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.

Hurricanes Like Helene Are Deadly When They Strike and Keep Killing for Years to Come

News Feed
Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Hurricanes in the United States end up hundreds of times deadlier than the government calculates, contributing to more American deaths than car accidents or all the nation's wars, a new study said. The average storm hitting the U.S. contributes to the early deaths of 7,000 to 11,000 people over a 15-year period, which dwarfs the average of 24 immediate and direct deaths that the government counts in a hurricane's aftermath, the study in Wednesday's journal Nature concluded. Study authors said even with Hurricane Helene's growing triple digit direct death count, many more people will die partly because of that storm in future years.“Watching what's happened here makes you think that this is going to be a decade of hardship on tap, not just what's happening over the next couple of weeks,” said Stanford University climate economist Solomon Hsiang, a study co-author and a former White House science and technology official. “After each storm there is sort of this surge of additional mortality in a state that’s been impacted that has not been previously documented or associated with hurricanes in any way,” Hsiang said. Hsiang and University of California Berkeley researcher Rachel Young looked at hurricane deaths in a different way than previous studies, opting for a more long-term public health and economics-oriented analysis of what's called excess mortality. They looked at states' death rates after 501 different storms hitting the United States between 1930 and 2015. And what they found is that after each storm there's a “bump” in death rates. It's a statistical signature that they see over and over, Hsiang said. Similar analyses are done for heat waves and other health threats like pollution and disease, he said. They compare to pre-storm times and adjust for other factors that could be causing changes in death rates, he said. Complicating everything is that the same places keep getting hit by multiple storms so there are death bumps upon death bumps.Just how storms contribute to people's deaths after the immediate impact is something that needs further study, Hsiang said. But he theorized it includes the health effects of stress, changes in the environment including toxins, people not being able to afford health care and other necessities because of storm costs, infrastructure damage and government changes in spending.“When someone dies a few years after a hurricane hit them, the cause will be recorded as a heart attack, stroke or respiratory failure,” said Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who wasn’t part of the study but has done similar studies on heat and cold deaths. “The doctor can’t possibly know that a hurricane contributed/triggered the illness. You can only see it in a statistical analysis like this.”Initially Hsiang and Young figured the storm death bump would go away in a matter of months, but they were surprised when they examined hundreds of bumps and found they stretch out, slowly, over 15 years, Hsiang said.It's “almost like a trickle of mortality, like each month we're talking about five to 10 individuals who are dying earlier than they would have otherwise," Hsiang said.These people don't realize that 10 or 15 years later their health issues are associated with a storm in some way, but Hsiang said it shows up in the data: "They would not have died at those times had the storm not arrived. And so essentially, these storms are accelerating people’s deaths.”The numbers proved so high that the researchers kept looking for mistakes or complicating factors they had missed. “It took years for us to really fully accept that this was happening," Hsiang said.Storms are a factor in between 55,000 to 88,000 excess deaths a year, the study concluded. So for the 85 years studied, the team calculated between 3.6 and 5.2 million people died with storms being a factor. That's more than the 2 million car accident deaths over that period, the study said.Before now the public looked at storms “as an inconvenience that is tragic for a small number of community members,” Hsiang said. But they really are “a major threat to public health,” he said.Hsiang said he and Young saw a trend of increasing hurricane-connected deaths, predominantly because of population growth. Starting in 2000, there's been a big jump in the total volume of storms hitting large population, he said.Three outside scientists said the study made sense.“It seems like what they're doing is reasonable,” said University of Albany hurricane expert Kristen Corbosiero, who wasn't part of the research. “The numbers are really staggering.”Texas A&M's Dessler said this is an important study because it brings home the deadly nature of climate change and extreme weather. He said he and his fellow climate scientists have been accurate in their warnings of the physics of what climate change would mean, but failed to emphasize enough how it would hurt people.“Reading this, it’s clear that humanity is very vulnerable to weather shocks, even in an incredibly rich country like ours,” Dessler said in an email.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

A new study says hurricanes in the United States are hundreds of times deadlier in the long run than the government calculates

Hurricanes in the United States end up hundreds of times deadlier than the government calculates, contributing to more American deaths than car accidents or all the nation's wars, a new study said.

The average storm hitting the U.S. contributes to the early deaths of 7,000 to 11,000 people over a 15-year period, which dwarfs the average of 24 immediate and direct deaths that the government counts in a hurricane's aftermath, the study in Wednesday's journal Nature concluded. Study authors said even with Hurricane Helene's growing triple digit direct death count, many more people will die partly because of that storm in future years.

“Watching what's happened here makes you think that this is going to be a decade of hardship on tap, not just what's happening over the next couple of weeks,” said Stanford University climate economist Solomon Hsiang, a study co-author and a former White House science and technology official.

“After each storm there is sort of this surge of additional mortality in a state that’s been impacted that has not been previously documented or associated with hurricanes in any way,” Hsiang said.

Hsiang and University of California Berkeley researcher Rachel Young looked at hurricane deaths in a different way than previous studies, opting for a more long-term public health and economics-oriented analysis of what's called excess mortality. They looked at states' death rates after 501 different storms hitting the United States between 1930 and 2015. And what they found is that after each storm there's a “bump” in death rates.

It's a statistical signature that they see over and over, Hsiang said. Similar analyses are done for heat waves and other health threats like pollution and disease, he said. They compare to pre-storm times and adjust for other factors that could be causing changes in death rates, he said. Complicating everything is that the same places keep getting hit by multiple storms so there are death bumps upon death bumps.

Just how storms contribute to people's deaths after the immediate impact is something that needs further study, Hsiang said. But he theorized it includes the health effects of stress, changes in the environment including toxins, people not being able to afford health care and other necessities because of storm costs, infrastructure damage and government changes in spending.

“When someone dies a few years after a hurricane hit them, the cause will be recorded as a heart attack, stroke or respiratory failure,” said Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who wasn’t part of the study but has done similar studies on heat and cold deaths. “The doctor can’t possibly know that a hurricane contributed/triggered the illness. You can only see it in a statistical analysis like this.”

Initially Hsiang and Young figured the storm death bump would go away in a matter of months, but they were surprised when they examined hundreds of bumps and found they stretch out, slowly, over 15 years, Hsiang said.

It's “almost like a trickle of mortality, like each month we're talking about five to 10 individuals who are dying earlier than they would have otherwise," Hsiang said.

These people don't realize that 10 or 15 years later their health issues are associated with a storm in some way, but Hsiang said it shows up in the data: "They would not have died at those times had the storm not arrived. And so essentially, these storms are accelerating people’s deaths.”

The numbers proved so high that the researchers kept looking for mistakes or complicating factors they had missed. “It took years for us to really fully accept that this was happening," Hsiang said.

Storms are a factor in between 55,000 to 88,000 excess deaths a year, the study concluded. So for the 85 years studied, the team calculated between 3.6 and 5.2 million people died with storms being a factor. That's more than the 2 million car accident deaths over that period, the study said.

Before now the public looked at storms “as an inconvenience that is tragic for a small number of community members,” Hsiang said. But they really are “a major threat to public health,” he said.

Hsiang said he and Young saw a trend of increasing hurricane-connected deaths, predominantly because of population growth. Starting in 2000, there's been a big jump in the total volume of storms hitting large population, he said.

Three outside scientists said the study made sense.

“It seems like what they're doing is reasonable,” said University of Albany hurricane expert Kristen Corbosiero, who wasn't part of the research. “The numbers are really staggering.”

Texas A&M's Dessler said this is an important study because it brings home the deadly nature of climate change and extreme weather. He said he and his fellow climate scientists have been accurate in their warnings of the physics of what climate change would mean, but failed to emphasize enough how it would hurt people.

“Reading this, it’s clear that humanity is very vulnerable to weather shocks, even in an incredibly rich country like ours,” Dessler said in an email.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Albanese government approves four coalmine expansions as Greens condemn ‘despicable’ move

Tanya Plibersek says projects in NSW and Queensland produce coal for making essential steel as critics say move ‘opposite of climate action’Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe Albanese government has approved the expansion of four coalmines that climate campaigners estimate will release more than 850m tonnes of CO2 over their lifetime – equivalent to almost double Australia’s annual emissions.The four mines will target mostly coal to be used for steelmaking with some thermal coal for burning in power stations.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

The Albanese government has approved the expansion of four coalmines that climate campaigners estimate will release more than 850 million tonnes of CO2 over their lifetime – equivalent to almost double Australia’s annual emissions.The four mines will target mostly coal to be used for steel making with some thermal coal for burning in power stations.The approvals have angered climate and environment groups, including groups in the Pacific, who said the expansions would put people at increased risk from extreme weather events and undermined the country’s case to host international climate talks in 2026.The office of the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, said the four projects approved were the Boggabri coalmine in New South Wales and, in Queensland, the Caval Ridge Horse Pit, the Lake Vermont Meadowbrook coalmine and the Vulcan South coalmine.Plibersek attempted to downplay the decisions, saying the projects were “all extensions of existing operations” and were producing coal for making steel that was essential for “homes, bridges, trains, wind farms, and solar panels”.“There are currently no feasible renewable alternatives for making steel,” she said.She said the projects would support up to 3,000 jobs and had to comply with Australia’s commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.The government had issued “240 strict conditions across the projects to ensure the environment is protected,” she said.The projects would be assessed under the government’s revised safeguard mechanism, which only accounts for emissions generated in Australia.The bulk of the emissions caused by the projects come when the coal is burned overseas, and is therefore not counted under Australia’s climate commitments.Plibersek said she had “ticked off a record 68 renewable energy projects” and “no new coalmines” this year. In September, Plibersek approved three coalmine extensions and approved a new coalmine in 2023.Greens leader Adam Bandt said the approvals were “despicable”.Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, said Labor had “given coal for Christmas” and that approving mines that threatened koala habitat and worsened the climate crisis “should be illegal”.Joseph Sikulu, of the Pacific arm of campaign group 350.org, said: “Australia’s commitment to climate destruction makes a mockery of the ‘family’ they claim to call the Pacific.”The approvals would emit 7.5 times more carbon the Pacific nations produced in a single year, he said.The Australian government is bidding to co-host the United Nation’s climate talks in 2026 – known as COP31 – but Sikulu said to be “true hosts” Australia must “get off this dangerous trajectory”.“They can’t cover up the wound they are creating with adaptation finance or diplomatic pandering, no matter how hard they try,” he said.Gavan McFadzean, climate program manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said approving coal projects was “the opposite of climate action” and was “undermining Australia’s emissions targets and our claims to be a good global citizen and a good neighbour to Pacific nations.”He said Jellinbah’s Lake Vermont project in the Bowen Basin threatened the habitat of koalas, greater gliders and ornamental snakes that were all endangered species.BHP Mitsubishi’s Caval Ridge project threatened endangered habitats, and Idemitsu’s Boggabri project, which will also target thermal coal, threatened habitat of the regnet honeyeater songbird, he said, as well as microbats.“Coal is fuelling the climate crisis, making bushfires, heatwaves and floods more frequent and more intense,” he said.“These coalmine approvals will have consequences for Australians who are forced to live with the reality of a damaged climate.”Carmel Flint, national coordinator at Lock the Gate, said the approvals “will not only damage land, water and nature but will also put all Australians at risk of more extreme weather caused by climate change”.She said the government had failed to legislate promised reforms to national environment laws.“They’ve failed us all, in order to smooth the path for mining giants, and the real world consequences for all Australians could not be more severe,” she said.In October, the ABC reported that clearing had started at Vulcan South, including of koala habitat, before the federal environmental approvals had been granted.Dr Claire Gronow, of Lock the Gate in Queensland, said: “Any last residue of hope that we had in the Albanese Government to do the right thing for the environment and endangered species like the koala has vanished with this outrageous coalmine approval.”

Endangered Whales Found Entangled in Rope off Massachusetts, and 1 Is Likely to Die

The federal government says that two endangered whales have been spotted entangled in fishing gear off Massachusetts and that one is likely to die from its injuries

Two endangered whales have been spotted entangled in fishing gear off Massachusetts, and one is likely to die from its injuries, the federal government said.They are North Atlantic right whales, which number less than 400 and face existential threats from entanglement in gear and collisions with ships. An aerial survey found the whales swimming about 50 miles southeast of Nantucket on Dec. 9, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.One of the whales is a juvenile that has a thick line that passes across its head and back and is likely to succumb to the injury, the agency said in a statement. The other whale is an adult female who biologists think has suffered a sublethal injury from the entanglement, NOAA said.NOAA said in a statement Tuesday that it would “work with authorized responders and trained experts to monitor the whales” and that it will “further document the entanglements and determine if entanglement responses will be possible.”The news of the entangled whales follows the release of new data from researchers this fall showing a slight uptick in the whale's population. A group of researchers said two months ago that the population increased about 4% from 2020.However, those researchers and environmental advocates cautioned at the time that the whales still faced the threat of extinction. The animal's population fell about 25% from 2010 to 2020.The entanglement of the two whales illustrates the need for new safeguards to protect the animals, said Gib Brogan, campaign director at Oceana. Environmentalists have pushed for new restrictions on commercial fishing and shipping to try to protect the whales.“These whales are not statistics; they are living beings enduring unimaginable suffering caused by human activities,” Brogan said.The whales migrate every year and usually arrive in Cape Cod Bay in early winter and stay until around the middle of May. They give birth off the coasts of Georgia and Florida and are slow to reproduce, which is one of the reasons conservationists say they can't withstand additional mortality.The whales were once abundant off the East Coast, but they were decimated during the era of commercial whaling. They have been federally protected for decades.Some scientists have said climate change is a major threat to the whales because it has changed the availability of their food. That has caused them to stray from protected areas of ocean.“North Atlantic right whales continue to be entangled at levels that could push this critically endangered species to extinction. It is distressing that multiple generations of right whales have been affected by the devastating harm of entanglements, which is resulting in deaths, health declines, and slower reproductive rates," said Amy Knowlton, senior scientist at the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Miracle, or marginal gain?

Industrial policy is said to have sparked huge growth in East Asia. Two MIT economists say the numbers tell a more complex story.

From 1960 to 1989, South Korea experienced a famous economic boom, with real GDP per capita growing by an annual average of 6.82 percent. Many observers have attributed this to industrial policy, the practice of giving government support to specific industrial sectors. In this case, industrial policy is often thought to have powered a generation of growth.Did it, though? An innovative study by four scholars, including two MIT economists, suggests that overall GDP growth attributable to industrial policy is relatively limited. Using global trade data to evaluate changes in industrial capacity within countries, the research finds that industrial policy raises long-run GDP by only 1.08 percent in generally favorable circumstances, and up to 4.06 percent if additional factors are aligned — a distinctly smaller gain than an annually compounding rate of 6.82 percent.The study is meaningful not just because of the bottom-line numbers, but for the reasons behind them. The research indicates, for instance, that local consumer demand can curb the impact of industrial policy. Even when a country alters its output, demand for those goods may not shift as extensively, putting a ceiling on directed growth.“In most cases, the gains are not going to be enormous,” says MIT economist Arnaud Costinot, co-author of a new paper detailing the research. “They are there, but in terms of magnitude, the gains are nowhere near the full scope of the South Korean experience, which is the poster child for an industrial policy success story.”The research combines empirical data and economic theory, using data to assess “textbook” conditions where industrial policy would seem most merited.“Many think that, for countries like China, Japan, and other East Asian giants, and perhaps even the U.S., some form of industrial policy played a big role in their success stories,” says Dave Donaldson, an MIT economist and another co-author of the paper. “The question is whether the textbook argument for industrial policy fully explains those successes, and our punchline would be, no, we don’t think it can.”The paper, “The Textbook Case for Industrial Policy: Theory Meets Data,” appears in the Journal of Political Economy. The authors are Dominick Bartelme, an independent researcher; Costinot, the Ford Professor of Economics in MIT’s Department of Economics; Donaldson, the Class of 1949 Professor of Economics in MIT’s Department of Economics; and Andres Rodriguez-Clare, the Edward G. and Nancy S. Jordan Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley.Reverse-engineering new insightsOpponents of industrial policy have long advocated for a more market-centered approach to economics. And yet, over the last several decades globally, even where political leaders publicly back a laissez-faire approach, many governments have still found reasons to support particular industries. Beyond that, people have long cited East Asia’s economic rise as a point in favor of industrial policy.The scholars say the “textbook case” for industrial policy is a scenario where some economic sectors are subject to external economies of scale but others are not.That means firms within an industry have an external effect on the productivity of other firms in that same industry, which could happen via the spread of knowledge.If an industry becomes both bigger and more productive, it may make cheaper goods that can be exported more competitively. The study is based on the insight that global trade statistics can tell us something important about the changes in industry-specific capacities within countries. That — combined with other metrics about national economies — allows the economists to scrutinize the overall gains deriving from those changes and to assess the possible scope of industrial policies.As Donaldson explains, “An empirical lever here is to ask: If something makes a country’s sectors bigger, do they look more productive? If so, they would start exporting more to other countries. We reverse-engineer that.”Costinot adds: “We are using that idea that if productivity is going up, that should be reflected in export patterns. The smoking gun for the existence of scale effects is that larger domestic markets go hand in hand with more exports.”Ultimately, the scholars analyzed data for 61 countries at different points in time over the last few decades, with exports for 15 manufacturing sectors included. The figure of 1.08 percent long-run GDP gains is an average, with countries realizing gains ranging from 0.59 percent to 2.06 percent annually under favorable conditions. Smaller countries that are open to trade may realize larger proportional effects as well.“We’re doing this global analysis and trying to be right on average,” Donaldson says. “It’s possible there are larger gains from industrial policy in particular settings.”The study also suggests countries have greater room to redirect economic activity, based on varying levels of productivity among industries, than they can realistically enact due to relatively fixed demand. The paper estimates that if countries could fully reallocate workers to the industry with the largest room to grow, long-run welfare gains would be as high as 12.4 percent.But that never happens. Suppose a country’s industrial policy helped one sector double in size while becoming 20 percent more productive. In theory, the government should continue to back that industry. In reality, growth would slow as markets became saturated.“That would be a pretty big scale effect,” Donaldson says. “But notice that in doubling the size of an industry, many forces would push back. Maybe consumers don’t want to consume twice as many manufactured goods. Just because there are large spillovers in productivity doesn’t mean optimally designed industrial policy has huge effects. It has to be in a world where people want those goods.”Place-based policyCostinot and Donaldson both emphasize that this study does not address all the possible factors that can be weighed either in favor of industrial policy or against it. Some governments might favor industrial policy as a way of evening out wage distributions and wealth inequality, fixing other market failures such as environmental damages or furthering strategic geopolitical goals. In the U.S., industrial policy has sometimes been viewed as a way of revitalizing recently deindustrialized areas while reskilling workers.In charting the limits on industrial policy stemming from fairly fixed demand, the study touches on still bigger issues concerning global demand and restrictions on growth of any kind. Without increasing demand, enterprise of all kinds encounters size limits.The outcome of the paper, in any case, is not necessarily a final conclusion about industrial policy, but deeper insight into its dynamics. As the authors note, the findings leave open the possibility that targeted interventions in specific sectors and specific regions could be very beneficial, when policy and trade conditions are right. Policymakers should grasp the amount of growth likely to result, however.As Costinot notes, “The conclusion is not that there is no potential gain from industrial policy, but just that the textbook case doesn’t seem to be there.” At least, not to the extent some have assumed.The research was supported, in part, by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

‘Dark day for New Zealand’: outcry as bill to fast-track controversial mining projects is approved

Critics and opposition parties vow to oppose major projects they fear could damage the environmentA new law that could see controversial mining and infrastructure projects fast-tracked for approval across New Zealand has sparked protests in parliament and vows from critics and opposition parties to stop proposals that they fear will wreak havoc on the environment.The coalition government’s Fast-Track Approvals legislation passed into law on Tuesday, despite thousands of public submissions opposing it. Continue reading...

A new law that could see controversial mining and infrastructure projects fast-tracked for approval across New Zealand has sparked protests in parliament and vows from critics and opposition parties to stop proposals that they fear will wreak havoc on the environment.The coalition government’s Fast-Track Approvals legislation passed into law on Tuesday, despite thousands of public submissions opposing it.“The passing of this law is a dark day for New Zealand,” said Richard Capie, a spokesperson at conservation organisation Forest and Bird. “It slashes environmental protections, silences local voices, and is an affront to good law-making.”The law creates a “one-stop shop” consenting regime for regionally and nationally significant projects, to help rebuild the economy, said two of the ministers responsible for the law, Chris Bishop and Shane Jones.“For too long New Zealanders have had to put up with overly restrictive planning rules that stifle much-needed economic growth,” infrastructure minister Bishop said in a statement.The law will allow some projects – including mining, roads, marine farms and renewable energy – to access fast-track consent, which could bypass existing environmental protections and consenting methods.The government has selected 149 projects for referral to an environment committee, which will then approve or reject an application. The list of projects includes 44 housing developments, 43 roading, rail and public transport projects, 22 renewable energy projects and 11 mining projects.Among the proposed mining projects is a contentious application to mine iron sands from the seabed off Taranaki, which the supreme court blocked from going ahead in 2021 due to environmental concerns, and which faces widespread community opposition.The law has faced criticism since it was announced as part of the coalition agreement between the major centre-right National and minor populist New Zealand First parties.Possible conflicts of interest and industry interests were regularly flagged, including roughly $500,000 in donations to the parties from companies or shareholders connected to some of the projects. Bishop and regional development minister Shane Jones told RNZ that perceived or actual conflicts of interest were managed during the selection process for projects to be included in the bill.The government’s initial plan to give three ministers unprecedented power to approve applications had to be watered down after a strident backlash, while issues of transparency over the projects were highlighted by the ombudsman.The potential threats to the environment have generated heated opposition, with thousands marching in protest and nearly 30,000 public submissions on the bill, one of highest numbers ever submitted about a piece of legislation.Bishop told media in June that looking after the environment was “extremely important” but the government had a mandate to grow the economy.“There’s no doubt that we are changing the balance away from a sole focus on environmental effects and management of those effects towards development.”When asked to respond to criticisms over the law, Bishop told the Guardian: “The [bill] will help rebuild the economy and fix our housing crisis, improve energy security, and address our infrastructure deficit.”He said applications for fast-track consent will include a description of the project’s impacts on the environment, which the panel will need to consider.But for environmental groups, this is cold comfort.“This is some of the worst law-making Forest & Bird has seen in our 100-year history,” Capie said, adding that the group would “vociferously” oppose any environmentally damaging projects approved under the law.Climate group 350 Aotearoa staged a protest in the chamber during the final reading of the bill, dropping large banners from the public gallery and chanting “kill the bill”.The group’s spokesperson, Adam Currie, said the bill would enable projects currently prohibited by local councils, the Environmental Protection Authority or the supreme court, to go ahead.“Thousands of New Zealanders are ready to stop these projects from being built in our communities,” Currie said.Opposition parties also pledged to fight the projects, which they believe will be unsustainable and destructive.“[The law] flies in the face of official advice, which says sustainable management must remain central to any fast-track process,” said Rachel Brooking, Labour’s environment spokesperson, adding the party would call out any attempts to bypass proper environmental protections.Both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori (the Māori party) said they would reverse consents if they returned to power.“The industry is on notice: consents granted under this regime that shortcut our democracy, sidestep environmental protections and degrade [the natural world] will be revoked,” said Lan Pham, the Greens’ environment spokesperson.Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told Te Ao Māori News the party would also hold mining applicants retrospectively liable for any damage to the environment.“Exploit the [land], face the consequences. [New Zealand] is not interested in corporate exploitation driven by the greedy,” Waititi said.

Government has broken the law on sewage - watchdog

The OEP has ruled that it allowed excessive sewage into England's rivers and seas.

The government and regulators have broken the law by being too lenient on water companies that spill sewage, the UK's environment watchdog has found.The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) said sewage releases should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as during unusually heavy rainfall, but that "this has not always been the case".It acknowledged that regulator Ofwat had now taken steps to change the way it implemented the law. The government and the Environment Agency are carefully "considering the allegations" but failure to accept them could result in legal action.Campaigners welcomed the findings but called it a "bittersweet moment". Public anger has increased in recent years over the level of sewage spills which were found to have doubled in 2023. "The OEP's findings offer yet another devastating verdict of the total failure of environmental regulation in our country," said chair and founder of River Action Charles Watson. "It is nothing short of scandalous."Sewage sometimes needs to be released when it is raining to prevent a build-up of wastewater in the system and sewage flowing back into people's homes.But two years ago the wildlife charity WildFish complained to the OEP that the Conservative government, and the regulators - Ofwat and the Environment Agency (EA) - were allowing excessive releases. It argued that according to the law sewage should only be released under "exceptional circumstances", such as unusually heavy rain, rather than any wet weather. Untreated sewage contains chemicals which can be harmful to aquatic life and can lead to a build-up of algae which starves local wildlife of oxygen and produces toxins that are potentially fatal to pets and dangerous to people. And the less rainfall there is to dilute the sewage the more harmful it could potentially be.Nick Measham, CEO at WildFish, told the BBC following the announcement: "We are absolutely delighted and relieved. It actually means we can end this problem of sewage going into rivers."But it is a bittersweet moment. It's frustrating when the government and the regulators don't actually do their job in the way you'd hope."The OEP has acknowledged that Ofwat has now taken steps to change the way it implements the law, and in August Ofwat announced record fines for three water companies.But the government's environment department, Defra, and the Environment Agency are currently consulting on any changes, and have said they would "carefully consider" the OEP's allegations.A Defra spokesperson said: "For too long, water companies have pumped record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. In just five months, this government has acted decisively to refresh outdated guidance to make extremely clear our expectations around storm overflows."On Tuesday Defra also announced that it would be double compensation for customers for service failures such as water outages and pollution.If Defra and the EA decide to accept the finding in full - which they must do by March - it could result in changes to thousands of environmental permits.There would also be a question as to whether water companies' new five-year investment plans - which are due to be announced on Thursday - would be sufficient to upgrade infrastructure to meet these requirements.A spokesperson for WaterUK, the industry body, told the BBC: "While regulators argue among themselves about what they think the rules are, water companies plan to deliver the world's biggest ever programme to end sewage entering rivers. "We await Ofwat's decision on Thursday and hope they give us the green light so we can get on with it."However, if there is any dispute over what the OEP has found then it has said it could apply to the High Court for urgent judicial review.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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