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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Coalition scores just 1/100 points for environment and climate policies from conservation organisation

News Feed
Monday, April 14, 2025

One of Australia’s largest conservation organisations has awarded the federal Coalition just 1 out of 100 for its environment and climate change policies – the lowest score it has given the Liberal and National parties in more than 20 years of compiling pre-election scorecards.Labor scraped through with a pass – on 54% – while the Greens achieved 98%, according to the scorecard, which ranked the major parties and key independents on their policies for protecting nature, championing renewable energy, and rejecting nuclear and fossil fuels.The Australian Conservation Foundation’s chief executive, Kelly O’Shanassy, said the Coalition’s “woeful” score reflected its support for “expensive and risky” energy sources like nuclear and polluting gas.“They’ve failed every single test,” she said, adding that the Liberal and National parties wanted to cut environmental protection at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.O’Shanassy said Australians “really cared about nature and a safe climate”, issues that had barely been mentioned during the election campaign, despite major differences between Labor and the Coalition.Labor was “halfway there”, she said, thanks to support for renewable energy – including an 82% target and a home battery subsidy – and its rejection of nuclear power. But the party had lost points for weakening nature protection laws and for continuing to approve new coal and gas mines.Labor was sharply criticised by ACF and other conservation organisations in the last term of parliament after Anthony Albanese intervened to shelve legislation to create a national Environment Protection Agency after a backlash from Western Australia. Labor and the Coalition then voted together to protect salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour from a legal challenge.Labor has legislated national emissions reduction targets – a 43% cut compared with 2005 levels – which the Coalition has pledged to review.The Coalition’s single point was awarded for its acknowledgment of concerns that Aukus could leave the door open to Australia accepting high-level nuclear waste from overseas.The Greens and several community independents – including Andrew Wilkie, Caz Heise, Monique Ryan, Nicolette Boele, and Zali Steggall – all scored above 90% for policies that championed renewables, protected nature and opposed nuclear energy and new fossil fuels.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 promotionProf Lesley Hughes, a biologist and climate change specialist at Macquarie University who was not involved with the scorecard, said the Coalition’s low score was “absolutely deserved”.“The Coalition has voted against all policies in the recent term that aim to reduce emissions, and has promised, if elected, to roll back things like fuel standards and weaken the safeguard mechanism,” she said, adding that its support for nuclear energy had been thoroughly discredited.But she said the scorecard, like others – including one recently published by the Climate Council – also showed that “Labor still has a way to go”.The Labor government had “bowed under pressure from the fossil fuel lobby”, she said, and had ignored the wishes of most of the Australian population to better protect biodiversity and step up climate action.“In the next term, we need to see the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act finally reformed so it does its job properly. And we need to see steps to a serious transition out of fossil fuel exports,” Hughes said.“We also need to see an end to the billions of dollars of taxpayers money going to prop up the fossil fuel industry – let’s spend that money on nature instead.”

Australian Conservation Foundation says opposition has ‘failed every single test’ while Labor passes with 54% and Greens achieve 98%Polls tracker; election guide; full federal election coverageAnywhere but Canberra; interactive electorates guideListen to the first episode of our new narrative podcast series: GinaGet our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcastOne of Australia’s largest conservation organisations has awarded the federal Coalition just 1 out of 100 for its environment and climate change policies – the lowest score it has given the Liberal and National parties in more than 20 years of compiling pre-election scorecards.Labor scraped through with a pass – on 54% – while the Greens achieved 98%, according to the scorecard, which ranked the major parties and key independents on their policies for protecting nature, championing renewable energy, and rejecting nuclear and fossil fuels.Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter Continue reading...

One of Australia’s largest conservation organisations has awarded the federal Coalition just 1 out of 100 for its environment and climate change policies – the lowest score it has given the Liberal and National parties in more than 20 years of compiling pre-election scorecards.

Labor scraped through with a pass – on 54% – while the Greens achieved 98%, according to the scorecard, which ranked the major parties and key independents on their policies for protecting nature, championing renewable energy, and rejecting nuclear and fossil fuels.

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s chief executive, Kelly O’Shanassy, said the Coalition’s “woeful” score reflected its support for “expensive and risky” energy sources like nuclear and polluting gas.

“They’ve failed every single test,” she said, adding that the Liberal and National parties wanted to cut environmental protection at the behest of the fossil fuel industry.

O’Shanassy said Australians “really cared about nature and a safe climate”, issues that had barely been mentioned during the election campaign, despite major differences between Labor and the Coalition.

Labor was “halfway there”, she said, thanks to support for renewable energy – including an 82% target and a home battery subsidy – and its rejection of nuclear power. But the party had lost points for weakening nature protection laws and for continuing to approve new coal and gas mines.

Labor was sharply criticised by ACF and other conservation organisations in the last term of parliament after Anthony Albanese intervened to shelve legislation to create a national Environment Protection Agency after a backlash from Western Australia. Labor and the Coalition then voted together to protect salmon farming in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour from a legal challenge.

Labor has legislated national emissions reduction targets – a 43% cut compared with 2005 levels – which the Coalition has pledged to review.

The Coalition’s single point was awarded for its acknowledgment of concerns that Aukus could leave the door open to Australia accepting high-level nuclear waste from overseas.

The Greens and several community independents – including Andrew Wilkie, Caz Heise, Monique Ryan, Nicolette Boele, and Zali Steggall – all scored above 90% for policies that championed renewables, protected nature and opposed nuclear energy and new fossil fuels.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Prof Lesley Hughes, a biologist and climate change specialist at Macquarie University who was not involved with the scorecard, said the Coalition’s low score was “absolutely deserved”.

“The Coalition has voted against all policies in the recent term that aim to reduce emissions, and has promised, if elected, to roll back things like fuel standards and weaken the safeguard mechanism,” she said, adding that its support for nuclear energy had been thoroughly discredited.

But she said the scorecard, like others – including one recently published by the Climate Council – also showed that “Labor still has a way to go”.

The Labor government had “bowed under pressure from the fossil fuel lobby”, she said, and had ignored the wishes of most of the Australian population to better protect biodiversity and step up climate action.

“In the next term, we need to see the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act finally reformed so it does its job properly. And we need to see steps to a serious transition out of fossil fuel exports,” Hughes said.

“We also need to see an end to the billions of dollars of taxpayers money going to prop up the fossil fuel industry – let’s spend that money on nature instead.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

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.

Climate
Energy
Food

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.”

Climate
Health
Pollution

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.

Climate
Government
Pollution

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.

Climate
Crisis
Forests

Looking to create effective climate change policy? Ask the community.

In Seattle, community assemblies are gathering frontline community members to set their own policies around extreme weather.

For Peter Hasegawa, it all started with the heat dome. The labor organizer remembers the 2021 extreme heat event that killed more than 400 people in the state of Washington. That disaster woke up residents and union members to how deadly climate change can be. Although Seattle had passed climate action legislation in 2019, it became clear to Hasegawa and the union members he represented that even though the city was preparing to wean itself off fossil fuels, it was still ill-prepared to deal with the impacts of a warming planet. This led Hasegawa last fall to South Seattle College, the setting for MLK Labor’s community assembly on extreme weather and worker rights. One October evening, a lecture hall filled with union workers, including teachers, firefighters, home health care workers, postal workers, and more, ready to try out the Community Assembly model. Community Assemblies are participatory spaces where people come together to learn, deliberate, and make collective decisions on programs and policies that influence the actions of government and community action. Hasegawa watched closely as the assembly unfolded. After years of making policy for communities of color, workers, and other communities on the frontlines of climate change, lawmakers and city officials are now shifting towards making policies with constituents — particularly those who historically have been harmed by local policy. In Seattle, these Community Assemblies are part of a pilot program in partnership with the City of Seattle — one of the latest efforts in a larger trend of more inclusive governance around climate change. In that room, 50 union members came together for three assembly sessions over three weeks to test a new tool for co-governance. Members of the community assembly that was led by MLK Labor. MLK Labor Assemblies have been implemented across the U.S. and around the world, including in Hawai’i after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; in Jackson, Miss., to bring community-based perspectives into the city’s contracting process; and in the Bronx, N.Y., to advocate for stronger policies on housing, economic inequality, and health. While not government-funded or directly initiated with officials, these assemblies create opportunities for deeper collaboration between communities and policymakers.  “This is a model that has always existed — the assembly, a deep form of engagement — and it exists across the globe in different variations, demonstrating how structured public participation can inform policies and decisions that directly impact people’s lives,” said Faduma Fido, Lab Leader with Seattle partner organization People’s Economy Lab.  One thing that distinguishes Washington’s Community Assemblies is that they’re funded by government entities.MLK Labor’s assembly, along with an assembly led by the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, were funded by the City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment in partnership with Seattle’s Green New Deal Oversight Board. The oversight board will use recommendations from community assemblies to inform Seattle’s Climate Action Plan update and future climate policies and priorities. With all of this in mind, it was important for the sustainability office and the oversight board to wisely choose the organizations that would lead these community assemblies. The Green New Deal legislation funded this program with $100,000 set aside to invest in participatory decision-making.  Members of the community assembly that was led by the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle. Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle Choosing MLK Labor and the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle came after lengthy research, according to Elise Rasmussen, Climate and Environmental Justice Associate at Seattle’s sustainability office. Most importantly, both organizations prioritized communities disproportionately affected by climate change. For MLK Labor’s Community Assembly, this included individual union members who had voiced past concerns about climate change and workers in roles that would put them in the path of extreme weather events. For the Urban League’s, which was focused on community resilience in the face of climate change, participants were chosen for their connection and lived experience to climate change and equity. This group included 25 members from Indigenous communities, as well as other communities of color, immigrants, unhoused people, elders, and youth who were engaged in efforts to fight climate change locally.  In the South Seattle College lecture hall, Hasegawa saw the type of camaraderie common in unions, but this time solidarity formed around facing climate change. “People found that they were not alone in having to deal with extreme weather,” he said, “and [workers were] not being given the tools or the protections from their managers to do what they needed to do.” Firefighters talked about having to work in extreme heat, home health care workers described elderly and vulnerable patients struggling without air conditioning, and teachers detailed sweaty days in classrooms, burst pipes, and mold.  Members of the MLK Labor community assembly in a working group on extreme weather and worker rights. MLK Labor The point, according to Fido, is to ensure that no one gets left behind in Seattle’s climate planning. Community Assemblies are a way for frontline community members to share their experiences and expertise, discuss issues and collaborate on solutions, and make their voices heard through policy recommendations. And community assemblies are gaining traction throughout the state. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services is also funding a series of Community Assembly pilots.  Longtime organizer Rosalinda Guillen had advocated for the model locally, after working with numerous farmworker organizations and advocates from Washington State to South America. She was a community organizer with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, helping organize the first farmworker union in the state’s history. “Every state agency needs to replace their community engagement plan with the community assembly model,” Guillen said on a 2023 panel.  Another goal of Community Assemblies is to support Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities to participate more fully in the process of policymaking. “We’re working with frontline communities to be able to build and sustain a civic muscle where they are active participants in the conversation of better policies, better investments, and more targeted programming,” said Fido.  Members of the Urban League community assembly in a working group on community resilience to climate change. Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle For Camille Gipaya, the process has already had immediate, visible effects. Gipaya is a community outreach organizer at the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle. While the issues their assembly addressed were broad — food and water, land use, pollution, and redlining — she says that bringing people together has very literally changed how they show up. “We [went] to Olympia [to] talk to legislators, and we had individuals that we met at the Community Assembly that were there who were not interested in talking to politicians beforehand, but [then] they felt empowered to be more engaged,” she said.  Using this model is important to Gipaya, because it prioritizes the communal lived experiences of people who will be most affected by climate change. Instead of trying other methods to determine the best way forward, this initiative simply asks people to determine the best path themselves. “When looking at policy, it has to be more than just data and numbers,” she said. “Oftentimes, having seen [how policy has worked] in the past, we really have to connect with community members. We cannot afford to be disconnected with frontline communities.” This story was produced in partnership with Communities of Opportunity, a growing partnership that believes every community can be a healthy, thriving community. Communities of Opportunity is a unique community-private foundation-government partnership that invests in the power of communities in King County, Washington. LEARN MORE This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Looking to create effective climate change policy? Ask the community. on Apr 15, 2025.

Climate
Food
Health

Suggested Viewing

Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?

"Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?" is an entertaining and educational short film. Rachel and her remarkable robot companion, Rex, witness the dire consequences of climate change through news reports of devastating natural disasters. When Rex encounters an alien emissary, he embarks on a journey to a ruined world where pollution and climate change led to the collapse of an entire civilization. Returning to Earth the three main causes of global warming are reveal—electricity production, transportation, and wasteful agriculture—and stress the importance of transitioning to clean energy sources, electric transport, and hydroponic farming. Rex takes on the mission of educating robots and humans alike about combating climate change. The film ends with a global commitment to address the crisis and a poignant celebration of Rex's role in this vital endeavor, reminding us of the urgency to protect our planet from climate catastrophe.

Conservation
Education
Climate

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

THE WATER WILL TAKE US

This film tells the story of the victims of the flood of 2019 in Iran, which happened in the three provinces of North, Central and South of the country and left a lot of damages. The main narrators are three women who reveal the causes of this incident and mismanagements and tell the story of the people who were left to fend for themselves during the flood and after.

Water
Social Justice
Climate

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

Reboot

Humans have exploited Earth to the point where it is no longer possible to live on it. Their only option is to relocate to Mars. When the last group of people has boarded the spaceship for the red planet, the Earth can finally breathe easy. Like an expressionist painting, Reboot depicts a world in which the absence of our species is the only chance nature has to recover its lushness and flourish once more.

Animation
Crisis
Cosmos

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.