam Graves of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Glenn Thompson of the Agriculture Committee; and Garret Graves of the Select Committee on Climate Crisis.

Republicans are planning a couple of hours of coverage each of the three days (much of it prerecorded but some live content) to be broadcast on McCarthy’s website. Lawmakers will discuss their legislation and speak with business leaders and others who could benefit from their policies.

Of the 10 to 15 bills discussed each day, there will be measures promoting research and development of clean energy technologies, a new version of the “Trillion Trees Act,” critical minerals legislation, efforts to streamline permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act, and elements to support carbon capture projects and finance of pipelines to carry captured carbon dioxide to where it can be stored underground.

Another bill would require Biden to report to Congress before he submits a target to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement and for the administration to provide evidence for why the goal is achievable and economically viable.

Biden has promised to announce an aggressive pledge before or at his climate summit for the United States to cut emissions by 50% or more by 2030.

House Republicans also plan to underscore their opposition to carbon pricing and other policies that “regulate and tax fossil fuels out of business,” the GOP aide said.

Biden does not include a carbon tax as part of his green infrastructure plan, but Republicans are looking to prove that the support of oil and business lobby groups for carbon pricing won’t persuade GOP lawmakers to move off their longtime opposition.

“It’s important we draw a clear line on a carbon tax,” the aide said. “There has been this a bit of question mark as to whether the industry stance changes how the conference thinks about this issue, and the answer to that is no.”

GREEN HYDROGEN
Energy firm outlines plans for major hydrogen project that will use UK's largest electrolyzer

Anmar Frangoul  CNBC, 4/14/2021

The project planned for Scotland will be situated near the 539 megawatt Whitelee Windfarm.

Hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in sectors such as industry and transport.

© Provided by CNBC The proposed hydrogen project will be located near Whitelee Windfarm, a major facility near Glasgow, Scotland.

ScottishPower has submitted plans to develop a major "green" hydrogen facility that it says will use the U.K.'s largest electrolyzer.

In a statement earlier this week the energy company, a subsidiary of Spanish utility Iberdrola, said the project would be located near Glasgow, Scotland.

It's envisaged that the development will use a 20 megawatt (MW) electrolyzer and be powered by a 40 MW solar farm and a battery storage scheme of 50 MW.

On Monday, ScottishPower said the project would also use wind power and be able to produce as much as 8 metric tons of green hydrogen every day.

If authorities approve the plans, the facility could start supplying the commercial market before the year 2023.

Described by the International Energy Agency as a "versatile energy carrier," hydrogen has a diverse range of applications and can be deployed in sectors such as industry and transport.

It can be produced in a number of ways. One method includes using electrolysis, with an electric current splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen. If the electricity used in the process comes from a renewable source such as wind or solar then some call it "green" or "renewable" hydrogen.

The project planned for Scotland will be situated near the U.K.'s largest onshore wind farm, the 539 MW, 215 turbine Whitelee facility.

ITM Power will deliver the electrolyzer while ScottishPower Renewables will provide the wind and solar power. Industrial gas company BOC will handle the development's engineering and operations.

While the vast majority of today's hydrogen generation is based on fossil fuels, the last few years have seen a number of companies develop projects centered around green hydrogen production.

In March, for example, it was announced that a major green hydrogen facility in Germany had started operations. The "WindH2" project, as it's known, involves German steel giant Salzgitter, E.ON subsidiary Avacon and Linde, a firm specializing in engineering and industrial gases.

The same month also saw Danish energy company Orsted outline proposals to construct a large-scale offshore wind farm in the North Sea and link it to renewable hydrogen production on the European mainland.

Under the plans, Orsted would develop a 2 gigawatt (GW) offshore wind facility and 1 GW of electrolyzer capacity.

The company claims this would result in "one of the world's largest renewable hydrogen plants to be linked to industrial demand."

BLUE HYDROGEN
'The race is on': Launch of Edmonton region hydrogen hub announced with $2 million funding

Canada’s first hydrogen hub launched Wednesday in Alberta with a $2 million joint-government funding announcement.

Lisa Johnson 

EDMONTON JOURNAL

4/14/2021

3

© Provided by Edmonton Journal The Alberta government announces a strategy to expand the natural gas sector in Edmonton on Oct. 6, 2020, and seize emerging opportunities for clean hydrogen, petrochemical manufacturing, liquefied natural gas and plastics recycling.


The Edmonton region hydrogen hub aims to kickstart the development of the local hydrogen economy, although a strategic plan is still being developed and a timeline of specific next steps is yet to be announced.

Alanna Hnatiw, hub chairwoman and mayor of Sturgeon County, said its work will serve as a blueprint for other hydrogen development across the country.

“The race is on and we will move as quickly as possible to be a part of the market,” said Hnatiw at the announcement. She added that with interest in local hydrogen from countries looking to import, Canada’s domestic industry has the potential to be worth up to $100 billion a year.

The new funding will go to technical, economic analysis and help convene government, Indigenous, academic and economic development leaders to plan how best to produce and sell hydrogen.

Enoch Cree Nation Chief Billy Morin, vice-chairman of the Edmonton region hydrogen hub, said the hub would set the stage for Indigenous participation in the clean-energy emerging sector.

“Two million dollars might not sound like a lot of money today, but it’s enough to start planning and turn those ideas into more structure,” said Morin.

Jim Carr, special representative of the Prairies. Jim Wells/Postmedia

Jim Carr, the federal government’s special representative for the Prairies, said he anticipates major hydrogen investment announcements in the coming weeks and months.

“What we’re announcing is a platform upon which so much more will be built,” said Carr.

Alberta is aiming to export blue hydrogen made from natural gas using carbon capture and storage, which has some carbon emissions. Green hydrogen is made from water using renewable power and creates zero emissions.

Carr said there are opportunities across the spectrum, reflecting the federal government’s endorsement of blue hydrogen as optimal for large-scale, low-cost production to meet demand in its hydrogen strategy.

“They will attract different kinds of investments, staged at different times, but all of them carry great opportunity,” said Carr.

The hub’s launch comes as countries around the world set net-zero emissions targets and plan to develop hydrogen economies.

With support from the Transition Accelerator , a charity focused on the move to net-zero emissions, planning is underway for more than 25 potential projects related to the supply, delivery and use of low-carbon hydrogen.

Transition Accelerator president and CEO Dan Wicklum said in the coming months and years, people will begin to see trucks, buses and trains operating with hydrogen power.

“(And), you’re going to see some traditional energy companies pivoting from one product mix to a different product mix,” he said.

Wicklum said Japanese authorities expressed that they care about emissions, but they also care about the price of the hydrogen they plan to import.

“They quite strongly said that instead of waiting for green hydrogen to become economically viable, they would absolutely want to start right now,” he said, adding Japan’s market size for hydrogen could be as high as 10 million tonnes of hydrogen per year by 2050.

The $2 million funding envelope includes $1.2 million from Western Economic Diversification Canada, $600,000 from Alberta’s Industrial Heartland Association and $450,000 from the provincial government through Emissions Reduction Alberta.

Dale Nally, Alberta’s natural gas and electricity associate minister, said cooperation among the hub’s backers showed an important Team Canada approach.

“Really this is about a clean energy future, and blue hydrogen is ready now,” he said.

lijohnson@postmedia.com

twitter.com/reportrix

Tensions emerge between green groups and Biden over Dakota Access Pipeline

THE HILL

4/14/2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such explanations did not mollify green groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CANADA

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That could soon change, Wilkinson said in a statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4/14/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg/mh/dl

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

Dharna Noor, GIZMONDO

4/14/2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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