Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Sustainable Business Spotlight

Cinema Verde highlights sustainable businesses that have made the commitment to help forge a healthier future!

Sustainable Choices in The news

We're tracking the Sustainable Business Headlines that you don't want to miss

Biden crackdown on power plants expected to speed shift away from coal

The Biden administration's crackdown on power plants' planet-warming emissions will accelerate a shift away from coal, and potentially speed the U.S.'s adoption of renewable energy sources. The administration this past week announced a new rule that will require coal plants and new gas plants to install carbon capture technology to mitigate 90 percent of their emissions — or...

The Biden administration's crackdown on power plants' planet-warming emissions will accelerate a shift away from coal, and potentially speed the U.S.'s adoption of renewable energy sources. The administration this past week announced a new rule that will require coal plants and new gas plants to install carbon capture technology to mitigate 90 percent of their emissions — or find another way to achieve the equivalent climate protections.  But experts say that rather than try to meet these requirements, more coal plants may just retire — and some power companies may opt to invest in renewables over keeping existing coal plants or putting costly carbon capture on new gas ones.  “What we've seen, even without these rules, is that coal generation is falling,” said Christopher Knittel, a professor of applied economics at MIT, noting that "the writing's kind of on the wall" because of fracking driving down natural gas prices. "But," Knittel added, "these new rules will certainly push to speed that transition up." The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) analysis shows that the rule could increase the amount of coal power that comes offline between 2028 and 2035 by nearly 25 percent. It projects that without the rule, 84 gigawatts of coal power would have retired during that period. But under the rule, that number is expected to jump to 104 gigawatts of power.  Research firm BloombergNEF reached similar findings for this decade.  Julia Attwood, an industrial decarbonization specialist with the firm, estimated that around 44 gigawatts of coal power was due to retire by the end of 2030 anyway, but the rule will cause an additional 30 to 40 gigawatts to go offline during that period. Attwood said BloombergNEF models an average coal plant as being equivalent to about 0.65 gigawatts, so this would amount to around 46 to 62 additional plant closures during that period.  “A lot of coal plants are just going to be pushed to retirement because of the expense of using [carbon capture and storage],” she said. The new rule received significant pushback from coal advocates, including workers, industry and Republicans.  Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America union, said in a written statement that it “looks to set the funeral date for thermal coal mining in America for 2032” — the date by which coal plants will now be required to cut their emissions. Roberts added that the rule will “threaten the livelihoods of our members” and said that the administration has been unsuccessful at replacing the jobs lost by miners in the energy transition thus far. “I am not aware of a single dislocated coal miner who has been hired as a result of legislation or other initiatives put in place over the last several years,” he said.  Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), meanwhile, said she would introduce legislation to rule.  “The administration has chosen to press ahead with its unrealistic climate agenda that threatens access to affordable, reliable energy for households and employers across the country,” Capito, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a written statement.  “I will be introducing a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to overturn the EPA’s job-killing regulations announced today,” she added. In addition to driving the country further away from coal, the rule may also speed up an ongoing shift toward renewable energy. The EPA projects the rule will boost the amount of the country's power that is supplied by renewable energy by an additional 4 percent in 2030. Its impact will taper off over the years, however, as renewables would also be expected to grow under previous policies: In 2040, it is expected to result in just 1 percent more renewable energy. Attwood of BloombergNEF said she believes the rule is good for renewables because it will “free up some needed capacity on the grid that renewables can fill.” Mark Thurber, associate director at Stanford University’s Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, said that renewables’ reliance on weather conditions means they may not be able to sub in for coal in many cases. “It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison between renewables and then on the other side, gas and coal because of the intermittency of those renewables," Thurber said. But Attwood noted that the rule’s exclusion of existing gas plants from the new requirements could keep some such plants online — mitigating concerns about renewables not working when there’s no sun or wind. Knittel from MIT also believes the rule will “delay the closure of existing gas plants” because maintaining such plants will be cheaper than building new gas ones with carbon capture. The Biden administration initially proposed restricting emissions from some existing gas plants under the rule, but ultimately dropped those provisions, saying it would pursue a separate rule for existing gas. It may not have time to do so if Biden isn’t reelected in November, however — and if former President Trump returns to the White House, he is not expected to increase climate regulations on power plants.  “The big uncertainty that really remains here is what happens with existing gas plants,” Attwood said. “If it's the same administration, then the EPA will probably go back to those gas plants and try to figure out a way to put emissions restraints on them as well,” she added.

Barclays accused of greenwashing over financing for Italian oil company

Exclusive: Environmental groups say bank is misleading public over ‘sustainable’ financing for Eni as company vastly expands fossil fuel productionBarclays is being accused by environmental groups of greenwashing after helping to arrange €4bn (£3.4bn) in financing for the Italian oil company Eni in a way that allows them to qualify towards its $1tn sustainable financing goal.Environmental groups have said the London-based bank is deliberately misleading the public by labelling the financial instruments as “sustainable” at the same time that Eni is in the midst of a multibillion-pound fossil fuel expansion drive designed to increase production. Continue reading...

Barclays is being accused by environmental groups of greenwashing after helping to arrange €4bn (£3.4bn) in financing for the Italian oil company Eni in a way that allows them to qualify towards its $1tn sustainable financing goal.Environmental groups have said the London-based bank is deliberately misleading the public by labelling the financial instruments as “sustainable” at the same time that Eni is in the midst of a multibillion-pound fossil fuel expansion drive designed to increase production.An investigation by the journalism organisation Point Source has revealed that the deals for a revolving credit line were completed last year, months after the Milan-based company announced it intended to increase its spending on the production of oil and gas by at least a third over four years, investing between €24bn and €26bn.In February 2023, Eni said it was aiming to increase its production of oil and gas by between 12.6% and 17% over the four-year period to the end of 2026.Eni’s oil and gas expansion plans include a project to develop the Verus gas field, which could emit 7.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and has been described as a “carbon bomb” by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.Owing to its expansion plans, Eni’s production in 2030 is projected to be 35% higher than that required to align with the International Energy Agency’s net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, according to the campaign group Reclaim Finance. Eni says it still aims to achieve net zero by 2050.The financing Barclays helped Eni raise includes a sustainability-linked bond (SLB) worth €1bn and a revolving sustainability-linked loan (SLL) worth €3bn.While there is nothing in the terms of these financial instruments to prevent Eni from using the funds raised to develop oil and gas projects, including the Verus gas field, Barclays says the financing qualifies to be counted towards its 2030 sustainability target because the interest rates have been linked to emissions goals.However, environmental groups and financial experts say the goals in the contracts, which exclude scope 3 emissions, are unambitious and incompatible with the internationally agreed target to limit any rise in global temperature to 1.5C above preindustrial levels.Scope 1 emissions come from sources that an organisation owns or controls directly, while scope 2 emissions are caused indirectly and come from where the energy it uses is produced. Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect sources in the value chain of an organisation that are not within scope 1 and 2.The exclusion of scope 3 emissions in the targets has been criticised because the majority of Eni’s emissions, such as those from burning the oil and gas it produces, are considered scope 3.Jo Richardson, the head of research at the non-profit research organisation Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute, said: “There are a lot of sustainability-linked financial products that are not effective – and these are two classic examples.“To see a really effective sustainability structure in the oil and gas sector you would need to see a company with a clear and committed plan to reducing scope 3 emissions.”Lucie Pinson, the founder and director of Reclaim Finance, said: “Issuing an SLL like this is an easy way for Eni to raise money without having to make a significant climate effort or change anything about its business. It also allows banks who have pledged net zero to keep financing the worst climate offenders while pretending to support their transition.”In June last year, the Financial Conduct Authority sent a letter to financial institutions warning of “the possibility of potential risks to market integrity and suspicion of greenwashing in the context of SLLs”.It said it was concerned about “weak incentives, potential conflicts of interest, and suggestions of low ambition and poor design”.In February this year, Barclays announced that it would no longer provide direct funding for new oil and gas projects. However, financing in the form of SLBs and SLLs could continue for companies that are developing new oil and gas fields because the bank does not consider this to be “direct” project financing.Huw Davies, senior finance adviser at the campaign group Make My Money Matter, said: “Not only are the UK’s largest banks [continuing to help] finance companies that are expanding oil and gas production, but this shows they’re doing so under the pretence of so-called ‘sustainable’ finance.“Barclays’ decision to provide billions in corporate finance to Eni – a company which continues to develop new oil and gas – is enabling fossil fuel expansion, and contradicting their claims to be serious about sustainability.”When contacted by the Guardian, Barclays declined to comment.In a statement, Eni said it chose the targets in its sustainability-linked financial instruments “tailored to their maturity range” and because of this “it was not possible to use a scope 3 target”.It added: “Eni has built a business model that puts sustainability at the centre of every business activity, including financial strategy.“The development of the Verus project is consistent with Eni’s objective of achieving scope 1 and 2 carbon neutrality in all its businesses by 2035 … In particular, the development of Verus would include the use of capture and storage of CO2 to supply decarbonised energy in line with Eni’s objectives.”Barclays was a lead arranger in the $3bn sustainability-linked revolving credit facility that was provided to Eni by 26 global financial institutions including Italy-based Mediobanca Group, New York-based Citi, and France’s Natixis.The SLL has a time period of five years and its sustainability targets relate to the installed capacity for the production of electricity from renewable sources as well as emissions goals.Barclays was one of three banks that structured the $1bn SLB for Eni. The other banks involved were Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. All banks declined to comment.

After the Bitcoin halving, what is the climate impact of crypto?

The recent Bitcoin halving has put a spotlight on the popular cryptocurrency—and raised new questions about the environmental footprint of the crypto world. Mining popular digital currencies demands a tremendous amount of energy, and the reduced supply of Bitcoin will spur operations that are centered on that goal to work even harder. That has environmentalists (and some politicians) worried that crypto’s impact on the climate could grow, just as artificial intelligence is putting an even bigger strain on power grids and extreme weather events push some states to their limits. What is the carbon footprint of the crypto industry? Globally, cryptocurrency accounted for about 0.4% of the entire energy consumption in the world in 2022, according to an International Energy Agency report released in January. That’s about the same amount as the Netherlands consumed. The carbon footprint of Bitcoin miners alone from 2020 to 2021 was equivalent to burning 84 billion pounds of coal or operating 190 natural gas-fired power plants, according to the United Nations. In order to offset that, miners would need to plant 3.9 billion trees. That’s 7% of the Amazon rainforest and would cover an area stretching across Switzerland or Denmark. Exactly how much energy does crypto mining consume? According to that same U.N. study, the global Bitcoin mining network consumed 173.42 terawatt hours of electricity in the 2020 to 2021 period. That’s a number too big to grasp on its own, so think of it this way: If Bitcoin were a country, its energy consumption would have ranked 27th in the world, topping Pakistan, which boasts a population of more than 230 million people. Will the halving have an impact on crypto’s environmental footprint? Competition for the reduced number of Bitcoin will spur many miners to invest in newer machines, which could result in older ones being relegated to landfills. Typically, the life span of the preferred mining equipment, called an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) is five to seven years. But miners could upgrade early to do away with inefficiencies. Bitmain’s Georgia operation, for instance, spent $54 million to import 27,000 of the newest ASIC machines starting last year. Is there an environmental upside to the halving? Possibly, but it’s likely minor. Replacing those ASICs will add to landfill waste, but miners will be looking to cut costs—and are likely to lean on sustainable energy to do so. Marathon Digital Holdings, one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining operations, recently bought a 200-megawatt mining data center near a wind farm in Texas. That led it to forecast a 20% reduction in operational expenditures. Others could follow suit—but even then, the e-waste generation (which added up to 30.7 metric kilotons in May 2021) will be hard to overcome. Which countries have the biggest Bitcoin mining operations? China instituted an official ban on crypto mining in 2021, which resulted in many miners moving to other countries, including the U.S., but underground mining operations continue there. Other countries that are among the top miners, per the U.N., include the U.S., Kazakhstan, Russia, Malaysia, Canada, Germany, Iran, Ireland, and Singapore. What, if anything, is Washington doing about this? In late January, the Biden administration announced measures meant to address the energy consumption of the crypto world, with the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) launching a survey of electricity consumption by mining companies. Those companies will be required to offer a detailed look at their energy use. “We intend to continue to analyze and write about the energy implications of cryptocurrency mining activities in the United States,” said EIA administrator Joe DeCarolis in a statement. “We will specifically focus on how the energy demand for cryptocurrency mining is evolving, identify geographic areas of high growth, and quantify the sources of electricity used to meet cryptocurrency mining demand.”

The recent Bitcoin halving has put a spotlight on the popular cryptocurrency—and raised new questions about the environmental footprint of the crypto world. Mining popular digital currencies demands a tremendous amount of energy, and the reduced supply of Bitcoin will spur operations that are centered on that goal to work even harder. That has environmentalists (and some politicians) worried that crypto’s impact on the climate could grow, just as artificial intelligence is putting an even bigger strain on power grids and extreme weather events push some states to their limits. What is the carbon footprint of the crypto industry? Globally, cryptocurrency accounted for about 0.4% of the entire energy consumption in the world in 2022, according to an International Energy Agency report released in January. That’s about the same amount as the Netherlands consumed. The carbon footprint of Bitcoin miners alone from 2020 to 2021 was equivalent to burning 84 billion pounds of coal or operating 190 natural gas-fired power plants, according to the United Nations. In order to offset that, miners would need to plant 3.9 billion trees. That’s 7% of the Amazon rainforest and would cover an area stretching across Switzerland or Denmark. Exactly how much energy does crypto mining consume? According to that same U.N. study, the global Bitcoin mining network consumed 173.42 terawatt hours of electricity in the 2020 to 2021 period. That’s a number too big to grasp on its own, so think of it this way: If Bitcoin were a country, its energy consumption would have ranked 27th in the world, topping Pakistan, which boasts a population of more than 230 million people. Will the halving have an impact on crypto’s environmental footprint? Competition for the reduced number of Bitcoin will spur many miners to invest in newer machines, which could result in older ones being relegated to landfills. Typically, the life span of the preferred mining equipment, called an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) is five to seven years. But miners could upgrade early to do away with inefficiencies. Bitmain’s Georgia operation, for instance, spent $54 million to import 27,000 of the newest ASIC machines starting last year. Is there an environmental upside to the halving? Possibly, but it’s likely minor. Replacing those ASICs will add to landfill waste, but miners will be looking to cut costs—and are likely to lean on sustainable energy to do so. Marathon Digital Holdings, one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining operations, recently bought a 200-megawatt mining data center near a wind farm in Texas. That led it to forecast a 20% reduction in operational expenditures. Others could follow suit—but even then, the e-waste generation (which added up to 30.7 metric kilotons in May 2021) will be hard to overcome. Which countries have the biggest Bitcoin mining operations? China instituted an official ban on crypto mining in 2021, which resulted in many miners moving to other countries, including the U.S., but underground mining operations continue there. Other countries that are among the top miners, per the U.N., include the U.S., Kazakhstan, Russia, Malaysia, Canada, Germany, Iran, Ireland, and Singapore. What, if anything, is Washington doing about this? In late January, the Biden administration announced measures meant to address the energy consumption of the crypto world, with the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) launching a survey of electricity consumption by mining companies. Those companies will be required to offer a detailed look at their energy use. “We intend to continue to analyze and write about the energy implications of cryptocurrency mining activities in the United States,” said EIA administrator Joe DeCarolis in a statement. “We will specifically focus on how the energy demand for cryptocurrency mining is evolving, identify geographic areas of high growth, and quantify the sources of electricity used to meet cryptocurrency mining demand.”

How a New 3D Printer Automatically Masters Diverse Sustainable Materials

The advance could help make 3D printing more sustainable, enabling printing with renewable or recyclable materials that are difficult to characterize. While 3D printing has...

Researchers developed a 3D printer that can automatically identify the parameters of an unknown material on its own. The advance could help make 3D printing more sustainable, enabling printing with renewable or recyclable materials that are difficult to characterize. Credit: Courtesy of the researchersThe advance could help make 3D printing more sustainable, enabling printing with renewable or recyclable materials that are difficult to characterize.While 3D printing has exploded in popularity, many of the plastic materials these printers use to create objects cannot be easily recycled. While new sustainable materials are emerging for use in 3D printing, they remain difficult to adopt because 3D printer settings need to be adjusted for each material, a process generally done by hand.To print a new material from scratch, one must typically set up to 100 parameters in software that controls how the printer will extrude the material as it fabricates an object. Commonly used materials, like mass-manufactured polymers, have established sets of parameters that were perfected through tedious, trial-and-error processes. But the properties of renewable and recyclable materials can fluctuate widely based on their composition, so fixed parameter sets are nearly impossible to create. In this case, users must come up with all these parameters by hand.This diagram shows the components of the instrumented extruder the researchers designed and built for a fused-filament fabrication 3D printer. The instruments they added to the extruder, including a feed rate sensor and load cell, take measurements which are used to calculate the parameters of a material. Credit: Courtesy of the researchersInnovative Solutions in 3D Printing TechnologyResearchers tackled this problem by developing a 3D printer that can automatically identify the parameters of an unknown material on its own.A collaborative team from MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Center for Scientific Research in Greece (Demokritos) modified the extruder, the “heart” of a 3D printer, so it can measure the forces and flow of a material.These data, gathered through a 20-minute test, are fed into a mathematical function that is used to automatically generate printing parameters. These parameters can be entered into off-the-shelf 3D printing software and used to print with a never-before-seen material.The researchers demonstrated their process by producing print parameters for six unique machine and material configurations, and then printing the different models shown here. Credit: Courtesy of the researchersAutomating Parameter SettingsThe automatically generated parameters can replace about half of the parameters that typically must be tuned by hand. In a series of test prints with unique materials, including several renewable materials, the researchers showed that their method can consistently produce viable parameters.This research could help to reduce the environmental impact of additive manufacturing, which typically relies on nonrecyclable polymers and resins derived from fossil fuels.“In this paper, we demonstrate a method that can take all these interesting materials that are bio-based and made from various sustainable sources and show that the printer can figure out by itself how to print those materials. The goal is to make 3D printing more sustainable,” says senior author Neil Gershenfeld, who leads CBA.His co-authors include first author Jake Read a graduate student in the CBA who led the printer development; Jonathan Seppala, a chemical engineer in the Materials Science and Engineering Division of NIST; Filippos Tourlomousis, a former CBA postdoc who now heads the Autonomous Science Lab at Demokritos; James Warren, who leads the Materials Genome Program at NIST; and Nicole Bakker, a research assistant at CBA. The research is published in the journal Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.Shifting Material PropertiesIn fused filament fabrication (FFF), which is often used in rapid prototyping, molten polymers are extruded through a heated nozzle layer-by-layer to build a part. Software, called a slicer, provides instructions to the machine, but the slicer must be configured to work with a particular material.Using renewable or recycled materials in an FFF 3D printer is especially challenging because there are so many variables that affect the material properties.For instance, a bio-based polymer or resin might be composed of different mixes of plants based on the season. The properties of recycled materials also vary widely based on what is available to recycle.“In ‘Back to the Future,’ there is a ‘Mr. Fusion’ blender where Doc just throws whatever he has into the blender and it works [as a power source for the DeLorean time machine]. That is the same idea here. Ideally, with plastics recycling, you could just shred what you have and print with it. But, with current feed-forward systems, that won’t work because if your filament changes significantly during the print, everything would break,” Read says.To overcome these challenges, the researchers developed a 3D printer and workflow to automatically identify viable process parameters for any unknown material.They started with a 3D printer their lab had previously developed that can capture data and provide feedback as it operates. The researchers added three instruments to the machine’s extruder that take measurements which are used to calculate parameters.A load cell measures the pressure being exerted on the printing filament, while a feed rate sensor measures the thickness of the filament and the actual rate at which it is being fed through the printer.“This fusion of measurement, modeling, and manufacturing is at the heart of the collaboration between NIST and CBA, as we work develop what we’ve termed ‘computational metrology,’” says Warren.These measurements can be used to calculate the two most important, yet difficult to determine, printing parameters: flow rate and temperature. Nearly half of all print settings in standard software are related to these two parameters.Deriving a DatasetOnce they had the new instruments in place, the researchers developed a 20-minute test that generates a series of temperature and pressure readings at different flow rates. Essentially, the test involves setting the print nozzle at its hottest temperature, flowing the material through at a fixed rate, and then turning the heater off.“It was really difficult to figure out how to make that test work. Trying to find the limits of the extruder means that you are going to break the extruder pretty often while you are testing it. The notion of turning the heater off and just passively taking measurements was the ‘aha’ moment,” says Read.These data are entered into a function that automatically generates real parameters for the material and machine configuration, based on relative temperature and pressure inputs. The user can then enter those parameters into 3D printing software and generate instructions for the printer.In experiments with six different materials, several of which were bio-based, the method automatically generated viable parameters that consistently led to successful prints of a complex object.Moving forward, the researchers plan to integrate this process with 3D printing software so parameters don’t need to be entered manually. In addition, they want to enhance their workflow by incorporating a thermodynamic model of the hot end, which is the part of the printer that melts the filament.This collaboration is now more broadly developing computational metrology, in which the output of a measurement is a predictive model rather than just a parameter. The researchers will be applying this in other areas of advanced manufacturing, as well as in expanding access to metrology.“By developing a new method for the automatic generation of process parameters for fused filament fabrication, this study opens the door to the use of recycled and bio-based filaments that have variable and unknown behaviors. Importantly, this enhances the potential for digital manufacturing technology to utilize locally sourced sustainable materials,” says Alysia Garmulewicz, an associate professor in the Faculty of Administration and Economics at the University of Santiago in Chile who was not involved with this work.Reference: “Online Measurement for Parameter Discovery in Fused Filament Fabrication” by Jake Robert Read, Jonathan E. Seppala, Filippos Tourlomousis, James A. Warren, Nicole Bakker and Neil Gershenfeld, 3 April 2024, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.DOI: 10.1007/s40192-024-00350-wThis research is supported, in part, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Center for Bits and Atoms Consortia.

Climate Doom Is Out. ‘Apocalyptic Optimism’ Is In.

Focusing on disaster hasn’t changed the planet’s trajectory. Will a more upbeat approach show a way forward?

The philanthropist Kathryn Murdoch has prioritized donations to environmental causes for more than a decade. She has, she said, a deep understanding of how inhospitable the planet will become if climate change is not addressed. And she and her colleagues have spent years trying to communicate that.“We have been screaming,” she said. “But screaming only gets you so far.”This was on a morning in early spring. Murdoch and Ari Wallach, an author, producer and self-proclaimed futurist, had just released their new PBS docuseries, “A Brief History of the Future,” and had hopped onto a video call to promote it — politely, no screaming required. Shot cinematically, in some never-ending golden hour, the six-episode show follows Wallach around the world as he meets with scientists, activists and the occasional artist and athlete, all of whom are optimistic about the future. An episode might include a visit to a floating village or a conversation about artificial intelligence with the musician Grimes. In one sequence, marine biologists lovingly restore a rehabbed coral polyp to a reef. The mood throughout is mellow, hopeful, even dreamy. Which is deliberate.“There’s room for screaming,” Wallach said. “And there’s room for dreaming.”“A Brief History of the Future” joins some recent books and shows that offer a rosier vision of what a world in the throes — or just past the throes — of global catastrophe might look like. Climate optimism as opposed to climate fatalism.Hannah Ritchie’s “Not the End of the World: How We Can be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet” argues that many markers of disaster are less bad than the public imagines (deforestation, overfishing) or easily solvable (plastics in the oceans). In “Fallout,” the television adaptation of the popular video game that recently debuted on Amazon Prime Video, the apocalypse (nuclear, not climate-related) makes for a devastated earth, sundry mutants and plenty of goofy, kitschy fun — apocalypse lite.“Life as We Know It (Can Be),” a book by Bill Weir, CNN’s chief climate correspondent, that is structured as a series of letters to his son, centers on human potential and resilience. And Dana R. Fisher’s “Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action” contends that the disruptions of climate change may finally create a mass movement that will lead to better global outcomes. Fisher, a sociologist, coined the term “apocalyptic optimism” to describe a belief that humans can still avoid the worst ravages of climate change.In confronting the apocalypse, these works all insist that hope matters. They believe that optimism, however qualified or hard-won, may be what finally moves us to action. While Americans are less likely than their counterparts in the developed world to appreciate the threats that climate change poses, recent polls show that a significant majority of Americans now agree that climate change is real and a smaller majority agree that it is human-caused and harmful. And yet almost no expert believes that we are doing enough — in terms of technology, legislation or political pressure — to alleviate those harms.Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.