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

Eleven Organizations to Support if You Care About Climate Change

News Feed
Wednesday, December 11, 2024

This story was originally published by Vox.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. If you’re reading this, chances are you care a lot about fighting climate change, and that’s great. The climate emergency threatens all of humanity. And although the world has started to make some progress on it, our global response is still extremely lacking. The trouble is, it can be genuinely hard to figure out how to direct your money wisely if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a glut of environmental organizations out there—but how do you know which are the most impactful? To help, here’s a list of 11 of the most high-impact, cost-effective, and evidence-based organizations. We’re not including bigger-name groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, or the Natural Resources Defense Council, because most big organizations are already relatively well-funded. The groups we list below seem to be doing something especially promising in the light of criteria that matter for effectiveness: importance, tractability, and neglectedness. Important targets for change are ones that drive a big portion of global emissions. Tractable problems are ones where we can actually make progress right now. And neglected problems are ones that aren’t already getting a big influx of cash from other sources like the government or philanthropy, and could really use money from smaller donors. Founders Pledge, an organization that guides entrepreneurs committed to donating a portion of their proceeds to effective charities, and Giving Green, a climate charity evaluator, used these criteria to assess climate organizations. Their research informed the list below. As in the Founders Pledge and Giving Green recommendations, we’ve chosen to look at groups focused on mitigation (tackling the root causes of climate change by reducing emissions) rather than adaptation (decreasing the suffering from the impacts of climate change). Both are important, but the focus here is preventing further catastrophe. Arguably the best move is to donate not to an individual charity, but to a fund—like the Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund or the Giving Green Fund. Experts at those groups pool together donor money and give it out to the charities they deem most effective, right when extra funding is most needed. That can mean making time-sensitive grants to promote the writing of an important report, or stepping in when a charity becomes acutely funding-constrained. That said, some of us like to be able to decide exactly which charity our money ends up with—maybe because we have especially high confidence in one or two charities relative to the others—rather than letting experts split the cash over a range of different groups. With that in mind, we’re listing below the individual organizations where your money is likely to have an exceptionally positive impact. Clean Air Task Force What it does: The Clean Air Task Force is a US-based non-governmental organization that has been working to reduce air pollution since its founding in 1996. It led a successful campaign to reduce the pollution caused by coal-fired power plants in the US, helped limit the US power sector’s CO2 emissions, and helped establish regulations of diesel, shipping, and methane emissions. CATF also advocates for the adoption of neglected low- and zero-carbon technologies, from advanced nuclear power to super-hot rock geothermal energy. Why you should consider donating: In addition to its seriously impressive record of success and the high quality of its research, CATF does well on the neglectedness criterion: It often concentrates on targeting emissions sources that are neglected by other environmental organizations, and on scaling up deployment of technologies that are crucial for decarbonization, yet passed over by NGOs and governments. For example, it was one of the first major environmental groups to publicly campaign against overlooked superpollutants like methane. More recently, CATF has been expanding beyond the US to operate in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. This is crucial: About 35 percent of climate philanthropy goes to the US and about 10 percent to Europe, which together represent only about 15 percent of future emissions, according to Founders Pledge. This is part of why Founders Pledge is supporting CATF’s efforts to globalize and recommends giving to that organization. CATF is also one of Giving Green’s top picks. Future Cleantech Architects What it does: This Germany-based organization is relatively young. Its aim is to promote innovation in Europe’s hard-to-decarbonize sectors by running key programs in, for example, zero-carbon fuels, industry, and carbon removal technologies. Why you should consider donating: You might be wondering if this kind of innovation really meets the “neglectedness” criterion—don’t we already have a lot of innovation? In the US, yes. But in Europe, this kind of organization is much rarer. And according to Founders Pledge, it’s already exceeded expectations at improving the European climate policy response. Most notably, it has helped shape key legislation at the EU level and advised policymakers on how to get the most bang for their buck when supporting research and development for clean energy tech. As of 2024, Giving Green recommends this organization, too. You can donate to Future Cleantech Architects here. Good Food Institute What it does: The Good Food Institute works to make alternative proteins (think plant-based burgers) competitive with conventional proteins like beef, which could help reduce livestock consumption. It engages in scientific research, industry partnerships, and government advocacy that improves the odds of alternative proteins going mainstream. Why you should consider donating: Raising animals for meat is responsible for at least 10 percent of global emissions. These animals belch the superpollutant methane. Plus, we humans tend to deforest a lot of land for them to graze on, even though we all know the world needs more trees, not less. Yet there hasn’t been very much government effort to substantially cut agricultural emissions. Giving Green recommends the Good Food Institute because of its potential to help with that, noting, “GFI added significant wins to its track record in 2024. Highlights include its partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund to unlock $100 million of funding for three global alternative protein research centers, engagement with Singapore’s Islamic council on the first-ever authoritative ruling that cultivated meat can be halal, and opening GFI’s newest office in Japan.” Industrious Labs What it does: This is a newish organization with one clear goal: helping global “heavy industry”—think steel and cement—go green. Through advocacy, Industrious Labs pushes corporations to make low-carbon commitments, and pushes governments to make sure that regulations and public funding are in place to accelerate the transition. Why you should consider donating: Steel and cement are “can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em” kind of industries. We need them to build, yet they account for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. And these industries are bizarrely neglected by both government and philanthropy. Helping them go green could make a big difference, which is why Giving Green recommends Industrious Labs. You can donate to Industrious Labs here. DEPLOY/US What it does: This nonpartisan nonprofit works with American conservatives—yes, you read that right—to enact decarbonization policies, with the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. DEPLOY/US partners with philanthropic, business, military, faith, youth, policy, and grassroots organizations to shape a decarbonization strategy and generate policy change. Why you should consider donating: In case you haven’t heard of the eco-right, it’s important to know that there are genuine right-of-center climate groups that want to build support for decarbonization based on conservative principles. These groups have a crucial role to play; they can weaken political polarization around climate and increase Republican support for bold decarbonization policies, which will be especially important with Republicans moving into the White House soon. Right now, these groups are incredibly underfunded. Founders Pledge recommends donating to DEPLOY/US because it’s uniquely positioned to insulate climate policy against the shifting winds of politics. Energy for Growth Hub What it does: Founded by Todd Moss in 2013, Energy for Growth Hub aims to make electricity reliable and affordable for everyone. The organization hopes to end energy poverty through climate-friendly solutions. Why you should consider donating: While Energy for Growth Hub is not a strictly climate-focused organization—ending energy poverty is its main goal—it’s still a leader in the clean energy space. The organization will use your donation to fund projects that produce insight for companies and policymakers on how to create the energy-rich, climate-friendly future they’re dreaming of. You can donate to Energy for Growth Hub here. Project InnerSpace What it does: This US-based nonprofit hopes to unlock the power of heat—geothermal energy—lying beneath the Earth’s surface. Launched in 2022, Project InnerSpace seeks to expand global access to carbon-free heat and electricity, particularly to populations in the Global South. The organization maps geothermal resources and identifies geothermal projects in need of further funding. Why you should consider donating: Most geothermal power plants are located in places where geothermal energy is close to the Earth’s surface. Project InnerSpace will use your donation to better map geothermal energy hot spots and to drive geothermal energy costs down. You can donate to Project InnerSpace here. Opportunity Green What it does: Opportunity Green aims to cut aviation and maritime shipping emissions through targeted regulation and policy initiatives. The UK-based nonprofit was founded in 2021, and since then has aimed to encourage private sector adoption of clean energy alternatives. Why you should consider donating: As a newer organization, Opportunity Green is still growing and could use your donation to increase its staff, including bringing on senior lawyers who can help fight for its proposed policy initiatives. “We are especially excited about Opportunity Green’s efforts to elevate climate-vulnerable countries in policy discussions, as we think this could improve the inclusivity of the process and the ambition level of policies,” Giving Green notes. You can donate to Opportunity Green here. Carbon-Free Europe What it does: This European initiative researches the tradeoffs of various net-zero strategies and advocates for technology-inclusive climate policy to get governments on track to meet decarbonization goals by 2050. Why you should consider donating: With a Republican trifecta in power, climate policy in the United States is likely to be stunted to some degree in the coming years. Europe is a key area for global decarbonization efforts, and while recent European Parliamentary elections have also shifted towards the right, diversifying where your money goes can help ensure progress is made and defended in other critical regions. CFE in particular also produces an Annual Decarbonization Perspective, which analyzes the costs of different net-zero emission strategies across the EU and the UK—an insightful tool policymakers can use to make evidence-based decisions. You can donate to Carbon-Free Europe by clicking here and designating “Carbon-Free Europe.” Quantified Carbon What it does: Quantified Carbon is an international consultancy firm that supplies analysis and solutions towards decarbonization, with a particular expertise in energy systems and industrial transitions. Why you should consider donating: The firm leads and manages Repower, an initiative that is working on repowering existing coal plants. They’re working with local teams in places where this work is needed most (like parts of Asia where coal-powered units have been built in recent years), and providing a techno-economic analysis to help retrofit these plants with clean heat sources. Founders Pledge recommends donating to Quantified Carbon for this critical work on transitions in the energy industry. You can donate to Quantified Carbon here. WePlanet What it does: WePlanet is a young, international grassroots organization that’s building support for nuclear energy, gene-edited crops, and lab-grown meat, all of which are nontraditional priorities for the climate movement space. Why you should consider donating: Making progress relies in large part on the strength and persuasion of on-the-ground, people-led movements, especially for a challenge as great as climate change — and WePlanet is doing that work. In just a few years, they’ve put down roots across four continents, which explains why Founders Pledge recommends donating to WePlanet for their savviness in movement-building. They also focus on climate solutions that the environmental movement has historically turned away from, meaning they’re working on ideas that have long been neglected. You can donate to WePlanet here.

This story was originally published by Vox.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. If you’re reading this, chances are you care a lot about fighting climate change, and that’s great. The climate emergency threatens all of humanity. And although the world has started to make some progress on it, our global response is still extremely lacking. […]

This story was originally published by Vox.com and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

If you’re reading this, chances are you care a lot about fighting climate change, and that’s great. The climate emergency threatens all of humanity. And although the world has started to make some progress on it, our global response is still extremely lacking.

The trouble is, it can be genuinely hard to figure out how to direct your money wisely if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a glut of environmental organizations out there—but how do you know which are the most impactful?

To help, here’s a list of 11 of the most high-impact, cost-effective, and evidence-based organizations. We’re not including bigger-name groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, or the Natural Resources Defense Council, because most big organizations are already relatively well-funded.

The groups we list below seem to be doing something especially promising in the light of criteria that matter for effectiveness: importance, tractability, and neglectedness.

Important targets for change are ones that drive a big portion of global emissions. Tractable problems are ones where we can actually make progress right now. And neglected problems are ones that aren’t already getting a big influx of cash from other sources like the government or philanthropy, and could really use money from smaller donors.

Founders Pledge, an organization that guides entrepreneurs committed to donating a portion of their proceeds to effective charities, and Giving Green, a climate charity evaluator, used these criteria to assess climate organizations. Their research informed the list below. As in the Founders Pledge and Giving Green recommendations, we’ve chosen to look at groups focused on mitigation (tackling the root causes of climate change by reducing emissions) rather than adaptation (decreasing the suffering from the impacts of climate change). Both are important, but the focus here is preventing further catastrophe.

Arguably the best move is to donate not to an individual charity, but to a fund—like the Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund or the Giving Green Fund. Experts at those groups pool together donor money and give it out to the charities they deem most effective, right when extra funding is most needed. That can mean making time-sensitive grants to promote the writing of an important report, or stepping in when a charity becomes acutely funding-constrained.

That said, some of us like to be able to decide exactly which charity our money ends up with—maybe because we have especially high confidence in one or two charities relative to the others—rather than letting experts split the cash over a range of different groups.

With that in mind, we’re listing below the individual organizations where your money is likely to have an exceptionally positive impact.

Clean Air Task Force

What it does: The Clean Air Task Force is a US-based non-governmental organization that has been working to reduce air pollution since its founding in 1996. It led a successful campaign to reduce the pollution caused by coal-fired power plants in the US, helped limit the US power sector’s CO2 emissions, and helped establish regulations of diesel, shipping, and methane emissions. CATF also advocates for the adoption of neglected low- and zero-carbon technologies, from advanced nuclear power to super-hot rock geothermal energy.

Why you should consider donating: In addition to its seriously impressive record of success and the high quality of its research, CATF does well on the neglectedness criterion: It often concentrates on targeting emissions sources that are neglected by other environmental organizations, and on scaling up deployment of technologies that are crucial for decarbonization, yet passed over by NGOs and governments. For example, it was one of the first major environmental groups to publicly campaign against overlooked superpollutants like methane.

More recently, CATF has been expanding beyond the US to operate in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. This is crucial: About 35 percent of climate philanthropy goes to the US and about 10 percent to Europe, which together represent only about 15 percent of future emissions, according to Founders Pledge. This is part of why Founders Pledge is supporting CATF’s efforts to globalize and recommends giving to that organization. CATF is also one of Giving Green’s top picks.

Future Cleantech Architects

What it does: This Germany-based organization is relatively young. Its aim is to promote innovation in Europe’s hard-to-decarbonize sectors by running key programs in, for example, zero-carbon fuels, industry, and carbon removal technologies.

Why you should consider donating: You might be wondering if this kind of innovation really meets the “neglectedness” criterion—don’t we already have a lot of innovation? In the US, yes. But in Europe, this kind of organization is much rarer. And according to Founders Pledge, it’s already exceeded expectations at improving the European climate policy response. Most notably, it has helped shape key legislation at the EU level and advised policymakers on how to get the most bang for their buck when supporting research and development for clean energy tech. As of 2024, Giving Green recommends this organization, too.

You can donate to Future Cleantech Architects here.

Good Food Institute

What it does: The Good Food Institute works to make alternative proteins (think plant-based burgers) competitive with conventional proteins like beef, which could help reduce livestock consumption. It engages in scientific research, industry partnerships, and government advocacy that improves the odds of alternative proteins going mainstream.

Why you should consider donating: Raising animals for meat is responsible for at least 10 percent of global emissions. These animals belch the superpollutant methane. Plus, we humans tend to deforest a lot of land for them to graze on, even though we all know the world needs more trees, not less. Yet there hasn’t been very much government effort to substantially cut agricultural emissions. Giving Green recommends the Good Food Institute because of its potential to help with that, noting, “GFI added significant wins to its track record in 2024. Highlights include its partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund to unlock $100 million of funding for three global alternative protein research centers, engagement with Singapore’s Islamic council on the first-ever authoritative ruling that cultivated meat can be halal, and opening GFI’s newest office in Japan.”

Industrious Labs

What it does: This is a newish organization with one clear goal: helping global “heavy industry”—think steel and cement—go green. Through advocacy, Industrious Labs pushes corporations to make low-carbon commitments, and pushes governments to make sure that regulations and public funding are in place to accelerate the transition.

Why you should consider donating: Steel and cement are “can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em” kind of industries. We need them to build, yet they account for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. And these industries are bizarrely neglected by both government and philanthropy. Helping them go green could make a big difference, which is why Giving Green recommends Industrious Labs.

You can donate to Industrious Labs here.

DEPLOY/US

What it does: This nonpartisan nonprofit works with American conservatives—yes, you read that right—to enact decarbonization policies, with the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. DEPLOY/US partners with philanthropic, business, military, faith, youth, policy, and grassroots organizations to shape a decarbonization strategy and generate policy change.

Why you should consider donating: In case you haven’t heard of the eco-right, it’s important to know that there are genuine right-of-center climate groups that want to build support for decarbonization based on conservative principles. These groups have a crucial role to play; they can weaken political polarization around climate and increase Republican support for bold decarbonization policies, which will be especially important with Republicans moving into the White House soon. Right now, these groups are incredibly underfunded. Founders Pledge recommends donating to DEPLOY/US because it’s uniquely positioned to insulate climate policy against the shifting winds of politics.

Energy for Growth Hub

What it does: Founded by Todd Moss in 2013, Energy for Growth Hub aims to make electricity reliable and affordable for everyone. The organization hopes to end energy poverty through climate-friendly solutions.

Why you should consider donating: While Energy for Growth Hub is not a strictly climate-focused organization—ending energy poverty is its main goal—it’s still a leader in the clean energy space. The organization will use your donation to fund projects that produce insight for companies and policymakers on how to create the energy-rich, climate-friendly future they’re dreaming of.

You can donate to Energy for Growth Hub here.

Project InnerSpace

What it does: This US-based nonprofit hopes to unlock the power of heat—geothermal energy—lying beneath the Earth’s surface. Launched in 2022, Project InnerSpace seeks to expand global access to carbon-free heat and electricity, particularly to populations in the Global South. The organization maps geothermal resources and identifies geothermal projects in need of further funding.

Why you should consider donating: Most geothermal power plants are located in places where geothermal energy is close to the Earth’s surface. Project InnerSpace will use your donation to better map geothermal energy hot spots and to drive geothermal energy costs down.

You can donate to Project InnerSpace here.

Opportunity Green

What it does: Opportunity Green aims to cut aviation and maritime shipping emissions through targeted regulation and policy initiatives. The UK-based nonprofit was founded in 2021, and since then has aimed to encourage private sector adoption of clean energy alternatives.

Why you should consider donating: As a newer organization, Opportunity Green is still growing and could use your donation to increase its staff, including bringing on senior lawyers who can help fight for its proposed policy initiatives. “We are especially excited about Opportunity Green’s efforts to elevate climate-vulnerable countries in policy discussions, as we think this could improve the inclusivity of the process and the ambition level of policies,” Giving Green notes.

You can donate to Opportunity Green here.

Carbon-Free Europe

What it does: This European initiative researches the tradeoffs of various net-zero strategies and advocates for technology-inclusive climate policy to get governments on track to meet decarbonization goals by 2050.

Why you should consider donating: With a Republican trifecta in power, climate policy in the United States is likely to be stunted to some degree in the coming years. Europe is a key area for global decarbonization efforts, and while recent European Parliamentary elections have also shifted towards the right, diversifying where your money goes can help ensure progress is made and defended in other critical regions.

CFE in particular also produces an Annual Decarbonization Perspective, which analyzes the costs of different net-zero emission strategies across the EU and the UK—an insightful tool policymakers can use to make evidence-based decisions.

You can donate to Carbon-Free Europe by clicking here and designating “Carbon-Free Europe.”

Quantified Carbon

What it does: Quantified Carbon is an international consultancy firm that supplies analysis and solutions towards decarbonization, with a particular expertise in energy systems and industrial transitions.

Why you should consider donating: The firm leads and manages Repower, an initiative that is working on repowering existing coal plants. They’re working with local teams in places where this work is needed most (like parts of Asia where coal-powered units have been built in recent years), and providing a techno-economic analysis to help retrofit these plants with clean heat sources. Founders Pledge recommends donating to Quantified Carbon for this critical work on transitions in the energy industry.

You can donate to Quantified Carbon here.

WePlanet

What it does: WePlanet is a young, international grassroots organization that’s building support for nuclear energy, gene-edited crops, and lab-grown meat, all of which are nontraditional priorities for the climate movement space.

Why you should consider donating: Making progress relies in large part on the strength and persuasion of on-the-ground, people-led movements, especially for a challenge as great as climate change — and WePlanet is doing that work. In just a few years, they’ve put down roots across four continents, which explains why Founders Pledge recommends donating to WePlanet for their savviness in movement-building. They also focus on climate solutions that the environmental movement has historically turned away from, meaning they’re working on ideas that have long been neglected.

You can donate to WePlanet here.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

2024 was the hottest year on record, NASA and NOAA confirm

Weather organizations from around the world agree that the planet's average global surface temperature in 2024 could well have passed a crucial threshold meant to limit the worst effects of climate change.

Amid a week of horrifying wildfires in Los Angeles, government agencies in the U.S. and around the world confirmed Friday that 2024 was the planet’s hottest year since recordkeeping began in 1880.It’s the 11th consecutive year in which a new heat record has been set, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said. “Between record-breaking temperatures and wildfires currently threatening our centers and workforce in California, it has never been more important to understand our changing planet,” Nelson said.Firefighters on Friday were battling to protect NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge from the Eaton fire, which has burned 13,690 acres and roughly 5,000 buildings thus far.Research has shown that global warming is contributing significantly to larger and more intense wildfires in the western U.S. in recent years, and to longer fire seasons.The devastating fires in Southern California erupted after an abrupt shift from wet weather to extremely dry weather, a bout of climate “whiplash” that scientists say increased wildfire risks. Research has shown that these rapid wet-to-dry and dry-to-wet swings, which can worsen wildfires, flooding and other hazards, are growing more frequent and intense because of rising global temperatures.Extreme weather events in 2024 included Hurricane Helene in the southeastern U.S., devastating floods in Valencia, Spain, and a deadly heat wave in Mexico so intense that monkeys dropped dead from the trees, noted Russell Vose, chief of the monitoring and assessment branch of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.“We aren’t saying any of these things were caused by changes in Earth’s climate,” Vose said. But since warmer air holds more moisture, the higher temperatures “could have exacerbated some events this year.”Last year’s data also notes a step toward a major climate threshold. Keeping the average global surface temperature from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels has long been seen as necessary to avoid many of the most harrowing climate impacts.NOAA pegged 2024’s global average surface temperature at 1.46 degrees C above its preindustrial baseline, and NASA’s measurements put the increase at 1.47 degrees C. In 2023, NASA said the temperature was 1.36 degrees C higher than the baseline. Considering the margin of error in their measurements, “that puts the NOAA and NASA models comfortably within the possibility that the real number is 1.5 degrees,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.Calculations from other organizations passed the 1.5-degree mark more clearly.Berkeley Earth and the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service both said the planet warmed to slightly more than 1.6 degrees C above pre-industrial times in 2024. The United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization said the increase was 1.55 degrees C and the U.K. Met Office, the country’s weather service, measured an increase of 1.53 degrees C.Although 2024 probably marks the first calendar year in which the average temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree threshold, it doesn’t mean Earth has passed the crucial target set in the Paris Agreement, Vose said.That describes “a sustained, multi-decade increase of 1.5 degrees,” something that’s not expected to occur until the 2030s or 2040s, the scientists noted.“For a long time, the global mean temperature changes were a bit of an esoteric thing — nobody lives in the global mean,” Schmidt said. “But the signal is now so large that you’re not only seeing it at the global scale … you’re seeing it at the local level.”“This is now quite personal,” he said.The oceans, which store 90% of the planet’s excess heat, also recorded their highest average temperature since records began in 1955.The Arctic has seen the most warming, which is concerning because the region is home to vast quantities of ice that stands to melt and raise sea levels, Schmidt said. Temperatures there are rising 3 to 3.5 times faster than the overall global average, he added.The only place where average surface temperatures have cooled is the area immediately around Antarctica, and that’s probably due to meltwater from shrinking ice sheets, Schmidt said.A year ago, NOAA predicted there was only a 1 in 3 chance that 2024 would break the record set in 2023, Vose said. Then every month from January to July set a new high, and August was a tie. As a result, Friday’s declaration came as little surprise.The longer-term trends are no better.“We anticipate future global warming as long as we are emitting greenhouse gases,” Schmidt said. “That’s something that brings us no joy to tell people, but unfortunately that’s the case.”Times staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.

Climate
Government
Water

How Climate Change Fueled Deadly Los Angeles Fires

A whipsaw swing from very wet to very dry weather exposed millions to flames, smoke and pollutants. The post How Climate Change Fueled Deadly Los Angeles Fires appeared first on .

As unusually strong winds swept across a parched Los Angeles, spreading more than half a dozen firestorms that have now burned an area nearly the size of San Francisco, the fingerprints of climate change were all over the unfolding disaster. The underlying dynamic feeding the flames was a wet-and-dry whiplash in which vegetation, supercharged by heavy rain, dried out and became fuel for fires that left the city all but encircled in flames. It was not difficult for climate experts to connect the dots. Greenhouse gases, mostly from burning fossil fuels, linger in the atmosphere where they heat up the planet, leading to more to extreme weather. A hotter atmosphere holds more moisture, causing rain to fall in intense bursts. The hotter air also increases extreme temperatures and makes dry seasons drier by increasing evaporation.   In Pasadena, a California city on the edge of a major fire burning through Eaton Canyon, where researchers have collected data on precipitation since 1893, they recorded that half of its 20 rainiest days ever occurred since 2000. That includes one day last February when nearly 5 inches of rain fell.  Yet not a single drop has fallen in Pasadena and much of Los Angeles County since early May, according to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information. All the vegetation that grew during the rains in the first half of the year dried out when the rains stopped, transforming Southern California into a vast landscape of tinder that exploded this week.  The intensity of extreme precipitation will continue rising through the century, according to Cal-Adapt, a data analysis initiative sponsored by the California Energy Commission. The state also forecast longer periods of drought exacerbated by rising heat, according to its Fourth Climate Assessment summary report, released in 2018 and currently being updated. These two factors will likely increase the wet-dry cycle, fueling more intense and erratic wildfires, say climate experts. In 2021, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that drier air due to climate change was the “dominant” cause of variations in wildfire behavior in the West. The effect of the current fires on Los Angeles’ massive population will present researchers with a grim opportunity to study how wildfires can affect large numbers of people in a short period of time. Among the effects is the release of fine particles, called PM2.5, a pollutant that is found in wildfire smoke and that can find its way  into the lungs and bloodstream of those exposed to the smoke. Exposure can lead to decreased lung function, nonfatal heart attacks and death in people with heart or lung disease, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Shahir Masri, associate specialist in air pollution exposure assessment and epidemiology in the University of California, Irvine’s Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, studies climate change modeling and air pollution exposure. He published a study in 2022 that linked rising PM2.5 levels in California to wildfires and, to a lesser extent, heat waves. His previous work found that the number of census tracts in California that experienced major wildfires nearly doubled from 2000 to 2020. Capital & Main spoke to Masri about his work as the fires in L.A. County continued to burn. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. Capital & Main: Could you describe how climate change is making wildfires worse? Shahir Masri: It’s a variety of factors linked with climate change. Increasing temperatures and aridity in places like the Western U.S, and in more mountainous areas, you can have earlier snowmelt, which leaves downstream riparian areas desiccated and more fire-prone.  But you also have these earlier spring onsets, which generally speaking means an earlier arrival of spring and warm temperatures. You basically get longer warm summer windows, which has ultimately become a longer wildfire season. Landscapes are drying out more quickly, and the wildfire season begins more quickly and ends later. [The Southern California fires] remind me of 2017-’18, the Thomas fire, which burned from December through Jan. 8.  Shahir Fouad Masri. Photo courtesy Dr. Masri. So these later-burning fires are becoming more frequent. And when you add unprecedented heat waves on top of it, you get yet another scenario where you’re setting the stage for a major wildfire. In 2018, we saw a major wildfire season. The following year, we saw a major rainy season. Then in 2020, we saw the biggest wildfire season in the state’s history. That was a combination of huge growth in 2019 of shrubs and plants and a lot of things in the wet seasons, then the following year we got slammed with aggressively oppressive summer heat.  I fear some of this may have been at play in these fires. The last few years we’ve had really wet winters, and this is now the driest winter we’ve seen in a while. We didn’t get our holiday rain. This area burning now would have been much more resistant to a fire breaking out if we had that rain. So those are some of the factors at play and linked with climate change. In your study, you concluded that higher levels of PM2.5 were strongly associated with nearby wildfires. Why did you study PM2.5? PM2.5 is arguably the most robustly associated pollutant associated with adverse health effects. There have been nearly countless studies looking at the effects of PM2.5 and the increase of asthma, hospital admissions, exacerbated [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and short life expectancy.  It’s not entirely clear what causes PM2.5 to be more toxic than PM10 [a type of pollutant in the form of relatively larger particulates], and it’s not clear which forms of PM2.5 are most toxic. Is it because of a higher heavy metal content, or is it worse if it has a higher organic composition or sulfur content? The verdict is still out on that. But setting those composition differences aside, PM2.5 is the main characteristic of this particular type of air pollution that is most associated with adverse health effects. What would you expect the health effects to be from these fires, particularly for poorer communities that you found were most vulnerable to PM2.5 from wildfires? About 7% to 8% of Californians are asthmatics. Asthma attacks are exacerbated by things like air pollution — about 38% to 39% of asthmatic individuals will have an attack at least once a year. Therefore, these wildfires will likely result in quite a few asthma attacks. We will probably also see increased hospital admissions for the exacerbation of chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There’s a whole separate series of health impacts we’re actually looking at through a survey of people exposed to the Tustin [north] hangar fire in 2023. There were a whole host of impacts, including mental stress. In an upcoming paper, we’re talking about mental stress as it relates to wildfires and environmental catastrophes. And I don’t think that should be overlooked, even though it’s less studied.  That, I would presume, will play a role here as well, especially given people abandoning their cars, losing their homes. It’s clearly a lot of trauma inflicted on this population. Post-traumatic stress disorders, anxiety disorders, those are things we see after major wildfire events, especially [in] people close to the fire. These impacts can be quite prevalent and can take quite a long time to dissipate, up to 10 years.  So I think smoke-related impacts are one thing. I think direct injuries from the fire, thermal injuries, are another. Property loss is another as well. But those mental impacts are also a major factor. The volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at record levels. Do you expect more events like the current Los Angeles fire outbreak? Warming trends in the atmosphere don’t bode well. In addition to wildfire smoke, we also see higher energy demands [to run air conditioners] concurrent with heat waves. And that, depending on which state you live in, translates to greenhouse gas emissions from people using more electricity. Wildfires can wipe out the gains we’ve made from lowering emissions by reducing the prevalence of coal, [for example]. I think there’s a lot of work to be done on climate change in the United States. We have an incoming [presidential] administration notorious for disregarding climate change. And even though President [Joe] Biden acknowledged the importance of climate change and did a lot with the Inflation Reduction Act, we see a reluctance to shift away from fossil fuels even as we see more investments in renewable energy.  Biden broke his promise to end offshore drilling, so we’re seeing this fossil fuel addiction play out and remain, regardless of what political party is in office. In one case, it’s “drill baby drill”; in another, it’s “drill baby drill,” but we’ll also use the sun and wind.  So we’re so far off from where we need to be from policies to get us on the right track. And to highlight extensiveness needed for targets, the COVID-19 pandemic provided clear examples of just how dramatic a shift we’re talking about. We saw an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during the first year of the pandemic, which is what is needed to comply with the U.N.’s target of an 8% reduction year-over-year for 10 years. That’s hard to fathom, given that our economy is globally grinding to a complete halt. That was an important lesson, and unfortunately we’re not taking steps to get on that track; we’re just ramping up emissions globally.  What gives you hope? What gives me hope is the youth community. My generation was basically much quieter on this issue than the current college generation. With every generation moving forward, the situation becomes all the more dire. It’s been quite inspirational to see them almost single-handedly get major attention and support and popularity around the Green New Deal; those are really youth-driven policy agendas. I think they’ve played a big role in popularizing those ideas.  I think those are major steps that cannot be overstated, and that generation now will be moving into politics, and that’s the most encouraging thing for me as I grapple with these issues.

Climate
Energy
Mountains

College Athletics: Game Day for Climate Action

As teams travel thousands of miles to compete, the cost to the planet rises. But sports offer a unique opportunity to advocate for sustainable experiences. The post College Athletics: Game Day for Climate Action appeared first on The Revelator.

Imagine gazing through an airplane window as you pass over Appalachia and, later, the Grand Canyon before touching down just outside of San Francisco. Or grabbing a peek at the Berkshires before feeling the hard ground of Logan airport under thin wheels. This has been the journey of athletes, coaches, staff, and fans of California’s Stanford University and Boston College this past year as the two teams began competing directly in the Atlantic Coast Conference — yes, despite the fact that they’re on different coasts. Located about 3,100 miles apart, they are the farthest-separated competitors in a Power 5 conference and potentially all of college athletics. It’s unclear if this matchup will truly have financial benefits for either school or the conference, but it will have environmental consequences. I’ve always appreciated the amateur aspect of college sports and I continued to appreciate it at a distance from my work in climate activism. But my more formal work in emissions accounting and climate risk have allowed me to see it through a new lens. My preliminary analysis indicates that just one football and two basketball games per season between the Stanford Cardinals and the Boston College Eagles over 10 years will produce equivalent emissions to driving more than 1,000 passenger vehicles for one year. That’s just the result of team member and staff travel and doesn’t even include fan travel, let alone other operations and moving equipment, as well as the many other sports at each school. Air travel is the only real alternative for schools competing at these great distances. High speed rail in this country is years away (though I remain optimistic). Although traditional rail and other nonaviation means are used by an increasing number of professional and college teams, the average cross-country train trip takes three days each way — a difficult burden for athletes who also need to attend classes. But even the most sustainable means of travel have incremental costs and emissions — the greater the distance, the greater the climate cost. Meanwhile many of those travel alternatives are also likely to cost more and, contrary to mainstream narratives, most college athletics, football included, are not “profitable” for universities. Stanford and Boston College are not alone and their matchup is just one of the more egregious examples of this emerging athletic phenomenon. But as a BC alum I feel particularly empowered to call out this piece of their lack of commitment to sustainability. Universities seek to attract students from all over, and BC ranks high for the distance students travel simply to attend. That is not inherently “bad,” but should be understood in the context of transportation emissions and universities’ role, including and beyond athletics. When it comes to sports, hope does exist. The Green Sports Alliance, which I’ve worked with, aims to put into action sustainable events and experiences, especially by our leading universities. Programs like this have great potential. Sports sit at an intersection of health, academia, economy, national and regional identities, international unity, youth, climate, and myriad other cultural issues. While a lot of media coverage highlights negative or outlandish examples, sports have served positively in the fight for racial equity and basic LGBTQ+ inclusion time and again. While they have their issues and can showcase perturbed nationalism or violence, there is a movement toward sports better reflecting positive developments in society. Sports are also beyond bipartisan. Democrat Marty Walsh, a former Boston mayor and labor secretary — as well as a BC alum, I might add — leads the NHL Players Association, while former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, currently leads the NCAA. Both have demonstrated a certain level of leadership on climate, sustainability, and transportation in their political careers, although we have yet to see that translate into their work in the sports world. Sports can be a beautiful and unifying force, especially for climate. In 2020 the leaders of student governments at all Big Ten schools came together to call for specific climate actions from their universities. The Atlantic Coast Conference Climate Justice Coalition launched a similar call later that same year, and student activists in the Ivy League followed in 2021. And of course who would forget the disruption of the Harvard-Yale football game by climate activists? These calls represent 52 universities, 950,000 active students, more than 12 million alumni, and $306 billion in endowment funds. While their impact on emissions is important, we must also take note of the impact of climate change on sports themselves. General travel and athletic events are often disrupted by weather, with climate change making things more volatile every year. This increases the likelihood of games being cancelled, attendance dropping due to poor weather, fans experiencing accidents on the road, or athletes being injured due to poor field conditions. Even the athletes’ travel itself has become more dangerous: Airlines have already measured an increase in turbulence on flights, and it’s anticipated to get worse. Despite that young athletes face increasing pressure to travel for sports. This pressure is tied into larger, and likely problematic, pressure on youth to perform and over-perform in sports and other aspects of their lives. I’ll let others take on that issue in more detail, but let’s be real — travel is, simply, exhausting. There’s another big threat: Some sports we enjoy in colder months — like skiing — could vanish. A study published this November found that without emission cuts, the Winter Olympics may no longer be possible. Protect Our Winters, another organization I’ve worked with, anticipates that threat and seeks to address climate change in defense of winter sports. It’s not just the Olympics: In the future, perhaps that flight from BC will take place over snowless Berkshires or never take off at all due to a flooded Logan Airport. Already built at sea level and on landfill never meant to be habitable, Logan — like many airports, infrastructure, homes, and other buildings — faces the risk of repeated flooding and damage, making it nearly inoperable as it faces its own contributions to the crisis. It is quite difficult to face this conundrum as both contributor and victim. Wherever you stand politically, in your view of how to raise children in the context of sports, or what your position is on whether college athletes should be paid, we can agree that sports affect emissions, emissions affect sports, and both are powerful aspects of much larger systems. This offers an area of intersection that many in the world not often moved by mainstream climate actions might find interesting or action-provoking, and it’s worthy of further analysis. Individual sports still involve a team at the highest level, and we all are or have been athletes or fans. Climate change is the same — our individual actions count, but our collective work is what affects the system. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: No Wave Is Insurmountable The post College Athletics: Game Day for Climate Action appeared first on The Revelator.

Climate
Sustainable
Crisis

The flames from wildfires aren’t always the most dangerous part

Climate change is making wildfires more common and more severe. The pollution is killing us

The spate of devastating fires hitting the Los Angeles area has dominated headlines and understandably so. At least 10 people have died and upwards of 180,000 people have been evacuated with more than 10,000 structures destroyed. One of these fires, the Palisades Fire, began burning on Tuesday and continues at the time of this writing, has destroyed at least 17,000 acres, the most in Los Angeles history. But there's also the Eaton Fire, the Hurst Fire, the Kenneth Fire and other fires in the area, many with little to no containment. While hundreds of thousands of Californians are fleeing from flames, there are other risks aside from the immediate damage: air pollution and the charred toxins that are left behind.  To give one example, a recent study in the journal JAMA Neurology has looked at the effects of wildfire smoke on  dementia. Previous research has established that tiny particles in the air (2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, known as PM2.5) are linked to dementia, but the researchers found that long-term exposure to wildfire smoke specifically “was associated with dementia diagnoses.” They added that as climate change worsens, “interventions focused on reducing wildfire PM2.5 exposure may reduce dementia diagnoses and related inequities.” To conduct their research, the scientists looked at health data from more than 1.2 million people from between 2008 and 2019 among members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Within this cohort, they discovered “people with higher exposure to wildfire fine particulate matter (PM2.5) had elevated risk of developing dementia,” explained Dr. Joan Casey, the study’s corresponding author and a professor of public health at the University of Washington. Because this study only examined existing patient data, Casey told Salon that scientists will need to do more research on the precise relationship between wildfire exposure and dementia. “We looked at the umbrella of all dementia diagnoses, but certain sub-types like Alzheimer’s or frontotemporal dementia might have stronger links with wildfire PM2.5,” Casey said. “We also want to understand the relevant time window of exposure. Here, we looked at exposure in the prior three years, but a longer window is likely important (up to 20 years.)” "As temperatures and humidity increase, conditions such as stroke, migraines, meningitis, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease may worsen." The researchers’ work is unfortunately relevant to human beings because climate change is making wildfires more frequent and more intense. From California and Hawaii to Greece and Spain, more and more of Earth’s wooded areas are bursting into flame as humanity overheats the planet with heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions. While these conflagrations engulf millions of acres of lands, they belch fine particulate matter into the air, which humans inevitably inhale. But more and more research is making it clear how devastating to our health this toxic air can be. Although this study focuses specifically on wildfire PM2.5, other research firmly establishes that PM2.5 in general is bad for human health. A report from the National Bureau of Economic Research released last April found that wildfire smoke contributes to the deaths of around 16,000 Americans per year, with that number expected to rise to 30,000 by mid century. A systematic review published in the journal Neurotoxicology found a link between air pollution and increased depressive and anxiety symptoms and behaviors, as well as physical alterations in brain regions believed to be associated with those conditions. A 2024 study in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety likewise found links between various types of common air pollution and diseases including PTSD and multiple sclerosis, while a 2021 study in the journal Neurology found a link between urban air pollution and central nervous system diseases. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "The results of our studies on the effects of nanoparticles in the air show a link between exposure to air pollutants and neurological diseases and neuropsychiatric disorders," 2021 study lead author Mojtaba Ehsanifar, an assistant professor of environmental neurotoxicology at Kashan University of Medical Sciences' Anatomical Sciences Research Center, told Salon by email. Although Ehsanifar has not specifically worked on the effects of pollutants from fires, he noted that pollutants produced by both gases tend to be similar. He blames climate change for this problem. “A recent investigation establishes a connection between climate change and the exacerbation of certain neurological disorders,” Ehsanifar said. “As temperatures and humidity increase, conditions such as stroke, migraines, meningitis, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease may worsen.” He added that as temperatures continue to rise, the heat will combine with the smoke to hurt our brains. "This is yet another example of the profound, yet grossly understated negative health consequences of human-caused climate change." “Currently, brains are already operating toward the upper thresholds of these ranges, and as climate change elevates temperature and humidity, our brains might struggle to maintain temperature regulation, even malfunctioning,” Ehsanifar said. “A high internal body temperature, especially above 104 degrees Fahrenheit, with cognitive impairment such as confusion, defines heat stroke.” This research underscores how global heating is intrinsically linked to our health. University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann said it is fair to directly attribute diseases like dementia to climate change when they are demonstrably caused by wildfire exposure. “The connection is epidemiological, much like the negative health consequences of smoking are epidemiological, i.e. statistical in nature,” Mann said. “So in other words, while it’s always possible that a victim could have suffered neurological diseases for other reasons, we can say that exposure to wildfire smoke substantially increases the likelihood of e.g. developing dementia, enough so that there is effectively a causal connection there.” Mann added, “This is yet another example of the profound, yet grossly understated negative health consequences of human-caused climate change.” Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Salon that he is not surprised the study found adverse effects of wildfire pollution. The revelation that PM2.5 may indirectly increase dementia risk, however, was new to him. “But there is no question that air pollution is bad for health in many ways,” Trenberth said. “On bad pollution days, either one should not exercise or should do it indoors. So this affects exercise, which should help health. With wildfires around, one should not breathe the foul air. So this can be partially controlled from industry although mainly for larger particles. It is harder to see the smaller particles.” Nor are humans alone in suffering, Trenberth noted. “Think of all the poor animals exposed.” Scientists writing in 2022 for the journal Environmental Research described air pollution broadly as an underrecognized public health risk, arguing that “policy needs to be matched by scientific evidence and appropriate guidelines, including bespoke strategies to optimise impact and mitigate unintended consequences.” In addition to mitigating the impacts of climate change, experts urge ordinary citizens to take measures to protect their lungs during times of intense air pollution. Whether it is caused by wildfires, urban smog or any other source, the overwhelming evidence is that breathing it in is bad for a person’s respiratory health. What remains after a wildfire can also be dangerous. The charred ruins of houses and burnt out cars contain countless pollutants from melted plastics, paints, electronics and household waste. Until the environment is adequately cleaned up, the likelihood is that those who struggle with disease because of exposure to wildfires both during and after may continue to risk their health. “Seeing the magnitude of the relationship between wildfire PM2.5 and dementia was quite striking,” Casey said. “I was especially struck by how much stronger this relationship was for people living in communities with higher levels of poverty, suggesting that climate change is again increasing health disparities.” Read more about climate change

Climate
Pollution
Health

The climate benefits of NYC’s hard-won congestion pricing plan

Driving into lower Manhattan is now more expensive, but the toll promises cleaner air, safer streets, and improved subways.

After months — and, for some, years — of anticipation, congestion pricing is live in New York City.  The controversial policy, which essentially makes it more expensive to drive into the busiest part of Manhattan, has been floated as a way to reduce traffic and raise money for the city’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the city’s subways and buses, since the 1970s. But it wasn’t until 2017 that it seemed like it might finally catch on.  Still, getting it implemented has been an uphill battle. Last summer, New York Governor Kathy Hochul abruptly paused a carefully crafted plan that would have implemented $15 tolls on drivers heading into Manhattan below 60th Street, a mere 25 days before the plan would have gone into effect. Months later, in November, she said she would unpause the plan with lower tolls: $9 for passenger vehicles during peak hours and $2.25 during off-peak. After all the hubbub, New York City made history just after midnight on Sunday, January 5, when the cameras used to enforce the tolls turned on.  With this move, New York City becomes the first U.S. city to experiment with congestion pricing tolls, and joins a small cohort of other major cities — London, Stockholm, and Singapore — trying to disincentivize driving in order to unlock safer streets and a host of other environmental benefits. Environmental and public transit advocates praise congestion pricing because it pushes drivers to reconsider whether getting behind the wheel is really the easiest way to get around the city. With fewer cars on the road, congestion pricing promises shorter commute times for those who do drive — and better public transit options, since the money raised by congestion pricing will fund capital improvements by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA.  But the policy has not been without its naysayers. One New York City councilmember — Republican Vickie Paladino — appeared to encourage her followers on X (formerly Twitter) to damage the tolling cameras with lasers. Congestion pricing detractors say that tolls are burdensome. Of course, in some way, this is the point: to make driving slightly less appealing and incentivize alternative modes of transportation.  Proponents say these are worthwhile costs to fund meaningful improvements to New Yorkers’ lives — like safer streets and cleaner air.  “At this point, across much of the country, cars are so ingrained into American culture that we don’t always think of them as environmental hazards, but of course they are,” said Alexa Sledge, director of communications for Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group focused on street safety in New York City. “So a major goal of our climate policy has to be getting people out of cars and on public transit, onto buses, onto bikes, onto trips on foot.” These less carbon-intensive modes of transit, she says, are “always going to be substantially more environmentally friendly.” Cars pass under E-ZPass readers and license plate-scanning cameras on 5th Avenue in Manhattan as congestion pricing takes effect in New York City. Kena Betancur / AFP via Getty Images One of the main selling points of congestion pricing, besides reducing traffic, is improving air quality. Fewer cars on the road means fewer cars emitting exhaust in the nation’s most densely populated city — and less traffic also means that less time spent idling.  An environmental assessment of congestion pricing published in 2023 estimated the impact tolls would have on a number of air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and benzene. These chemicals have been linked to health problems including heart disease, respiratory issues, cognitive impairment, and increased risk of cancer. The assessment also looked at the impact tolls would have on greenhouse gases. It analyzed these impacts at a regional level, looking at 12 different counties across New York and New Jersey, and projected how big or small the change in pollutants would be by 2045.  The report found that, with congestion pricing, Manhattan would see a 4.36 percent reduction in daily vehicle-miles traveled by 2045. This would lead to sizable reductions in air pollutants in Manhattan, especially in the central business district (the area drivers must pay a toll to enter). For example, per the environmental assessment’s modeling, the central business district would see a 10.72 percent drop in carbon dioxide equivalents by 2045, as well as a similar drop in fine particular matter, and slightly lower drops in nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (5.89 percent and 6.55 percent, respectively).  When you zoom out, the benefits become sparser, but are still meaningful: The assessment found that, across the 12 New York and New Jersey counties included in its analysis, carbon dioxide equivalents would fall by 0.8 percent by 2045. Those 12 counties have a collective population of roughly 14 million. It’s worth noting that real-life impacts will likely differ from these estimates — and it will take robust data collection to see exactly how. The environmental assessment based these projections off a congestion pricing scenario that’s actually slightly more ambitious than the one in place today, with peak tolls for passenger vehicles priced at $9 and off-peak tolls at $7. But the tolls for drivers that Hochul signed off on will ramp up over time. By 2028, peak tolls will be $12, and by 2031, they’ll reach $15. “The most important thing is to start,” said Andy Darrell, regional director of New York at the Environmental Defense Fund, who was optimistic that real-life benefits may surpass these projections over time. “And it’s important to monitor the effects going forward and then be able to adjust the program as we go. And I think that’s exactly what’s happening now.” A congestion pricing warning sign on 5th Avenue in Manhattan. Kena Betancur / AFP via Getty Images Eric Goldstein, the New York City environmental director at the National Resources Defense Council, was similarly confident about congestion pricing’s benefits. Over email, he said, “Even if the reduction in traditional air pollutants and global warming emissions are modest from implementation of congestion pricing, the indirect air quality benefits will be substantial over the long term,” adding that congestion pricing will “provide a jolt of adrenaline to the region’s subway, bus, and commuter rail system that moves the overwhelming majority of people into and out of Manhattan.” The environmental assessment also found that, as a result of congestion pricing, traffic may increase in other parts of the city, like the Bronx, where neighborhoods like the South Bronx already suffer from disproportionately high rates of asthma. To offset this, the MTA has promised to fund several mitigation efforts, such as replacing diesel-fueled trucks around Hunts Point, a bustling food distribution facility, with cleaner models. It will also install air filtration systems at schools located near highways, plant more trees near roads, and establish a Bronx asthma center.  These efforts, however, have done little to reassure local community members. In November, South Bronx Unite, a coalition centered on social and environmental justice, called New York City’s revived congestion pricing plan a “death blow” for the South Bronx and said the mitigation efforts do not go far enough to address the root causes of pollution in the area. “We welcome all pollution mitigation measures for the South Bronx and for any pollution-burdened community, but they should not be dangled in front of us as a bargaining chip for adding more pollution to the area,” Arif Ullah, the group’s executive director, told reporters.     Beyond cleaner air for most of the region, congestion pricing is likely to have other environmental and climate benefits. For example, the money raised by congestion pricing tolls will allow the MTA to access $15 billion in financing for capital improvements, such as making subway stations more accessible. These sorts of upgrades, while not technically designed with climate change in mind, make the subway safer and more efficient to use — and that matters when extreme weather strikes. Sledge, from Transportation Alternatives, said: “People really do rely on our subway system to get them where they need to go, and if there is a mass weather event, then that’s really scary and really difficult.” In September 2023, rainstorms caused flash flooding in New York City, overwhelming the subway system in many places. After Hochul declared a state of emergency due to the extreme rainfall, the MTA warned of disruptions “across our network” and advised people to stay home if they could. Climate change makes extreme rainfall more likely because rising ocean temperatures lead to more water evaporating into the air. As Sledge notes, these weather events are “obviously only getting more and more common” as global temperatures keep rising. “So anything we can do to mitigate this is going to be extremely important as we move forward.” Technically speaking, the funds raised by congestion pricing will only be spent on capital improvements included in the MTA’s 2020-2024 capital plan; the agency will likely need to raise another $6 billion to fund its climate resilience roadmap, which includes things like elevating subway vents to prevent storm surges from flooding subway stations.  But experts agreed that improving the public transit system is critical to achieving New York City’s climate goals. “For a very densely populated region like the New York metropolitan region, that investment in transit is fundamental to achieving our climate goals and our air quality goals,” said Darrell from the Environmental Defense Fund.  The National Resources Defense Council’s Goldstein agreed: “Ultimately, if we can’t adequately fund this public transit system so that it provides safe, reliable and efficient service, the region’s environment, as well as its economy, is certain to decline.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The climate benefits of NYC’s hard-won congestion pricing plan on Jan 10, 2025.

Climate
Business
CO2

Suggested Viewing

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

This film reveals how diverse environmental problems, from climate change to species extinction to ruined ecosystems, are all ultimately rooted in the “growth at all costs” attitude that pervades modern industrial society. Through beautiful and disturbing images and interviews with ecological scholars, spiritual leaders and activists, The Wisdom to Survive argues that the survival of humanity and most living beings on the planet will not come from technology, but from a profound raising of consciousness and deep spiritual transformation of humans who finally realize that we must live differently on planet earth.

Climate
Business
Extinction

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

Heimat - Requiem For The World As We Know It

Four theater-makers from Belgium travel to the melting glaciers on Greenland. Their goal: to play a new composed requiem and say goodbye to the world as we know it.

Music
Culture
Climate

Chicken Soup for the Soil

Chicken Soup for the Soil follows the journey of North Carolina farmers Rachel Herrick and Suzanne Nelson Karreman as they work to rehabilitate farm soil ecosystems one pasture at a time. We learn that animals are not commodities and insects are not pests. They are partners in regenerating the soil. These are grassroots farms working with Nature to help Nature bounce back.

Land Use
Agriculture
Climate

Ser Manguezal

Ser Manguezal, created by Eliseu Cavalcante, was inspired by Josué de Castro's book "Of Men and Crabs" from 1967. De Castro was a Brazilian geographer, physician, writer and activist against world hunger. In his book, Castro envisions men as crabs, learning to walk in the mangroves. This relationship between them seems to unify and blend all together making the human being part of that specific biome. This film is part of an ongoing project that examines those who depend on the mangrove ecosystem to survive, and the delicate relationship between humans and this particular ecosystem. It seeks to recognize the hard-working crab hunters of the mangroves and make their work more visible, and to bring awareness about the importance of mangroves to the environment. Worldwide, 3,400 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) of mangrove forests were lost between 2000 and 2016, or about 2% of the global mangrove area (NASA). About 62% of the losses were due to direct human causes such as agriculture and aquaculture. Mangrove degradation is greater than the average for tropical and subtropical forest loss.

Water
Conservation
Plants

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.