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.

Can OffShore Wind Blow Out California's Fires?

Christine Heinrichs
News Feed
Thursday, September 30, 2021

Floating wind projects take advantage of steady winds that blow offshore. Those faster, steadier winds can produce more energy. Wind power increases with the cube of wind speed. Bigger turbines with longer blades capture more wind and are more aerodynamically efficient. How they overcome obstacles such as interference with fisheries, environmental damage, and high cost will influence how many, and which ones, get built.

California jump-started the offshore wind industry when Governor Gavin Newsom signed  AB525 on September 23, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/23/governor-newsom-signs-climate-action-bills-outlines-historic-15-billion-package-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-and-protect-vulnerable-communities/ . Now the state and industry are grappling with the implications for wildlife, the environment and energy demands as they weigh the costs and benefits. Possibilities were reviewed at a conference held in Scotland September 15-16 with dozens of international players attending virtually. 

In late May the Biden administration opened two areas off the California coast to floating wind projects: a 399-square-mile area off Morro Bay in the Central Coast and another off the North Coast’s Humboldt County. The permitting process may take a decade or longer before either is constructed.

Eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables to reduce greenhouse gases are imperative to mitigate the climate crisis. However, floating wind farms will impact local wildlife and local economies. All the impacts need to be evaluated and weighed before choosing the renewable path forward. Energy systems and policy, migratory birds and mammals, and other marine life need to be studied to estimate the effects of floating offshore wind energy production. The amount of energy anticipated from floating wind farms and how it fits into the country’s energy portfolio have to be weighed along with its effects on people and wildlife.

The bill requires that the state’s energy supply be 100 percent zero carbon by 2045. Offshore wind will be needed to make up the 145 Gigawatts of new energy from renewables needed to meet that goal. 

“This means great things for offshore wind, after four years of stagnation,” said Jim Lanard, CEO of Magellan Wind, https://mieibc.org/company/magellan-wind/, at an industry conference in Aberdeen, Scotland September 15-16. 

Floating wind projects take advantage of steady winds that blow offshore. Those faster, steadier winds can produce more energy. Wind power increases with the cube of wind speed. Bigger turbines with longer blades capture more wind and are more aerodynamically efficient. How they overcome obstacles such as interference with fisheries, environmental damage, and high cost will influence how many, and which ones, get built.

Politics

National programs are leading the way. The Covid stimulus, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, helped by extending the investment tax credit to 2025, reducing expenses. The Biden administration’s Build Back Better package and the Green Jobs Plan also contain economic incentives to develop offshore wind that “have energized lawmakers,” said Jamie McDonald, director of operations for Xodus, https://www.xodusgroup.com/, now at the Boston office.

The political climate is changing. Climate change is becoming a bipartisan issue, with red and blue state governors competing for the jobs, development and supply chain for renewable energy projects, Lanard said. 

“The consensus is that climate change is an existential threat,” he said from his office in Houston. “The words I’m hearing out of California are, ‘Doing nothing is doing harm’.”

California site issues

California is the focus, but Oregon and Washington coasts are also in the sights for floating wind farm locations. Floating offshore wind farms are proposed for California, 30 miles off Morro Bay on the Central Coast, and off the northern coast near the Oregon state line. Construction on the up to 200-turbine Central Coast wind farm could begin in 2025-2027, pending environmental review and regulatory permitting.

The military uses the airspace over the Central Coast for training. That snarled consideration temporarily in 2020, but discussions have resolved the conflict. 

“The area has important military uses, but we know we can be compatible,” Lanard, a veteran of the Obama administration, said. “Now we are working together cooperatively. There are a lot of Obama alums in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense, directly advising president.” 

Business

Business leaders are looking for certainty to commit investments, McDonald said. The permitting and regulatory process requires the lease areas to be defined, so that environmental assessments can be done preparatory to the lease auction and sale with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, https://www.boem.gov/. Baseline environmental surveys will be required, taking 18 months to two years to complete, on which to write an environmental statement. A federal permit as well as approval of state agencies such as the Department of Fish & Wildlife and the California Public Utility Commission (PUC) could push construction four to six years past that 2025 construction date.   

Cost is a significant factor, but these industry leaders expect it to decrease significantly as projects advance. Onshore wind costs have declined, and solar costs declined by 90 percent as the technology improved. 

Jonah Margulis, senior vice president of US Operations for Aker Offshore Wind, https://akeroffshorewind.com/, expects the Levelized Cost of Energy, the standard measure of cost of energy production, for floating wind to decline from $110 to $60 by 2032. 

Transmission is another factor influencing the success of floating wind. Central California has facilities in place that could serve that function. The Morro Bay Power Plant has been vacant for several years. A 600 MW lithium-ion battery storage project is proposed for part of the site. It would be the largest in the US. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant will be closed, one reactor in 2024 and the second in 2025, opening that site for electrical transmission. 

The north coast site lacks that advantage, but Humboldt State University, slated to become the state’s next polytechnic university, is studying prospective transmission solutions.

“The future is floating on the west coast,” Margulis said. “The US is back on track for a booming era on east and west coasts.”

Fishing conflicts

Morro Bay is home to active commercial fishing. The Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization and the Port San Luis Commercial Fishermen’s Association have signed a Mutual Benefit Agreement with Castle Wind, https://castlewind.com/, the company actively pursuing development of the site. The agreement provides for a fund to assist the associations with support for members.  

Such financial arrangements are made for good relationships, but are not legally required, Adam Payne, Senior Offshore Consenter, Flotation Energy https://www.flotationenergy.com/what-we-do, said. Funds can be directed to projects that benefit the community, such as the Thanet Fishermen’s Association Fuel Depot in the UK, which provides round-the-clock fuel support to fishermen.

Each site requires detailed knowledge of that fishery to develop a unique solution.

“Floating is going to be a more difficult discussion,” said Payne. “Certain gear is not compatible with floating wind equipment.”

Commercial fishing can coexist with floating wind, said Signe Nielsen, senior products management development at RWE, https://www.rwe.com/en. The industry’s experience with fixed wind projects in Europe will help floating wind projects adapt to the fishermen’s needs by siting the projects with their concerns about potential overlap with fisheries, navigation and site design in mind, she said. 

“There will be lessons to be learned along the way,” she said, citing cooperation, building communication and transparency as factors to resolve conflicts.

Local opposition can doom a project. Shell encountered opposition to a natural gas pipeline that caused local turmoil and tension, eventually resulting in local activists being jailed. The experience is recounted in the documentary The Pipe, available online, https://guidedoc.tv/documentary/the-pipe-documentary-film/ 

Environmental protection

California’s coastline is subject to various levels of protection. The Central Coast site is just outside the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The corridor is known as the Blue Serengeti, for the many large marine mammals that migrate through the area, several kinds of seals and whales, including Blue Whales. Seabirds also fly through the area. The turbines could be over 700 feet tall. Species that live far at sea are not studied well with respect to disturbance by floating wind turbines. That research remains to be done. 

In the respect of environmental disruption, floating wind turbines compare favorably with fixed wind turbines onshore, Nielsen said. Installation is less noisy than pounding pilings into the seabed, and less seabed is disturbed by the floating platform moorings than fixed bottom turbines. The moorings, giant chain cables, are too big for marine mammals to become entangled, but they might snag ghost fishing gear that would endanger seals and whales. Marine mammals might not be diving to the 3,000-foot depths, which remains to be established by research.

The floating platforms could act as fish aggregators and fish nurseries, she said, although it’s unclear whether the fish taking refuge under the platforms represent an increase in fish or relocation of fish from other places. 

The platforms could act as artificial reefs to increase biodiversity, Monica Fundingsland, sustainability advisor at Equinor, https://www.equinor.com/en/what-we-do/wind.html, said. Three studies are underway at Hywind in Scotland.

A study of the effect of operational noise on seabirds at Hywind in Scotland is expected by the end of 2021. Whether operational noise could be a barrier to marine mammals is not known.

Hywind Scotland is the pilot project, producing electric power since 2017. Its five 830-foot turbines, with rotors 500 feet in diameter, produce enough power to serve the equivalent of 36,000 homes, from about 19 miles offshore in water 300 to over 400 feet deep. The site off the California coast is about 3,000 feet deep.

Centralizing the research could help streamline the process by making information more easily available to all stakeholders, and addressing information gaps. Studies buried in industry information silos may conceal data already collected and result in duplicated effort. 

Port

The port where the turbines will be either manufactured or assembled needs to be able to accommodate the huge equipment. Ports also need to be free of obstructions such as bridges and electrical wires to allow the equipment to be brought in. 

Morro Bay is not deep enough, so other facilities will have to be developed to assemble the turbines, which will then be towed out to the site. Morro Bay harbor will then become a staging area for maintenance and operations. 

Another restriction is the Jones Act, which requires port-to-port cargo movement on ships that are U.S.-owned, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-registered, and U.S.-built. One Jones Act-compliant vessel is now being built, but the industry plans to bring vessels over from Europe and then transfer the unassembled pieces to feeder vessels that comply with the Jones Act sent out to collect them. That raises a point of risk to the equipment, which could be damaged in the transition from one ship to another. 

Great Lakes

The industry is also evaluating the Great Lakes as floating wind farm sites. A major difference is that the states that border the lakes own the lake bed, so they have more flexibility in leasing them. 

The fresh water lakes form ice during the cold months. Floating turbines can be adapted to floating ice, but the pressure of ice on the foundations is another challenge. The Great Lakes Wind Assessment is due in draft form by the end of 2021

Building an industry

“It’s challenging to build an industry, but we’ve got to start somewhere,” said Aker’s Margulis. “The ambitions we’ve all had for a number of years are being released.”

RenewableUK, https://events.renewableuk.com/fow21, with 25 industry sponsors and partners, hosted the Floating Offshore Wind conference in Aberdeen Scotland September 15-16, 2021. Over 500 attended, in person and virtually. Twenty-eight exhibitors pitched their products and 56 speakers presented information and took questions. Hopefully together they can work out the issues of concern and successfully create new renewable energy options for California and the nation.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of
Christine Heinrichs
Christine Heinrichs

Christine Heinrichs writes from her home on California’s Central Coast. She keeps a backyard flock of about a dozen hens. She follows coastal issues, writing a regular column on the Piedras Blancas elephant seal rookery for the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Her narrative on the Central Coast condor flock will appear in Ten Spurs 2021 edition.

Her book, How to Raise Chickens, was first published in 2007, just as the local food movement was starting to focus attention on the industrial food system. Backyard chickens became the mascot of local food. The third edition of How to Raise Chickens was published in January 2019. The Backyard Field Guide to Chickens was published in 2016. Look for them in Tractor Supply stores and online.

She has a B.S. in Journalism from the University of Oregon and belongs to several professional journalism and poultry organizations.

Meet the DJs spinning Earth Day into nightlife

At Earth "Night" celebrations, you can dance, vibe, and get involved with local climate action.

The vision “In the nightlife industry, the majority of the crowd is very young. Our crowd is the future. So it’s great to have them all together and be able to raise some more awareness.” — Ruben Pariente Gromark of DJs for Climate Action The spotlight Next Tuesday, April 22, will mark the 55th anniversary of Earth Day, a celebration launched in 1970 to bring attention and grassroots energy to environmental issues. But the days that immediately follow it, April 23 through 27, will mark the eighth annual offering of a relatively under-the-radar series of climate events: Earth Night. Organized by a small volunteer group called DJs for Climate Action, Earth Night is a global initiative that brings climate and environmental messages into dance halls, bars, clubs, and other nightlife venues. The idea started with a campaign by producer and DJ Sam Posner (also known as Sammy Bananas). Around 2009, he launched a holiday fundraising campaign for DJs to buy carbon credits to offset the emissions of the frequent flights they take to work at parties and events all over the world. “He sent it to me and I was like, ‘Oh, this is really interesting,’” said Eli Goldstein (Soul Clap), a fellow music artist who’s now the president of DJs for Climate Action. “At that time I was flying a lot, and it was the first time a light bulb went off, that there was a negative side of all the flying around the world DJing.” Taking a flight is one of the most carbon-intensive activities any individual can do — and as long-distance, often international travel is a routine part of many DJs’ jobs, they can rack up some high carbon footprints. Goldstein had long been interested in environmental issues. He even sang at Earth Day celebrations as a schoolkid. When he encountered Posner’s carbon-credits campaign, he had what he described as “an epiphany” that living his dream as a DJ wasn’t fully in line with his environmental values. The end-of-year fundraisers continued for several years, under the banner of DJs Against Climate Change, before the group decided it wanted to do something bigger. Focusing only on the carbon footprint of traveling felt like a missed opportunity to take advantage of the unique skills the artists had to bring to the movement. “We realized we could be a lot more constructive, positive, by encouraging DJs to use our platforms to educate and encourage action around climate and the environment,” Goldstein said. They wanted to invite DJs to do what they do best — spin tunes at parties — while fostering a space for learning, community building, and fundraising for climate solutions, and also emphasizing a vision of low-waste, regenerative local events. A photo from the first Earth Night event at House of Yes in Brooklyn, New York. Sam Posner The fledgling group organized the first Earth Night event in 2018 at House of Yes, a funky performance venue in Brooklyn. In addition to spinning DJ sets, the crew handed out literature at the door, projected climate information on the walls, and raised money for the local nonprofit NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. Around 500 people attended. “The idea was just to create an opportunity for nightlife, to have a joyful moment to support and educate about climate,” Goldstein said. The event expanded from there. In 2019, the team coordinated Earth Night events in seven cities around the world, raising over $10,000 for various climate charities. In 2020, the group had planned to hold 50 events, honoring the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. All those plans were scuttled by the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic — but like so many other organizations, DJs for Climate Action quickly pivoted to a virtual approach, which had the effect of bringing Earth Night to many more people. “We did a livestream with 100 DJs from around the world — every continent except Antarctica was represented,” Goldstein said. “Everybody just played one song, and it was like 20 hours long. It was really epic and amazing.” As in-person partying gradually returned, the team decided to take a more decentralized approach. While a number of artists have been involved over the years, the core team behind DJs for Climate Action is just five people, and they quickly realized they couldn’t sustain all the coordination and support that would be required to scale up the global event. Instead, they created a toolkit for local organizers — DJs, venues, promoters, or really anyone interested in hosting an Earth Night event. It includes specific tips for sustainability, such as going plastic-free, booking local talent, featuring plant-based menus, and using renewable energy where possible. A photo from the second year of Earth Night at House of Yes, in 2019. Courtesy of DJs for Climate Action For 2025, there are close to 40 events planned around the world, which will be added to the DJs for Climate Action website and Instagram in the coming days. “It’s definitely taking on a life of its own,” Goldstein said. DJs for Climate Action also recently acquired formal nonprofit status and will be fundraising for itself through Earth Night as well, with a goal of expanding the organization’s capacity. “We’re now trying to raise money to have a more permanent team,” Goldstein said. “So we do encourage events to donate at least partially to DJs for Climate Action — but also to local climate and environmental justice orgs. Part of the beauty of Earth Night is it’s this local organizing, but still global energy, global community, global impact.” Mónica Medina, a biology professor at Penn State, is organizing an event this year in State College, Pennsylvania. Although she’s not a frequenter of the club scene herself, State College is a party town, she said. She saw an opportunity to reach people with a climate message through a medium that she herself has found very healing: music. “I feel that we have split our lives into so many bubbles that don’t overlap. But I feel that knowledge, spirituality, and fun can be together — and that music especially has the power of getting people entranced in a way where they are connected with these powerful lyrics,” she said. That sentiment was echoed by Gui Becker, a fellow professor and musician who will be performing live at the State College event. Becker was in a metal band with his cousins when he was young, and his music evolved to explore environmental and climate justice themes as he studied biology in grad school. Over the past several years, he’s written a handful of hard rock songs with climate messages, and he’s collaborated with other scientists and musicians through an initiative called Science Strings. “Music is so powerful,” said Becker, who’s looking forward to performing live at Manny’s, a popular all-ages venue in State College. “I think maybe we’re going to be able to reach an audience that normally doesn’t listen to environmental music, environmentally charged songs.” In addition to Becker’s performance, the State College event on April 24 will include a DJ set by the venue’s owner and the premiere of a new music video that Medina and her students produced for “La Extinción,” a song by the Colombian musician Pernett. At this year’s Earth Night event in Paris, on April 26, the music itself will have less of an explicit climate message — but the party will include a guided meditation by sound artist Lola Villa, featuring nature sounds that she recorded in the Amazon, as well as a panel featuring the event’s DJs on how artists can get involved in activism. The attendees will also get compostable wristbands — and in the 10 seconds it takes to put a wristband on, the venue staff will briefly explain to people why they’re there. “I do believe that makes a big difference,” said Ruben Pariente Gromark (also known as Michel D.), a core member of DJs for Climate Action and the organizer of the Paris party. “As it’s a classic club venue where there’s parties every weekend, quite a few people might just come randomly, to go to a party where they’re used to going for a party. And then they will know that it’s a different [mission-driven] party.” The wristbands will also feature a QR code that leads to a survey asking attendees how they traveled to the Earth Night event (walking, biking, driving, or even flying from afar). It’s part of a broader impact assessment the team intends to compile this year to measure the sustainability of the events. At the end of the day, though, Earth Night is less about reducing the plastic cups at bars or the miles traveled to concert venues, and more about creating a joyful space for people to learn and get inspired to take action for the climate. “When we talk about the climate crisis, environmental action, all these subjects — it’s full of anxiety, it’s very dark,” said Pariente Gromark. Although its festivities may take place under cover of darkness, Earth Night offers a counter to that doom-and-gloom narrative. Organizers hope the good vibes spread at the events will empower both artists and community members to lean further into climate work where they live — and even where they party. “Climate change is such a global, overwhelming problem that can make us feel super powerless when we look at the macro scale,” Goldstein said. “When we look at our local community and how we can participate, help build resiliency, and just come together in a joyful way, it can feel like you’re actually making a difference.” — Claire Elise Thompson More exposure Read: about the strong climate and environmental justice themes that have long existed in hip hop (Grist) Read: about the cathartic power of Indigenous heavy metal (Grist) Read: about the pop band AJR and its efforts to get fans and concertgoers to take action for the climate (NPR) Read: about The Climate Soundtrack, a 41-track compilation produced by DJs for Climate Action, drawing on field recordings from Greenpeace’s sound library (Ableton) — and check out the soundtrack Listen: to a climate playlist that professor Medina has been compiling and using in her classroom Listen: to our Looking Forward playlist, compiled by you, dear readers! A parting shot Check out this solar-powered DJ booth — a focal point of the 2019 Earth Night event in Paris. IMAGE CREDITS Vision: Mia Torres / Grist Spotlight: Sam Posner; Courtesy of DJs for Climate Action Parting shot: Courtesy of DJs for Climate Action This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Meet the DJs spinning Earth Day into nightlife on Apr 16, 2025.

Why the shipping industry’s new carbon tax is a big deal — and still not enough

Modeling suggests it will only reduce emissions up to 10 percent by 2030.

Each year, all the cargo ships that crisscross the oceans carrying cars, building materials, food, and other goods emit about 3 percent of the world’s climate pollution. That’s about as much as the aviation sector Driving down those emissions is complicated. Unlike, say, electricity generation, which happens within a nation’s borders, shipping is by definition global, so it takes international cooperation to decarbonize. The International Maritime Organization, part of the United Nations, has largely taken up this mantle.  Last week, the agency took a big step in the right direction with the introduction of the world’s first sector-wide carbon tax. More than 60 member states approved a complex system that requires shipping companies to meet certain greenhouse gas standards or pay for their shortfall. (The United States walked out of the discussions.) The plan has yet to be formally adopted — that’s expected to happen in October — and it doesn’t include the most ambitious proposals sought by island nations and environmental nonprofits, including a flat tax on all shipping emissions. But policy experts are calling it a “historic” development for global climate action. “It doesn’t meet the IMO’s climate targets, but it’s generally still a very welcome outcome for us,” said Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, a principal research fellow at the University College London Energy Institute. Created by a U.N. conference in 1948, the IMO has a broad remit to regulate the “safety, security, and environmental performance of international shipping.” With participation from its 176 member states, the agency writes treaties, conventions, and other legal instruments that are then incorporated into countries’ laws. Perhaps the best known of these is the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, called MARPOL (a portmanteau of “marine pollution”).  Some of the earliest regulations implemented by MARPOL sought to prevent oil-related pollution from routine operations and spills. Subsequent amendments to the convention have aimed to limit pollution from sewage and litter, and in 2005 a new annex restricted emissions of ozone-depleting gases like sulphur and nitrogen oxides. The IMO began to address climate change in 2011, when it added a chapter to the ozone regulation requiring ships to improve their energy efficiency. A container ship near the Port of Antwerp, in Belgium. Nicolas Tucat / AFP via Getty Images In 2018, the IMO set an intention to halve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, using 2008 levels as a baseline. It updated that goal in 2023, shooting for net-zero “by or around, i.e., close to, 2050,” while also setting an interim target of cutting emissions by 20 to 30 percent by 2030. Last week’s meeting was part of the IMO’s work to develop a “basket of measures” to achieve those benchmarks and more forcefully transition the sector away from heavy fuel oil, a particularly carbon-intensive fuel that makes up the bulk of large ships’ energy source. Many environmental groups and island countries — which are more vulnerable to climate-driven sea level rise — had hoped that the IMO would implement a straightforward tax on all shipping emissions, with revenue directed broadly toward climate mitigation and adaptation projects in their regions.  That’s not quite what happened. Instead, the agreed-upon policy creates a complex mechanism to charge shipping companies for a portion of their vessels’ climate pollution, on the basis of their emissions intensity: the amount of climate pollution they emit per unit of energy used. The mechanism includes two intensity targets, which become more stringent over time. One is a “base target,” a minimum threshold that all ships are supposed to meet. The other is more ambitious and is confusingly dubbed a “direct compliance target.”  Ships that meet the more stringent target are the most fuel efficient. Based on how much cleaner they are than the target, their operators are awarded a credit they can sell to companies with less efficient boats. They can also bank these credits for use within the following two years, in case their performance dips and they need to make up for it. Vessels that don’t quite meet the stricter standard but are more efficient than the base target don’t get a reward. They must pay for their deficit below the direct compliance target with “remedial units” at a price of $100 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent.  Those that are below both targets have to buy remedial units to make up for the full amount of space between them. On top of that, they also have to buy a number of even more expensive units ($380 per ton of CO2 equivalent), based on how much less efficient than the base target they are. They can cover their shortfall with any credits they’ve banked, or by buying them from carriers with more efficient ships. Depending on how much they reduce their ships’ emissions intensity, companies may accrue “surplus units” or have to buy “remedial units.” In this graph, ships above the blue line are the least efficient; those below the orange line are the most efficient. Courtesy of Nishatabbas Rehmatulla Revenue raised from this system will go into a “net-zero fund,” which is intended to help pay for further decarbonization of the shipping sector, including the development of low- and zero-emissions fuels. A portion of this fund is explicitly intended to help poor countries and island states with fewer resources to make this transition. The strategy was approved by a vote — an uncommon occurrence in intergovernmental fora where decisions are usually made by consensus. Rehmatulla said the IMO has only held a vote like this once before, 15 years ago.  Sixty-three countries voted in favor of the measures, and 16 opposed. Another two dozen, including many small island states like Fiji and Tuvalu, chose to abstain. Tuvalu’s transport minister, Simon Kofe, told Climate Home News that the agreement “lacks the necessary incentives for industry to make the necessary shift to cleaner technologies.” Modeling by University College London suggests that the new pricing mechanism will only lead to an 8 to 10 percent reduction in shipping’s climate pollution by 2030, a far cry from the agency’s own goal of 20 to 30 percent. Leaders from other island nations, as well as climate advocates, also objected to restrictions on the net-zero fund that suggest it will only be used to finance shipping decarbonization; they wanted the fund to be available for climate mitigation and adaptation projects in any sector. In order to transition away from fossil fuels and safeguard themselves from climate disasters, developing countries need trillions of dollars more than what’s currently coming to them from the world’s biggest historical emitters of greenhouse gases. A climate minister from Vanuatu, Ralph Regenvanu, said in a statement the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and other oil-producing countries had “blocked progress” at the IMO talks, and that they had “turned away a proposal for a reliable source of revenue for those of us in dire need of finance to help with climate impacts.” University College London research also suggests that, while the system will make it too expensive to build new boats reliant on liquefied natural gas — a fossil fuel that drives climate change — it will not raise enough revenue to finance the development of zero- and near-zero-carbon shipping technologies like green ammonia. (Lower shipping speeds and wind propulsion — also known as sails — can also reduce shipping emissions). The United States did not participate in the negotiations. Its delegation left on day two, calling the proposed regulations “blatantly unfair” and threatening to retaliate with “reciprocal measures” if the IMO approved measures to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. The International Chamber of Shipping welcomed the agreement, saying it would level the playing field and give companies more confidence to decarbonize their fleets. “We are pleased that governments have understood the need to catalyse and support investment in zero-emission fuels, and it will be fundamental to the ultimate success of this IMO agreement that it will quickly deliver at the scale required,” said a statement from Guy Platten, the group’s secretary general. Antonio Santos, federal climate policy director for the nonprofit Pacific Environment, said the agreement was “momentous,” although he shared the disappointment of many small island states over its lack of ambition. “What was agreed to today is the floor,” he told Grist. “It’s lower than we would have wanted, but at least it sets us in a positive direction.” Revisions to the strategy are expected every five years, potentially leading to higher carbon prices and other measures to quicken decarbonization. But Santos said significant additional investment from governments and the private sector will still be needed.  IMO member states will reconvene in October to formally adopt the new regulations. Over the following 16 months, delegates will figure out how to implement the rules before they are finally entered into force in 2027.  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why the shipping industry’s new carbon tax is a big deal — and still not enough on Apr 16, 2025.

Swapping out red meat and creamy pasta sauce could significantly cut household emissions, Australian research finds

Researchers looked at more than 25,000 everyday items available at supermarkets like Aldi, Coles, Woolworths, Harris Farm and IGAGet our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcastSimple grocery swaps – including substituting red meat for chicken or plant-based alternatives, opting for dairy-free milk and yoghurt and choosing fruit toast instead of muffins – could substantially cut household greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found.A report by the George Institute for Global Health found switches could reduce a household’s climate pollution by 6 tonnes a year, which it said was roughly equivalent to the emissions from an average household’s grid-based electricity use.Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter Continue reading...

Simple grocery swaps – including substituting red meat for chicken or plant-based alternatives, opting for dairy-free milk and yoghurt and choosing fruit toast instead of muffins – could substantially cut household greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found.A report by the George Institute for Global Health found switches could reduce a household’s climate pollution by 6 tonnes a year, which it said was roughly equivalent to the emissions from an average household’s grid-based electricity use.Researchers estimated the emissions for more than 25,000 everyday grocery items available at supermarkets including Aldi, Coles, Woolworths, Harris Farm and IGA.They found replacing 1kg of beef mince with chicken each week could cut more than 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, while switching to a meat alternative would save 2.5 tonnes.Switching one creamy pasta sauce to a tomato-based option each week could remove 270kg CO2 over a year.Prof Simone Pettigrew, the George Institute’s head of health promotion and a professor at UNSW Sydney, said food was a necessity that contributed to about 30% of global emissions.“Australians are deeply concerned about the climate, and many people want to do the right thing. But it’s hard to know which products are more sustainable when that information is not available on pack.”While researchers had known for some time that meat was worse in terms of emissions, and that vegetables were better, Pettigrew said there was a “mountain of products that sit in the middle, and they tend to be the types of packaged foods that sit on our supermarket shelves”.To make it easier for consumers, the institute has translated its findings into a “planetary health rating” ranging from 0 (worse for the planet) to 5 stars (better). Individual product ratings are available via a free ecoSwitch app, which also suggests alternatives with lower emissions.If consumers found some swaps too challenging – such as cutting coffee or chocolate – there were plenty of options across other categories like snack bars, pasta sauce or salad dressing, Pettigrew said.“There are quite substantial amounts of difference that people can make through relatively minor switches as part of their grocery shopping.”In Australia, there was currently no requirement for companies to include greenhouse gas emissions information on food labelling, something the George Institute would like to see change.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“In the future, we hope that the data and ratings we use in ecoSwitch could inform a national front-of-pack labelling system to provide more information for all consumers, and to incentivise industry and supermarkets to meet the demand for more sustainable foods.”Research by the Consumer Policy Research Centre previously found nearly half (45%) of Australians considered sustainability “always” or “often” when deciding what to buy.But the centre’s chief executive, Erin Turner, said “greenwashing”, in the form of unsubstantiated, vague or misleading environmental claims, made it more challenging for people to make better choices.“We think about the solution to greenwashing in two ways; you’ve got to get rid of the bad information, and get good quality information in front of people,” she said.Independent, science-backed information – such as the George Institute’s data – was helpful, along with clearer definitions for commonly used terms like compostable, biodegradable and recyclable, she said.“Consumer action does matter, and the choices you make can reduce your individual emissions. But also, we want to think about ways that our systems can encourage companies to do more and do better.”

Green groups sue Trump administration over climate webpage removals

The White House has pulled federal webpages tracking climate and environmental justice dataUS politics live – latest updatesGreen groups have sued the Trump administration over the removal of government webpages containing federal climate and environmental justice data that they described as “tantamount to theft”.In the first weeks of its second term, the Trump administration pulled federal websites tracking shifts in the climate, pollution and extreme weather impacts on low-income communities, and identifying pieces of infrastructure that are extremely vulnerable to climate disasters. Continue reading...

Green groups have sued the Trump administration over the removal of government webpages containing federal climate and environmental justice data that they described as “tantamount to theft”.In the first weeks of its second term, the Trump administration pulled federal websites tracking shifts in the climate, pollution and extreme weather impacts on low-income communities, and identifying pieces of infrastructure that are extremely vulnerable to climate disasters.“The public has a right to access these taxpayer-funded datasets,” said Gretchen Goldman, president of the science advocacy non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “From vital information for communities about their exposure to harmful pollution to data that help local governments build resilience to extreme weather events, the public deserves access to federal datasets.”“Removing government datasets is tantamount to theft,” Goldman added.Filed in a Washington DC district court on Monday, the litigation was brought against federal agencies by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project climate groups; the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen; and the anti-pollution group California Communities Against Toxics.It identifies six crucial government-run sites that have been pulled, arguing they must be restored. They include a Biden-era screening tool created to identify disadvantaged communities that would benefit from federal climate and clean energy investments, and an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mapping tool called EJScreen which showed the disparate burdens of pollution alongside socioeconomic indicators.The lawsuit also highlights the Department of Energy’s map of resources for energy affordability in low-income communities, and a Department of Transportation Equitable Transportation Community interactive map of transportation insecurity, climate risk and economic vulnerability. Another now defunct tool it spotlights: the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s future risk index, meant to help cities, states and businesses prepare for worsening extreme weather, which was re-created by the Guardian last month.“Simply put, these data and tools save lives, and efforts to delete, unpublish or in any way remove them jeopardize people’s ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live safe and healthy lives,” said Ben Jealous, executive director of Sierra Club.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to This Week in TrumplandA deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administrationPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThough publications including the Guardian, as well as advocacy groups, have published some recently pulled datasets on newly created webpages, in the absence of resources to continue gathering and publicizing new data, these datasets cannot be updated.Last month, groups also sued the Trump administration over the US Department of Agriculture’s removal of climate data.The lawsuit comes as federal officials also fire swaths of federal employees working on climate, environmental and justice-related initiatives, and enact sweeping rollbacks of green policies and regulations.“The removal of these websites and the critical data they hold is yet another direct attack on the communities already suffering under the weight of deadly air and water,” said Jealous.The EPA, one of the agencies named in the suit, declined to comment on the litigation.

There Is No Such Thing as a Climate Haven

Climate change is everywhere. Moving to a new place because it seems less affected is a fool’s errand

There Is No Such Thing as a Climate HavenClimate change is everywhere. Moving to a new place because it seems less affected is a fool’s errandBy The Editors In September 2024 Hurricane Helene flooded the mountain town of Asheville, N.C., which had once been called a climate haven, a place less prone to the toll of climate change. In March 2025 fires coursed throughout the state. Fires also claimed Myrtle Beach, on the South Carolina coast. From sea to sky, the Carolinas have been grappling with disaster.All the while, people make lists of places in the U.S. that are supposedly more resistant to climate change. They lie farther north, presumed to be better insulated from global warming, or near rivers or lakes that would ballast drought. Buffalo, N.Y., Ann Arbor, Mich., Burlington, Vt. Not to mention Asheville.But what befell Asheville illustrates how no place in the U.S.—in the world, really—is safe from the ravages of the climate crisis. There are no climate havens. Places touted as less prone to heat, such as Asheville, are subject to floods and more intense snowfall. Those close to water face rising sea levels or floods. Population growth would strain water supplies, eventually spoiling these places as the rest of the country continues to endure more intense wildfires, more destructive hurricanes and tornadoes, prolonged droughts, and intensifying heat waves. There is nowhere to run to get away from climate change.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Earth’s temperature is increasing, polar ice is melting, and the northern U.S. is seeing summer heat like never before. Winter freezes are crippling the power grid in Texas and other southern regions. Migration is not a quick fix for the climate crisis, and it certainly isn’t the most equitable. We must recognize that in addition to curbing our fossil-fuel use, adequately fortifying and restructuring the spaces we already have will give us and the next generations the best possible chance of survival.How every level of government chooses to respond to this crisis will matter.First and foremost, we need governance at all levels to accept not only that climate change is real but that it is something we must both adapt to and mitigate. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive—choosing adaptation, or changing our local environments to make them more resilient to climate change, doesn’t mean we no longer try to slow that change.Perhaps on top of its favorable location and weather, Asheville was considered a climate haven because its local government has accepted the reality of climate change. Before the floods came, the city had approved its Municipal Climate Action Plan, setting goals for renewable energy, more sustainable infrastructure and reduced waste production in the city. The plan states that one of its goals is an increase in renewable energy generation, including the use of solar panels to power city-owned properties and adherence to sustainable practices for new construction and retrofits. But with the loss of tree cover and the demands of a growing population making Asheville more vulnerable to landslides, the city will have to continue to adjust—as will the state, which has its own climate resiliency plan.But will North Carolina be able to use disaster relief to push through a sustainable recovery under threat from the politicization of climate change? The state’s resiliency office is underfunded even though the new governor, Josh Stein, campaigned in part on building a state better able to withstand the effects of climate change. It’s not immediately clear how his slew of disaster-related executive orders about temporary housing and rebuilding roads and bridges will factor into adaptation efforts.What is clear is that the idea that people will be able to up and move to some cities or states that seem more able to withstand our climate crisis is profoundly unjust. The median home price in Washtenaw County, Michigan, where Ann Arbor is located, is about $380,000. That makes it the second-most expensive county in the state. Other Michigan counties are significantly cheaper, but few are prepared, or even preparing, for permanent population increases. Winter is getting shorter along the Great Lakes, and not only is flooding becoming more of an issue, but the weather is getting hotter. Even housing prices in Buffalo are increasing.The bottom line is that historically mild weather, historically agreeable climates and historically responsive governments have made some places in the U.S. seemingly more resistant to the effects of climate change. But the crisis knows no boundaries—Canadian wildfires blew smoke into New York City last summer and blanketed Buffalo the year before. Even adaptation won’t completely solve the problem.In the end, how every level of government chooses to respond to this crisis will matter. Individual cities can’t manage this problem alone, and neither can states. How will cities such as Austin, Tex., make meaningful adaptations in one of the U.S. states most susceptible to global warming if its governor and legislature largely downplay climate concerns and actively thwart efforts to reduce fossil-fuel use? Texas’s water supply is in dire straits, and far too many people there and in places such as Arizona will be left behind in this great migration north.And how will we fare as a nation under an administration that denies climate change is real? One that is actively rolling back environmental protections, throwing out environmental justice cases, and promoting the production of more and more fossil fuels?The idea that any one place in any nation is more resistant or more resilient to forces that are global in nature is clever marketing and nothing else. The message might make people feel better by letting them believe they can just escape the climate crisis by moving to a different city, but this is a bill of goods. Our entire planet is in the throes of warming. Rather than trying to outrun it, we must demand leadership that will help fund our efforts to adapt, look to state and local leaders to make those adaptation plans reality, and continue to seek ways to change the very things that started this climate-haven conversation in the first place—burning fossil fuels and abusing our forests, farmlands and good fortune.

Suggested Viewing

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.