Climate crisis

But the only long-term solution is that Europe needs to phase out fossil fuels and increase renewable energy production. And to do this fast enough to meet existing climate commitments it is necessary to reduce excess energy demand. Achieving this in a just and equitable way requires two things: first, reducing the purchasing power of the rich (who use extremely high levels of energy), and second, ensuring that everyone has guaranteed access to the essential goods and services they need to live a good life. 

This forces us to confront a paradox at the heart of our economic system. Wealthy economies have high levels of production, with resource and energy use vastly exceeding sustainable boundaries, but they still fail to meet many basic human needs. This occurs because, under capitalism, the goal of production is not to improve well-being or achieve social progress, but to maximise and accumulate corporate profit. So we get plenty of SUVs, fast fashion and planned obsolescence, but chronic shortages of essential goods and services like public transit, affordable housing and universal healthcare.

Ecological economists argue that one of the best ways to deal with this problem is to establish universal public services. Public services mobilise production around human needs and well-being, and can deliver strong social outcomes with lower levels of resource and energy use. It also enables a more rapid, coordinated shift to more sustainable systems. By decommodifying and democratising key sectors such as food, mobility and housing, we can solve the cost-of-living crisis – by directly reducing prices – and help solve the climate crisis at the same time. This requires reversing the current tendency of neoliberal governments to defund and dismantle public services, which has led to the extraordinary crisis that is presently engulfing the NHS and the railways in the UK.

Clearly co-written by the gas sector, the document even freely admits world destroying temperature increases of 2.5 degrees are on the cards. Which, to be fair, is important because that’s what the policy is entirely consistent with.

The strategy runs to more than 230 pages, but the upshot is the handful of mostly foreign fossil fuel giants that have for decades been robbing our nation blind have been given the official greenlight to continue doing so indefinitely — “to 2050 and beyond”, no less.

Released under resources minister Madeleine King it opens the nation up to wholesale new gas fields. That’s despite the International Energy Agency (and many others) repeatedly warning new oil and gas projects are incompatible with keeping global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees.

At this juncture it’s worth remembering that every single resources minister of the past 20 years has gone on to work for fossil fuels companies. 

Developing social workers’ capacity and engagement in collaborative community-based innovations to climate-driven and other environmental hazards better ensures progress on the Grand Challenges. Such inclusive solutions value community leadership and are culturally responsive and justice-centered. Multisolving, pioneered by Dr. Elizabeth Sawin, offers a framework to pair social work goals from the Grand Challenges with climate-responsive interdisciplinary solutions by tackling multiple problems simultaneously with a single investment of resources. Exploring multisolving case studies that align closely with the Grand Challenge to create social responses to a changing environment, the authors consider collaborations and share experiences teaching courses and workshops that integrate multisolving into the social work curriculum and align with professional ethics to achieve these goals.

When a heat dome shattered temperature records across the Western U.S. and Canada in June 2021, the resulting fatalities exposed a pattern. In Portland, Oregon, and surrounding Multnomah County, 56 of the 72 people who died were age 60 and up. In British Columbia, people 60 or older accounted for 555 of the 619 fatalities.

Just over a year later, a sizzling June, July and August in England caused roughly 2,800 excess deaths among people 65 and older. More than 1,000 of them occurred over four days in late July.

Intense heat waves in recent years offer a stark warning of what’s at stake for humanity. The planet just endured its 12 hottest consecutive months on record, and this summer threatens to be hotter than ever. But those stakes are not experienced equally across age groups. Older adults are more at risk of experiencing dangerous health impacts during periods of intense heat.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government says the move is needed to shore up domestic energy supply while supporting a transition to net zero.

But critics argue the move is a rejection of science, pointing to the International Energy Agency (IEA) call for "huge declines in the use of coal, oil and gas" to reach climate targets.

Australia - one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas - has also said the policy is based on "its commitment to being a reliable trading partner".

Released on Thursday, the strategy outlines the government's plans to work with industry and state leaders to increase both the production and exploration of the fossil fuel.

The government will also continue to support the expansion of the country's existing gas projects, the largest of which are run by Chevron and Woodside Energy Group in Western Australia. 

When it comes to our sustainability problems, striving for greater resource efficiency seems like an obvious solution. For example, if you buy a new car that’s twice as efficient as your old one, it should cut your gasoline use in half. And if your new computer is four times more efficient than your last one, it should cut your computer’s electric bill fourfold.

In short, boosting efficiency seems like a straightforward way to reduce your use of natural resources. And for you personally, efficiency gains may do exactly that. But collectively, efficiency seems to have the opposite effect As technology gets more efficient, we tend to consume more resources. This backfire effect is known as the ‘Jevons paradox’, and it occurs for a simple reason. At a social level, efficiency is not a tool for conservation; it’s a catalyst for technological sprawl.

Here’s how it works. As technology gets more efficient, it cheapens the service that it provides. And when services get cheaper, we tend to use more of them. Hence, efficiency ends up catalyzing greater consumption.

When used to generate power or move vehicles, fossil fuels kill people. Particulates and ozone resulting from fossil fuel burning cause direct health impacts, while climate change will act indirectly. Regardless of the immediacy, premature deaths and illness prior to death are felt through lost productivity and the cost of treatments.

Typically, you see the financial impacts quantified when the EPA issues new regulations, as the health benefits of limiting pollution typically dwarf the costs of meeting new standards. But some researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab have now done similar calculations—but focusing on the impact of renewable energy. Wind and solar, by displacing fossil fuel use, are acting as a form of pollution control and so should produce similar economic benefits.

Do they ever. The researchers find that, in the US, wind and solar have health and climate benefits of over $100 for every Megawatt-hour produced, for a total of a quarter-trillion dollars in just the last four years. This dwarfs the cost of the electricity they generate and the total of the subsidies they received.

• In short: A former ADF chief says the federal government either doesn't understand or is hiding from the public the risk of climate change to national security.
• Admiral Chris Barrie says mass migration, food insecurity and other climate risks must be addressed by government and defence.
• What's next? The group of former defence and intelligence officials have called for a secret climate security report to be made known for public debate.

Rapid diffusion of solutions to a changing climate is paramount if the US is to mitigate carbon emissions. A timely response depends on how people perceive and understand innovations such as new practices, programs, policies, and technologies that promise to reduce emissions. This article explores multisolving innovations in the context of interventions that can be targeted to community leaders and decision makers. We focus on examples led by policy staff; directors of municipal offices and departments of transportation, housing, sustainability, urban planning, and public health; and elected county and city officials where there may be mixed support for efforts to reduce carbon emissions, to show that some innovations can be accurately framed solely in terms of community health benefits. When communicating with stakeholders who are dismissive or skeptical of climate change, we suggest using messages that describe the benefits of mitigation innovations in terms of human health, rather than climate, to achieve broader acceptability.

The group succeeded in their demands to water down the pollution standard despite overwhelming evidence showing the devastating impact that vehicle exhaust pollution has on human health and climate, as well as polling showing overwhelming support for the proposed standard.

Such policy “compromise” is often portrayed as important to the cost of living for the average “punter”. But there is no disguising the winners here.

The exemptions, or “re-categorisation” of luxury SUVs into the “light commercial class” included such everyman vehicles as the Mercedes AMG-G 63 (price range $180,000 to $350,000), and the Lexus LX (around $200,000). Most of the other models included have variants that cost well over $100,000.

[…]

In a sign of just how low expectations of government are in Australia, most organisations, including environmental groups, welcomed the changes announced on Tuesday, which have garnered the support of the fossil fuel giants such as Toyota, if not the federal Coalition or the Greens.

These groups were at pains to point out how remarkable it is, given Australia’s political situation, that we now stand the chance of actually having vehicle emissions standards. But it is equally remarkable, and testimony to the power of the fossil fuel lobby, that – apart from Russia – Australia is the only western country in the world that doesn’t have them.