News Feeds

I believe we are careening toward a biophysical and cultural crisis that will very likely destroy money — along with a great many other things. But I also believe that we are falling toward abundance again.

In 2017, the Whanganui River in Aotearoa New Zealand was given the rights of a legal person under the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017.

We’re Making Progress Together

Spring is the season of rebirth, renewal, and regrowth. That is why I am delighted to share with you some important progress PEER has recently made. 

One piece of good news comes from the state of Maine, which has backed off its plan to build administrative offices in the restricted zone of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway after opposition from PEER and other groups. PEER has long been a fierce advocate of protecting the values of the Allagash and other wilderness areas throughout the country. In a country intent on commercializing everything, protecting wild places continues to be a top priority for PEER. 

Other good news comes from the Biden administration, which has finalized regulations to protect civil servants from being easily stripped of their workplace protections in the event of a new Trump administration. The Biden administration has also finalized drinking water standards for certain toxic forever chemicals, known as PFAS. Far more work is needed on both fronts, but we are happy to see some progress on some of PEER’s top priorities. 

We could not have done this without you. Thank you for your support, and for considering an additional springtime contribution! 

Onward! 

Tim Whitehouse
Executive Director 

More On Climate Integrity

Over 90 people attended a webinar, Greenwashing or Real Climate Action, hosted by PEER and Bard College’s Worldwide Climate Justice Education Week. Check out the recording of the webinar to learn more about how to spot false climate solutions. Read more>>

A New Action on PFAS and Plastics

PEER and a coalition of groups have filed a petition asking EPA to immediately prohibit the production of three toxic long-chain PFAS during the fluorination of plastic containers. This is part of PEER’s ongoing efforts to get PFAS out of plastics. Read more>>

The post PEERMail | We’re Making Progress Together appeared first on PEER.org.

Nova Clean Energy has acquired HyFuels, a 1 GW portfolio of mid-to-late-stage wind and solar development projects as well as an earlier stage green ammonia project located on the Texas Gulf Coast. 

HyFuels, spread over approximately 25,000 acres, has its power supply split evenly between wind and solar. The first phase of the project is expected to reach Full Notice to Proceed next year and commercial operations in 2026.  

Nova has entered into a long-term development services agreement with BNB Renewable Energy, from whom Nova acquired HyFuels. 

“The Texas grid is going to continue to need a variety of power sources to serve its fast-growing demand,” says Ben Pratt, president of Nova. “Wind paired with solar provides a generation profile that industrial as well as utility customers increasingly want to see. We are excited to work with BNB on this important portfolio.” 

The post Nova Acquires 1 GW Wind, Solar Development Asset Portfolio from BNB appeared first on North American Windpower.

By Andrea Muñoz

I love it when people tell me that I am a “people person.” This expression is defined as someone who enjoys being with or talking to other people. I don’t think we have an expression like this in Spanish. Indeed, if you used a translation tool it would be “Persona del Pueblo”, which more describes someone who is humble or someone representative of the autochthon, or indigenous, cultures. For me, “people person” makes me think about a combination of loving people and someone that truly belongs where they are. 

Andrea (left) with some of her fellow community members at the People Ready kick-off in Spring 2024.

As a “people person,” when I first read about the People Ready Communities project, I was intrigued. An initiative of the Brushy Fork Institute, the concept of People Ready Communities is to add a ‘people’ layer to economic development in communities that have been struggling to flourish after historical industries closed down. It prioritizes people – and belonging – in how we attract new industries, businesses and individuals to settle in our communities, because, after all, the process of choosing to locate in a place has many factors, including the human one. Does the community have a workforce aligned with my field? Does the community have the infrastructure; housing, schools, places to visit, access to grocery stores, etc.? Does the community welcome me? 

I moved to Whitley County, Kentucky in 2012, and to the United States in 2005. For anyone that moves to a new community, it can be a challenging process. Adapting to an unfamiliar environment is hard, even when you love the new place and you want to be successful. One of the most important things that can ever happen is to find a sense of belonging in your new community.  

I joined the People Ready leadership program with other members of my Whitley County community this spring 2024. Our initial workshop was held in Berea in March, where the Whitley County cohort and two other counties, Knox and Letcher County cohorts, came together. We gathered to think about how our communities can improve the local economy by getting ready for new companies that want to bring investment (capital and human) and be able to answer “yes”: we are a People Ready Community. 

It was very insightful to discover that most of the people that were participating in this leadership program had the same values even though we come from diverse backgrounds and diverse cultures. We all want to have that sense of belonging. We had so many things we could relate to, and at the end of the day, there were more similarities than differences. We just needed it to have a conversation about it.  

Becoming a People Ready Community means that we will become more welcoming: that people that come to our communities feel safe, that they want to come back or even live here, that they belong, and that we belong. I am looking forward to working with my Whitley County team and learning from the other cohorts over the next few months as we each work on our mini projects to support our People Ready visions. 

Learn more about this initiative by the Brushy Fork Institute at Berea College: https://www.berea.edu/brushy-fork-institute/people-ready-communities 

About the Author:

Andrea joined the Mountain Association in 2024. Originally from Santiago, Chile, she immigrated to New York City in 2005 where she found a new career as a community educator with Cornell University Cooperative Extension in Jamaica Queens. In this position, she worked in a melting pot of cultures and brought this experience with her when she moved to Eastern Kentucky with her family in 2012. Prior to coming to the Mountain Association, Andrea worked for Kentucky State University in sustainable agriculture and nutrition education. She also has gained extensive experience as a Spanish-English interpreter throughout her career.

In her position as Outreach Specialist at the Mountain Association, Andrea focuses on getting the word out about Mountain Association’s programs and other resources. She cares deeply about Eastern Kentucky communities and the culture and sense of belonging here. She also loves to travel, meet new people and learn about their stories. In her free time, Andrea enjoys photographing nature, painting with watercolors and listening to Latin music.

เกมสล็อตเว็บตรง ฝากถอนระบบออโต้ ไม่จำกัดทุน ไม่ต้องทำเทิร์น

เกมสล็อตเว็บตรง ฝากถอนระบบออโต้ ไม่จำกัดทุน ไม่ต้องทำเทิร์น 1688upx เว็บสล็อตออนไลน์ถูกกฎหมาย ไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์ ที่มีความมั่นคงทางด้านการเงิน มีความปลอดภัยสูง อีกทั้งยังมีการบริการความสนุกของเกมสล็อตออนไลน์แบบครบวงจร มีเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ให้เลือกเล่นแบบไม่อั้น หลากหลายความสนุก หลากหลายค่ายเกม การันตีความสนุกสุดคุ้ม เกมคุณภาพดี โบนัสแตกง่าย จ่ายเงินรางวัลไม่อั้น

เพลิดเพลินไปพร้อมกับเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ ลิขสิทธิ์แท้ จากค่ายเกมโดยตรง ได้มากกว่า 3000+ เกม ชนะรางวัลง่าย จ่ายเงินรางวัลสุดคุ้ม เล่นเกมได้อย่างอิสระ โดยไม่จำกัดทุนในการร่วมสนุก พร้อมทั้งยังมีการอัพเดทเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ใหม่ๆ มาบริการให้ผู้เล่นทุกท่าน ได้ร่วมลงเดิมพัน รับเงินรางวัลสุดคุ้มไปใช้ได้ก่อนใครอย่างสม่ำเสมออีกด้วย นอกจากนี้ ยังมีระบบการฝากถอนที่ทันสมัย เข้าใช้งานง่ายมากยิ่งขึ้น

กับระบบการฝากถอนเงินออโต้ ที่มีความมั่นคง สะดวก รวดเร็วทันใจมากยิ่งขึ้น ให้อิสระในการฝากถอนเงินในการเล่นเกมของผู้เล่นทุกท่านอย่างเต็มที่ สามารถถอนเงินรางวัล จากการเล่นเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ไปใช้ได้จริงอย่างแน่นอน เล่นเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ได้เงินง่าย บริการครบวงจร ถอนเงินได้จริง 1688upx ไม่ผิดหวัง เว็บตรง มั่นคง ปลอดภัย เข้าใช้งานง่าย

เว็บไซต์คุณภาพดีการันตีความสนุก เกมสล็อตเว็บตรง ฝากถอนระบบออโต้ ไม่จำกัดทุน ไม่ต้องทำเทิร์น

เล่นเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ได้อย่างมั่นใจ เข้าใช้งานง่าย ถอนเงินรางวัลได้แบบไม่อั้น มีการบริการที่หลากหลายแบบครบวงจร กับเว็บไซต์ 1688upx เว็บสล็อตออนไลน์ ถูกกฎหมาย มีใบเซอร์รับรองการเปิดใช้งาน เว็บตรง ไม่ผ่านเอเย่นต์ ที่มีความมั่นคง และมีความปลอดภัย มีเงินสำรองจ่ายรางวัล ให้กับผู้เล่นทุกท่านแบบไม่อั้น

คัดสรรเกมสล็อตออนไลน์คุณภาพดี ลิขสิทธิ์แท้ ได้เงินง่าย มากบริการ ให้ผู้เล่นทุกท่าน ได้ร่วมสนุก ร่วมลงเดิมพัน รับเงินรางวัลสุดคุ้มกันอย่างเพลิดเพลิน มากกว่า 3000+ เกมเลยทีเดียว โดยการลงเดิมพัน เล่นเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ กับเว็บไซต์ 1688upx ผู้เล่นทุกท่าน สามารถเลือกเบทเดิมพัน ปรับเบทเดิมพันในการเล่นเกมได้ด้วยตนเองได้อย่างอิสระ โดยไม่จำกัดทุนในการร่วมลงเดิมพัน

โดยการลงเดิมพัน จะมีเบทเดิมพัน เริ่มต้นเพียงแค่ 1 บาทเท่านั้น แม้จะมีทุนน้อย หรือมีทุนในการเล่นที่จำกัด ก็สามารถเข้ามาร่วมสนุก ร่วมลงเดิมพัน รับเงินรางวัลกันได้อย่างจุใจ และนอกจากนี้ ในปัจจุบัน เว็บไซต์ของเรา ยังมีการบริการ พัฒนาระบบการฝากถอน ให้เป็นระบบการฝากถอนเงินออโต้ ที่มีความมั่นคง สะดวก รวดเร็วทันใจมากิ่งขึ้นอีกด้วย กับระบบการฝากถอนเงินออโต้

ที่ผู้เล่นสามารถทำรายการฝากถอนได้ง่ายๆด้วยตนเอง ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ ไม่ต้องทำเทิร์น พร้อมทั้งยังมีการรองรับการฝากถอนผ่านทรูวอเลท และธนาคารชั้นนำทั่วโลกอีกด้วย สะดวกต่อการเข้าใช้งาน ไม่ว่าใครก็สามารถเข้ามาร่วมสนุก รับเงินรางวัลได้ไม่อั้น

แจกเครดิตฟรีสุดคุ้มกับเว็บไซต์1688upx

พิเศาสุดคุ้ม กดรับโปรโมชั่นสุดพิเศษได้อย่างจุใจ กับเว็บไซต์ 1688upx ที่พร้อมจพมอบความสุข ความสนุกสุดคุ้ม ให้กับผู้เล่นทุกท่านแบบไม่อั้น รับเครดิตฟรีสุดพิเศษได้มากมาย เพียงแค่ท่านสมัครเข้ามาร่วมสนุก เป็นสมาชิกกับเว็บไซต์ของเราในวันนี้ รับโปรโมชั่นแจกเครดิตฟรีได้ทันที นอกจากนี้ ยังมีโบนัสคืนยอดเสียทุกเดือน สะสมเงินจากยอดเล่นเสีย เรียกได้ว่าคุ้มค่าสุดๆ สมัครเลยวันนี้ โอกาสดีๆของทุกท่านมาถึงแล้ว

โปรโมชั่นแจกเครดิตฟรี

• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 10 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 100 บาท
• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 20 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 100 บาท
• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 50 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 100 บาท
• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 70 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 100 บาท
• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 100 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 200 บาท
• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 150 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 300 บาท
• สมาชิกใหม่ รับโปรโมชั่น ฝากเงิน 300 บาท รับเครดิตฟรีทันที 500 บาท
• โบนัสคืนยอดเสีย 10%
• โบนัสวันเกิด 10%

นอกจากโปรโมชั่นแจกเครดิตฟรีสุดคุ้มแล้ว และโบนัสต่างๆ ที่จะมอบให้กับผู้เล่นทุกท่านแล้ว เว็บไซต์ 1688upx ของเรา ยังมีกิจกรรมต่างๆ ให้ผู้เล่นทุกท่าน ได้ร่วมสนุก ร่วมรับรางวัลสุดพิเศษได้มากมายแบบไม่อั้นอีกด้วย ร่วมสนุกได้อย่างเพลิดเพลิน รับรางวัลได้อย่างมั่นใจ กับเว็บไซต์ที่ดีที่สุด 1688upx

Credit สล็อตเว็บตรง

อ่านบทความน่าสนใจเพิ่มเติม

The post เกมสล็อตเว็บตรง ฝากถอนระบบออโต้ ไม่จำกัดทุน ไม่ต้องทำเทิร์น appeared first on climateworkers.org.

More than 80 years after the iconic Xerces Blue butterfly vanished from San Francisco, researchers have analyzed century-old specimens to track down its closest living relative, the Silvery Blue. Last week, they released a handful of Silvery Blues on the western edge of the city, where Xerces Blues once thrived.

Read more on E360 →

Utilities should provide upfront support to low- to moderate-income customers customers for residential electrification and decarbonization measures to prevent them from being stuck on the existing fossil fuel systems.

Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners made the acquisition through its CI V fund, which has raised billions in capital commitments for greenfield renewable energy investments.

American Rivers today named the Rivers of New Mexico #1 on its annual list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers®, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that left virtually all of the state’s streams and wetlands vulnerable to pollution and harmful development.

The May 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA dramatically reduced federal clean water protections for streams and wetlands nationwide–arguably harming New Mexico the most of all the states. This federal action opens the door to devastating pollution and habitat damage, with potential harmful downstream impacts to the Rio Grande, Gila, San Juan, and Pecos rivers.

“Protecting New Mexico’s most precious resource–our rivers, streams, and wetlands–is at a crossroad,” said Tannis Fox, senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. “With the Supreme Court’s dismantling of Clean Water Act protections, it is now up to states to fully protect their waters. Thank you to American Rivers for recognizing the heightened threat we face here in New Mexico. We hope this helps further galvanize public, legislative, and executive support for the state to fill the regulatory gap left in the wake of Sackett.”

“People depend on this water. We have depended on this water for hundreds of years. This is our tradition, this is our culture. We don’t want to be a people that loses its traditions because we haven’t taken the right steps to protect our rivers,” said Vicente Fernandez, acequia mayordomo and community leader. “Our acequia has been a vital part of our community. It provides water for irrigation and watering of animals, so the importance of this river is great. Without this river, we would not be able to survive. It is very important to our culture and our traditional way of life.”

“Santa Fe’s drinking water depends on strong protections for small streams that feed into the Santa Fe River and the Rio Grande. The Sackett decision has stripped away those protections and our residents are now at risk,” said Anna Hansen, Santa Fe County Commission.

The state’s commitment and proven record of protecting its clean water and remarkable natural resources is more important now than ever. The Sackett court decision scaled back national Clean Water Act safeguards to include protections only for “relatively permanent” streams, and wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to those streams. This means that streams that only run during the rainy season or for periods of the year after snowmelt– which is very typical in New Mexico – fall outside the Clean Water Act protections. And, in New Mexico, the majority of wetlands have an intermittent surface connection to streams or a groundwater connection, and therefore New Mexico wetlands–which provide important ecological services–are at grave risk.

In addition, because New Mexico doesn’t have a state surface water permitting program in place yet to ensure its rivers are appropriately protected, clean water advocates in New Mexico have called on the State of New Mexico to develop, fund, and implement a state surface water permitting program to protect at-risk rivers, streams and wetlands that lost federal protections due to the Supreme Court ruling.

“Anyone who lives here knows the importance of protecting our waterways. And our waterways don’t always have water in them, and we know that they only flow some times throughout the year. But that doesn’t mean they are any less deserving of protection,” said Beata Tsosie-Peña, Breath of My Heart Birthplace. “The Southwest is really vulnerable to losing these kinds of protections. Because our watersheds are so precious, any kind of impact to our waterways, whether they are a river system or a pathway into that river system, have to stay protected if we want our communities to stay healthy.”

New Mexico’s rivers and streams are the lifeblood of the state’s economy, environment, cultural history, and quality of life. In addition to sustaining life for plants and animals, rivers and streams provide a source of clean drinking water for a majority of New Mexico’s population. Clean water from rivers and streams is essential for New Mexico’s acequias, or community ditches, which are integral to New Mexico’s traditions and economy. A large portion of the state’s multi-billion-dollar recreation economy–which includes rafting, fishing, boating, and hunting–is dependent on healthy rivers and clean water.

“My father started our family’s fly fishing business over 40 years ago. Our success as a family and a business is directly tied to clean water,” said Nick Streit, owner, Taos Fly Shop and The Reel Life. “I take people fishing, and for people to have fun they need to catch fish, and fish need clean water and healthy streams. Waste treatment plants, old mining claims, all of these things can devastate a stream if left unchecked.”

“The Supreme Court ruling flies in the face of established science and ignores the value that small streams and wetlands have to their broader watersheds, communities, and economies, particularly in places with dry climates like New Mexico,” said Matt Rice, Southwest regional director for American Rivers. “The State of New Mexico needs strong public support to ensure we’re able to safeguard these streams and rivers for today’s communities and future generations.”

The annual America’s Most Endangered Rivers(r) report is a list of rivers at a crossroads, where key decisions in the coming months will determine the rivers’ fates. Over the years, the report has helped spur many successes including the removal of outdated dams, the protection of rivers with Wild and Scenic designations, and the prevention of harmful development and pollution.

“The Rivers of New Mexico are vital lifelines and symbols of resilience and interconnectedness that must be protected to ensure a sustainable water future for both wildlife and communities,” Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (NM) said. “As the Rivers of New Mexico are the #1 most endangered in the U.S., this isn’t just a local issue but a national call to action for sustainable water management and environmental stewardship. After the Sackett v. EPA decision left over 90% of New Mexico’s waters unprotected, we must create a statewide program that protects these vital lifelines.”

Several New Mexico rivers have been listed in past reports for issues ranging from outdated water management plans to mining and pollution. Most recently, these include the Rio Gallinas (2023), Pecos River (2021), and the Gila River (2019 and 2014).

American Rivers reviews nominations for America’s Most Endangered Rivers® from local groups and individuals across the country, and selects rivers based on three criteria:

1) The river’s significance to people and wildlife

2) The magnitude of the threat to the river and communities, especially in light of climate change and environmental injustice

3) A decision in the next 12 months that the public can influence

America’s Most Endangered Rivers® of 2024

#1: Rivers of New Mexico  

Threat: Loss of federal clean water protections

#2: Big Sunflower and Yazoo Rivers (MS)

Threat: Yazoo Pumps project threatens wetlands

#3: Duck River (TN)

Threat: Excessive water use

#4: Santa Cruz River (AZ, Mexico)

Threat: Water scarcity, climate change

#5 Little Pee Dee River (NC, SC)

Threat: Harmful development, highway construction

#6 Farmington River (CT, MA)

Threat: Hydro dam

#7: Trinity River (CA)

Threat: Outdated water management

#8: Kobuk River (AK)

Threat: Road construction, mining

#9 Tijuana River (CA, Mexico)

Threat: Pollution

#10: Blackwater River (WV)

Threat: Highway development

Contacts:

Tannis Fox, Western Environmental Law Center, 505-660-7642, fox@westernlaw.org

Matt Rice, American Rivers, 803-422-5244

Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos, 575-770-8327

Tricia Snyder, New Mexico Wild, 575-636-0625

Beata Tsosie-Peña, Breath of My Heart Birthplace, 505-927-1847

Kayleigh Warren, Tewa Women United, 505-927-4376

Dan Roper, Trout Unlimited, 541-841-0946

Vicente Fernandez, Acequia Mayordomo, 575-779-8569

Elle Benson, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 575-915-6620

 

The post Most Endangered Rivers Report for 2024 names rivers of New Mexico #1 appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

As more electric vehicles hit the road, municipalities and property owners are working with contractors to deploy public charging infrastructure.

Separately, AES and LineVision released a case study showing how using dynamic line ratings increased capacity on power lines in Indiana and Ohio.

A coalition of eco-activist, civil society, and indigenous groups are facing increased repression and violence in the struggle to halt extractivism and to hold the Noboa administration accountable to Ecuador’s laws enshrining the rights of nature.

In this week’s Frankly, Nate offers a list of things he is absolutely certain of… or as certain as any human can be.

‘What kind of American are you?’ Channel Comment brendan 16th April 2024 Teaser Media

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (WASHINGTON, D.C.--April 16, 2024) – The National Audubon Society today celebrated bicameral legislation introduced by Senators Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler (both...

Electric cars are a dead end Channel News Yasmin 16th April 2024 Teaser Media

Israel’s war on Gaza has sparked discussion within the climate movement. Some activists argue against taking political positions on the conflict, while others believe fighting climate change demands addressing underlying political injustice. 

In recent months, Israel’s assault in Gaza has generated intense debate over the extent to which climate movements, for whom matters of war are typically not a central concern, should become involved in efforts to end it. On one side are the likes of Greta Thunberg. At a protest in Leipzig in Germany, she told a crowd that “To stand with Palestine is to be human”, and that there should be “no silence on genocide in Palestine”, even – or perhaps especially – from the climate movement. On the other side are activists and commentators who feel that speaking out on Gaza is a distraction from the climate movement’s core imperative of stopping global warming. They also fear that addressing this topic creates unnecessary division in the movement and undermines the public support it needs. 

Most recently Andreas Malm, a prominent figure in the climate movement, took a controversial stance on the conflict, writing of “cries of jubilation” in reaction to the 7 October attacks. Such explicit support for Hamas’s actions from within the movement is a clearly distinct radicalisation compared to previous expressions of support for Palestine, and will likely spark further discussion about the position climate activists should take on the issue. 

Science not politics?  

While the tensions surrounding the war in Gaza have been particularly pronounced in Germany – Thunberg’s stance has divided the German branch of Fridays For Future – it isn’t the only place where the question over the climate movement’s public position on the war has surfaced. In November 2023, at another climate rally in Amsterdam where Thunberg was speaking, a man walked onto the stage, seized the microphone, and declared, “I come here for a climate demonstration, not a political view.”  

This rejection of “political views” in the climate movement speaks to a longstanding debate over the extent to which the movement is, or should be, outspokenly “political”. Should it simply demand that those in power “listen to the science”, hoping that in neutralising its message, neither Left nor Right will be offended, and the climate struggle will not be stalled by polarisation? Or should the climate crisis be recognised as inherently political, by underlining the need to address systemic drivers of climate change? And if such a radical political analysis is to be embraced, does that automatically mean the climate movement should address other excesses produced by the system responsible for driving climate change? 

These questions point to several fundamental issues that make the climate movement, like most other movements, a space of internal contention. Understanding those issues clarifies the more general question at stake in the debate over its position on Gaza. Indeed, it reveals that while such tension may be challenging, it does not necessarily undermine the movement, and can even be productive. 

Internal contestation 

Climate activists disagree on why it is important to combat climate change in the first place. For some, like the man who intervened at the Amsterdam rally, addressing climate change is about addressing a major existential threat. It is not (at least explicitly) informed by a broader political agenda. Others, however, perceive climate change as just one driver of broader global injustices, such that isolating climate action from these other issues will leave the struggle for justice incomplete.  

One key implication is that the first position tends to be quite agnostic when it comes to the methods used to address climate change; the second, meanwhile, reflects concerns that many conventional approaches to climate mitigation in fact exacerbate injustices. For instance, carbon offsetting schemes can displace indigenous communities, while low-carbon transitions may create “green sacrifice zones”. In short, whether broader justice issues should be addressed by climate activists depends on what motivates them to tackle climate change in the first place. 

Whether broader justice issues should be addressed by climate activists depends on what motivates them to tackle climate change in the first place.

Climate activists not only differ over why addressing climate change is important, but also what the nature of the problem really is. If climate change is perceived as a standalone issue, addressing it in isolation makes sense. After all, including other issues could harm the fight by diverting attention and challenging movement unity or public support.  

But if climate change is understood as a symptom of underlying systemic problems, then addressing it in isolation becomes ineffective for two reasons. First, it targets the symptoms, not the cause; second, treating only one symptom makes no sense if the disease causes so many other ills. As the likes of Naomi Klein have argued, without a systemic approach, climate change will persist, while related symptoms – other forms of ecological degradation, for instance, or other injustices – will continue to produce unjustifiable human suffering and ecological damage. 

A third point of contention concerns the route to achieving climate goals. Some argue that even if climate change is a systemic issue, there is no time for radical system change. Emissions must be halved by 2030, and it is hard to imagine that the economic systems and culture of consumption that fuel high emissions will be overhauled by then. Advancing reformist change within the current system might therefore be the more realistic path forward. Such reformism is associated with moderate tactics that stick to the playbook of representative democracy, whereby social change results from public pressure on elected politicians. If broad-based support for climate policies is therefore paramount, the exclusion of divisive issues like the war in Palestine might become justifiable.  

Then again, pushing a politically “neutral” science-based climate narrative so that neither progressives nor conservatives are offended might backfire. Some contend that a more outspokenly political narrative that integrates climate change and social justice, such as the “just transition” narrative, is more likely to garner broad social support because it speaks to key concerns of workers and provides a guardrail for those whose jobs are threatened by the transition.  

Still another perspective suggests that winning public support isn’t even the most effective path to desired social change. Researchers Kevin A. Young and Laura Thomas-Walters argue that the US civil rights movement derived much of its influence from strategically orchestrated disruptions that put pressure on influential actors to advocate for policy changes. In other words, these actors didn’t meet the movement’s demands because they supported it, but because they wanted the disruptions to end. Notwithstanding major differences between the civil rights movement and the climate movement, the argument suggests that movements shouldn’t necessarily prioritise public support when disruption can be a powerful tool. This insight might not directly inform how the climate movement should respond to issues like the war in Gaza, but it does challenge the prevailing belief that maintaining broad support at all costs is the most effective strategy. 

Strategic considerations aside, ideas around who is an important ally for the climate movement are ultimately informed by ideological considerations. As movements coalesce around collective identities, the question arises: does the movement share more common ground with those advocating for peace and justice, or with anyone dedicated to combating climate change irrespective of social justice? The answer will shape the direction and character of the climate movement as it evolves. It might even challenge the notion that there is such a thing as a singular climate movement.  

Climate and conflict      

Most commonly, activists refer to a capitalist, colonialist, or extractive system as the underlying issue of climate change. When it comes to Gaza, the connections between the war and climate change are, to many, multivarious. Some point to the fact that Israel’s historic treatment of Palestinians exacerbates the climate risks facing the population by, for instance, compromising access to water. Israel is also accused of greenwashing colonialism when it legitimises the dispossession of Palestinians in the name of addressing climate change. The campaigning group 350.org has meanwhile provided a narrative that connects the two without making causal claims, arguing that “there can be no climate justice without peace, and in calling for peace we’re being very clear about peace on both sides.”  

The inclusion of anti-militarism in the climate change struggle, as expressed through its support for Palestine, cannot be dismissed as a distraction from what is “really” at stake in the climate struggle.

The broader debate on the role that climate change plays in intensifying conflicts in the Middle East is longstanding. So too is the depiction of militarism as a critical pillar of extractive systems of oppression. These facilitate climate change while ensuring the system’s continuity in the face of opposition. Since its inception in the 1970s, the modern environmental movement has espoused pacifism as a core tenet, and there are strong historical links between the peace movement and the anti-nuclear wing of the environmental movement. The inclusion of anti-militarism in the climate change struggle, as expressed through its support for Palestine, is historically unsurprising, and cannot be dismissed as a distraction from what is “really” at stake in the climate struggle. In fact, it sits flush with more system-critical climate narratives. 

Dynamic entities 

So how should the climate movement manage internal conflict around the relevance of issues like Gaza? The first thing is to acknowledge that climate action cannot be reduced to simply cutting CO2 emissions; it entails winners and losers, and differing opinions on what constitutes an appropriate response. It is therefore inherently political, as the current farmers’ protests across Europe, and the Yellow Vests movement before them, illustrate. 

Addressing what the movement should do about Palestine or any analogous issue requires asking what the climate movement is. Does it make sense to consider it as a predefined entity seeking to address climate change, and nothing more, nothing less? Those advocating for the exclusion of seemingly unrelated causes seek to police the boundaries of a movement that in their eyes should be concerned with addressing only climate change. But movements are dynamic entities that evolve their ideology as they navigate complex political landscapes. There is no pre-given essence that those joining the movement can be expected to sign up to. Positions are challenged as new constituencies join, issues emerge, and coalitions are built.  

It is therefore crucial to avoid demonising those who raise new concerns or accusing them of undermining the movement’s “actual” cause, for there is no such thing. And while raising new issues may introduce conflict – and while radical political analysis may upset some audiences – activists may rest assured that such conflict can be productive. Indeed, advocating for a singular political message that offends no one is unlikely to be the most convincing path to transformational social change.

Announcing the Montreal Anarchist Zine Fair in May of 2024. For more information, see the MTL Anarchist Zine Fair website.

Our weapons are courage and beautiful ideas.

Every year in May, the blossoming of spring invites anarchists to reflect upon subversive ideas and practices, from throughout history to present day. Total destruction of all authority is the project that sets our hearts on fire. We are wary of political strategies, and instead propose an anarchy wherein the means and ends are coherent, without waiting for the ‘right moment’, without compromise.

The fight for freedom is infinite, a constant which spans numerous lifetimes, and with endless possiblities. Only through permanent conflict will we create spaces where we can breathe (together) for short while, dreaming of and planning for total freedom.

This Fair is a moment to sharpen the analyses and critiques necessary for the project of insurrection. It’s goal is to nourish your imagination. We’re seeking out those who dream of unlimited freedom, and who are fighting for a complete upheaval of society, not simply it’s re-organization. Books, zines, meet-ups and discussions are indispensible for this project of liberation–they give meaning to our actions, and vice-versa.

We encourage (self)published texts created by comrades who aren’t trapped in the industry of book publishing. We want to free the pen from censorship, and the book from commercialization. We want texts to be distributed through autonomous organization, with the goal of sharing ideas with those who feel inspired by them. This can only occur in a free space, through rejecting copyrights and ‘alternative’ markets. This Fair is organized autonomously, through voluntary association and participation, and without any institutional support.

Join us on the 11 and 12 of May, 2024, under the Van Horne viaduct (North of the tracks). Come for two days of discussions, reading, music, and complicity. There will be several tables with zines and books under the viaduct, and with a few presentations followed by discussions in the little park nearby. There will be shows in the evening, as well as food and coffee onsite.

* We strongly suggest you leave your phones, cameras, and all other technological snitches far away from the event.

* The Fair will take place outside and regardless of weather conditions–come dressed appropriately.

* Details on the discussions topics and schedule to come.

LONG LIVE ANARCHY!

The UK government has reclassified nearly £500m of aid for war-torn and impoverished countries as “climate finance”, in a bid to meet its international commitments under the Paris Agreement.

This follows reports that the UK’s pledge to spend £11.6bn on climate aid between 2021-22 and 2025-26 is slipping out of reach, due to government cuts.

A freedom-of-information (FOI) request by Carbon Brief reveals how, after the reclassification, money for humanitarian work in nations including Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia is now being double-counted as climate finance to help the UK hit its goal.  

The projects being double-counted include work to provide food and basic necessities that have no explicit link to climate action, Carbon Brief’s analysis reveals. Some of their internal reports even state clearly that they are not climate-finance projects. 

This is part of a wider revision of climate-finance accounting, introduced by the government in 2023 to ensure the UK achieves its £11.6bn target. 

By redefining existing funds pegged for development banks, investment in foreign businesses and humanitarian aid as “climate finance”, the government expects to add £1.72bn to its total.

Experts tell Carbon Brief it is “problematic” and “unjust” to relabel existing funds as climate finance rather than providing new money. One says the UK could meet its target, at least in part, by “double counting development and climate finance”.

The chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group at UN climate talks says the UK’s actions are a “clear deviation from the path to climate justice”.

‘Moving the goalposts’

The UK government has committed to spending £11.6bn on international climate finance (ICF) between 2021-22 and 2025-26. This is the nation’s contribution to climate action in developing countries, which it is obliged to provide under the Paris Agreement. 

Developed countries, such as the UK, have committed to sending “new and additional” climate finance to developing countries. This is generally interpreted as spending extra money on top of existing foreign aid.

The UK government itself has described the £11.6bn goal as “dedicated ring-fenced funding that is distinguishable from non-climate [aid]”.

However, reports began to emerge in 2023 that the government was not on track to meet its target.

Experts attributed this to the government cutting its overall foreign aid budget. In November 2020, the government suspended a target to give 0.7% of national income as overseas aid – reducing it to 0.5% as a “temporary measure”. 

The government is also spending more of the remaining funds on supporting refugees within the UK. The latest figures show that in 2023, the UK spent more of its aid budget on supporting asylum seekers and refugees in the country than on overseas projects.

In order to remain on track for the £11.6bn goal, development minister Andrew Mitchell announced in October 2023 that the government was changing the way it calculated ICF spending.

This immediately sparked concerns that the government was inflating its climate-finance figures without providing any new aid money for developing countries. Mitchell provided limited details of how the government was getting its target back on track.

More information came in a report released in February by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI). It concluded that, by “moving the goalposts”, the government had reclassified £1.72bn of spending as climate finance between 2021-22 and 2025-26.

This figure includes four tranches of funding that had not previously been considered ICF:

• £746m from assuming that a share of the “core” funding the UK gives to the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) will be assigned to climate-related projects.
• £497m from automatically labelling 30% of the humanitarian aid spent in the 10% of countries that are most vulnerable to climate change as ICF.
• An estimated £266m from defining more payments into British International Investment (BII), the UK’s overseas development finance institution, as ICF.
• £215m from civil servants “scrubbing” the aid portfolio – namely, going back over existing projects and adding any climate-relevant funding they had previously missed.

The figures cited by ICAI are based on unpublished government analysis, which Carbon Brief has now obtained via FOI. 

The analysis includes the annual contributions each of these sources are expected to provide over the period from 2021-22 to 2025-26, which can be seen in the coloured sections of the chart below.

Annual UK ICF spending, £bn, by financial year for the period 2011/12 to 2025/26. The grey area indicates ICF spending under the original accounting methodology used until October 2023. Beyond 2022/23 the figures are forecasts, with the light grey area indicating the upper bound and the darker grey indicating the lower bound. The coloured areas indicate the funding newly reclassified as counting towards ICF, following methodology changes introduced in October 2023. For multilateral development bank contributions, Carbon Brief understands that the UK will pledge £495m to the World Bank in 2025/26, and the remaining contributions that make up the £746m total are spread evenly across the 2011/12-2025/26 period. Source: UK government.

As the chart indicates, even with the methodology changes, the £11.6bn target is still “backloaded”, with a significant uptick in ICF spending required beyond 2023-24 to meet it. 

ICAI notes that, since the government cut its aid spending from the UN-backed benchmark of 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI), “serious concerns remain over whether the heavily backloaded spending plan can be delivered”.

Core funding

The largest tranche of redefined ICF – some £740m – comes from the government starting to assume that a share of its “core” MDB funding counts as climate finance.

This is money that the UK government already hands to these organisations to distribute according to their own priorities, primarily through loans. None of this money has previously been counted by the UK government as ICF, even though some went towards climate action.

MDBs, including the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB) and others have placed a growing emphasis on climate change in recent years. The World Bank, for example, has a target of spending 35% of its finance on climate-related projects.

Following the reclassification, the UK government will simply assume that 35% of the money it gives to the World Bank – some £495m of £1.4bn total due in 2025/26 – counts as ICF.

It will use a similar approach for its funding of other MDBs, with these changes adding a total of £740m to the amount of the UK’s aid spending that is classified as ICF.

This move will not result in the UK providing any new funds for climate action, as it was already planning on distributing this money. In fact, the government has cut its spending on MDBs in recent years, due to the overall cut in the UK’s foreign aid budget.

Humanitarian aid

The second-largest tranche of newly reclassified climate finance is from projects in climate-vulnerable countries, an additional £497m of which is being counted as ICF.

The government dataset obtained by Carbon Brief via FOI reveals the 28 humanitarian projects and five more general, country-specific funds that will contribute to this additional £497m. 

The projects are based in some of the poorest and most war-torn countries in the world – Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

They largely focus on essential provisions, such as food and basic infrastructure.

Prior to the recent changes, these programmes would have contributed just £47.5m to ICF, according to the government data released to Carbon Brief.

By automatically counting 30% of their spend as ICF, this figure has now multiplied more than 10 times. The chart below shows, in red, these additional ICF funds.

Annual UK ICF spending, £m, sourced from humanitarian aid projects for the 10% most climate-vulnerable countries, as defined by the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative. Blue columns indicate the ICF spending that was expected from these projects prior to the methodology change, and red columns indicate ICF spending from these projects after the change. Source: UK government.

For the 23 of the 28 projects with documentation available online, Carbon Brief assessed the relevant sections of their “business case and summary” documents for evidence that they were related to climate action.

Many of the project documents reference climate change and say they will provide climate benefits. For example, all four projects in Somalia, a nation that has faced devastating drought and floods in recent years, mention the importance of climate resilience in their work.

However, some of the projects explicitly state that they are not intended to provide climate-finance. 

The summary document for the Assurance and Learning Programme (ALP) in Afghanistan, published in 2021, states: “The programme will not be eligible for ICF nor will it monitor ICF funded programmes.”

Similarly, the Congo Humanitarian, Resilience and Protection (CHRESP) Programme summary document, also published in 2021, notes “we do not anticipate that any of our programming under this programme will be eligible as ICF”.

Another project, titled Yemen: Access, Logistics, Liaison, and Accountability, will provide “few opportunities” to address climate change, according to the summary document. A further four project documents do not contain any reference to climate change. 

Despite this, following the government’s reclassification, these seven projects will collectively contribute £166.9m of UK climate finance in the coming years.

Euan Ritchie, a senior development finance policy advisor at the thinktank Development Initiatives, says blanket approaches to assigning climate finance are “problematic”. He tells Carbon Brief:

“Just because humanitarian aid is going to a country that is vulnerable to climate change doesn’t mean it addresses that vulnerability. And these projects have already been screened for their climate focus.”

He points to one of the projects, the Somalia Humanitarian and Resilience Programme, as an example. Ritchie says, based on International Aid Transparency Initiative data, that officials had already decided around 12% of this programme’s spending was ICF, and asks:

“So what rationale is there for bumping it up to 30%? Were officials wrong the first time?”

Fatuma Hussein, a programme manager at the thinktank Power Shift Africa, tells Carbon Brief such an approach is “unfair and unjust” as it “risks conflating” the “distinct needs” of climate aid and other humanitarian objectives.

In its guidance for categorising what counts as climate finance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee recommends scoring many humanitarian projects “zero”, indicating programmes that “generally do not qualify” as climate aid.

More private investment

The third-largest tranche of reclassified development aid relates to state-backed private sector investment under British International Investment (BII).

The UK government will also now count more of its payments into BII as climate finance, amounting to around an extra £266m by 2025-26. Unlike aid spending, these are investments in the private sector and are expected to yield a financial return for the UK.

Previously, the government counted a fixed 30% of BII spending as climate finance. It now intends to include a higher percentage to reflect a growing focus on climate investments.

The new approach to BII investments assesses the share of each project that should count towards UK climate finance case-by-case, rather than using a blanket 30% share.

It will record 100% of investments in a programme covering the Philippines, Indonesia and other parts of south-east Asia as ICF, as part of the government’s “Indo-Pacific tilt”. Investments in other regions also contribute a higher share of ICF – rising as high as 46% in 2022-23.

The chart below shows the extra BII investment money (red) that now counts as ICF.

Annual UK ICF spending, £m, from British International Investment (BII) contributions. Blue columns indicate the ICF spending that was expected from BII prior to the methodology change and red columns indicate ICF spending from BII after the change. Source: UK government.

The figure above shows that the government expects private sector investment via BII to play an increasingly large role in its climate finance in the future.

Many observers have expressed concerns about the government leaning more on private investment through BII to boost its ICF spending. 

A report last year by the parliamentary international development committee criticised BII’s investment in, among other things, fossil fuels and “high-net-worth individuals”.

BII prioritises loans and projects in middle-income nations where there is money to be made, rather than the nations that are most in need of climate finance. 

ICAI highlighted this in its review of the UK’s climate finance commitments earlier this year, stating that private investment “is not always the most appropriate, realistic or preferred form of climate finance in the poorest and most fragile contexts”.

Not new, not additional

Developing countries will require trillions of dollars of investment in the coming years to meet their climate goals. 

To help achieve this, developed countries, such as the UK, are expected to provide finance under the UN climate system that is “new and additional”. Discussions around a new climate finance goal will take centre stage this year at the COP29 climate summit in Baku.

Experts tell Carbon Brief that the UK government’s changes to its ICF undermine the notion that it is providing new, “ring-fenced” funding. Regarding the “arbitrary” labelling of humanitarian funds as ICF, Ritchie says:

“If the UK is counting a fixed share of projects as ICF it can no longer claim that ICF is distinguishable from non-climate [aid].” 

Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at the international development network Bond, tells Carbon Brief:

“The change of definition means they will be able to reach the target by spending less money than they would have done otherwise through double counting development and climate finance.”

Development NGOs say the best way for the UK to scale up its climate finance would be to return its foreign aid budget to 0.7% of GNI. However, with an election looming, neither the ruling Conservatives nor their Labour challengers have indicated a willingness to do this.

There will be considerable pressure on developed countries in the coming months to commit to providing plentiful, high-quality climate finance in the run up to COP29. 

Evans Njewa, the chair of the LDC group, to which nearly all of the UK’s humanitarian aid ICF recipients belong, tells Carbon Brief:

“Reclassifying existing donor aid as climate finance is a clear deviation from the path to climate justice, and closing the finance gap cannot be achieved this way.” 

Climate-finance reporting has been described as a “wild west”, with countries announcing figures based on vastly different definitions. This has led to nations counting money for coal, hotels and films in their totals, as there is no binding international standard to guide them.

The UK government noted last year that its changes are in line with other countries’ methods. But experts point out that the UK was previously viewed as setting a high standard for other countries to reach. 

In contrast, the new approach “risks breeding cynicism and mistrust because you are going to find programmes that have very little to do with climate change, but end up being reported in the pot as climate finance”, Rabinowitz says.

Hussein agrees, telling Carbon Brief:

“This not only highlights the disparity between western countries’ rhetoric on climate finance and their actual financial commitments to developing countries but also risks undermining trust that underpins global climate action.”

She argues that nations should agree on common definitions and accounting methodologies for climate finance to ensure that governments cannot backslide as the UK has.

Responding to Carbon Brief’s questions about the government’s methodology changes, a spokesperson from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said:

“Since 2011, UK funding has helped more than 100 million people cope with the effects of climate change, given 70 million people access to clean energy and reduced or avoided over 86m tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The UK remains on track to meet the £11.6bn international climate finance commitment.”

Explainer: Why some countries are aiming for ‘net-negative’ emissions

Explainers

|

27.03.24

Q&A: The impact of farmer protests on the EU’s upcoming parliamentary elections

EU policy

|

19.03.24

‘Drill, baby, drill’: The surprising history of Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel slogan

Policy

|

18.03.24

Q&A: What does China’s ‘two sessions’ mean for climate policy in 2024?

China Policy

|

13.03.24

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_04cb41d295327b13fec383ed08d9bfd5 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Revealed: UK ‘double counting’ £500m of aid for war-torn countries as climate finance  appeared first on Carbon Brief.